Talk:Office of Special Affairs/Archive 1

Series Template
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)


 * See:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion
 * There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

POV edits
I have reverted certain edits lately that I believe to be too POV. Since the original contributor disagrees, I am discussing them here. Bold indicates added material, italics subtracted material.


 * The Office of Special Affairs (OSA) is a department of the worldwide organisation the Church of Scientology

Calling the CoS a "worldwide organization" is technically true, of course. However, do we understand the subject of the OSA any better because it has been pointed out that the CoS is a worldwide organization? I don't see how, and it seems to be embedding here a particular POV (namely, that the CoS is an "organization" rather than a "church"); while some people do hold this view there's just no reason to go into it here on this page.


 * responsible for directing legal affairs,

If this is one of its responsibilities there's no reason to omit it.


 * pursuing investigations, "oversee[ing its] social reform programs" (such as the Rehabilitation Project Force),

the "pursuing" has been left in, since it clarifies the clause and makes it parallel with the other "-ing-form-verb noun" clauses. I very much doubt, however, whether the CoS considers the Rehabilitation Project Force a social reform program in the sense that the phrase appears here.


 * and publicizing the Church's "social betterment works" (viewed by many as propaganda).

The fact that not all observers agree that the CoS's "social betterment works" are actually works intended for the primary purpose of social betterment is already adequately expressed by using quotation marks, to indicate that this is the CoS's position, not a description agreed upon by all parties. I very much doubt that it's necessary to specify that those who don't agree that they are true 'social betterment works' may classify them as propaganda instead.


 * Observers outside the Church have characterized the department as an intelligence agency, comparing it variously to the  CIA, the Secret Service,


 * Gestapo (which also was responsible for overseeing work and concentration camps) and the KGB.

I have no doubt that some observers have compared it to the Gestapo but that is not a very useful comparison because people compare everything to Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the Gestapo. The CIA, the Secret Service and the KGB are better examples because it is easier to see how multiple perspectives are possible on the same organization. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say we do understand the OSA better for knowing the CoS is a worldwide organization because the OSA conducts legal and public affairs in many languages, within many legal systems and it thereby enhances our understanding of the complexities, enhances our understanding that the OSA is not just a small handful of lawyers who do all their work in English. It is well know, for example, the CoS has appeared in German courts and less well known it has appeared in courts on most (or all continents) and I suspect they won't rest until they have appeared in courts in every country (except maybe the vatican).  Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Think "Public defender" and you're right in the ball park. As a city has a public defender the CoS has an OSA.  The same OSA handles the press too.  Does this sound like cross purposes?  I don't think so.  In today's world the press and the legal system are so closely linked that it is surprising other large corperations don't copy that organizational method. Terryeo 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

False comparison Terryeo. The public defender gives legal representation to those citizens who cannot afford an attorney. osa is a pr/legal/intelligence apparatus the cofs uses to suppress its myriad of external and internal enemies, both created and imagined. I don't think corporations are that insane that they would copy the go/osa organization. I don't know where you get the information that the press and the legal system are closely linked. Looks like another unverifiable assertion of yours.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

a significant (hopefully helpful) resequencing of the template
In viewing the template (duh, from my POV) I think its purpose would be better served by some re-sequencing. Here is my proposal. I won't just do it. Too many people have contibuted too much and it is too much work to do something like this to it without good reason. I suggest Organization first because isn't that what people look for in a subject new or relatively new to them? And I've put Church of Spiritual Technology first because apparently (I don't have confirmation from the CoS) it owns all the trademarks and is thereby senior to all the rest about ownership. Sea Org staffs all the high positions of the CoS, their existence is of equal magnitued (in an operational sense) All the organizations to the right and below it are staffed by Sea Org Members or overseen by Sea Org members. About Public Groups, That line "Public groups and Recruitment" is the longest line and the template becomes nicely narrowed if (what I think is more accurate) it becomes "public groups". It is probably argueable, but any and all of it "recruits". ABLE is the highest organization and owns the most trademarks. I wanted to put the most senior thing in the top left and work downward to least senior / central. Organization over groups. Beliefs over practices over Fields of study and controversy last, with some seniority there too. Suppressive Persons is what most of the rest of controversy is about. I have used this character " ; " to indicate an end of line. I think the template will be 10% to 25% narrower if this is used:

--Organization--

Church of Spiritual Technology; Sea Org - Church of Scientology; Office of special Affairs; Celebrity Center  Gold Base;

--Public groups-- (not Public groups and Recruitment)

ABLE  Volenteer Ministers; CBAA  W.I.S.E;

--Beliefs--

Thetan  Dianetics   Clear; Engram   Reactive mind   Xenu;

--Practices--

Auditing  E-meter; Purification Rundown;

--Fields of Study--

Tone scale  ARC   MEST; Past Lives  Study Technology;

--Controversy--

Scientology and the legal system; Suppressive Person - Fair Game; Operation freakout; Operation Snow White; Operation Clambake; Rehabilitation Project Force; Scientology versus The Internet;

me Terryeo 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Church of Spiritual Technology aka L. Ron Hubbard Library owns all the LRH copyrights, and is supposed to own all shares of ASI (IRS agreement). RTC owns the trademarks and manages/enforces the copyrights. The senority and actual balance of power between the CST and RTC has long been a subject of speculation among CoS watchers. AndroidCat 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed
I think this is a very unsatisfactory article. While I don't agree with User:Andrew eagles's revert warring tactics (and I've given him a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR), I do think this article has major problems with POV and factual accuracy. In particular, the paragraph that starts "OSA also plotted the murder" strikes me as being grossly POV and bordering on libelous - it's an unverified claim made by a dubious source, not a proven fact. The article seriously needs to be rewritten. -- ChrisO 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that one should never use Scarff as a source for anything, unless he has a document or a witness to prove it. This guy is a permanent flip-flopper. There are many reliable sources on OSA that can be used. I suggest to delete the whole section with Scarff. --Tilman 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we can use court documents that provide Scarff's testimony. If there is verifiable information that impeaches Scarff, then that is also relevant. Vivaldi (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

unreferenced?
Nikitchenko, please don't edit without making edit summaries, it will make things much easier for your fellow editors. I've removed the "unreferenced" tag you placed on the article, because as far as I can tell, everything prior to the Scarff footnote (end of next-to-last paragraph) is referenced by that very footnote. wikipediatrix 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, i didn't make edit summaries. It is very clear what I did. And again, there is missing data from the article.  Scarff is known to commit perjury and lie. --Nikitchenko 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to prove this with some sources of your own before you start changing articles to fit this unproven, unsourced supposition of yours. And this still doesn't explain why you persist in edit-warring by placing the "unreferenced" tag on the page even after being directed to the reference. wikipediatrix 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchenko, I will retrieve the evidence in support of your statement on Scarff, and post it here. --Andrew eagles 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're going to quote Scarff, we should certainly add a caveat about his trustworthiness. Personally I don't think he's remotely credible. I look forward to seeing whatever you can dredge up. :-) -- ChrisO 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feeling either way about Scarff, having no firsthand means to verify any of his horror stories. Perhaps the article can be rewritten to make it clearer from the getgo that much of its content comes from his court deposition. Maybe he also deserves his own article so these concerns can be covered there rather than here? I'd be curious to know why you distrust him? I did a quick Google search and the only person I could find calling him a liar was Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon. wikipediatrix 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Lying and fooling the legal system is the only Scarff did, he isn't deserving notability and I hope with Andrew's help you will soon understand. --Nikitchenko 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're writing an encyclopedia, not having a debate club. It doesn't matter what I think about Scarff, or what you think about Scarff, it only matters that Scarff has made these allegations about Scientology and the OSA in a court of law, and we must report that. If anyone has similarly weighty proof against Scarff that specifically pertains to the OSA, we must report that too. wikipediatrix 04:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipediatrix, what reference do you have that labels Scarff as a WHISTLEBLOWER? --Nikitchenko 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Andrew. I know they exist, I seen them several years back from also court and police papers. --Nikitchenko 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, are you there? Well, I today I found a message by Modemac and some others. From those messages I was able to track down one of Scarff's messages.  Here it is. --Nikitchenko 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "No attempts were made to intimidate & browbeat me into signing false declarations nor was I threatened." ... "Am I again a member of the Church of Scientology? No. Because I was never a member of the Church of Scientology, never on staff of the Church of Scientology, and took only 2 introductory courses at the Mission of Davis in Portland, Oregon. Much of what is in my 17-day deposition in the Fishman-Geertz case are lies." - Garry Scarff posting to usenet Jul 12 1997 Message ID: 01bc8f01$8de585e0$2ee0a1cd@scaarf
 * "Much of what is in my 17-day deposition in the Fishman-Geertz case are lies." Uh-huh... The reference to Scarff in the OSA article shouldnt be there. --Nikitchenko 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're using a Usenet article as a primary source? AndroidCat 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am disputing contents. Are you supporting the use of Scarff's claims as primary source? --Nikitchenko 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can add counter-examples questioning Garry Scarff's reliability, just don't use a Usenet article to remove text backed by court documents. AndroidCat 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What did I remove? I have not used the usenet to write anything into an article. All I have done was dispute how the article was portraying Scarff's claims as fact. --Nikitchenko 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what the article says. The article merely states that Scarff said something. It does not say that what Scarff says is a fact. It is not up to Wikipedia to determine the Truth of that statement.  If you wish to contest it, you can by citing other credible sources that say something else.  I have suggested a few in my compromise proposal below.  Would you care to try to write a compromise proposal? Vivaldi 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Usenet articles should not be used EVER
Usenet articles should not be used as a primary or secondary or tertiary source. According to the guidelines at WP:Reliable Sources, editors should not use Usenet articles for source material. And obviously this applies to both critics and proponents of the issue. Any claim that has its sole source as a Usenet article should not be referenced and it should be removed immediately. The problems with Usenet include significant issues of Verifiability and reliableness and reputation. Usenet posts can have forged headers. Also, Usenet posts allow people on both sides to essentially self-"publish" their claims without the added step of having fact-checkers, lawyers, and editors sort through the claims that are made. Therefore, I will not object to anyone who removes a claim whose sole source is a Usenet article. If the claim is significant enough to be on Wikipedia then it will be significant enough to have been published by a reliable source somewhere. Vivaldi 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an extremely good general rule, but I can see exceptional cases (a handful at best) where I'd be prepared to go the distance of making the argument through channels that WP:V and WP:RS were met. For example, the primary source for Scientology's attempt to RMGROUP alt.religion.scientology is the RMGROUP Usenet article itself. Someone gaming the rules could gradually erode the Scientology versus the Internet page by claiming that there was no primary reference, trimming secordary references, requesting cites (rinse/repeat), and then chopping text. (Not that that ever happens... rolls eyes) However the post nominally by Garry Scarff definitely isn't one of those cases. AndroidCat 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a few exceptions that I would make to the "No usenet rule", but in general, NO WAY! And certainly none without making a case on the discussion page and developing consensus.


 * The deposition of Scarff isnt reliable source, either. But it seems some people want to insist on it, because it supports POV that paints the COS in a negative light. Talk about POV. I'll leave the Scientology articles and get back to something less controversial. Have fun. --Nikitchenko 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The deposition of Scarff was submitted to a Court and you can get a certified copy of it from the court yourself to prove the veracity of the statment that Scarff said it. We are not judging the "Truth" of Scarff's statement.  That is not up to you or me to decide.  That would be Original Research.  If you want to show other sides of the issue then dig up your references and CITE THEM! Vivaldi 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

disputed
I dispute the reference on Garry Scarff. Which was added in these edits,,,,, and these reverts,,,, --Nikitchenko 07:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On what grounds do you dispute them? Do you doubt that Scarff actually said and wrote those things or do you dispute the truthfulness of Scarff's claims?  Because you might not be aware that, odd at it may seem, that on Wikipedia the standard policy for inclusion is NOT truth, but rather Verifiability.  If these claims are properly sourced to Scarff, then its fine to leave them in.  You are also free to add sources that can reliably and verifiably refute the claims of Scarff.  Vivaldi 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi, do not remove those disputed tags. I'd be willing to bring this to RfC and even arbitration if necessary. --Nikitchenko 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed tag per reasons cited by Vivaldi on the basis not one of his questions re its validity were answered above. Until such basis is found tag has no place on article. Simple logic. - Gl e n T C 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchenko. You are free to start an RfC or arbitration.  However, I would like to point out that consensus is against you on this point.  You cannot dispute the fact that the court record shows that Scarff claims that OSA wanted him to murder someone.  It is easily verifiable to show that the court record shows this.  It appears that you attempting to dispute that veracity of Scarff's comments, but that is not your place as an editor.  If you want to demonstrate that Scarff is lying or disreputable, then you can insert such evidence if you can cite a verifiable source.  Vivaldi 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that Nikitchenko has not even pointed out yet the basis for what is disputed. It is not fair to other editors until you specifically site which claims are disputed and the reason for your dispute. Vivaldi 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Now some critics come along and support POV that implies Scarff told the truth. OK. I'll leave this problem for those who's job is to handle such: OSA. Goodbye and have a good day. --Nikitchenko 16:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchencko. We aren't here to determine if what Scarff has verifiably written (and said) is true or not true.  We are not the arbiters of truth.  Wikipedia does not even allow us the ability to use our own original research, even if we know the "truth".   Please read the Wikipedia policy on this issue at Verifiability:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."


 * I am a critic of Scientology and even I have doubts about the veracity of some of Scarffs comments and what other critics have said. However, it is not my place as an editor to make those judgements on my own.  All we can do is cite what is verifiably said and if we have doubts about the veracity, we must find a verifiable source that points that out.  Currently the article already states that the CoS contends that Scarff is lying, so I don't really understand what it is that you are disputing.  I would appreciate it, if you choose to actually use this discussion page for discussion, to at least answer this question: What is the basis of your dispute?  You have thus far ignored this question which is why I reverted your innappropiate use of the  tag Vivaldi 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Now some critics come along and support POV that implies Scarff told the truth. OK. I'll leave this problem for those who's job is to handle such: OSA. Goodbye and have a good day. Where does it state that? It states it is his opinion and then sites Moxon calling him a liar. What more do you need? - Gl e n T C 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it by changing "known" and "revelations" because they suggest facts to readers. --Nikitchenko 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it looks like the dispute is over wording. I was going to leave this article, but changed my mind because some editors have come and kept taking out the disputed tags. --Nikitchenko 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CITE THE SPECIFIC WORDING. I am reverting you deletion re the the attempted murder as you have removed vital information. - Gl e n T C 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I tried discussing this with you. And now Wikipediatrix comes and removes that disputed tag again and makes a personal attack in her edit summary.  I am done with this dispute and taking it to RfC. --Nikitchenko 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An RfC is inappropriate at this stage of the dispute. Please see Resolving disputes. -- ChrisO 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchenko. You have not worked to resolve this dispute on this talk page.  You have not even stated the basis for your dispute.  The consensus of the editors of Wikipedia appears to be against you at this point and so your insistence on having your POV inserted in the article is innappropriate.  Vivaldi 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchenko. You cannot dispute that Scarff claims that OSA ordered him to kill someone, because that is an easily verifiable fact.  You can read his deposition that was submitted to the courts in this matter.  Wikipedians cannot judge the accuracy of what is verifiably published, however, you may show that Scarff is lying, or has a reputation for lying, by pointing to another verifiable, reputable, and reliable source.  Vivaldi 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That facts are that we, as editors, do not know for certain if Scarff was telling the truth in his court deposition. However, the wording of the edit clearly indicates that a murder plot was alleged by Scarff, and not a statement by wikipedia editors asserting fact. Nikitchenko has no basis to honestly dispute the edit as it stands. It appears to me that Nikitchenko may be attempting to disrupt the editing process on this article.--Fahrenheit451 00:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology
Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his opinion of the editing of this article See here. The Mediation is being held at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you all have dealt with each of us you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinions - Gl e n T C 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My compromise proposal
According to the mediation template: '' One side alledges that the other is pro-Scientology. One side alledges that the other is anti-Scientology. Much hinges on whether the phrase "was not carried out as the would-be assassin reported it to law enforcement" is or is not POV and whether its removal is or is not POV. '' I'm not sure how the editors here were supposed to ever figure this out since  hasn't ever stated the basis for the dispute. So my proposal for this paragraph is below. Please discuss and if consensus says to include this proposal and remove the dispute tag, we will do so.

begin proposal for replacement paragraph~

Garry Scarff, claimed to be a former OSA operative, has made a number of controversial statements about the inner workings OSA, although many of his claims are disputed by the Church. In a sworn deposition taken between July and August of 1993 and submitted in Church of Scientology International vs. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, Scarff testified, "...I was directed, one, to go to Chicago, Illinois and to murder Cynthia Kisser, Cynthia Kisser being the Executive Director of the Cult Awareness Network, by a staged car accident."

The murder of Kisser did not take place because Scarff said, "I could not bring myself to harm or kill anybody." [7] Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon has called Scarff "a liar" and Moxon also stated that "Scarff's own father says he's a scumbag." Scarff has also been accused of "flip-flopping" between the former Cult Awareness Network and Scientology. [8]

end proposal for replacement paragraph~

Reference [7] and [8] are the ones that are currently listed on the OSA page as it exists today. I submit the above as my proposal for compromise. It clearly points out that what Scarff says is controversial and now even includes three disparaging remarks about Scarff. Discuss Vivaldi 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since nobody had any objections to the above, I substituted the text in the main article. Vivaldi 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhh, I only get to read this now and you're saying no one objected? I respond later this evening when I get back online. Have to logout for now. --Nikitchenko 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the alternative was to leave it as it was, and I knew you objected to that version, so hopefully this version is worded in a more neutral manner so as not to suggest that Wiki has taken a position on any of the issues raised.  Now the article clearly states in 4 places that Scarff's comments are disputed or that he is disreputable, including one time before the testimony by Scarff is even mentioned and 3 times after the Scarff claim is presented.  I think this is being more than fair to your POV.  But again, I'd be happy to see what alternatives you have to offer.  So far, I still haven't seen you explain your objection to the comment at all, the first time I even read that certain parts were considered biased was in the mediation page.  Vivaldi 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko: I did state the basis of the dispute.
I'm not sure how the editors here were supposed to ever figure this out since hasn't ever stated the basis for the dispute. - I did state the basis for the dispute and do not appreciate Vivaldi's accusing me of not. --Nikitchenko 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikitchenko, please provide the diff showing where you stated the basis for your dispute. I've looked up and down this page and haven't found it.  I've even asked you numerous times to provide it.  What exactly are you disputing   Is it that Scarff made those claims? Vivaldi 09:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
I have unprotected this article after a day-long cooling-off period. However, it remains on my watchlist and I request that all editors to this article stick to a one revert rule guideline on it for the time being and for the good of Wikipedia. If that is not possible in any one editor, then please ensure that all editors stick to the Three Revert Rule or I will block for 24 hours to enforce it.

Thanks very much for remaining calm and collected and for your understanding. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Who is neutral in this dispute, knows nothing about it and aims to keep things that way.


 * Amazing. The article talks about volenteers without saying who volenteered, what their motivations were, what they do as volenteers, whether they are members of the church or not or even providing the least citation of any volenteers at all. At a heresay trial it would be perfect evidence, no source, nothing but a rumor that volenteers do some unknown action for unknown and uncitable reasons. Yet the main thrust of the organization, the OSA, none of its main thrust is presented at all. Instead the only things talked about are a tiny number of shady actions. Terryeo 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you like to help improve the article? Surely you can add some information that demonstrates how OSA feeds the hungry, put clothes on the poor, and houses the homeless, right?  If you have some verifiable information that is sourced properly, I'm pretty sure that I'd let it stay.  You ready to get to work?  Vivaldi 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I second your challenge, Vivaldi. I look forward to Terryeo's editing about OSA's main thrust in the areas of public relations, investigation, and legal. --Fahrenheit451 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, you guys. I have stated so many times.  You think of me as being a doctrinaire, a person who can only state one point of view and deny all others.  I have stated often,  I would like the subjects introduced.  Terryeo 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
The article has a single, introductary sentence which hints at what the organization is. It is not an especially well written sentence, but it hints at some of the actions which the OSA can be observed doing. The rest of the article is POV, slander, trash, mis-statment, useless drivel. It is not well documented nor smootly written and informative. The article is POV. It reflect one POV. The OSA has been the Office which has brought many court cases, probably has hundreds of court cases going on at any one time, deals with many languages and governements and is obviously well organized and run. Else it would not continue to exist. The article ignores all of that. The OSA is, as I understand it, responsible for the public presentation of Scientology. Before the OSA was the Guardian's Office. It got Scientology into trouble and the OSA is still dealing with some of the leftover things the G.O. roused. The article could be better written guys, it could be more balanced, it could present the good, and the bad instead of 95 % of its space being the bad and 5% being the single first sentence which contains a small, reluctant definition of the OSA's activities. Terryeo 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the negative stuff doesn't need to be in the very first paragraph. So, with a mighty swipe of my thetan hand technique, I chopped the paragraph into two. wikipediatrix 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article hints a little bit about a fairly large organization which calls news conferences, simotaneously runs judicial cases in a variety of languages and in a variety of countries and is responsible for the Church's public face. A brief introductory sentence and the a list of personal websites, pushing a negative POV are presented.  The article isn't balanced.  Terryeo 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How are you defining "balanced" and what wikipedia policies support that? And on the topic of "personal" the rtc.org or scientology.org websites are based on personal opinion. Does that make them "personal"? Fahrenheit451 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal website references
Why are personal websites being used as references? Gerry Armstrong and Arnie Lerma's personal websites are being used as references here. --Nikitchenko 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal website deletion
The statement is about a claim made by Tory so her website is a perfectly acceptable source - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Glen, you better go read WP:RS. It is not perfectly acceptable as a source. --Nikitchenko 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pssst..... everyone's already read WP:RS a million times after Terryeo's failed attempt to disqualify critical sites on these grounds. Like Terryeo, you fail to grasp that WP:RS is not policy, but merely a guideline. wikipediatrix 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no Pssst about it Wikipediatrix. Your attempt to Pssst to User:SlimVirgin was cut from her user page where you posted it and pasted into the WP:RS page and discussed.  At that time you were told straight out how WP:RS applies and why it applies and that it is set in stone within its area of application.  You are invited to review WP:V because if you understand that policy then those details of its implementation manifested by WP:RS will fall naturally into place.  Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information.  However, publications may be held on personal website servers and used if they are whole and if they are accurate.  In no event ever, may a personal opinion of a personal website which is unpublished except on the site be used as a secondary source of information in any Wikipedia article. The guideline is set in stone within its area of address.  This was told to you at the discussion of WP:RS after you did a "Pssst...." to User:SlimVirgin. Terryeo


 * Yes it is a guideline to improve article quality. Tory's website is not a reliable source and I don't think it should be used to make claims in Wikipedia's articles. AGain, you say i "fail to grasp". No personal attacks Wikipediatrix. --Nikitchenko 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go with the crazy PA accusations again. First JimmyT, then UNK... ding ding round 3. - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we ask the friends at Esperanze what they think about this and your rhetoric. --Nikitchenko 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: WP:RS does state: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." - this was about claims Tory herself made, thus about her, thus, no rules broken (not that it is a rule as wikipediatrix pointed out) but nevertheless we are all happy. - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tory "herself" publishes "herself" in "herself's" website. Therefore, she is not published.  When the New York Times publishes her statements about that matter, or when her statements appear in a court record, then her statemenets are published statements.  Her statements are not published statements in her website with the single except (for Wikipedia purposes) that her statements can, with care, be used in an article about her website.  Her website is no more than a diary of her statements for purposes of publications.  If her diary were published by a company, or by the New York Times, then she would be published, but her statements, placed by her on her website, are not of sufficent quality to be used as sources of information within Wikipedia articles per WP:V and as manifests, WP:RS.  It cheats our readers to use poor quality sources, this is part of the reason for WP:RS spelling out, "Personal websites may not be used as sources" (in the manner, an individual's personal witnessing being used as a source).  If a court record publishes her words, then THAT could be used as a secondary source, but her website can not be used for her words, as a secondary source. Terryeo 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is how it is. Thank you for your statements Terry. I appreciate it a lot. --Nikitchenko 10:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK thank you for the explanation. I come back later to dispute again, but I let you have it for now. I do some research and then present a case.. And I don't have time for logging into Wikipedia every day. Patience please, thank you. --Nikitchenko 16:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll let me have this for now but will come back to dispute? Why does there even have to be a flaming dispute?! You just acknowledged no rules are being broken - why are you looking for another reason to cause trouble?! - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Glen, it is about providing good articles for the reader, it is not about making anyone right or anyone wrong. If we use good quality information in articles, then Wikipedia will shine, while if we use questionable information to create articles, then Wikipedia will not have a reputation any better than its poorest source of information.  This is the reason for WP:V  Terryeo 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not ack what Glen says I ack. To avoid revert war is I said I let him have it, and because I am on a great vacation. Vivaldi, Stollery, and Wikipediatrix are breaking the rules and edit warring with violating WP:V which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." WP:RS is defining reliable, published sources and says that personal websites are not reliable except for articles about themselves. I hope they understand because I am removing torys article again and other unpublished references.  If they still cannot understand, then it has to go the mediation page. --Nikitchenko 10:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is not a policy, it is a guideline. As long as you continue with the mistaken assumption that WP:RS gives you the unalienable right to remove whatever content you want in spite of clear consensus against the removal, then you will be forever dissatisfied with the fruitfulness of your edits.  Vivaldi (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct about policy/guideline, but WP:V IS a policy and refers us to WP:RS for definition of reliable sources. The rest of your comment is uncivil. --Nikitchenko 05:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo said it all when he said "Tory "herself" publishes "herself" in "herself's" [sic] website." yes that is 100% correct, therefore as she write's her website they are her words! I'd like to remind you that WP:RS says nothing about the website being published (there is no such thing anyway), but rather, as I have already stated says: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." - therefore, Tory's website is a perfectly acceptable reliable source, as written word for word in Reliable sources, when referencing Tory's own words. It's there in black and white gentlemen, sorry. Take it up with Jimbo I guess if you have a problem. Until then, it is acceptable according to Wikipedia's own policy. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From your above post, Stollery I feel I need to say again what "published by a source" means. It means "published to the public".  A personal website is not "published to the public" within Wikipedia's standards.  An individual's words, published on on that individual's website is not "published" by Wikipedia standards.  Any information on a website might (maybe) be used in an article about that site, but using a personal website's information is completely forbidden in any other article with only one exception.  That exception would be a published piece of information (book, newspaper article, etc) which is placed intact and whole on a personal website (with attribution).  Then that piece of information and that alone can be used as a secondary source in a Wikipedia article. Terryeo 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Terry's words can be referenced in article Tory Christman, but she cant be used as source in the Office of Special Affairs article. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --Nikitchenko 09:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is copied from the edit summary of when Stollery reverts me today: ''"I have explained TWICE on the talk page; WP:RS states does not state "only in the article about the person" but writing about the person. We are writing about Tory here! Watch your 3RR". Glen, talk to me in this page, not the editorial summaries. We are not writing about Tory, we are writing about the Office of Special Affairs. I don't like the way you keep reverting my valid changes. I don't think a 3rr should be applied in here so I made a complaint into our mediation page and documenting this. Again, I do not appreciate what you are doing. I will return when a mediator has responded. --Nikitchenko 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got a nerve. I wrote in the talk summary as you just complained at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology about my reverting without explaining why in the edit summaries, then have the nerve to say "Glen, talk to me in this page, not the editorial summaries"!!! Unbelievable. We are writing about TORY'S STATEMENTS regarding the OSA, therefore WP:RS is valid. It does not state that we can only reference personal websites when writing in the article about the subject, but when writing about the subject. We are writing in the OSA article about Tory's experience and statement's about the OSA. Therefore WP:RS sticks. Does it seem odd to you that FIVE different editors are reverting your edits? Maybe you should stop and think considering yu seem to be standing alone in this position. Watch your 3RR you will be blocked. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got a nerve? What is that supposed to mean?  You are being uncivil. --Nikitchenko 10:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nikitchenko. This procedure which is uncivil to you is exactly the procedure which was uncivil to me.  A number of editors were very, very obviously wrong about a point.  They edited universally to refuse my communication on talk pages.  They used talk pages to be uncivil to me until I reacted with a likewise uncivil comment.  Whereupon the targeted editor would disappear for a while and the others would continue to harrass and be uncivil.  Sometimes even personal attacks.  A quantity of minor incivilities on my part (including the much mentioned "beanbrain,dogfood,idiot"), led to an Request for Comment which led to an Request for Arbitration which led to my being denied editing in these articles.  Every possible, tinyest incivility on my part was quoted and referenced.  They work in tandan and together to get an uncivil reaction.  Not because of a hidden plan, but because they communicate together in other ways than wikipedia discussion pages.  Such as on alt.news.scientology.  You are right, Nikitchenko, they are wrong.  The more successful you are, the more they will be uncivil and the more of them will be uncivil to you.  I had like, 7 editors arrayed against me at one point, universially reverting my edits, tempting me to edit just one more time so they could get me blocked for 3RR.  And all of that is in "good faith" you know?  They know "in good faith" that their view is right and any other view is not. Terryeo 04:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An attack on a group of people is no less a personal attack Terryeo. I take exception to your claim that editors are acting in tandem and coordinating uncivil activities on alt.religion.scientology. (Don't you think that sekret plotting on a public newsgroup would be a little silly?) You might want to store this dreck away with your repeated claim that editors are adding links to drive up hits on their friends' websites. AndroidCat 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We have already disagreed, why are you trying to enforce your interpretation on me and then saying I have a nerve... I am going to to report this to Esperanza. --Nikitchenko 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 editors mean nothing when they violate the rules. --Nikitchenko 10:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Glen thinks we can use Tory Christman as source to write the OSA article and he says its because we are writing about Tory. This is the disputed contents: "Tory Christman, a former member of the OSA has stated that the organization hired private investigators, fabricated criminal charges and harassed their targets, including at their place of employment, as well as their family members." That statement is about OSA, not Tory. She is the source and is unreliable. --Nikitchenko 10:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tory Christman cannot be used as a source to make the claim on Wikipedia. It should be taken out to follow policy WP:V / WP:RS. --Nikitchenko 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are under the mistaken impression that WP:RS is a policy, but it is not. Since it is a guideline, the editors can agree to make an exception to the guideline if it improves the quality of the article.  Vivaldi (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This "making an exception" does not improve article quality, it allows you to put falsehoods into Wikipedia articles which worsens the quality of Wikipedia. --Nikitchenko 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation [3] is German
German, and this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore it should not be cited. Terryeo 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE - "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." -- ChrisO 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * German? You're sure it's not Greek, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * German or Greek, WP:CITE applies. --Nikitchenko 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE, and not some misrepresentation of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say? --Nikitchenko 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the assertion that Terryeo makes, supposedly based upon WP:CITE. Then read ChrisO's direct quotation of what WP:CITE actually says.  Dots, connect the; math, do the. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An interesting encodement. However, that German document is unsuitable in other ways as well.Terryeo 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Times LA
Another reference to tory from New Times LA. What is the New Times LA? http://www.newtimesla.com. So far it isnt a reliable website, is it a real publication? --Nikitchenko 10:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An alternative newsweekly . The website seems to be defunct, possibly it's no longer in print. AndroidCat 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was an alternative newsweekly. It was purchased by Village Voice Media which is a huge corporation that owns lots of alternative newsweeklies -- probably most of the major ones in the country.  This particular newsweekly had won a number of awards for investigative journalism and was read by hundreds of thousands of people each week.   Perhaps the article should mention that it is a defunct alternative newsweekly, but we shouldn't remove the claims made in the article solely on the basis that it appeared in a newsweekly.  Lots of verifiable information has come from journalists that work for alternative newsweeklies.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Antaeus Feldspar, why do you keep reverting my valid changes without really saying why? --Nikitchenko 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they're not valid changes; they are your own personal misconceptions on how Wikipedia policy can be twisted to your ends. There is nothing dubious about the statement that you keep adding the dubious tag to; it is a statement of established fact that Tory Christman, a notable critic of the Church of Scientology, makes certain statements about their harassment of ex-members and critics.  What you want to imply -- and keep misusing the dubious tag in an attempt to imply -- is that Christman's statements are themselves dubious.  However, we can see that this is an absolutely improper use of that tag, as evidenced by the fact that the tag does not adorn every single statement on Wikipedia which has been advanced by the Church of Scientology. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making personal attacking saying my changes are not valid and commenting on my "personal misconceptions". It is a dubious statement because Tory is not a reliable source which is referenced in the policy WP:V. Why do you think I "dorn every single statement on Wikipedia which has been advanced by the Church of Scientology" with this tag.  You are being uncivil Antaeus Feldspar. --Nikitchenko 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to inform the world that the definition of "personal attack" has now been changed by User:Nikitchenko, then. Hey, world!  Guess what!  Now saying someone's changes are not valid is a "personal attack"!  It must be true, Nikitchenko decreed it to be so!  Oh, and he also changed the meaning of the dubious tag!  Instead of having to do with the verifiability of a statement, it now has to do with whether or not the statement is true!  You know, even though the principle "verifiability, not truth" is well-established on Wikipedia.  I guess Niki changed that too!  Oh, except it's only critics of Scientology who can have the tag applied to them that way.  As numerous court cases attest, neither Hubbard nor the Church of Scientology is a reliable source, but something tells me that if we started applying the dubious tags to the Church's claim in exactly the fashion Niki is trying to pretend is existing practice, he'd scream bloody murder.  Oh well! -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Feldspar refused to accept my congradulations about his being nominated to become an arbitrator and he uses terms like "twisted to your ends". That language is Uncivil.  Please be a bit more civil, Feldspar. Let's simply find good, reliable sources of information and include bits of them in the articles. Terryeo 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to continue being as uncivil, that is up to you. I already made a report on you to administrators.  Have fune Antaeus. --Nikitchenko 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tory's claims are inappropriate in this article. She is an unreliable source as defined in WP:RS and WP:V requires us to only use reliable sources. --Nikitchenko 01:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are wiki-lawyering Niki. Reliable source is not a policy but a guideline. You are hereby notified of that and advised to stop using it as if it were policy.--Fahrenheit451 01:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko; Is your position that Tory never made the claim cited in the article?
That is only reason to place the tag you have on the article. As I have never seen you make that claim I'm removing the tag - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology
Mediation has failed. Mediator does not respond. The scientology critics keep reverting my edits without discussion. Is it time for an RFC? --Nikitchenko 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies about the delay. I'm going to try to get the ball rolling re the mediation once more; please bear with me. I am giving this case my immediate attention. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The first 3 references

 * reference #1 (Wakefield's book) has some problems with it. It is being used as a secondary source of information.  The linked site states it was published in 1991 by "a now defunct organization".  How did they publish it, was it typewritten notes made by carbons and distributed to staff?  Was "the Coalition of Concerned Citizens (PO Box 290402, Tampa, Florida 33687)" an actual publication house, or did they "publish" her "book" as a memo to staff?  Did it ever reach the public except to get placed on a personal websites and being presented as a "book?".  If it has an ISBN, that should be included. If it does not, that should be included.  If it was published by a publication house, that should be included.  The approximate distribution of the "book" should be noted if it was as small as appears.  Since the organization is now defunct, is the address still good? It is entirely possible, by reading the book, that it was created wholesale by the person who runs that personal website, or, alternatively, published wholesale by one of his "buddies".  There is no indication that the information within it was ever "published to the public" and there is no way to find out.  The organization it is purported to come from no longer exists !Terryeo 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reference #2, states that it was translated by Joe Cisar, from a german report made by "the Hamburg Regional Office of the German Constitutional Security Agency." However, it says it is a "non-offical translation".  It further says the original of the report in the German language is no longer available.  So we have a "non-official" report made by an unrecognized translator, a report whose original can not be viewed, can not be fact checked at all.  In addition to all the other problems with such a source of information, the German government has recently changed their laws and attitude about the Church of Scientology.  Agencies such as "the German Constitutional Security Agency" are no longer authorized to harrass Scientologist within Germany. Probably this is the reason that the original report is no longer available.  This report is probably a left - over from yesteryear when the German government was following individual Scientologists within the country, when harrassement of freedom of religion was commonplace, when the government of Germany harbored suspicion on everything of Scientology.  That has been cleared up by the courts, this is a "Historical interest only" document, translaed by a non-official person from a source which no longer exists.  It isn't quite heresay, but I would suggest it doesn't meet the standards Wikipedia requires.  That is, no living person can explore that document because it doesn't exist any more.  It does not meet WP:V and Therefore is not a reference.Terryeo 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The original report is available, it is link 3. I just updated it, it is still on the website of the AGS. So your argument dissolves into nothing. --Tilman 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The International Religious Freedom Report 2004 mentions it . --Tilman 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reference #3, "Hamburg Regional Office of the German Constitutional Security Agency" is all in German. Suggest the editor who included that cite take it to the German Wikipedia, it does not belong in an English article.Terryeo 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, Terryeo, one would think that after you made that argument before about the exact same reference, and had it answered by a direct quotation (a real quotation, I mean, not a Terryeo it-looks-kinda-similar 'quotation') from WP:CITE completely demolishing your phony complaint, that you'd stop making it. ... That is, one would think that unless they knew you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for further research
I'm not so good at writing "encyclopedic" texts, so here are some keywords for the regular editors about OSA-related activities. I'm not even sure if this is for the OSA definition, or if some of it is more for fair game. --Tilman 08:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * David Mayo court case: Mayo won a court case (and 2,9m $) against scientology related to harassment etc. The case was later settled.
 * Tory Christman: what she doesn't mention in that URL but is well documented, are the trumped-up charges that she blocked a UPS truck. This was "sworn" in court, but when a video was shown that the truck wasn't blocked, scientology's own "local" attorney Wallace Pope wet his pants and was quick to claim that he wasn't involved in the perjury
 * One name: Lawrence Wollersheim
 * RVY wrote a lot about OSA and GO, especiaslly that both are department 20
 * Frank Oliver has testified about OSA investigations in several courts.


 * Well, the current Party line from the Church is "yes, we finally admit that the Guardian's Office did lots of bad and illegal things on behalf of the Church. However, we blame this entirely on evil people who "infiltrated" the Guardian's Office.  Now that the Guardian's Office is disbanded all the bad has gone away."  So I would say the most relevant things to look for are GO-style activities carried out by OSA. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cite a reliable source for your claim. --Spanked 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I found several in about 10 seconds - see . Of course, whether you consider the CoS to be a reliable source is another matter... -- ChrisO 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then cite your sources at the point of assertion. Also note that according to Wikipedia's founder, uncited information may be removed by ANYONE.  Would you like a link to the quote by Wales? --Spanked 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The claim in question is on this talk page, not in the article (yet). Talk pages and articles operate under different rules. You can assert anything you like in a talk page but if you want it to go into the main namespace, you have to cite it. WP:CITE applies. -- ChrisO 00:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point, talk all you want, but at the time of insertion of claims into the article, cite your sources or else your edit will be viewed as bad faith and the content may be removed by anyone. --Spanked 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm talking about the sentence in the article about character assassinations, please provide a citation immediately or that piece of content may be removed by anyone. --Spanked 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure
I suggest a separation in the article like this:
 * Structure
 * Testimonies
 * Garry Scarff
 * Tory Christman
 * Bonnie Woods

Uncited
Removed uncited original research speculation opinion rant. --Spanked 00:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO and BTfromLA have restored a claim without providing citation to reliable source: "OSA has mounted character assassination operations against many critics of the Church." Please cite your sources, of the content may be removed by anyone. --Spanked 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this line should be attributed, not just baldly stated. I believe there are several former church members who are on record about that, as well as several investigative journalists.  Also, that claim should introduce a specific example or two of those "dead agent" operations. BTfromLA 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind my comment about OSA Network Order 15, I doubt this document applies in this particular instance. On the other hand, are the following affidavits (from the Church v. Fishman case) appropriate as cites?
 * Affidavit of Vicki Aznaran (PDF): "During the 1984-87 period, Scientology operated a number of "dirty tricks" operations out of the office of Special Affairs [...]", "[...] to find or manufacture crimes for "enemies" of Scientology."
 * Affidavit of Hana Eltringham Whitfield (8 March 1994): "58. OSA is the entity responsible for carrying out "Fair Game" on critics and suppressive persons, and injuring, tricking, suing, lying or destroying them. It gathers overt and covert data on critics and enemies and runs overt/covert operations against them. It directs all litigation activities."
 * --Raymond Hill 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Aznaran's "affidavits". Neither the hand typed duplicat nor the PDF have much to to them.  Neither are witnessed by a notary and neither of them show any offical recognition whatsoever.  They are both no better than someone typing on a sheet of paper and posting it on the web on a personal website. Terryeo 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While Aznaran's "affidavit" isn't witnessed, its content isn't authenticized except by her signature alone, there's no reliable indication of when it was created or where, the second "affidavit" has even worse attribution. It appeared in a Google Group posting (a newsgroup.  Anyone one the planet can post anything under any screen name.  That doesn't even approach encyclopedic standards and is clearly denied by WP:V. Terryeo 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mind reading in article
Could this be expressed some other way? I don't think we can talk about the people's motives without being able to read their minds:


 * The motives of these volunteers vary: Some truly believe that they are helping a worthwhile cause, while others participate under the notion that they receive special "ethics protection". [8] In one case a volunteer who read critical information about Scientology on the internet was led to believe that he would be unable to continue receiving services unless he performed a series of investigations for OSA. [9]

Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I took out part of the sentence. We can not know what people's motives are and what they truly believe. Steve Dufour 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)