Talk:Sea Org/Archive 1

??
Why am I not surprised that nearly every statement in this article is not cited? Of all of the sentences in the latter 1/3 of the article, perhaps 2 have some jot of truth in them. This is an article that will require substantiation, for example: " If a Sea Org memeber looks at an opposite gender's body part they are subject to disipline?" Okay, if that is known to be true by the person making that statement, it will have to be cited or it will not stand on here for long. Similarly much of the rest of it is presented in a tone far, far less than friendly but biased toward viewing the Sea Org as a group of fanatics who deny themselves worldly good, whip each other into a daily froth and excommunicate the lame and elderly. HEH ! I'm telling you, it just isn't so. Please follow Wiki policy regarding verification so that NPOV can be achieved in this remarkably controversial topic. I expect I'll be moving paragraphs here for deletion which are (by my own knowledge) unciteable. have fun ! Terryeo 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When I first wrote the article, I did make sure to source everything; alas, a whole load of unsubstantiated original research has crept in since then, and there isn't a great deal I could do about it. Moreover, I know a great deal of it to be untrue; I didn't really want to get involved for fear of being accused of pro-Scientology POV pushing, anyway. If on the other hand I have some modicum of consensus I will remove all of the unsourced stuff. ARC, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"para-military"
A paramilitary organization is a group of civilians trained and organized in a military fashion.

Sea Org dress in naval uniforms and use naval ranks, according to their own website. Sounds paramilitary to me. — Omegatron 23:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * okay, paramilitary. Terryeo 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

regarding wiki policy and citing
Here are the statements I removed from the article for discussion here toward finding a verification for them that can be agreed upon. Then they can be reposted (with citation) into the article once again.

while the Church of Spiritual Technology owns the Clear and OT materials.


 * this statement does not contribute to the Sea Org article but instead brings up a new information that might be linked, might become part of the Sea Org article but as presently executed does not. Instead, as it stood it diffused the information about the Sea Org and made the information which is there, less easy to follow.  (why put pears into an article about apples unless appropriate).

In summary, unauthorized interactions with the outside world are considered a threat by the Scientology hierarchy and are referred to as "external influences".


 * this statement is a summation made by some editor. It falls into the catagory of original research and is forbidden by Wiki Policy.  If a refutable source of that conclusion can be found and cited, then that line of information belongs in the article. Else not.

This system has some pitfalls however: Looking at body parts of a member of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse, can result in a Comm Ev and/or assignment to the Rehabilitation Project Force. Such people are deemed as being "perverts".


 * What exactly is ment by "looking at body parts?" anyway? No verification is offered in any of the referencing materials.  Further, that set of sentences says the CoS judges Sea Org members to be "perverts" as part of their internal judicial system.  Lastly the first of the 2 sentences introduce "comm ev" and "RPF" which might have a place in the article, but not in the manner presented.  Two statements are made there. There is the crime "looking" and a judical system that judges people "perverts."  If the editor who makes those statements will verify them, we can get on with putting them back into the article.

There are reports of pregnant female Sea Org members being verbally encouraged to get an abortion so they won't have to be sent away from the Sea Org base.


 * That might be happening every day, but the statement gives no verification about it. As it stands it is a "critics claim .." sort of statement, a rumor, it has no reported, citeable source.

These elderly people must then live with family, and if that is not possible, they are moved into government subsidized assisted living facilities. They are advised to not discuss their careers in the Sea Org with other residents of these facilities.


 * That's an interesting statement. In speaking with a person who is a Sea Org member, I learn probably no part of that statement which has verification.  Could whomever created it supply some please, So it can then be posted back into the article :) Terryeo 00:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

“Reportedly” means anyone can write anything fictitious and get away with it. Deleted this section for that reason as supported by no reliable source. Nuview 17:00, 13 January 2006 (PST)

Restored it with many links. Guess neither Nuview or Terryeo know how to use a search engine. Word clearing would help that. --Fahrenheit451 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good for you Fahrenheit451. By all means save everyone some work and present good links which have the information right there, available at a mouse click. To expect the casual reader of an article to read through reams of pages (Such as the Jesse affidavit) to find some tiny one line 1/2 affirmation isn't okay.  If a source is quoted then it should be per WP:CITE which makes it easy for the reader to understand why that quote is there, how it pertains to the subject at hand and so on.  To expect a reader to read a quote, call up google, google the quote and then search through many webpages for it, well, that's just silly.  That's why we write these articles, after all.  And no, its not Misunderstoods to present clear, readable information with good quotes and sources of information. Terryeo 08:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but wrong, Terryeo. The perfect result would be to present readers with correct information and also show them how they can quickly verify for themselves the correctness of the information.  However, it is the former and not the latter which is the purpose of the project in the first place, which is why your annoying (and hypocritical) habit of stripping out of articles any information you deem unfavorable to Scientology on the supposed basis that no matter how well-cited it is, it's not well-cited enough, is contrary to the Wikipedia policy that you claim to have such respect for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly why should we attempt to create less than perfect articles? Exactly why should we cite whole books when the passage quoted is on page 321 and we don't indicate "page 321" in our article?  Why should there not be the citations which internet technology allows?  Why should ChrisO get away with citing a source which no one but he can read?  On rare occassion I would agree there might be some reason to have an additional, difficult to find reference.  But for the most part, most of the time,  we shouldn't. Terryeo 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, re. "while the Church of Spiritual Technology owns the Clear and OT materials." - I thought RTC owns them, just as they control all of LRH's writings on the CMO's behalf (indeed, all the Technical Bulletins, Admin Directives, Scientology Policy Directives etc. are covered under RTC's copyright). Or am I missing something?


 * RTC controls the Church of Scientology's use of materials. RTC is, in practical terms, responsible for the purity of the tech and admin.  But, according to the Church of spiritual Technology article, it is senior to RTC and controls some or all of what RTC then controls, in turn, within the Church of Scientology.  I don't know, myself.  From within the CoS, RTC is the parent body and the body which has a sort of "place your complaint here" box in every Church.  I do not know if the RTC is the ultimate responsible party or if, as the above implies, the RTC is an intermediary party. Terryeo 07:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"This system has some pitfalls however: Looking at body parts of a member of the opposite sex, other than one's spouse, can result in a Comm Ev and/or assignment to the Rehabilitation Project Force. Such people are deemed as being "perverts"." - I'm terribly sorry, but this is hogwash. I definitely know this not to be the case myself, and indeed - and more germane to the Wikipedia - if this cannot be sourced, then it should be removed.

"There are reports of pregnant female Sea Org members being verbally encouraged to get an abortion so they won't have to be sent away from the Sea Org base." - Please, whoever came up with that, think it over and source it. If you can't, then remove - this is very silly.

... ad infinitum for the rest. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is more than silly Nicholas, it is premeditated murder. Why is that being sanctioned in the church of scientology?--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451: I do not think there is any evidence that it is indeed sanctioned in the Church of Scientology; I have never witnessed such sanctioning, never met anyone within the CoS who had been ordered to abort their child, and indeed if you cannot source the matter rhetoric is entirely non-sequitur. If you can find a decent source that says it, fine, stick it in the article; but if you can't, then it is quite silly. Please, remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we are not here to exaggerate matters relating to the CoS - we are here to write NPOV articles. And, no, I don't care what light the CoS is painted in on the article but I must vehemently protest unsourced, ridiculous claims relating to any controversial subjects; the abortion claim strikes me as simply an excuse to say "SCIENTOLOGY KILLS BABIES" on big placards. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, I think you are assuming abortion implies this placard "Scn kills" stuff. That is not true, however, I have personally known of women in the SO who were "encouraged" to get an abortion when they were pregnant. I have found documents on the internet to back that up. It is surprising that this sort of thing goes on in light of LRH's position on abortions, "only to protect the life of the mother". Yet, since miscavige has taken over, this is what has occured. --Fahrenheit451 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451, you frequently slam at Miscaviage. Yet when it comes to citable sources, you always fail.  At least so far you have always failed.  With the patter drills and "allowed drills" you failed.  With the patter drills and "Chinese drilling" you failed.  I don't doubt there is some germ of truth in something that you are riding, but why don't you document it, present it, etc. ??  Terryeo 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're lying again, Terryeo. I have repeatedly added citiations to my edits and you willfully pretend that they don't exist. You are actually talking about yourself: I have never seen you provide one citable source in your edits. You alter communication to worsen it and speak in generalities. That is a pattern with you.--Fahrenheit451 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All volenteer organization
What is unclear and difficult to understand about "All volenteer?" Terryeo 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And apparently not only do none of you know the published purpose of the Sea Organization, but when it is presented before you eyes you object to it having any purpose at all. Terryeo 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Knock off your paranoia and stupidity Terryeo. You have failed to supply citations. You also cannot seem to spell "volunteer" properly. Curious, did you learn spelling by reciting the letters to the wall?--Fahrenheit451 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No one asked for a citation. Nor do you. Terryeo 07:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Series template
It seems to me that Sea Org is part of the core of CoS.... has it been marginalized to where it is no longer part of the church, or is there another reason the template is a problem? Ronabop 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The relationship between the Sea Org and CoS is complex - the Commodore's Messenger Organisation (CMO) is the linking organisation, because the CMO are Sea Org staff but have organisational posts under the Church of Scientology organisations (and in other Sea Org Orgs, such as WISE, SMI, etc.) and likewise the Planetary Dissem Org (PDO) falls under the Sea Org but carries out duties with the CoS. To be perfectly honest, despite being a long term Scientologist, I still don't fully understand its workings; indeed, they have changed a lot after LRH dropped his body and David Miscavige did the reorganisation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LRH didn't drop his body. DM murdered LRH and stole RTC/CoS. DM is your SP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.130.169 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was around the Los Angeles Complex for some time. AOLA (most advanced level org except for the Freewinds Ship) and the Saint Hill and Class V org there give a good representation, I believe, of where Sea Org memebers might be found. Also, I know personally a Sea Org member or two. All of the personal in the Advanced Organizations (such as AOLA) are Sea Org. Period. It is possible there might be some specialized, hired workman walking within such a location, but probably not. There is Sea Org and there is Public and that's it. Of course on Freewinds ship, I'm sure everyone is Sea Org or public. The Saint Hill Organizations (5 on the planet I think) are all 100% Sea Org at the L.A. complex. Below this level of delivery are Class V orgs. Those are staffed by non-sea org people for the most part. So, Saint Hill organizations and up, Sea Org. Then there various orgainziations which are management organizations, which oversee the various individual Churches (or organizations such as AOLA, Saint Hills, Class V orgs, Missions, etc, all of those people are Sea Org.  Sea Org members man the upper portion of the Church of Scientology and probably do exclusively man the Church of Scientology's overseeing Orgs (which troubleshoot and send people to orgs in need) Gold, it is probably all Sea Org, but that's just a guess.  Does that answer and make more clear, or not ? Terryeo 07:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) One more comment.  The commodore's messenger org has the duty of providing communicate between the "commodore" and the "commodore's interests" and this means, sometimes, a live person standing in the org of interest.  Thus there might be a Sea Org member who is a Commodore's Messenger in any CoS interested location, anywhere. The management orgs can keep track of what is going on in this way. Terryeo 07:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

removed sentence pasted here for discussion and citing per WP:CITE
"In practice, throughout the 1970s the Sea Org provided a means for Scientology management to avoid legal entanglements by being able to remain at sea outside of the jurisdiction of countries seeking to serve legal action." I know better. But if the reference, a Piece of Blue Sky says so, then at least spell out the page number because that is a l..o..n..g thing to read to find one sentence in. It is a poor cite, it doesn't specify how a person can find more about the topic cited. Myself, I know the Sea Org was happily trucking away on land in the 1970s, running advanced organizations all over the planet. But if that book says otherwise, at least call out the page number. Terryeo 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And of course Wikipediatrix immediately reverts it without discussion. What prompts such anti-wikipedia attitude?  Its all over the place,  I keep saying "follow wikipedia guidelines and policies" and I indicate the policy, etc, etc.  What does Wikipediatrix, Pomtec (whatever) and Feldspar do?  Revert, revert, revert. Ohh, terryeo did something, let's go revert it EVEN THOUGH it is against wikipedia policy.  Get a clue People !Terryeo 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote you gave above doesn't say the Sea Org weren't also on land. What sources are YOU bringing to the table for your counter-claim? And if all these people are reverting your edits, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you're doing something wrong? wikipediatrix 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Labeling external sites as "critical" or "official"
Terryeo. Can you please state whether or not you believe that we should label external links? Your opinion on this matter appears to either have changed or you expect different behaviour from others that you do not practice yourself. Can you just go on the record and definitively state your opinion on this topic? Vivaldi 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also. If you want to label sites as "critical" or "official", then I would suggest that many times this is original research on your part. e.g. Andreas makes a huge distinction on Xenu.net (clambake.org) that he does not object to the beliefs of Scientology. He only objects to the dangerous, abusive, fraudulant, and criminal acts that the Church of Scientology engages in. So for him (and for Wikipedia), the Church of Scientology is completely different from Scientology. His criticism is not directed to Scientology, but rather to CoS. In any case, this is also original research on my part and so it shouldn't be in the article either. I sort of like your idea to let the sites speak for themselves. Its pretty clear in the 1st paragraph at either site which sort of site it is, right? Vivaldi 07:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As Scientology purports no beliefs, Andreas is certainly on firm ground if he states that he does not object to them. None exist. Andreas was an outspoken critic of Christianity until he became a critic of Scientology. His personal Website, Clambake, obviously does nothing but criticize Scientology in every possible manner. He has come out against religious freedom in many ways and his most renowned, most recent way is his Clambake.org anti-scientology campaign. Terryeo 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How the hell is criticizing a religion against religious freedom? It's not like he's sending stormtroopers to shut down the Chuch of Scientology or something.  Rogue 9 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Better phrasing?
Can someone please make sense of this sentence? It needs to be rewritten. "Its purpose is to get ethics in on the planet." This one sentence is supposed to tell the main objective of the Sea Org and I can't understand it.

Sounds like Scientology speak to me. Perhaps someone could translate it?

There is no word of it which does not use the common, dictionary definitions. However, "ethics", within Scientology is more completely spelled out than most common dictionarys provide. "Ethics are reason" is probably the simplest definition that can be quoted from the Scientology Technical Dictionary. "To get Ethics in on the planet" means to cause people on the planet to act in an ethical manner, a manner that includes reason. This would mean that people would not steal from other people because stealing from another person, to an extent, reduces one's own survival. people would rarely lie to another, likewise that would decrease one's own survival somewhat. And so on with murder, rape, war, incest, graft, corruption and all the rest of the crimes humanity engages in every day. "Get ethics in on the planet" means exactly that and really, nothing else. Possibly the idea is beyond what some people can conceive of, but it is the purpose of the Sea Org. Terryeo 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The words are common, but the sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Of course, that was hardly uncommon for Hubbard.  Rogue 9 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources of information
Normally such a large piece of text wouldn’t be removed without prior discussion, however, the bulk of this entry is a quote from a critic. As it is obviously "first-hand" information, it is not a credible source per Wiki rules. Also the reference given is an online Google group – also not acceptable as a source of information, this has been established in prior discussions. Nuview 10:45, 25 May 2006 (PST)


 * By that logic, Wikipedia should have no information at all, since obviously it is "first-hand" information to someone. Sadly for you, Nuview, that "first-hand" information is not from "an online Google group" -- a completely false claim -- it is from a court affidavit, as quoted in a professionally published work (i.e., not from a vanity press such as Bridge Publications.)  Nuview, your pretenses that after years on Wikipedia you still don't understand why you can't remove well-referenced information, based on your own second-guessing as to whether that information is correct, is getting very annoying indeed.  Are you, perhaps, trying to get yourself blocked for disruption? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

merge
This article states "The Rehabilitation Project Force, or RPF, is a system of work camps set up by the Church of Scientology Sea Organization", and then goes on with a lengthy section devoted to it. Therefore, the Rehabilitation Project Force article is redundant and unnecessary. The RPF is a small subsection of the SO and doesn't need its own article. Merging them seems the logical thing to do. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The RPF is a highly controversial aspect of the Sea Org; one might as well say that the Abu Ghraib prison should be merged into Iraq War because the highly controversial abuses of prisoners that went on there are only a "small" part of the general war. If anything, we should be using the information in this article to expand the RPF article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "RPF is to Sea Org" is nothing like "Abu Ghraib is to Iraq War". Not even close. Is that your only defense of this redundant stub? Highfructosecornsyrup 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The real problem, HFCS, is that some Scn articles are written from a heavily anti-Scientology POV and liberties are taken with the sources to forward the POV. Case in point: the RPF article states "is a system of work camps" and then references the Rolling Stone article. But what does the Rolling Stone actually say? This:"Created by Hubbard in 1974, the RPF is described by the church as a voluntary rehabilitation program offering a 'second chance' to Sea Org members who have become unproductive or have strayed from the church's codes."Big difference, no? The article never calls them "work camps" at all; that is original research. Many articles here tend to predispose the reader against the Scn side of the story very early. Misnaming the RPF as "work camps" in the first description of them is an example. Saying that Scn was developed by a sci-fi writer in the first mention of Hubbard is another. The first mention of something should be very POV-neutral. Then make the case for both sides. The first mention of the RPF should be similar to the real Rolling Stone source, not the imaginary one. The real solution is simply to rewrite the POV portion in an NPOV tone being sensitive to the desire of both sides to present their view. Your help is welcome. --Justanother 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's really rather odd that the analogy "RPF:Sea Org::Abu Ghraib:Iraq War" should be complained about by the editor who made the analogy "person who died due to being removed from professional medical care and treated by untrained Scientologists instead:Scientology::person who happened to be in a synagogue when a tornado hit it:Jews". Could one find a better analogy than "RPF:Sea Org::Abu Ghraib:Iraq War"?  Probably one could.  Is it necessary?  Not at all, because your argument "RPF is part of the Sea Org and therefore should not have an article apart from the Sea Org article" is an extremely weak one -- it's based on the enthymeme "nothing ever has or merits its own article if it is part of a larger whole", a principle which is shown to be false by literally thousands of examples, of which I merely chose one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you have described is exactly how the main template is meant to work! Its sits, over a small section on a subject, link to the bigger main article. Flawless application it would seem. I see no reason to merge  Glen   13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should merge this article at all. There is sufficient information about RPF to warrant its inclusion as a separate entity from Sea Org. Vivaldi (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Sea Org and RPF articles should be seperate.--Fahrenheit451 22:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And I further disagree with the merger. It seems we have consensus. Should the merge tags be removed now? Rogue 9 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited elderly leaving the Sea org
Before I edited it, it made it sound like anyone who cannot work as much as the others thus becomes useless to the church and is kicked out, this is completely incorrect. My source is straight from the Sea Org itself. I know people from the Sea org and people who have left the Sea Org and the fact of the matter is, when you reach an age when you become tired and you wish to live out the rest of your years peacefully, they are more than happy with everything you have contributed and wish you the best. It is not frowned upon by any means. I edited it to explain that the elderly leave when they wish to, they are not kicked out. I think it is rude whoever wrote it the way it was before. Nowhere will you find anything that shows evidence that they are kicked out for being useless, and I have a feeling whoever wrote that did not learn of that and report it here, I feel they simply did not bother to care about the truth but wished to have another outlet in which to falsely paint the church with awful lies and exaggerations to further their agenda. I do not have an agenda, I write and edit what is the truth.


 * Do you have any citable Sea Org sources that mention their pension plan or care programs for elderly members? And what is the specific PL, HCOB, etc that mentions waiving the freeloader debt for elderly members that leave? AndroidCat 05:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen older members that cannot maintain the frenetic pace required of SO members given very light duty in their declining years. I would guess that as long as they did not contract a terminal disease that they could hang around as long as they liked. Terminally ill is not allowed in the SO (the SO is not a hospice) and they would be "off-loaded" and left to fare as best they can on the good graces of friends and family including, of course, other scios) and the public health care system. I know of no pension plan; if you leave you are on your own. There is policy related to freeloader debt that it is fully discharged after five years service. And the debt would only prevent them from taking paid services in a church, not from being a Scientologist or a member or the Scientology community. Freeloader debt is a very "ho-hum" issue; no one holds it against, they are not pariah as declared SPs are pariah. So I do not see Johnpedia's edit as "wrong" though it may be unsourced. More he made the same mistake I made in the beginning; replacing "unsourced bad" with "unsourced good" when all you really need do is remove the "unsourced bad". --Justanother 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I heard they just put them down when they get old, dumping them over the side. Like some people do with a dog that has cataracts and can't see or hear anymore.Ndriley97 (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To anonymous ex-RPF'er
Hi. I am sure that you have a lot to contribute to these articles based on your personal experience and your knowledge of the experience of others. Please register an account (it is actually more anonymous that using your IP which can be traced by anyone to your general location or even more specifically if you are using a company or library internet connection). Then please realize that wikipedia is built on basic principles (WP:PILLARS) that forbid your unsourced additions. If you have an understanding that is different than the understandings presented in these articles then you must find reliable sources (WP:V) to back you up before making any changes. Good luck! --Justanother 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at some of your other edits (LRH, for example), please do not remove material that you feel is inaccurate without justifying such removal on the talk page. Justification for removal is the violation of basic principals mentioned above. It is proper form to point out the issue and request that it be corrected (or correct it yourself) before removal and, if removal is warranted, then you generally remove to the talk page and discuss there. Good luck! --Justanother 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking a Sea Org member
I haven't reviewed all the changes User:ScottMana did yet, but I thought I should note that asking a Sea Org member but not giving any cites for some additions could be a problem. There are many things I'd love to add to articles, but I doubt other editors would just accept it just because it was something that I said I knew or that I talked to someone who knew it. AndroidCat 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I have not looked much at them either but the proper way for the editor to use that material is to use it as a clue to help him find RS to support what he was told. Not just add it here. --Justanother 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For example (just looked), it is possible that the book "Mission Into Time" contains some supporting material yet it is not referenced in the article at all. --Justanother 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-section RPF
Clearly much more heavily anti-Scn that the main RPF article. --Justanother 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Later Part of Article
The later half of this article is downright offensive! It makes Scientologists sound like Nazis! (Which they aren't).
 * You can help fix it. Read the basic policies at listed at WP:PILLARS and go from there. There are some serious problems with this article but you must also realize that Sea Org life can look pretty odd to a non-Scientologist (and many Scientologists, too) and this article will always reflect that to a large extent. Sea Org members operate under a very different set of agreements from the general society and wikipedia is edited by the general society, in general. The best we can hope for (and what we should attain) is a sympathetic presentation of what the SO is to an SO member along with a sympathetic treatment of notable criticisms. --Justanother 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Justanother old boy, "sympathetic presentation" or "sympathetic treatment" have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you have us confused with another wiki.  The information presented just needs to be verifiable and NPOV.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But some of the info is uncited, and that makes it unverfiable. Therefore, not NPOV.CaptPostMod 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If this article were written about life in a Benedictine Monastery, there would be quite a few people up in arms. It's obviously very biased, and not balanced well at all. Additionally, it doesn't site any of its more nonsensical rhetoric. It's as though someone wrote the wiki article on Judaism by only refering to what they'd heard a buddy had read in the Protocols of Zion. Hearsay of unsubstantiated rumor is the worst type of reporting. The latter half of this article is therefore offensive with no balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincoln F. Stern (talk • contribs)

scientolgoy is, in reality, a detestable cult started by a crazy science fiction writter who braged to fellow science fiction authors that inventing a religion would make them more money then their literary indevors. This is a well known fact that is only desputed by the organizations brain washed members. Please do not attempt to portray it as anything but what it is. All hail XENU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.169.100 (talk • contribs)

Frankly I for one can't believe the bickering and pettiness that goes on here. You people need to stop slamming one another, give up your bullshit one-upmanship and realize that what you are doing is one step above posting on a message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.39.107 (talk • contribs)

The only bikcering is caused by apologists for the "church" who want to raise doubts about any piece of information that is true and has been known to be true for years and, WOW as if by magic, more levelheaded and clear thinking (lol I said clear) thinking people can readily find legit sources for anyway...

ex. "Scientology has as one of its tenents the belief that we are composed of thetans and we need to be reach a "clear" state blah blah blah." - some random person

"Oh yeah? Oh So you just like to go on hearesay and generalizations! Where are your sources? Once again another detractor blah blah blah." - brainwashed CoS member trained in dead agenting


 * random guy prcoeeds to list numerous legit and well organized sources *

"Stop bickering." - CoS member

Minimum wage legislation
How come they are not prosecuted for breaching minimum wage legislation in various countries? Amirada (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Many countries, including the US, for example, specifically exempt religious organizations from much of the legislation protecting workers. Think, for example, of nuns in the Roman Catholic Church who, until very recently, were mostly entirely unpaid. It is this, in part, which fuels the continued controversy over the recognition of Scn in some countries. In point of fact, the analogy of Sea Org to more traditional religious orders (Jesuits, for example, or Dominicans or what have you) isn't entirely without merit. Even, perhaps, from the Scientology POV. Adistius (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo?
Here's a photo of Sea Org members, with David Miscavige front and centre, could we put it on the page? http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh49/zumoo34/DMandSO.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Page not found, but if it's the one I think, not a chance—It's very much a non-free image, and the RTC will object to the use of it (as they have in the past with many a DMCA request). AndroidCat (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Salary and benefits to members
Is salary the right word to use here? I really doubt that the Sea Org does all the required paperwork for an official employment salary. AndroidCat (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV?
The HISTORY section seems to lack an opposing point-of-view. Specifically, there appears no information on the creation of the SO for reasons other than the organization's own description. Further, the long duration at sea was (reportedly) partially due to the ship being disallowed from making port in various countries. Nor is there any discussing of the practice of Overboarding. The first paragraph seems to paint a perfect picture of the Commodore merely sailing the golden seas in search of truth. Neverwake (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, as great as it would be to have an unbiased opinion I fear it will never happen, the good church has people monitoring this webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.134.3 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Article needs work from experts
Particularly in regards to Sea Org culture. For example, most long-term SO members are married - the SO actually encourages and even pressures new members to get married ASAP so that they can get their own private room (only married couples can have their own room) and so that they can have companionship. However, women members are pressured to use birth control and sex in general while considered by Scientology to be "unethical", is accepted in the SO as a kind of "necessary evil". I'd say the article could use some serious references from actual books on the subject from former members who are familiar with these policies than simply relying on POV newspaper articles and tabloid journalism. Nilum (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not make changes to sourced info, without making sure it is either already backed up to that particular WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, or adding a new one. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose
I don't understand the point of a church having a navy. It would make more sense to at least have an army, like the Sturmabteilung. That way they can at least intimidate dissenters and protesters. What can a navy do? Shell the coastline? D Boland (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

 * History

On September 1, 1966, L. Ron Hubbard officially resigned from all directorships and management of Scientology churches. He then formed the "Sea Project," which he said would assist him with researching tests regarding past life recollections. Called the "Sea Project", because it operated on ships and was intended as a temporary project, it was made up of a small group of Scientologists. In early 1967, upon seeing that Scientology churches were going into a decline, L. Ron Hubbard resumed management of the church in a non-directorship capacity. With the help of the Scientologists that had helped him on the project, he declared that the project was now to be a permanent organization called the "Sea Organization" or "Sea Org". He declared himself "Commodore" and organized the Scientologists with titles and uniforms similar to US Navy design; the Sea Org subsequently became the upper management group within the Church of Scientology. Due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest Hubbard continued to operate for eight years in the Mediterranean Sea and over this time controlled a number of ships (hence the rank "Commodore").

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

sourcing for Purpose:torture
The infobox says that the purpose of the organization is "torture". There is no discussion of this in the article. It seems we should identify the source of this assertion per WP:V. Is there some reliable neutral sourcing for "torture" being the purpose? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question, sort of, it looks like I was/am seeing a vandalized version of the article. As the person adding "torture" is presently blocked.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * fixt.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life
Is it correct to say that "Scientology presents itself as a pro-life religion"?

There are two sources for this sentence. One is a dead link, but it essentially leads to Scientology's Human Rights campaign and i doubt that it actually uses the word "pro-life". The other is an article in St. Petersburg Times. It says that Scientology is opposed to abortion, but it doesn't use the word "pro-life".

Since Scientology is quite different from the mainstream Christian groups that call themselves "Pro-life" and since there is no source that says that Scientology uses that word to describe itself, i suggest to re-write it this way: "Scientology presents itself as a religion that is opposed to abortion." --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this proposed change. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage
Sweeney in The Secrets of Scientology (around the 27:30 mark) said that Sea Org members are only allowed to marry inside the Org. That info is followed by an interview with a family (Claire & Mark Headley) who say that pregnant women have to leave the Org. Sweeney then says the Church confirmed this to him. I wonder if this is worth mentioning here. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Armstrong RPF quote
That appears to be about conditions on-board the Apollo in 1974-1975, and so may not be the best summary about the general nature of RPF... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientology Links
The scientology websites provided in the 'Links' section do not seem to contain any reference to Sea Org, so should either be updated or removed. Thoughts? Elbyte (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through the links and it appears that not only are you correct and the scientology links do not elaborate on the Sea Org, but only one of them actually qualifies for inclusion under WP:ELNO. I am going to keep one scientology link since a link to the main organization will provide external information not available on this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

80 trillion years?

 * "eighty trillion years" (80,000 billion years)(80,000,000 thousand years)

Should that not be 80,000,000 million years? Or better yet, '80 million million years' or '80,000,000,000,000' years. No point explaining what 'trillion' means and then giving two different explanations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.214.136 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Salary or allowance?
Members receive an allowance each week - I don't think such a small payment can be called a salary. And is it US$24 or c.US$50.00? The same sentence gives both!124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

POV?
I don't know much about this group, but it would seem to me that they are portrayed in quite a negative light here, with the introduction of the article going so far as to directly call them evil. 72.204.37.110 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Now it seems BiasedRadioactiveplayful (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Radioactiveplayful

Redundant text
"...at least 100 hours per week or more"? What does that even mean? It reminds me of a discount store in my town where the sign reads "Nothing over 99c and up." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.80.35 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede
It makes no sense to use the organisation's self description of "fraternal religious order" when we have numerous third party sources that describe it as a paramilitary body. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Gay sex and LRH
The following two sentences appear in the "Marriage and family" section:

"A secondary form of birth controlled practiced by Sea Org male membership is homosexual oral and anal penetrative sex. This practice was founded by L. Ron Hubbard."

The citation is to a 404 page at http://exscientologykids.com/. To put it delicately, this is not a sufficient source for such an incendiary claim, so I've removed it for now. If anyone can find a better source, feel free to add it and revert. Thanks! drseudo (t) 21:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. It was vandalism from a couple of months ago: . The content was inserted in front of the ref, which had nothing to do with homosexuality. Per WP:LINKROT dead refs generally should be given the benefit of the doubt. The link is in archive.org, and is the same (I think) as this page, so I've restored the source and updated the link. I don't know if it's a reliable source or not, but it should be judged on its own merits, not because of unrelated vandalism. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and well spotted. I didn't go digging through diffs as diligently as I should have. Live and learn. drseudo (t) 19:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Kent reference
In regards to the reference to Kent 2001, pp. 111–112, footnote 23. It is unclear what exact publication this is referring to, as there is no prior citation listed. Is it From Slogans to Mantras? Laval (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Married couples separated during EPF and other details
Finding a reliable secondary source for this ("Married couples are separated for the duration of the EPF and are not allowed to have private or intimate contact with each other.") is proving to be difficult, even though it is a solid indisputable fact. Even though we're in 2020, there is still little written about the many details and quirks of the EPF. It does not appear to be in A Piece of Blue Sky or Bare-faced Messiah. There is also further complication as those books were written many years ago and the EPF today is quite different. If there are any recent secondary and verifiable sources on the EPF, this would be helpful to list here as we can get this article up to GA status, as well as strengthen the case for the EPF having its own article, which it does deserve but cannot be justified at this time due to lack of proper sources. There is much focus on the RPF, but the EPF still remains obscure and practically unknown in the mainstream. Laval (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)