Talk:Fair game (Scientology)/Archive 1

Misleading and error-ridden section on John Clark case

I have removed the following section, as upon investigation it turns out to be a misrepresentation of the facts: turns out these comments were not in connection with a John Clark "fair game" lawsuit at all.

=== The Case of John Clark ===

John Gordon Clark, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard criticized Scientology 1976 during a testimony before the Vermont senate.

Scientology started to harrass him in the next year. About this harassment, Justice Latey of the Royal Courts of Justice stated 1984 (Ref: Re B & G (Minors) [1985] FLR 134 and 493)

"Beginning in 1977 the Church of Scientology has conducted a campaign of persecution against Dr. Clark. They wrote letters to the Dean at the Harvard Medical School and to the Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Then the Dean and the Director refused to gag him. Their [the Church's] agents tracked down and telephoned several of his patient, and interviewed his neighbors looking for evidence to impugn his private or personal actions. They submitted a critical report to a Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate. On three occasions during the last five years a Scientology "front" called the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights have brought complaints against him to the Massachusetts Medical Board of Registration alleging improper professional conduct. In l980 he was declared "Number One Enemy" and in 1981 they brought two law suits against him (summarily dismissed, but costly and worrying). They distributed leaflets in the Massachusetts General Hospital offering a $25,000 reward to employees for evidence which would lead to his conviction on any charge of criminal activity. They stole his employment record from another Boston hospital. They convened press conferences calculated to ruin his professional reputation. "

"Amongst the more laughable attacks on Clark was the attempt in Germany to bring an action against him under the International Convention for the Prevention of Genocide, on the grounds that he was "spreading theories that more than half the members of new religions were mentally ill, and was acting in a similar way to Nazi psychiatrists when they were engaged in annihilating religious minorities." Needless to say, this was thrown out of court almost immediately."

1985 Clark started a lawsuit against Scientology, alleging they tried to destroy his reputation and career. "My sin," Clark said in an interview, "was publicly saying this is a dangerous and harmful cult. They did a good job of showing I'm right."

In 1988, the church paid Clark an undisclosed sum to drop his lawsuit. In exchange for the money, Clark agreed never again to publicly criticize Scientology.

A quick internet search reveals that Justice Latey was itemizing various Scientology abuses in conjunction with a child custody case; it had nothing to do with a case brought by Dr. Clark. The quote beginning "Amongst the more laughable..." appears not to have been by Justice Latey at all, but commentary by some intenet poster from whom this was cribbed. In other words, while the description of a particular case of "fair gaming" might be useful, the entry entirely lacks credibility. BTfromLA 08:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the second quote, but the first para is a description of fair game given by an English judge (Text of the full sentence: http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html). Court sentences qualify as reliable, verifiable sources, and the judge had first-hand testimonies from Clark (http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/appeal.html).

The Clark harassment is moreover corroborated a letter from his former employer:

"In August 1981, a Scientologist posing as a courier sent by the Harvard Medical School stole Clark's personnel file from the Erich Lindemann Mental Health Center, where Clark worked from 1970 to 1973, according to Dalene Henshaw, director of the center. Henshaw, in a March 31, 1982, letter to Clark, said that several months after the incident, a Scientology representative came to her and acknowledged the theft. She quoted the Scientologist as saying that the person involved had been fired and that such tactics were "no longer endorsed."

and by Boston Globe article May 31, 1983 (http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/media/bg310583.htm, referring to affidavits and statements of ex-Scientologist Warren Friske who gives details on clarks harassment. BTW, Friske signed 1985 a collective settlement agreement by which he received 15'000$ from Scientology (http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/flynn-clients-settlement-agreement.html).

But if you do not want it under legal cases, ok, I started a section "Examples" - which sure should only contain attributed examples attested by reliable sources. In all probability Scientologists have another view of the cases, which can be added, if seriously verified and attributed (not just a quote from a freedom mag article). --Irmgard 17:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a quote from Freedom is on-topic, as that would in fact give the official position of the Church - David Gerard 09:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Connection to Jewish law?

I hate to point this out being a follower of Judaism; but isn't this taken from, or inspired by the ideas in the Talmud that Jews can trick (and etc) Gentiles? 216.196.233.18 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is elsewhere in Hubbard's writings no evidence that he basis himself on Talmud (or on the Bible) so I'd say it's not very probable. Also, though I don't want to disparage Judaism, this is not only a Jewish specialty - the idea of a "double morale "exists in many cultures. There are, though, very few cultures that make such a thing a law to be obeyed (not "it is permitted to.." - but "you have to..") - that's Scientology's Fair Game law - but that's not Talmud, as I understand it. --Irmgard 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, you are misinformed. At one time there might have been a fair game practice, policy, whatever you want to call it. There is not and has not been for a number of years now. You are misinformed about that if you think it is policy today in the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 19:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, let me give you all the general idea about this area as the Church of Scientology has it written in its guiding, publically published policy letters and as it is applied. As with any large organization, a few individuals will get into the organization whose main purpose is to entrench themselves and use their developed power for their personal use (likely destroying or at least defaming Scientology). While some faiths will excommunicate or remove such a person, Scientology has a corrective action which such a person must fulfill. The first step (of an extreme person) is to declare them a suppressive person and provide them with a list of corrective actions they must do if they wish to continue in the Church. A good deal of training is required by those persons who hold the authority to make a Suppressive Person Declare. In addition to being used within the church, the term is commonly used by scientologists toward those people who are attempting to destroy the church. The term is kind of self-explanatory and somewhat overused. But in its strict sense it is a declare issued by a very trained person, declaring an individual within the church to that status. It is done simultaneously with giving the person a list of corrective actions they must do if they wish to continue with the Church. Terryeo 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A Suppressive Person Declare and The Policy Formerly Known As Fair Game are two seperate things. I doubt everyone who leaves CoS and/or is declared has fair game applied to them, and there is no need for an SP declare when fair gaming someone or some group not a member of CoS. First hand accounts from people who were involved in recent operations against critics and have since left, make it clear that Fair Game, by any other name, is a current and continuing practice in CoS. AndroidCat 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is false and misleading

It suggests "fair game" is a practice today in the Church of Scientology. It states some information is found in some HCO Policy letters which is not in those policy letters. It suggest certain HCOPLs exist which do not exist. It suggest the CoS has hidden away certain things which it does actually do but behind closed doors. This article is boldly based on wrong information, it boldly misquotes published and verifiable information. Its not that it is all lies, but there is a great deal of lie in it, and the implication of "fair game" being used today is completely wrong. Who's creating this web of intrigue ? Care to talk about it? I'll be following Wikipedia:Verifiability with this article as I cut from the article those portions of text which are untrue and unciteable. BTW, I have a full set of current green admin volumes here. Terryeo 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One very important point which you need to be aware of is that the green volumes do not contain the full set of applicable policies in this area. Have you ever seen OSA Network Orders or Guardian Orders, for instance, or the Manual of Justice? I have - original copies, too - and I can tell you that there is a great deal of material in there which is not in the green volumes, and which the vast majority of Scientologists never see.

What exactly does "OSA Newtwork Orders" mean, what are "Guardian Orders" and finally what is the "Manual of Justice?" If you wish to mention any of those, you will need to verify your sources, from what I know of it, no. I haven't a clue. Can you quote portions ? In any event, those sources which I haven't a clue about because you state them so briefly that I can't understand what they pertain to, do not appear much in this article and I am addresssing what does appear in this article. Terryeo 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take this one by one. Guardian Orders were policy and operational documents written for the old Guardian's Office, which I assume you've heard of (if not, see http://faq.scientology.org/go.htm). They were written mainly by LRH, his wife Mary Sue and the Guardian World Wide, Jane Kember. See http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/go924/go924.htm for an example. OSA Network Orders are very similar - they are policy and operational documents written for the Office of Special Affairs. Some of them are old Guardian Orders reissued under new cover.

I'm pretty sure you are confused because WP:V tells us that unless an information is published to the public, that information is not includable in wikipedia. You are pointing toward unpublished, never published to the public informations which apparently were used within the large organization which comprises Scientology. You're talking expose' reporting or congressional investigation reporting within an encyclopedia. It just isn't appropriate. If you want to do that you don't belong editing on Wikipedia. We are all constrianed to WP:V (published to the public).Terryeo 07:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"OSA," again you use a term with no definition. I do see that G.O. orders would be orders (which would fall beneath and be subject to Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters). Likewise, "E.D.s" would fall similarly. It would be false to state that an "order" is a policy. I am not going to try to help you sort out what is a higher order and a lower policy, but your statement regarding "OSA" (whatever it was) is simply not accurate. Policy is one sort of thing and orders are another sort of thing. But sorting you out is not my problem, creating an accurate, readable article is what I want. Tomorrow I begin to cut and paste. Terryeo 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Both OSA Network Orders and Guardian Orders were/are in very limited circulation. However, several hundred GOs were released to the general public following the guilty verdicts in United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard et al in 1979. A number of OSA NWOs were leaked on Usenet in September 1997. I've seen the originals - from a different source - and can confirm that they are genuine, and accurately reproduced.

I forgot to mention, but Executive Directives (EDs) are also a source of "secret" policies. Many of them haven't been circulated widely, either, but they've been referenced in GOs and OSA NWOs, and some of them were released following the Hubbard case in 1979.

Executive Directives are not policies. Policy is senior EDs and EDs are senior to orders. Whe you say an ED is a source of secret policy you are using the word "policy" in a different manner than when you say, for example, "The Church of Scientology has policy which is followed." Policy in the Church of Scientology is spelled out in Policy Letters. Any CoS from a Mission to the Highest Orginization is constrained by and follows Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters. That is Church Policy. When you say Executive Directives are a source of secret policies then you are using the word "policies" in a different, broad sense than "Church of Scientology Policy." CoS Policy is spelled out and publically available in its many policy letters which are bound and indexed in several ways, including subject index and available to anyone for purchase. Additionally, most (maybe every) Church of Scientology has a set of those and if you go into a CoS, or phone a Cos and ask "What is the title of HCOPL 7 Mar 65 Issue I," (one of the policy letters the article quotes) they will tell you "there is no such policy letter." The article (quoting from the article now) goes on to say that policy letter was replaced with: HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965 (Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I) ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW. Well, it works out that on 23 Dec 65 only one Policy Letter was created. So, if you asked for the title of HCOPL 23 Dec 65 your answer from any Church of Scintology in the world would be: "Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists." Do you see the difference? "THE FAIR GAME LAW" is not part of that policy title. This is the most obvious piece of information that can be checked out by anyone. It will be as I have spelled out above and will not include "fair game." There are other Policy Letters the article cites which do not exist today. The article cites "HCO PL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game, which does not exist today. HCOPL 16 Feb 69 Issue II, Battle tactics, does not exist today. And so on. By the way, for those of you who have access to a really good library have a look at this which is the index containing a chronological listing of all of the CoS's Policy: The Organization executive course and Management series by L. Ron Hubbard. Policy Index. Los Angeles, Calif. : Bridge Publications ; Copenhagen, Denmark : New Era Publications, c1991. ISBN 088404677X

Finally, the Manual of Justice is a document that was written by LRH way back in 1959 as a guide to how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology. It was never meant to be publicly disclosed -the original is stamped with "HCO CONFIDENTIAL" stamped on it - but, amusingly, it was accidentally distributed publicly by HCO when it was originally published. I've read an original copy in a major public library. It's certainly still part of the policy corpus; it was included in the OSA Investigation Section manual from which the leaked NWOs came in 1997. The Manual of Justice was released into the public domain following a 1995 court case. It can be read at http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/man_just.htm - the layout is identical to the original 1959 copy. -- ChrisO 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Executive Directives" are, by definition, used within an organization to direct the organization's activites. Those are not normally published to the public. WP:Vapplies all the time to all articles in wikipedia.Terryeo 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So the fabled "Manual of Justice" is so "Just" that it cannot appear in English and must instead appear only in the German it is translated into to avoid the Copyright laws of the United States of America? The light of day is for your use, the hidden darkness is yours too, if you prefer it. Terryeo 09:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about the document you have mentioned, but I do understand what you have said about it. May I point out to you though, you seem to rely on Xenu.net. Do you understand the force behind that website has but one goal in establishing that site? But one goal in maintaining that site? But one goal in publishing what it does on that site? That goal is not fresh peaches for mankind's betterment, if you follow what I'm saying. You might have a great amount of printed matter, ChrisO, and it may be entirely 100% accurate when it was printed. But The Church of Scientology has gone through various expansions. Things that worked were kept, things that didn't were dropped. Why don't you write a nifty-whifty "History of "Fair Game" where I won't be cutting and posting to discussion, asking for a verification? Because that's what I'll need to do here, obviously. You are standing on ground that was firm and solid maybe 10 years ago, maybe 15 years ago but is worse than sand today since the verifiability of it has changed and the policy is not only no longer extant, but unrecognized by modern CoS staff. Terryeo 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to bring up - actually, I've been meaning to raise this for a while - is that you shouldn't be cutting out portions of text that you feel are "untrue and unciteable". It would be more accurate to say that they are unverified and unsourced, and the best way to proceed with this is to itemise, here on the talk page, what statements you think are problematic. Let's do that and let's go through them individually, agreeing on amended versions before adding them back to the article. If we work together on this, I'm sure the article could be improved greatly. -- ChrisO 21:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello ChrisO. Yes, I'm glad you raised the issue. Here is the WikiPolicy about that: [1] which states: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion." But if the information of the article is harmless then this procedure is to be used: "where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place after the relevant passage." I am glad we are talking about this. Some of this article is Untrue and Unciteable. I know this is true because I have all of the Policy Letters, bound into volumes and indexed, an offical CoS publication of about 1996. Further, and this is my opinion and not a fact, I view it 'less than harmless' to present this article as a practice now operating in the CoS. Not only is it not so, but it has no verifiability. But, I do recognize there may be a history which makes a good article. If presented as history and if quotes and cites clearly spell out the date of the information then I've no arguement. Some confusion could arise when the CoS cancells a Policy. That organization has a procedure they follow. For example, the article mentions the following HCOPLs which no longer exist, are no longer published and can't be found or purchased:

• HCOPL 7 Mar 65 Issue I, Suppressive Acts
• HCOPL 23 Dec 65, Ethics Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists the Fair Game Law (there is a policy letter of that date which does not include any mention in title or body of "fair game" or "fair game law" or any such.
• HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions
• HCOPL 21 Oct 68, Cancellation of Fair Game
• HCOPL 16 Feb 69

Further, there are numerous mentions of policy letters which contain some mention of "fair game" but I have looked at them and they don't. I'm not arguing about historical record or citations, and if this article wishes to address the history of "Fair Game" as practiced by the Cos, fine, good. But Misquoting HCOPLs is plain wrong, same as it would be for any quotation. The article presents a dark, forboding picture of hidden powers seething beneath the glossy exterior of the CoS, in operation today and of some vauge threat. I will make this accurate and I will do it per Wikipolicy which I mentioned earlier. When I know a stated datum to be untrue and also, there is no citation which verifies it, then I will cut it out of an article and paste it for discussion and verification. I'll do that if it presents a point of view which is in my opinion, anything opposite to the validity of the subject. I am willing to talk to you about this ChrisO, and invite discussion here or anywhere. Terryeo 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. There is a great deal of Church policy that you, as (I assume) an ordinary member of the Church, are not privy to. Also, bear in mind that Church policy has changed over the years; if we are talking about how Fair Game operated at the time it was publicly avowed, you shouldn't assume that your current red and green volumes will provide that information. You have to go back to the original documents from the 1950s and 1960s for that, and many of them were never available to ordinary Church members even at the time. As I said, it's better to raise your questions here rather than just deleting stuff from the article, because this is one case where I can guarantee that I have much better sources than you. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, uhh, Chris, the thing is, Have I at any time disputed the validity of your sources of information? I don't think I have. There might come some future point where "my source is better than yours is, nahhh" could come into being but I don't think it has happened either between us, nor commonly on Wiki here. No, I'm not disputing your source(s) of information. The reason I state the article is false and misleading is because it attempts to present the present day policy (as manifested in Policy Letters) of the CoS with documentation of about 10 years ago. As you probaby recall, An individual high up in the CoS was expelled and declared, he had published various documents at the level of policy and tech which Mr. Hubbard later handled and it no longer exists today. While I don't know all the details of Fair Game, how it was actually used or abused, I am familar with both tech and policy from about 1996 to date and have the documents for my study and viewing. Please understand, I do not have the information to dispute or even to really talk about how the CoS operated in those past years. But it is not correct to say those policies are in existence today, nor accuarte to say the CoS follows those policys. In particular and specifically addressed (my guess) to the sort of attitude "fair game" representes, Mr Hubbard wrote HCOPL 15 Feb 66 Issue I (shows no revisions ever being made to it), titled "Attacks on Scientology" and further stating (Cancels all Sec EDs and PLs to the contrary). It states the policy is: Advocate total freedom. Its that simple. And then HCOPL 18 Feb 66, Attacks on Scientology (Continued) examines in detail past actions, from "hiring outside professional firms" to "investigating noisily the attackers" and concludes the most effective action is to Advocate Total Freedom.

The reason I spell all of this is out is because there is a strong implication "Fair Game" is a present time policy of the Cos. I am telling you, those Policy Letters cited in this article do not exist today as they are cited. Further, those citations were not valid 8 years ago. It is just barely possible they were valid 10 years ago. In any event it is not present day policy. Those sources of information are utterly, totally false and misleading. Terryeo 05:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is just barely possible they were valid 10 years ago"? Ten years ago is when the Church was arguing in its appeals in the Wollersheim case that fair game was a Constitutionally protected "core practice" of Scientology. And you're describing that as "just barely possible they were valid"? I think it's clear to say that is not the kind of grasp on CoS policy that will allow us to accept your unsupported changes to the article claiming Fair Game is entirely a thing of the past. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, I see you have replied to my statement about 10 years ago. But you have not responded to my statement about 8 years ago. As I stated. As of 8 years ago, there is no fair game policy. As for 10 years ago, I was less certain. I might point out too how your last sentence states your opinion without stating any fact :) I'll be changing this ariticle per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your refusal to accept the validity of the Church of Scientology's published, policy as documented (which I shall cite) in Policy letters and so on is not the issue here on Wikipedia. The issue here on Wikipedia is only, "1. does the cited information exist as cited." I have already stated above, the information of the article does not exist as the article cites it to exist. There's the point of contention which is the only point of contention I mean to raise and continue with. You have previously stated your 1/2 slanderous "..us to accept your..." doublebabble before, it is not the issue.  :) I'll tell you guys, we are better off talking about it. I have the policies in my hand which are 5+ years old. There is no fair game. While you can present "FAIR GAME" as a historical fact, you can not present it as being a policy in effect today. While you can quote long dead policy letters, since cancelled, revised and so on, you can not make an argument for FAIR GAME in present time from Church Policy Letters. It is plain untrue. I have the policy letters here. You can go to any Church of Scientology and ask to view the policies in question, they are a matter of public record, they have ISBN and a copy of them is in the Library of Congress. So, get a clue. As Historical fact, as a thing gone by and once hottly disputed "FAIR GAME" could be an article. As a present time policy it isn't. The Church of Scientology has removed all mention of it from their policy (Which I quote). If you want to make a case for FAIR GAME happening you will have to seek out other sources of information than HCO Policy Letters. I have begin an edit. I'm pretty sure what you all really want to do is argue. You could make a historical article, but you view it as a defeat that FAIR GAME is no longer practiced Funny U :) Terryeo 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, your interpretation of "verifiability" is "If I run across something in an article that I choose not to believe, it's not verified and I get to take it out. However, whatever I believe, I will put in the article and then tell you you have to verify that it's untrue in order to remove it." You can try to hurl about red herrings about "1/2 slanderous ... doublebabble" all you like, but they won't alter the truth: you're arguing that we should trust your knowledge of the subject for the claim that Fair Game doesn't exist. No, I don't think so; when the Church of Scientology swears in a court of law that Fair Game is a "core practice" of Scientology we are going to require a bit more than your unsupported word that it's now a thing of the past. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of "verifiability" is stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability and my actions are based on the actions suggested therein. In this particular article here, rather than remove large portions of carefully verified information that might have been true some years ago, I did instead introduce the carefully prepared and cited article with current, cited, quoted, verified information. I picked up my OEC (green) volume 1 (after finding the appropriate policy in the choronological index) and read it. It is some pages long. Of course first I read through all of the policy letters the article cites and found no mention of "Fair Game" I then chose to introduce someone's hard work by stating the current situation which the Church of Scientology operates under. :) According to Wiki Policy, one should be a little hesitent to remove verified text. I do follow this policy. May I suggest you also follow Wiki Policy? :) Have a nice day. Terryeo 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, to your knowledge has the Church of Scientology or an approved representative attempted to retract or recant the claim made by Scientology in a court of law that Fair Game is a "core practice" of Scientology? If so then can you please provide a source, if not then can you explain why it would not longer be a "core practice" in spite of no official pronouncements? LamontCranston 14:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Update - And would you care to explain this? http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 8:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lament again, see WP:V, it spells out what may be cited in wikipedia articles and what can't. Basically, if it is published (to the public) then it can be included as a citation, though the quality of such a citation can vary enormously and editors might argue about including poor quality, rag newspaper citations. Terryeo 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Church's present day policy appears in the article. It appears late in the article, though I would have it appear early in the article. No, I am not going to read that link and explain what it says to you. You are free to read this talk page or not, without the effort of reading this talk page you deprive yourself of the information of this talk page.Terryeo 16:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you seriously need to read that link and the scientology policy letter from Hubbard himself that it contains. You can't hide behind the defence 'it happened in the past! it has no repercussions on the present! forget about it already!' LamontCranston 14:30, 23 January 2006

Happy to note that you have an opinion Lament, may the sunshine shine in your face in the same manner it shines in mine! heh ! Terryeo 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

an appropriate introduction made

There you go, the subject is now introduced. You have the entire space of years from 1990 back to Hubbard's first mention of "Fair Game" to quote sources from, quote policy from and in genearal do as you will with. However, the topic lacked an introduction. The reader is now prepared for the topic. Terryeo 01:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my user talk page

Clear as a bell in may, you didn't read why the article as you reverted it is an article about the history of "Fair Game" As distant as a red sunset to you, some years ago all mention of "Fair Game" was removed from the Church of Scientology's Policy (Which controls and applies to all of the Churches of Scientology and their justice system. You are reverting a history, without realizing you are doing it, you are creating a historical article. Now, if you will come into present time and find an introduction that states the "Fair Game" policy is history we will have a good article. I have those policy letters here, I looked at every one of the policy letters the article mentions. While you are free to speculate why there is no "Fair Game" in CoS, you are not free to modify articles, causing them to appear they represent real time information when they represent long dead, cancelled and forgotten policy letters. I stated the present time (and the last 5 or 8 years, more or less) situation. I have the policy letters here, full set. purchased 1998. I also have the text you deleted in a manner which allows me to correct your errors, Antaeus_Feldspar. Should you choose to not accept what I have stated and cited and quoted is true, you are free to go to any church of scientology and ask to look at HCOPL 23 December 1965RB, revised 8 January 1991 and titled: Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists. Or, if you really want to get involved, purchase a set of OECs :) Terryeo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) moved from my user talk page -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, you revert cited, verified information, removing it from the article. You have done that twice now. That is against Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and against NPOV. It is counter to the policies we all operate under. I am right in this matter, the policies in point have changed, the CoS no longer operates as it once did. Therefore, the subject of this article needs be presented as it is today. Will you talk here? As your above cut and paste shows, Antaeus, I have tried to get into communication with you about this matter. It is not my word against your word, but current published information (published for at least 5 years) against those older publications the article quotes. To delete current publications because you do not believe it isn't proper and against Wiki Policy. I'm not making this stuff up. I have the OEC volumes here. Terryeo 21:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation of how "fair game" was once a policy

As I stated earlier, the HCO Policy Letters (HCOPLs) quoted in later part of the article have all been cancelled and no longer exist, or have been revised and "fair game" practices striken from them. There is actual reason for how this got into the Church of Scientology at all. I don't know the whole story but part of it can be found in this Official Church of Scientology explanation: [2] I'm willing to respond to questions, discussion and so on in areas I know about but I don't know it all. Terryeo 11:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I am not misinformed about the Fair Game policy. I know it for a fact that there has been a policy letter by Hubbard where Fair Game was specified as way SPs should be treated (have studied it). This PL has later been cancelled by another PL stating that the expression "Fair Game" should not be mentioned anymore because it creates bad PR (I have studied that one as well). The cancellation PL states though, that nothing regarding the way suppressive persons are treated is changed by this cancellation. And, as later examples (well documented in the Internet, no problem about sources) have clearly shown, this is exactly how it is: SPs are indeed no more fair game, they are "only" harrassed in any possible way. Therefore this article should differentiate between Fair Game policy (which has been cancelled in 1968 or so) and Fair Game practice (which is continued by Scientology without naming it). --Irmgard 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Irmgard, you are not misinformed to know that "Fair Game" was once a policy of the Church of Scientology. Why won't you state the HCOPL that you mention? It was cancelled. There is no mention of "Fair Game" in policy letters today. But more to the point, there was a change of attitude. That change of attitude, that change of how to deal with situtions that were delt with changed. That is the area I am addressing. You stated: "Harrassed in any possible way." But you don't state a policy letter which says, "SPs are to be harrassed in any possible way." It sounds as if you are saying the CoS operates exactly as if Fair Game were in force but the CoS took Fair Game out of the public eye and hid it. This is not the situation. I have quoted a policy letter in the introduction, it presents today's policy the CoS is to use with suppressive persons. If you know otherwise Irmgard, by all means, specify, verify, put up the policy letter or other source of information ! That's Wikipedia:Verifiability. Terryeo 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me I have a false memory syndrome or something like that: Here's the policy: http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html and the cancellation PL. Further information: Both policies were printed in OEC Volume 1 in the volumes which were in use in the 1980s and both were also part of the OEC 1 checksheets in use then. They might not be part of the OEC Volume 1 in use today, but that doesn't change the historical fact that they have been there in the 1980s.

And do you really claim that the church of Scientology does not harrass it's opponents? Based on which evidence? --Irmgard 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not told you and I am not implying that you do not remember. Quite the opposite. Nothing I have said makes little of what happened. Those things were policy, those things were in those OECs (I think). In any event I believe you about that. Which is not what I am editing. I am talking about present time and the last, I'll call it 7 years. I am not editing the information you are talking about. I am adding good, more recent information. The policies cited in the article are no longer extant, they are not in the OEC volumes. The few policies which withstood the purge do not mention fair game. Today's policy explicity states no one to go outside "the laws of the land." This is not new, this has been in force for at least 7 years. No, I understand what you are saying Irmgard but may I invite you to understand what I am saying. Terryeo 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The information of this article is at least 5 years out of date

The article generally states that the Church of Scientology (CoS) has a policy in force which insists that and Scientologist or CoS is required to take actions which are against the laws of the land against Suppressive Persons (or SP groups). The article presents quoted Policy Letters (PLs) as verification. Those PLs might have existed as they are quoted at one time, some years ago. I do not know if they were or were not, I do know the PLs which the CoS is organized and operates on is much more than 5000 pages long. I can also state with certainty the "Fair Game" does not appear in to PLs of the CoS of today. My opinion is that after some Scientologists were incarcerated for obeying what they felt was CoS Policy, that the CoS changed policy. But what I can tell you with certainy is the policy letters which the article quotes are either not in existence today or they have been revised and "fair game" and its attitudes (from the article's quotes) do not appear. Not literally and not in an implied but unstated way. Because I do have current information I am going to place an appropriate, present time introduction into the article which will not make what is there now wrong, but will give it a context which is realistic. Then a person can look at what is and what was and make their own decisions. Since Antaeus Feldspar has twice reverted my cited, verified introduction I will go a step further. Of all of those quoted PLs in the article, only one has "Fair Game" as part of its title. The article states that HCOPL of 23 Dec 65 contains the words "Fair Game" as part of its title. If any person will go into any Church of Scientology in the world and ask to look at HCOPL 23 DECEMBER 1965 you will find it does not contain those words in its title. The reason I use this one example is because it is fairly easy to look at a title, but more difficult to read through a policy letter looking for a particular passage such as "fair game." Further, if you phoned a CoS and asked them for the title of HCOPL 23 Dec 65, the CoS (were it being cooperative) could tell you over the phone tht title of the Policy Letter of that date. There is only one policy letter of that date. It does not contain the words "Fair Game" as the article says it does. But this is only one point of a larger number of quotations and misrepresentations in the article. At one time, that might have all been valid information. I don't plan at this time to remove it. It is, however, not current information and so I will once again place an appropriate introduction which provides a context for the information of the article, already extant, per Wikipedia:Introductions. Terryeo 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Refer to OC presents: The Fair Game policy: "At appeal, Scientology asserted that "fair game" was a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". This position was also made on behalf of Scientology in the case against Gerald Armstrong, in 1984, by religious expert Dr. Frank Flinn (JCA-45)." This is supported by the conduct of the Church of Scientology in may cases in recent history. Povmec 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are free to refer to Xenu 24/7 Povmec. by all means, seek through the ugly, hate filled site there until you find some gram of real information. Here is a gram of information for you. The Chruch of Scientology has not had "Fair Game" in policy nor in force for more than 5 years. Happy History ! Terryeo 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your opinion on xenu.net, I'm actually referring to court cases, in which the Church of Scientology is on record as stating that the Fair Game policy is a core practice of Scientology. Povmec 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Restating once again. Perhaps 10 years ago, but more than 5 years ago, Scientology threw away their old policy about that and made new policy. What I am spelling out is exactly what and how that policy exists. Do you see that when a Church gets its members into jail that that Church might want to change its policy? Well, that is exactly what happened. I spell out the change and I quote from current policy which I read and type into the computer. Is there any part of the process that does not make sense to you? Terryeo 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

10 years ago the attacks on the Internet by Scientology were in full force, Fair Game was being practiced against a number of Internet users (see Keith Henson and Arnie Lerma for examples), and there has been no indication whatsoever that Scientology's policy has changed in the past ten years. Please cite an example of Scientology "throwing away their old policy" -- especially since LRH himself dictated that his policies are absolute and cannot be altered or discarded. --Modemac 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't contest that happened 10 years ago. You would think the Church of Scientology would get a clue, wouldn't you? Well, it did. About 7 years ago it cancelled certain HCOPLs and revised others. Today you can not find the words "fair game" in an HCOPL. But that's not the main point. The main point is the actual change of policy that happened. No longer may a scientologist violate "the laws of the land" and think they are fulfilling church policy. This difference is clearly spelled out in the introduction I keep posting, such as here: [3] and people keep editing out. Every instance of "fair game" was thrown out, but in Scientology jargon the word is "cancelled" or "revised." I am a little baffled how to present this information, I have citied the HCOPL by date, by title and by ISBN. I have looked in the library of congress cataloge and find the ISBN listed there, along with your earlier revision of the green OEC volumes. Policy changed. I follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources and you edit my cited information out. From my point of view I am pointing at the blue sky and you people are removing it to display pig fodder. Terryeo 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And would you care to explain this? http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure! A biased source reference that ignores the existence of HCO PL 21 July 1968, the policy letter that replaced and cancelled the 1967 one. This July HCO PL is confirmed and quoted in full in the Foster Report, it is also quoted in the HCO PL Subject Index (1976) as cancelling the 1967 issue. And would you care to explain why Gerry Armstrong does not mention this? --Olberon 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo violates Three Revert Rule

Terryeo, since you are so interested in using Wikipedia policy to justify your edits, you should know that repeatedly reverting an article's edits to your own version three times within a 24-hour period is a violation that can cause you to be blocked from editing for 24 hours. I could technically block you for this, but because I am involved in these discussions over the Scientology articles, that would not be a fair move on my part. So consider this a warning that you can be blocked for repeated reversions of other Wikipedia users' edits. --Modemac 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Modemac, I've replied to your posted message on my talk page also, where you also posted the same message. Yes, I did 3 times. My motivation is not that I am attempting to place a POV against another point of view to create an NPOV. My motivation is that the point of view presented is lacking certain vitle information. I post it, (cited, verified with ISBN and a short, quoted passage) and people revert it. I post it and people revert it. I have tried to get into communication with the people when I edit and someone reverts my edit. When my communication on their talk page and also in this discussion are is ignored and they revert then what alternative is there? I have posted extensively about this article. I have invited discussion. My communication is ignored and my additional, cited information is removed, the article reverted. What alternative is there? People won't communicate on Discussion as they should, people ignore my posts on their talk page, an effort to get into communication. What is the alternative? Terryeo 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Beware Office of Special Affairs propaganda agents who are recently trying to censor any material critical to Scientology --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent this message to User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle in reply:

assorted fowl

Hello Mistress Selina Kyle, here's a photo of some of the chickens and ducks in my yard. I live in a small town [[4]] near the pacific ocean. Have a nice day, hope to talk with you sometime.Terryeo 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Proof? I can Google a town's website and find a picture of some ducks and say the same thing, but it doesn't make it so, or even believable. -24.16.184.74 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're replying to a two year old post by a banned user. AndroidCat (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. This block is over your reverts on Fair Game (Scientology) and will last for 24 hours. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, whatta deal, hey? heh. Terryeo 07:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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, 15:30, 10 January 2006 (PST)

I too think the template needs more work before it links the Scientology articles. It has real potential, though. Terryeo 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy muckraking

Which is exactly what you all are doing. Muckraking the past. Have fun ! I've spelled out pretty explicitly your error. Your refusal to understand present time is yours alone. I would though, point out this one more, tiny fact. Psychology felt they had "put Dianetics in its place" in the 1950s. At that time Psychiatry and Psychology was a powerful force. Any relative could get agreement from a minister and a policeman and have their wealthy relative put away in a drugged state for life and take their relative's money through legal means. Today, Psychiatry is much less strong. This is due in large measure to Psychiatry destroying itself, but in large measure due to the Church Of Scientology growing and propsering. You are free to ignore present time and what the Church of Scientology's progress is re: "Fair Game"  :) Terryeo 21:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you think we should think we should stop talking about the Holocaust on the World War II page because that would be "muckraking the past"? Or that we should stop talking about the Inquisition on the Catholicism page because that would be "muckraking the past"? Whether or not "Fair Game" still exists today in letter or in spirit, it DID once exist and cannot be forgotten, any more than any other atrocities in past history. It's a fact of life that when a person or an organization does terrible things, they WILL have to live with that stain on their permanent record from that point on. (Unless someone manages to rewrite history, or course.) wikipediatrix 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers us a platform. In a historical prespective, if you wished to create an article such as: "The History of Fair Game in Scientology" then of course, that would insure an accurate protrayal of this past, dead practice. But don't take my word for it. View the links, even the avowed enemy of Scientology, Xenu and Clambake state that the first line "A person IS declared... is not true. HCOPL of 23 December 1965RB (revision B, replacing earlier policy letters of that date) is policy. Illegal acts are not to be condoned nor permitted. Therefore "persons were declared fair game .... would be an accurate statement. But if you wrote a "history of fair game" then you could create the most frightening! stunning! statements along the way. I might note here about Antaeus. He asked me how my word could be believed about the newer revisions of policy. Yet now, I find a link to a Scientology hate site which spells out HCOPL 23 Dec 65RB (no mention of fair game). Heh. Told you so. Terryeo 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is overwhelming evidence that the Fair Game policy is still in effect, regardless of whether it is still openly official policy or not. The article clearly notes that Hubbard rescinded the policy in 1968, and since Povmec changed the present tense to past tense, I think the article is perfectly accurate. wikipediatrix 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me give you my point of view. You state there is overwhelming evidence the policy is in effect. If you present that evidence either here, or in the article, then I would be ethically bound to investigate your statements and report the results to RTC, whose job it is to insure such policy is not as you imply it is. So why don't you put your research where your mouth is? What evidence is there the policy of "Fair Game" is applied in present time ?Terryeo 16:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Much of the evidence is already in the article, Terryeo. Reread it. If you want to me add further examples of Scientology harassment and misdeeds that echo the old "Fair Game" policy, I'd be happy to, but then you'd say I'm unfairly piling up criticism. wikipediatrix 17:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I think you guys may be arguing cross-wise here. "Fair Game" as an official name for the policy handling critics and SP's, is no longer in use. "Fair Game", as a method of handling critics, is what I think wikipediatrix is talking about. Thats why we have the quote: "This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. (HCO PL 21 Oct 68, Cancellation of Fair Game)" Thus, it's true that the Fair Game policy is no longer in effect (under the name Fair Game), but the policies "on the treatment or handling of an SP" remain. Also, note that "Illegal acts are not to be condoned nor permitted" does not mean that legal acts, in the name of "treatment or handling of an SP" are forbidden. Thus, a great many examples in the article, which could (and have been) argued as legal actions, point to a policy of handling certain people in certain ways, regardless of the name given. . Ronabop 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

(8) heh. "Fair Game" was a term used. "Policy" has several meanings. As used as a heading for this article, there are 2 different meanins which would apply. People could understand it in 2 different ways. Possibly the most common is the common use of the word "policy" that is, "a plan or course of action." And some years ago the Church of Scientology did that (from what I have read). The CoS declared at least some people to be "Fair Game." But as used in this article's title, it has a second meaning. The CoS runs on policy, as any organization does. Its policy is spelled out in thousands of pages which are called "Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters" (HCOPLs). Some of those at one time spelled out who (within the CoS) could declare a person "fair game" and under what circumstances and so on. Those HCOPLs have been cancelled or revised and the words "Fair Game" no longer appear in them. Further, HCOPLs specifically spell out that nothing "against the laws of the land" shall be done by any scientologist to any person, regardless of any declare. I hope this clarifies rather than confuses. I could get into why such a policy came into being in the first place but I don't know the details by personal experience, only what I have read. Also, it is no longer in force. For example, if I were declared to be a suppressive person and any scieintologist behaved toward me as if I were "Fair Game" as the article says once was done, I could seek justice from the Church of Scientology as well as from common law. Terryeo 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes! The Church of Scientology is growing and prospering! It is weakening the evil Psychiatry! Psychiatry is destroying itself! In fact, Psychiatry has started to commit suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad! [5] -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you arguing the the name "Fair Game" is no longer in use or that the policy that operated under the name "Fair Game" is no long in practice? -- LamontCranston 14:46, 21 January 2006

LamontCranston, what did I say that you did not understand? Terryeo 03:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merely asking for a simply, short, concise and direct to the point answer to this question: are you arguing the name "Fair Game" is no longer in use or that the policy that operated under the name "Fair Game" is no long in practice? LamontCranston 15:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing. What did I say that led you to expect an arguement? Terryeo 14:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That still didn't answer his question. wikipediatrix 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting too short a lines. going to full screen. Okay. First of all I am not arguing whether the Church today practices Fair Game or doesn't practice Fair Game. I have stated the Church's present, published policy. Because I understand how published policy works within the Church of Scientology I feel it only reasonable to present the information I have presented. I think I have given elsewhere in this discussion page, given what I think are the reasons the Church changed its policy. Certainly the article spells out current policy which is, "nothing against the laws of the land." Probably the Church looked at it, saw it was a losing postion to do illegal acts against people and brought forth policy of good sense. That's how I figure it. In addition, since the turn of the century, as far as I know, those sorts of practices have not been done at all, if they have been done they haven't entered court cases. What arguement is there? The article contains present time policy, the article contains past policy and actions done in the past. What arguement would there be? Terryeo 19:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it would seem you argue the whole policy that was given the name 'Fair Game' is no longer practiced – and you admit it was practiced in the past. Then you should have no problem with a wikipedia page that documents in depth what was done and who it was done to when it was an accepted policy without resorting to 'its in the past! get over it!' arguments in an attempt to dismiss it all. LamontCranston 8:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And would you care to explain this? http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 8:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lament, If you simply read the things that have been discussed here instead of expecting everyone to chew their cabbage multiple times in order to respond to your baiting comments, you'll become enlightned as to why, exactly the changes which happened on the page, did happen.Terryeo 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence from the first paragraph here for citing

I removed this sentence, the last one of the first paragraph and am placing it here for citing:

"Often, this means they have been overtly critical of the church."

My position is, I don't believe such an event has happened, or it is has ever happened, it has happened very rarely. The sentence says, "often" and I don't believe it. The sentence implies, "if any person mutters the least critical thing, the wrath of the church descends on them and they are forever subject to lawsuits and harrassement." Well, I'm here to tell you that is not the case. Merely criticizing is not nearly enough to get someone, even a member of the church of scientology, declared (by the Church of Scientology) to be a suppressive person. But that is what the sentence says. If even a dozen people can be documented to have been declared "suppressive persons" only because they were overtly critical then the statement might make some sense. But that would only be 12/6,500,000,000 ths of the earth's population. heh . Terryeo 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, they are not "forever subject to lawsuits and harassment" - because the Church eventually grounds down their resolve until they give up at which point the lawsuits and harassment go away. But now I see that you have been reduced to arguing semantics over 'key' individual words. As for asking "If even a dozen people can be documented to have been declared "suppressive persons" only because they were overtly critical then the statement might make some sense." now it seems you're suddenly started acting as if its never even occurred? Despite your previous remarks here and elsewhere that are heavily couched in the disclaimer that runs to the effect of 'it was in the past! forget it already! drop the subject!' what is going on here? But for documentation - are you incapable of reading the documented cases that are right there on the Fair Game page, the Scientology versus Internet page, Scientology and the legal system page and on other pages here on wikipedia! LamontCranston 15:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Me? What Mr. Lament, you wanted to talk with me about something? Terryeo 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, on several other discussion pages you have been whining that no one discusses their edits with you anymore. Bullshit answers such as this are precisely why few people bother to attempt communication with you anymore. wikipediatrix 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"often..." means frequently, happening many times more than once. Terryeo 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I could show you, in lurid detail, dozens of cases in which it has happened, but I've learned from experience that you would ignore it, misquote me about it later, and then feign ignorance that our discussion ever took place. wikipediatrix 15:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

sure Wikipediatrix, go right ahead. Show me your lurid details. HEH ! Terryeo 18:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ronabop already did (see below) and you didn't bother responding to her. wikipediatrix 00:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

More than once. Hm. Operation Freakout. Okay, once. John_Gordon_Clark, Maybe twice. Richard_Behar, Maybe thrice. L. Gene Allard, Jakob Anderson, Gerald Armstrong, Lawrence Wollersheim, Karin Spaink, Zenon Panoussis, Keith Henson, Arnaldo Lerma, Dennis Erlich, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Andreas Heldal-Lund... I forget, is that more names than than one? Ronabop 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for more than "mere criticism" and the statement implies merely criticizing is enough to get a person declared (by the CoS), and that isn't the actual situation.Terryeo 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I put back the sentence because the argument that you present here to remove the sentence is flawed. You state that you don't believe it happened: It has happened and there are enough cases to support this (and by no mean the article states them all), along with Hubbard's own policies of handling critics. Your argument "12/6,500,000,000" doesn't make sense: are you saying that the whole Earth population is critical of Scientology? It's about people being overtly critical here, and thus having an influence on people's opinion. The sentence is appropriate in my opinion, since it clarifies the previous sentence about "suppressive persons damaging Scientology", and since this specific issue is developed later in the article, and actually constitute a good part of it. You removed again the sentence, but I will not put it back, others should give their opinion so we come to an agreement. Povmec 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence, "often they are critical of the Church" isn't needed to convey the information that such persons have done something the Church of Scientology doesn't condone. It is redundant. The reader is probably wondering, well gee, what is all of this? The reader probably wants to know what action brings the Church's disapproval about. In that context the sentence sounds like a person need only criticize the Church and *boom* the church over-reacts. But let me point out, many of the editors on here are clearly critical of the Church of Scientology and probably have aquaintences which are also critical. It is not criticsm alone which causes the Church of Scientology to declare a person to be Suppressive. Give the reader a chance, let him read some of the reasons the Church might declare a person Suppressive. As a parallel, the Cathlic Church sometimes excommunicates people. The sentence in that context implies things which don't contribute to a reader understanding. But if there were, say, 1000s of persons who had been declared suppressive only because they made a critical comment about the Church, then that would be a different situation. Terryeo 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the Church doesn't target everybody expressing criticism, so the sentence is wrong on that account. We could rephrase it: "Suppressive Persons" are those whose actions are deemed to "suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist." Often, they have been effective critics of the church. Povmec 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be better. A criticsm does not damage. In actuality skepticism is more frequent and criticsm less frequent and a mere criticism is not a damage. There is a narrow use of the word "criticism" which could be damanging. Criticsm which edges into slander could be damanging. So the statement is not all wrong, but it is not all right either. Couldn't we introduce how criticsm might contribute to a person being declared suppressive, but not imply a mere criticsm produces a declare ? Terryeo 15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Turn to the 1998 edition of "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", and the High Crimes of the Church of Scientology: "230) It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology", which should get someone their SP declare. Asking for a refund for undelivered services is another High Crime. (You can report these to the RTC here.) I'm not sure if the policy formerly known as Fair Game automatically applies to someone guilty of CoS High Crimes, but it seems like even criticism isn't a requirement. HCO PL 7 March 1965RB, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS, HCO PL 10 September 1983, PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION, and HCO PL 7 March 1965RA, Issue III, OFFENSES AND PENALTIES would seem to be the key policies. AndroidCat 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

you have a 1998 edition there. Do you find the words, "Fair Game" anywhere within it?  :) I don't believe you do. You have stated 2, what you say the book says are "high crimes" but you have stated nothing about "will be declared a suppressive person." The phrase "high crime" has different meanings in different situations. It might well be a "high crime" in the military to not keep your rifle clean, you know what I mean? If you could state, "every high crime declares a person to be a suppressive person" that would be germane to the discussion. Your references: HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists; is no longer extant. I've said this several times. The Church of Scientology practiced something people refer to as "fair game." That policy is no longer in effect. I'm not a historian, I don't know all the details. I have read there was a policy which cancelled fair game, but even that policy is no longer extant. There is simply no mention of "fair game" in any Policy Letter today. Further, as the article says, the existing policy is that no person under any circumstances is to do anything "outside the laws of the land." The situation seems obvious enough to me, but maybe not to you. The CoS at one time supported people doing illegal acts in some situations. After enough losing court battles the CoS cancelled that policy. Terryeo 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB is no longer extant? I got that from the RTC page. So you'd better report their ethics violation (or would that be admin?) or at least write a KR on it. The RB indicates that it is the 3rd revision of that policy at issued at a later date, so possibly you're thinking of an earlier version? Attempt to dismiss the seriousness of a high crime within Scientology noted, and I'll get back once I've lined up my references on that. It's debatable if fair game has even been cancelled on paper; it certainly hasn't been cancelled in actions, which frequently violate the laws of the land. (And most people don't need to lose court battles before deciding that breaking the law is a bad idea.) --AndroidCat 16:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

wow, maybe you better go report it yourself, if you are sure of your information. You'll need to supply a real name, and some other personal information which of course is something you would want to do anyway, I'm sure :) have fun with that. Hmm, I'll be a tad more honest with you androidCat. Your statement "It's debatable if fair game has even been cancelled on paper" tell me all about your knowledge of the Church of Scientology. It tells me you don't know the purpose of Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters, how HCOPLs dictate policy, what is senior to policy, what falls under policy, what would consitute a legal order and what would contistute an illegal order. It takes the air out of the rest of what you say because it deliniates your knowledge in the area. While I'm mostly willing to let people know how things actually work (to the extent of my rather meger knowledge) how things work in the church, your argumentative tone and implications of what actions I should perform is plain silly.Terryeo 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The limits of your understanding of what I know concern me not at all. I wasn't being argumentitive, just amused that you were accusing the guardians of the tech, the RTC, of having incorrect information on their web page (which I linked to in my comment), and thank you for saying that my comments aren't made of air. :) BTW, CoS already has my "real name" (among other things), so that's not a problem, but I wasn't the one who said they were wrong. AndroidCat 17:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all my name is Lamont, Lamont Cranston. Not "Lament". Second of all, that response of yours is childish and inadequate, in other discussions here and elsewhere you admit at great difficulty and with the admittance couched heavily in the disclaimer 'it happened in the past!' that ‘SP’ing and Fair Game and the like occurred but only in the past - but in this specific discussion you now see fit to question whether it happened at all: "If even a dozen people can be documented to have been declared "suppressive persons" only because they were overtly critical then the statement might make some sense." I believe an explanation is in order, on the one hand in various places you admit it happened but now here you question the very existence of any of it occurring. And again you are arguing semantics 'well gee, not EVERYONE who criticises Scientology is declared SP’ you are indeed correct about that, the person has to be public about their criticism or to publicly depart Scientology. That is indeed a vast distinction that I am glad you have pointed out for us – privately criticise Scientology and you’ll be fine, do it publicly and you’re in trouble. Oh yes, a grand distinction that needs to be pointed out at every available opportunity. LamontCranston 8:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't my statement. I don't say that a dozen persons have not been declared by the Church of Scientology to be suppressive persons. I do say that a dozen persons who merely criticized the Church of Scientology have not been declared by the Church of Scientology to be suppressive persons. It takes more than just a criticsm, a lot more. But, since you apparently have not read the policies, I'll take your purported explanation for what it is, a pile of hot air. When you have read even a few of the thousands of pages which comprise the Policy Letters (The Organization Executive Course and Management Series ISBN 088404677X) then I'll begin to listen to your alternative explantions. Its not that a person just criticize, that isn't nearly enough to get the Church of Scientology to react. The base of the Suppresive declare is that a person is trying to harm Scientology. Everyone is skeptical of new information, its man's nature. To actively attempt to harm is another matter. A declare of "Suppresive Person" is the reaction (myself, that makes sense to me). However, while the Catholic church has a procedure, excommunicate, the CoS has a procedure too. The two procedures have some elements in common and some elements which are different. Terryeo 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that Terryeo's scientologist buddy Spirit of Man has the exact same annoying trolling technique of demanding a discussion, and then when it's supplied, he replies with short non-sequiturs like "how can I help you?" wikipediatrix 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't realize it was irritating. Could I help you sort out that irritation? heh! Terryeo 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...Should I be proud or worried that it has taken such a short period of time to earn a disparaging nickname - 'Mr Lament' - from Terryeo? LamontCranston 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lament, from the baiting tone of your first posts on talk pages to me in various articles, I assumed you were a professional Shrink. Then in other talk pages you used the psycho-babble type words and I thought "oho, must be a shrink" but in viewing your user page I see you are a professional editor of some standing. I came up with the "Lament." Comments you sometimes make such as "shouldn't you check with your masters" and suchnot contribute too, toward chiding you a bit on the emotion your posts protray. But, well, if you're willing to communicate Lamont, I'm willing to communicate with you. My POV is on my user page. I hope to see informative articles, information presented per Wiki Policy. Dispite Wikipediatrix's misunderstanding of my efforts, controversy is good with me. However, to have a controversy first there must exist a POV which controversy reacts to, or revolves around. So then articles which inform and then the controversy which arises. Did you have any actual question Lamont, or is baiting as good as it gets with you? Terryeo 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Once more from the top, my name is Lamont, Lamont Cranston. "Gosh, I didn't realize it was irritating..." is a clear indication you know what you are doing - trolling - and enjoying it. I'm not even going to try and figure out what are the "psycho-babble type words" as for calling for communication and dialogue, we both know that is a lie and will result in more "Me? What Mr. Lament, you wanted to talk with me about something?" & "Gosh, I didn't realize it was irritating..." & et al nonsense. And you are right, although inadvertently, you are trying to whip up a controversy where there is in actuality established fact. I did earlier have a specific question but all I got was the run around, someone else agreeing that you had not answered and now there is silence. Finally once more I find myself asking for an explanation for this: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 03:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you out a little bit here. If you will click this tab at the top of this page: "history" and then click to compare your last two versions of edits, you will see the modifications you have done to your edits after you read my replies to your edits. Perhaps you see how this public observation of your editing of your previous posts denies the secrecy which you thought you were working within? Terryeo 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know if we can come to an agreement about the removed sentence, which was this one: "Often, this means they have been overtly critical of the church." I propose to replace it with the following: "Often, they have been effective critics of the church." Reasonable? Although I still think the first version reads better. Povmec 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it reads better now than it did, good enough with me. Terryeo 04:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Often, in addition to other acts, such people are critical of the church" would be accurate. "Effective critics" .. well maybe but how many effective critics have there been? An effective critic would be a person whose criticism resulted in changes yes? The number of persons whose criticism resulted in changes is rather small. The Lisa McPherson case maybe. Certain critics have published confidential materials and criticized the church. That result, amongst other things, was a case which went to the Supreme Court of the USA and resulted in the copyright protection law the internet runs under today. Where the material and hypberlinks to it are protected. Maybe we could come up with a list of "effective critics" who caused actual effects. It might be enlightening to list "critics" and "effective critics." There are many critics but rarely is a critic "effective." Terryeo 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have edited my comments - mere seconds after initially posting them on account of spotting an error, oh The Horror! The Horror! A comparison between what I initially post and any subsequent revision would find only minute changes. But its funny you say the changes are in response your posts. The rest of what you say really doesn't make any sense but appears to be attempting to insinuate some sort of conspiracy. And of course in a practice that I now see is standard it does not respond to the points I raised and questions asked. Povmec, Terryeo would undoubtedly have even more problems with "effective critics" than "overtly critical" but since Terryeo does like to argue semantics and the finer points of individual words it certainly does do a better job of conveying the fact that the criticism must be public. LamontCranston

Bah! I bloody-well didn't date that, and I left out 'to' in "response your posts". I suppose if I were to correct this Terryeo would cite it as further proof of revision of my own posts in response to what Terryeo says. LamontCranston 03:09, 24 January 2006

I'm not your enemy here Lamont. When you make efforts toward a useful Wikipedia I won't throw brick - like words from my little fort over at your little fort. heh Terryeo 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Even better, twisting it around to turn "effective critics" into those who have caused positive change rather than those who have met the wrath of Scientology, bravo! As for the bricks and fort thing, it makes no sense whatsoever so I can't respond. I’ve noticed in this discussion and in another one my posts are consistently being moved further down a page to make room for new responses from Terryeo and then for people who respond to that, I don’t know what’s going on but if it is human interference could the person(s) please STOP. User:LamontCranston 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon? Doesn't everyone simply introduce new replies to the bottem of the previous person's comment, or, alternatively, introduce new subjects to the bottem of the preverius person's comment? Isn't this how everyone does it on all the talk pages? Well, except for replies to earlier and ongoing discussions which sometimes accrue in the other parts of the page. Terryeo 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

With your last edit, you seem to confirm that Fair Game is currently part of Scientology doctrine: «Criticism alone is not enough to earn this declare. The list of actions which bring this declare into force include many overt actions, but mere criticsm alone is not enough.» All present tense... Raymond Hill 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did do that edit. Fair Game is not a practice. Declaring a person to be a "Suppressive Person" is a practice. The "Declare" I meant to communicate is the Declare, "Suppressive Person." I see it doesn't communicate well. I had posted some of the actions which could get a person declared suppressive, such as felonys. I see it has disappeared. But you're right in the sense I have been trying to make a simple statement that tells what a person must do before he would be declared to be a Suppressive Person. I'll just let it go. Terryeo 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

However those declared "Suppressive Person" are frequently subject to the same tactics and tricks that formerly went by the name "Fair Game", while successfullying arguing that "Fair Game" itself has been kyboshed long ago, simply because it is said that “Fair Game” has ceased long ago. Oh what wonderful webs we weave with our words. Although as The Man - Hubbard - himself said: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." - http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html LamontCranston 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! Gimmie a religion, any religion (though the catholics are a great source), and they will have revised their tactics over the years from things like burning people alive at the stake to mere shunning, disavowing, and alienation, only paid for with acts of contrition (such as working on a humility or "Rehabilitation" force). The catholic church doesn't call it "trial by fire" anymore. Terms change, methods stay the same and/or change. Is one good compromise to keep the past Fair Game tactics under the FG article, and later SP tactics under the SP article? Ronabop 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This "Fair Game" policy is obviously very biased. But it states the Church's present time position. When Fair Game was in force, it relied on a person being declared a "suppressive person." If that is of interest, then yes, Ronabop.Terryeo 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, simply explain that starting at a certain point - how about October 21 1968 - the name Fair Game stopped being used while the policy itself continued unabated. All we have here is the abandonment of a descriptive name, not what it meant. So to say "at this point they stopped using the name Fair Game but the policy itself continued, as such this page now ends and we direct your attention to the Suppressive Persons page" is rather pedantic. Additionally there is a big difference in comparing the crimes of the Catholic Church to the crimes of the Church of Scientology, know what it is? Their man Jesus never advocated, recommended or condoned what the Catholic Church - and countless other Christian denominations - did in His name. Hell, look how many Christians blithely go around quoting the Old Testament mantra of ‘an eye for an eye, blah, blah, blah’ and how few go around quoting what their alleged saviour Jesus specifically had to say on that very topic. There is a hell of a big difference between the two, one is very specifically following the directives and orders of the religions founder where as the other is completely ignoring their so-called Messiah and using his name and twisting his words inside-out - when they bothered to refer to them at all - to suit their own goal. LamontCranston 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Fair game was cancelled. Then after that policy which cancelled it was in force for a number of years, that policy was cancelled. Today the words do not appear in policy. In addition a policy came into force about 1998 (the date was in the article) which stated, "under no conditions shall the laws of the land be broken". These informations should kind of clue you in, but there is only so close to water a horse's nose can be pointed. Terryeo 07:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so... (horses). Hitler could have cancelled a policy officially named "oppose all Jews", and later called it a "be really nice to Jews, only oppose them in legal ways, such as endless lawsuits, dragging their names through the mud, making disparaging websites about them, and try to get them fired from work", and maybe there would *still* be some Holocaust deniers claiming that Hitler did not attack Jews, because, well, he said it much nicer later and it was only advocating legal tactics to oppose Jews? Ronabop 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Terryeo

[Gives an Ovation]

I must congratulate you Terryeo on your commendable performance. As lengthy as this reading was, I now find myself vindicated of my earlier presemtuous and premature thoughts concerning the panoply of bodies pertaining to the functions of Scientology.

I may of course be oversteping my bounds as this message has no ubiquitous value to the present heated impasse.

I must confess that this has been a most precious representation of Scientology relations with the prevalent society at large.

Pardon my neophyte misconstruction, I seem to bypass time stamps and signatures. User:Dryzen 15:24, 16 Febuary 2006

If you refer to Terryeos act, then certainly Terryeo deserves a standing ovation, if you honestly believe Terryeo then I need only direct your attention to this:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 October 1968
Remimeo 
CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.  FAIR GAME may not
appear on any Ethics Order.  It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder 
LRH:ei.cden
Copyright © 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html 

What all that amounts to is ordering the name Fair Game be dropped while the policy on how to handle Suppressive Persons is to continue. LamontCranston 05:50, 21 March 2006

You are premature about this. There was this other policy letter issued prior to that which replaced HCO PL 18 OCT 67 ISSUE IV PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS. Per this the treatment had already been dropped 3 months earlier!

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex 
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968
(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV) 
Remimeo 
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS 
(Applies to both Orgs and Sea Org) 
LIABILITY - Dirty grey rag on left arm. May be employed at any additional work.
Day and night confinement to premises. 
DOUBT - May be confined in or be barred from premises. Handcuff on left wrist.
May be fined up to the amount carelessness or neglect has cost org in actual
money. 
ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except
an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee.
May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of
the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for
others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org. 
TREASON - May be turned over to civil authorities. Full background to be
explored for purposes of prosecution. May not be protected by the rights and
fair practices he sought to destroy for others. May be restrained or debarred.
Not to be communicated with. Debarred from training and processing and advanced
courses forever. Not covered by amnesties. 
Note: Any lower Condition assigned is subject to a Hearing if requested and to
Ethics Review Authority or Petition if the formula is applied. A ship captain's
okay is required in the SO for conditions below Danger, similarly in orgs where
the Exec Council must approve one (Exception is Missions during the Mission who
have unlimited powers). 
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
 LRH:js 
Copyright © 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html 

I think this kind of challenges the argument you made. --Olberon 10:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that this very discussion board is evidence enough to answer your debate about Fair Game. That Terryeo and you have both well performed your tasks in this endevour and have, with an endearing supporting cast, clearly represented Scientology's relations with the prevalent society at large.Dryzen 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is this "very discussion board [...] evidence enough to answer your debate about Fair Game" since it does not get to the heart of the matter that while the name ‘Fair Game’ has been dropped the policy behind it continues and "clearly [represents] Scientology's relations with the prevalent society at large." Now if in all that you refer to Terryeos repeated misdirection and obfuscation and blind-faith in the face straightforward questions, facts and quotes from Hubbard himself, then yes certainly you would be right. But all of that is a supposition and a rather sarcastic one at that. I'm afraid your vagaries and double meanings are too much for me. So could pleas be a little bit plain in what you say and mean? And I noticed you did not say anything about the Hubbard quote I directed your attention to, could you please read and consider it? LamontCranston 10:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You primary assumption of my intention is valid. I have read the article and I have read the discusion. In this former I have been provided with sufficient insight about "Fair game"'s current disposition to beleive that it is a now defunct terminology. In this later I have been vindicated in my belief that its demeanor has endured little alteration.Dryzen 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the name 'Fair Game' itself is defunct - however the policy behind it remains in place, if no other evidence can convince you of this then surely the Hubbard quote should. We've been arguing that point for how long now in how many Talk pages and you can't figure that out? The name has been dropped, the policy hasn't! ARGH! LamontCranston 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted your evidence earlier on this page HCO PL 21 July 1968. --Olberon 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you are arguing in thin air. Reread my post and search some of its lengthier words, you'll soon find yourself without bedevilment. If its terminology is defunt, it is then a term no longer in use. If its demeanor has endured little alteration, than it has had little (to no) modification from its earlier state. Dryzen 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does any of that even mean anything, at all? I attempt to break down the superfluous words and phrases you seem to be overly fond of and to decode what you say into a simpler meaning and I still find it makes no sense, at all. One might begin to suspect this is deliberate. Aside from a congratulation of terryeo - for what I know not - you say nothing at all, you talk certainly but that’s a little different. Perhaps that is the purpose, to say something that doesn’t actually mean anything except as a sign of agreement to certain parties? Or maybe I’m just not that intelligent. Perhaps I should go consult with some French intellectuals and post-modernists? Now as for arguing in thin air, you are right we certainly are debating semantics – the NAME Fair Game has been dropped but the POLICY it represents has not – but this is a game of semantics the Scientologists created, deliberately to create this very air of confusion, I suppose you could condemn us for playing by their rules or you could state what you mean or you could just do what you’ve been doing and add to the confusion. LamontCranston 11:41, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

It was my belief that things had gained a convergence of undertsanding, but it seems my latter posts have only produced an increased divergence. It is true there is a flair for the symbolic inm y posts but these should not have hinder ed your understanding. I simply wright that, like you posted, the term (a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses) is defunct(no longer existing). Yet, again like you posted so many times before, its demeanor(behavior toward others) has essentially remained the same. It is my view that Scientology is clearly semantics(the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings ) and a testement at the influence of said semantics. Confusion should not of occured and I appologize for such a maze as I might have created. I would also point that the above definitions are not to belittle your position but to clearify any confusion that the terms may produce. Have a pleasent day. Dryzen 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientology admits "Fair Game" still in effect

In 1989 and 1994 appeals for Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology (see JCA-147, pp.A-7, 15 & 16), Scientology's position was that "fair game" was still a "core practice of Scientology", and therefore protected as "religious expression". Oops. Guess 1994 is just a little bit later than 1968. wikipediatrix 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true wikipediatrix, but I find it useful to quote their man himself. LamontCranston 11:21, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

What you have is some people admitting/telling some things in court. This all by itself does not suffice to declare that it is fact that the Church Of Scientology was involved with doing that. I have been involved with Scientology for 25 years, ex SO staff etc. and I haven't seen a sign that it was 'core practice'. Amongst staff it was something that belonged to the past, if the subject ever was brought up to discussion. Although I have seen persons who were a little over active. --Olberon 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Could 87.227.20.229 declare an interest?

I'm concerned that there is a strong possibility that person editing from the IP address 87.227.20.229 is the author of the web pages at http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel, Michel Snoeck. I'm not saying that the pages shouldn't be used or that 87.227.20.229 shouldn't edit, but with other editors like Chris Owen, there is an open disclosure of who they are and which webbed material is theirs. This allows other editors to evaluate the difference between NPOV information and conclusions where the editor uses himself as the reference to support the conclusions. I assume good faith editing (even when someone is editing from PAC Base ;), so open disclosure would be much better than suspicious anonymous edits. AndroidCat 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As this is a huge article about scientology, which is being edited by scientologists, does anyone not declare an interest? You may be a scientologist, i may be a scientologist, whoever may be a scientologist, or we may not be, which is brilliant, because we want the view of scientologists to be in the article, also we want the view of people who are not scientologists. However, if 87.227.20.229 owns the website, which you are "suspecting" he does, it shouldn't matter. However, if you believe the website has wrong information, it is another issue, then we have to discuss whether it is a valid source. Bib 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. If a person is doing their own research, posting it to a website, and then citing their own website as a reliable source on the subject, that creates a problem. For example, I could (quite easily, actually) throw up about 25 different sites in the next hour that state (in various ways) that "scientology promotes killing babies and using their blood in a special OT7 purif!" (See: blood libel). Not only do I have numerous websites to back it up, I have a whole 25 of them! It must be true, or at least, verifiable from *numerous* (seemingly independant) sources.... right? (uhmmm.... see the problem?) Personally, I don't think that 87.227.20.229's personal religious affiliation matters at all, (and neither does the actual current discussion at Talk:Scientology_controversy) but if 87.227.20.229 is using *themselves* as a reliable, or verifiable, source, we could have a problem. Ronabop 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. If a person is doing their own research, posting it to a website, and then citing their own website as a reliable source on the subject, that creates a problem. Now you mean the website http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history.html has errors? So you mean it is a website with personal resarch, which neither the person who owns it or anyone else should be quoting from? For example, I could (quite easily, actually) throw up about 25 different sites in the next hour that state (in various ways) that "scientology promotes killing babies and using their blood in a special OT7 purif!" (See: blood libel). Not only do I have numerous websites to back it up, I have a whole 25 of them! Exactly, thanks for pointing out my point in your own interesting way, you are talking about a website (or 25 websites), giving examples for a source (hmm, or 25) you want us not to use for this article. It must be true, or at least, verifiable from *numerous* (seemingly independant) sources .... right? Yes the website, the source, must be verifiable, reliable. However if you find information from 25 websites which are not valid sources, however if one of the sites is a valid site, it is valid information. Argh, i don't know why we are talking about this even, because we basically agree. (uhmmm.... see the problem?) Now, i do belive we can agree we want this article to have valid sources. We never disagreed on this however. Personally, I don't think that 87.227.20.229's personal religious affiliation matters at all, (and neither does the actual current discussion at Talk:Scientology_controversy) but Hmm, yes my point too, also we accept editing by anyone who are scientology members. Agree with you on this, now we need to talk about whether the website actually is "made up", or not, and if it is a valid source. Bib 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no such disclosure. Could you please elaborate? I have noticed that the moderator "ChrisO" seems to go out of his way to ensure that the Church of Scientology is portrayed negatively. Is this who you are talking about?213.29.115.10 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

if 87.227.20.229 is using *themselves* as a reliable, or verifiable, source, we could have a problem. Ronabop 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Hmm, so if Jon Atack, L. Ron Hubbard, Michel Snoeck, William C. Barwell, Eric J. Ascalon, or Stephen A. Kent, begin to edit this wikipedia site we have the same problem? (they are people who have written source material for this article) Again, then it is a problem because of the source not being a valid source. Let say you have written a fake made up website, and start to write material from the site, to this article. Still it is not you we remove. We remove the website as a valid source. However, if you have written a website with information we view as reliable, not made up, then we don't remove you, and we don't remove the source as a valid site. So again we need to talk about whether the website actually is "made up", or not, and if it is a valid source. Bib 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We would have a problem if Jon Atack, L. Ron Hubbard, Stephen Kent, Michel Snoeck, or William Barwell took an active role in editing this article. If those people want to make changes to what is said here, it would be more appropriate if they used the talk pages and developed consensus for their views. Vivaldi (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronabop's assessment. It creates a huge problem when editors use their own writings to show that something is verifiable and from a reliable source. Editors of Wikipedia are not supposed to do original research. We expect that everything in Wikipedia is already published somewhere by a reliable resource, and if it isn't, then we shouldn't be using the information in the articles. If we would allow these kinds of edits then it would be a free-for-all everywhere. Vivaldi (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(I swapped my comment and pointer around so that it's all in one place.) I had previously noted that the original link adding and an update last month (a day after the web page was updated) were done by an IP address that looked a lot like Michel Snoeck's Usenet alter-ego, but it wasn't worth mentioning. His site does have interesting information, although I personally feel he mixes his own conclusions in a bit too much—I don't like his font and page layout either, but that's no reason not to have external links to his pages. The last edits (again, the day after the site was updated) seemed a bit too close to the line. Again, it's only the possible mixing of web site references and undeclared editing that makes me uneasy. AndroidCat 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the changes introduced by 87.227.20.229 are verifiable. I reinstated these additions, however I added the source for this information. Meaning that any person can verify these additions for their trutfulness. I also object to Vivaldi's comment as if the additions would be biased. Valuable and pertinent information had been omitted regarding the matter of Fair Game on the wikipedia, which is HCO PL 21 July 1968. These additions should not be disposed of at a whim, as has been done up to 2 times now. Suggestions however can be made in how the additions relay their information. The purpose of the Wikipedia is to provide information and this as objective as possible. Olberon 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you, Olberon (talk · contribs · count) a sockpuppet of 87.227.20.229 (talk · contribs · count)? I find it highly suspicious that your very first edit to Wikipedia would be a highly technical edit replacing material that was reverted twice already. I would warn you that using sockpuppets to bolster your point-of-view is not appropriate. You can be blocked for doing it. Vivaldi (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You can be blocked for editing out verified information. The sources were given. Are you questioning the truthfulness of that information? Your insinuations have no ground whatsoever. I reinstated the information and I added referencing for that data. Observation is that you are purposely editing out verified and supported information. How do we know that you are not a sockpuppet of the critics of Scientology or of the ARS newsgroup being paid the wipe out uncomfortable information? Olberon 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You sound quite defensive of 87.227.20.229's edits and Michel Snoeck's web pages for a new editor. The web site and Michel Snoeck's views might need some reflection in the article—but stealth POV editing while violating several Wiki policies isn't the way to go about it and doesn't reflect well on reliability of sources. (Note to other editors: because of past experience with Michel Snoeck's avatars on ARS, I've decided to remain neutral on editing/reverting these changes.) AndroidCat 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that surprising? I have been basically threatened by Vivaldi. Which Wiki policies have been violated in the addition? Wikipedia asks for verifiability of the information and the sources were provided. Are you questioning the Policy Letter Subject Index? Or the information found on HCO PL 23 Dec 65 as found in the previous release of volume 0 of the OEC? I have started a Talk on Vivaldi's talk page. Anyone may participate. I have Vivaldi given the opportunity to clarify himself. I am however not interested in opinion. Olberon 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, you still haven't denied being 87.227.20.229. And Vivaldi calling this into question is not a threat in any language, so stop saying Vivaldi has threatened you. wikipediatrix 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been basically threatened by Vivaldi. Which Wiki policies have been violated in the addition? #1) You have not been threatened. If you are violating Wikipedia policy, you may be blocked. That isn't a threat. That's just a state of being. I don't even have the power to block you. I am just warning you that your behaviour is likely to get you blocked if you continue it. #2) I believe you are violating Wikipedia's rules against sockpuppet accounts. Your additions (or rather the additions by your sockpuppet) were reverted twice because editors that have called into question the reliability and verifiability of the information that you added. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research and self-published personal websites should not be used by editors as a source for articles. Using a sockpuppet account to avoid the rule against 3 reverts is not appropriate. Continued use of sockpuppetry to artifically create consensus for your point of view may get you blocked. Vivaldi (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That which is not true is not true, and if this being the case it should be stated so! I made my first edits while not being a registered user. Fact: Editing on Wiki was a totally new phenomena to me. I registered and continued editing. I was just getting acquainted with Wiki. I was hardly aware of the 24 hour rule. It was user Antaeus Feldspar that made me aware of it on my talkpage. I did not even know what was meant with sockpuppets on the Wiki, I found out. Fact: There are no edits from 87.227.20.229 after I registered. Fact: There are also no edits found from user Olberon prior to the edits of 87.227.20.229. There will not be any future edits from 87.227.20.229 either! Fact: I have no sockpuppet account, never had one and I will never have one either! So quit insinuating! Newcomers are not supposed to be treated like this! Is my story not as it will go for most people who are new to this Wiki editing? Are we totally clear on this now? --Olberon 22:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

GO Hatpack reference data is highly controversial!

Conflicting information has been found.

The Holysmoke site says:

"The GO hatpack of 1974 starrates 1 March 1965. The original fair game law."

Date appears correct. Although by December it had been replaced by HCO PL 23 Dec 65 Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law. Quite unlikely if the 1 March 1965 would appear on a checksheet of 1974. Was there a checksheet included in this hatpack?

Wikipedia notes:

"Included there for study was the original 7 Mar 1965 HCOPL, "Fair Game." This HCOPL was marked "starrated," ... "

This one does not exist! As HCO PL 1 March 1965 was misdated (noted on the 23 December 1965 reissue), it may have been 'corrected' into 7 March 1965. Although it was then supposed to be 7 March 1965 Issue I. A copy of HCO PL 1 March 1965 is found in "Scientology Basic Staff Hat Book, Number 1", it does not say 7 March 1965 or even 7 March 1965 Issue I.

We also actually have HCO PL 17 March 65 Issue II Fair Game Law - Organizational Suppressive Acts - The Source of the Fair Game Law. Although it seems clear that referral on the Wikipedia is the later 23 December 1965 HCO PL.

In any event, the information found on the Wikipedia about this pack appears quite incorrect!

Well, the G.O. doesn't exist. The orders and 'hat pacs' which the G.O. created dont' have force. The personnal which made up the G.O. have moved on in various ways, some of exited the Church. Does the G.O. hat pac of years ago have any relevance? It doesn't have relevance to the Church's action today. Terryeo 19:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that the whole paragraph gets deleted! Is there any objection to this? --Olberon 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Michel Snoeck and his website are not a reputable and reliable source

I do not believe that information that is currently sourced solely from the personal website of Michel Snoeck meets the Wikipedia Policy requirements of verifiability or the guidelines of Wikipedia in regards to reliable sources. I would request that any information currently sourced to this person to be sourced to a properly published, reliable, and reputable source that meets the requirements of WP:V. (Wikipedia also has policies against original research, which I believe are also being violated in this instance, but I would prefer to concentrate my arguments on the former claims). Vivaldi (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Several personal websites appear in the "references" portion of the article. Stephen Kent's [6] which is presently the last one listed is a personal site. That site is one page long and gives his personal contact information at its bottom. Thanks to certain editors who are active in these Scientology articles, WP:RS (reliable sources) now makes specific statements about using such references and defines better how we may know a website is a personal website and should not be used as a secondary source of information, contributing to an article.Terryeo 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that Dr Stephen Kent's site clearly falls within the exceptions listed: a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. That document was prepared for Dennis Erlich's court case, and I believe it was submitted to the court under penalty of perjury. As for the site being one page long, that must be a very large page. AndroidCat 06:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks to certain editors who are active in these Scientology articles, WP:RS (reliable sources) now makes specific statements about using such references and defines better how we may know a website is a personal website and should not be used as a secondary source of information, contributing to an article.", writes Terryeo. My response: I don't see anywhere on the page at WP:RS that gives a clear definition of a "personal website". Nor do I see any changes that were made specifically because people were editing Scientology related articles. I am questioning the use of Michel Snoeck's personal website, apparently by himself, as a source for claims that he is making in his edits here. I don't care if his edits are "True" or "False", only that they meet the requirements of WP:V. Vivaldi (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is actually very strange. I see in fact a whole bunch of referencing to personal websites of persons. To Gerry Armstrong (gerryarmstong.org), Andreas Heldal-Lund (xenu.net), Arnie Lerma (lermanet.com). Please explain why these are allowed, but not this Michel Snoeck's personal web? Is it because there is a personal interest here? It seems though that Vivaldi does care about if my (Olberons) edits are "True" or "False". For these that I made I don't even have to link to the Michel Snoeck website. I provided for a variety of verified published referencing for the edits made, it doesn't matter really, they get removed/reverted anyway! And for what reason do the 3 earlier mentioned personal site links qualify for the Wikipedia Policy requirements but the Michel Snoeck website does not? Will Vivaldi please clarify himself? --Olberon 16:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that "Vivaldi doesn't care if your edits are true or false", It is that, WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE IF YOUR EDITS ARE TRUE OR FALSE. It is the policy of Wikipedia. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not Truth, but verifiability. Please read the official policy that I have linked at verifiability. If there are other instances where editors are indeed quoting the words of Armstrong, or Heldal-Lund, or Lerma, that only appear on their own personal webpages, then I would suggest that those statements also might need to be removed. If you specifically point out which statements you are referring to that are only sourced to those people, then I would be happy to discuss them with you and I will argue for their deletion from Wikipedia as well. And you must also realize, that you don't own the articles. Even if a limited exception is made to a guideline (which is allowed), doesn't mean that editors must grant that same exception to every editor that would like it. We edit through a process of consensus and discussion on talk pages.

There is a huge difference between 1) providing a convenience link or courtesy link to material that is not disputed to be an exact copy of an easily available original document, and 2) providing your own personal commentary and purported copy of a controversial document that is not readily available at the library. Vivaldi (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again my additions are verified by official publications. I just put out 2 new chapters on this talk page, which various times were reverted when I implemented them in the actual article. Various referencing to personal sites can be removed, they can stay if they go to specific court outprints or such, strictly objective data. If they discuss opinions and such they should be moved to the external links section somewhere at the bottom of the page. They should not appear as a reference. --Olberon 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

HCO PL 21 July 1968 Penalties for Lower Conditions

This is the policy letter that is cancelling and replacing HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV Penalties for Lower Conditions

I had implemented the existence of this reference in section Cancellation and controversy:

Hubbard's "Fair Game" policy soon gained notoriety in the British press, and even received mention in Parliament. As a result, Hubbard reissued HCOPL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions as HCOPL 21 July 68, Penalties for Lower Conditions. . It redefined the condition of Enemy into: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org."

In October that year was also issued HCOPL 21 Oct 68 Cancellation of Fair Game that said: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." (HCO PL 21 Oct 68, Cancellation of Fair Game)

References

Is anyone objecting to having this there? And if so, for what reason? It's existence is positively verified in the HCO PL Subject Index as cancelling and replacing the 1967 issue of the same title. The text of the issue is found at a variety of places on the Internet. --Olberon 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this one reference works as a source for everything in that paragraph and I'm not clear what exactly you suggest this reference does support. Does this one HCO PL verify that "Fair game received notoriety in the British Press?" Does this one HCO PL verify that Fair game received mention in Parliament? Does this one HCO PL verify that it was "a result" of this notoriety in the press and the mention in Parliament that "Hubbard released" the HCO PL? Why don't you provide an exact quote from HCO Policy Letter Subject Index that makes it clear that Hubbard was reissuing or changing previous materials with the release of HCOPL 21 July 68? Are there any reputable and reliable sources that have been published that have come to the same conclusion and interpretation of the materials as you? If so, I would encourage you to also provide a source for that. Vivaldi (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That reference is sufficient for confirming that HCOPL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions was cancelled and replaced as early as July 1968. Are you querying that?

It is also found in the Foster Report, a copy of which amongst other can be found here http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html Search for "21 July" on that page. --Olberon 17:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the confusion in section "The "Fair Game Law," 1965" about HCO PL 1 March 1965 Suppressive Acts etc.

I had rewritten the whole section The "Fair Game Law," 1965. I found duplicate text and various other that did not align. For instance it does not relate that there was a 1974 OEC series which reprints were identical, in 1991 it was completely revised reprinted and updated. It also seriousl confuses the dates of this original HCO PL 1 March 1965 to 7 March etc.

I rewrote it as:

The expression Fair Game Law was introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCO PL) first issued in early March 1965.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1965 ETHICS - SUPPRESSIVE ACTS - SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS - THE FAIR GAME LAW  :

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress

or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology

or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

...

A Suppressive Person or Group becomes "fair game".

By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and

disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist.

....

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in

attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any

protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.

Later in December of that year it was reissued as:

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965 (Replaces HCO Policy Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1 March 1965)

This 23 December HCOPL is about identical to the 1 March 1965 release. The earlier quotations remain fully intact. This HCOPL is found reprinted in the Organizational Executive Course volumes (often referred to as OECs). These are an official Scientology collection of HCOPLs, the "PTS-SP" course materials, references for the GO agent training packs, etc.

HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions, extends the policy:

ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

References

Is anyone objecting to having it there? If so, for what reason? --Olberon 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to your changing or deleting of material that you feel "doesn't align". If data "doesn't align", it is not the job of an editor to decide which data is correct and which is not correct. If various reputable and reliable sources state different things about the same subject, then we can report both versions of the story. e.g. "Bill says in his book ABC, that DEF was GEH, however John says in his book IJK, that DEF was LMNOP".

If there are discrepencies and differing points of view about the dates and/or contents of various HCOPLs then those discrepencies don't need Olberon to decide which is correct by deciding which sources are "official" and which sources are not official. Vivaldi (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You talk in obscurities. You are supposed to be specific. You tell stories about that Olberon decides which are official. If something is published, that's it. This data is directly taken from these publications. Are you querying these printed publications? --Olberon 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like too cool off this confrontation. I've explained how a HCO Policy Letter cancels earlier Policy letters.Terryeo 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is completely appropriate to quote and cite. It is not necessary that you have in your possession, the document which another editor quotes and cites. This issue of "availability of a cited source" has been well discussed on the discussion page of WP:CITE. If information is published and sold to the public, it is within Wikipedia's right to quote and cite the information within it, within the context of "Fair Use" which would mean a sentence or two, sometimes a paragraph or two. Let me explain something to you Vivaldi. The Church's manner of Policy has a specific, consistant, stable use. A policy is issued, most of them were issued by Hubbard. After it is issued, it might be revised. If a policy is revised then its title changes slightly so that its title includes the information of it having been revised. Let me give you an example. HCOPL 16 NOV 78 becomes HCOPL 16 NOV 78R, the "R" is included as part of the title of the policy. Further revisions would add another "R" for each revision, but it is unwieldly to do so. Therefore, a coding is used. A second revision of HCOPL 16 NOV 78 is titled, HCOPL 16 NOV 78RA, if there were a third, it would become HCOPL 16 NOV 78RB, and so on. Thus, when observing or stating the title of a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, the revision is immediately apparent. It is part of the title. When a revision has happened, it cancels all previous policy letters of that title, of that date. If you are talking about HCO PL 16 NOV 78R, then any information which exists on HCO PL 16 NOV 78 has been cancelled. Utterly, totally cancelled and doesn't exist and can't be used. In some instances, HCO Policy Letters are simply cancelled. Period. They are removed from the Policy of the Church. Period. No revision, no apology but simply removed. This is a fairly rare event as far as I know. There are hundreds of policies which address many issues. The whole series is sold as a set and probably every Church of Scientology (or even mission) has at least one copy. The whole stack of them plus the administration dictionary are large volumes, altogether maybe 2.5 or 3 feet of shelf space. I hope this clarifies. If you like I'll expand on how the idea of "Issue I", Issue II", and so on apply, but that does not apply in any way whatsoever to revision and revisions.Terryeo 07:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

HCO PL 5 March 65 Issue II, Policy: Source of says: "HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters." This implies that if some data has been superseded by a later policy letter that this data is cancelled. --Olberon 09:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Who to Contact if you are harrassed by Scientology"

Although I sympathize with User:Stupid fool for the spirit of his edit, it is a blatant POV violation to address the matter in this way. Bringing the Domestic Terrorism Task Force (which does not mention Scientology specifically) into it is also WP:OR. Giving the FBI's e-mail address and suggesting Wikipedia readers contact them regarding Scientology is also an extreme no-no! wikipediatrix 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by harrashment? Specifics should be given, so that we all know what this is about. I've adjusted the title of this entry as Scientology is not the Church (or the people involved with it). Things should be addressed for what they are, as to not confuse people. --Olberon 16:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is improper to change talk-page statements (especially direct quotes) made by other editors, regardless of whether they are factual or not. The title of this thread is a direct quote of the title of the subheader that I removed from this article. That's why it has quotation marks around it, you see: it's a quotation. And if you really want to know "what this is about", I presume you know how to go to the previous edits of the article and look. wikipediatrix 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I note hereby that the issue is not addressed properly --Olberon 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A personal opinion as secondary source

The third paragraph presently begins: "In 1968, Hubbard declared the term "fair game" would no longer be used (in Hubbard's own words, "it causes bad public relations" [7])." Unfortunately that link points to a page of essay and personal opinion and on a personal website. That web page, in essay style, presents several pieces of document. It states personal opinion freely, "In my opinion this clearly shows ..." and is therefore useable only as an exterior link. WP:RS says personal opinions on personal websites can not be used as that link is being used which is as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 23:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct! The same issue has been raised in article Suppressive Person. See especially discussion #26 'Clambake problem restated' and also discussion #17. Finally it was concluded that it could not serve as a reference source and was removed from that article. For which reason it can not be allowed here either. The link http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html appears twice in the article as reference source. The same applies to the link to http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html which is also used as a reference source. This is also going to a personal opinion probably from Gerry Armstrong. Lastly I also removed the link to the site http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history.html. Although this site seems to keep a neutral approach still it is not suitable as a reference source. These links to these site locations are already represented as external links at the bottom of the page. --Olberon 14:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, if I could make a suggestion, based on the discussion at Suppressive Person, it seems like there isn't much dispute as to the contents of the '68 Hubbard letter (or, presumably, the Court pleadings produced in the Armstrong litigation). If you could offer some sources that you find acceptable, that may avoid future edit wars. Thanks, TheronJ 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. The Church first issued a "fair game" policy and then issued a "cancellation" of it. The cancellation of fair game, apparently, is not accepted ? Editors who have not studied the policy letters continue to argue that the policy which actually cancells fair game is of less importance than the policy which created fair game. 65.147.74.48 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The practice of "Fair Game" wasn't ever cancelled. Only the use of the words "Fair Game" to refer to the practice of harming SPs. The policy letter says that nothing else is to change in the treatment of SPs -- they just didn't want people to call the practice Fair Game anymore. And of course, there was continued practice of Fair Game against a number of critics, well after the "cancellation letter". This was confirmed much later in court proceedings, in which CoS attempted to argue that Fair Game was a religious practice. Vivaldi (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. You ignore HCO PL 21 July 1968. --Olberon 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously failed to even take notice of the 1994 verdict 62.231.141.214

This should not turn into an edit war, as this 'war' has already been fought at the discussion pages at Suppressive person. I just duplicate here that was adjudicated there. --Olberon 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi is overflooding the article with excessive referencing.

Since I removed improper linking to various personal websites user Vivaldi added excessive linking to support his personal opinion: "The practice of "Fair Game" wasn't ever cancelled. Only the use of the words "Fair Game" to refer to the practice of harming SPs. The policy letter says that nothing else is to change in the treatment of SPs -- they just didn't want people to call the practice Fair Game anymore. etc." (see previous discussion)

I think that the added [3][4][5][6][7] can be combined into one, or we surely do not need 5 of them. The external linking area is also quite out of balance now as Vivaldi added a variety of links to critical views.

It is also highly improper to use [2] that goes to the reference source description: "2. ^ L. Ron Hubbard "HCO Policy Letter (HCOPL) of 21 October 1968". When you click on the link provided it goes to http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html. This VERY link had been adjudicated being an improper source reference! It appears 2 times in the article.

I have reverted his editing and he is gently requested to first forward his wishes on this discussion page. If any problems may arise and this turns in some kind of edit war I will contact administrator ChrisO and ask for his advice in this matter. A concensus has to be found for this article. And the concensus is not to just overflood the article with linking to negative information and reintroduce the linking to improper source referencing as http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html. Changes should be discussed here first. --Olberon 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, I don't know of any policy forbidding "excessive referencing." Maybe instead of a revert, you could try a compromise that meets Vivaldi's and your concerns? (I think trying to balance the endnotes, however, is likely to be pointless - IMHO, if the article fairly describes the debate, the endnotes are a fairly minor issue). TheronJ 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This issue is controversial. This means that a middle road has to be found. Excessing referencing and external links to critical sources and various is defying the neutral aproach. These articles on Wiki are to clarify matters, not to overthrow people with excessive referencing to negative and critical information. --Olberon 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"This issue is controversial. This means that a middle road has to be found." That is incorrect. The existence of controversy does not necessitate equal time (the "middle road"). See WP:NPOV. --Davidstrauss 11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i.e. stuff that disagrees with your opinion and point of view. AndroidCat 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you make the accusation, then be sure that you can provide the substance. What did I do that indicate POV? We know already the POV from Vivaldi. Are you agreeing to what Vivaldi did? --Olberon 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have urged user Vivaldi to use the discussion page for these extensive reference edits:

20:03, 5 June 2006 Olberon (rv Vivaldi, this is out of control, use the discussion page first, see discussion #22!)

He however continues to implement without much discussion. He just says:

05:56, 6 June 2006 Vivaldi (Please do not remove verifiable sources. Convenience links are acceptable.)

But I forwarded already to him that http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html is an improper reference source, he reintroduces it 2 times! I don't see that this goes anywhere and I have requested intervention. --Olberon 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "excessive referencing" is really an issue - I'm hardly one to complain about it since I added more than 100 references to Dianetics! But I do think that we shouldn't be referencing that xenu.net essay. It's a presumably self-published personal essay by an unidentified author and as such it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria set out in WP:RS. It might be worth including as an external link (e.g. "Xenu.net on the Fair Game policy"), but certainly not as a reference. -- ChrisO 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At present it does not really look very orderly. The Xenu.net link is already represented in the external link section. I exchanged the Xenu.net source referencing to the 'Foster Report' which contains a full copy of the quoted policy letter.

I think that [3][4][5][6][7] also can be combined, it doesn't need 5 entries. In addition they refer to similar sources (television/radio programs).

The external links section should be divided in sections so that it becomes clear which position these sites linked to have taken. Something like was done for the article Scientology. Is anyone objecting to these proposals? --Olberon 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So instead of immediately looking at the document (on linked page at xenu.net) readers will have to dig through huge Foster report (which is outdated, and mostly not on the topic). And all just to make it "look very orderly"? Futurix 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is located near the top of chapter 7 of the report, which I have linked to. Your "(which is outdated, and mostly not on the topic)" is entirely irrelevant. --Olberon 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but it is relevant. Foster report is outdated: it states that FG was cancelled - and that was refuted later. It seems that you are trying to plug the report wherever possible - just to give reader false impression that FG is no more... Futurix 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You violate "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wiki is not about persistently pushing your POV. --Olberon 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not violate anything - if something is verifiable, it does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Especially if there is verifiable evidence to the contrary.

For Olberon

Since Olberon goes apopletic when people don't spell everything out about their edits in great novel-length detail to suit him, here goes: I reverted Olberon's removal of Vivaldi's superior edit for the same reasons that Vivaldi put it there in the first place, and for the same reasons that AndroidCat reverted to it. I have nothing else to say, and will not be drawn into time-wasting arguments about it. Either the consensus of editors will support it or they won't. Thank you and have a nice day. wikipediatrix 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He-he. Futurix 21:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is overflooding the article and turning it into a mess. In addition it reintroduces http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html as a reference source, it does it 2 times. You were unable to enforce your 'concensus' in article Suppressive Person, see #25 and now you start all over again here. --Olberon 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How strange... from what I can see on Talk:Suppressive Person concensus was mostly maintained. Futurix 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we on the same planet? The xenu.net and the fairgamed.org link were found being improper reference sources. Fair Game was only officially in use as such during 1965-68. The article was adjusted accordingly by user BTfromLA and administrator ChrisO. You lost on all fronts. But here again you and Wikipediatrix want to push the xenu.net link, again! I've send a message to ChrisO about the both of you being obstinate. --Olberon 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far I was only on one planet. What about you?

Anyway, were found is incorrect term, some users think that such links are improper - and many users think that links are in fact proper.

Also, the whole dispute is only about the "verifiability" of the websites - it is not about whether or not FG was cancelled. Do not mix the issues (and it was proven in court that FG still in effect).

And finally, "obstinate"? What kind of word is that? Are we in school? Will ChrisO birch me? Futurix 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You violate: Personal websites as secondary sources. It is not about what 'many' users think (who are they anyway?), it is not allowed if it violates Wiki rules, period! This was settled on the Suppressive Person discussion pages. Nothing was proven in court, leave your personal convictions and POV out of it! --Olberon 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Surprise for you: WP:RS is only a guideline, not a rule - and this means that it is up to editors (consensus of editors) to decide.

As for your constant POV allegations of anything you don't agree with - well... no comment.

And, it was proven in court.

Futurix 09:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you query that quideline then you do that in the the RS article, not here. The concensus has been laid down in the RS article.

First you accuse me of POV (incorrectly) and then you go rigth ahead pushing your POV. --Olberon 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no concensus in the RS article. There were some actions there, and many editors still do not agree with them.

And of course you think that you don't have POV, that was exactly my point. As for me - court findings are not POV.

Futurix 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposal regarding the Hubbard letters

Sorry for being slow to grasp the whole dispute; I'm sure I haven't got it all yet. Still, let me try another version of my compromise proposal.

As I understand it, Olberon objects to citing Clambake for the Hubbard letters because they're surrounded by personal essay materials; some of the other editors object to citing "The Foster Report" for various reasons. Here's my proposal.

1. Both Clambake and "The Foster Report" can be cited at the bottom of the page. The Clambake cite to Messiah or Madman is also uncontroversial, because it's an apparently accurate reproduction of an existing published work.
2. Instead of Clambake or the Foster Report, when discussing the Hubbard letters re: "Fair Game" policy, let's use the following two links, which appear to be accurate scans of the letters, without surrounding discussion.[8], [9].

Thoughts? Thanks,TheronJ 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! Totally agreed - it seems to be a good compromise (and probably it makes sense to change links to these scans in other articles too - particularly "SP"). Futurix 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Independent studies

This Freddie says he is a Scientologist. Alright. Futurix may explain however why he finds that http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history.html is the site of a Scientologist? This site contains a whole bunch of very criticial information about Scientology. Have you even looked at that site and see what it says? The holder of that site doesn't say anywhere that he or she is a Scientologist. Evidently this person knows a great deal about the subject and talks about things in great detail. At least this person must have been involved once. This page makes the claim that the holder of this site is not in 'bad' standing, but that is all it says. Is it correct to attribute this site (just like that) as being from a Scientologist? I don't think you actually can. I think it is obvious that the holder of this site will never get the approval of the Church to have all that out there.

It was my idea to dedicate this section (Independent studies) to those who one way or the other made some kind of study of the subject, which not evidently fall into the category of being controlled by or are originating from either the known 'critics' or the 'Church of Scientology'. These studies may be official or they may not, doesn't really matter. And they may be Scientologists or they may not. Are they any objections or suggestions? --Olberon 15:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Check this - he's clearly scientologist (also 2003 version of the same page). And yes, I object on calling "Freddie" or Michel Snoeck independent. Futurix 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Who decides if a site is critical or independent? And since you say that http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel contains much critical information, why shouldn't it be lumped in with the rest? (That site certainly isn't independent of Olberon.) AndroidCat 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not about being critical or in favour, it is about being separate from the main stream as such known 'critics' such as Lerma, Armstrong, Andread Heldal-Lund etc, but also separated from what is controlled or dictated by the 'Church of Scientology or it's representatives'. You last notice (parenthesis) is your assumption, you don't know who I am. --Olberon 06:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually William C. Barwell is critic of Scientology - check this page. So none of the links suitable... Futurix 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. He does not represent Lerma or such, Barwell did his own compilation and it is his research. If he may be a critic or not. --Olberon 06:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the critics do not represent anyone, except themselves. However when there is separate entry for "critical sites" it makes no sense to put some into additional section. Futurix 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Barwell have a website of his own loaded with critical information like the sites mentioned in the 'Critical sites' section at External links? I didn't think so. --Olberon 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

16:38, 7 June 2006 Futurix (rv: restored (see evidence in discussion))

Where is your evidence? Futurix. You have not addressed the issue that I forwarded in my first entry in this discussion!!! --Olberon 06:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've proven that two of the links you've provided belong to scientologists, and the other one to critic of CoS. Thus all three are not neutral and independent. Futurix 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not duplicate that what I wrote! Start duplicating! In addition you have not shown positively that the 'algonet' site would be a Scientologist, in fact you have totally ignored it! --Olberon 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And linking to Foster report again? For the second time on this page? Futurix 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A reference source (directing to a specific section of the report is not the same as an external link that gives access to the complete report. Don't make an issue here about pushing your POV that opposes to the data found in the 'Foster Report'. It is a valid, published and official report, live with it! --Olberon 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That report was valid when it was written - not anymore (and you know it). In any case while I removed duplicate external link, I also added link to Wikipedia article on this report.

And while we are on topic of Foster report - why don't you expand article about it? Instead of expecting reader to crawl through large official document you can summarize it, quote where necessary and then provide convenient link from Fair_Game_(Scientology) article to the relevant section at Foster_Report article. Futurix 09:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You push your POV, which is basically all it is. Actually you admit here that it was valid when it was written, that is in 1971. meaning you admit Fair Game was cancelled as per policy. Thank you. What you are missing is a policy that reinstates it, and you haven't shown one. --Olberon 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not admit anything, stop playing your linguistic games. My mistake, valid is not correct term here. Obviously author of the report thought that it is valid at the time of publication (but it was refuted later). Futurix 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You push your POV. There is quite some information at hand that opposes you. Enough of this. --Olberon 06:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, seing that Scientology itself admitted to Fair Play having been in effect after the Foster raport was published certainly shows your continously repeated point to be absolutely groundless.. How many times have people pointed you to the 1994 case? Have you perhaps tried reading it?62.231.141.214

A fresh version

I've made some very major changes to this article. You'll note that I've removed a fairly large section, "Examples of Fair Game". I think we have to be careful here - while it's certainly a good example of the CoS harassing its critics, we don't have explicit connections between Fair Game and the cases in question. If we need to discuss prominent harassment cases, I think that would be better done in a separate article. Hopefully the rest of the changes are self-explanatory - if anyone has any questions, please post them here and I'll do my best to answer them. -- ChrisO 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Fair Game was brought up in the Bonnie Woods and Casey Hill cases. As soon I found exact references, I was planning on shifting them to Court Cases involving Fair Game. Note that I had a reference that, as of 1985 with Casey Hill (not a critic), CoS was still using "Condition of Enemy". I think that those examples are important to show that the actions of Fair Game continue rather than getting hung up in minutia about the wording and dates of questionable policy issues. I added those examples specifically because they have closure (a settlement/apology and a judgement by the Supreme Court of Canada) and aren't the impossible tangle that trying to include something like Fair Game against Keith Henson would be. Yet another article could be created, but we already have too many covering the same ground like Scientology and the legal system, Suppressive Person (which has the same arguments over references going on in parallel), and the bits in the main articles. AndroidCat 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Game and Henson

I noticed that Ombudsman has been trying to include the Henson case in this article. We shouldn't do this, regardless of our personal opinions on the matter. The reason I don't want to include it is that the other cases specifically involved CoS representatives or ex-staff members testifying in court on the subject of Fair Game. This didn't happen in Henson's case. Henson and his supporters may have asserted it, but nobody on the CoS side has admitted it. It's original research to assert that any particular case is an example of Fair Game in the absence of supporting evidence, and Wikipedia policy prohibits the inclusion of original research in an article (see Wikipedia:Attribution). -- ChrisO 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

problems with article

1. The intro paragraph is laid out in a very POV manner, like a prosecuting attorney making his opening remarks. Regardless of how it's laid out, it's not sourced, and since is this a very contested matter, it should be pinned down as much as possible. 2. Second paragraph has only the ref-tag for the Wollersheim court case as its source tacked on the end, but this paragraph contains statements that I dispute are in that document. 3. The sentence "There have been frequent allegations..." is total WP:WEASEL and POV-pushing. 4. The sentence "By the time "Fair Game" was established, therefore..." is OR, synthesis, and POV. 5. Many statements are made in the first two paragraphs of the "Fair Game Law" section that are not reflected in the sources given. 6. The sentence "it is clear from Hubbard's own writings..." is obvious POV-pushing.

There's lots more, but I think that's enough for starters. Thoughts, questions, comments? Anyone? wikipediatrix 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks later and no response, so I assume no one cares if I take the pinking shears to the problems stated above, then. wikipediatrix 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

useless personal links

I removed more POV-pushing external links to amateurish personal homepages, as per WP:EL. Fairgamed.org is so unprofessional it's practically a rant blog, suppresiveperson.org is simply a vehicle for Gerry Armstrong to talk about Gerry Armstrong, and the xenu.net link was just a hateful screed with jabbering like "In my opinion this clearly shows organized criminal activity" and " If you manage to see through their stupid personal attacks" and "I say it is about time we put down our foot and said: STOP!", etc. We can't give space to every voice on the net who wants to rant about Scientology in such a childish and misspelling-laden way. wikipediatrix 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Game mentioned in PTS/SP course through 1980s

I notice that the current incarnation of this article makes no mention of the Fair Game references that appeared in the PTS/SP Course: How to Confront and Shatter Suppression manual until the late 1980s. Is there a reason for this? This info would seem to lend itself to the counterpoint section of the "Cancellation" paragraph. Xenu.net references the exact wording and manual page number on its Fair Game page, so shouldn't that info be added here? The Lizard 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find many references on the net for this quote from xenu.net at all; this is the google search page; it seems the quote is really only on xenu.net. On the other hand, I found a page doubting the veracity of the claim that this was in a 1989 edition. There was also a protracted discussion about this here on alt-religion.scientology which casts reasonable doubt on my mind that the presentation on xenu.net may be incorrect.

The fact that xenu.net (like many other critics' sites) omits to mention the intervening July 1968 Policy Letter that cancelled the Policy Letter they all quote ("May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed") somewhat impairs my confidence in xenu.net et al. being reliable sources. The July 1968 policy letter, on the other hand, is in the Foster Report made for the UK government (see source in article) who would not have any reason to invent such a thing.

I can think of no good reason why xenu.net and others would choose to omit this in their presentation.

My feeling is it would be safer to stay with the present wording, which is more secure – we do say that retributions against critics did continue, and that is backed up by a neutral source (Melton) as well as the court records. Cheers, Jayen466 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure about the particular 1989 publication date of the PTS/SP Course manual mentioned by Xenu.net in that article, however I have personally seen the page in question in a 1986 edition of that exact manual, and it did contain the same wording, including mention of Fair Game, as stated on the Xenu page.

As for the issue of the 1968 "Cancellation" letter, there does seem to be information regarding it on Xenu.net as well as other sites, but my point was that Fair Game was still mentioned by name in a 1980s course manual regardless of what is stated in the 1968 letter. Xenu.net has already been approved as a source site, so I'm not sure that anything more is needed to add the PTS/SP manual excerpt to the article. I just wanted to double check with the more prolific editors as to why this info isn't presently included. The Lizard 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no mention whatsoever of the July 68 policy letter on http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html even though to my mind there clearly should be. Only the October 68 letter is mentioned. The July 68 one, which is actually the one that did supersede the '67 policy letter quoted at the top of the page, is not mentioned. Now, the wording of the July 68 letter still isn't exactly the milk of human kindness ("May be restrained or imprisoned ..." Why should the Church of Scientology be allowed to imprison any citizen??? Come again??) but it is significantly different. It did supersede the 67 Letter and would be mentioned in any serious academic treatment of this issue. xenu.net does not mention it, though I am sure the guy knows about it.

As for what is said in the 1986 manual, you have the advantage over me. But the poster on alt.religion.scientology was very insistent that it said something at the bottom of all of these pages in the 86 manual that mentioned Fair Game, something that had a bearing on the matter. His interlocutor on ARS never answered the question, even though he was asked several times. So, does it say anything there that has a bearing on this matter? Perhaps something to the effect that those texts are superseded?

Generally, with xenu.net, I could understand it if someone wanted to use it as a convenience link; but at the end of the day, it is a private website and as such not reputable – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:rs#Self-published_sources – especially since there is a wealth of published academic literature available on Scientology to draw on. Why bypass the academic literature and go to something like xenu.net? How is this different from going to some private UFO website? If there is any published literature available that discusses these mentions of fair game in the '86 or '89 manual, then fine, it can go in the article; but "I saw it in the 1986 manual" is OR. Sorry. Cheers, Jayen466 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• minor point, I believe that the "poster on alt.religion.scientology", Spacetraveler (also RoadRunner and likely Michel Snoeck and editor Olberon) was answered on at least one occasion but appeared to not acknowledge that in many later threads. (He does complain that Google's archive seems to be missing posts, which does happen frequently for various reasons, or it might have been about x-no-archive'd articles.) AndroidCat (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I did come across this post the other day, which sounds like the reply he got to his question was that it said "Copyright LR Hubbard" at the bottom of the page (!). Whereas what he was pointing to was the fact that at the end of each section mentioning fair game there was a cancellation notice. Which, if true, would make it misleading to mention this occurrence of the words Fair Game here without mentioning the cancellation notice as well. Hence it gives me the heebie-jeebies if we use Operation Clambake et al. as sources of encyclopaedic information. Call me old-fashioned. -- Jayen466 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point concerning the 21 July '68 Policy letter and while it still leaves open some debate as to whether it successfully canceled any actions or just inflammatory wording, I do agree that it should be included in any thorough Fair Game timeline, as seen here.

While Xenu.net's omission of this letter on their Fair Game page isn't reason to assume bad faith is at work in the issue of their PTS/SP manual claim, I realize that obviously more than my personal corroboration is needed to avoid getting into the realm of OR. I only bring up my own observation of the Fair Game term in the 1986 manual to underscore why I wasn't questioning the validity of Xenu.net's info in the first place. Of course, a nice scan of the actual PTS/SP manual page in question hosted on an impartial academic site would be ideal, but there seem to be forces actively working against that kind of thing unfortunately. My source search will continue...The Lizard 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the manual itself would qualify as a reliable source. If you can find a hard copy, I'd suggest quoting from it and giving the relevant page number, edition etc. to satisfy the verifiability requirements. -- ChrisO 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly NPOV is dead

Listen guys, clearly this "religion" is full of criminals, but do we have to have a whole section basically denouncing them because of an isolated incident (The R2-45 thing)? We don't have a section on Bloody Sunday in the article about the CoE. Keep your arguments on the streets and the chans, not in our beloved encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.55.229 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday wasn't ordered by the CoE. If the leader of a cult issues an order to murder people, then it is certainly "fair game" to include it in the article about that cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.6 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cancellation ref

"For example, Lord Justice Stephenson, in the judgement in Church of Scientology of California v. Department of Health and Social Security [1979]" Lord Justice Stephenson in a California case? I thought that lords went out of style in the US in the 1770s? AndroidCat (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Game or "Fair Game and related harassment"?

ChrisO has edited out some material which is about CoS harassment of opponents which doesn't have a proven specific connection to the Fair Game policy per se. I've deliberately added some such material. Where should such content go? There is clearly a large public interest in this organisation's attacks on its opponents over the years, including attempts to intimidate journalists, and an arguably narrower, more academic interest in the particular policy in Scientology that has been called Fair Game. Without a huge number of CoS internal documents leaking out, we're not going to be able to determine in every single case which policy drove a particular action by Cos. So what's the solution to having encyclopedic content about both these questions on WP? Separate pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused, it appears ChrisO (talk · contribs) has not edited this article since June 2007. Could you please give Diffs to the material removed so we can specifically discuss that? Cirt (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't referring to anything recent. I was referring to this (from above) "I've removed a fairly large section, "Examples of Fair Game". I think we have to be careful here - while it's certainly a good example of the CoS harassing its critics, we don't have explicit connections between Fair Game and the cases in question. If we need to discuss prominent harassment cases, I think that would be better done in a separate article. -- ChrisO 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" I can see the wisdom of this, but I can also see the value of documented harassment being included in an encyclopedia, whether it is provably connected to a particular policy document or not.MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is best to stick to either what is currently in the article re: the court cases and such, and also could include specific examples, if those examples have been cited/discussed as "fair game" in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What about harassment of Scientology opponents that is documented but not cited/discussed specifically as "fair game". I think it merits if anything more interest than fair game policy itself: where should it go?MartinPoulter (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If not documented as "fair game", then that is really just the assumption of whichever Wikipedia editor that adds that material that it is actually "fair game", which would be a violation of WP:NOR. As for where that should go, if those particular individuals harassed have their own articles, the info could go there, but not here, IMO. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New source - article in Pravda Online

• Korczak, Robert (June 5, 2008). "Is Church of Scientology 'fair game' policy alive and well?". Pravda Online. english.pravda.ru. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

An interesting piece. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maisonneuve Magazine

Livesey, Bruce (June 23, 2008). "Scientology's Holy War: Bruce Livesey Investigates How Former Inner-Sanctum Member Gerry Armstrong Became the Salman Rushdie of Scientology". Maisonneuve Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Good source for info to add to this article. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual issues

"Lord Justice By writs dated 23rd July, 6th August and 10th September 1974 the plaintiffs, the Church of Scientology of California, sued the defendants, the Department of Health and Social Security, George Godber and John Cashman, for damages for libel."? The case named names as plaintiff the "Church of Scientology of California," which suggests that this was a case in U.S. courts, although neither the principals nor the case is cited or linked. There is no "Lord Justice" anyone on any U.S. Court. What is up here? Altgeld (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology of California is indeed a U.S. entity, but I don't quite see why that "suggests" that any case they are involved in must be in a U.S. court. If the defendant was also a U.S. entity, then it would probably require explanation why they would be resolving a case in a non-U.S. court, but in this case the defendant appears to be a ministry of the British Government so it would be just as unusual if it was in a U.S. court as it is not in a U.S. court. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

At that point, Church of Scientology of California (CSC) was the official mother organisation for the whole of Scientology worldwide; a role later taken by Church of Scientology International (CSI). CSC brought the action in the UK courts, if Xenu.net is to be trusted. The reference given is "All England Law Reports (1979), vol. 3" MartinPoulter (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Critics para

Re the recent deletion/restoration and movement of the para mentioning the presentations by Operation Clambake and Atack, see [10]. Cheers, Jayen466 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving your discussion of the article contents back here to this talk page. There's no reason it should be only you and I discussing the article contents. Moved content below -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

Hi, re your re-placement of the critics para, it doesn't jell logically for me – the reader will just have read the wording of the July 1968 letter, so it begs the question why should the October 67 penalties still apply? From the Scientology internal logic, the July 68 penalties should apply, but not be referred to as "Fair Game". It is only when we come to Latey (whose quote I have inserted) that we have a good source for stating that the October 67 penalties with lying, destruction etc. are still being applied. The presentation by Atack and on OC is, unfortunately, deficient, because they don't mention the July 68 cancellation, which is well attested. Am watching this talk page, so you can reply here, or we can take it to the Fair Game talk page. Cheers, Jayen466 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a subclause to the sentence drawing attention to the fact that the original penalties referred to by OC and Atack were already cancelled at the time of the cancellation of the term Fair Game; pls review. Cheers, Jayen466 21:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the problem I have. Actually, my problem is two-fold. The first part of the problem is that the passage in question is written in much too complex a style. It's far too easy to misunderstand the very specific claim that it's trying to make and misread it as a different, less specific claim.

The second aspect is that when you realize that the passage intends to make a very specific claim, instead of the more general claim that is easy to misread in it, it's hard to see what possible good from the Wikipedia perspective is served by insisting on the more specific claim -- and frankly, the bad is all too easy to see.

The general claim is 'critics regard HCOPL 21 Oct 68 as having "cancelled" Fair Game in name only'.

The specific claim is 'critics regard HCOPL 21 Oct 68 as having cancelled the specific penalties of HCOPL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV in name only'.

The general claim is easily supported by the sources. By contrast, it is quite dubious whether the sources support the specific claim, since it equates roughly to "when critics talk about 'Fair Game', this is what they had in mind" and attempts to talk about what anyone "had in mind" beyond what is there on the page are nearly always original research.

The general claim is accurate in representing the critical POV, and presenting it as a reasonable POV which can be held by reasonable people. By contrast, the specific claim presents the critical POV as one that can only be held by neglecting specific evidence. In fact, as far as I can determine, the first time that the change was made from the accurate general claim to the dubious specific claim, the same editor in the same change specifically noted the existence of the evidence which Atack, et al. were allegedly neglecting.

Let's examine a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that the CCHR or some similar Scientology-related entity were to discover major wrongdoing in the Psychiatry department of some major metropolitan hospital. Suppose that they publicized a list of the hospital personnel whom they believed to bear responsibility for the wrongdoing. Suppose that there was an error in their list, that out of, say, twenty-five names, a single person turned out to have been wrongly named. Would it be fair for an editor to alter the description of the incident on Wikipedia from "Scientologists publicized the wrongdoing in the Psychiatry department of Mercy Memorial Hospital" to "Scientologists falsely accused Dr. Morgan Montgomery, who was not even in the country during that year, of wrongdoing"? No, I'm fairly sure that all editors would recognize that change from the reasonable, accurate general claim to an unreasonable, inaccurate specific claim as a straw man. In fact, we would recognize it as an inherently unfair way of skewing the debate, even though in our scenario the unreasonable, accurate specific claim is one that the party credited with it actually made. In our current real-life situation, where it has yet to be demonstrated that the specific claim is anything more than what someone has read into the words of the critics, the unfairness is even more clear.

I think that we should simply return to the general claim: critics regard HCOPL 21 Oct 68 as having cancelled Fair Game in name only. There is simply no need to damage the accuracy and the NPOVness of the article at the same time, to no benefit, by adding claims such as 'and by that they specifically meant the penalties of HCOPL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV, which of course meant they must be neglecting the evidence of HCOPL 21 July 68.' -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'm open to striking the paragraph altogether. Anyone can see that HCOPL 21 Oct 68 only cancels the use of the term Fair Game for its bad PR effect. There is no need for a critic to interpret it, the letter itself states, with the utmost clarity, that it "does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP". Alternatively, if we retain the paragraph, then we should retain the present wording, because this wording provides at least some justification for the paragraph's existence. Otherwise, it's superfluous and a mere repetition of what the letter already says. Jayen466 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cult

Under the "Operation Freakout" section Scientology is called a cult. While I do not agree with many practices they have, this description of the organixation does not seem neutral as Wikipedia aspires to be. I sudgest that this description be altered to be more neutral. The Clinger (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links for Copyvio reasons

I owe an explanation of why I deleted a bunch of links. These were courtesy links to online copies of paper references that I had put in. This was a mistake as per WP:COPYVIO, so I was removing them. This is not the same as removing refs: the refs still stand as refs to paper publications: it's courtesy links to unofficial online versions that need to be expunged.MartinPoulter (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you were doing now, but it did look odd at 1st glance, are the online links copyvios (as in where you linking to) is the problem? --Nate1481 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

UK examples

Since this article is about "Fair game" rather than the Church's harassment of its opponents, I'm going to remove most of the UK stuff, except where it can be specifically related to named policies. This material is already present in the Scientology in the United Kingdom article. I think there's a case for a separate broader article, or at least a summary in Scientology controversies. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense; the article was actually too long and sprawling. I doubt many people read all the way through it. And we should make use of the scholarly literature; I can see no scholarly sources at all at the moment. --JN466 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref 17 (at the time of writing) to "Guardian Order, Confidential - Intelligence Course, 9 September 1974, p.18" sustains an OR argument; we should find a secondary source, or limit our argument to those arguments found in RS. Given the later court case where Scientologists sought to defend Fair Game as a religious practice, we don't need this unreferenced claim to get the point across that practices like Fair Game continued. --JN466 23:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Melton and Barrett (which were there before my recent changes) and I've added Urban, Edge, Kent in the Stout book, Lane & Kent, Greenawalt. Hopefully you weren't referring to the present version when you said can't see the scholarly sources.

Yes, there's still a lot of content based on primary sources. ChrisO (discussion above) has indicated his intention to add more secondary sources. I'm happy to give him a chance to do that. Agreed that that section in particular needs better referencing, but note that the "confidential" document is cited via its inclusion in a published (and presumably verifiable) court record. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had missed your adding those scholarly sources -- I am sorry. Thank you. As regards the confidential document, the information we give is moot if the Intelligence Course document also contains a reference to the July 21, 1968 Policy Letter cancelling the original Fair Game penalties.

As it is, we are strongly implying that the Intelligence Course document asked its readers to continue implementing the cancelled PL. That is a weighty claim for which I would like to see a secondary source. --JN466 10:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I realise that I was labouring under a misapprehension. What was listed in the Intelligence Course was the 1965 policy, and not (as I thought all along we were implying) the 1967 PL outlining the penalties. I have added this information to the text now, so it is clear to the reader as well. I don't have a problem with our saying this on the basis of the primary source. It is consistent with the wording of the Oct. 68 PL, which clearly says that only the term Fair Game is abandoned, but not the treatment of SPs defined in 1965. So the 1965 Fair Game Law remained in force throughout, but the 1967 penalties were cancelled and replaced by the 1968 penalties.

I also made some other small changes, like changing the year for the "tricked, sued ..." wording from 66 to 67, and added the PL dates and titles. --JN466 21:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff; please review my changes. --JN466 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I question having the HCOPLs as separate refs, as it might give the false impression that those passages were written from those primary docs rather than secondary sources. An ideal compromise seems to be to use "via" and also to spell out in full in the ref what HCOPL stands for. I'm happy to do this if you agree. Thanks for your improvements. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, provided the relevant HCOPL title/date is mentioned in the cited secondary source (haven't checked). And I agree it is a good idea to explain what HCOPL stands for. --JN466 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton's "The Church of Scientology"

Melton in the book "The Church of Scientology" (ISBN 1-56085-139-2) description of fair game policy and practice vastly differs from the current description in this article.

Melton describes Fair Game as a misinterpreted policy that outlined the treatment of detractors and specifically denies them of any recourse under the Scientology ethics system to redress any wrong doing done to them.

He argues that the policy was “misinterpreted to signify the church’s active persecution of such detractors, and the policy was cancelled as a result”

He also argues that "since the church abandoned the “fair game” policy” and disbanded the Guardians Office, the number of incidents… has almost disappeared.”

Also I want to outline that after carefully reading the article and its references the article as written vastly differs from its sourced materials. It seems that the wording of the article has been selected to magnify the controversy. Also some dubious references have been included like the John Atack book that was made by a Scientology detractor, Frank K. Flinn testimony in Church of Scientology of California and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Court of Appeal of the State of California

These dubious primary sources have been used by the authors of the current article to claim that “The policy remained in effect and has been defended by the Church of Scientology as a core religious practice.” When these totally contradict Urban's “the Fair Game principle was officially canceled during the reforms of 1968” and Streeter's “Hubbard forbade the use of the term within Scientology”. Not to mention Melton that describes Fair Game as a misinterpreted policy. Also I want to expose the way the term fair game has been twisted into meaning the current policies of Scientology instead of being described as an obsolete term. This clearly creates a total confusion of what is Fair Game and what are the current Scientology practices.

Also I want to decry that the sections “Court Cases” and “Fair Game in Practice” because they bring very little value to the article and it seems to me like an expose just to attack Scientology.

So my proposal changes are as follow:

1. Clearly define “Fair Game”.
2. Clearly present the term is not used in Scientology.
3. Clearly present that “the Fair Game principle was officially canceled during the reforms of 1968” (Urban).
4. Clearly present that the Church continues to use aggressive tactics (Urban) but this does not necessarily represent an example of Fair Game as originally defined and used. Also this needs to be balanced with Melton’s statement that “the number of incidents… has almost disappeared”
5. And that “critics say that the policy is still in effect”.(Streeter)

Also the sections “Court Cases” and “Fair Game in Practice” need to go because it does add no value to the article and makes the article look like a big critical piece. If you want you can create a controversy sections and put some examples of why “critics say that the policy is still in effect” but this should not take the bulk of the article. One paragraph or two should more than suffice.

I will wait for some consensus before I start making changes to the current article but Melton's statements will inevitably have to be included and this will change tone of the whole article. Bravehartbear (talk)

The sections on Court Cases and In Practice summarise some reliable sources, including scholarly sources, about the article's topic, and provide additional context which is relevant. They could be improved and some dubious sources removed, but removing the whole sections would look very much like vandalism. I can't speak for the admins, but I can't imagine them looking kindly on that.

Atack is not a primary source but a secondary source. There's consensus in the Talk archives of the Scientology article to clearly establish this.

Urban distinguishes the principle of fair game from the policy of fair game, and argues that while the policy was cancelled, the principle has continued in effect. Urban's papers are more recent than Melton and have been cited in other scholarly work.

The weight of reliable sources is that Fair Game was cancelled in name in 1968 but the principle continued since then. Relegating this to a "controversy" section would be misleading at best.

As for the controversy of whether the original policy was misinterpreted, this is covered in the article already.

By all means make improvements to the article, but it would not be a good idea to be as radical as you set out above.

MartinPoulter (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point that fair game was meant to remove any protection under the Scientology Ethics system that people might previously have enjoyed, in other words make them outlaws as far as Scientology's internal justice system was concerned, could be made more clearly. Melton may be a good source for that, and we should give Melton's view anyway per NPOV.

I agree with Martin that a global cut of the court case sections would be overkill. There are quite a few solid sources in that section. However I agree with Bravehartbear that material citeable to primary sources alone (i.e. otherwise unreferenced court documents) should go.

Source 46 is not up to scratch either; as far as I can tell [11][12], the book never appeared in English (so if we cite Voltz at all, then we should cite the German version, which appears to have the Aznaran affidavit on p. 176ff. [13])

At any rate, let us discuss things first and come to an agreement here on the talk page before doing anything drastic.

I propose we first of all try to agree on which sources need backing up with a secondary source or, failing that, deleting. I'll start a section to that end below. --JN466 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Streeter vs Melton

Streeter

“When this approached attracted bad publicity during the 1960s, Hubbard forbade the use of the term within Scientology.”

vs

Melton

“a short term policy known as fair game which pertained to the treatment of detractors, specifically the refusal to grant them any form of recourse to the ethics and justice codes of the church. This was misinterpreted to signify the church’s active persecution of such detractors, and the policy was cancelled as a result”

These are the two scholar references that pertain to the cancelation of the term “Fair Game”.

Note: Urban doesn’t mentions why the term/policy was cancelled, he just states it was: “Like the practice of "Sec Check," the Fair Game principle was officially canceled during the reforms of 1968.”

I’m bringing this up because the introduction leans totally towards Streeter and I consider that not NPOV. What I propose is to combine both references as follows:

The term was misinterpreted to signify the church’s active persecution of its enemies, as a result and after it attracted bad publicity the policy was cancelled in 1968”

Bravehartbear (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Original Research???

I’m questioning the following sentence as original research:

"The Church has retained an aggressive policy towards those it perceives as its enemies,[7][8] and argued as late as 1985 that retributive action against "enemies of Scientology" should be considered a Constitutionally-protected "core practice" of Scientology."

The reference is a court document!!! My point here is WHO interpreted this court document??? This is a court document of a court case that latest years and was appealed 4 times. The sentence in question alleges that the church “argued as late as 1985 that retributive action against "enemies of Scientology" should be considered a Constitutionally-protected "core practice" of Scientology.”

I don’t think that because an attorney uses a tactic to win a case and uses an argument that that argument becomes official church policy. Here again we are twisting the facts.

An attorney that represented the church in a case that lasted until 1985 argued that “Fair Game” should be considered a Constitutionally-protected "core practice", not the church.

But this is just my interpretation and that’s original research. So my question is who interpreted this court document???

Bravehartbear (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

This entire page article is almost entirely built on primary sources. Also legal documents like affidavits are primary sources. This entire article needs a clean up, badly. I will start looking by removing the primary sources. I would like some help getting some secondary sources.Bravehartbear (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that primary sources are not permitted - please see WP:PSTS. I agree that the article needs an overhaul, but stripping it of all the primary sources isn't a good place to start. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the previous version. There is no dispute that the sources are accurate, so it is inappropriate to replace them with {{fact}} tags. I'll have a go at overhauling the article to add more secondary sources and context. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see my mistake. Bravehartbear (talk)

What I'm concerned with is that many primary sources are being used to bring about conclusions outside of the scope of the secundary sources. This is a clear example of original research. But to delete all the original sources was a clear mistake. I will examine the primary sources to examine if they compliment the secondary sources and are not being used as a basis for original research conclusions. This must be done in a case by case basis.Bravehartbear (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Debatable sources

Below is an overview of sources that appear to be of debatable quality, measured against our sourcing standards. I would be grateful if editors could outline their views for each, or bring new sources to the table that put the article content on a more solid footing.

1

• [14] and [15] would be better off with a secondary source. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2

• [16] would be better off with a secondary source; and there is a completely unsourced paragraph following the sentence cited to that source. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Primary-sourced material retained, reformulated to purely descriptive terms, rest deleted. --JN466 11:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

3

• [17] would be better off with a secondary source. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sentence deleted (primary source hosted on non-RS website). --JN466 11:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

4

• [18] has a whole paragraph sourced to it. Is there any secondary source coverage? --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rewritten using secondary sources (LA Times). --JN466 12:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

5

• [19] Any secondary source back-up? --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

6

• [20] (testimony on xenu.net). Any secondary source back-up? --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

7

• [21][22]: gerryarmstrong.org is not a reliable source. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

8

• [23] needs secondary source backup. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

9

• (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29&oldid=333531501#cite_ref-43][24] Needs secondary source backup (unpublished testimony, court document). --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

10

• [25] Unpublished book on a critics' website. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears there is a German published version which satisfies RS. Content would need to be verified though. --JN466 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what book are you refering to? The link goes to note-45... Bravehartbear (talk)

גכגכ

?ח?> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.161.119 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fair game (Scientology)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*No images, 31 citations. Smee 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media

• Urban, Hugh B. (March 17, 2010). "The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media". Religion Dispatches. www.religiondispatches.org. Retrieved 2010-03-18.

Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Link seems to be broken. Try this one instead http://rwww.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/2358/the_rundown_truth%3A_scientology_changes_strategy_in_war_with_media_ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanneosl (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This one should work: http://religiondispatches.org/the-rundown-truth-scientology-changes-strategy-in-war-with-media/ --Arthur Pewtey jr. (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fair Game (Scientology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623224621/http://gawker.com/why-i-left-scientology-1703997050 to http://gawker.com/why-i-left-scientology-1703997050

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fair Game (Scientology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614180458/http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/sp_rules.html to http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/sp_rules.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/la-scientology062490%2C0%2C7104164%2Cfull.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050324093216/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_July_16/ai_18489022

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fair Game (Scientology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526065015/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/scientology_goo_2.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/scientology_goo_2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160619095343/http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/13/woman-drops-lawsuit-against-scientology.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/13/woman-drops-lawsuit-against-scientology.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626032650/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/scientologys_en.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/scientologys_en.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Plaigarism

"Maurice William Johnson was a Scientologist who resigned in June 1966 and successfully sued for his money back. He told a court that after leaving he had received over 100 abusive letters, many of them using violent language. An article in The Auditor, a Scientology publication, was produced to the court, stating outright that Johnson was "fair game" and describing him as "an enemy of mankind, the planets and all life."" -- This paragraph is lifted verbatim from page 63 of Expert Character Assassination by John Underwood. 2014. ISBN 1300622490, 9781300622499. WiiWillieWiki 00:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 00:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Fair Game (Scientology) → Fair game (Scientology) – This is not a proper name and should not be capitalized, e.g. per MOS:DOCTCAPS. Several cited sources (including publications of the CoS itself) do not capitalize the term. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Use lower-case per MOS:DOCTCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.