Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 1

DM

He goes by acronymns? Good gosh. Hey! DM! (sounds like a bowel movement) COB! (sounds like a logging head of staff out in the woods) How about defining a symbol when it is first used, guys? People might, sometimes be addressed by their job title but "goes by the acronymn" isn't accurate. Do you have someone in your life whom you acronymnize? Maybe a pet or something but c'mon, that's no way to write an encyclopedic sort of article. Terryeo 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He sure does. I put them in with definitions so you won't be baffled when you read it.--Fahrenheit451 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're talking ! Definitions allow understanding, cool, Fahrenheit451. As a point of information, have you witnessed Mr Miscaviage being acronymically addressed? Or did you read that somewhere? If you read it somewhere, wouldn't you like to point to the source of information so others can read it too?Terryeo 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you reread the acronym sentence, you will see that it is not used as a form of address, but rather as a reference between other parties.--Fahrenheit451 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Now the sentence states, "People refer to him as .." but it does not cite any source. It does not say, "The New York Times, in an article 29 Feb 77, "People talking about Miscaviage" states: John Smith, referring to Miscaviage, said "That COB might withdraw that darn policy!" Do you follow? No instance of anyone referring to Miscaviage by the acronymically concise phrase, DM or COB has been quoted, thus the information is not vaild. If the information to be presented is: "Miscaviage holds the positions which are abbreviated DM and COB", then that information should be presented. Else we are learning how to talk about Mr. Miscaviage when he is not present. Terryeo 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read essays where scientologists have refered to him as DM, although I've never met him or heard anyone call him DM to his face. If you knew anything about scientology you would know that acronymns are very common from the ARC triangle to someone being PTS by their association with an SP. Probably stemming from L. Ron Hubbard's short career in the military he was a fan of acronymns and used them heavily in his writing. In additon to acronymns he used other types of abbreviations, such as Com Lag for communication lag, specialized terms or alternate definitions of words that are uncommon in everyday speech. It should also be noted that use of specialized jargon is a way of helping members of an organization communicate effeciently with each other but may make such communication more difficult when a member is talking to a non member. Whether LRH, the acronymn used by nearly all scientologist to refer to him when talking to other scientologist, used this tactic as a way of isolating scientologists from outsiders must be something that is considered in one's whole view of the religion. Either way the way scientologist talk and commuincate with each other is markably different from the way the general English speaking public uses the language. The difference is so striking I was wondering why it wasn't a category on the scientology page and am considering adding it myself. In conclusion I would be shocked to find out that many scientologists did not</d> refer to David Miscavige as DM, simply because of their speech patterns.-- Bruinslacker 16:16 February 2006

There is an article about Scientology terminology. Feel free to improve it. (Entheta 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Re: Views concerning psychiatry

I remove from that piece of the article and post here those slyly stated original researches which were in the article. Wikipedia allows no conclusion from editors because it allows no original research. See: Wikipedia:NPOV. Additionally, whomever created that paragraph didn't realize that after a period you place two spaces. Here are the removed portions, feel free to cite them and we can put them back into the article then:

His faith's view of psychiatry has at times been a focus of interest just as the view of Christian Science on medicine is of interest to non-members of that faith.

That is not a verifiable datum but an introduction of another subject. If you wish to deliniate how Christian Science parallells Scientology you will have to use another venue than a biography to do it, it doesn't belong here.

Poor choice of words. Still you honestly think your faith's view of psychiatry isn't a subject of interest? In the article on Pope Benedict XVI I'm fairly certain there is some on his faith's view of birth control or homosexuality.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

faced unwanted attention on their beliefs concerning psychiatry because of the Lisa McPherson case

How do you know it was unwanted, what CoS quote says so?

I would assume facing a lawsuit is unwanted and I had quotes by him from an interview.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

. . but as a leading figure it is plausible to assume they effected his own life as a leading figure of the organization.

Your assumption is not encylopedic fact. Verify it, then post it.

It was verified with quoted by him. Look I don't deny I have biases on your faith, but what I added was the kind of stuff that would be in any bio of a religious leader. I'm Catholic, were you aware that there is an entire article on Criticism of Pope John Paul II? I'm really trying hard not to "pick on" your guy in anyway. I'm just putting in things he had to respond to and did respond to. I admit the Lisa McPherson case was maybe a low blow, so I'll not bring it back in, but some of the things I had sourced I put back. Before you remove them again I'd like you to talk about it.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Only thing I could object to about that was that I'd like sources that the Lisa lawsuite had any personal effects on his views on psychiatry, which sounds like speculation. (Entheta 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

copied source

This article appears to copy some text directly from the David Miscaige web page. Davidstrauss 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes, it does -- there's only one paragraph there that doesn't appear here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias

This SCREAMS for an NPOV dispute. "accidentally" exposed to Dianetics and all his allergies went away? I call bias.

I have tried to edit this some using sources it listed and my own research. I worry though I'm just countering the bias the original writer I had with my own. Still I think it is a bit more neutral now or in least mentions criticism. --T. Anthony 05:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting edits. I doubt this version could be seen as too biased for him. They might even be a tad too harsh or in least unverified. (And I think Scientology is basically nuts, but there is still a gossippy quality to the writing of new edits that slightly concerns me)--T. Anthony 06:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am changing the closing comment on this page, the reason being obvious supposition. The truth is Mr. Miscavige is very respected by both staff and parishioners. Of course, critics make him out to be some kind of ogre. But, as the leader of the Church, whether people agree with the Church or not, this kind of comment is not NPOV, so rather than making it pro-him (which I am sure someone will then accuse me of not being NPOV) I am just taking it out. --Nuview 11:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasons but agree with your conclusions. Saying "the truth is Mr. Miscavige is very respected by both staff and parishioners" runs into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy -- there are plenty of former Scientologists who saw Miscavige's actions as their proof that the Church no longer adhered to Scientology as Hubbard defined it and actually left the Church on that basis -- so saying that staff and parishioners respect Miscavige is like a business saying "All our customers are satisfied customers -- because those who weren't satisfied are no longer customers." But the comment that you removed tried to "jump in the jury box" inappropriately, so it's better removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problems

User:Runeartisem has uploaded an image of miscavige that infringes on a copyright and has twice put the image in the article. I have removed it for the second time. An admin needs to delete the image. --Fahrenheit451 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another editor has added an image of miscavige without copyright information. I am removing it until the ownership status is clarified.--Fahrenheit451 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

An editor just beat me to the removal.--Fahrenheit451 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn I selected "Screenshot" from the pulldown menu.... the image is a screenshot from the video of the RTC 2000 New Year's address, taken from www.verfassungsschutz-bw.de/ so/so_hubbard.htm . wikipediatrix 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is illogical: We were discussing copyright infringement, which you committed, then you attempt to change the subject to the "pulldown menu" nonsense excuse.--Fahrenheit451 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Wow, whatever happened to "no personal attacks" and "good faith"? Let me make it simpler for you, please follow along if you are able:
  • The image I posted was a screenshot from a German TV program's airing of footage from the RTC 2000 New Year's address.
  • I was under the impression that screenshots were not copyright violations. There are words to that effect on the Wikipedia upload-image page.
  • There is a pulldown menu from which one must select a type of image when uploading. As I already indicated, I could have sworn I selected "Screenshot" but apparently I did not. wikipediatrix 03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you saw exactly what you uploaded and as that differed from the alleged screenshot, you should have known it did not go as intended. I have assumed good faith and did not personally attack you. I censured you for uploading a copyrighted image when you should have known better.--Fahrenheit451 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. "you saw exactly what you uploaded and as that differed from the alleged screenshot"? What does this mean? Please translate for me. What I uploaded WAS the "alleged screenshot" of Miscavige at the podium. Using language like "your attempt to change the subject to the "pulldown menu" nonsense excuse" is COMPLETELY insulting, uncivil, and bad faith. And you STILL haven't explained what was wrong with the image. You say it's not fair use and I say it is. I'm citing Wikipedia's own upload-image page for my position, what are you citing for yours?wikipediatrix 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not apply the upload image policy: You omitted adding the licensing status of the image. After the image is uploaded, you see it. So you knew what it should have looked like. There is no evidence that the image you uploaded is fair use. It actually links from a scientology website that does have copyright notices on the pages. I suggest you take responsibility and knock off your attacks and justifications.--Fahrenheit451 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. What did I say that was an attack?? Quote me. And yes, I know I accidentally omitted the licensing status, I said that from the very beginning and you got all condescending and cranky about it, insisting that my answer was a "nonsense excuse" and that "I should have known better". Thanks for being SO constructive and helpful. wikipediatrix 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Referencing

This article needs hard-arsed referencing, on the paragraph and sentencing level. This will be actual work. Anyone want to have a go? - David Gerard 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

- Good point, David. I started to fact check this article. So much was unverifiable, it should actually be classified as original research. I decided it would just be easier to start from scratch. So, that’s what I did. There is plenty of material in places like the St. Petersburg Times. Check out the new, verified article. Have a Merry Xmas!

Unfortunately, this new, "from scratch" article contains a great deal of verbatim copying from its "references", which we cannot accept. Please try to work with what came before you, rather than deciding that you have the ability and the mandate to single-handedly replace it all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the quotes. (I’m just getting the hang of this.) Have removed same. I will see what can be salvaged from the prior version (it’s quite opinionated, but we’ll see) – Independentmike 16:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it back. The new version read like an Scientolgoy promotional brochure about DM (Entheta 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

I worry that this article has some factual holes – especially given the recent flurry. So I fixed an inaccuracy. RTC only owns trademarks. I noticed this in the Los Angeles Times article last weekend. (Streamlight 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, I fixed another one. Nuview 20:25, 25 December 2005 (PST)

No source was given for the statement regarding Coale and Van Susteren. Reputable sources, including the NY Times and St. Petersburg Times agree that Miscavige was the driving force behind the IRS recognition.Nuview 22:50, 25 December 2005 (PST)

They don't agree, they report what they have been fed by the osa public relations folks.--Fahrenheit451 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement was added 2 days ago, but editor gave no source for statement. Makes article read like a tabloid. Statement removed because not verifiable. (Streamlight 05:22, 26 December 2005

Statements added without any reference to a source. Without some reputable source, these statements read like original research. Removed as not verifiable. Streamlight 05:55, 26 December 2005

Just like the editor in the Seigenthaler scandal, this is an anonymous editor who makes extreme allegations without any sources. Unverifiable. Streamlight 06:29, 26 December 2005

You are referring to yourself Streamlight, you are anonymous, no user page. Interesting. --Fahrenheit451 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Other items with no source. Deleted as unverifiable. (Streamlight 07:20, 26 December 2005

No source given for this. Published accounts (e.g., St. Petersburg Times) do not support this version, which is clearly a negative POV. (Streamlight 08:02, 26 December 2005

I followed the back and forth today but I feel that this is important to add in. Independentmike 03:05, 26 December 2006

Again, no source given, deleted as unverifiable and replacing improper link. (Streamlight07:16, 26 December 2005

Antaeus Feldspar - Okay. However, this lermanet.com page is over the top, even as a critical site. I am replacing it with a neutral (non-Church, non-critic site) - the NNDB page, which is neither here nor there. Nuview 17.00, 26 December 2005 (PST)

Over the top of what? You are using a generality. The osa pr line is that if a site is critical, it is lying. That is nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing this entry about “the blind leading the blind” and referring to “Comm Evs,” the links to incomprehensible web pages show this to be a completely obscure topic, which will only confuse the readers. Nuview 01.40, 27 December 2005 (PST)

I restored it. Your editing is clearly POV. That section was documentable and there to educate wikipedia readers about how david miscavige operates.--Fahrenheit451 17:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Just curious Nuview, are Independentmike and Streamlight just other personas (sockpuppets) you use?--Fahrenheit451 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Van Susteren and Coale in fact did initiate the action with Clinton to settle the irs dispute with the cofs. No research, just observation. This was "confidential" data in the cofs, but no more. --Fahrenheit451 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(Re: Fahrenheit451 03:44, 27 December 2005 revision )Reverted as an individual’s “Observation” is not a verifiable source. You can’t remove statements based on a source such as NY Times, and replace with your own original research and unverifiable. Clearly covered in Wiki rules. (Streamlight 6:18 GMT, 27 December 2005

Obviously socializing is not a hobby. Removing POV. (Streamlight11:45 GMT, 27 December 2005

It certainly can be. And it is not POV. I have reverted it. Stop vandalizing this article.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Piano playing was verified in the St. Petersburg times. But I've removed both to settle it. Nuview 12.05, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Does it state that is his hobby or does it state that he has some ability to play it? Two different bodies of data.--Fahrenheit451 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a relevent section of Flo Barnett's autopsy report. I would say she died under very unusual and suspicious circumstances.--Fahrenheit451 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Source documents removed as don't belong in a discussion page.(Streamlight11:45 GMT, 27 December 2005

I agree, there is nothing in this document referencing the subject of the article. No evidence of anything relevant, it was added due to bias only. Nuview 12.05, 27 December 2005 (PST)

There is still no reliable source offered for this part of the entry. The suicide is documented but the rest is not from any source and it states “reportedly,” this isn’t a source. This is a seriously unsubstiated POV. This comes out per FPO and NPOV. (Streamlight17:20 GMT, 27 December 2005

An autopsy report is reliable, and Flo Barnett was shot 5 times with a rifle. Three times in the torso and twice around the head. You demonstrate POV bias for removing it. I am restoring it.--Fahrenheit451 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed a redundant sentence, plus additions and minor corrections. And I still see nothing coming from a reliable source regarding this last paragraph in the “Scientology career” section. A personal email posted on a newsgroup is not a reliable source. At the risk of being repetitive, the two links given do not qualify either, making them irrelevant, so I’m taking both out. Nuview 22.55, 29 December 2005 (PST)

More POV editing/censorship from you again, Nuview. I understand you want to suppress the truth, but not here.--Fahrenheit451 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing, as this “claim” is unsubstantiated hearsay, many things could be “claimed,” but no reliable source. Also moving this to the personal life section as this is a more appropriate section for this entry. Nuview 23.25, 1 January 2006 (PST)

Replaced paragraph to remove bias and to cite a source. Streamlight 17:22 17 February 2006 (GMT)

reads as a nice, clean article right now

Which is quite a surprise when compared to most of the Scientology related articles. Its pleasent too, to see this discussion page fruitfully used. Have a nice day. Terryeo 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true, it is POV, not much better than a osa fluff pr piece.--Fahrenheit451 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added the NPOV template to page.--Fahrenheit451 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fahrenheit - good grief. The last paragraph you keep putting back is completely outside the scope of an encyclcopedia and not in the least scholarly or NPOV. It is obviously nothing more than a platform for personal carping and bias. Please, please give it a rest. If anything neutral, educational or non-damaging is said in a Scientology-related article, it is SO TIRESOME to continually read from the anti's that is is "OSA," "fluff," "PR," etc. Is it y'all's standard that something nasty must be said about the subject of every article in order for it to be NPOV? sheesh.Ayespy 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit fluffy. I don't think it has to be full of attacks, but some of the criticisms taken out were the kind many other religious leaders articles would have. I might put a few back in, but state that they are just criticisms for balance.--T. Anthony 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

So as to do this subject justice I have started a new Golden Age of Tech page, giving a description of it so users have some idea what is being talked about. So expanding and moving this paragraph over. Nuview 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayespy - my gosh. I understand your POV opinions. You have a right to them, and a right to fantasize as well. You accuse me of being "anti". I am not. I want the miscavige article to be accurate. It is evidently y'all's standard to presume that if someone disagrees or wants to publish unpleasant facts, then it is "damaging" or "nasty". It is so TIRESOME to continually read the POV editing from the anti-truth crowd. I hope someday you become truly concerned about neutrality and education.--Fahrenheit451 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, as of this moment it reads as an informative article that a person can understand. It doesn't have off the wall stuff but reads right along. Terryeo 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's okay for now. I tried not to be too negative and looked for things in the Koppel interview that were less bad. I admit though I had difficulty with that as in most interviews of him I find almost everything he says strikes me as overly intense to the point of paranoia. The SP Times one was a bit better, so I might switch to that if what he said on Koppel about himself is too offensive.--T. Anthony 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where we are going with this page. There are references given in the last section and people can read these if they want the full information. It seems pointless to keep pulling information from those pages, regurgitating them and adding it to this page. Otherwise, we could just put in the whole text of the St. Petersburg Times. My point is, we have the basic information on David Miscavige here, but as bits and pieces get added it starts to lose its coherence. (T. Anthony, I’m not sure what you are trying to achieve – while I appreciate you are attempting to remain somewhat positive, you are constantly changing your mind. Your entry on the discussion page is a discussion with yourself about your misgivings about what you should or shouldn’t include. Rather than using the final page as your *Sandbox, please work out exactly what you want to do ahead of time so you aren’t just reediting your own entries.)

Looking at other pages about religious leaders in Wikipedia, I see nice clean, professional articles. I am sure these people have their critics but people aren’t constantly trying to defame them – so can we get this page into some basically settled form, so that only minor tweaks are needed? (Other than new news of course).

On this basis I am reverting back to the version before T. Anthony felt the need to do multiple indecisive edits. And please, this page already has its neutrality disputed – before this page is mangled again, can we agree to discuss any major changes beforehand? Nuview 08:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I wondered how long it'd take for the sourced things by him to be taken out. Quicker than I expected though, I'll be honest. If you check you'll find the NPOV dispute in this case was that it had gone too far the other way to become a fluff promotional piece. I tried to put back some criticism, but only ones he acknowledges with sources cited, and it's "not clean." We have an entire article of criticism of Pope John Paul II, and criticism in his article, so what you say there is basically invalid.--T. Anthony 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I put criticism in a separate section and tried to make the rest more positive. This is in line with Pope John Paul II#Criticism, Sun Myung Moon#General criticism, etc. As some of the criticism he faces is a bit outlandish I indicated skepticism on many claims. I know this won't be acceptable, as in many respects the criticism Catholics get here is unacceptable to me, but hopefully it'll in least be tolerable with a little work--T. Anthony 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo removed the "bullying" paragraph and said, quote: "Removed an falsey cited, probably untrue paragraph" in the edit summary. I reinstated it for now, until further discussion. The article doesn't hold forth that the statement is necessarily true, it simply states that Miscavige's critics say this, and provides a source link. Not sure what Terryeo means by "falsely cited". wikipediatrix 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

At least you actually talk about it Wikipediatrix. I removed that statement because I read the link. The link does not mention things about him shooting albums with a gun. Further that link does not mention some of the other things that were in the paragraph I removed. It appeared the person (T.Anthony I think) had found a critical link, posted it, and then posted other informations which he just felt like posting. In keeping with Wiki Policy I therefore removed the paragraph and link here, for discussion. Apparently Wikipediatrix, you did not choose to read the link but relied on your confidence that T.Anthony knew what he was talking about and reverted my edit. Terryeo 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

From the link One recalled the time that Miscavige became enraged with the performances of Scientology staffers on a church record album. He propped its cover against an embankment outside his Riverside County, office and shot it repeatedly with a .45-caliber pistol, said the associate. So to say I made this up is disingenuous and insulting. I tried to make clear that I was reporting the opinion of critics. I did not say I think these are valid and in fact I had a disclaimer indicating they were likely spurious. However he deals with criticism just as the Popes of my religion do. Why can't we mention this and say what those critics say?--T. Anthony 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph to here for discussion and citing

His critics have also described him as a "bully." They state that he has a volatile temperament that leads him to curse out his subordinates and use his gun on an album he found unsatisfactory. Added to this they charge him with leading a purge of the organization in the 1980s.[1] It should be mentioned he has never faced any charges and those who know him dismiss all of this. They acknowledge his intensity and devotion to his work, but consider the allegations to be spurious.

This is wrongly cited, some of those statements do no appear at that link. Terryeo 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked the link yet myself, but if what you say is true, why would you delete the entire paragraph rather than tweaking and correcting the statements you say aren't in the link?? wikipediatrix 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph as it stands now does not diverge from the article at all. That said this fact.net article cited seems a bit more excessive to me as it looks like it's the allegations of one guy who "heard stuff from people who know them." The article I cited is one I don't necessarily believe, but these are allegations I've in least seen referenced in many other places as critical views.--T. Anthony 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link is a pretty long, sort of convoluted, difficult to read series of pages. At the very least it doesn't boldly present the information it pupports to present. Terryeo 08:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That section is gone now and as Fahrenheit 451 removed it I agree it's likely valid that it's gone.--T. Anthony 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I think this paragraph In mid-1995, Miscavige announced the findings of an evaluation he made of education in the Church of Scientology: He stated that "the blind are leading the blind." After this, he introduced "Patter drills" onto most courses that neither comply with Hubbard's policy on practical drills, called "Drills, Allowed" or Hubbard's policy on theory drills, called 'Chinese School". caused some flack before, but seems to be back. I don't have a problem with it, but it maybe needs to be sourced to avoid another revert war. Just a suggestion.--T. Anthony 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To put Patter Drills into a perspective, they were introduced by the Church of Scientology, for the Church of Scientology. If Miscaviage was the one and only about that, then it might apply here, or if he contributed in some specific way which can be cited, then it might appear here. I don't have any idea. I do know the patter drills are theory drills, I know theory drills are not denied by church doctrine and I recognize that patter drills make a large learning step into two smaller learning steps, each of which is more achieveable. Additionally, from personal experience (not that you asked) patter drills develop a confidence that wasn't present before patter drills were used. This means a more standard delivery of standard technology with more reliable results. Terryeo 08:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC) hmmm, one more thing. In another article someone cited the specific piece of Scientology Technology which disallows additional practical drills. That someone had cited but had misunderstood that Patter Drills are Theory Drills and are not Practical Drills. (Think - memorizing the times tables -) whereas practical Drills would be things like picking up your sweet peas and putting them into a basket. Terryeo 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken again Terryeo: Even if patter drills are simply "theory" drills as you allege, then the method used of reciting data to a wall violates the HCOPL "Chinese School" which does concern itself with theory drills exclusively. The miscavige-authorized patter drills are "squirrel tech" in scientology terminology.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OKAY, I'll spell it out once again. The document which spells out practical drills and disallows no further practical drills relies on the word "practical." Picking up the red Tech Dictionary and reading its definition of "practical" presents this information: "Practical, the drills which permit the student to associate and coordinate theory with the actual items and objects to which the theory applies." Patter Drills have no objects, Patter Drills have no items. Patter Drills are not Practical Drills and use only "patter" (spoken words). Yes, they are generally done facing a wall for practice and their end result is to be able to say the patter of the drill to a person. Either to a twin or to a supervisor or to some qualified person. So, while it is practice to a wall, the result of a patter drilling is to speak to a person. This is not chinese drilling which involves a group of persons speaking aloud together, but an individual drill which results in a person being able to speak aloud a predefined "patter." Again I'll use the example of being able to say the alaphabet aloud, all in one breath, to demonstrate a proficiency. This is the sort of "patter" a "patter drill" is about, though it is the simplest example I can think of. Terryeo 09:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you do not duplicate what I stated above. Let us assume that patter drills are theory drills. Then they violate the HCOPL Chinese School. Also, it only takes two people to do chinese school. Your example is irrelevant, because it does not take into account HOW the student learned the alphabet and was able to recite it. --Fahrenheit451 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing 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 11:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)

I have my own misgivings about the template, too: mainly that as it grows, it will soon be longer than many of the articles it encompasses. But in the meantime, the template does exist and should be discussed in the appropriate places before removing it from articles. wikipediatrix 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we get this page up to a Wiki standard of editing

I fixed a couple of points of bad English and deleted some others. Incomplete sentences, pronouns that are not defined, in addition to no reliable source of any kind. Recent edits have been written in a confusing manner – can we keep the editorial standards high please.Nuview 11:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuview, "reliable source" has nothing to do with wikipedia policy. Evidently, Your reliable sources are those that are party-line POV.--Fahrenheit451 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Be specific, please. Name some sentences whose lack of sources concern you the most and I'll provide sources where possible. wikipediatrix 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some (but not all) of your deletions. Like Terryeo, you have an unusual habit of deleting entire paragraphs because they contained a grammatical typo, rather than simply fixing the error. I also have to question why you chose to delete the External links to critical pages from clambake.org and Skeptic Tank. I reverted your deletion of the "patter drills" paragraph but added three sources to it so presumably everything is hunky-dory now. wikipediatrix 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Patter Drills. Schoolchildren saing "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" is a drill, is it not? Children chanting "2 times 2 is four" is likewises a drill. I have edited [2] to exactly spell out how patter drills are not off practical drill policy and are not against chinese drill policy and given additional examples. Its very obvious. A person wants to learn some things well, such as an alaphabet, or even an alaphabet backwards. Patter drills lend themselves to it. Terryeo 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about that Terryeo. Patter drills are not Scientology according to L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard never authorized reciting material to a wall. Learning the alphabet as you describe above, is essentially chinese school. Patter drills are altered Scientology. It is very obvious.--Fahrenheit451 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fahrenheit451, nice to resond to you. L. Ron Hubbard created no Patter Drills that I know of and there is some reality to your second statement and to your third statement. However Chinese School is a group of people whom recite together from some stimulus. One person reciting before a wall can't, obviously, be Chinese School. But more to the point, how does a person learn the alaphabet forewards and backwards, easily all in one breath? You perhaps have a better method ? I am saying it is not counter to Hubbard's many policies, you are saying it is Chinese School even though one (1) person is doing it. :) What I can tell you easily is that it fills a gradient step which is kind of too big. A person can develop the same certainty of the 10 ways a word can be misunderstood by reading the bulletin many times. But a patter drill is more efficient and produces a certainty in a shorter period of time. Besides which, it is easily checked by having the person state aloud the "patter drill" to a twin. Why am I defending policy, I don't mean to. What I do mean to do is to reply to those statements which are in articles which are not verifiable. When someone puts up an HCOPL or HCOB source which states "students shall not drill to a wall" then I'll leave that sucker in place. heh ! Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is all you POV Terryeo. Hubbard stated how many things are to be done and usually did not state, don't do this any other way. Clearly he assumed the student would follow the directions exactly. We know now that some people, like miscavige, have problems with that. You are not defending any of Hubbard's policies. You are defending altered "squirreled" Scientology. My point is to show that this has occured under miscavige. It is the documentable truth.--Fahrenheit451 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Fahrenheit451 :) You conclude that Miscaviage has problems with Hubbard's methods of communicating activities to the student. I understand that you feel that way. Myself, I don't have a clue about Miscaviage's problems or lack of them. What I do have some information about is Technology as spelled out in HCOBs and Policy as spelled out in HCOPLs. We begin to discuss on what I thought was the basis of patter drills being in tech, or out-tech. Now it seems that was never the issue at all. Alas. If we can confine ourselves to defining an area of technology, I would like to continue to talk. But since I have no information about Miscaviage's problems, feelings, understandings and have never talked with the gentelman, I can't talk with you about that. You have communicated to me that you are convinced, patter drills are squirrel technology. I understand you about that. I'm pretty sure that you understand, my understanding on the point is different than yours. I don't view patter drills as squirrel technology. In searching the red and green volumes for "Drills" I found the practical drill reference, reading it makes clear that it is talking about drills where a person has their body doing an action (sometimes including a verbal componenet, sometimes not). Searching further of course the Chinese Drill showed up. It is about how a group of Org members can become familar with an Org Board (other uses possible). But for a method to memorize the alaphabet backwards, well, what would you suggest? It is a useful skill and patter drills fill the gradient step quite well. Terryeo 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your example of memorizing the alphabet backwards is relevant. In any case, that can learned via chinese school. Talk to the wall patter drills have no validation with LRH Tech and no validation outside the cofs. Those are an example of altered, offbeat Scn.--Fahrenheit451 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe "reliable source" has a great deal to do with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Citing sources spells out that any source might be cited. But better sources make better citations in the eyes of the reader. So, for purposes of which sources to use, use your best one or two. For example, if the only citation for "aliens are coming to earth" is the "National Equirer" or "Globe" then use that, but a better citation would be "The New York Times." Let the reader sort out which he chooses to believe. In this area the Xenu site is often used (lol) and offical Church of Scientology sites on the other side. Thus the reader has the opportunity to form his own opinion. :) Terryeo 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source has nothing to do with wikipedia policy. Citation of a source is a completely different body of data. If I recall, L. Ron Hubbard dismissed the idea of a reliable source somewhere in the Data Series policy letters. You are employing a black propaganda trick of invalidating the source, so you can bend editing to the osa/rtc party line. --Fahrenheit451 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source is to be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources but of course, Fahrenheit451, if you know better why, simply bend Wikipedia to your will! Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about yourself. Reliable source can easily be arbitrarily defined and you are aware of that. Furthermore, it is NOT wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources "-This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes." Terryeo, you need to have your crashing misunderstood words cleared up, or has that been replaced by reciting words to the wall? -Fahrenheit451 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a problem I have with the patter drill section is I'm not quite sure it's of broader interest. Apparently both of you are/were connected to Scientology in some way so it's of strong interest to both of you. However as someone who's never been connected to Scientology, and only knew one who was essentially non-observant, I don't quite get why as a reader I should care.--T. Anthony 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree T. Anthony. Patter Drilling is a specialized educational technique used in courses in Scientology. I would leave the area completely out of these sorts of articles altogether but I didn't feel justified in deleting cited sources and so felt I had to appropriately reply within the context of Citing Sources. Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, the point is to show that miscavige does not follow his "100% LRH" false pr line. That was a result of his sham 1995 blind leading the blind eval. This is an important piece of miscavige's biography and Scientology history. --Fahrenheit451 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with Terryeo siding with me and in general I lean more toward your side. I'm just saying as a never-Scientologist I don't quite get it. It seems a bit too "inside the faith." If it's so important maybe it just needs a bit of clarification.--T. Anthony 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Clarify "Patter Drills." They are an educational technique, introduced some years after Hubbard's death. Where the idea for them came from I don't know. Today in any Church of Scientology, most of the courses beyond the basic public courses, such as "how to use a dictionary" are books of "Patter Drills." They are an educational technique. Possibly the most simple patter drill would be a student sitting facing a wall and repeating the alaphabet backwards until the student could say it aloud, easily, to his partner. I'm perfectly willing that patter drills not be mentioned in the article at all. But if Fahrenheit451 insists they be mentioned then isn't it appropriate that his verifications are in good order? Shouldn't it be Fahrenheit451's duty to present good information in the first place? If he has reason for saying outright or implying that Miscaviage has degraded Scientology Policy or Technology in some way then he should simply cite his source of information, that's Wiki Policy, after all. Terryeo 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

He has sites for verification. I was more interested in what the heck it is and why a non-Scientologist interested in this topic should care. What you say explains that a bit better. (I would feel the same if an article on the President of the Mormons started saying how he introduced some practice or other without any explanation what the practice does or why it matters)--T. Anthony 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm coming in a bit late on this, but I "side" with the idea (T. Anthony) that the fine points of argument as to whether this or that is or is not "standard" Scientology practice are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. Fahrenheit451's position is generally that certain persons are no longer in the church because of disagreements with changes wrought by the new central figure. Historically, this could be a valid point to address - on a par with people defecting from or being kicked out of the early Christian church because of its new "standard" stance that gnosticism was heresy. In histories of Christianity, this early schism often gets prominent mention. However, such mention does not go into the details of gnosticism, try to cite scripture as to which side was right, expound upon the differences between one body of belief and the other, etc. If one wants to delve into the details of the dispute, one needs to take up their own independent study. The claim, properly documented, that certain persons left or were kicked out because of disagreements with the leadership which immediately followed the passing of the founder is arguably of encyclopedic interest. The internal details of exactly what the doctrinal arguments are on each side of that divide are not. References to specifics of internal doctrinal disputes might properly be contained in citations, but the specifics themselves should be removed from the article as not of general public interest.66.82.197.94 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might be surpirsed [3] at [4] the [5] depth [6] which wikipedia [7] covers [8] such debates [9]. While I think it's probably outside of the scope of *this* particular article to go into depth on Chinese school, and Patter drills, for the sake of making the subject accessable to lay readers, it would be really nice to have some articles on the subject(s) and controversy, just so readers could understand what it is, and why it matters. As the article currently reads, there's no context for somebody to understand what the heck is being discussed, or even why it matters. Ronabop 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 is stating something about Miscaviage. He has been using "patter drills," introduced during Miscaviage's tenure as an example of how today's Church of Scientology is not fulfilling Hubbard's technology and diviating from Hubbard's technology. I am pointing out that Fahrenheit's objections to "patter drills" are not contrary to those specific Hubbard policies he has pointed out. Okay, I'll spell it out once again. The document Fahrenheit mentions about practical drills disallows any practical drill Hubbard did not spell out. Practical means: "the drills which permit the student to associate and coordinate theory with the actual items and objects to which the theory applies." (from the Scientology technical dictionary). Patter Drills have no objects, Patter Drills have no items. Patter Drills are not Practical Drills. Patter drills use only spoken words. Yes, they are generally done facing a wall for practice but their end result is to be able to say the patter of the drill to a person. The person spoken to is either a fellow student or a supervisor. So, the student practices to a wall and then speaks the patter to a person. This is not chinese drilling which involves a group of persons speaking aloud together, but an individual drill which results in a person being able to speak aloud a predefined "patter." Again I'll use the example of being able to say the alaphabet aloud, all in one breath, to demonstrate a proficiency. This is a simple patter drill example.

Fahrenheit451, I have been watching this go back and forth, so looked into it. I check out these links, don't understand the nomenclature but looks like someone has an ax to grind. The Scientologists don't seem to agree and this paragraph seems to be one of these web site owners POV. There is not even any controversy, just a POV statement and a "Do you still beat your wife?" type statement. Bad editing form I'm afraid. POV is coming out. handiman 19:59, 15 Feb 2006 (UTC)

After wading through all the discussion on this point, I agree with T. Anthony, this dispute needs to be laid to rest. From what I can see the consensus leans more to getting rid of this paragraph for the same reason I noted, it is confusing and it does nothing to improve the page –from any POV. I sure couldn’t figure how to rewrite it so it makes any sense and as Fahrenheit451 seems to be the only one that actually has a problem, it should just go. Now,

before anyone just automatically hits the revert button, please take a step back and look at this from the reader’s perspective and I think you’ll see what I mean. Editorially yours, Handiman.handiman 15:25, 17 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Is there ANY hint of why this statment might be true? "In 1981 events concerning Mary Sue Hubbard began to cause the group substantial difficulties. Although only 21 at the time, Miscavige claims to have been significant in persuading her to resign." Is there any hint, any slighest published rumor, any slanderous, biased statement by Xenu or Clambake or a disgruntled scientologist that the statement is true? Are we to to swollow original slander when much, richer, full-blown slander is available in every newspaper? Where is the citation for that? Terryeo 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the xenu and clambake sites again, Terryeo? Are you slandering them? Are your statements biased? Are you disgruntled with those who have disagreements with david miscavige? I see a pattern with you: You are challenging just about anything that puts miscavige in a negative light, even if cited.--Fahrenheit451 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It was in the SP Times interview. I've noticed though that what he says about himself is not considered particularly reliable by you. I don't entirely disagree, but whatever. I initially had links to all such statements, but was told they are in the links section so this is clutter. In any event this was not really a criticism. If Ratzinger at 21 had confronted a Cardinal arrested for say money laundering, and persuaded him to resign, I'd consider this a positive for him. Granted the situation is a poor analogy, but Pope's don't have wives so a better one is not occuring to me.--T. Anthony 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I completely agree with you that if a citation for such a claim cannot be found, the statement should not be allowed to stand. I am looking for a source now, and if I cannot find one within 24 hours, I will remove or alter the language. wikipediatrix 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, Terryeo, you really need to cure yourself of the bad habit of slathering on the sarcasm regarding statements that you don't want to be true. You used that sort of sarcasm at Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White asking "Will someone kindly find some indication, somewhere, somehow, that this title was created by the CoS?" and "Some evidence, however remote, that the CoS referred to it as Snow White" and then you just looked kind of foolish when the evidence turned out to be not remote at all and "somewhere, somehow" turned out to be something you could have verified yourself with Google in two minutes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an increasingly common problem with Terryeo, and his recent edit to Scientology beliefs and practices, in which he criticized other editors in the course of the article itself, was reprehensible. wikipediatrix 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did use sarcasm though it might not be immediately apparent. Miscaviage chose to take responsibility about Mrs. Hubbard resignation? How interesting. Certainly it must follow that Miscaviage is either greater or lesser for having done that. I suppose. And, after all, perhaps it is an important thing to know about Mr. Miscaviage.  :) But in general people, I know you see me as holding the torch or something. HA ! My position is, I hope to have the articles communicate what they pupport to communicate. Dig up your dirt, put it in the basket, but cite your sources. Per Wikipedia Policy, citing sources, it is up to the reader to judge the quality of sources and the quality of information from a source. Good articles which inform are my interest. Have fun, Heh! Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't really dirt. It was just an example of an important thing he says he did for the organization in his early adulthood. If there are Scientologists who still love Mrs. Hubbard and would consider that story as a slam on Miscavige I'm not sure what to say. I got the story from his statements and tried to edit it to conform more to them. As for dirt in general Wikipedia is disproportionately secularist. Check out any page on any modern Pope, or Mother Theresa, and you'll find more dirt than in any mainstream encyclopedia. It's not just Catholics either. Check out the page for Gerald B. Kieschnick of Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for example.--T. Anthony 02:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's a good cite! I don't agree it was appropriately quoted. Therefore, while leaving the link in there I rewrote the article slightly so that the newspaper article's quote is exactly included in the article, in quotes. I think this is per WP:CITE Terryeo 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm coming in a bit late on this, but I "side" with the idea (T. Anthony) that the fine points of argument as to whether this or that is or is not "standard" Scientology practice are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. Fahrenheit451's position is generally that certain persons are no longer in the church because of disagreements with changes wrought by the new central figure. Historically, this could be a valid point to address - on a par with people defecting from or being kicked out of the early Christian church because of its new "standard" stance that gnosticism was heresy. In histories of Christianity, this early schism often gets prominent mention. However, such mention does not go into the details of gnosticism, try to cite scripture as to which side was right, expound upon the differences between one body of belief and the other, etc. If one wants to delve into the details of the dispute, one needs to take up their own independent study. The claim, properly documented, that certain persons left or were kicked out because of disagreements with the leadership which immediately followed the passing of the founder is arguably of encyclopedic interest. The internal details of exactly what the doctrinal arguments are on each side of that divide are not. References to specifics of internal doctrinal disputes might properly be contained in citations, but the specifics themselves should be removed from the article as not of general public interest.66.82.197.94 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Clout"

The article as it stands refers to Miscavige improving Scientology's "clout", and Terryeo prefers it to say "popularity". I think these are two very different things, and I think "clout" is much more appropriate for what Miscavige's financially-savvy enhancements have done for the Church. Far from being an uncomplimentary term, "clout" is what we generally describe powerful businesses as having, as well as celebrities, moguls, movers and shakers, etc. An example of clout over popularity would be the way the CoS bought up copies of the Battlefield Earth novel in order to keep it high on the NYT bestseller list. (This is neither illegal nor even unethical, it's simply a business/PR ploy that many businesses use, not just the CoS.) The book did not have the "popularity" that the book-hoarding project created the illusion of, but in a shrewd business sense, it did carry "clout". wikipediatrix 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they are very different things. I would agree that Miscaviage has done both, actually. If "clout" is the more important and if "popularity" should not be mentioned in so brief an article, then okay. fine. good. Terryeo 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience claims

I've cut the following from the article because the citations contradict the claim:

"In his defense psychiatrists were among the first to criticize Dianetics as pseudoscience. (e.g., Rebi, 1951;Stearns, 1951; Gardner, 1951 and 1957; Carroll, n.d.). " I don't recall who Stearns is, but the others are definitely not psychiatrists: Rebi was a Nobel-prize winning physiscist, Gardner is a mathematician and essayist, Carroll a philosopher. BTfromLA 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

cut portion pasted here for citation and verification

Mr. Miscaviage was the top man in the Church of Scientology when Patter Drills came into force. They are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages altogether. While it is my understanding they were created by the agreement amongst a group of management officials, this is a minor point. The real point is: Is there a source of information which states what this cut portion states is real?

After this, he introduced "Patter drills" onto most courses that neither comply with Hubbard's policy on practical drills, called "Drills, Allowed" or Hubbard's policy on theory drills, called "Chinese School". [10] [11] [12] There are those who claim that patter drills are not practical drills, but theory drills, which is covered by chinese school. In any case, Hubbard never authorized drilling by recitation to a wall.

Those three links are somewhat germane, but they don't say what the source of "the blind leading the blind" is, except that they say that Miscaviage said it. Well, when did he say it? Was in in writing, was it verbally? Was it a passing comment? Was it the start of a huge project? What? In no case is the source of the phrase, "the blind leading the blind" cited, though it is always attributed to Miscaviage. Its a rumor until a source of the information is cited. It is original reseach until some published source of that information is cited. Those links do not attribute a source, those links repeat a rumor without citing a source.Terryeo 04:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What source of information states that Miscaviage introduced patter drills? What book, newspaper, published interview film or internet page says that Miscaviage introduced patter drills? The cut portion gets into whether or not those patter drills are on church policy or off church policy but that is second. First is, "What source of information states that Misaviage introduced patter drills?" Because, that is what the statement says from the article. Is that your original research, a conclusion drawn by you from the information available to you? Or, is it published information? If it is published information then it should be in the article and the source cited. Like, "The New York Times, in an article titled 'Miscaviage leads the blind' stated his introduction of patter drills,' Oct 12, 1998. You get the idea. Cite a source or it isn't Wiki. Terryeo 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the “blind leading the blind” paragraph – firstly, anyone reading this who is not familiar with the subject is not going to know what on earth is being talked about. This does not belong on this page. Other changes are relatively minor; a slight rearrangement of a sentence so it flows better, getting rid of one too many “allegedly”s and editing to remove what could be interpreted as an insinuation (added in some data to put the information regarding Mary Sue Hubbard in perspective as whoever left it out was trying to create a particular POV, similarly with the comment about the support of drug cleansing programs.) Taking out these links again. One is someone’s confused idea about “the blind leading the blind” (which could be the source of the confusion on this subject that editors have been forwarding) and the other is a page from a hate site, a page from a book written by someone who didn’t make it in the Church and then tried to extort money. It backfired on him. Again, if anyone needs details, ask about it on my talk page. Nuview 19:35, 20 January 2006 (PST)

"Hate site" is your POV Nuview. The "blind leading the blind" eval was done by miscavige and is part of his background and now the history of the church of scientology. It is staying. --Fahrenheit451 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is way too unilateral of you. You aren't the boss of this article. If you are insistent it stays make a case for it and explain why anyone reading should care. Until you can do that effectively, here or in the article, I'm taking it out.--T. Anthony 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On rereading you've explained it a bit better than you had before. I still think it's a bit irrelevant for most readers of this article, but I moved it and the links to criticism rather than deleting it outright. I'll make a bit of style alterations to improve the move.--T. Anthony 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Fahrenheit451, its interesting that you can quote a cite from memory, but can you also quote the URL so others can enlighten themselves too? We've talked quite a lot about "Miscaviage changed Scientology in an off-hubbard way here. Why don't you get involved in the discussion too? I really don't understand how anyone can misunderstand the idea of patter drills. Sure, part of the learning curve involves speaking to a wall, but that isn't the actual drill. How does a child learn to repeat the alaphbet? Its the same concept. Terryeo 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple urls. I don't know if there is one way to learn the english alphabet, Terryeo. I just refamiliarized myself with it and was speaking and writing rudamentary english at the age of three. However, I have seen flash cards used and also chinese school type recitation used by parents and teachers. The squirrelly reading to the wall excludes Scn Axiom 28 from the process.--Fahrenheit451 01:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm to get back to it what about the issue of non-scientologist who may read this article? Maybe they came from the links at List of religious leaders in 2005 or List of ex-Roman Catholics or Tom Cruise or something. Why should we, the never Scientologists, care here? I'm willing to see criticism on this guy, but if it's a bunch of stuff that's inexplicable to non-members I don't see the point. The links might explain it, but a bit of what it is and why it matters in the article would be good. (If it must be kept at all and I've noticed you are insistent it must be)--T. Anthony 13:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)