Jump to content

Talk:Applied Scholastics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This reads like a brochure

This reads like a brochure. Definitely not neutral. Doesn't it violate the non-promotional rule? --Vreejack 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hubbard's real vs claimed academic qualifications

I believe the link is required, otherwise the text "although he occasionally claimed to have degrees in engineering or nuclear physics" could then be removed as uncited text. (I'm not sure how the opinion "smear site" is justified in this case. That does appear to be a scan and text of an actual CoS publication.) AndroidCat 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Watchdog site?

Isn't that grossly POV editing? To judge a site to be a "watchdog site" is perfectly okay..... when sitting around drinking a beer with the boys. But not in an encyclopedic article. State the site as it appears to the reader or as it appears when called up, "Scientololgy vs Education" or something. But "watchdog site," that is original research, a conclusion drawn by the editor and posted to the article to sway the reader in a POV. I'm refering to the reference which proceeds: [1]Terryeo 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "Watchdog" for such groups is not uncommon, and I don't know why you think it is only used among beer-drinking Joe Hardhats. Since studytech.org assiduously collects every scrap of news related to the use of Scientology and Dianetics in schools, the term fits. It is what it is, and not a POV push. Their watchdog purpose is clearly stated on their front page: "We also want to equip parents, educators, and media with the tools to not only spot these front groups when they creep into town, but to question politicians, school boards, and principals who might knowingly or unknowingly support such intellectual fraud." Still, whether the term "watchdog site" is replaced with something more generic like "critical site" really isn't a major issue with me, I just have to wonder why it's such a major issue with you. wikipediatrix 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wikipediatrix. Its perfectly okay with me if everyone thinks of it as a "watchdog" site, but I propose that stating it as a watchdog site is an act of original research, a conclusion drawn by an editor and inserted into an article which predispositions a reader's right to draw his own conclusions. Let the dang site speak for itself, okay? Terryeo 14:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This is quite an odd statement from you Terryeo. In another article ,[Dianetics], you have recently been editing and adding the words "Critical Site" to many sites that do not identify themselves as critical sites (The Straight Dope for one). Do you agree that your classification of sites as critical is original research? Vivaldi 07:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Terryeo is for labeling sites?

A recent edit has Terryeo labeling studytech.org as a critical site. In light of his previous opinion 6 weeks ago that we should "let the dang site speak for itself", I find this new edit somewhat perplexing. If studytech.org is a "critical site" then I want to see a citation for that, because it appears that this classifaction by Terryeo is Original Research. Vivaldi 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two sites which are similar in name. One is run by the Church of Scientology and a controrersy site has sprung up, attempting to duplicate the Church's presentation, so as to make it easier to juxtapose themselves as a controversial element. The Church runs "studytechnology.org" while the controversy appears at "studytech.org" Thus, it is easy to be misled, easy to misunderstand, easy to not 'get it' about which is which. I would say our job as editors is to do the hard work for the reader. Perhaps "critical site" is a little bit harsh, perhaps "controversy site" might sound more appropriate to [studytech's site. I am willing to state my opinion on these talk pages, I am willing to spell out specifically how the site mis-represents Study Technology. This is a discussion, not an article. Terryeo 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If there is to be any labeling it should be "Church of Scientology owned sites" and "Others". This clears up whatever "confusion" that may exist. Although it is immediately apparent when you visit studytech.org that you aren't at a CoS site. Vivaldi (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut sentence pasted here

"and the Church of Spiritual Technology, that it cannot be regarded as being anything other than a Scientology subsidiary...... ". I paste it here because there is no citation which establishes that Applied Scholastics receives money or support in a physical way from the Church of Scientology. "subsidiary" means that in some manner, they receive some kind of ongoing support. Perhaps you meant something almost the same? In any event unless Applied Scholastics receives money or other real world goods its relationship as a "subsidiary" to the Church of Scientology isn't immediately obious and clear and would need to be supported with a verification. Terryeo 04:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Applied Scholastics' parent corporation is ABLE, which is staffed by Sea Org members and has offices physically located in Churches of Scientology, including FLAG in Clearwater. Applied Scholastics appears as a Scientology organization in Scientology literature, such as this: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/Documents/IntScnNews/
It is not necessary to receive money from a parent to be considered a subsidiary. What Applied Scholastics receives is a license to use and sell L. Ron Hubbard's study tech materials, which originally appeared in Scientology's sacred scripture, the "red volumes". This is all documented in detail at http://StudyTech.org -- Touretzky 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In regard to your link there, to that site. That site does not fully understand what they are talking about. First of all, the questions I raise below about "subsidiary" are valid. Secondly, that site attempts to present an "interpretation" of the study tech, that is, it attempts to tell the reader what study tech is. It fails. Whoever wrote that article does not understand study tech and if someone applied what that site describes as study tech, the student would be likely to fail. The site doesn't got it about study tech but it purports that it does. Since you seem to be willing to talk about it, I'll specify the first mistake I found about that site's presentation of "study tech". At: [[2]] it presents the first of 3 principals of study, (1) use pictures and diagrams to illustrate the concepts being taught. Well, both "principals of study" and that (1) are just plain wrong (according to Scientology's study tech). What is wrong with it is that a lack of mass (actual physical universe mass, a feather has a little and a rock has a lot) is hard on a student. It is a huge gap between what I said and what they describe it as. And it is not a principal of study, it is a barrier. They don't have the idea. They do have that there are 3 things. They don't have that the 3 things are barriers which make learning more difficult. To take that site's word (interpratation) of Applied Scholastic's relationship to Scientology doesn't make much sense. Besides which, I've spelled out below how "subsidiary" doesn't describe the relationship.Terryeo 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please "word clear" the definitions of "principal" and "principle". You appear to have those two words confused. Now, it's true that Scientology talks about barriers, and the essay at StudyTech.org talks about principles, but they are two sides of the same coin. Study tech says that lack of "mass" is a barrier, and recommends that physical examples. or pictures, be used as remedies for this supposed lack of "mass". The essay accurately summarizes this as a principle that pictures should be used to illustrate the concepts being taught. If you don't see the equivalence of these statements, that is your interpretation, but plenty of ex-Scientologists have read the essay and told me that I got it exactly right. I concede that I am not mimicking Hubbard's style of presentation. I am deemphasizing the barriers and focusing on the remedies. It's not my intent to "exactly duplicate" him, but rather, to extract the essential ideas and phrase them in a way that is most comprehensible to non-Scientologists. Since you appear to be well-versed in the Scientology lingo and world view, let me point out, without any disrespect, that you are not my target audience. However, I would welcome any other criticisms of the essay you care to offer. -- Touretzky 04:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Its a pleasure to communicate with the author of that article. But just because you are right about my confusion of the two words "principal" and "principle" does not mean you're right on the whole article, HEH ! I consider the article communicates some points of study tech but does not communicate other points. I juxtaposed the two links, but now see the differences aren't nearly as apparent to people as I hoped they would be.Terryeo 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Touretsky, in re-reading that site which again, I am glad to be in communication with you because you help create it. I want to point out (though you do whatever you want with the site) the site does not accurately represent what Hubbard says about Mass. The site says, "In other words, mass is what can be visualized." but that is not it, I submit to you that is not what Hubbard says is those quotes. Hubbard says, "mass" and that is what he means. Most people know "mass" as used here on earth to be "weight" and that is the quality of matter which Hubbard is meaning to say. Mass. period. not "what can be visualized" and not "what can be imagined" but "actual mass" weight. Studying about feathers the student wants feathers and studying bridges the student wants tons of steel. Note too, the result of this barrier. "It is hard on the student" and this does not mean the student can't, it just means it is easier on a student if he has the mass (weight) of his study available to him. Terryeo 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That is true enough, as far as it goes. But the term "subsidiary" as defined by a common dictionary means: `.Serving to assist or supplement; auxiliary. or 2.Secondary in importance; subordinate. and then in the case of companies who hold stock, 51% ownership makes a company a "subsidiary" of a parent company. Applied Scholastics does sell a technology they did not themselves produce and they get that information / technology from the Church of Scientology. But they do things which the Church does not do. They address issues and present the information in ways the Church does not. I have checked into how the study tech can be used, exactly because I wanted to help some high school students. I don't believe the word subsidiary quite describes the situation because it implies Applied Scholastics does nothing but those actions the Church does, that it is a parallel effort. But this is not the case because Applied Scholastics makes efforts, original, creative efforts in areas the Church doesn't attempt to touch. Yes, they sell a product they receive from the Church, but then so do many companies sell products they get from another source than themselves. They aren't just a storefront, they create communication and do things independent of the Church and a person would have to judge "how much is Applied Scholastics" and "how much is the Church?" and to this question, the only commonality is the printed paper which they sell copies of. I won't try to list out the activites that Applies Scholastics does of their own accord and creation, but it is significant and therefore "subsidiary" is not an accurate description of the realtionship. Terryeo 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The use of the term subsidiary to describe Applied Scholastics relationship to Scientology is entirely accurate. A subsidiary is simply an entity that is controlled by another entity, usually a corporation (the legal definition implicitly expects a subsidiary to be a corporation). The 1993 Agreement between Scientology and the IRS explicitly recognizes a number of "Scientology-related entities," which is a term of art specific to the Agreement. Some are even named, including ABLE, and Applied Scholastics International. Most importantly, however, the named entities are obligated to refrain from certain conduct. That the 1993 Agreement can presume to contractually bind "Scientology-related entities," including Applied Scholastics, indicates the presence of an agency relationship between Scientology (the Agreement also formally cleaves "Scientology" into separate corporate factions, including CSI, RTC, & CST, amongst others) and the mentioned "Scientology-related entities." Indeed, the first page of the Agreement indicates as much: "WHEREAS, the Church of Scientology and its 'constituent entities' (the "Church") and the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") have a long history of controversy spanning over 30 years..." (emphasis mine). As Dave points out, Applied Scholastics is directly controlled by ABLE, which is in turn controlled by CSI, mostly through licensing fees and royalties paid uplines. But the IRS Agreement establishes, at a minimum, a subsidiary relationship between Applied Scholastics and Scientology. Tikk 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Its good of you to point out the partent document which spells out the relationship, Tikk. I was pointing out that paying licensing and royalty fees uplines doesn not make a subsidiary. The valid point, "must not engage in some activites" does not make a downstream corperation a subsidiary. But I'll have to agree that Applied Scholastics under ABLE serves to assist or supplement CSI. Again, thanks for pointing to the parent document. Terryeo 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
While licensing agreements and royalty fees do not by themselves make one a subsidiary, the Agreement's prohibition and restrictions on "Scientology-related entities" (expressly including Applied Scholastics) are indicative of control and authority, which are the hallmarks of an agency relationship. While temporary agency relationships can exist between non-subsidiary corporate entities, the IRS Agreement concretely establishes a parent-subsidiary relationship, by describing the various parent and subsidiary inter-relationships in detail. The entities mentioned in the Agreement are all subsidiaries in one way or another to either RTC or CST, ultimately, although the Scientology corporate structure is complex that it's more common to describe a particular subsidiary in reference to its immediate parent. But the Agreement's prohibition on "engaging in some activities," as you put it, in the context of this Agreement, does indeed make the downstream entities (and especially ASI, as it is explicitly mentioned) subsidiaries of Scientology. Tikk 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
From the point of view that a business lease a liescence from a parent business and sell their products (being careful in their presentation of said products), Applied Scholastics is a business. Four Season's Greenhouses does this throughout America with their technology and sells their products and gets a piece of the action through distirbution. Applied Scholastics similarly does. Its product is information (often printed) but it distributes and disseminates the product it pays for (per agreements). RTC might be the legal parent body, but the Church of Scientology isn't the legal parent body. Terryeo 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Delphi Schools

Delphi Schools is a sub-stub that seems to have something to do with this group. The Tim Bowles article was the only article to link to Delphi Schools other than List of trademarks owned by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates. It states that Delphi Schools is somehow a part of Applied Scholastics. AKADriver 15:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be merged. The Delphi Schools licence Applied Scholastics, and under the covers, the relationship is probably closer than that. I can't see there being enough information to fill out Delphi Schools to more than a stub, and I'm surprised that there's no mention of Delphi on this page. AndroidCat 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree there needs to be a subsection on Delphi on here, but I also think the Delphi Schools article can be expanded into a long and informative article of its own. It's been on the back burner of stubs I've been meaning to shape up, but me's only got two hands. wikipediatrix 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delphi Schools (or Delphian Academy) has its own web pages which can be used as a self-referential source of information about Delphi. Vivaldi (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And www.delphiboston.org, www.delphifl.org, www.delphila.org, www.delphisandiego.org and www.delphi-sfb.org. Under Applied Scholastics, I have www.lewiscarrollacademy.org, www.clearwateracademy.org, www.mojaveacademy.com, calranch.org, www.ranchpublications.com, www.greenfieldsschool.com, www.renaissanceacademy.com, www.marysschoolhouse.org and www.shuttleworthacademy.org. (I probably have more, but my tags aren't up to date.)
There's an ad on the WISE Clearwater Charter Committee site for the Clearwater Academy looking for "Lead Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Tutors, Word Clearers & Ethics Personnel". AndroidCat 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a sufficient amount of material to write a dedicated article to me! Vivaldi (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I just worry about information duplication and dispersion. What seperates the Delphi schools from all the other ones? AndroidCat 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to respond to AndroidCat's question, so don't be accusing me of attempting to "push a POV" or other emotionally slanted verbage, okay? A.B.L.E. is the parent corperation. Applied Scholastics answers to it. Delphi schools, as I understand it, exited in brick and morter, and operated before Applied Scholastics existed as an organization but now falls under Applied Scholastics. Terryeo 22:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible sources to expand article

Below are unevaluated sourced that may contain material to expand the article. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes most of these look like good sources that should be incorporated into the article. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial church linked to tutors on state list

Source for info to add to article. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note... APK whisper in my ear 03:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Applied Scholastics

Why criticize something that will only enable people to know how to LEARN? Educated individuals are essential and should be given every effective means possible to empower themselves and increase their own abilities and intelligence. I have to wonder about those who would object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.105.2 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why post something on an encyclopedia talk page that's unrelated to the article? Educated individuals are aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. I have to wonder about those who would use Wikipedia as such. 128.32.164.203 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage

NPR ran a story on Morning Edition 3/27/13 [1] regarding the participation of Applied Scholastics in the Phoenix, AZ school district. Likely to be a lot of visits to this page as a result. 208.163.133.252 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it is increasingly rare for legitimate schools to fall for Scientology's "Applied Scholastics" scam, enough so that the rare and occasional mainstream news exposure does not result in much interest and does not motivate the few remaining Scientology customers to attempt vandalism of Wikipedia pages.
Your note makes me wonder how many actual legitimate schools still mistakenly have Scientology's publications as part of their schooling since the extant article would benefit greatly from the addition of some statistical info. Damotclese (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clear Expansion Committee.

When something is reverted it would be nice to get a reason why it was reverted. Damotclese (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about my removal of the mention of the Clear Expansion Committee? As I said in the edit summary, the article gives no source, and since there is no explaination for what that is, and there is no associated article, I thought it was more confusing than informative. If there are sources, add some context and put it back. Or post them here and I'll do it. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Theories

The text added just now suggests that Hubbard had "theories" about education, which is not correct. What he conjectured does not even remotely achieve the level of what constitutes a theory. Damotclese (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Applied Scholastics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applied Scholastics. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Applied Scholastics. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/174441623/peter-o-dowd-tk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Applied_Scholastics/Archive_1&oldid=1078748395"