Talk:Narconon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Narconon rejected by State of California

Coupla refs for someone to put in as needed. Government evaluation; CNN report. - David Gerard 00:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is to be included that the State of California "rejected", then shouldn't it also be included about the more recent "recognition" ? Terryeo 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial lines cut and pasted here per WIki Policy

The paragraph of the article, Controvery included this portion which I have cut and pasted here for discussion, and potentially, for verification. When a published source saying the below is included with this information it becomes a Wikipedia "fact" and can be included in the article. This is per Wikipedia:Verifiability

There is no little hard evidence that Narconon sets out to recruit for Scientology.— a claim both Narconon and Scientology vehemently deny
I thought this sentence was a bit clumsily worded, so I've revised it and sourced it - hopefully it should be clearer now. -- ChrisO 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Further along in that same section, Controvery, was this portion which I do not believe is published, but which someone apparently does believe is valid, citeable information. BUT, it is not okay to place the infomation in an article unless the information is cited, this is what makes a Wiki fact, a fact. If it is in print, or has been spoken and can be quoted, then it is a wiki fact. Post the verifying source of information and let people themselves learn where 6% came from. On that basis then, readers can compare information presented to them. Here is what I removed:

no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization, and independent researchers have found considerably lower rates — as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.

Even as whomever states "no verifiable evidence" obviously is ignoring the many success stories from people doing it, from people who state publically their lives are freer, fuller, they are happier because they did the program, so too, the person understands externally instigated studies of Narconon have not been made. I appriciate that point of view. Cite the 6.6 %, that's Wiki Policy. Terryeo 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is not verifiable evidence, virtually by definition. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that placeboes "work", too. There's no independent peer-reviewed evidence of Narconon's success, though, and it's surely significant that Narconon itself says that it hasn't done this sort of study (why not?). I've provided a citation for the 6.6%, btw. -- ChrisO 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your 6.6 % link and went to it ChrisO. Thank you for being responsive and responsible about that. However, that page is in Swedish (I guess its swedish) and the only thing an english speaking person can get is a numbers without any context for them. It could be reading 6.6 apples per bushel or 6.6 meters above sea level, from an english speaking person's point of view. It is valid information, but it wouldn't be as easily understood as English would. Terryeo 20:45, 4 January 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, 14:50, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Reference please? Article series doesn't appear to state that an series template must be a sequential series. "For example, the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict could contain a table that provides links to all the major issues surrounding that subject." Some of the examples are sequential, but only because they are examples of chronological historical series. AndroidCat 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with AndroidCat. Helping users find related pages is exactly what article series and navigational templates are for. "Article series are useful for tying together information on very broad subjects." --FOo 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Further noted that the bulk deletion of this template from all Scientology-related articles was disruptive. In at least one case, it was accompanied by the undocumented deletion of a relevant link: here, where a link to Free Zone was deleted. --FOo 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out why such a helpful infobox would upset anyone genuinely interested in disseminating information about Scientology from all perspectives. Because it calls attention to a few "controversy" pages that some would rather see buried at the bottom of articles, perhaps? I have no idea. Any issues of layout are easily fixed, and in some cases, I have already done so. wikipediatrix 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. The error of thinking that series templates are only for histories seems straightforward, but removing the Free Zone link at the same time doesn't seem connected. I await an explanation from the editor who did it; until further information I'll assume that it was an honest mistake. --FOo 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. Just because Nuview has sometimes apparently posted from an IP belonging to Church of Scientology International, that's no reason to be sceptical, and we must assume it was an honest mistake. AndroidCat 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)'s contribution history is pretty interesting to read, too.... I'm starting to sense a pattern here.... wikipediatrix 05:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
FOo and AndroidCat, thanks for giving me the benefit of a doubt. I am forthright about my edits, my IP is no secret and sometimes (as I am sure happens with many others) I edit before I log in - so no big deal. As much as I would like the Freezone link removed, it was a slip. If we are going to discuss my editing habits can we move this to my talk page, as the Narconon discussion is not the correct venue. Nuview 15:25, 12 January 2006

FASEnet and Utah

Will someone puh-leeeeze tell User:Dcottle561 that the FASE information he keeps trying to insert about Narconon being endorsed in Utah is old news, and that when the state of Utah found out that not only was Narconon a Scientology front, but so was FASE itself, they cut all ties with it? Oh, wait, I just did. wikipediatrix 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

At the time I used the FASE report, I was not aware that FASE was a so-called "front." I had reviewed their website and I saw that 90 percent or so of the content was related to environmental issues and maybe 10 percent devoted to the study of Mr. Hubbard's work. dcottle561

Controversies: success rates studies

The Narconon article says, "Although Narconon claims a success rate of over 70%, no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization, and independent researchers have found considerably lower rates — as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.[4]”

My sister, a non-Scientologist, speaks six languages fluently and is a certified translator in German, French and Spanish. She speaks Swedish conversationally, and she translated a portion of the Swedish study, “Evaluation of Narconon Part I” dated 1 may 1981, referred to as "a Swedish research study" above.

The study says, in part "SUMMARY: In Group U1 [14 individuals who completed the program in 1977], we found 84.6% drug-free [in 1981], but taking into account the "dropout" (uncontactable subject - 1 individual), the results must be adjusted to 78.6% and thus give a certain minimum estimate of the proportion of drug-free. In Group U2 [47 individuals who dropped out of the program in 1977] we found at least 21.3% drug-free [in 1981]; here all dropouts are taken into account."

Later, the study says "CONCLUSION: As far as the Narconon program is concerned, it must be considered as good compared to other institutions. The dropout group U2 can be seen as a contrast group which shows how well Narconon succeeds with those who complete the whole program and there is a notable difference. This does not mean that the dropout group did not need Narconon; about that we know very little. Narconon can be credited for the group which later as individuals who managed to improve their own situations. For some in the dropout group, perhaps a shorter time at Narconon was sufficient."

Per the above, the current statement in the Narconon article on Wikipedia is incorrect. Whoever used the Swedish study and claimed 6.6 percent success is just wrong.

How can I correct the Narconon article? dcottle561

As I told you already on my talk page, just because your sister says something doesn't make it a valid source for an encyclopedia article. wikipediatrix 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough: My sister TRANSLATED the report, she did not WRITE it. And whoever put the so-called "6.6%" figure in the article has no support for it either. If that original "6.6% editor" can make his or her unsupported assertion based on his or her personal translation of the Swedish-language report, I should be able to make a more-complete edit based on that same report, but which also gives the context. I only want to get the verified program success rate of 78.6% from the Swedish report included, not the erroneous 6.6% information which is currently in the article. And, to paraphrase your own comment above "just because the '6.6% editor' says something doesn't make it a valid source for an encyclopedia article." dcottle561

I understand that you have stated your sister translated the report. Your sister's translation is still not a valid Wikipedia source. However: the question is moot: I just added a source to the article which corroborates the 6.6 figure. Problem solved. wikipediatrix 03:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a more detailed analysis of the report, in English. [1] and from an anti-narconon site. However, it states that of those who finished the program (14 persons), 13 were contacted and of those 13 persons, 11 were not presently using drugs at the time of contact. Thus, 11 of 13 were not using drugs. Based on that, a good rate. but based on other sampling methods (11 of 64 persons who begin the program) a lesser success is noted. Terryeo 20:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That link spells out the 6.6 figure and how it was arrived at from the raw data and the 78.6 figure and how it was arrived at from the raw data. Full disclosure, same report. Terryeo 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Since two sources seem to solve the problem, why don't we include one or two more, just to make sure the problem is fully solved? For example, we all know that some groups have reported some things about the Church, and then later, make completely contractary and reports. So let's at least report what we can find, okay? The Church has reported certain figures, Narconon has reported certain figures. the 6.6 figure is the result of one study. But our point of view is to be Neutral, right? Present all points of view equally, though better published should be presented as being better published. Terryeo 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A possible additional statement and statistics source might be from which states: "76% rate" and the guarantee "problem at any time within 6 months of completetion we will re-admit you at no cost".Terryeo 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Additional statistics are are addiction resource (licensed in Okalahoma) Terryeo 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should another Narconon site be considered an additional source? AndroidCat 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Because the second site spells out more explicitly and in more detail, the statements of the first site. For example, when xxx number of people begin the program and x people complete it, is the success of the program based on the number of completions who are not using drugs a year after completing? Or on the number of people whom complete the program. The link spells out the raw data, from that a person can draw their own conclusions rather than rely on the 6.6 percent or the 78 percent, and so on. That's why. And, for a disinterested third party's point of view, here is a newspaper article from the San Francisco Chronical (major newspaper) of an article about narconon S.F. Chronical, narconon Terryeo 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
And then too, some crime websites have interest in narconon, here's an example. arrested.comTerryeo 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Poorly Cited

Some of the article is poorly cited. For example, one paragraph begins with, "Since its establishment, Narconon has faced considerable controversy, mainly over the safety and effectiveness of its rehabilitation methods", yet no citation or reference is given. The earlier paragraphs present that the early controversy was mainly about Narconon's religious affilition, but this paragraph then, further, presents that was not the main issue at all. These statements contradict each other, yet neither of them is cited or verified in the least, leaving the reader with a confusion. Should the reader consider "mainly over the safety..." or should a reader consider the earlier statement about early Narconon's religious affiliation to be the more important? Since neither is cited, the reader has nothing but contradictary information from within the article. Its poorly cited. Wikipediatrix, you have the 300 page booklet from Narconon, don't you? I don't. Isn't there something in there which states the situation, at least from Narconon's perspective? Terryeo 13:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The statistics Pro and Con

This sentence appears in the article: "Although Narconon claims a success rate of over 70%, no verifiable evidence for this appears to have been published by the organization" whereas this link narconon studies states: "Overall, approximately 73 percent of the Narconon students released from prison remained clean while on parole." and that same link goes on to specify the particulars of that and various further studies. The same site, narconon also contains such statements as Alfonzo Paredes M.D. Professor of Psychiatry who "regularly reviews peer publications in addition to having contributed more than 100 articles or studies of his own". And, Megan ShieldsM.D. who "graduated from the Medical College of Virginia and is a Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice." So while narconon makes statements for which they present statistics and expert's opinions, and while such statements are of course, presented BY narconon and not by third party sources at the narconon website, they nonetheless seem to present bonafide experts and their studies are specific enough to be considered to be of substance. If a Swedish study is to be presented (in english of course) then a corresponding study, created by narconon at their own expense, should likewise be presented. This sort of approach only exemplifies the controversy of the area and doesn't make either the advocacy or the counter-advocacy right or wrong and is in keeping with a neutral point of view. Terryeo 19:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is likely the Swedish study is going to be stated in a number of ways, that's the trouble with having 'experts' interpret results without reading the the thing. Here are some raw data informations, Narconon is ongoing so it keeps adding more information to its database of persons who started the program, whether it was alchohol or drugs being treated, etc. Narconon Arrowhead is licensed by the State of Oklahoma, it has stood for some years. The bare bones of its approach, size and cost are here.
Shelley L. Beckman. Ph.D. presented a 1997 report, including some statistics on Narconon. [2] and here's another link to the same report on another site. [3] Narconon in Oklahoma has a 70%+ success rate.[4] I got these results by searching "narconon +statistics" and excluding the most common websites that came up ( -friendsofnarconon, etc)Terryeo 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
First two links: The study is hosted on Narconon-affiliated pages in both cases, and has major issues (it does not appear to have even evaluated the rate of relapse in the patients studied, and may have been financed by Narconon, as it doesn't state its funding). As to the ICRA link, a summary in a French web directory is far from a reliable source, especially considering that the summary is probably written by the site owner. (ICRA doesn't evaluate web sites. Note the unrelated spam results in that page for SEO, mortgages, and porn.) Zetawoof(ζ) 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well I would like to find more reliable studies, anything with a simple to use sample like "numbers of persons in, dropouts, completions, a year later", anything like that should make an easy study to keep track of numbers. The Swedish study was some years ago, Narconon has lots of sites, there ought to be some numbers somewhere. Terryeo 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quantity of Narconon Centers

The Narconon website [5] states "over 100 centers" while this Scientology News, issue 32 on my lap states: "a total of 192 centers across 39 nations". The article could be more specific about that.Terryeo 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A Church of Scientology publication is definitive for the number of Narconon centers? Interesting. AndroidCat 04:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What better source than the horse's mouth? Narconon uses Hubbard's technology. It is a stand alone corperation, paying ABLE for its use of certain technology. The Church of Scientology is ABLE's parent body, who apparently leases certain trademaks and copyrights to ABLE, who it turn oversees Narconon (as I understand the situation), and Narconon stands or falls by its own efforts, using the technology it pays for in ways helpful to society, thus reaping enough money to continue its operations. This is no secret, various studies which governments have done, the secular nature of the technology which Narconon uses have always been presented and usually been presented first in the study. Do you want an example of this? The State of California made such a study and noted Narconon's secular ties. Terryeo 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"beam intention?"

A single individual, apparently, Janet, states that it is her opinion that TR8's action is to "beam intention" into the ashtray. Coolness. However, what do 1000 other Scientologists say? What does the Training Routine document actually state? On one hand is Janet, former Scientologist, she has an opinion. On the other hand there is the document, TR8 itself and 1000s of Scientologist who would happily tell you that's plain silly. Therefore, it is not good writing to present, "Former 'Scientologists say" when it is a single individual who is saying. Terryeo 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Janet" is a former Scientologist? Flunk, go back and clear your M/Us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You have replied, rather you have corrected but you have not replied to the statement. That is, rather than reply to the obvious, 1000s of Scientologists do TR8 per the TR8 bullitan while (your name of choice here) "beams" her intention into the ashtray. There is a difference there, perhaps not one visible to the witnessing eye, but nonetheless a difference. That was the issue I addressed and though you didn't reply to it, you did find something to talk about Terryeo 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the Rolling Stone article, which I read completely, this was an interview with a current Scientologist who said, "You're supposed to be beaming your intention into the ashtray." I corrected the reference in the article. The Rolling Stone article said nothing about "moving" the ashtray without touching it so I corrected it. dcottle561
Unfortunately Feldspar has edited the article inaccurately. His original research is that Janet constitutes a plurality of Scientologists and so therefore he presents "Scientologists beam intention .." rather than an accurate quotation and citation of a published source of information. The document itself, TR8, does not mention anything about "beaming", what is the difficulty with the article being accurate? Terryeo 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So now we know that neither DC nor Terryeo has done L12... -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That is uncivil of you, Feldspar. Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too. Terryeo 08:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, after just ending a one week block for threatening Antaeus with harrassment, I am astonished to see you author this remark. In the context of your earlier threats, this "you are being watched" stuff is grossly inappropriate. BTfromLA 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Websites

Notes 2, 4, and 11 cite personal websites for verification. While a personal website might have accurate information, it as well might not have accurate information. A personal website is beholding to no one but its author, no one is responsible for it but one person, the site reflects their personal opinion and their personal opinion might be one way one day and another way the next day, there's no assurance of stability, fact checking or quality control. A personal website might have any statement from, "the moon is made of green cheese" to hard data and it could change anytime at the whim of the author. Therefore such sites as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles are discouraged by WP:V and discussions of particular sites often take place at its guidenline, WP:RS (reliable sources). As a note, the article is very very far from balanced and neutral in presentation, is this what you guys really want? Terryeo 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you have an active ArbCom case against you in which you are accused of removing references using this exact sort of logic. You are also currently banned from editing articles related to Dianetics and Scientology. You're treading on very thin ice here. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What is it that you're saying Zeta? I have pointed to the appropriate guideline for links which are not used appropriately within the article. Those same links are, per WP:RS able to be included in a section such as "exterior links" or perhaps, "additional sites of interest" or something like that. Are you commenting because I did not spell out the full guideline, nor quote exactly from WP:RS nor from WP:V?
You have pointed to a guideline, yes, and then you have placed on it a particular interpretation which has been specifically rejected by just about everyone that you hoped would support it. Note 4 is an excellent example. You claim that note 4 'cites a personal website for verification'. In actual fact, what it does is cite an article from the San Francisco Chronicle which also happens to be mirrored at a personal website. You have argued, quite unconvincingly, that since the possibility exists that a personal website owner could host a modified version of such a document, that clearly Wikipedia must disallow the use of any document which is mirrored on a personal website. However:
  • Despite repeated requests, you have failed to produce even one example of a personal website modifying information in the manner you describe;
  • Despite repeated requests, you have failed to explain why the risk that a personal website owner might host a modified version of a document and claim it to be the original is any greater than the risk that a Wikipedia editor might place in an article or on a talk page material of his own invention and falsely attribute it to some other source. (This, by the way, is something that you yourself are accused of doing on numerous occasions, asserting that this guideline or that policy uses particular language which -- curiously -- no one else is then able to find on the page which you claim states it as an inviolable dictate.) Since Wikipedia clearly chooses to run the latter risk and deal with violations if and when they come up, your stubborn assertion that Wikipedia unquestionably must interpret the guideline in question as a dictate to avoid any possibility of any risk whatsoever is quite curious.
In any case, if you had actually been concerned about the accuracy of the information, it would have been the work of a few seconds with Google -- as it was for me -- to confirm its accuracy. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to take a few seconds towards correcting a problem that you claimed you saw, shows us that you don't actually view it as a problem at all, but as a tool. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, let us take citation #4 and ignore the more boldly out-policy, out-guideline citations #2 and #11. Okay, good. It is not me who is attempting to persuade you, nor me who is attempting to persuade Zetawolf about the validity of the policies and guidelines we edit under. Those activites of pro and con are for the appropriate talk pages of the appropriate guidelines and policies. And it is good that you have read the arguement which is present on the WP:RS talk pages because a newspaper article is an excellent example of how a personal website is acting as a repository for information which is freely available on more established servers, such as the newspaper's own server. Our task is to provide high quality information. This is best done with high quality sources of information. I'm not trying to convince you, that is simply the the policy we edit under, WP:V. Your preference or your arguement or whatever you wish to call the, "I like personal website repositories over large newspaper sites", that's yours to argue on the appropriate talk page. I point out WP:V and point out that broadly published is preferred over narrowly published. I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm pointing out the relevant guideline and policy. Broadly published is preferred over narrowly published. People who keep quoting personal websites, you begin to wonder if they are trying to help their friends get website hits or something. The policies and guidelines tell us to use broadly published in preference to narrowly published, it only follows that newspaper sites are better sites to link to for information than personal websites. You are wrong in only one particular. It is wrong to accuse me of wrongdoing when I point to the guidelines and policies we edit by. If you were actually interested in discussion, you would reply about the policies, rather than attempting to circumnaviagate them. I'm sure a disinterested reader understands that broadly published, large sites (such as newspapers) are better referred as sources of information than personal websites (which might be gone tomorrow). Terryeo 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, thank you for letting us know what editing standard you are claiming to regard at the current moment as non-negotiable and would yourself would be willing to follow. It's good that you give us such regular updates, since that data is so liable to change without notice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes Feldspar, and as you have witnessed, I am willing to inform you. Specificaly I inform you now since it is possible that you are not aware that I have been enjoined not to edit the Dianetics and Scientology articles until the Arb Committe has finished the arbitration which you contributed to. At first I thought you were, perhaps, being a snot nose, saying, "I found a good citation but I'm not going to put it into the article, instead I'm going to make you find it because I perfer repositorys on personal websites and this illustrates my point. Now I understand, that was not your intention at all. You were simply inviting me to edit the article. However, I have been enjoined by the arb committtee not to edit Dianetics and Scientology articles while the arbitration is underway. There's no need for you to be sarcastic, I'm perfectly happy being upfront with you. By all means, put a better source of the citation into the article, a good wikipedia is what we're doing :) Terryeo 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"Snot nose"?? Is this the same Terryeo who, only a few days ago, was whining that people were committing "personal attacks" on him? And, when reminded that he himself was far more guilty of personal attacks (such as calling Antaeus Feldspar "Beanbrain" and "Idiot", and calling one of my edits "bullshit"), simply changed the subject? wikipediatrix 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, one of Terryeo's vast intellect (going Clear raises your IQ, didn't you know??) could clearly figure out that if he were to find a better "repository" for a particular article and note it on the talk page, that any editor, including the ones whom he continues to personally attack by accusing them of trying to "prevent the subject from being communicated", would be happy to make that edit for him. And one of Terryeo's vast intellect could clearly figure out that if he wanted anyone to actually still believe that he wanted these articles to be well-sourced, that's exactly the course of action he should take. How long would it have taken Terryeo to find the "better repository" for footnote 4, considering that he has access to Google and the entire original article text? Took me about ten seconds. So there you have it -- Terryeo, who cares so much about article quality that he's willing to badger other editors endlessly about the current hour's interpretation of WP:RS, was unwilling to take ten seconds to actually look for a better "repository". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you amusing yourself? Your sarcasm is not generating a better sourced article. Terryeo 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, alerting others that a disruptive troublemaker (you) is afoot, and explaining how you are doing it, DOES contribute to the well-being of the article. Also, it's done in the remote hope that sooner or later it will finally sink in on you that you should stop disrupting Wikipedia and stop pushing your POV by any desperate wikilawyering measures you can come up with. wikipediatrix 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have edited here for a few months. I stated my POV once on my user page, and, when asked, state it in response. You, Modomac and others, including Feldspar frequently raise the issue of my POV, and I invite you to engage such discussion on my user page if you wish. At no point in the above discussion have I done as you have just accused me of doing. At every point in the above discussion I have pointed toward how the article might improve by quoting a better source than a personal website. Yet, you ignore all that has been said because you wish to admonish me about my POV. I suggest to you that your infatuation with my POV might be satisfied by reading my user page once. And then, after that, we might discuss how to implement Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. That's certainly what I've been discussing on this page.Terryeo 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about your POV. That's why I remove it every time you insert it into an article. Or at least, I did before you were banned from editing Wikipedia articles for the atrocious POV-pushing behavior you are still in denial about. wikipediatrix 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have frequently attempt to communicate with you about these matters in the appropriate discussion area. That would be your discussion page or my discussion page. I would still invite that sort of discussion. But when you raise an issue on this page, the discussion page for an article, raise an issue of "POV" and I reply, then the discussion of POV happens here, rather than in the appropriate area where it might more easily be resolved, and be less disruptive to the article's discussion. One solution would be not raise raise accusations of "POV pushing", but to take them to the editor's discussion page instead. In that manner articles discussion pages will be used to discuss articles, rather than discuss POV. Terryeo 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Give it a rest. The fact that you are you a proven POV-pusher and abuser of Wikipedia's Scientology articles (which is why you are now BANNED from editing them) is absolutely relevant to any post you make on these pages, and no amount of double-talk from you is going to change that. Sorry, but that's how it is. And if you're really so concerned that the matter isn't relevant to this page, then stop replying to me and stop arguing about it. wikipediatrix 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy to give it a rest. I was not banned for "POV Pushing" and "abuser of Wikipedia articles" was not mentioned either. Both of those statements which you have originated are not to be found in the document which spells out my ban. It is uncivil of you to misrepresent that document. Terryeo 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert Dcottle561

His edits were a copyright violation of the material on the Narconon website. --Davidstrauss 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How can a relatively small amount of information which is cited from a Narconon Website be a copyright violation when a larger amount of information (the table of estimated costs for OT, for example) (or the tone scale in full, for example) be considered okay? The intent is toward fair use and the brief statement of the 9 steps is somewhat different that some other programs use. Other programs which ChrisO has stated this program might be confused with. In addition, the 9 steps are briefly stated. To state even one of them in full would take a great deal more page space. Terryeo 22:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cottle's edit lets you understand what the program is about. The more recent edit lets you understand some people think its controversial. Cottle's edit examplifies what Wikipedia states articles should be, the more recent edit doesn't tell you how the program works. Instead it exemplifies controversial elements of the program. Terryeo 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial Church..." statement

Their affiliation with the controversial Church of Scientology has made Narconon itself a focus of controversy. Says the first sentence of the third paragraph in History. That is an uncited original research on the part of an editor. The adjective controversial isn't appropriate to the statement and shouldn't appear. There is a large number of articles Scientology articles. If an editor wants to present the Church as being "controversial", there is plenty of opportunity to include published sources of information which say so. User:BTfromLA edited that original research into the article at:[6], the applicible policy is WP:NOR Terryeo 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that Narconon is controversial? You don't think that the Church is controversial? Certainly you will admit that both statements are true, right? Do you think that these statements can't be properly sourced? Vivaldi (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The point I make is that it isn't encyclopedic to make an unsourced statement in that manner. When the New York Times publishes that statement, then that statement can be used. The article is about narconon, should it develop that the article wants to present that the Church is, then okay, but an unsourced statement isn't the way to present that the Church is controversial. The way to present that the Church is controversial is to present published information which says the Church is controversial. Its a point of contention and should therefore be cited if it is made. Terryeo 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There's already a sizable number of reference links to newspaper stories that refer to CoS as controversial. Why the New York Times in particular? I see it so often that I begin to wonder if some editors have some sort of vested interest in producing website hits for their friends. AndroidCat 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't get it that I used The New York Times as a singular example. I do not accept it that the Church is to be controversial in such a wide manner that an article may state so and not present information which is published, which has said so. I do realize that active posters to alt.religion.scientology consider that to be the situation, however such individuals comprise an extremely small portion of our planet's population. Therefore, to include such a statement in a wikipedia article, it is only necessary to follow WP:V which is to say, present a previously published, reliable source of information saying that. I used the New York Times as an example. Perhaps you see that there are other sources of information which could be used, but in every case, widely published is what Wikipdia articles are mainly made up of. So, therefore, find a widely published (should be easy if that is the actual situation) source and quote and use it. Terryeo 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Per wiki WP:NPOV, if an editor wishes to include a persentation such as controversial or beanbrained or even the ever-famous, debunked, then that editor has only to quote a published to the public source which uses that phrase or term, then include the source which states so. Else any of those terms are original research on the part of editors per WP:NOR.Terryeo 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there are no occurances of beanbrained or the "ever-famous", debunked in WP:NPOV, I'm guessing that's more Terryeo-quoting? Isn't there also something in there about not having to provide references that water is wet? AndroidCat 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, please help me with my Scientological vocabularly. You once told me that my grasp of Hubbard's "Dev-T" concept was imperfect. As I understand it, "Dev-T" involves needless work that gums up the smooth operation of an enterprise. In Scientology, "Dev-T" is sometimes used as a tactic to harass or confuse "enemies," by deliberately injecting distractions, costs and inefficiencies into their operations. Posting a complaint that demands attention from editors on the grounds that the topic sentence for a well-referenced paragraph that labels the Church of Scientology as "controversial" is "a point of contention" that violates the policy on "original research" is a clear-cut example of the "Dev-T" concept in action, right? BTfromLA 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[7] Terryeo 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are granting my premise that the above agitation by you is a textbook example of "Developed Unnecessary Traffic." BTfromLA 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, while I appreciate that you spell out your assumption, That is not what my link to a definition of Dev-T replied to. I did not reply to your assumption, but replied to your question. Terryeo 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you want to revisit this now, but ok: my point above was that since your response did not include any objection to my premise, i.e., that your argument that mentioning the fact the the Church of Scientology is "controversial" in this context was a bit of "dev-t" subversion on your part, it seemed reasonable to assume that you were granting the point. BTfromLA 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. I replied as simply as possible with as little additional commentary as possible. My reply was not meant as anything other than a direct response to your direct question. Terryeo 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Your answer strikes me as disingenuous, Terryeo. Your reply--directing me to a very curt and non-informative dictionary definition--did not respond to my question in any useful way. BTfromLA 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Really, a link appears there to the word which you requested a definition of. Terryeo 15:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That "definition" didn't respond to my question in any useful way, and you know it. BTfromLA 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know it. I replied to you in the most direct, brief, way I knew how to reply. You asked me a definition and I posted a link to the definition, and it is a good definition. I would post exactly that definition to anyone who asked for that definition. There is no better way possible to respond to a request for a definition than to post a link to the definition. Anyone, God, ghost, Scientologist, public or Psychologist, I would post that definition without comment or interpretation and without ancillary discussion. Frankly, if I asked for a definition I would hope for similar courtesy. However, if you wish to engage in discussion about the definition, then you have only to engage in duscussion regarding the definition. And, this is exactly how it works in Scientology classrooms. The most experienced instructor, the most experienced fellow Scientologist would never (well,almost never) give his or her verbal definition of a term. Nor would I give you that discourtesy, you are perfectly capable of understanding the written word. If there is something you wish to discuss, you only have to begin the discussion. Terryeo 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, thank you for explaining your reasoning. In my view, the Scientology method as you describe it, responding "without comment or interpretation and without ancillary discussion," seems to undermine communication and to project hostility in this context. It appears that you did not read, or wish to address, what I wrote--I did not ask for a definition, I specifically invited you to engage in interpretation (that is, thinking) and discussion. The definition you linked to was simply another way of writing "Dev-T"--it didn't address, in the slightest, what I had asked you to comment on, i.e., whether my summary of the term was in some way mistaken or misleading, and whether what you were doing on this page was an example of "Dev-T" as a deliberate tactic. BTfromLA 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I actually understand what you said, BT. I think you said, "without comment .." projects hostility? Is that what you said? Did you say that to reply directly and with no interpretation, discussion, ancillary comments, etc, is to "project hostility?" Is that what you are saying? The fewer the words, the greater the projected hostility? So like, I say, "nice day isn't it?" and because I did not use 100 words of more than 5 letters I have "projected hostility?" And if I reply to such a query by saying, "yes" then I have projected hostility because the quanity of words I have used as been few and I am therefore "projecting hostility?" Is that what you are saying that I am saying? 'Cause man, I'll tell you. I am NOT going to engage in discussion when the topic of discussion is a word which is not understood by both parties. Terryeo 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Terryeo, that's not what I meant. Responding to this particular question--a small cluster of questions, really--with a three-word expansion of the abbreviation that offered no new information and no direct response to the issues I'd raised is what seemed to me a bit hostile. There is nothing inherently hostile about brief responses--neither are they inherently gracious or appropriate. It has to do with the context, Terryeo--with the meaning of your utterance within and in relationship to an ongoing discussion. Clear enough? BTfromLA 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. well it seems like we might have a situation where what you consider normal, civil behaviour (and obviously 1000s who think as you do) is considered by me (eeek, just me) to be unethical. It would be completely against my ethics to tell you what the meaning of a word is, and this is particularly true of a Scientology - jargon word. In a Scientology acadamy, if an instructor responded to the question, "what does 'Dev-T' mean" with the slightest hint that it meant something, the instructor would be performing an unethical action. Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference, or by presenting to the student the meaning of the term in some other manner, but never by personal means and only by already written means. And an instructor would do that without the slightest hint of their own, personal understanding of the meaning of the word. Am I being clear, but responsive? Terryeo 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Terryeo, you are indeed being clear and responsive. Thank you for that. This is very interesting to me, but we've wandered pretty far from the Narconon article, so I'll respond on your talk page in hopes of continuing the discussion there--I hope that seems appropriate to you. BTfromLA 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
All right. Terryeo 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Acadamy instructors would respond by pointing to a reference": that makes me wonder, what happens in the case where the reference might be erroneous? Nobody can discuss it, so it will never get corrected? Also, what happens if my understanding of the reference is wrong? Who will know that I misunderstood whatever concept is referred if I can't discuss it with anybody? Just curious. --Raymond Hill 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raymond. I think you are asking about the conduct of acadamy instructors? BTfromLA asked me about a definition of "Dev-T". I replied with a link and without ancillary discussion. The resulting discussion has gone on. I did say that about acadamy instructors. In this particular situation they would point the student to the definition in Mondern Management Technology Defined, pg. 149, abbreviation, pg. 572 ISBN 0884040402. That would not be wrong. Discussion does happen and is certainly not curtailed. The point I was making is that an individual is capable of reading the printed word and understanding for themselves, the meaning of the printed word. Acadamy Instructors are human and have made mistakes. There are processes of correction, a division of Scientology Organization is called "Qualifications" and its responsibility includes correcting erroneous actions. An acadamy supervisor acts as the first step in educational procedure. But he is not the only help a student has. And if he makes a mistake, there is a division of organization designed to correct his misunderstanding which led to his mistake. Hmm, But as I re-read your question, Raymond, maybe you are talking about whether people can talk to each other? Of course people talk to each other ! :) Terryeo 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be Div 5 or QualDiv as expressed by a visit from a Cramming Officer, right? Wasn't the one-time Chief Cramming Officer of all Scientology, Dennis Erlich, posted there by L. Ron Hubbard? AndroidCat 02:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
3000 Orgs and missions, 3000 cramming officer hats. Normally a person is routed to Qual because Qual is set up with the references in place and other MEST materials to perform their fuction. I've no idea about specific personal in specific Orgs, what are you speaking about a management org ? Terryeo 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. It's always "3000 Orgs, missions and groups", isn't it? There are close to 148 orgs by my count. According to the RTC, there are less than 586 orgs and missions the last time I checked. It is easy to keep a file drawer full of "groups", so 3000 might be possible that way, especially if groups like Narconon are included. I did clearly say that Dennis Erlich was appointed by Hubbard as Chief Cramming Officer for all of Scientology, and not just an Org or Continental office, right? AndroidCat 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you must be suggesting that only Orgs and Missions use a Cramming Officer job and that Narconon and groups do not ? Terryeo 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's so nice that you're sure about what I'm suggesting. In fact, since I've seen ads for Applied Scholastics organizations hiring Ethics Officers, I have little doubt that they, Narconon, WISE, etc, employ Cramming Officers as well. AndroidCat 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference 15

Is to a completely unacceptable source of information. It surrounds itself with "Associated Press" and other, reputable sounding terms but the actual information appeared in a GOOGLE GROUP ! Completely unacceptable information. WP:RS clearly spells out and spells out explicitly that no newgroup or blog may be used as a secondary source of information in any wikipedia article. That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed. Terryeo 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the "actual information", as you term it, appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1989. I dunno, Terryeo, even after all the effort that the members of the ArbCom put into explaining it to you, you still don't seem to grasp the distinction between a newsgroup or a blog or a "personal website" as a source, and as a relayer of information from other sources. In this case, since the actual source is quite highly regarded indeed and since we have the date and title of the article, it would be quite easy to check whether the article does in fact contain the information that is cited in the reference (as I did, in fact). It's so easy to check, in fact, that it's rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest that such a reference "must be removed". Have you, perhaps, forgotten that the idea of Wikipedia is to bring well-sourced information to the reader? Rather than just to attack the source of the information in an effort to get it "removed"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see the use of a google group as a reference for that information has changed. I won't go into the chain of logic which you will find both at WP:RS and in the talk page of WP:RS which explain in detail how information which appears in a google group is not a citable source. If you wish to present the arguement, "information which is good information may be cited wherever it appears", your platform would be WP:RS and the consensus of opinion there. My statement is a reflection of that consensus, and I'm glad to see the google groups reference out of there, in this manner Wikipedia readers can have better confidence in our articles. And by the way, Feldspar, your "rather puzzlingly stupid to suggest.." remark borders on incivility. Terryeo 08:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And I won't go into how much of your ArbCom case was about your frequent attempts to remove information which could have been easily verified under the pretext that some factor such as the presence of a convenience link meant that it had never been verified (an assumption in which you were frequently wrong). That argument was certainly not the consensus of opinion in your ArbCom case, nor do I think you could point to a consensus of opinion anywhere on Wikipedia that if we have a reference which points to one of the largest and most widely available newspapers in the world and gives us a specific date and a specific article title (please tell me, can you construct a possible scenario in which a reference would be easier to check?) that "That reference is completely wrong ! It must be removed." without any mention of other options? Such as, say, checking the reference (which, not to put too fine a point on it, is precisely the point of a reference)? I'm sorry that you perceive incivility in it being pointed out that such a failure to explore any other option represents puzzling stupidity, but not only is it stupidity, it's stupidity on the scale that jokes are made of. "Oh no! The light bulb in the front hall went out! We'll have to sell the house!" "The car is out of gas! Look, there's the gas station! Maybe they can tell us where to buy a new car with gas in it!" "Oh no! This reference might not be a 100% accurate representation of a New York Times article whose date and title are fully known! It must be removed!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
One grows bored with your incivil comments, dispersive arguements, personal attacks, and references to past difficulties. I raised the issue that a google group was acting as a repository for information. If you feel google groups should be perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia, your place to argue the issue is WP:RS. Terryeo 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just as one grows bored with your antics, Terryeo. You didn't "raise the issue" that Google Groups was serving as a repository for information obtained from a perfectly verifiable source, you decreed that the reference "must be removed". This is like saying "The cat is coughing up a hairball! We must take him to the vet to be put to sleep!" and then when your obvious overreaction is pointed, pouting and pretending to be a martyr and claiming you were only "raising the issue" of the cat's hairballs, and pretending that whoever disagreed with you obviously doesn't care about the poor cat and his hairballs. See, there wouldn't be any "references to past difficulties" if you weren't continuing pretty much the same behavior that caused those past difficulties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • my statement: Reference 15 is to an unacceptable source of information. GOOGLE GROUP !
  • Feldspar: Refuses to confront issue. Talks about the original source of the information.
  • My reply: WP:RS, glad to see it out of there
  • Feldspar: Refuses to confront issue. Raises past ArbCom case.
  • My reply: I raised the issue that a google group...
  • Feldspar: Refuses to confront the issue raised and states, You didn't raise the issue.
  • This reply. I raised the issue. Feldspar refused to confront the issue raised 3 times. Besides not confronting the issue raised (information in a google group being used as a secondary source of information) Feldspar manifests borderline incivility. Terryeo 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Face facts, Terryeo. You tried something sneaky, and we didn't fall for it. "Hey! Here's something that's easily fixed! But I don't want it to be fixed; I want it to be removed instead! Maybe if I lie and announce that it must be removed, people will somehow overlook that there are much better options than what I am falsely claiming is the one we must take!" You tried, you failed, accept it, move on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:PAIN, I ask you to stop your personal attacks, Feldspar. Terryeo 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • guffaw* Oh, Terryeo. You just get more and more hilarious. You accuse other editors of acting in a secretly coordinated conspiracy[8] and yet at the same time you demand that the same people never suggest that you did anything wrong because that would be a "personal attack"? ROFL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
*guffaw* indeed. Myself, I find it quite amusing that a group of individuals of like mind and fixated on presenting what millions of people have found to be helpful, are working with mutual effort and interest to display the difficulties that group of millions has had. While this link is a neutral person's presentation of the Church's effort, the articles here prefer to find tidbits of past difficult, such as Fair Game and when I say, hey, you know, "that hasn't been a practice for years" and cite and quote HCO Policy Letters then editors come back with, "how can we believe you?". Where is the wikilove, huh? Terryeo 15:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Bravo! That is perhaps the one Scientology article on that site that doesn't officially credit Al Buttnor, Director of Special Affairs (OSA) for the Church of Scientology Toronto as author or co-author. Neutral... On Bizarro World, maybe. AndroidCat 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference [14]

Reference [14] [9] states some information. That HTML page says it is information generated by "the Board of Mental Health, State of Oklahoma" and the date, "13 December 1991" appears. However, there is no indication the information was every published. There is no indication of where the information was published, if it was published. There is no certification of publication, no recognition of copyright regarding the source of publication, no mention of any person or authority of any kind whatsoever except the owner of the website. In regard to who owns the information of that HTML page, the article presents 2 conflicting information because the webpage presents that Jeff Lee wrote the page but the article presents that Dave Touretzky is responsible for presenting the information. No part of that reference complys with WP:RS which attempts to guide us editors toward the kind of reader confidence WP:V intends us to present. Terryeo 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from "State Mental Health Board Denies Narconon Certification Bid", by R. W. Lobsinger, The Newkirk Herald Journal, 19 December 1991: «Reasons for denial of certification were listed in a document called Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which was released following the meeting by HurstRaymond Hill 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you have posted, Raymond. Apparently The Newkirk Herald Journal published the information. What confidence do you have that the HTML document which your link points to has been reproduced with the blessings of the author of the article? It appears on a personal website. We might be contributing to a crime ! If not with this reproduction on a personal website, with other HTML reproductions on personal websites which do might not have the author's permission to reproduce the article. There is nothing on that page which says it honors the copyrights of the creator of that information, there is nothing which says it was reproduced with the permission of the author. There is no reason the personal website owner should, either. Apparently he feels he can get away with typing in HTML, reproducing someone's hard work at his whim without permission and without honoring the author's copyright. No mention is made of copyright. WP:V says we should use reliable, reputable sources of information. A personal website which reproduces an author's work at a whim, just because it suits his point of view, with no recognition of copyright, should probably not be considered a reliable, reputable source of reposited, secondary information. Terryeo 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to information about the legal status of various Narconon facilities: "May 20, 1970 Narconon Los Angeles was recognized by the state of California as a nonprofit corporation" [10]. "August 14, 1992 The Oklahoma Board of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services granted Narconon Chilocco an exemption from their certification process on the basis of Narconon’s accreditation by the prestigious Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities" [11]. "October 26, 1992 The Oklahoma State Department of Health granted Narconon Chilocco its license – the final administrative step that officially allows Narconon Chilocco to operate as a drug rehabilitation facility" [12]. Terryeo 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A cool NarcAnon link

This pro-scientology link talks about some of the issues the editors of this article have confronted Front Groups. Terryeo 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't actually know, but I think the whole National Mental Health Assistance evolution must have been a huge tongue-in-cheek poke in the eye of psychiatry and psych drug front groups, of which we consider the National Mental Health Association to be one."
That sounds like an admission to deliberately picking a name to confuse people. The derogatory statements which follow basically amount to saying, "Because we (Scn) hate psychiatry, we want to do things that hurt it." --FOo 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll ask her a question: Why there are Narconon web sites that don't even admit that they're Narconon? (Like this one Search on the phone number.) AndroidCat 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
While I understand the reason, I wouldn't really expect anyone else to. The reason is (my opinion) that Narconon essentially leases the use of technology developed by Hubbard and used by the Church of Scientology. That technology is not, by itself, of a religious nature. Some reading is required, is reading a religious experience? Most people would not think so. Some sweating is required, some vitamins, some exercise, some minerals, etc. Are those things, by themselves, religious in nature? Terryeo 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Re-read what I asked: Why doesn't the site (with a Narconon toll-free number) at least say that they are Narconon? (The standard licence agreement is 10% of gross income from all sources, btw.) Could you cite a reference as to when the courses stop being secular and start being religious or how the two versions differ? WISE also says that their courses are secular, but WISE is incorporated "for religious purposes", so it's all a little confusing. AndroidCat 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you ask them in an email ? I have sketched out my opinion. They seek to sell a product into society, having leased certain technology. This sort of business arrangement is quite common. However, as you must certainly know by now, 'Cat, I'm no part of the Church's organization and can't tell you anything but my opinion.Terryeo 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
wow, Jimbo Wales has edited this article. wow. Terryeo 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be biased?

For example, Heber Jentzsch was arrested in Spain is spelled out in blazing detail. Unsupported detail is given, too. The full force of the government of Spain's wrath seems to be railed against the Church of Scientology for fraud. Yet those charges were dismissed, I believe. Courts, somehow, simply didn't find any of that to have substance. But does the article say so? No, the article presents the most inflammatory elements of the case as presented years ago. Does the article say the government of Spain created the charges, just made them up out of the thin air? No, the article only spells out the most inflammatory elements of long ago. Another example, much is made of the Guardian's Office, a long since disbanded organization which was disbanded precisely because it had become an anti-Scientology group with some power, working within the Church. The article presents a biased POV. Suppose I supply some detail here on the discussion page which would reflect when some of the past biased nonesense actually met the court system and what happend ? It doesn't seem right to me that I'm always working toward "the other side", really. It would seem to me that editors would actually want a balanced presentation. But I'll supply such details if someone is willing to consider putting them into the article and not instantly reverting them "for POV reasons". Terryeo 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course all the charges with the Spain thing have been dropped and the situation has been spelled out as being false to begin with. Terryeo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is nothing but negative, it reades like Here's a headline and link on a little more positive note. Global Assault on Drug Abuse by the Church of Scientology International [13] Terryeo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Press/marketing releases do tend to be positive. [14] AndroidCat 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
On Aug 10, 2004, Georgia Tweedie had submitted the pertinent article which was then posted [15] on that date. User:AndroidCat has presented a link which makes analysis of the situation addressed by Tweedie's press release. While 'Cat's information might apply in several areas, nothing is mentioned about Narconon (this article) and nothing is mentioned about drugs and nothing is mentioned about Narconon Programs in either the release nor the analysis of the release. Terryeo 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Narconon establishments

There are 13 locations where the Narconon treatment plan is presented in the USA [16] and many world wide locations. Yet the article makes the situation sound far different. It doesn't help that a large list of notes and references present these various arguement about whether Narconon has a connection with the Church of Scientology or not. The article takes a widely established organization which seems to be prospering and offering both education and treatment, and make it sound as if it is a splinter group, opposed by governments. Terryeo 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "widely established" about it if they only have thirteen locations in the USA! (Did you know that Hungry Howie's Pizza has over 525 locations in the USA?) And of these 13 locations you mention, most are located in dinky strip malls and low-rent office buildings in obscure places like Burley, Idaho and Norcross, GA. Some others are actually private residences and two are run out of post office boxes. As Scientology fronts go, Narconon is actually pretty shoestring. wikipediatrix 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, your manner of speaking about the subject is in keeping with implications in the article. Whereas my attempt is toward a more realistic presentation of the subject. But first, Narconon is not a "front group". A "front group" is "is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization. A front organization may simply be a proxy that keeps the parent group's name out of the picture or it may look publicly as if it is set up to do one thing, but actually be set up to do something else on behalf of its parent group." [17] A "front group" isn't the situation with Narconon. Narconon pays a fee for the use of some technology and uses that technology and stands on its own use of that technolology to produce a result. It was organized with a purpose in mind and produces what it advertises with the technology it pays a fee to use. Narconon deals with drug addiction, it produces results in that area and it is a comprehensive program which includes an improvement in the individual in the areas which lead a person toward drug addiction. Terryeo 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's well established that things are not as you say they are, so you're wasting your time. I won't waste mine in arguing with you further. wikipediatrix 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Did you want me to point to which parts of the article state Narconon pays for their use of Hubbard's technology? That Narconon deals with drug addiction? Some of its statistics of success, perhaps? [18] Do you prefer its educational presentation about street drugs and alcohol ? [19] Terryeo 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to discuss the editing of these articles with people who are not banned from doing so. wikipediatrix 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, yes, that makes several of your comments much clearer. This one this may be difficult for you to wrap your head around but I am NOT a POV editor ....

Recent edit

The most recent addition to the article is a pragraph presenting several difficulties.

Narconon facilities in California were cited repeatedly for violations by state inspectors. Violations included administering medication without authorization, having alcohol on the facility, and not having proper bedding for clients. Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, including sending letters to neighbors of a proposed facility in Leona Valley, California threatening legal action for criticism. Residents of the Leona Valley were concerned that Narconon would increase crime. [34] The local town council recommended an eight foot security fence and independent security, which was objected to by Narconon officials. [35]

The first 1/2 of the paragraph is unsupported by reference. [34]'s link says the article is no longer present and searching for the phrase of its title produces no hits on the site, nor do various other searches of less restriction bring up the article. It is a fairly serious statement for our article to say, "... were repeatedly cited for violations by state inspectors", and the article should present such a reference. In addition, unless a secondary source specifically states, Narconon has also used traditional Church of Scientology tactics to silence opposition, such a biased phrase should not appear in Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, this is a problem of wikipedia (not believing print articles), but I'll go ahead and copyright infringe the article anyway from Lexis-Nexis. Calwatch 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

LEONA VALLEY - An organization with ties to the Church of Scientology that wants to open a drug treatment center in Bouquet Canyon was cited for dozens of violations by state inspectors within the last five years, according to documents.[... remove copyright infringement]

The second link talks about the relationship of the town council where it will be located, the county's planning commission and the county's board of supervisors. It is unclear which body has the authority to allow the permit or if several bodies much each pass it in turn. But that second link is good, published information, typical of the complex building codes some of us know and love. lol. Terryeo 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The town council is advisory but generally has the ear of the local supervisor/mayor, Mr. Antonovich. The Regional Planning Commission can vote on the subject but the BOS has the right to overrule their opinion by scheduling a rehearing. Or the BOS can punt to the RPC. After this, lawsuits will inevitably be filed. Calwatch 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

State Violations

The article states: Narconon has also attempted to silence opposition, including sending letters to neighbors of a proposed facility in Leona Valley, California threatening legal action for criticism. That statement is pretty extreme, yet the link does not make much of "threats of legal action" but instead talks about the proposed (not yet existant) Leona Valley facility. Residents of the Leona Valley were concerned that Narconon would increase crime. [34] The local town council recommended an eight foot security fence and independent security, which was objected to by Narconon officials. [35]. NONE of the statements imply nor even claim that there has been a State Violation but the information is present under the subtitle "State Violations". In addition, the Facility referred to has not yet been constructed. The permit referred to is about the proposed use of the land. What violation? Terryeo 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint has so little merit that it feels almost like intentionally disruptive editing (something which I believe you're on probation for). Don't get me wrong, I like that you pick through these articles with a fine-toothed comb - in makes the articles more bulletproof (though you've certaintly raised questions in the community about your true motives), but we will never, ever remove valid, pertinent material from the article. We also reserve the right to ignore (not even discuss, just outright ignore) the more useless among your suggestions.
That said, I'll take the time to answer you here... The state code violations are clearly addressed in the referenced article (a copy of which may still be found at, here is the relevant sections: At the Newport Beach facility, state inspectors found in January 2003 that staff members administered medication to residents without authorization and had alcohol on the premises. In February 2003, state inspectors found two staff members at Narconon’s Watsonville facility went drinking with a graduating resident from the program... Another violation state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs inspectors found at Narconon facilities was beds without mattress pads, including an inspection at the Newport Beach facility in November 2004, that found 24 beds without pads." The legal threats accusation is also clearly addressed in the article, "Ron and Sherry Howell, who live near the former boarding school site that would be used for the project, received a letter from an attorney for Narconon in January telling them to stop attacking the project or face legal consequences. They received the letter after submitting their written opposition to the project to the county Department of Regional Planning, and after Sherry Howell had written a letter to a local newspaper... Alice Benoit, who would be living near the facility, also feels that Narconon has targeted opponents of the project, including herself. “They kind of like invade our Town Council meetings and shout us down,” she said.." Vpoko 19:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous rant

I am moving this newly written, anonymous rant (left from an IP address) from the top of the page to the bottom. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From the tenor of the article it is clear that the only real point is slandering Scientologye even if it means denying real information to people who have a really serious problem (with drug addition). While I respect the author's freedom of speech - as this is wikipedia and not just a blog - the article should stick to the facts. It reads like communist propaganda. The biggest problem with the "anti-" approach is that it makes it obviosu that the author has an ax to grind and in this case apparently he is against effective help for drug addiction. This is a shame since these people deserve help. Jsut people have drug addiction doesn't mean that they do not deserve a chance to turn their lives around. Narconon is recognized as the most effective and humane programs in the world - witness the many awards and government alcolades it has recieved over the years. Fortunately there are some accurate sites on teh web sith concise ehlpful info about Narconon. I have met many addicts who undeniably conqesred their addictions and got their lives back. Fortunately, Narconon is the most successful program in the world and continues to be so to this day - I guess the fact that it does so well despite a rant like the author of the psoted wikipedia article - speaks volumes about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your feedback, if you have specific recommendations to make please do so, but nothing in the above post helps anyone write a better article. Vpoko 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything in the article is properly cited by verifiable sources. The only "rant" here is the misspellings-and-insults-filled speech just given by wikipediatrix 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. To consider the anon's statement, I looked at the article. While I use the broad term, "statement" and do not classify his statement as a rant, a claim, an attestation, or an arguement, another editor might. However it is classified, the article has many criticsms. Measuring the linear inches dedicated to criticsm, to the linear inches dedicated to pro-Narconon, I come up with a ratio of about 55 to 1. So, there is some substance to the anon's statement. Terryeo 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you find a verifiable source that God himself praised Narcanon, it can go in the article. Otherwise it can't, simple as that. Vpoko 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Links failing WP:EL/WP:RS

Links in the external links section fail WP:EL or WP:RS, namely that they are personal/self-published sites being used as a secondary source on Narconon. The Stop Narconon and Narconon Exposed links should be removed per the policies of Wikipedia but when I removed them, they were reinserted immediately. Thoughts? ju66l3r 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal/self-published sites certainly shouldn't be used as sources (per WP:RS). However, I thought the external linking requirements were a bit less strict? Don't forget WP:RS is a policy, but WP:EL is only a guideline... -- ChrisO 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines and policies are essentially the same in terms of their use for editing a page. One is only more official and less likely to be modified. The WP:EL page gives a definition for "links normally to be avoided" that includes Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority. Are either of these sites a "recognized authority"? ju66l3r 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason listed for removal was rm linkspam, which they weren't. AndroidCat 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I mischaracterized my objection to them in the edit summary. If i remove them with fails wp:el, will they be reverted? ju66l3r 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Tilman 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You need to explain yourself better than that. For what reason do these links improve the article and satisfy WP:EL and/or WP:RS? ju66l3r 08:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have an idea. I'll just go through the whole wikipedia, delete all external links, and when people protest, I'll request in each one for people to explain to me, why they satisy WP:EL. Never mind that this was already checked when the links were added (or someone else would have deleted them immediatly).
Dave Touretzky, for example, is a recognized authority on scientology, including narconon. He has often been quoted by the media. --Tilman 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would propose that you go through the Narconon Exposed web site, you will probably come to the conclusion that this web site has to be provided, as this is an excellent thesis disputing the statements put forth by Narconon on its own efficacy, Narconon's statement that it is secular, etc. all of this thoroughly sourced. Raymond Hill 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that the current wording on WP:EL was added less than two months ago during some rather heated editing. Reviewing the discussion archives to see exactly how other editors thought that wording should apply might be an idea. Previously the links and guideline were in sync. AndroidCat 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

This article could use a little spring cleaning. The structure needs work to make things more coherent, and the History topic is unreadable. 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) -Marbahlarbs is too lazy to log in.

Citations to add to the article...

AP and Post Wire Services (April 19, 2007). "Crui$ing for Cash". New York Post. 

Staff (April 19, 2007). "Cruise to detox NY". Sunday Times, Australia. 

Smith, Kyle (April 20, 2007). "Don't Be Tricked By $ci-Fi Tom-Foolery". New York Post. 

Seifman, David (April 20, 2). "Crui$e is 'Detox' of De Town". New York Post.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Sanchez, Hazel (April 20, 2007). "Cruise Thinks Scientology Can Save 9/11 Responders". WCBS-TV. CBS. 

Staff (April 20, 2007). "Tom Cruise holds fundraiser for Scientology 9/11 detox project". WABC-TV. ABC. 

Friedman, Roger (April 19, 2007). "Tom Cruise Fires Up Negative Feelings". FOX News. FOX. 

These should be incorporated into the article. Smee 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Article Chatter

Thanks for the nice words about Narconon Exposed - as the author, I'm glad to see that it's appreciated!

I've rewritten the Narconon entry to make it a bit more concise and bring out (to better effect, I hope) the important facts. See what you think.


You might concisely include accurate information, such as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortor sites its website presents (72) [20] or the quantity of sites some of the current Scientology documents present (over 100) instead of the "several dozen" which the article presently is presenting as the quantity of Narconon brick and mortar sites. Terryeo 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As a comment, is it really appropriate to site one's own personal website, ChrisO, as a source of information when writing an article of this nature? Should a personal website author write an article which advertises their own site? Isn't there a number of Wikipedia policies which deny that you, as an wikipedia author, should not site your own personal website in a Wikipedia article? That is your own personal website, right? It says the copyrights, etc. are owned by Chris Owen, gives a yahoo email address. [21] Terryeo 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As a comment, is it really appropriate to site one's own employer & religion, Terryeo, as a source of information when writing an article of this nature? Should an employee & member of a contentious religious organisation write an article which defends the ethics and business practices of their own employer & religion? Isn't there a number of Wikipedia policies which deny that you, as an wikipedia author, should not site your own employer & religious organisation in a Wikipedia article? You are a Scientologist, right? LamontCranston 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the finest sources of facts and information about Narconon resides at

It is important to make the distinction between Scientology's front group narCONon and the legitimate drug rehabilitation program Narcotics Anonymous: the two are totally different. The word "NarcAnon" is some times used by the Friends of Narcotics Anonymous organization: Scientology Inc. deliberately used the word "narCONon" to obfuscate their business with the legitimate one.

See WP:NOR, on the other hand, if you find a published source which makes that statement, it could appear in the article. Terryeo 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that "Narcanon" and "Narconon" appear similar is patently obvious, and does not require citation. If the article were to claim that this was a deliberate attempt at confusion, that would probably require citation; however, it doesn't make that claim, so no citation is needed. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the original entry for Narconon, I see that it was almost entirely wrong. Radically, fundamentally wrong. Its present entry appears to be accurate. This shows just how well the "openness" of Wikipedia seems to be working. Is this progressive improvement common throughout Wikipedia? Desertphile July 9 2003 11:39AM PDT

If I recall correctly, the original page was written by a user who also edited some other Scientology pages in ways that seemed to take a pro-Scientology POV. There have been only a few attempts by such persons to remove or whitewash information on Wikipedia -- see for instance this edit and this one. It's valuable that on Wikipedia everyone can see everyone else's edits and quickly correct problems when they are introduced.
I know I mentioned this on your user talk page, Desertphile, but I'd also like to mention it here so it will be connected to the public record of the page: Wikipedia isn't helped by derogatory expressions like "narCONon" in the articles. They're intended to describe things, even nasty things we personally don't like, from a neutral point of view. I think Narconon is a con, and you think it is, but Wikipedia doesn't talk like that. --FOo

Thank you for correcting my behavior. The word Narconon and the word Narcanon appear to have been chosen by Hubbard to deliberately obfuscate the two. My putting the CON in capital letters is standard for civil rights and human rights activists when we write about Narconon because newspapers, magazines, and Public Service Announcement programmers more often than not do not know there is a difference. Plus CON is too fun a pun to pass up at times.
It might be of some slight interest to some people that you are able to read the Deceased Hubbard's thinking in that moment when he chose a title for that organization. While it might have some connection or implication to "narcotics", your enlightened presentation of his opinion would be more useful to Wikipedia if you could document it. Possibly he sketched a note to a friend, or possible he spoke in an aside to a friend and said something like that. If that is published by a source of good repute, then that should be included in the article. If not, it creates additional difficulty in articles which are already difficult enough. I mean, isn't it obvious, the articles about Scientology and Dianetics and related articles are already difficult to read through and understand. Adding yet one more "disambiguation" (Narconon doesn't mean Narcanon) and yet one more Original Research (Hubbard chose "Narconon" for its similarity) doesn't contribute to the clarity of the article. However, if you had a published source which said that, then it could be included. Terryeo 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about making fun puns, though, and if the purpose is to point out that Narconon is not Narcotics Anonymous, simply stating that (as the Narconon and Twelve-step program pages do) seems to work. There isn't anything named "narCONon". --FOo
The 12 step program is Nar-Anon (no 'c'), not Narcanon. Based on the two entries in Wikipedia Nar-Anon is slightly younger than narconon. I'm not going to comment on narconon since I don't have any direct knowledge, but I was surprised to see a person from narconon used as an expert on a History Channel show about addiction (near where it was talking about the U.S. civil war). However, on the other hand, some N.A. members are confused about the lack of a 'c' in Nar-Anon. - Bill Smith 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was working on a Wikipedia entry for fair game complete with about fifty footnotes and images of HAS and HCOPL files seized by the FBI. Striving for a NPOV might be impossible. For example:
  • Paulette Cooper wrote an expose' about Scientology, and was "fair gamed." She was framed for making bomb threats; a woman impersonated her and performed psychotic acts in her community, telling people she was Paulette Cooper; her name and telephone number was written on the walls of men's bathrooms in seedy bars; a undercover "Guardian's Office" agent befriended her, moved in with her as a roommate, and reported back to Scientology Inc. her every thought and move; finally, a man showed up at her residence with a pistol hidden in a bunch of roses, knowcked on the door, and when a friend of Ms. Cooper's opened the door, the man put the pistol to her head and pulled the trigger--- the gun didn't go off. Can any of this be a NPOV? I dunno.
  • Scott Mayer was scheduled to testify against Scientology Inc. in a trial where Scientology Inc. was seeking tax-exemption. He had been hiding from GO/OSA for a few years, fearing for his life. A few days before the trial, he came out of hiding and visited a friend he hadn't seen since going into hiding. He parked his car at that friend's house over night, but spent the night elsewhere. The next day a bomb blew up his automobile in front of his friend's house. (No one was killed or hurt.) Mayer successfully testified, then went back into hiding. He was "fair game" because he was the captian of Hubbard's toy "navy" while Hubbard was a fugitive from the USA and france.
A neutral point of view probably is possible, if the writer can report just the facts and then adds "waffle words." I can't. Desertphile 19:16 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Believe me, I understand your frustration. When we go to describe the actions or claims of someone we consider horrible and evil, it is very hard to neutrally describe the situation. This is why pages like Scientology, antisemitism, or the like are hard to write! But that's what Wikipedia is -- hard to write sometimes. It's a lot easier to write neutrally about, say, physics, than about social problems.
I'm sorry you feel that NPOV constitutes "waffle words". I don't think it does. I don't think it's waffling to say, for instance, "Paulette Cooper describes her experience with Scientologist agents as such ..." or "Scott Mayer recalls ..." It isn't non-neutral to state what these people have had to say -- in their own words even! The NPOV problem happens when the wording of the article itself adopts the point of view of a partisan, rather than stating what the partisans have to say (as well as what the agreed-upon or established facts are).
I also suspect it's important to avoid the buzzwords -- repeated phrases that seem to be used in place of more descriptive or specific ones. Repeatedly writing "civil rights and human rights activists" instead of more specific expressions -- such as "protestors against Scientology practices" or "plaintiffs in lawsuits against CoS" or "online Scientology critics" -- comes off as a buzzword.
It's very important when discussing any doctrinaire organization -- be it CoS, medieval Catholicism, or Stalinism -- to avoid falling into that organization's own definitions of the world. Stalinists and Trotskyists can argue for weeks over who "betrayed the revolution" and it doesn't change the fact that Stalinists killed millions. Likewise, while trying to take the expression "human rights activists" away from CCHR and other front groups may seem like a worthwhile defense of the language, to an observer outside of the issue it smells of fanaticism. --FOo

Arrrgh we had one of these Narcanon morons come to our school today, told us complete lies about drugs. He even told us a bit about the origin of Narcanon, he was like "the founder was in prison for drug crimes. But then he found the philosophical writings of L. Ron Hubbard" at that point I just laughed and ceased to care what the speaker had to say. Wafflecop 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Future of rehab center unknown

Huff, Elizabeth (April 19, 2008). "Future of rehab center unknown". Battle Creek Enquirer. Retrieved 2008-04-19.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Could be used as a source to add info to this article. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that article that adds any extra information that is relevant. Organizations have maintenance issues with old buildings all the time, so I don't see that itself as noteworthy. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Council revokes rehab consent

Source to be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't really see anything in here that is noteworthy for the topic of this article. It seems they have had planning permission overturned because the neighbors don't want to live next to a drug rehab clinic (who does?), not because of anything specific to do with Narconon. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rehab home cited for alleged code violations

Source to be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Source: Narconon promoted to children / Narconon in San Francisco

There are others on the SFgate site. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation 6

I'm a bit confused by the sentence that references citation 6. That sentence begins "By the end of 1991...", but the PDF that refernce 6 links to does not mention the year 1991 in the section on Spain. In fact, the only appearance of "1991" in the whole document is in a section on Turkmenistan.

Instead, the document says that "In 1988, Heber Jentzsch, the current president of the Church, was arrested during a trip to Spain and spent four months in jail." [p. 47]. It shortly continues: "In December [2001] the Madrid Provincial Court had acquitted 15 members and employees of the Spanish branch of Scientology who had been charged along with the church leader Rev. Heber Jentzsch." [id.]. Judging by the dates and the context of those sentences, these are separate incidents. Additionally, the cited source makes no mention of what court dealt with the 1988 incident, only referencing "the Madrid Provincial Court" in the December 2001 incident.

I'm changing the part of this article in question to reflect what the cited source actually say. -George (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Section removed

I have removed the following text:

Heroin possession

In March 2002, it was reported that a man was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell, arising from an incident where he was found with 31 packets of heroin during a police investigation of a disturbance at a store on September 9, 2000. The man worked at a Narconon facility in Georgia at the time. While the man was waiting to be sentenced, the judge allowed him to remain free on $15,000 bail and return to his duties as a drug rehab counselor at Narconon, despite the objections from the prosecutor of the case.[1]

As far as I can see, the only source cited (which, incidentally, fails WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS) does not indicate that the man worked at Narconon at the time of his arrest for possession of heroin. Instead, the source dated 2002 says, "A former Lancaster man was found guilty late Friday of possessing heroin with the intent to sell the drug in September of 2000. Anthony J. Mariani, 40, now of Dunwoody, Ga., also was found guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. Mariani, who has undergone voluntary drug rehabilitation and now works as a counselor for the inpatient Narconon program outside Atlanta, faces a possible 2-year mandatory minimum prison sentence." Jayen466 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Actually, I think it also fails WP:UNDUE - I don't really see the relevance of this incident to Narconon in general. It strikes me as a bit coatrackish. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Useful sources

About Narconon programs in schools: [22][23] JN466 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Head of Scientologist “Narconon” center sentenced in Pavlodar, Kazakhstan

[24], rough translation here [25]. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Narcotics Anonymous

I think we ought to add a section clarifying the relationship (better, lack of relationship) between Narconon and Narcotics Anonymous. I would do this, but I'm not entirely sure what the major differences and similarities are. Given that many people often (I'm told mistakenly) abbreviate Narcotics Anonymous as Narcanon, and since Narcotics Anonymous is probably the largest organization involved in the same project(getting people off narcotics) as Narconon, it seems to me that there should be a section in the Wikipedia article clarifying how Narconon is or is not related to Narcotics Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what the issues are and will add something this evening. I have worked with Narcotics Anonymous groups before, assisting people who have been swindled by this Scientology fraud. At the same time I'll add information about these crook's methods. Fredric Rice (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


As someone who came to this page to reseach various claims about the success rate of this program, it is fairly clear that the entire page is heavily biased against Narconon with very little substantive information. I do understand that investigations and overt community actions taken against Scientology may be facts, but objective people would like some information on the actual methods and success rates. Perhaps as an attorney I am used to at least an attempt at hiding bias. Propaganda is more persuasive when you attempt to sound objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the methods are described here. Perhaps they could go into more detail, but really what is there is a good description of their detoxification methods. As for the success rate, I think the article covers that. Narconon claims a 70% success rate, but no scientific verification has been done. Obviously they aren't going to allow outsiders to come in and review their process or their files and without that how would one independently verify their success rate? I too am an attorney, so I understand your concerns. But you must understand that it is rather difficult with a topic like Narconon that is almost universally recognized as an unconscionable scam outside of Scientology members who try and defend it. I would agree that it could be set up like a regular article, simply discussing the organization's history and methods before delving into some of the controversies, but the article would still end up being about the same. It's just a fact with this organization that there is far more verifiable negatives than positives.Jdlund (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrowhead, OK

No mention of the Arrowhead Oklahoma facility in the article. This is a fairly large omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor references on this page

If you look at references #29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 below:

^ Church of Scientology The Fundamental Skills of Auditing: Hubbard Professional TR Course (accessed June 4, 2006)
^ Hubbard, Narconon Communication & Perception Course Book 4a, 2004 edition. (pg. 447-482)
^ Joseph Mallia "Inside the Church of Scientology; Sacred teachings not secret anymore" Boston Herald March 4, 1998 pg. 025
^ Janet Reitman Inside Scientology Rolling Stone, Issue 995. March 9, 2006.
^ Leigh Woolsley "Case for the Cure", Tulsa World, 6 November 2005 pg. D-1

There are numerous issues with the information cited in the below paragraph:

“The remainder of the Narconon course uses "training routines" or "TRs" originally devised by Hubbard to teach communications skills to Scientologists.[29] In the Narconon variant, these courses claim to be designed to rehabilitate drug abusers. These training routines include TR 8, which involves the individual commanding an ashtray to "stand up" and "sit down", and thanking it for doing so, as loudly as they can.[30][31] Former Scientologists say that the purpose of the drill is for the individual to "beam" their "intention" into the ashtray to make it move.[32] Patients spend an average of 3 to 4 months in the Narconon facilities in the United States, for a fee which is different at every Narconon Center. The price ranges from $10,000 to about $30,000.[33]“

For #29, I could see no connection between the source and Narconon in the source.
For #30 and 31, I could see no connection found between the sources listed and Narconon in the sources.
For #32, I could see no connection between "the drill" and Narconon.
For #33, in searching, this article could not be found or supported.

Saying the above, I petition for the removal of these references and above paragraph as this information is unreliable and, at the very least, NPOV. Scifilover386 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After petitioning these sources for removal, and finding no objection, I am going to remove these sources. If someone objects, I am happy to have a discussion about the validity of your argument. Scifilover386 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal, but the time allowed to comment is ridiculous. How on earth can contributors comment within this time? Theeurocrat (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing them would be premature. I do believe there is plenty of evidence of former NarcoNon patients claiming the TR8 is used in the program. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The TR routines mentioned in the first sentence is confirmed by NarcoNon themselves, see Narconon Therapeutic Training Routines. Would this be a suitable substitute for the first source? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


The whole section about efficacy seems to be based on one single, dodgy study. This study was partly conducted by a former Narconon executive, who was a Scientologist at the time of study, see: . As noted by a commenter at the publisher of the study (, the conclusions deviate from the actual numbers published, just one example, and I quote:

"I would like to thank Ms Cecchini for taking the time to post a reply to my remarks about the study. Having read the author’s response I must comment that there are specific issues regarding the treatment and reporting of data that remain unanswered.
In Table 9, item D22 shows that a greater percentage of the control group feel they can easily resist pressures to take drugs than the drug education group (78.8% compared with 74.5%). The text on page 11 of the report states that “students who received the curriculum were more likely to say they could resist pressures to use drugs than those who did not receive the program”. Could I ask the authors to account for this seeming contradiction?"

This Wikipedia article goes into much detail on this singular study whose directors have vested interests and evokes that the findings given under "Efficacy" are fact, even though these are very controversial, and there have been other studies that come to an opposed conclusion. A Dr. David Root is cited in this article, who co-wrote the introduction to Clear Body, Clear Mind, and is on the boards of a number of Scientology's detox organizations. An effort is currently underway to find other credible sources so as to give this article more balance. I will give my opinion in a few days here, in the meantime feel free to voice your opinion here. --Thilo (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add, that the study in question has been funded by ABLE, see page 37 of
"ABLE funded a multi-year study of the delivery of the Narconon Drug education curriculum to high school students in Hawaii and Oklahoma, which was completed and written up in 2007."
The study being cited from was directly funded by those who have a real interest to have their programs deemed as "successful". I therefore submit that the paragraph "Efficacy" must be changed to reflect this situation. --Thilo (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is more literature to consider, mostly secondary sources: by Rigmor C Berg Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services ISBN 978-82-8121-214-5
I will start to incorporate the information from these sources in the article over the course of the next few days. --Thilo (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the Dr. Root excursion. It is not clear, how Dr. Root conducted his study, who funded it, who did the peer reviewing, and where the results were published. All we have is 2nd hand information from an "alternative medicine book" about curing arthritis which is supposed to contain information about a presentation and talk that Dr. Root once gave. Furthermore, I have made it clear that Narconon's efficacy is not proven at all, since there are no reputable studies (aside from the Richard Lennox' and Marie Cecchini's study which does only look at drug prevention in schools, and even here the independence of the study is very much in question) that can confirm Narconon's claimed stellar success rates of 60% and higher with drug addicts. I believe the article now accurately reflects the current scientific stance on Narconon, and I will remove the "neutrality block" in the next week or so if there are no objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thilo (talkcontribs) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole efficacy section is missleading. The single study it nows hang on is about a high school drug education program, not about the Narconon drog adiction treatment program. As it currently stands, if appears to give credit to the Narconon treatment itself. I suggest removing the reference to this study all together, or make a separate section for the school education program. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not remove the reference to this study altogether. Even if I personally believe that this study is fraudulent and heavily biased due to its funding on behalf of Narconon's carrier organisation, it still is one of the few studies out there that has been published in a journal. Due to NPOV, we must present the findings of the study here, nevertheless. I agree that the way this study is presented here is misleading at present. So we should probably include this study in a new section, like "Drug prevention programmes in schools" or something like this. Will you do this? --Thilo (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree we need to keep it in some form, I'll have a look at it. Thimbleweed (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed section on the Narconon program

A section on the content of the Narconon program was removed due to bad sourcing. I have gone throug it, and the stick point seems to be the use of the Scientology TR routines, particularly the TR8 (the "yelling at an ashtray" training routine). I have found sources to confirm the use of these in Narconons own publications. The TR8 is mentioned in the Narconon Withdrawal Specialist Corse booklet here and a Narconon course check-sheet here. Both of these are from Narconon-critical websites, however. The TR8 also is not covered in the excerpt from the course booklet online, but is mentioned in the Contents list. Considering the actual method used by Narconon would be of interest in such an article, are these sources adequate? Thimbleweed (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, Scientology's TR8 ash-tray-levitation-screaming/thank-you ritual is part of their suit of TRs which are only applied as part of their "NarCONon" frauds if the mark expresses what Scientology calls "not havingness," basically an inability to effect changes in the mark's life and surroundings, all due to an overwhelming infestation of what Scientology calls Body Thetans.
But TR8 Levitate/Scream is not normally a part of NarCONon's "Purification Rundown" quack medical frauds, it appears to be fairly rare if only because the marks recognize it as lunatic nonsense. Only marks who evidence themselves to be pliable and have money are subjected to TR8 as part of the criminal enterprise's "NarCONon" frauds. We might see maybe 1 or 2 percent of the victims subjected to Scientology's "NarCONon" being "regged" through TR8 lunacy. Damotclese (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, you can observe TR8 Levitate/Sceram at the Scientology business office on Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena, California some times. The business office is usually deserted, but on rare occasions yiou might find someone in there sitting in a table toward the back screaming at an ash tray, ordering it to rise up and then watching the mark lift the tray and then seeing the mark tell the tray "thank you," and doing it over and over again. TR8 is used fairly widely on the marks that show themselves to be pliable enough to fall for it, it's not just a rare NarCONon fraud. Damotclese (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
All this is well, but do you have any good sources? Personal obersvartions run into the WP:OR-problem. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I have now reinstated the section taken out by Scifilover386 on the objection that non of the sources actually explicitly state that the TR courser are used at Narconon. They are now sourced with Narconon's own material, showing they are. As per user Damotclese's suggestion, I added the caveat "sometimes" to the description of the TR8. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede misleading?

The last section of the lede states:

To this day there exist no independent and recognized studies that can confirm the efficacy of the Narconon program.[4] Narconon's operator ABLE funded a peer-reviewed study, published in 2008 and co-authored by a former Narconon executive, which asserts that the Narconon curriculum had a thorough grounding in substance abuse etiology and prevention theory, incorporated a number of tried and tested prevention strategies, and had proven successful in reducing drug use among youths.[5]

This sentence now indicate it is about the full Narconon program, which it is not. We have an other study study (Berg 2008), which is the closest I have seen to a proper secondary source saying the Lennox & Checcini 2008 study is 1) not independent, 2) not properly conducted, and 3) is only about the school program, not the Narconon withdrawal program. As it not stands, the lede indicate the whole Narconon program has a "thorough grounding in substance abuse etiology and prevention theory, incorporated a number of tried and tested prevention strategies, and had proven successful in reducing drug use among youths", which is not what the source says. Considering the problems with this study, the emphasize put on this study in the lede would thus in my view go against WP:FRNG. I suggest removing the whole sentence, or at least change it so that it do not indicate the Lennox & Checcini study is a proper scientific study.Thimbleweed (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's no counter arguments, I will go ahead and edit the lede. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with this change. You're right in that the way this study was presented in the introduction, which is actually about the most insignificant aspect of the Narconon programme, can skew the impression that all of Narconon is scientifically of substance, when it clearly is not. --Thilo (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Seeing the study is very much cited in other sections of the article, it's not as if we lost any information. This article will potentially be read by people in a very difficult situation. If people get the death year of Emperor Augustus wrong it's unfortunate, but no big deal in the greater picture, errors in this article is something people may potentially die from. I think we have an obligation to be extra careful giving factual and fair information here. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Facility Move to Former State Lodge

The history section needs to be updated to show that the Oklahoma facility has relocated. Some time back Narconon entered into some kind of land swap / purchase with the Indian Nation for around 200 acres of former state park resort property. The Indian's had been given (unlikely they bought the property, but I don't know) by the state after the state shut down the 3 story lodge & cabins at the park. Narconon entered into an agreement to trade the original site plus cash for this property. There was press reports that the Indian Nation had to get the Bureau of Indian Affairs involved when Narconon failed to pay the funds owed. THere should be ample news reports to support someone to research and update this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put in some info about the history of Narconon in Oklahoma, although nothing specific yet about the land purchase / swap / whatever-it-was. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

News story

A big news story is running on Rock Center, especially focusing on deaths at the "Arrowhead" facility in Oklahoma... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a brief mention of this, under 'controversies'. A link to the RC story itself might be a useful addition. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it was yet on-line when I made my previous comment, but it's at Families question Scientology-linked drug rehab after recent deaths - Rock Center with Brian Williams... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Added link - thanks - also added link to Narconon's response statement. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternative name? Pur Detox

The "Pur Detox" (mentioned in the article) seems to be Narconon under a different name. Should this be included in the article? Relevant news article here. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should. The slogan "The Truth About Drugs" seems also to be used sometimes without the Narconon name - I can have a look around for sources on that. What other sources to we have on the relationship between Pur Detox and Narconon? --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Court House News also call them a "Church of Scientology-affiliated facility" and mentions the Purification Rundown. I don't know if this is enough. Would it be an ide to have a section called "other Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation groups" for Pur Detox, Novus Medical Detox and others? It seems they vary ever so slightly in treatment, so it could be difficult to claim they are Narconon. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
And not forgetting that they all seem to be related to Purification Rundown. I haven't heard of Novus Medical Detox at all. "other Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation groups" seems like a good idea to me. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Also relevant: Second Chance Program, New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project, also possibly 'Bio-Cleansing Centers of America'. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one, Teen-anon, which by their own description is a version of Narconon (including the Purifaction Rundown), directly aimed at teenagers. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
another one: 'Israel Says No To Drugs' --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Cleanse and Detox Program --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
New section erected, feel free to move it to a more appropriate place. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not rename the section. I have made redirects for all the alternative names to the section.Thimbleweed (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going to reorganise the article so that the 'spin-off groups' section is moved out of 'history' (where you maybe wouldn't expect to find it). If I make this section into a first-level heading then will that screw up what you've done? Best wishes, --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
No, moving it or changing level won't matter as long as the name stays the same. Please go ahead and find a better place for it, my placement wasn't optimal. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of Paride Ella and Giuseppe Tomba

Narconon, Taceno, Italy, 1995.

Source on article Purification Rundown is Biglia, Andrea (February 20, 1995). "Tragedia nella lotta alla droga". Corriere della Sera (in Italian). p. 13. 

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

a copy of the article and a translation are here.

establishes that both men were young (22 and 26) symptoms were vomitting and diarrheoa, causes of death were:

  • Paride Ella, age 22: kidney failure
  • Giuseppe Tomba, age 26: heart attack

Both Feb 1995

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

added --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for future use (maybe) in Narconon article

  • [26] "Inside Scientology's Rehab Racket", 'the fix: addiction and recovery, straight up' (specialist magazine for the rehab sector). --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Re Narconon's drug education (aka 'prevention') programme:

David Crosbie, the CEO of the Mental Health Council of Australia says Narconon operates in various parts of the world and has links to the Church of Scientology. He says those links are unclear but it's been suggested to him that Narconon draws on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and is used to recruit people to Scientology.

David Crosbie says he doesn't fully understand Narconon's treatment methods because they haven't been subject to review or publicly scrutinised.

DAVID CROSBIE: But we understand there's a range of approaches including saunas and various kinds of purges that participants take and you know a range of other sort of interventions, some of which may have some benefit.

But the program itself has not been independently evaluated and tends to avoid public scrutiny, which creates some concern amongst those of us who have worked in treating people who have mental health and alcohol and drug problems.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: David Crosbie believes that at a time Australia is short of community drug treatment centres it's inappropriate that a group whose methods he believes aren't open to scrutiny is able to lease a public asset rent free.

DAVID CROSBIE: We should be allowing people to in a sense tender for it or provide some kind of evidence that what they're going to do with that property will benefit the community and will the benefit the people who participate in the programs involved.


NERIDA JAMES: Narconon uses the works of L. Ron Hubbard. It's not a Church of Scientology run organisation. ... And I know it's been pushed by the media that, you know, we're a front group for the Church of Scientology, but I can tell you now, not even one per cent of the Narconon graduates go on to become Scientologists.

  • "Making Waves: Scientologists Face Stormy Passage in Bid For European Growth --- Church and Followers Spark Skepticism and State Bans; Big Case Lost in France --- Applying for Religious Status", Wall Street Journal Europe, 25 November 1996. Shailagh Murray

The group has secular interests in Europe, including numerous Narconon drug-rehabilitation centers and literacy programs in France, Denmark and Switzerland. Mr. Hubbard's volumes of management and administration theory are used by Scientologist-owned consulting firms. Church officials say that hundreds of mainly small European companies work according to Mr. Hubbard's techniques.


Scientology's many critics charge that in all such efforts, from auditing to drug rehabilitation, the church has only one end in mind. "The point is money, money, money -- and with it more power and influence," declares Manfred Beeres, spokesman for the German Christian Democratic party in Rhineland-Palatinate. Scientology's push into social services, education and business management is viewed by many German leaders as an effort to infiltrate and manipulate the unsuspecting masses. "We're dealing in a criminal organization, not a church," insists Mr. Beeres.

Church officials call such allegations ridiculous. "Of course what's going on is that old, established religions in Germany and elsewhere are losing members, and they're blaming us," says Janet Weiland, vice president of the Church of Scientology International in Los Angeles. "But come on -- we have 30,000 members in Germany. It's hardly our fault."


But the church may have miscalculated with a series of newspaper ads comparing its plight in Germany to religious persecution under 1930s Nazi rule. "We are outraged by the language" of the ads, the State Department spokesman said later.

  • "30 arrested in Paris crackdown on Scientologists", Agence France-Presse, 14 January 1992

About 30 Scientologists were arrested -- and 19 of them later indicted -- between May and October 1990 on charges of fraud, conspiracy to defraud and the illegal practice of medicine following the 1988 suicide of a church member in Lyon, eastern France.


The sect has often found itself in trouble with officialdom the world over, accused of defrauding and brainwashing followers and, in France, of quackery at its illegal anti-drug clinics called "Narconon."

  • "DON'T BE TRICKED BY $CI-FI TOM-FOOLERY", New York Post, 20 April 2007. Kyle Smith

Those who want a tan from his celebrity glow will urge a fair hearing for his quackery. Obscure City Councilman Hiram Monserrate suddenly finds himself talked about after issuing a proclamation of huzzahs for L. Ron Hubbard.

Three: The Ground Zero maladies are so baffling that workers will try anything. Anyone who feels better will credit any placebo at hand - whether Cruise or the Easter Bunny. In 1991, Time called Scientology's anti-drug program "Narconon" a "vehicle for drawing addicts into the cult" - which the magazine said "invented hundreds of goods and services for which members are urged to give up 'donations' " - such as $1,250 for advice on "moving swiftly up the Bridge" of enlightenment. That's New Age techno-gobbledygook for advice on buying swiftly up the Bridge of Brooklyn.

Scientology fronts such as the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project - its Web site immediately recognizable as the work of Hubbardites by its logo, which looks like the cover of a Robert Heinlein paperback from 1971 - hint that their gimmicks might possibly interest anyone dreaming of weight loss, higher I.Q. or freedom from addiction. And you might be extra-specially interested if you've faced heart disease, cancer, Agent Orange or Chernobyl.

As Mayor Bloomberg put it, Scientology "is not science." Nope. It's science fiction.

DRUG TREATMENT. Hubbard's purification treatments are the mainstay of Narconon, a Scientology-run chain of 33 alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers -- some in prisons under the name "Criminon" -- in 12 countries. Narconon, a classic vehicle for drawing addicts into the cult, now plans to open what it calls the world's largest treatment center, a 1,400-bed facility on an Indian reservation near Newkirk, Okla. (pop. 2,400. At a 1989 ceremony in Newkirk, the As- sociation for Better Living and Education presented Narconon a cheek for $200,000 and a study praising its work. The association turned out to be part of Scientology itself. Today the town is battling to keep out the cult, which has fought back through such tactics as sending private detectives to snoop on the mayor and the local newspaper publisher.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Health officials shut down Narconon drug rehab centre; Treatments based on Scientology", Montreal Gazette, 18 April 2012. CATHERINE SOLYOM

Marc Lacour, the director of the Mauricie Health and Social Services Agency ... "For sure, if we came to this conclusion (about Narconon), we worry about what may be happening elsewhere," Lacour said, adding Narconon has been banned in France.

  • "Inside Narconon's bizarre treatments; David love discusses his strange and painful experiences there. It was like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest times 10,' he says", Montreal Gazette, 20 April 2012. CATHERINE SOLYOM

the lasting effects of the Narconon experience were psychological.

The ashtray routine was just one of several training routines Love says are designed to make students accept they are being controlled, and teach them how to control others.

In another routine, two students were put in a room and repeatedly ordered each other to go to a wall, touch a wall, pick up a bottle, put it down, etc. The exercise could last hours, or several days, but until students were deemed to have completed it they couldn't move on, Love said.

"They wouldn't let a patient go on to the next stage until they were 'cracked,' " Love said, quoting from one of Hubbard's books.

"These things really affected me. Being forced to say there's nothing more I can do.

"They'd say keep going, keep going, when people were in tears ... You have no money, you don't know the language, you have nowhere to live, no money for food, you're stuck there. You're f----d. You have to do it. ... It was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest times 10."


Lacour, of the public health agency, said that following several complaints, Narconon Trois Rivières has been more upfront recently about its ideology. "They are no longer hiding the fact they are inspired by Scientology, but they are not there to recruit," Lacour said.

Love disagrees, and says he believes that on top of providing new recruits to the church, Narconon, which has 50 centres in 22 countries, funnels money to it. Since 2005, when the centre in Trois Rivières opened, Love calculated it had treated 720 patients and earned more than $16 million, much of which went to church executives in the form of salaries, and donations to the church.

Love has received leaked emails that point to the close relationship between the Church of Scientology in Montreal and Narconon Trois Rivières.

Love, along with four other former patients, has filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission claiming that Narconon Trois Rivières exploited their disability - drug addiction - in getting them in the program and having them do manual labour. Also named in the complaint are the Church of Scientology International and Narconon International.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Anger as Scientology group visits school", Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2012

Amanda Steele, 30, only became aware of the visit when she found some of the group's literature in her 10–year–old son's school bag. She has criticised the primary school for allowing the drug service to address pupils. ...

"I could not believe the school would get people like this in," she said.

"All the parents I have spoken to are horrified. They want to know how this was allowed to happen."

She added: "It is a faith school, so why not get someone from the Church of England to do this? "These are not the sort of people I want to come in to teach my kids about drugs.

"In fact, I don't want them to come anywhere near them."

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Scientologists will 'purify' drug addicts - for pounds 15,000: It boasts an 80 per cent success rate, the rock star Beck is a fan, and schools are inviting the Narconon centre into the classroom. So why are some people worried? Jamie Doward reports", The Observer, 27 March 2005. Jamie Doward

Paul Dolan, the clinic's manager, admits he is a Scientologist and confirms that the centre could not have opened if it had not been for the generosity of members of the church. However, he denied suggestions that the clinic's profits will be ploughed into Scientology ...

Critics say there is no scientific basis for Narconon's programme and are alarmed at the amounts of vitamins it prescribes. Dolan dismisses the worries. 'You could give the people in here up to 1,000 times the recommended daily dose and it still wouldn't be a health threat, because the drugs they have been on strip the vitamins out of the body.'

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Alarm in prisons at Scientology drug cures aimed at inmates: Officials unable to stop advice sent to inmates: Experts criticise sauna and vitamin therapies", The Guardian, 15 November 2005. Diane Taylor and Hugh Muir

The Prison Service has warned that activists linked to the Church of Scientology are targeting offenders in British jails with unauthorised anti-drug and education programmes. Narconon, the drug detox and rehab programme developed by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard, and Criminon, his drugs education and rehab programme, are both being offered to prisoners through correspondence courses. Though officials frown on the programmes, they are unable to stop the practice because they cannot justify tampering with inmates' mail in these circumstances.


In an internal memo, Martin Lee, head of the Prison Service's drugs strategy unit says Narconon has been making direct and indirect contacts with prisoners. "An assessment by the drugs strategy unit of the Narconon correspondence course, which I understand is offered to prisoners, concluded that the course did not fulfil the requirements of 'what works' principles nor would it qualify as an accredited or validated programme," he says.

experts have told the Guardian that the programme does not bear scrutiny. Release, the national drugs and legal advice charity said: "We are not aware of any recognised scientific evidence base to support the detoxification techniques described in the Narconon literature we have seen."

Rosie Brocklehurst, chief executive of Addaction, said: "We have concerns about the Narconon centre. We know that cocaine produces strong psychological cravings, treating them in a sauna is ridiculous." Narconon has also faced criticism for its attempts to work in schools. Two education authorities, Trafford in Manchester and Tower Hamlets in east London, confirmed to the Guardian that their schools have been warned not to allow the charity access to classrooms.

Scientology has a controversial past. In 1984 at the high court Mr Justice Latey said: "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious. It is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit."

At the St Leonard's centre, Narconon director Jim Mulligan insisted that critics have an axe to grind. "If you are successful, you will get knocked," he said.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Cult watchdog says scientology group targeting Irish schools", Sunday Tribune, 28 September 2008.

Ireland's cult watchdog has contacted gardai and the Department of Education over concerns the Church of Scientology is planning to target secondary school children under the guise of providing drug awareness programmes.

Mike Garde, director of Dialogue Ireland which monitors cult activity, said he has received information that the drug awareness group Narconon, run by the Church of Scientology, is planning talks in Irish schools.

"This is a major concern. The Church of Scientology is trying to infiltrate our schools. They are trying to recruit people to scientology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs awareness," he said. "I've been in touch with the Department of Education too and am awaiting a response."

Garde received a leaked email saying the church planned to "hit" as many Irish schools as possible.


A spokesman for Anonymous Ireland, an international group that monitors the activities of scientologists, said it is also aware of a strategy by Narconon to introduce 'say no to drugs' lectures at Irish schools. "I'm so concerned I've contacted the local schools here about it. The gardai have also been forwarded the email. It's about raising awareness now," the spokesman added.


Garde, who gives lectures in schools about the dangers of cults, will raise the issue in any schools he visits.

"This is a very worrying step. But hopefully, with enough awareness, they will not be successful," Garde added.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Drugs charity is front for 'dangerous' organisation;Insight;Focus", Sunday Times, 7 January 2007

Devotees of the Church of Scientology have gained access to thousands of British children through a charity that visits schools to lecture on the dangers of drugs.

A Sunday Times investigation has found that Marlborough College is one of more than 500 schools across Britain where the charity has taught.

Critics of the charity, Narconon, say it is a front to promote the teaching of Scientology -the controversial "religion" founded by L Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer.


Narconon's international website claims: "The ministry of health in England (sic) has also directly funded Narconon residential rehabilitation." But the Department of Health denies any knowledge of this.

Last week, during a conversation with an undercover reporter, the charity named eight of the schools it has visited. They included Coombe Girls, a state school in New Malden, Surrey, Golden Hillock, a secondary school in Birmingham, the Arts Educational London Schools (AELS), a private school in Chiswick, west London, and Ricards Lodge, a high school in Wimbledon, southwest London.

John Gummer, the former cabinet minister, said: "Scientology is a dangerous organisation. It doesn't stand up intellectually and scientifically. It is rather bad science fiction. If Scientologists have been getting into schools under the guise of a drug charity it is very worrying. Schools must know exactly who they are letting in and should not have anything to do with Scientologists."


schools that pay the charity Pounds 140 a session to lecture their pupils.


Professor Stephen Kent, a Canadian academic who is an authority on Scientology, said: "The connection between Narconon and Scientology is solid.

Of course, Scientology tries to get non-Scientologists involved in the programme, but the engine behind the programme is Scientology."


The British government expressed concern about Narconon as long as eight years ago. A 1998 memo from the Home Office's drug strategy unit warned that the charity had its "roots in the Church of Scientology and (is) not in the mainstream of drug rehabilitation".

Tower Hamlets council in east London advises its schools against using Narconon.

DrugScope, one of the UK's main drug charities, said: "We feel that the quality of Narconon's information is not objective and non-judgmental. It does not have any credibility."

Stephen Shaw, the prisons ombudsman, advised that inmates in British jails should not receive drug education from Narconon because it is so "closely associated with the Church of Scientology".

  • "Scientology lessons Group peddles risky anti-drug plan in schools", Herald-Sun, 16 August 2005. Liam Houlihan

"All drugs are basically poison . . . Two or three cups (of coffee) stimulate. Ten cups would probably put a person to sleep. A hundred cups of coffee would probably kill him," the Narconon booklet teaches.

Australian Medical Association president Mukesh Haikerwal said he was very concerned about the group's drug rehab centre, which had no medically trained staff, anaesthetists or mental health experts. The centre, run by a naturopath, treats people as young as 16.

Scientologists oppose all drugs -- including anti-psychotic and anti-cancer drugs -- and regard psychiatry as evil. They believe even legal drugs clog "thetans", or souls.

Dr Haikerwal said Narconon's claims about the success of its program, and descriptions of the effects of drugs, had an unsure scientific basis.

"Addiction to drugs like heroin is so strong that if you do go cold turkey you need to have something for cramps, nausea and pain," Dr Haikerwal said.

"It is quite a hazardous process. People can go quite berserk. You need medical overseeing, and I would have hoped it would occur under some sort of medical supervision."


Dr Adrian Dunlop, an addiction expert with Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, queried the outcome of the Narconon program.

"What's happening to (Narconon patients) in the longer term? I guess the answer is this is being used to get them to become Scientologists," he said.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Experts challenge claims of Scientology's sweat-it-out treatment for addicts", The Edmonton Journal, 23 May 2006. Charles Rusnell

University of Alberta sociologist Dr. Steve Kent said the program may serve another purpose.

"The program provides the Scientology organization with claims of socially beneficial programs," said Kent, a world-recognized expert in the Church of Scientology. "It provides some Scientologists with employment and it certainly provides the Scientology organization with income and a possible recruitment vehicle for new members."

Various independent assessments of Narconon's physiological claims have found they are not based on widely accepted medical and scientific evidence.

"These kinds of claims, if you're looking at them scientifically, have to be corroborated by data," said Dr. Tom Brown, a drug rehab researcher at McGill University in Montreal. "They have a lot of underlying assumptions that are not really borne out by the current state of scientific literature."

Narconon's claimed success rate of 70 per cent has also been questioned.

"Well-designed, well-implemented, well-managed, evidence-based programs will yield around a 30-per-cent reduction in use," said Dr. John Weekes, a senior research analyst with the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse in Ottawa, adding that drug addiction researchers would "freak out with elation" if they ever encountered a scientifically verified program that produced a success rate of 70 per cent.

"We are always hoping for something really high, but really high in this world realistically is about 30 per cent."

• Who else will be sad that the Olympics is over? Well there may well be a post-Games dip among members of L Ron Hubbard's Scientology organisation. For they seemed to be doing good business around Tower Bridge, handing out literature linked to the organisation. The little booklets promised The Truth About Drugs. Neither Scientology nor L Ron are mentioned. Just his Foundation for a Drug-Free World, the web address for which sits on the Scientology website. Everyone was fair game this weekend. Even a passing 15-year-old. That sort of opportunity might not come again.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Book "Healing Or Stealing?: Medical Charlatans in the New Age", author Jean-Marie Abgrall, pdf here. p.193

Scientology — Narconon Narconon, a subsidiary of Scientology, and the association “Yes to Life, No to Drugs” have also made a specialty of the fight against drugs and treating drug addicts. They push to the front of the stage such brilliant standard-bearers as Chick Corea and other well-known performers. Narconon recommends the same techniques as Scientology, which are related in my last book, Soul Snatchers: the Mechanics of Cults.28 Drug addicts are just one of the Scientologists’ targets for recruitment. The offer of care and healing through techniques derived from dianetics is only a come-on. The detoxification of the patient by means of “dianetics purification” is more a matter of manipulation, through the general weakening that it causes; it is a way of brainwashing the subject. Frequently convicted for illegal practice of medicine, violence, fraud and slander, the Scientologists have more and more trouble getting people to accept their techniques as effective health measures, as they like to claim. They recommend their purification processes to eliminate X-rays and nuclear radiation, and to treat goiter and warts, hypertension and psoriasis, hemorrhoids and myopia. . . why would anyone find that hard to swallow? Scientology has built a library of several hundreds of volumes of writings exalting the effects of purification, and its disciples spew propaganda based on irresponsible medical writings by doctors who are more interested in the support provided by Scientology than in their patients’ well-being. On the other hand, responsible scientific reviews have long since “eliminated” dianetics and purification from the lists of therapies — relegating them to the great bazaar of medical fraud.


Medical charlatans do not base their claims on scientific proof but, quite to the contrary, on peremptory assertions — the kind of assertions that they challenge when they come out of the mouths of those who defend “real” medicine.

more info about the author: Jean-Marie Abgrall - "Jean-Marie Abgrall, born April 12, 1950 in Toulon, France, is a French psychiatrist, criminologist, specialist in forensic medicine, cult consultant, and graduate in criminal law. He has been an expert witness at the Supreme Court of Appeal and Court for Businesses in France on the subject of cults,"

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of these seem more apt for the Scientology article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You could well be right there. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Tulsa Beacon: "Farm Bureau warns about EPA takeover of waterways" "Legislator asks for more oversight": "In response to the recent deaths at Narconon Arrowheard, recently Rep. Brian Renegar, D-McAlester, requested the House of Representatives legal staff to draft legislation to require that nonmedical treatment centers must receive oversight and certification from the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. “Many questionable practices have come to light in the last few months that have raised serious safety concerns, not just in Narconon’s reliance of daily 5-hour sauna sessions and a rigid vitamin regimen to combat withdrawals, but in the quality of their staff, which appear to be inadequately educated and trained in the care and treatment of patients with drug and alcohol addictions,” said Rep. Renegar. ... Lacking proper certification was Narconon’s practice of rehabilitating people with substance abuse issues with saunas, vitamins and minerals." --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

sources re Narconon Georgia - death of Patrick Desmond

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Scientology’s Georgia Drug Rehab Hit with Double-Barreled Media Onslaught "As we reported before, one of the rehab center employees testified that Rieser was purposefully changing the center’s letterhead when communications were made with Desmond’s Florida court, so that its nature as an outpatient-only clinic was hidden from the court. (We interviewed the court officer who was lied to, and she wasn’t happy about it.)"

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Patrick Desmond OSA Report "Created less than 24 hours after Patrick Desmond died of a drug and alcohol overdose while a patient at Narconon of Georgia, this memo, written by executive director Mary Reiser, is clearly routed to the legal director of Narconon International, the executive director of ABLE Eastern US, the Director of Special Affairs at the local Church of Scientology and the Office of Special Affairs at the Church of Scientology International. While Reiser never reported Desmond’s death to state regulators, this is her report to Narconon and church officials."
  • State investigates Narconon Georgia after Channel 2 reveals new evidence / Investigation sparked after death at Scientology-linked facility "A Georgia drug rehab program with ties to the Church of Scientology is now under a state investigation ... Records show about a dozen complaints in the last decade, but the state of Georgia has taken no action against Narconon. ... In April, the inspector determined the facility was 'operating a residential' program. Two months later, all three deficiencies cited were retracted, despite Narconon's own website which calls the Georgia program a long-term residential facility. ... "If they are in fact running a residential treatment facility and they're not licensed to do that, then that becomes a real problem," said Cook. "We'll be taking a very close look at it. All of what you've said does concern me." State officials said they hadn't looked at any of those records until Channel 2 Action News started asking questions."

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Patrick W. "Ricko" Desmond "He was a member of the United States Marine Corps ... Patrick W. Desmond died of a heroin drug overdose after receiving treatment at a Scientology drug rehab facility Narconon in Atlanta, Georgia. His parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Narconon of Georgia, Narconon International, and the Narconon medical director Lisa Carolina Robbins, M.D."

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why I've removed the Quackery banner

I think I made the wrong choice in adding it in the first place.

Hadn't realised that it was not widely used in other wikipedia articles about quack medicine, or that it was so contentious.

Further discussion can be found over at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience_.27warning.27_headers where I'm seeing some pretty cogent arguments against its use.

So, reverted my own edit and removed it. It wouldn't be fair to 'single out' Narconon from other types of quack medicine.

Chalk it up to newbieness.

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the pseudoscience warning header discussion, the warning is to be stated in the lede, not in a disclaimer. I suppose it just means the lede needs to be watched closely for dilutions. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching it like a hawk. :) --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


The intro to the article alone is all but neutral. This article needs a major overhaul. Suggestions how to go about it? Fairyday (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede states in neutral tones what the sources say. Find other reliable sources saying otherwise, and the lede can be changed. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more clear about what you think the problem is? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Other names

The article now has a section on related Scientology groups and front groups for Narconon. I have now started finding a number of Narconons opperating under other names. I think this is newsworthy, but should I put this under the "Spin-offs and related groups", or should I make a new section for alternative names? Thimbleweed (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


Estudio de Educación sobre Drogas de Narconon – Una Prueba de Prevención Controlada sin Factores al Azar Referencias Científicas de Narconon Estudio de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – 2008 Currículo de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – Resumen Currículo de Prevención de Drogas de Narconon – Descripción Detallada Un Estudio de Caso sobre el Programa Narconon para Jóvenes en Utah El Programa de Rehabilitación de Drogas de Narconon – Una Visión Global Descriptiva, por el Doctor Alfonso Paredes Artículo del Townsend Letter sobre el uso del Programa de Desintoxicación de Sauna Hubbard para Mejorar la Salud de los Trabajadores de Rescate de la Ciudad de Nueva York >Resumen de Evaluaciones del Programa Narconon durante los Últimos 25 Años Poniendo Fin a las Ansias por las Drogas – El Sinigual Progama de Desintoxicación del Programa Narconon Perspectiva de un Médico Perspectiva de un Experto en Abuso de Drogas El Programa de Rehabilitación de Drogas de Narconon – Evaluación Continuada del Programa REF. SOBRE EL PROGRMA DE DESINTOXICACION DE NARCONON juan luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldcampos66 (talkcontribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Los Origenes del programa Narconon

(Redacted) juan luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldcampos66 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google translate indicate this is the COS standard version of of the origin of Narconon. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It was a paste of a whole copyrighted page, on the Spanish Narconon site.
Jldcampos66, podemos agregar hipervínculos a material con copyright, pero no podemos pegar su contenido de Wikipedia, como se describe en WP:COPYVIO y es:Wikipedia:Derechos de autor. Los hipervínculos también hacen que la página de discusión más fácil de leer. Y también, por favor, utilice Inglés para su publicación en inglés de English Wikipedia páginas de discusión. Gracias! Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly biased...

This is more of a screed against the dangers of Scientology than a Wikipedia article. While I agree that Scientology is dangerous and should be warned against (though the Catholic Church is about a million times more dangerous), this is an emotional reaction and has no place here. Are we supposed to forsake NPOV if we believe in something strongly enough? The point of view here is not "this is what Narconon is", but rather "this is why Narconon is bad." It's dishonest to claim that this is an article about Narconon when in truth its purpose is to warn against Narconon. It should be called Criticisms against Narconon or something.--Teiladnam (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point to the section(s) you feel fail to meet NPV, so that we can have a look at the wording. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The article currently has 163 sources and is rated B on our quality scale, meaning it is mostly a good article. If you take issue with parts of it, please explain them here for community review. Although try to limit your attacks on unrelated organizations. Andrew327 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Teiladnam. This article is not NPOV and is biased (it is laced with rhetoric pushing a particular POV). I've added the neutrality tag pending changes and inserted an introductory paragraph that is more neutral and is based on references that provide an alternate view.RustyIvory99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Front group: A forever recovery

Would Dave Touretzky be an acceptable source? There is also an article from the Daily Kos, but I am not familiar with it and I'm not sure if it is useable. Thimbleweed (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell neither one of them really qualifies. Dave Touretzky looks like an AM talk radio show which do not have the editorial oversight neccisary for a Reliable source, and the Daily Kos article is edited under a pseudonym. Even if these did qualify we would run into the problem of WP:WEIGHT which would question why this event is significant in the scope of the history of Narconon. We aren't here to list every single time Narconon is mentioned on the news, nor are we supposed to become a listing of every Narconon site. Additionally Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and doesn't insert edits based on what the future effects may be. So lets wait to see if the mainstream media picks up on this, and to what extent. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
David Touretzky is a college professor and well-known critic of Scientology who has a Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The source was really just intended so show that "A Forever Recovery" is Narconon, affiliated if not just Narconon under a different name. I don't think this run counter to WP:CHRYSTAL. I do see your point about WP:WEIGHT, the article is certainly long as it is. I have earlier suggested making the section a separate list, would that be an idea? Thimbleweed (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
honestly I would delete the entire section unless some of those organizations are found to be notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that some are embroiled in lawsuits or otherwise are in trouble with local authorities makes them notable in my view. Also, I believe the "name-game" is very relevant to this article. I still thing taking out the lest and make it a separate entry is a better solution though. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Status of NPOV dispute: is it safe?

Is the neutrality of the article still under dispute? The article seems fairly balanced to me, considering the difficulty in acquiring reliable sources extolling the benefits and workability of the program. The backlash against Narconon in recent years has reached the point that however which way we approach it, the bulk of the article will generally not be favorable to the organization. There are simply too few positive examinations and analysis of Narconon that would fulfill WP:RS and WP:V. The scientific and medical consensus is that the program is, at best, pseudoscience. So, the way the article is now, this is as good as it's going to get.

I would suggest, however, that a separate article regarding the criticisms and controversies of the program, and moving a substantial amount of the information here to that main article. Like the Scientology article, this one is becoming very long and the longer articles become, the more unreadable they will become over time. George W. Bush is one of the prime examples of this phenomenon. Reading that thing is like a visit to a sadist posing as a dentist. Of course, the only difference between the two is the dentist usually has newer magazines. Laval (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would resist separating the criticisms as that can be seen as a WP:COATRACK and would effectively create an attack page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, Oklahoma Tribune

A source used in the lead is from page 7 of the 19 February 2009 issue of the Thomas, Oklahoma Tribune, an 8-page weekly newspaper. That town has a population of about a thousand people, and the article cited doesn't give an author. I think this is a press-release or commercial news-wire item republished without comment, which is a fairly common practice for small-circulation newspapers. I do not think this meets WP:RS, and I think it should be removed. Any comments? Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Essentially the same information is available in Inside Scientology, a 2011 Houghton Mifflin publication. We could probably just replace the Thomas Tribune source with this one. Pburka (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I used that for the info on Benitez. After looking for more reliable info on the Arrowhead facility, it seems like it deserves a section of its own. Its controversial history, and that of its predecessor Narconon Chilocco, are described under the section on deaths. Since much of its history is about licensing and land issues, it seems a bit misplaced. A separate section on Arrowhead/Chilocco would give some background to the multiple deaths section. Any thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Improper synthesis in efficacy section.

I tagged the following section with WP:SYNTH:

Independent researchers have found considerably lower rates—at least one website critical of Narconon claims that the rates were as low as 6.6% in the case of a Swedish research study.(source 1) According to a document compiling studies about Narconon's efficacy contained on the organization's official website, however, the same study by Peter Gerdman measured 78.6% of a sample size of 13 Narconon program graduates were drug-free, 4 years after completing Narconon.("source 2" (PDF).  (1.0 MB)).

Source 1 is from a Scientology-critical site containing scans of the original Swedish-language study and a very brief synopsis. Source 2 is a Narconon-hosted PDF file containing select findings from a couple dozen studies.

Here's why I think it might be synthesis: While the critical site does briefly suggest that Scientology presents this study in a much more favorable light, it does not go into the level of detail found in the next sentence. The PDF doesn't mention anything at all about the study's more critical findings. It seems like the current paragraph is trying to make a point about the findings of the study that isn't directly being made by either of the sources. According to this link from the same critical site, the study only had a sample size of 61, of which only 14 actually completed the program. Those are small number to be working with. If we're going to be drawing conclusions from this kind of data, one way or the other, we need to let solid WP:SECONDARY sources draw those conclusions for us.

The SYN tag has since been removed, which is understandable. Sorry I didn't explain my point until now. I think this is worth discussion, however, and I'm curious to see what other people have to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just remove the primary sourced section. The math on the Narconon PDF is so blatantly ridiculous, I have a hard time accepting it as a reliable source:
According the Narconon document, of a sample size of 13 graduates of the program, 58% (7 people) had relapsed within a year, 18% (2.3 people) were in another rehab program, and 78.6% (10.2 people) were drug-free 4 years after completion. This is not a rounding error; if it was intended to be 2 people back in rehab, it would be 16%, and it would be 23% for 3 people. These bizarre errors throw the whole thing's validity into question.
This promotional brochure isn't encyclopedic, and it isn't even math-literate. Does anybody object to me removing it? Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have rephrased it with an additional source, although removing it completely would also be fine with me. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. David Root's statement

Hi, Grayfell. I have posted the incorrect source, apologies. Dr. David Root's statement can be found here: Dr. David Root is also quoted in several other articles regarding Narconon. Here is an example. His perspective is significant to the conversation surrounding Narconon and belongs to the page. Thanks.RustyIvory99 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Root may be somewhat prominent as an advocate of his own treatment, but I don't think this quote belongs in the article. The same paragraph that uses the Root quote describes the theory as having "scant scientific evidence" and the article goes on to describe his premise as "amusing" "ridiculous" "not biologically possible" and says that scientific publications supporting it have been few, obscure, and largely by Root himself. Giving that quote so much space in the article without also explaining that he holds an extremely fringe position is not WP:NPOV. Why include it at all? I say we link to purification Rundown and leave it at that. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The point in including Root is accommodating an alternate perspective, or a counter statement. The perspective opposing Narconon's methods is already widely represented in the article in even precedes Dr. Root's statement where I added it. Narconon and Narconon people's perspective is just as important as the perspective of critics as reflected in popular media. If you like, I can work with you in including this information, and we can come up with a consensus on how it can be revised, if it needs to be.RustyIvory99 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead of an article should summarize the body. The quote is useful, but I'm wary of including such material in the lead without also pointing out how controversial it is, especially since the source itself underscores this. Regardless of how common it is, Purif is a fringe theory when assessed from a medical perspective. The vast majority of independent coverage treats Purif as being a fringe practice, so I believe that WP:WEIGHT applies.
Leads should summarize, and quotes in the lead should represent an overview of the subject. Adding a quote from a doctor to the lead could suggest that his position is representative of a medical understanding of the subject, so we should point out that he is one of extremely few doctors who hold that position. This is a lot of material to try and fit in a lead which is already, in my opinion, a bit bloated. Something with that much detail doesn't really seem like a good fit. I think maybe the quote would be better placed in the body of the article. If we placed it under Drug rehabilitation programme we could provide enough context to keep the quote in balance. Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Quotations discusses exactly this issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. The link that you provided about fringe theories was very helpful and I can more clearly understand your argument. I have re-added the quote within "Drug rehabilitation program" as you suggested, where the program's validity is being discussed, and would logically lead to Root's statement.RustyIvory99 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks much better, thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nightline interview

The phrase where Scientology head David Miscavige attributes criticism to Scientology's "war" with "the mental health field" is Original Research, which I discovered upon closer inspection of the transcript of the interview this text was based upon. In the interview, Miscavige and Koppel discuss the allegation involving Narconon and the state of Oklahoma. When he actually utters the quote that was in this Wikipedia article, he has shifted to talking about the Church of Scientology as a whole and not just Narconon.RustyIvory99 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Narconon statement

Hello Grayfell. Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I may have overused the quotation, but the intention was not to insert a “press release puff” as you mentioned, but to provide a critical part of the conversation surrounding Narconon - the perspective of the organization itself. I suggest that we include a paraphrase or summary of the Narconon statement. How can we include this?RustyIvory99 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You inserted the quote in the section on Narconon and Scientology. The quote has nothing to do with Scientology specifically, so it doesn't belong there at all. Beyond that, the quote is a standard press-release that adds nothing from an encyclopedic perspective. I don't think there is any doubt that Narconon thinks that Narconon is wonderful, so I don't see what use that blurb could be in this article. If there are specific points it raises that should be included, there are better sources for them. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes in references.

I changed some of the references that were in the lead to list-defined references (WP:LDR). I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but I think the lead needs some serious attention, and it was driving me batty trying to figure out where references ended and the quotes began. This article has the most in-ref quotes of any I can recall having worked on. If anybody has a better solution to making this more easily edited, I would be THRILLED to hear it. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence "Narconon is a substance abuse treatment programme" - not according to mainstream science, it isn't "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources."

Narconon claims to be a substance abuse treatment programme - that doesn't make it one.

The old lead sentence along the lines of "Narconon is a Scientology front group which claims ..." was more factually accurate than what's currently there.

-- (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points, but I don't think that's the best way to address it. Wikipedia articles should avoid using loaded synonyms for 'said' (WP:CLAIM is a good explanation of this). The very first sentence is probably not the best place to try and clarify the contentious religious status of the the program. How about this:
"Narconon is an international organization created to provide substance abuse treatment based on the principles of Scientology and Dianetics."
The overwhelming consensus of WP:RS is that Narconon is deeply connected to the Church of Scientology and that it doesn't actually work very well as a treatment program. I agree that this should be made clear early in the article, I just don't think we need to prove a point by placing it in the very first sentence. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed a typo. Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, I've taken a look at WP:CLAIM.
While I also agree that we don't have to shoehorn the "does it work or not?" debate into the first sentence, I do think it should be addressed higher up in the article than the current 4th para.
Thanks for the suggestion re lead sentence - a problem with that replacement lead sentence is that it imputes motives to the creators of Narconon which we don't have any source to support. Narconon could have been created for a number of reasons as it provides a number of benefits to Scientology (cash income, recruitment ground for new members, charitable status in some jurisdictions), so it's not obvious (to me at least) that a desire to reduce drug addition was necessarily top-of-mind.
How about calling it a 'quack substance abuse treatment programme'? Or how about "Narconon is a substance abuse treatment programme based on Scientology principles. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, Narconon is headquartered ..."
-- (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The first suggestion won't fly, calling it a "quack substance abuse treatment program" violates WP:NPOV in that a vast majority of reliable sources don't call it a quack program. I'm not sure if the second suggestion will fly by WP:NPOV since both the church and Narconon both state that they are independent of each other. The current sentence states that it was founded by L. Ron., but everyone agrees to that. Saying that it is based on Scientology is a little less verifiable at least in the first sentence.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a tricky thing. I don't think we have a good reason to undermine Narconon's designation as a drug treatment program in the opening. 'Created to' was a poor choice of words. As IP says, the motivation of Hubbard (and Benitez) is not something we can support. Although many sources question Narconon's motives (and efficacy), as far as I can tell, all of them describe it as something synonymous with 'substance abuse treatment program'. As for Narconon's connection to the Church of Scientology, every reliable independent source I've found that talks about Narconon in any detail mentions Scientology. I think the article can make it clear that Narconon and CoS are (apparently) legally distinct while also mentioning the strong connection. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and I have no problems with citing those connections in the body of the article (and the lede as appropriate), but I'm not sure that we should say that Narconon is based on scientology in the opening sentance if both Narconon and scientology deny that statement.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the sensible discussion, folks - thanks for taking my contribution seriously even though I'm on an IP address. I appreciate it. A couple of points:
1. I don't agree that Narconon and Scientology's own descriptions of what Narconon is, should be taken as authoritative. Reliable independent sources agree that Narconon is not what it claims to be (independent of Scientology). As the organisation is regarded by reliable sources as dishonest, then IMO we have no obligation to take its statements about itself as truthful. (If that makes sense). This issue also has relevance to the 'efficacy' section (3.4) - N's claims of its own efficacy (figures up to 100%) are widely disbelieved.
2. Although Narconon now says that it has nothing to so with Scientology, that wasn't always the case - they've changed their tune over the years. E.g. the source in footnote 43, "Narconon, with the Scientology program, is another example of the workability of Dianetics and Scientology".
3. Again, reliable sources agree that Narconon's methods are the methods of Scientology's 'purif'. Even if N itself denies it, this remains the case.
4. Grayfell: Narconon isn't 'legally distinct' from Scientology - it's a subsidiary of Scientology corporation ABLE (see the final sentence of the lede, supported by the source in footnote 7).
So that's why I don't think that 'developed by LRH' is a strong enough description of the Scientolgy-ness of the programme. To describe it as a straight-up 'substance abuse treatment programme' (without qualifying that by explaining that it's a fringe theory of substance abuse) is IMO misleading.
-- (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What if we just call it "a controversial substance abuse treatment program" in the lead? It's blunt and accurate. Anyone wishing to learn why it's controversial can read on. Anyone who doesn't read beyond the lead will know that it's not mainstream. Pburka (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Actually controversial doesn't seem blunt to me, to me it seems rather euphemistic - essentially the 'controversy' is that Narconon says its method works and medical science says it doesn't. So a little like describing ley lines a a "controversial theory of geology" IMO. Still, better than nothing. -- (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
How about "Narconon International is a Scientology organisation which promotes L. Ron Hubbard's theories of substance abuse treatment and addiction" ? IMO that makes it clear that N is working according to LRH's theories rather than according to those of mainstream science. -- (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I like that. I forgot about ABLE, that's a good point. My concern is that Narconon and Scientology maintain that they are in some way distinct. I'm not sure it's appropriate to directly challenge that distinction in the very first sentence. ABLE likes to call itself a secular organization, even if everybody else disagrees. I would be happier if it were something like this: "Narconon International is an organisation which promotes L. Ron Hubbard's theories of substance abuse treatment and addiction. Narconon is organized as a non-profit group under ABLE, an umbrella group founded by The Church of Scientology." We could call it a "Scientology-related entity" which is the IRS label, but again, that's a little clunky for the first sentence. Maybe not, I dunno. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of that sounds good to me. I'd take issue with whether it's a "non-profit group", given that 10% of income (or is it 10% of profit?) is paid 'upstream' to ABLE, but no other quibbles. Altering that, how about "Narconon International is an organisation which promotes L. Ron Hubbard's theories of substance abuse treatment and addiction. Its parent organisation is ABLE, which in turn is controlled by The Church of Scientology". ? -- (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I keep going back and forth myself. I think this looks good. The word 'controlled' seems like it might be a source of contention, but it should be easy to source if that comes up, so we can deal with it then. I think the phrase 'in turn' is a bit verbose and can be removed, but that's just nit-picking on my part. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Medical Witness Casal Transcript

On the transcript extract should it be noted that Casal was retained by the Scientology corporation as their expert witness? This is Scientology's own witness stating that Scientology's Narconon does not work as Scientology claims. Damotclese (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Citation

Cite 13 (currently) references comments by the Scientology corporation as quoted in the New York Times however the citation offers the company New York Times, date, and page number. Should it contain this actual link to the article as the reference instead? Otherwise researchers will have to Google for it. Damotclese (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this must've just been an oversight. Fixed. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. The New York Times link to the actual article is stored in the Time's archive server so I believe we can count on the link being good in to the future. Looks great! Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Fundamentals of Thought

The commentary about Hubbard's book "The Fundamentals Of Thought" is not complete, the full title of the book is Scientology: The Fundamentals Thought. I propose that the text be fixed to include the full title since this is a matter that has been brought up in a number of criminal and civil court cases against Scientology. Scientology's lawyers argue that their "Narconon" isn't actually Scientology and the full title is often offered as exhibit eviodence to show that Narconon actually is Scientology. Damotclese (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Scientology books get new editions and print-runs pretty often, but in this case, it looks like it has always been named Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, so... yeah. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again, that also looks better, it matches Amazon's full title for the book and it matches court transcripts where the book has been entered in to the plaintiff's exhibits. Looks good! Damotclese (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

New Section Cites

Darn it, would an editor please go fix my citations and references, please? Some how I screwed up the embedded tags and I can't see where my mistakes are. The references and sites that I provided in two new sections point to templates so I failed to understand the syntax of what I did.

If someone would please fix them for me, thank you! If you don't in a day or two I will try to fix them after researching the proper syntax some more. I thought I had it understood, obviously I don't. :( Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The templates look okay now. I'm not sure how much weight to grant info sourced from While he is a journalist, it's also sort of a WP:SPS, but I think he also has a lawyer 'on staff' in some capacity to review articles? I know this has been discussed before, but I don't recall if anything was firmly decided. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, the template stuff I got your note on, I will research templates. Currently I know that Raw Story which is employing Mr. Ortega has lawyers to vet and review the work of their contributors however I do not know how the RS corporation works to protect the work of its journalists for articles that they wrote before signing contracts with RS. Still, I believe it is an attorney which oversees the donations which assist paying for some of the journalist's aircraft fares, hotel fees et al. when he covers court cases that people are most interested in (such as the Comal County hearings,) and Ortega is experienced enough to know that he needs professional vetting.
Still, you bring up a good point. Raw Story articles by a journalist have greater weight than articles posted by the same journalist to a blog. Hopefully the Scribd links to the court documents hold greater weight than commentary about those same documents. Interesting question.
Also I see more work was done to the article, it all looks good. This has to be I think perhaps the Wiki article I watch with the most references and citations -- which I hope suitably informs people researching Narconon. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

So a few months ago I suggested an amendment to the lead sentence.

I've left it alone for a few months to allow anyone who wanted to comment time to do so.

As the discussion has now fallen into the 'archive' page and future comments are therefore unlikely, I'm going to amend the lead sentence of the article now, as discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss this change further, then please do it here on the Talk page, rather than editing the archive. (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed new lead-in sentence is more accurate and informative than the previous one, however because you don't have a User account your edit could be reverted with some meager legitimacy by a Scientology operator. Can't you sign in to Wikipedia normally with a real account? Edits with an IP address are suspect for good reason and your proposed change is something we want to keep. Damotclese (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Damotclese, thanks for your feedback. I'm glad you find that a useful change. Re IP: reasons (I realise that's a joke-ish page but actually find some of those reasons quite compelling. Just put it down to idiosyncrasy if you like :) . So anyway, if you'd care to make a minor edit on the lead paragraph (and there's certainly things that could be cleaned up) then if I understand the system correctly, that'll have the effect of ratifying my changes. Hugs and kisses, (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ratification? Is that a thing? I think that's only a thing for pages with WP:PENDING changes protection, which doesn't apply here. The edit looks fine to me. If anybody has a problem, they can take it to talk, which is the proper channel anyway. There's a bit of redundancy with mentioning ABLE twice, but that should be an easy fix. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I had to smile when I read that. "Ratification." :) I don't think that exists in Wiki guidelines, no. :) So far the article looks good, very informative and loaded with references without being cluttered. Damotclese (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I like the new lead. It's much more concise, which this article really needs. I fixed the redundancy, as well as removed a few WP:OVERLINKs. Legal contracts make me go a bit glossy-eyes, so I may have misread the source, but it looks like the bit about Narconon paying ABLE 10% was a mistake. The contract appeared to say that Narconon Centers pay Narconon Int. 10%, which is completely different, and not surprising or noteworthy. The source does underscore just how closely intertwined Narconon and ABLE are, but I don't think that was in question. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad it's meeting with general approval. Re the legal contract, I believe that Grayfell is correct about the 10%; the contract shows it going upstream from local Narconon to international head office Narconon. It might be worth us noting though that (as it says in the contract) the Narconon trademarks are all owned by ABLE. (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In real numbers the percentage is higher than the minimum 10% sent "up lines" toward David Miscavige because Narconon is run by Scientology customers, all of which funnel more of the money they take from Narconon customers "up lines" in the form of payment for Scientology courses, books, "donations" and "services." In terms of real money and real percentages, the money that Narconon takes from people has far more than merely 10% getting shipped towards David.
One of the classic earmarks of money laundering operations follows that pattern: Victims get swindled out of large amounts of money to purchase fraudulent goods and services which are either worthless or nearly so, and the agents of the fraud which are paid outrageously high wages as "employees" then use their wages to purchase worthless goods and services from the people they work for, thus funneling the money back toward the ringleaders while the books show something being exchanged for the money being stolen.
In this case because of the possible tax deductions, Scientology agents paying themselves huge wages and funneling it "up lines" can claim tax deductions which drops the agents' final tax burdon back down in to reasonable tax ranges which they are required to pay. So 10% is merely the base percentage, the real world percentages are going to be much higher. Damotclese (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Scientology Narconon Offices Still Open

You know what is missing here is an attempt to compile a formal list of Scientology Narconon businesses which are still in operation around the world, complete with a list of known fake front names which are extensive and change frequently, names which change in part to avoid law enforcement prosecution and civil lawsuits and in part to avoid people discovering that such offices are Scientology. (They tend to get raided or sued, then get shut down, and then pop up again elsewhere under different namesm, often run by the same owners/operators named as defendants.)

People researching Scientology's "Narconon" might very well be searching to see if the alleged drug treatment facility they are looking in to is a Scientology fraud or not, and having a list of known names for Scientology's Narconon offices would be greatly beneficial, not only for researchers seeking treatment facilities but also for victims and prosecutors. (On the Skeptic Tank web site, the #1 researched web page on the subject of Scientology is the list of known "W.I.S.E." businesses. People search for such information.)

I think I will collect what's known and submit a proposed update, using Twitter and Facebook accounts of all the fake names I can find. It will be an incomplete list which is unavoidable, but the list of names can be vetted to acquire good levels of confidence that they are Scientology merely by bringing up the Scientology web sites associated with each and verifying that they applaud and support the usual Scientology earmarks. Damotclese (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


Is this article now NPOV and if so should the POV banner be removed? (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide additional information. Are you referring to changes that have been made recently? Andrew327 10:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the cumulative changes made since the POV banner was inserted (August 2013), when the article looked something like this. Diff. (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, I just wanted more context. I support the banner's removal. As an aside, it would be helpful if you would log in, so your IP address doesn't change over the course of the RFC. Andrew327 11:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. If my IP address changes over the course of the RfC then I'll make a note to that effect. (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) PS In the light of the ArbCom decision on Scientology articles, I should add that I do not have an active Wikipedia account - I'm not a registered user who has logged out, I'm an unregistered user. -- (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Also I guess I'm implicitly asking, if the article is still not thought to be NPOV, then which bits of it are the problem? (so I can work on improving them). -- (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the banner should be removed. There are no pending/open POV issues outstanding and there has been a considerable amount of effort put forth over just the past 2 months by a number of editors to ensure both neutrality and accuracy, and considerable effort has gone in to developing citations and references through the article's evolution such that the banner is obsolete.
Also I have to wonder how the article got added to the Maths, science, and technology RFC lists. :) People called in by the 'bots for RFC might wonder how they got called in to comment on Scientology. :) Brings a smile to my face. Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I thought quite hard about which category to post the RFC in. I came to the conclusion that, because Narconon International claims to be completely secular and explicitly denies that it is in any way religious, the religion/beliefs category would be inappropriate. Narconon claims to have unique technology and it claims that its technology is medical in nature so I looked for a medical category - 'science and technology' were the closest I could see. You raise the interesting question of whether the article might be considered NPOV in respect of science/technology while failing to be NPOV in respect of religion/beliefs. That one is above my pay-grade. :) Anyway, if I posted it in the wrong category then edit away. (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with the subject but after a quick look at the version above from when the tag was added, it seems to have been improved hugely. I notice the banner has already been removed, but agree that it is the right choice. Sam Walton (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Banner is removed now and the article seems fine so I guess this rfc is now moot. AIRcorn (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

B Class to GA Class

Also it would be nice to work the article a bit to bring the B Classification up to a GA Classification. There is some serious work needed in the references and citations to do that however looking through the Classification requirements and looking theough the article, it appears to me that we're not too far away from achieving GA.

The references and citations which link to weaker weight sources can be backed-up by providing a secondary reference or citation verifying the weak-weight source. Example would be a reference or citation to journalist Tony Ortega's blogging news source should be backed-up by an additional reference or citation to a traditional mainsteam media news outlet such as ABC News, NBC News, CNN, a secondary source which has strong-weight acceptance.

With care, each secondary reference backing up the weak reference can be verified to address the same issue, fact, statement, or claim so that at the end of the effort an appeal for GA Classification will pass and, I would expect, this article's status can have the greater Classification.

I think such an effort is worth doing. Everything else is there, I think. Damotclese (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Specific citations?

I can do some research. Did you identify any specific citations (other than Tony Ortega / Underground Bunker) which need work? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arrowhead Facilty Shut Down

Can someone confirm for me whether or not Scientology's "Narconon" facility "Narconon Arrowhead" has in fact been shut down by law enforcement / medical officers? I understand there are felony indictments pending for credit card fraud and any number of civil lawsuits however Scientology is still claiming on twitter that their "Arrowhead" office is still operating whereas other sources says law enforcement raided them and shut them down. There is a conflict of information. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've heard similar, but I don't know what's going on. Do you have links to these sources? Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This bears some additional research. Their "Arrowhead" facility is currently no longer allowed to operate, they lost their certifications and licenses to operate as a "drug treatment" facility however the building itself has not been closed and Scientology still answers the telephone and emails directed to their "Arrowhead" facility. What they are doing is they are still apparently in operation however they are apparently directing potential customers to other Scientology offices selling their "PurificatioN Rundown" out of other locations which have not yet been shut down.
So technically they are operating so I believe that the extant article's text looks fine. If anyone brings up Wikipedia and reads about Arrowhead and gives them a phone call (despite knowing it's actually Scientology) they will be directed to another facility. Damotclese (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a bit awkward that most of the content about Arrowhead is under the 'Deaths' section, even though that's only a part of the content. I would like to move the Oklahoma content to its own section. This would also give more room to mention the Chilocco land controversy. I'm not sure how to do that seamlessly, though. Maybe a section about Arrowhead minus the deaths, followed by the deaths section? If there are any RS about Arrowhead effectively closing, this would be a good time to add them. There's also a lengthy paragraph about Arrowhead under 'Drug rehabilitation program' that seems slightly out of place, as well. It's also a bit of a quote-farm in my opinion, so consolidating all that would make for an easier read. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the work that you did in that area was excellent, it simply reads a whole lot better. Damotclese (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just adding another note: Scientology's "Narconon Arrowhead" twitter account at this time is still being used to advertise the facility despite the law enforcement activities and despite the series of civil lawsuits, someone is still maintaining a "presence" on the Arrowhead office's putative Twitter account, for whatever that is worth. They may not be allowed to sell to customers any more however they're still trolling for customers, it looks like, sending peolpe to other Scientology offices which are still open.

Some of the other Narconon offices which have been raided and shut down by law enforcement have inactive Twitter accounts, though. Their Friends of Narconon Twitter account died over 2 years ago, presumably the Scientology owner/operator with the password was either indicted or "blew," in the parlance of the organization.

I see that their Narconon Trois Riviere Twitter account associated with one of their business offices which was raided by law enforcement has been inactive since last May, 10 months ago.

Their "Narconon Mexico" Twitter account has been inactive since last August though I'm not aware of criminal indictments or civil lawsuits against Scientology's offices in Mexico which might account for that inactivity. I have to assume that the owner of the "Narconon Mexico" twitter account has "blown" as well.

Point being that the extant article's information about "Arrowhead" seems to still be solid and accurate, it is no longer allowed to operate as a "drug treatment" front in any hands-on way other than to funnel people to other Scientology offices which are still allowed to operate "drug treatment" offices. Damotclese (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

According to These Financial Records Scientology's "Arrowhead" facility was not shut down by Federal officers yet, it is apparently still in operation -- which might be something of a surprise to a number of Judges but in any event it confirms that Scientology is still in operation. That answers that question. Damotclese (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on. This article: "State Investigators Of Narconon Arrowhead Say They Were Wrongfully Fired" is also worth a read. Might not be worth including just yet, but again, worth keeping an eye on. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw that also in the news and I've got a Google Alert to inform me when the wrongfully fired criminal investigators file their civil lawsuit against the agency for what looks like racketeering committed against them. No explanation given for the criminal investigators being fired. These unexplained firings tend to show that Scientology is struggling to keep their Arrowhead open, any way, which confirms that it has not been shut down yet. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Felony Guilty Findings for Human Rights Crimes

Just got the news reports that Scientology's Narconon has been convicted of committing gross human rights crimes against a number of victims, this time in in Quebec, Scientology's rather notorious "Trois-Rivieres" facility. I have the court documentation which shows the Judge's highly detailed examinations of findings of Scientology's human rights crimes in these latest indictments however I'm awaiting ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN coverage of these new guilty findings before updating the article.

If anybody else beats me to it, please do so. :) The guilty findings are certainly something that should be added to the article once suitable heavy weight citations can be added in addition to the Scribd court documents. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors, please examine my Canada Narconon Trois-Rivières Convictions addition and verify that I approach WP:NPOV and that the addition looks fine. If not, please update it. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the edit is that as of now it relies entirely upon non-reliable sources and original research. I have reverted the edit for now, until reliable sources can be found and the entry updated.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Two more possible sources: [27], [28] Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

looks good to me. Just avoid blogs and primary sources in the re-write and everything should be fine.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need heavy weight on the references and citations, that's the goal to bring the classification up to "GA." Does anyone want to update my proposed text? Or shall I do it? I can post the updated proposed test to the Talk:: page if people want to evaluate the results before comitting to the article. Thanks, Coffee! You are awesome. Damotclese (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit away! Face-smile.svg Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, yes as soon as I can I will add the sections withthe appropriate citations. Damotclese (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hamilton Law Citation / Reference

I expect that most editors and researchers have heard about the fairly new web site created by the Hamilton Law Attorneys which describes some of the current civil lawsuits in considerable detail, and which the attorneys request and invite alleged victims of Narconon to contact them to evaluate the possibility of instigating further civil cases to retrieve some or all of the money which new plaintiffs were allegedly defrauded of.

I have a Wiki Policy question about this. We must maintain WP:NPOV with utmost focus on accuracy and detail, and I expect that linking to the web site as a reference or citation may violate WP:NPOV. At the same time researchers might very wel be searching for information on how to instigate civil lawsuits to recover their money, so such a link is useful. Problem also is that linking to the attorney's web site is not exactly encyclopedic and comes close to a form of advocacy.

What do other editors think? Is the attorneys' web site a legitimate reference or citation which could and should be mentioned in the extant article? I'm leaning towards "no" however I would like to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks every editor who has been working on improving the classification of this article, with the attorney web site linking to this Wikipedia article, the need to maintain a clean, non-vandalized research page, I feel, makes this a very important page to keep clean. Damotclese (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say no as well. If there was more secondary coverage of Hamilton's suits it might be useful as a supporting link, but right now, I don't think so. Even from a research perspective, there are several firms currently involved in suits against Narconon, and countless lawyers who would be willing to start action against Narconon, so providing a link to one such firm seems... slightly spammy, to be honest. A link would be a type of endorsement, and the article would need a great deal more very well supported content specifically about Hamilton before its encyclopedic value would exceed its promotional cost. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree "no", per Damotclese & Grayfell. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you, three editors are in agreement. Damn, that's got to be a first on Wikipedia. :) Sounds good, thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Stacy's Law"

A source we seem to have missed:

Stacy's Law, named after Stacy Dawn Murphy, to provide more oversight for Narconon, rehab centers

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This actually might be a good page to create on its own, researchers looking for background in to "Stacy's Law" might wish to bring up a single unique page which covers the history and the contents of the law. It might be worth creating a new page to cover it, suitable links and all the usual encyclopedia background. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea - I'm not sure whether we have enough material yet to satisfy notability requirements - as a first step we could put in a redirect from "Stacy's Law" to a relevant section of this article (once one exists! Face-smile.svg). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

California public schools article in SFGate

new article in the San Francisco Gate. Looks promising. Not sure if I'll get a change to incorporate stuff from it soon, so I thought I'd point it out her if anyone else wanted to take a look. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks - for the moment I've added it to the section about N's education programme in California, but it's a quite long and interesting source, I'm sure there's lots more we could get from it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It provides another solid "leap off" point for researchers who visit the Wiki page, and I see that right now KFI AM 640 talk radio in Los Angeles is covering Scientology's efforts to "sneak" their Narconon frauds in to the public school system, this after Scientology claimed they "re-tooled" the quack medical frauds after they were exposed and banned the last time, and all while they continue to demand that Scientology has nothing to do with it.
The article here continues to be a good one; detailed information for researchers is offered with numerous solid citations and references for further research without extensive text which (were the article very long and covered all of the salient points) researchers might find daunting enough to avoid reading. I think the article here on Wiki is very close to being upgradable in quality classification. Damotclese (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How best to group the Hamilton Law cases?

Right now we have:

  • Narconon in California Sued
  • Amato
  • Estrada and Chavez
  • Narconon in Nevada Sued
  • Tarr
  • Welch
  • Geanacopulos

It would seem sensible (maybe) to group them all into one section, but if we do then I'm not sure what to call it. Using the name of the attorney or the law firm would seem kind of like free advertising so I'm hesitant to do that, but then that is the factor that groups these cases.


Should we stick with the current geographic split? It's starting to look a bit arbitrary, particularly if some of the same evidence is going to be used in these multiple cases (as is now starting to look likely, e.g. with the "bridge" document).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I like consolidation. I don't think we should go out of our way to avoid free advertising as long as it's based on secondary sources reporting what he's done, but I agree that naming the section after him is a bit too much.
On reflection, I'm not really sure why each lawsuit has its own dedicated section, so I definitely think they should be grouped together. The "controversy" section would also benefit from being reorganized. If nothing else, WP:CSECTION makes a good case for why. It's not a policy, but it's still raises good points. If that could be addressed, then the lawsuits could potentially go there, maybe under their own subsections.
It's worth considering if the whole article is too long. I just ran a script that says the readable prose of the article is about 73 kb (that's not including references, quotes, or list items). A range of 30-50 kb is suggested by WP:LENGTH. I'm not sure what to do about it, if anything. I can't see a good split point that wouldn't introduce way more POV problems than it solves. No need to deal with it urgently, but it's looming on the horizon. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... although I think we're ok on size for the moment... also, it looks like we've missed a few of these related lawsuits. This source says that the newest one, Yates/Pugh (filed in Nevada - we don't yet have it in the article), is #10. I'm not sure if that's counting by number of complainants or number of filings.Counting by # of filings. The full list is:

Angelo Amato (San Diego)
Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (San Diego)
Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
Yates/Pugh (Nevada)

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the need to avoid editors proposing text that sounds like it is advertising or advocacy, and thankfully I see that editors on this page have been highly cuatious to avoid any difficulties with the article, so much so that I think we're nearly at the point of upgrading the classification from B up to G.

For purposes of inclusiveness in current legal actions against Narconon, we might consider asking an editor to contact the various law firms for a list of outstanding cases they are handling, go right to the source and see what cases might be obsolete and what cases are not mentioned at least by name in the article.

Does any editor wish to telephone or email law firms known to be handling cases and make notes in the Talk:: page here of what cases have been dropped, suspended, or missing from the known list?

One of the problems an editor might encounter when doing such research is that the law offices are going to be highly professional and polite, but they will also be suspicious, expecting Scientology agents to be fishing for specific privelaged information, and editors might encounter polite silence to their inquiries. Still, I think it's worth doing. Does anyone wish to do that research, get a more complete list? With list in hand, the extant article could be updated to include brief summations of each case.

On the question of whether the article is too long, I don't think we need to worry about that since we have a good index of sections appearing at the top of the article. Researchers will want to find as much detailed information as possible, more so if they are contemplating legal actions to recover their money. I lean towards more information is better than less for articles that are deemed high importance as this article is. People researching Narconon who come to this page likely have motivation for doing so, and the more information they find the better for their efforts. Damotclese (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Damotclese, thanks for your input. I don't think we can phone them up ourselves and ask as this would be WP:OR - wouldn't it? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would not be a Original Research since what would be taking place is merely verifying the accuracy of the article here, and confirming which civil cases are still open, everything on the Wiki page here would be referenced via citations to court records and to the usual sources. Of course at the same time there is no overwhelming need to enumerate every single civil and criminal case. All I think editors are working toward is providing an encyclopedic review of Narconon for researchers, so if every civil and crimnal case is not included, it is not a problem.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to call or email the civil law offices, now that I think on it more. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I see that the Hamilton Law Office filed number 11, so having a comprehensive list is going to be difficult-to-impossible since the number of cases keeps changing. Researchers don't need to know about each one, not using Wikipedia, is my opinion. Damotclese (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Another one?! I can't keep track!
Maybe we should do a general description of the cases, then just have a plain list of claimants...? Easy to update at least.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oklahoma Grand Jury

Another link that could be used as a reference however News9 pages are short-lived, they get deleted fairly quickly from their web servers. I'll make a note of it here anyway for now. Damotclese (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) link for future reference. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

Just posted by me at requests for page protection:

====Narconon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)====

Temporary semi-protection: IP unexplained removal of cited material, 3x in past 2 days. diff1 diff2 diff3 Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, editors have been pretty cognizent and proactive in monitoring the page for unusual and unexplained edits, and so far in the last few months I have only seen one edit which was not well explained, yet I checked who the editor was who removed two sections covering historic civil cases and saw that it was a well-respected, very-knowledgable editor that removed the two sections.
At this time I don't really see a need for protective measures, the page has not been attached in any serious measure. From my perspective Scientology does not have personnel resources to vandalize Wikipedia any more and in any event their IP known address blocks are still banned.
Still, it's great that you're on top of this, it might be that as the civil lawsuits ramp up, vandalism will also. Damotclese (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Unregistered user from Italy is back again, deleting the section of text relating to Italy. Reverted by User:Grayfell - correctly in my view - thank you. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC) in Italy continues to attempt to remove text covering the Narconon deaths in that country, presumably predicated upon the notion that this Wikipedia page will not be closely watched by over 9,000 of us and someday the Scientology agent/operator in Italy will manage to get the text removed forever. I don't think we need an IP ban since so many editors entire the vandalism is fixed. Damotclese (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Current Hamilton Lawsuits

  • Angelo Amato (San Diego)
  • Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (San Diego)
  • Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
  • Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
  • David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
  • Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
  • Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
  • Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
  • Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
  • Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
  • Lori, Ryan, and Jilliene Winchell (Nevada)
  • Ben Levy (Colorado)
  • Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
  • Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)
  • Michael and David Tino (Nevada)
  • Jerry and Christy Courson (Colorado)
  • Terney, Barbara, and Thomas Knoflick (Watsonville, CA) Damotclese (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversed Topazemomo Edit

Greetings, Topazemomo. I reversed your edit because methadone deaths at unrelated drug treatment facilities are not relevant to Narconon. If there is some relevance you feel is important, please let editors know here in the Talk:: page and let's put your text back in with suitable relevance background. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Narconon Italy Death

Thank you editor TheQ Editor for removing the vandalism from the Scientology person in Italy which continues to vandalize the page, we may need to reinstate the IP blocks and request protection for the page once again, this latest death may be motivating the Scientology corporation in Italy to vandalize the page more frequently. Glad to see that editors are on top of it.

The Translated Article Covering New Italian Homicide is provided, plus there are Three Additional Civil Lawsuits which contain details about filthy human rights crimes Scientology is committing at their Narconon facilities.

That link also notes that the Judicial ruling in some of the Hamilton civil cases is a ruling which can be applied to most or all future civil lawsuits -- and presumably criminal indictments, some of which are pending in Oklahoma -- to be used against Scientology.

Who ever has access to protecting the page, would you please get that process started? Damotclese (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it was only one recent edit, and it's been a couple of days with no further vandalism, page protection seems like overkill to me (WP:ROUGH). If it does become an ongoing problem WP:RFPP is the place to request page protection. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Current Hamilton lawsuits against Narconon / Scientology (13 Sept 2014)

Angelo Amato (Warner Springs, CA)
Christy Estrada and Branden Chavez (Warner Springs, CA)
Cathy and Michael Tarr (Nevada)
Harry and Lauren Geanacopulos (Nevada)
David, Stacy, and Jack Welch (Nevada)
Bryan and Nikki Mott (Colorado)
Charles and Tyler Matthys, and Linda Phillips (Colorado)
Kenneth and Jered Mowery (Watsonville, CA)
Robin Jones, James Ramirez Sr. and Jr. (Watsonville, CA)
Charis Yates, Beret and Dean Pugh (Nevada)
Lori, Ryan, and Jilliene Winchell (Nevada)
Ben Levy (Colorado)
Monica and Sean O’Connell (Watsonville, CA)
Ronald and Jason McClure (Nevada)
Michael and David Tino (Nevada)
Jerry and Christy Courson (Colorado)
Terney, Barbara, and Thomas Knoflick (Watsonville, CA)
Claudia and Sarah Buchett (Warner Springs, CA)
Sherri and Emily Brown (Warner Springs, CA)

20 in total. Source:

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Patient Hosing

As much as I like "patient hosing" as that's much more accurate and descriptive of what these Scientology people do to their customers, I corrected the spelling. :) Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Length of article

I have to say that this article is extremely, extremely long for a WP article per WP:SIZE guidelines. A good start would be to branch very long sections into their own main articles, such as a main article about the deaths and/or illnesses of participants, or about scientific evaluation of the program, etc. For the average visitor outside the US and Western Europe, articles of this kind of length tend to load very slowly and unstably. Laval (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that the extant article accumulates even more detailed information and grows a bit longer despite guidelines about length.
The major hope here is that Wikipedia articles be informative as well as accurate, and providing a solid article suitable for printing to paper and importing to court filings would seem to me to out weigh length guidelines. BiologistBabe (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox type Drug rehabilitation program

I have an issue with the Infobox type content, Narconon is not a legitimate drug treatment organization, it is by all available documentation a criminal organization, it appears to actually be a fraud which does not offer any actual drug treatment.

Presumably Wikipedia guidelines suggest that an organization which presents itself as something dictates that the Infobox contain what said organization claims to be, however doing so is something of a disservice and in any event for the extant article is inaccurate.

How about editors thinking of a more suitable Infobox type? Something that more accurately reflects what Scientology's Narconon is? BiologistBabe (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem as you noted is that Scientology's fake "drug treatment" frauds are not actually drug treatment however the enterprise claims it is, thus should it be listed as "drug treatment." I think that it should be kept inaccurate in the event a researcher is looking for "drug treatment facilities" since it editors should hope that people looking will bring up the extant page and be warned that Narconon is a Scientology fraud. One wouldn't want to see further research bring up Scientology's web pages and people get defrauded or killed by Scientology merely because Wikipedia searches for drug treatment facilities failed to inoculate the researcher.
There is a level of advocacy on every Wikipedia page that exposes and details corporate frauds like this one, however because the extant article meets Wikipedia guidelines forbeing fully sourced and referenced and meets WP:NPOV the article doesn't lean in far enough to be a worry. So I believe that the Type Infobox entry should be left as it is. Damotclese (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense, yes. BiologistBabe (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)'s Scientology Founder update

I think that's a reasonable update for to have made. It should be relevant to get that noted right up front. There is some complaints by the Scientology organization, however, complaining that the fake "drug treatment" fraud they sell was not in fact created / founded by Hubbard, so there is also a debate about whether one can legitimately classify Hubbard as the "founder" of this particular Scientology fraud. What do you think? Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Narconon/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.

*1 image, 39 citations. Smee 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Category change

Greetings, Marcocapelle, thanks for the edit on the Scientology organization's "Narconon" entry. However if I may, I'd like to suggest that changing "Category:Religion and society" to "Category:Scientology and society" is not accurate; that is, removing the "religion" category, the category becomes less accurate. The quack medical frauds which Scientology commits against their Narconon customers is predicated in quack medical ritual, but also the Scientology ringleaders themselves demand that what they are doing is religion. Damotclese (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question on subsidiaries of Narconon

In the section Spin-offs and related groups it lists an organization called Novus which based on one article found, it is being listed as a spin-off of Narconon.

This organization is not related, it is a privately owned organization as can be found on other websites like SAMSHA government page or Sunbiz

It is possible for someone to be misquoted in articles which I would like to say the article being referenced for this piece of information is incorrect.

I wold like to ask for this one item to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomieGalaxy (talkcontribs) 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. Just because a company is registered under a different name does not mean it is not related to Scientology/Narconon, and indeed this is a very common ruse. I see no reason to doubt the journalistic competence of the Tampa Bay Times. In fact, if you look at this piece, it notes that Feshbach, who is listed on Novus's annual reports from Sunbiz, is a rather prominent Scientologist who also heads another company that runs a Narconon facility. Cannolis (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not Novus licenses or has previously licensed material from Narconon isn't something that would be included in brief, very routine LLC filings. Since Narconon uses a franchise model (although perhaps less so very recently) the ownership of the company is largely irrelevant. The article lists it under "Spin-offs and related groups" which is supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Since the line of text in question says "Suncoast Rehabilitation Center and the related Novus Medical Detox Center are trade names or subsidiaries of Narconon Spring Hill Inc., California" which legally is not a true fact. Novus Medical Detox Center is not and has never been a trade name or subsidiary of Narconon Spring Hill Inc, California and the two are not related.
Narconon protocols are based on drug-free withdrawal (see and a sauna-based detoxification (see
Novus Medical Detox is a medical facility, nationally accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, that, contrary to the Narconon program, uses medications to help their patients detox (see question "Do you use medications to help your patients detox?" on and has no religious affiliation (see "Does Novus offer a religious program?" on
The article being linked to only mentions Narconon once and states that the "Spring Hill" center is Narconon Spring Hill Inc. The person being quoted and the author of the article isn't talking about Novus.
I would like to change the text to leave out the claim that Novus Medical Detox Center is a tradename or subsidiary of Narconon, since this is untrue. RomieGalaxy (talk) 1 December 2015
I have to agree with your proposed updates on both counts, however the company does appear to me to employ the Scientology corporation's quack medical rituals known as "Purification Rundown," among other quack Hubbard notions, and the company/facility is reportedly owned by known Scientology agent Kurt Feshbach.
(1) The trademark for the name of the entity Is Covered Here which is tied to a known Scientology agent named Frederick Wallace “Wally” Pope Jr. As you note, Scientology's various paper fronts such as ABEL et al. are not legally involved with this trademark, however the trademark does appear to be held by Scientology entitles, with Pope being the most widely known Scientology agent.
(2) None of Scientology's "drug treatment" businesses are accredited by any actual, legitimate accreditation entity monitored and regulated by any governmental agency. There are an endless supply of companies that list quack medical operations and then claim that they are "accredited" with said listing companies, however none of Scientology's businesses hold accreditation afforded to science-based facilities.
(3) The Scientology corporation does allow its victims the use of some medications, the result of deaths, injures, and public exposure, so that supposition that the extant company should be excluded because of that issue doesn't seem to be a very strong one.
(4) Few would argue that Scientology's core criminal behavior and quack medical notions are some how "religious," and while you note the apparently-owned-by-Feshbach company also claims to be "non religious," they all make that claim as well as they all claim otherwise depending upon which criminal or civil court case they are involved with, and according to the local, state, and Federal rules and regulations they attempt to operate under. Scientology claims to be religious when it wants to, and claims to be non-religious when it wants to.
That said, I agree to having the text altered to remove the text which suggested that Scientology directly holds the trademarked name because you are absolutely correct, Feshbach probably holds the trademark through the Pope Scientology law firm -- perhaps. I'm sure they won't answer questions if an editor were to ask for clarification and details.
As to the company being a subsidiary of Narconon, I believe that you are again correct, so I also think that's a good suggestion to remove that. :) Being Scientology-based and mirroring Narconon methods does not mean that any such entity is a subsidiary of Narconon.
My opinions only, of course, I may be wrong on all counts. Damotclese (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed this discussion carefully, so the following comments might be off-base or irrelevant, but we have to make sure that everything in the article is directly tied to reliable secondary sources, and doesn't synthesize material from these sources. There's nothing wrong with drawing obvious conclusions in journalism and many other kinds of writing, but because Wikipedia isn't under editorial control, we have to be very careful to stay within what is published in such materials, especially in contentious subjects like this one. This is not just to stick to Wikipedia policy for its own sake. It's not just to avoid being blocked for perceived bias and POV-pushing next time there's an Arbcom case about Scientology (and yes, Arbcom blocked editors on both sides of the matter last time), but it's also because it's only if we are scrupulously factual and neutral that we will continue to be seen as an excellent source of unbiased information. --Slashme (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I just took the time to look at this, and the connection between Novus and Narconon is pretty clear, and no synthesis is needed: it's spelled out in another source which I've cited. --Slashme (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)