Free Zone |
= 1934 =
How were German members of the Free Zone publishing a book on scientology in 1934 Wasn t scientology founded in the 1950 s -- :As you have realised, there were no scientologists in 1934. However , a book including the title Scientology (and completely unrelated to the cult) was published then. This has led some challengers to claim that the word Scientology is not owned by the religious group, since it had prior use. -- 20:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
= POV =
Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially, and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill. That was one conclusion found in the Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology for the State of Victoria, Australia in 1965. It was based on half a year of testimony, demonstration and analysis. Note that the Church of Scientology is not what is criticized, but Scientology itself. The Board s experts found unanimously that Scientology techniques are dangerous to mental health. These condemned, hypnotic techniques are what are sold in the Free Zone.
Seems to me the assertion that the techniques are hypnotic is POV, if not the rest of this. I see no reason to introduce the techniques in such a negative light before saying this is what the Free Zone teaches. It would be better to explain what the Free Zone is up front and put the stuff below in a section on criticism that also mentions most criticism of scientology is applicable.
Sold is POV, as well.
20:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Yup, I ve reverted those soapbox-style additions several times already. Note also the discussion I had with the user who keeps adding them back, which I m pasting below. 05:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(From 16:03, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:The scientology is evil quote was the lead conclusion of the Board of Inquiry, an impartial government assembly formed to investigate Scientology without bias in Victoria, Australia. The Church of Scientology cooperated for several months; the Board s sittings occupied 160 days and 151 witnesses were heard. The evidence covered 8,920 pages with nearly four million words, and also thousands of documents were put in. 11 parties were represented. The final report was 173 pages with 19 appendices. It was not a hasty, biased statement. A negative statement in conclusion does not necessitate bias any more than a positive statement does, and if you have a problem with bias, what is a quote from L. Ron Hubbard doing on the same page, unmolested
::If the source can be verified, I m not opposed to quoting it. However, your soapbox style of writing is unnecessarily inflammatory and clearly intended to convey a particular point of view. Please take some time and read 16:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::But why do not you tell the whole story This conclusion was used as reason to ban the Church of Scientology in Australia in 1965, which was later (1983) reviewed by a court and the Church of Scientology was recognized as a bona-fide religion. This decision also de-facto denied the conclusion that Scientology is evil. (Sorry if my English is not good enough, it is not my native tongue) 11:05, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
= Removing link to slanderous anti- Tommy Thomson site... =
Is it really appropriate to leave this link up
Opinions please... posted by
:Yes. It should be left up. This sites looks like it tells the other side of the story. There are always two sides to the story.
:Look at http://www.whatstommyupto.com and http://www.freezonesurvivors.to
:Suzy posted by
:This is perfectly allright to have there these links. At least everyone can see what kind of critics the opponents to the Free Zone must turn to. They take something out of the educational video at Tommy s website (which is BTW solo session, Tommy does not audit anybody), add there a small view to an e-meter reading when Tommy drinks coffee and state that he does squirrel sessions. LOL. 11:44, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
= Disputed =
The current dispute is regarding categorizations. 7 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio.
== Category:Free Zone ==
This article belongs in 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Antaeus, do you have a comment about your reverts-- 2 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
:Sure do. That comment is Don t go past your misunderstoods. Re-read the very policy you yourself quoted, starting with the word except . Except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category. Does look like It would have a subcategory for every state but the article for each state would be distinctly missing -- it would have been removed from the higher category, because it belonged to a subcategory. However, as you can verify for yourself, it is not that way, because the policy specifically states the exception.
::You re argument is flawed. The Free Zone is not a part of Scientology, regardless of their beliefs.-- 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
:::What you mean is Regardless of the Free Zone s beliefs, it is my belief that they are not part of Scientology. Wikipedia does not exist to present your beliefs in preference to the beliefs of Free Zoners. Even if one were to argue that only Scientology which is practiced with the commercial seal of approval of the Church of Scientology and proper licensing of the trademarks is really Scientology, there is no disputing that the Free Zone is relevant to Scientology, which is why it is a subcategory of 7 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
:Now, would you like to provide any explanation for why you are calling this article disputed So far as this talk page shows, you haven t actually disputed the accuracy of a single statement in the article. That s generally considered a step that should come before the disputed tag. -- 4 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
::I m not disputing statements , I m disputing the categorization and your reverts regarding this categorization. Quit playing word games and quit wasting my time Antaeus, is Irmgard paying you -- 7 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
I disputed the categorization 18 hours before adding the tag, and only added the tag after Antaeus reverts.-- 7 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
Let me try to put this dispute to rest. The FreeZone consists of a small number of ex-Scientolgists who became dissatisfied with the Church of Scientology. You can liken them to a sort of disgruntled ex-employee. The few in the FreeZone argue that the Church has been taken over and no longer practices standard Scientology as written by L. Ron Hubbard; yet the Church owns the copyrights as willed to them upon the death of L. Ron Hubbard. People in the FreeZone have been excommunicated formally from the Church of Scientology. The Church argues that the FreeZoners commited crimes or had such gross mis-conduct, the need for extreme measures were necessary. This is called an expulsion, declare or excommunication. Some FreeZoners are proud to have been expelled formally from the Church and grandly display their expulsions on their own websites. The church states in these expulsions that the subject FreeZoner, violated the moral codes of the Church by mis-appying the science of the mind it teaches. The belief is that Dianetics and Scientology are a science and therefore must be applied exactly as recommended by the Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, in order to obtain successful results; such as a higher IQ or happier life. FreeZoners call themselves free of the Church of Scientology and therefore they are no longer in the catagory of Scientology. The other, and this is the main point, FreeZoners claim that they no longer practice the exact science of Dianetics and Scientology as by law, they cannot. There are infringement issues involved. FreeZoners in fact, MUST not practice Scientology or they would be in violation of infringement laws. The Church has the right to insist that its counselling methods be delivered standardly as they own and protect the copyrights. Just as CocaCola has the right to insist upon only selling the exact, correct recipe be bottled and sold round the world, the Church of Scientology has this same right to insist upon only offering to the public its exact recipe for mental treatment. If one were to practice the counselling methods of this religion, hang out a shingle and charge money for that counseling, one must practice the counseling as exactly taught by the Church. If you want to do it some other way, then you are not practicing Scientology and you are not a Scientologist. FreeZoners do not practice Scientology. They practice their own brand of counselling as they HAVE to change the techniques or be sued for infringement. Are they practicing Scientology Not at all. Are they Scientologists Not any more. Dan
:I am not picking sides but Dan, the legal facts you talk about is not the way copyrights work. The one this is, you cannot copyright data. CocaCola can t copyright their formula because it is data. They can only enforce the formula because they own the production company. Besides all the OT documents are public domain because they were used in a court case. Dianetics is available at any bookstore so all copyrights are taken care of provided you pay for your copy of dianetics. You can t copyright a procedure. You can patent a procedure though. However, I don t know of any patents on counciling methods ever being granted. As for trademarks the book Scientologie was published before Hubbard s Scientology. However, IANAL. -- 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::In any case, it s still moot to the question of categorization, or should I say, the two questions of categorization. The first question is, should are certainly not practicing Scientologists either, but the category is clearly relevant. So that establishes the answer to the first question.
::The second question is, should the article 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:: IANAL. The OT documents are publicly available, not public domain, as a result of their appearing in the various court cases. A search today on the USPTO website for Scientology indicates no method/procedure patents. Prior use of a trademark word or phrase does not automatically preclude it from being trademarkable. However, these are quibbles. From a religious studies standpoint, the Free Zone members can be considered variously as heretical and/or schizmatic sects of the Church of Scientology, much as Gnostics and Protestants are to Catholicism. Trademark law may prevent Free Zone members from calling what they practice Scientology in the United States, but that does not change the substance (or lack there of) of the practices themselves-- although noting such explicitly in the article may have merit to cover Wikipedia s legal backside. As such, the Free Zone category makes sense, both as subcategory and an item within the Scientology Category. [[User:abb3w|abb3w] 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, the Free Zone article DOES NOT belong in Category:Scientology. You re insistence shows you do not know what Scientology is. -- 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Your insistence that it does shows that you haven t even been bothering to read and correct your misunderstoods on what the crux of the discussion is -- just as you still clearly haven t bothered to read the 02:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::It is proper 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Aren t you Scientologists purportedly all gung-ho on the importance of taking responsibility for your actions And yet instead of taking responsibility for your attempts (up to three now!) to speedy-delete an article that does not fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, you whine (in bold, no less) about my forgetting to sign a post Very well -- I will demonstrate responsibility and admit that yes, I forgot to sign that post. I am happy to say that it was the result of momentary forgetfulness, which cannot be said of repeated attempts to inappropriately speedy-delete articles that do not meet the criteria. -- 01:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Just some consistency and systematics. Also for 17:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
= Is the factual accuracy of this article disputed =
If so, what are the specific disputes -- 00:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You already know or have you forgotten -- 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I already know what it is you are disputing. I also know that it has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article, and that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Talk:Free_Zone&diff=next&oldid=18647407 changing the header in order to change the question] will not succeed in changing the subject for you. -- 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::Are there any factual contents are in dispute in this article -- 10:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:Mr. Feldspar s conclusion seems to be correct. I am but a humble student of religions, educate me. This is what I (we) see: #Scientology is a religion #Christianity is a religion #The Roman Catholic Church teaches Christianity #The Coptic Church teaches Christianity *Therefore different bodies can teach the same religion #The Church of Scientology teaches the religion of Scientology #The FreeZone teaches the religion of Scientology *Therefore the Free Zone article should be in the Scientology category
:If this is not the case, by all means prove us wrong. -- 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I took me a while to get oriented in the complexity of this discussion. Well, I think you are not quite right. The Free Zone article does belong to the subject of Scientology, but probably only to it s subcategory of the Free Zone. You are right, that both the Church of Scientology and the Freezone teach Scientology. But the word Scientology itself is used in two meanings: 1. the subject itself and 2. the Church of Scientology. Not in the meaning of the Free Zone. That is IMHO why these two articles do not necesarily belong to the same level. -- 13:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::The 10:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:::The category system is a mess, for instance that just means they didn t follow the rules for those two chruches. Here are the churches that did follow the rule: 14:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:::The 00:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, Antaeus, you have just disputed the following information. Take a look at the history for proof of your claiming dubious .[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Free_Zone&diff=18808417&oldid=18788318] -- 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) ::I do not get your point. You have a link to all this in the article so what do you fuss about If you want to proove that there is no real Scientology in the Freezone then look first at the list of all the changes that RTC has made to LRH materials and technical procedures. One list is at http://www.freezone.de/english/news/tech-changes/technical_changes.htm , but far from complete. That can be found throughout the Internet. I do not want to really get into this as nobody can win a battle of critics and propaganda, so you better realize it. -- 10:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Some correction is needed here also.
The Free Zone is not an organised body of people. It is a collection of individuals and individual groups who operate as individuals and individual groups. There is no Organised Body running the Free Zone.
It is exactly as it is described in Wikepedia in the first few paragraphs.
Michael IFA
= FreeZone survivors =
Text removed from the article:
:I would like to start a new subject: Freezone Survivors. http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/
:We are a group of people who found each other after surviving the incorrect application of Scientology technology as practiced in the Freezone.
:As survivors, some of us have our stories published on our website. http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/casehist.html We hope that by our own example, we can reach out to others before they come to harm in the hands of Freezone practitioners. We band together to provide support for each other. As such, we can and have been repairing the damage from the counseling or training we received in the Freezone.
:Another goal we have is to be exit counselors for anyone who is currently experiencing any ill affects from having practiced or undergone the off-beat counseling in the Freezone. We can help those currently bogged under from freezone counseling or help family members and friends who have friends or family under the influence of Freezone counselors. There is proof that the Freezoners do NOT apply Scientology http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/whoswho.html and this link will show you the truth.
:Our website does not seek remuneration of any kind. We do however, wish to reach out and help those who have been caved in by any technology imposed upon them in the Freezone. There are links http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/fzlinks.html that show some of the damage done and how it was repaired.
:Pat Harrison
It does however comtain implications and generalities and little substance other than to denigrate people in the Freezone. (anyone can verify that by checking out the web site)
I doubt that it would warrant an additional subject.
The link is quite sufficient.
There is the official church and there are those who practice outside the church and there are those who are anti. All are represented in Wikipedia quite satisfactorily.
Michael IFA
The site contains blatant lies about myself and others. As it is not based on factual data it has no part in an encyclopedia and should be deleted.
Ralph Hilton
It has been removed as contains slanderous and possibly libellous material about individuals. It is full of inuendo and inferences and, as stated above, should not be in an encyclopedia of facts.
Michael IFA
It seems that the link was reinstated without discussion. I shall delete it again. The site is defamatory and actually in criminal violation of the Perjury Act of 1911.
Ralph Hilton
:The links were reinstated without discussion because deleting it in the first place wasn t in line with Wikipedia s practices. Me, personally I believe you; I look at those sites and the attempt to dead agent the Free Zone is almost comically blatant. However, there s a difference between what I as a reader do not believe, and what I as an editor can class as a source that should not be available to readers to make up their minds from. I m afraid the precedent is fairly clear that people can t just look at the external sites and say This is BS and it insults me and I know it s wrong and defamatory and so Wikipedia shouldn t link to it and I ll remove the link because then just about every link would be gone. The same kind of people who put up Free Zone survivors sites with really transparently false testimonials will claim Well, I look at those Free Zone sites and I don t believe their side of the story so I ll remove that . If you obtain an actual legal judgement that the content of the sites is perjurious/defamatory/libelous/what-have-you, please let us know, but I m afraid we can t just remove links because one side claims that they know the content to be false. -- 01:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
= The book is NO hoax =
Evidence: The Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Library of the State in Berlin/Germany) lists the book in her catalogue. Visit it at http://stabikat.de and search for Scientologie . It was published in 1934 by Reinhardt/München.
::This is still disputed information, so please do not remove my labels without providing hard evidence in the future. Thank you. What you are committing here is a fallacy of Appeal_to_authority rather than presenting actual evidence of the book s existence. A small entry in an online database is not much more convincing than the sheaf of typewritten pages. Is it not true that the Freie Zone eV, the German Free Zone company, was responsible for both rediscovering and registering this supposed book with the German government As the history of Scientology is riddled with Operation Snow White, and given the obvious benefit to Freie Zone eV as a result of the copyright judgment (which would allow them to use the phrase Scientologie without persecution from the Church of Scientology), there is still significant suspicion about the existence of this book, whose only evidence remains to be, as far as is known yet, a set of typewriter-produced pages whose authenticity was never scientifically verified.
::The obvious beneficial nature, to Freie Zone eV , for having such a book exist, make the flimsy claims worth investigating. Now that we exist in an age where high-definition image scanners and high-speed communications are ubiquitous, why not take advantage of this to prove that Freie Zone eV is not merely inventing a convenient situation to create or exploit a loophole in German trademark law The fact that this book was discovered at such a convenient time, in order to assist Freie Zone eV in their trademark disputes, seems very suspicious to me. If actual bound, printing-press-published copies of this book exist, why have they not yet been imaged and placed on the net This book s authenticity has been disputed for over 5 years now, yet no more information has surfaced in that time, except for a small bit of text on a German index, which Operation Snow White.
I m new to this issue, and really don t care much about the subject at hand, but I can t help noticing that you can download the entire book in PDF scans [http://www.ingo-heinemann.de/Nordenholz.htm right here]. If that s a hoax, it s a pretty damn elaborate one. I m inclined to go along with the [http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0410.html WIPO] and consider its existence verified. There is a point where the preponderance of evidence places the burden of proof on the other side. The book is available in current printing and as a scan of the first printing with date and imprimatur intact, it is listed in the database of a large state-run German library that any involved party can visit to verify its existence, and in a semi-legal arbitration centered around intellectual property rights related to the book, no one suggested or entered evidence that the book was a fraud. The legal implications of the book s existence are for courts to decide, but I should think if you want to contest that its fake, you need to supply the evidence - not the other way around. -- 10:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
= The book Scientologie may be a hoax =
I m hereby requesting evidence that there was a book entitled Scientologie published in 1934 by an A. Nordenholz. I can find no evidence of this book s existence outside of Free Zone lore; past edits of this wikipedia page suggest that the source copy was actually a collection of typewritten or even Xeroxed pages rather than the bound sort of book with covers you might expect from a publisher. I also find it disturbing and curious that this information has been revised away completely from the article, with the relevant text reverted back to its earliest form.
Please cite objective sources verifying this book s existence.
The text bound in book form was available at Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., in 1968 c.e. The publisher may have been unrelated to F.Zone, memory is imprecise.
::Thank you for this information. The Library of Congress added the book in 1995. However, they have no record of a first edition. Their copy is a 1968 (supposed) translation -- by a Free Zone Scientologist named Woodward R. McPheeters (of Aberree fame). I doubt therefore whether the publisher was unrelated to Free Zone.
::There seems to be a real problem finding original editions of this book. Apparently, even the Nordenholz family only had access to the strangely typewritten manuscript (actually, the source manuscript was not even an original, but rather a third-generation Xerox copy -- I smell a shore story ) that has served as the basis for every subsequent translation and claim. (I am unsure whether the Nordenholz family are themselves Free Zone Scientologists, however they have not spoken for themselves on the Scientologie issue; rather, all information has mysteriously been filtered through Free Zone Scientologists who purported in 1995 to have contacted them).
:::So what you are saying is that you prefer to believe that Free Zone Scientologists somehow successfully engineered a hoax upon two libraries, including one that is the library for one of the world s major nations, rather than the simpler explanation, that the book existed The best that can be said about your belief is that it is possible . However, the burden of proof is upon you to show some sort of actual evidence for your theory. You have shown none. -- 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
= undiscussed deletion =
I m not exactly sure what information was lost in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Free_Zone&diff=prev&oldid=24507633 this edit] that prompted someone to revert it. What did I miss -- 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
= The Church of Scientology and the Free Zone =
There s a LOT of weasel wording and unverified claims the last section of this page. Can someone clean it up a bit and back up some of the some s I m not qualified to do so on this subject, and I m too transfixed by the subject matter to even try to educate myself. 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)|
|