Narconon @ Wikipedia (a heads-up)

Sometimes I just want to hug all you porn-loving, pizza-munching, mom's-basement dwellers.

You're the one editing, go for it.

I'm being careful not to suggest specific changes or wording. Sooner of later some pro-cult editor or TeamScientology member will try to point to this thread as an example of meatpuppetry.

Given that my account is over 8 years old and I have not been involved in any Scientology related disputes since then, added to that the level of detail we engage here in for fact-finding, I don't think any accusations of meatpuppetry would stick. (pls check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thilo)
The thing is, that any independent observer will, given with the information we dug out here, conclude that this article is completely biased towards the interests of Narconon. An obvious Scientology shill added this to the article (Scifilover), why then, should anons - as long as they stick to WP guidelines - be barred from editing the article?

You guys are good. Wiki stuff is over my head. Perhaps this will help tying Dr. Labonte
to Narconon: http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/person.php?person_id=1550

"Narconon Medical Director" (Dr. Pierre Labonte)
.

If our wiki was up we could be using it to draft changes to the Wikipedia article, to the point where all the changes could be turned into a single revertproof edit.

I hear you. I know it's on a list.
<3 to those who are working their way through that list.

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/ias-membership-rankings-pins-statues-money.37131/

Steve Hellig's letter on behalf of the San Francisco Medical Society should be acceptable to Wikipedia, no?

Thanks, Ackerland.

Could I nominate this link (which came up earlier but was easy to overlook) for inclusion in the shortlist:

http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1637

It's the San Francisco Medical Society's review of Narconon's effectiveness. It's

- secondary literature

- verifiable

update:

'great minds' and all that...

Yes, I think that would be usable. Maybe I missed the link where the Steve Heilig document can be accessed, can someone please supply dox?

Letter:
http://www.stop-narconon.org/SFUSD/scans/heilig-letter-2004-09-30.pdf
Verification:
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1637

UK prison service assessment http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/narconon-wikipedia-a-heads-up.97886/page-3#post-2005930 is also
- secondary
- trustworthy official source
- verifiable

There will be objections over the document being hosted on a critic site. (Not saying that they're justified, but that will be the ploy to remove the link.)

Steve Heilig:

• Narconon banned from S.F. schools August 25, 2004, Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle
• Church's drug program flunks S.F. test / Panel of experts finds Scientology's Narconon lectures outdated, inaccurate October 2, 2004, Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle
• Doctors back schools dropping flawed antidrug program March 27, 2005, Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle

I think we have more than enough sources now that are credible to back up intended changes to the article. Thanks for everyone who participated. We can start with rewriting the article now I think.

I can host it on my own webspace.

EDIT: Now available on http://thilo.tjps.eu/doc/heilig-letter-2004-09-30.pdf

Any site that holds documents that CoS doesn't like is, by definition, a critic site.

The actual link might be better:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/SFUSD/scans/heilig-letter-2004-09-30.pdf

Cool.

Is that allowed, or does it taint the impartiality of your editorship?

Perhaps the claims and counter-claims concerning Narconon's efficacy (or lack thereof) might also constitute a 'Scientology controversy', so could be relevant to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies
(since we've done the research).

The other thing to watch out for, I think, on Narconon's own page, is en passant confusion (perhaps intentional) between assessment of Narconon's purported education program in schools, and assessment of Narconon's practices as a whole, including its purported detox program for addicts.

So for example the page in its current form makes the Cecchini study appear to be in relation to Narconon's activities as a whole - including detox - whereas in fact even the most partisan Narconon-booster could not claim that the study covered any more than the in-schools activities.

Check the webspace. It's no critic page
Stop-narconon is kind of a give-away, don't you think? ;-)

You are right. The Heilig letter refers to Narconon's efforts to be represented in schools.

^^^
This.

It's definitely against the spirit of the policy, since Ackerland is not impartial.
But they won't know the link is tainted, unless CoS' editors scan WWP for threads with "wikipedia" in them.

You don't suppose....?

I have some recent videos of an undercover investigative report on the Montreal COS
and other related entities, with interviews with Quebec school officials that stated they
felt they were duped into allowing Narconon into Quebec schools,

All Narconon speakers have now been banned from any further speaking engagements in
ALL quebec schools. It's all on video.

Could you use these videos?

More to come soon - - very soon.

.

1) We should assume that this thread will become part of the forthcoming debate on wikipedia.

2) If it's against the spirit of the policy, then we shouldn't do it, regardless of 1 (Caesar's wife).

Can we have it hosted at an impartial site? - wikisource?

I don't think so. I'm sorry

The problem with the current situation is that we clearly have an editor with an agenda (Scifilover), who selectively quotes from studies that are favorable to Narconon, while the majority of secondary literature from sources not affiliated with Narcon unanimously condemns the studies quoted from. So if Wikipedia admins choose to revert our work based on that we are committed to fighting Scientology, they will have to also revert Scifilover's work for the sake of impartiality.

Professor Touretzky's cmu.edu link is probably about as good as it gets.

I'm sure that TeamScientology will squawk. They have before, let them.

Can they revert it on that basis?

I mean, shouldn't this be about whether the information is factual accurate and genuinely representative of the topic, rather than the views of the person who put it there?

I agree - squawking will occur whatever we do. The audience we should be concerned about is not Team Scientology but Team Impartiality.

Let TS squawk, our stuff should win through as long as it's factually accurate and well-researched - shouldn't it?

That is my hope, too. As long, as we write strictly from a NPOV and sources that back what is written up.

The ARBCOM decision was to try and make the problem go away, not accuracy and research.

And it's not like his links aren't used already. Start reading at 476:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...tp://*.www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst&limit=500&offset=0

This it?:
http://anonireland.com/blog/documentaries/international-pieces/canada-je-investigates/

Yes, I think they could indeed use it as a secondary source.

An anonymous blog with copy-violation YouTube videos?

The videos substantiate what the Canadian Journalists found and reported. Not seeing how the JE Investigates isn't a reliable source here, and news stories have been cited on wiki to youtube videos before.

I believe xenubarb posted a document from a insurance company that denied the claim don’t remember the reason for the denial.

I have the actual Original TV Airing segments of these. They were put on Youtube so that English Subtitles could
be added for the Anglophone audience. There are 7 of these videos.

If I recall, there was a HUGE Quebec viewing audience for the first airing, then another second.

If you want/need them, just let me know? There's also a CBC Radio Canada (TV) that an investigative reportyer did
in April 2008. There are two of these, including interview with Health Minister - - have to find the second one?







.

I believe you missed that it's already been posted in this thread

I went to this^^^ web site again where the article is posted. This is a very worthy project and
hopefully will produce some excellent results by all your efforts, but right now (until the court hearings are over),
I can't deliver the dox I would like to. Frustrating, but eventually, you should be able to use quite a bit of the
Court dox that will be Public Knowledge? We'll see

Have fun Anons; I'm logging off for now.

.

bumpers

rebump.

For verification, contact Collège des médecins du Québec and ask for details of the restriction on Dr Labonte's file.

*warning* ^ machine translation, may be innacurate.
Awaiting an accurate translation from our francophonefag friends.

The translation is accurate. Well done.

Is there a link to this please?

No. Info supplied by email from Collège des médecins du Québec.