| Revision as of 20:14, 24 January 2009 editLaval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,123 edits →Wikileaks version← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 24 January 2009 edit undoLaval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,123 edits →Article is misleadingNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ==Article is misleading== | ==Article is misleading== | ||
| Unlike other OT levels, no "leaked" copy of OT VIII materials has '''ever''' been released. All that exists on the Internet are outlines allegedly based on memory from former members - none of these "versions" have ever been validated by the Church, unlike the other OT levels (most notoriously OT III) which have clearly been validated by the Church as being true. In other words, the versions of OT VIII floating around out there are for all intents and purposes BS. Also see ] and ]. ] (]) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | Unlike other OT levels, no "leaked" copy of OT VIII materials has '''ever''' been released. All that exists on the Internet are outlines allegedly based on memory from former members - none of these "versions" have ever been validated by the Church, unlike the other OT levels (most notoriously OT III) which have clearly been validated by the Church as being true. In other words, the versions of OT VIII floating around out there are for all intents and purposes BS. Also see ] and ]. ] (]) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| It should also go without saying that Wikileaks is far from a neutral or reliable source - Misplaced Pages should not even link to it as Wikileaks is grossly in violation of the Church's copyrights by not only providing downloads of confidential (and copyrighted) documents, but also publicly available lectures and documents (such as RJ67, a publicly available cassette tape) that are available at any Church bookstore. Misplaced Pages should not encourage this kind of blatant copyvio by linking to such sites, which is indirectly supporting them. No matter how anyone feels about the Church, supporting copyright violation is just plain wrong, and Jimbo has himself stated as much. ] (]) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 24 January 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the OT VIII article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Scientology Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Summary?
Ariane Jackson's writeups from memory are the most respected summaries of OT VIII out there. Would anyone like to try summarising it from her writings? - David Gerard 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- David, unless I'm very much mistaken, Jackson is talking about what the Church calls "New OT VIII", and not about the level previously known as OT VIII, which is what the Fishman OT VIII is asserted to be. Jackson herself stated:
- We have it both straight from the CoS, and from Jackson, that there is more than one OT VIII, but the article does not address the difference between "old" OT VIII and "New OT VIII". The syllogism that "Ex-members know what's in the real OT VIII; Ex-members don't recognize the material in the Fishman OT VIII; therefore the material in the Fishman OT VIII is not the real OT VIII" no longer holds together when there is more than one document that has been "the real OT VIII". I think we need to revise the article to reflect this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've shuffled stuff a bit. The OT-VIII in Fishman isn't generally accepted amongst critics, as far as I can tell (that might be original research of course). Note that Fishman obtained the OT-VIII in the affidavit from a different source to the OT I-VII, which are accepted as accurate (because the Church considered them copyright violations) - David Gerard 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you think about what Antaeus is saying, though, it makes sense: I've long suspected that the CoS uses different material for different people, depending on what they think is most effective for that person. We just don't know what a "real" OT VIII is for sure, or if there's even a standard anymore. wikipediatrix 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've shuffled stuff a bit. The OT-VIII in Fishman isn't generally accepted amongst critics, as far as I can tell (that might be original research of course). Note that Fishman obtained the OT-VIII in the affidavit from a different source to the OT I-VII, which are accepted as accurate (because the Church considered them copyright violations) - David Gerard 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- True. However, they seem to use consistent versions of OT I-VII - David Gerard 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder. I'm pals with a Scientologist who won't talk about OTIII, but swears that there's no mention of Xenu in it. Of course, if there was, she's obligated to lie about it anyway, but she's really really not a good liar at all, she's very transparent. Something tells me that post-South Park, the CoS has pulled a switcheroo and is now either saving Xenu for a higher level or omitting him entirely. (If provable, this would be a massive instance of church-approved squirreling). wikipediatrix 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- True. However, they seem to use consistent versions of OT I-VII - David Gerard 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
FSSO
The article says that the only known Flag Ship Service Organization is the Sea Org. This is incorrect. The Flag Ship Service Organization (FSSO) is a Scientology Organization located aboard the Freewinds Motorvessel.
See: http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/world/worldeng/21/fsso.htm
As an organization it is staffed my members of the Sea Org, as all Scientology Advanced Organizations are, but the terms "Flag Ship Service Organization" and "Sea Org" are not synonymous as the article implies.
It is also important to note the difference between FSO and FSSO. FSO is the Flag Ship Organization, also known as the Flag Land Base, or simply Flag, and is located in Clearwater, FL.
So, FSO = Flag = Building in Clearwater, while FSSO = Freewinds = Ship where OT8 and other courses are delivered. Both are staffed by SO members, but neither term is synonymous with the Sea Org (A Sea Org member posted at ASHO, for example, is not affiliated with either the FSO or the FSSO).
The article as it is currently written does a poor job of explaining what the FSSO really is.
Matt2053 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Notable
Besides having no sources, the article just basically seems to be saying that there is something called OT VIII. Steve Dufour 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore. WillOakland (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikileaks version
The version on Wikileaks is yet another text claiming to be OT VIII. The CoS has claimed the PDF on Wikileaks is a copyright violation - it contains the common versions of OTI-VII - but I've seen nothing on whether they expressly claim the version of OTVIII as a violation. Given their earlier erroneous claiming of the Fishman version, I'd say hold off for more information. I've added to the article accordingly. - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well the way you added it looks good so far. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Article is misleading
Unlike other OT levels, no "leaked" copy of OT VIII materials has ever been released. All that exists on the Internet are outlines allegedly based on memory from former members - none of these "versions" have ever been validated by the Church, unlike the other OT levels (most notoriously OT III) which have clearly been validated by the Church as being true. In other words, the versions of OT VIII floating around out there are for all intents and purposes BS. Also see WP:V and WP:RS. Laval (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It should also go without saying that Wikileaks is far from a neutral or reliable source - Misplaced Pages should not even link to it as Wikileaks is grossly in violation of the Church's copyrights by not only providing downloads of confidential (and copyrighted) documents, but also publicly available lectures and documents (such as RJ67, a publicly available cassette tape) that are available at any Church bookstore. Misplaced Pages should not encourage this kind of blatant copyvio by linking to such sites, which is indirectly supporting them. No matter how anyone feels about the Church, supporting copyright violation is just plain wrong, and Jimbo has himself stated as much. Laval (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Categories: