Talk:Suppressive person/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Escalating misunderstanding and the use of references

User:Wikipediatrix introduced the phrase Security checks are also common for SP and PTS (Potential Trouble Source) situations. What applies is WP:V which follows from WP:NPOV which requires any editor who inserts new information to cite your sources. Therefore, what source of reliable, published information says Security checks are common for SP and PTS (Potential Trouble Source) situations? Terryeo 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Appears" and "Possibly"

I have a problem with this sentence: "The concept appears to have first been introduced into Scientology in 1965, possibly as a response to increasing challenges to Hubbard's authority from discontented members."

This is not reporting facts, it is about just how something appears to someone. Also the title of the book used as a reference, Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement, suggests that it is not a neutral source. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

When you can find a guideline or policy that states that all book references must have titles that sound neutral to all people, I will be all agog to hear of it. AndroidCat 13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or even that allowable RS must not be highly POV alarmist screeds. We can only work with what it out there. There are books that present Scientology more sympathetically, though. --Justanother 13:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider the books of St. Augustine to be a reliable, unbiased source on ancient Roman pagan religions. I feel the same way about a "Christian book" (which is not the same thing as a book written by a Christian) on the topic of "Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement". Neither could be cited as a source of facts rather than opinions. They could have valuable opinions, but they would still be opinions. Steve Dufour 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The line "possibly as a response to increasing challenges to Hubbard's authority from discontented members" comes directly from the cited source. Please don't remove it again. -- ChrisO 08:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the article on religion you could not say, "Religion is the opiate of the people" with a footnote to "Marx, K. (where ever he wrote that)". What you could say is: "Karl Marx, one of the most important critics of religion, wrote, 'Religion is the opiate of the people.'" Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard the lumper

I took out this paragraph:

'Hubbard lumps media reporters and government agents into the same category as SP groups:"There are no good reporters. There are no good government or SP group agents. The longer you try to be nice, the worse off you will be. And the sooner one learns this, the happier he will be."[16]'

This is not saying anything about Suppressive Persons. It is just a quote stuck into the article. Steve Dufour 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it a second time. BTW I am pleased to learn that only 2.5% of people are suppressive. I would have thought that there would be more. Steve Dufour 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been put back a second time. I agree that the quote is sourced. However, the statement about him lumping is someone's opinion about the quote. It may very well be a correct opinion but it is still just an opinion. Steve Dufour 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then why do you keep removing the information entirely?? Why not just rephrase it so the offending word "lumping" does not appear in the article? Why on Earth are you making such a big deal out of this? wikipediatrix 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because putting the quote in is original research. There is nothing in the quote that says it is about suppressive persons. Steve Dufour 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It states "SP groups". Looks like you are POV editing Steve Dufour. The paragraph has been edited and restored.--Fahrenheit451 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic section removed

I removed this section of the article:

Commentary by Hubbard on SP's and careerism

In the third lecture of the Flag Executive Briefing Course "The Org Officer/Product Officer System Part 1", given aboard the Sea Org vessel Apollo on 18 January 1971, Hubbard explained this about certain SP's (in the lecture itself referred to as "insane person"):

Like there are a bunch of guys monkeying around with this peace/war button, you know? And should we have a war or should we have peace? Well, they’ve moved in on the button again, and then they go off of it. Well of course, a war would just finish any human communication and cultural lines on which anything can travel. So therefore, we don’t really have all the time there is. We can’t really sit around on our hands and do nothing. Furthermore, the planet could be expected to resist any such movement, because the most resistance you get toward being cured by anyone is an insane person. An insane person will resist being cured harder than anybody ever heard of, because he knows everybody is Martians and they’re all out to get him. And he knows there’s no help, and so on. Of course, that’s what makes him insane.

A certain number of these on the planet, in high positions, bring about the conditions known as war, and so on. Now recently we traced, by the way, how a person moves from the lower stratas of the society up to an executive position or a political position of magnitude. You can see the pattern of it can be seen in your own org. A person cannot hold the job of central files clerk, and he argues and argues, and finally moves himself over to some other portion of the org. There's very few people in that portion of the org, so he gets an I/C, in charge of something, then there isn't anybody else around, and he seems to be active, and he becomes a departmental head. He becomes a departmental head by accident, and he actually is pushing himself up.

Now he has, he doesn't have the motivation of helping others, he just has the motivation of protecting himself. And the higher he rises on the pyramid, the more he thinks he will be protected. That's part of his insanity. You get up to the top of the pyramid you spend ninety percent of your time ducking bullets.

But the facts of the case are that there is sort of a system by which a person who can't hold any post winds up with a very high post.

There is nothing that says this is about "Suppressive persons". In fact it says that it is about "insane persons". They might be the same thing but it would be original research for us to say so. Steve Dufour 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Genghis Khan image

A couple problems with adding this image to the article: No citation from Hubbard and it does nothing to show or demonstrate anything about an SP. There is one mention of it on a cofs website, but no attribution to Hubbard. That could be an offhand opinion. I have removed the image. --Fahrenheit451 03:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I put it there because there was a request for a picture. Steve Dufour 03:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I don't know how an image can show or demonstrate the concept of "SP". Hubbard gives 12 attributes, but then a person can be "declared SP" without reference to those attributes. The twelve attributes are not evident in a photo of Hitler or painting of Khan, and the politicized SP declare cannot be shown in an image.--Fahrenheit451 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe the article doesn't need an image after all. Steve Dufour 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential Trouble Source not defined?=

I went to Wikipedia to look up "Potential Trouble Source". It displayed this page. This page's only reference to "potential trouble source" is: "Another 18% are PTS (Potential Trouble Source), as a result of the SPs." That doesn't explain much of anything about a PTS. The entire article is focused on SPs. Is there a more in-depth SP/PTS connection that is unexplained, or is a PTS quite different from an SP? Confused. --70.189.123.174 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"From the Fair Game article...."

This is not the best way to add something to this article. Better to incorporate it, in a paragraph format, sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What suppressive persons are

They seem to be 'useless' (for the day to day functioning of society) and can even be pathological on rare occasions,

Very much analagous to our body's immune system.

And this in fact is their function, they defend us against threats like scientology. They are our antibodies of ideas.

Which, of course, is why scientology targets them.

Scientologists Aren't the Only Ones

Scientologists are not the only ones to disassociate themselves from those who don't believe precisely the same way they do. Lots of religions and a lot of Christian denominations do this. Some people are rejected by others because they believe in Jesus Christ. Others are rejected by others because they don't believe in Jesus Christ. Worf of _Star_Trek_:_The_Next_Generation_, accepted discommodation by the Klingon Empire and during the discommodation ceremony, the Klingons all turned their backs on him. Fellowship Baptist Church Denomination requires that you agree with everything they say and think precisely to the letter: (1) You must reject all other versions of the Bible except the King James Version of the Bible, (2) Only those who became born again through the presentation of the 3 verses in Romans in their gospel tract and have been Baptized in their own denomination's Baptism are saved. (3) If you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Gift of Speaking in Tongues - out the door. and the list goes on. With Charismatics, if you don't speak in tongues, if you don't have a prayer tongue, you are not saved. You don't know how many Christian denominations I find this attitude in that all other Christian denominations are considerred to be a 'cult'. I'm a Presbyterian and I'm rejected by my Charismatic family who I believe are saved, but I don't agree that speaking in tonuges is the proof of the pudding that one has the Holy Spirit and is saved. So, I'm an outtie there also. Just like I'm an outtie with the Fellowship Baptist Church, I think, because they want you to see eye-to-eye and agree with every last detail with every single one of them. I find this attitude of rejecting the 'anti-social SP' to be prevalent with all sorts of people I meet all over the place from all sorts of religious backgrounds. I've yet to meet any Scientologists personally as there aren't many in Dallas, Texas. I'll let others freely discuss their religious views and I hope that others will let me freely discuss mine. But, I mostly find myself listenning to the other people's views and I don't usually get to have my equal say when around them. Whether or not Scientologists would be just as willing to listen to someone else's point of view as they are to speak their own point of view, I don't really know. I'm not quite certain if I completely understand what an SP is at this time nor their understanding of 'anti-social personalities' is at this time even after reading a full page on the subject here. I've no question as to who Jesus is and what He has done for me, but I've a hard time when people try to dictate every single detail as to what I believe. I know that there are a lot of those out there. I was wondering if Scientology is like that, too? I bet so. So many other religions and denominations are like that. I wouldn't be surprised.

CruiousQuestioner

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousQuestioner (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maisonneuve Magazine source

Livesey, Bruce (June 23, 2008). "Scientology's Holy War: Bruce Livesey Investigates How Former Inner-Sanctum Member Gerry Armstrong Became the Salman Rushdie of Scientology". Maisonneuve Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Good source for info to add to this article. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead cleanup

I cleaned up some of the references in the lead to turn them into secondary sources, and removed Ghengis Kahn mention. Nothing I could find in and reliable sources to support. Cheer! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins and definitions

Changed some of the references to remove primary sources and change them to secondary sources, plus moved Reference "The ASP" further down again. Cheers! :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Following the Church's official definition of Suppressive Person, I have capitalized all instances of "Suppressive Person", "Suppressive Group" and "Suppressive" when used in reference to a Suppressive Person or Persons. Just in case anyone's wondering. Amphytrite (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suppressive Person. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616081621/http://scientologyethics.org/page06.htm to http://www.scientologyethics.org/page06.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler and Nicole Kidman

The Church of Scientology website describes this group as including notorious historic figures such as Adolf Hitler and Nicole Kidman. ToddGrande (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted that one because the articles already said that the Hubbies use the phrase for "notorious historic figures" like Hitler as well as for those they see as enemies, which would include Kidman. It may be appropriate to mention Kidman, but certainly not in this way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As for NK: This explaines, why TC separated from her.

Ping welcome. Steue (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Another famous (in Germany), declared by SCN, is the German woman Caberta.

Ping welcome. Steue (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"believed"

Suppressive_Person#Policies_and_practices 2nd paragraph says (I bolded the concerned word):
The Ethics book provides a guideline for use in sorting out such a condition. A first step is always to educate the person about the phenomenon of the Suppressive Person and the effects this is believed to have on the individuals close to the SP.

When L. Ron Hubbard observed something as a first case or when something was reported to him by an other auditor, Hubbard always very thoroughly investigated this case and searched for a solution and solved / handled this problem. And when he had found a solution, he thoroughly tested and improved this way on as many cases as possible or necessary, until he was sure thad he had found the cause and a secure way for others to solve such problems. And only then did he publish such problems and solutions to Scientologists (staff and/or public). So when he published something one could be pretty sure that it did work. But, yes, he also published revisions.

So "believed" is far from neutral and far from the truth.

Ping welcome. Steue (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Genitive?

Suppressive_Person#Abuse_of_the_label / 4th (last) paragraph /
second line and sentence reads:
He insisted the drill was not based on Hubbard teachings ...
Shouldn't it rather read: "Hubbard's" (genitive)?
Ping welcome. Steue (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A drill not based on Hubbard's teachings?

Suppressive_Person#Abuse_of_the_label / 4th (last) paragraph reads
(I (Steue) bolded the phrase.):
According to a 2006 St. Petersburg Times article entitled "SP profiles", one Scientologist found himself declared an SP after he repeatedly challenged the validity of a "patter drill" in which he was instructed to read passages of a course to a wall. He insisted the drill was not based on Hubbard['s] teachings and stated that he had been previously threatened with an SP declare after a run-in with a Scientology attorney on an unrelated issue.[21]

For wether this drill indeed may have been not according to LRH's written teachings see, e.g.
https://markrathbun.blog/tag/ulf-olofsson and
https://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo2_gatc.html

Ping welcome. Steue (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Potentially contradictory information about Hubbard's beliefs?

According to the lede, Hubbard thought SPs were like 2.5% of the population but later on in the misuse of the label subsection he apparently thought only a few people total are "real" SPs. Is it truly both? Did his standpoint change at some point? Clovermoss (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)