Talk:Dianetics/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

POV templates

I disagree with the late addition of the "not NPOV" templates. Lack of consensus isn't indicative of POV. For example, Holocaust deniers will always disagree with a sane account of WWII. That doesn't mean such WWII coverage is POV'd. POV templates should only be placed when there would appear to a reasonable third party to be a POV problem. --Davidstrauss 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

erm, I am a reasonable third party. I'm not involved in any other manner with the editing of this article, nor am I pro/anti dianetics. I see a revert war, and consistent NPOV claims, thus I'm putting up the NPOV tag. See my explanation below. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just removed the NPOV tag. We can't keep throwing up dispute tags every time someone posts something we don't like. wikipediatrix 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, basically repeating Wikipediatrix's removal. Again, the existence of a debate over an article's NPOV status is not equivalent to its actually having NPOV problems. So, please give a reason why the article is POV before adding the template. "There's a debate" doesn't cut it. Heck, some people still think there's a debate over the earth being round and orbiting the sun. It doesn't make the astronomy articles POV. --Davidstrauss 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC section (previously "Reasons why the NPOV tag needs to stay"

It's an ongoing debate stretching from this entry, to Scientology, to Neuro-linguistic programming, where I was a mediator.: These pages are constantly in reversion wars over factual accuracy, pov, etc. They're always being disputed over something. I think the tag belongs up there.

On this page: On March 18 there at least 9 non-vandalism related reversions. On March 17 there were 4 non-vandalism reversions, and 1 significant removal of content, out of a total of 6 edits!

Want the edit summaries:? "(revert to ChrisO, the added section is unnecessary and extremely biased)" by Tenebrous "I'm not getting into the edit war, but quoting a salesman's pitch as "unbiased" is absurd)" by Killer Chihuahua, a highly respected admin, which was reverted by Wikipediatrix Just yesterday, "Revert bulk addition of POV hype without concensus by Spirit of Man)", which 4 hours later was reverted itself.

In the talk section above this, from wikipediatrix "Thus your lengthy "Goal of Dianetics" section was, I feel, redundant and not written in a NPOV."

In summary: you have over a dozen reverts over content in the last two days. Most of them POV related. You've got a full fledged revert war. This definately necessitates a npov warning. If you (the editors) yourselves cannot decide on the appropriate NPOV version for this article, it clearly needs an NPOV tag.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And by your standards, anyone could get any article defaced with an NPOV tag - and it's content thus rendered suspect - by simply starting an edit war. Therefore, by your way of thinking, any Scientologist who wants to suppress unfavorable facts about Scientology can just loudly cry umbrage and make a mess of things, and then succeed in getting the article's appearance of validity unfairly besmirched by the NPOV tag. If you are putting the tag on the page, then YOU are in effect disputing the article's NPOV status. So what is it exactly in the article that you think is NNPOV? wikipediatrix 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here tried to suppress "unfavorable" facts about Scientology? NO. Has anyone here tried to suppress "favorable" facts about Scientology? Yes, that is what the current edit war is. Deleting the Goal of Dianetics or rewriting to hide inside a paragraph on clear as one additional extra view of Hubbard, rather than a defining Goal for all Dianetic activity. Spirit of Man 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix here. If you want to assert this article is not NPOV then please explain exactly what POV is over-represented and provide details and evidence for that assertion. According to your criteria for the NPOV tag, it seems like this article could never in the future be "fixed" and get the tag removed. That doesn't seem like a useful thing to me. Just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean it automatically deserves a NPOV tag. Only when an article clearly demonstrates a POV should it get the tag and only when the person who inserts the tag can explain which POV is missing so that the article can be "fixed". Vivaldi 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix. The problem arose because a few scientologists don't want Dianetics to be characterized as pseudoscience. It's easy to understand since Hubbard and the Church of Scientology advertize Dianetics as a science. The problem lies with these few scientologists that don't seem to understand what is science. Sure enough, science is not having one author say that everything he says is scientific facts without ever giving the hint of a proof about it. It has been discussed at lenght of why Dianetics doesn't have the basis to be a science as of today. We can't find Dianetics in any scientific papers, is that fact worth something? If modern cognitive science supported Hubbard's ideas, you would have found something. But nothing. Also, don't forget that Hubbard strongly characterized his Dianetics as based on scientific facts, without ever having provided proper scientific methodology to support his "research". And nowadays the Church of Scientology still characterize Dianetics as based on science, and not surprisingly, still doesn't engage the scientific community about the ideas in Dianetics. Look at this: RESULTS AND STATISTICS, does that look like a rigorous research? Looks more like a sales pitch... The point is: Dianetics has been and is promoted as a science, all the while there is an absence of scientific papers supporting Dianetics' ideas about the human mind: therefore, pseudoscience. If Dianetics wasn't characterizing itself as a science, it wouldn't be an issue whether or not it is pseudoscience, it would simply be a belief like the many others' characterizing Scientology. But the fact is: it presents itself as a science. Raymond Hill 14:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Raymond Hill. The problem is he and others consistently and systematically try to reduce the scope of the subject of Dianetics, as represented by the basic books and materials of the author. I posted a section on The Goal of Dianetics as a citation with direct quotation from a primary book. It was removed with comments like POV, "It reads like advertizing." or I will delete anything you post... all without citations. Spirit of Man 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've already clearly asserted WHY it's POV by stating other people's reasons, but let me give you my own:
"Dianetics is regarded by mainstream science as a pseudoscience and has achieved no general acceptance as a bona fide scientific theory, despite Hubbard's claims of scientific veracity." This very fact is the cause of the ArbCom case on the NLP article: It's disputed whether it's considered a pseudoscience, a full fledged science, mysticism, or something else. Stating that it is psuedoscience as a fact is POV.

I didn't realize that anyone considered Dianetics a full-fledged science. The references given seem to indicate pretty clearly that Dianetics has always been viewed as a pseudoscience by respected scientists. Are there any scientists that suggest that Dianetics is a true science? If you have citations to add from scientists that believe Dianetics to be a science that has testable hypotheses then I would fully encourage you to provide them here so that we can add them to the article and make it NPOV. Just because some people dispute that the earth is round, doesn't mean we need to put a NPOV tag on Earth, right? Vivaldi 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, scientologists would consider it a full-fledged science. See my response below for your "earth is flat" comment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is probably considered by most Scientologists to be a workable technology. It works. It consistantly works. This arguement of science or pseduo seems to me to be trivial and dispersive. One book is titled "Modern Science", the word "axioms" is used and Hubbard stated, "along scientific lines". Those are recognized facts. Science goes much, much further, uses control groups and creates expensive studies. Dianetics doesn't. That it works is the only thing Scientologists are interested in. Proving to the public that it works is the Church of Scientology's only interest. If every editor here got 1000 other editors involved with the question, "science or pseudo" it would not matter at all to the delivery of Dianetics, it is trivial to the practice of Dianetics. It is considered "workable technology" by Dianeticists. It works, positive results, better life for practitioners. That's what matters to Dianeticists. Who cares about "science or pseudo?" Well, editors who don't know the subject care. Editors who know the subject would probably present it as "workable technology". Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone suggest that Dianetics is a full-fledged science. I'd be happy to put that in the article if you can provide a citation for that claim. Vivaldi 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said that, but I have shown evidence that each of the articles claims to pseudoscience can be answered by Dianetic or Wiki references. Like a study that shows scientific test results requested by the APA. Spirit of Man 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd do the research but I'm unfamiliar where to look. Perhaps in the Scientology produced publications? I don't know what they are though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That you'd consider Scientology-based sources to suffice in presenting Dianetics as a science shows you don't understand NPOV policy. Sources have to be credible and usually independant. For something to qualify as science, the source absolutely has to be independant. You already seem to know that achieving NPOV isn't about documenting every view to equal degrees, but if you have to go straight to an organization (Scientology) with a vested interest in promoting an idea (Dianetics) to find support, I think you're compromising research standards just to get citations. --Davidstrauss 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Many scientific voices have criticized Dianetics as a classic pseudoscience[33]" - weasel words.

Should the article specifically point out each and every scientist that have criticized Dianetics as a pseudoscience? Would that make it more NPOV? Vivaldi 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, but it should remove the weasel words. Don't say "Many Scientific voices" ...say "XXXX scientist has criticized...". You don't need to do that for every scientist, just the most important one or two. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem is not the number of scientists, but the deletion of the balancing citations. Hayakawa, a "scientist" from the UofChicago, writes a "scathing" reveiw of Dianetics according to the citation. In the text of the citation he accuses Hubbard of using an "analogy" of the mind as a computer. This is Hubbard's crime or lack of science. Hayakawa goes on to say this applies to all science fiction writers, thus the title, science-fiction fiction-science. The whole paper is based on Hubbard the author, supposedly mis-using "analogy". Hayakawa then goes on to his amazing conclusion that no scientific results are possible in mental science because of the Placebo Effect, thus Hubbard's claims of results are pronounced as nonsense. Hayakawa admits in the citation, he did no tests and did not observe one Dianetics session, but he did read one book and talk with some friends. This is the nature of this scientific "peer-review". My point is the balancing citations should not be deleted. Spirit of Man 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we say XXXX scientist and many others have criticized Dianetics for being a pseudoscience? Are we required to provide an exact count of the number of scientists, or is more than 5 good enough to use the word "many"? I know that "many" is often a weasel word, but when there are references that suggest "many" is appropriate, then I say it should stay in the article as "many". Vivaldi 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the entire population of scientists in the world, the amount that have ever mentioned Dianetics is probably very small. Why need the word many? If you cite XXX scientist (who's very famous for blah blah blah-itis) says Dianetics is hogwash, his findings are supported by YYYY another famous scientist who says "blahblahblah", doesn't that get your point across well enough, perhaps even more effectively, without using the weasel word?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the words "most" and "many". The article does not suggest that "most scientists" feel this way about pseudoscience, but rather, only "many scientists" feel this way. I believe that there are enough references to back up the claim that "many scientists" feel this way. If you can find "many scientists" that also hold the contrary opinion, then lets add that to the article and provide citations for those claims. Vivaldi 09:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm confusing them. What's your definition of many? I doubt it's the same as mine. Can you quote 150 different scientists? What about 300? Consider it in another light: In the US Army, if one platoon (30 men) commits a crime, when compared to the next level of organization (a company of 150), then yes, it is "many". But when compared to the whole of the entire US Army, 30 soldiers is not many at all. Without an arbitrary definition of "many" (and any such definition would be wholly contentious), it's still a weasel word. Why do you need it at all? What's wrong with my suggestion that you name the top two or so scientists and use their names only?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I use the standard definition for "many", meaning numerous, or more than a few. Specifying only 2 scientists is not appropriate consideration for the many others that also hold the same viewpoint. I believe "many" is perfectly appropriate when it can be cited or referenced. I don't believe the many can be enumerated exactly with precision, but I wouldn't want all of the scientists that think Dianetics is a pseudoscience trying to fit in my apartment. Vivaldi 10:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Modern cognitive science does not support Hubbard's concepts of engrams, mental image pictures and reactive minds"- source? Who speaks for all of "modern cognitive science?"

I would agree this statement needs to be removed or cited. In fact, I vote to remove that sentence even if it is citable. Vivaldi 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that there is POV in the article?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this particular sentence is OR and should be removed for that reason. I'm not sure if the statement itself is NPOV. If, in fact, "modern cognitive science" does not support Hubbard and there is a citation that shows that, then I don't see why that would be POV. It seems like a poorly worded sentence and one that smacks of OR. (I also don't believe that this sentence is necessary even if it is true. I think it is too extraenous and makes the article too long.) I vote for its deletion. What is the consensus? Vivaldi 09:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

.......you don't think a unresearched, unverified statement that claims that all of modern cognitive science disagrees with something is POV? As for the deletion, yes I agree it should go. But this isn't a vote. Be bold. Delete it. You're well within rights to, unless someone can meet the WP:V standard for it.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware that the statement is unresearched or unverified. For all I know, the statement is backed by mountains of evidence. I suspect that since it hasn't been cited that it is OR and therefore I suggest it be removed for that reason. As for "being bold", I'll leave that to others. I prefer to garner a consensus for my views first. We have LOTS of editors here and we can quickly gain a consensus view to remove things that are OR -- or we can actually provide the citations if they exist. If you want to delete sentences or paragraphs that you find to be POV, then remove them and state your case here. I promise I won't object if you remove the two sentences you provided here. Vivaldi 09:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quickly gain a consensus view eh? Yeah that's worked well for this article so far: It'd be one thing if it weren't that nearly all of the edits on this article are content-based reverts. You can't gather ANY kind of consensus here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

We do quickly gain consensus. Terryeo and Spirit of Man tend to be the only two disputing most decisions. They're just really persistent. --Davidstrauss 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have my concurrence on removing it. Dianetics addresses the spirit. I understand that subject addresses the animal body only. Saying it "does not support" Dianetics is a little like saying a survey of Venus does not support the view that there is life on Earth. Spirit of Man 07:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics also does not appear to meet the Daubert Standard, which governs what evidence may be considered scientific in United States federal and most state courts."- any legal precedent that it's even been presented as such? Otherwise this is nonsense filler.

This appears to be OR and should be removed. Vivaldi 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand this as a ChrisO rewrite from the section on Intelligent Design. The word "Dianetics" is substituted for "ID". My discussions of the inappropriateness of the entire pseudoscience section have been ignored and my edits deleted by ChrisO. Spirit of Man 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the entire "Dianetics and pseudoscience" section is nothing but an attack on Dianetics, without any form of rebuttal or counter-criticsm. It is, in effect, an entire SECTION of POV.

That's quite true. Dianetics has not presented itself as a science since the 1950s and even at that date the phrase, "along scientific lines" was used.Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Presenting criticism of an article about Dianetics does not make the entire article NPOV. If there exists any evidence to indicate that Dianetics is not a pseudoscience, then let's add that information to the article. I suggest that no such evidence exists, but if it can be shown otherwise, I say go for it. There is more evidence to indicate that the Earth is round than flat too. Vivaldi 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is administered by a religion, it is a "technology" because it spells out how to do something. Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have provided such evidence at length. It has been systematically deleted from the article. Look at the history or archives or ask me. Spirit of Man 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your "evidence" is from Bridge Publications, an organization with a vested interest in promoting Dianetics. --Davidstrauss 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi says, "If there exists any evidence to indicate that Dianetics is not a pseudoscience, then let's add that information to the article." I say that Bridge meets WP:V that says a publisher should have "fact checking and accuracy" to be credible. Do you agree Bridge meets this criteria? Is there some Wiki criteria you would like to cite in addition to that policy? Now let me present some other sources. The APA Resolution of 8 Sept 1950 calls for some tests like with the safety as regards new people. The Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation conducted tests with 88 new people, who became Dianetic students for one month. The HDRF published a study of these results and they are included as the Introduction to Science of Survival also published by HDRF in the first printing. This study is included in a survey that ChrisO has cited. He has also cited a critical review from a fanzine that criticises the controls recommended by the pschometrists overseeing and certifying the study. So we have an APA required test, conducted, signed by three psychologists and cited by ChrisO. At what point does your POV allow this data? I was sold at Wiki policy accepting it. Spirit of Man 08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about a compromise then, tag that section as NPOV. As for the Earth is round/flat argument: well in articles about the earth, geography etc. it's at least noted that at one time it was believed the earth was flat. We know that's clearly not the case, but we still make note that the belief was once held. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that compromise. The sections promoting Dianetics also have a POV, this section counter-balances sections that explain the positive attributes of Dianetics. How about this compromise instead: a section that asserts that Scientologists believe Dianetics to be a full-fledged science (if indeed that is the case -- I'm not aware of anyone that currently suggests that Dianetics is in fact a full-fledged science, but I'd be happy to check your references if you provide some). Vivaldi 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, what sections or subarticles promote Dianetics?

The sections promoting dianetics would also warrant the tag. NPOV does not mean neutral billing for both sides: if the pro-dianetics section is not written neutrally, then it warrants the tag just as much as the anti-dianetics does. How about this compromise instead: both sections get a npov tag? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to add any tags. Each section can explain what a particular POV is without having to add a NPOV tag on the top of the section or the article. If there are multiple POVs, then we should present the POVs all as fairly and accurately as possible (in a NPOV manner). I'm unaware of any dissent in the scientific community with regards to the status of Dianetics as a pseudoscience, but I'd be happy to add that information if you have it. Vivaldi 09:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I'm not a scientist, or scientologist, nor am I in possession of any knowledge regarding Dianetics, I don't have that information on hand. As stated above, I also would not know where to research. I would advise you, however, that the NPOV policy does not say that both sides need to have equal representation. It just means that the article needs to be written neutrally, without bias towards one side or the other. The current state of the article, and those sections in particular, are not. I've pointed out where this is so. Other editors, including wikipediatrix in his/her edit summary have pointed out POV. Until the POV is removed, there should be the warning tag stating that the article is not neutral.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that is the most salient point. Dianetics is widely published and practiced widely. The "opponenets" to it are not widely published and are not organized. WP:V would have us present the amount of and the quality of the publications about the subject. I believe this will present a NPOV article. Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You openly state that psychology and related fields are in opposition to Dianetics. They are far more widely believed and published than anything supporting Dianetics. Also, Time magazine comes to mind as a widely published direct criticism of the CoS and its practices, including Dianetics. --Davidstrauss 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How easy is this? I've shown you a clear history of revert wars. I have shown you yourself Wikipediatrix calling the article's content "POV". I've (painful as it was) read through the article to show you statements I find that are POV. What more do you need? There's clearly a controversy here. I'm reinstating the tag once again. Please stop removing it, should it be removed again, I'll take it to RfC.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Our comment on this article during Peer Review noted that it was controversial but managed to be NPOV. Frequently POVs are pushed in this article and then removed for being POV (or really being OR, but I digress). This doesn't mean that a POV tag over the whole article is warranted. Perhaps at any given time the article truly is NPOV, then the tag needs to be removed, but your argument seems to indicate that no matter what happens to this article in the future to improve the NPOV, you would still want this tag. Now that is just plain wrong. NPOV CAN BE ACHEIVED! We can do it! And I feel it would be a much wiser use of time to concentrate on discussing the specific sentences that are OR in this article and remove them or have citations provided, rather than continual debate on whether the entire article is POV. Are you with me? Would you like to actually improve the article and make it NPOV, or do you want to keep arguing about whether or not we have NPOV? Vivaldi 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree the article is NPOV, neutral citations from Dianetics are consistently deleted, usually summarily, with vivid "POV pushing" summaries. How can you say it is NPOV, if both sides are not presented fairly? Spirit of Man 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been at the time, but it's no longer that way. You suggest a perfect answer right there: Put in the POV tag, and then remove it when the article truly is NPOV, and then reinstate it if it deviates from that again. Please refrain from attacking my motivations: that's not helpful to anything, and it's not good argumentation practice.

Specifically, the entire article relies too much on Dianetics publications and/or Hubbard's statements. While I realize those are core to any treatment of Dianetics, the article reads like a brochure at this point, with a little "criticsm" tossed in here and there. This reflects prevailing POV of the CoS, not a balanced view. The issue is not one statement, or a few, but the overall tone of the article is unbalanced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is appropriate that an article present the amount of and quality of published information about it. IF there were great quantity of anti-Dianetics publications in great quality then the article would reflect that situation. The article is beginning to look as I thought it would. Good information quoted. Who wins, Dianetics or anti-Dianetics? Well, Dianetics tends to win because it publishes more good quality information. Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the article reflects a pro-Dianetic tone. Many of the deletions that brought this to a head were mine. I had citations, and they were removed as POV pushing. They were merely quotes from text books. It is more recognizable a related to Dianetics, when not long ago it was characterized as "unrecognizeable" by Dianeticists. Spirit of Man 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither "wins" unless the page is neutral, which is currently is not.

LOL. So you agree with Swatjester that the article is POV, but you think it is biased in favor of CoS's POV? Swatjester, who admittedly knows very little about the subject of Dianetics or Scientology, seems to be under the impression this article is POV against CoS. Vivaldi 11:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Killer chihuahua that the overal tone of the article is as stated pro CoS, but the specific sections are anti CoS.

Can you site specific examples about the "tone" of the article? What can we do to improve the article, KillerChihuahua? Vivaldi 11:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Tone res ipsa loquitor is non-specific.

So far, I'm only seeing the possibility of some OR or "weasel words". I actually think we could back many of them up with cites if we looked. Heck, the fact that almost every scientist ignores Dianetics is indictment enough. Wikipedia NPOV policy is that views held by extreme minorities are to be full-on ignored. Relative to psychologists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, and psychiatrists, people supporting Dianetics are a microscopic minority. So, I'm still not convinced that there's a POV problem. If anything, NPOV policy (esp. regarding proportional representation) would call for Dianetics to be eliminated as an article, as it's (in a way) a POV fork of psychology/psychiatry. But I imagine Terryeo and company wouldn't like to see Dianetics reduced to maybe a paragraphy within the psychology article. I'd like to keep the Dianetics article around, though, as I find it a curiousity that has some cultural (but not scientific) influence. Swatjester's criticim of even having a pseudoscience section is curious and troubling. Finally, I staunchly disagree with putting NPOV templates on articles based on reverts and edits. We cannot reward mere controversy with POV warning tags. --Davidstrauss 12:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My criticism is curious and troubling? How? Because you don't like it, or do you have a reason why?

Dianetics as a pseudoscience is clearly a common view. It merits strong representation in the article. --Davidstrauss 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At least part of the problem for editors is knowing what issues apply. Science and pseudoscience were issues raised in the 1950s but have not received much attention in recent times. Perhaps better would be instances where Dianetics produced a positive result and instances where it produced a negative result. Raymond Hill had an excellent citation from the American Psychiatric Association that they refuse to use it and why. Recognized organizations which publish against it would be good counter-point. Terryeo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The evaluation of whether something has net positive or negative effects should be a scientific one. Dianetics is pseudoscience precisely because it hasn't had (and probably can't have) such evaluations. You can't test Dianetics well because it doesn't have measurable, scientific outcomes. Moving the article to a "positive versus negative effect" format would imply that Dianetics is both 1) scientific/falsifiable, and 2) scientifically tested. Neither is true. --Davidstrauss 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Dianetics is pseudoscience. I have cited test data and one study that does have scientific outcomes next to the opinion that it can't have such evaluations, and my citation was deleted. Science of Survival The entire Discussion was archived quickly. The study was requested by the APA citation, who said they would test Dianetics, but did not. Dianetics does have known quantifiable outcomes; increased IQ, decreased illness, improved reaction time, X-Ray slides, improved ability to study. The whole point of Dianetics is that it makes the mind visible, observable, measurable and quantifiable. For the last 50 years it has been presented as workable, because it addresses the spirit and this is not addressed by medicine, psychiatry and psychology that only address the body as an animal. I have addressed and answered with citations the POV nature of the pseudoscience section, not claiming Dianetics represents itself as a science but that it meets the criteria presented in the article for a theory or science. My edits have been deleted or rewritten, and the Discussion ignored for the most part. Spirit of Man 03:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So say you, but I'd bet the Dianetics folks would say otherwise. Ah, what's that we have there? a POV dispute! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

POV disputes will always occur on controversial topics. You'll find however, that while the people accusing Dianetics of being pseudoscience have put proportional, cited material in the article, the Scientologists here merely keep shouting, "It is not!" That does not qualify as a POV problem in the article. --Davidstrauss 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I cited the Introduction to Science of Survival 20th printing, for IQ charts and a study that presents scientific test data supportive of the effectiveness of Dianetics and in answer to the 8 Sept 1950 APA Resolution. I placed that citation next to the Carroll opinion in the Article, declaring Dianetics to have no test data, not being able to envision what it might look like, etc. Is this what you mean by proportional, cited material in the article, and what you mean by shouting "It is not!"? In your opinion should the citation be there or should it be deleted as ChrisO and others did? Spirit of Man 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken from WP:NPOVD (the page for "when should an npov" tag up.)

Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) feels that it is.

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.

Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy.

By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.

Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

What that page states, is there need not be consensus for the NPOV tag to be put up: rather any user may put it up to register their concern. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments here just further illustrate your inability to separate disagreement from POV problems in the article. I don't buy your argument that "if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral." Where's your evidence for that? Creationists will forever argue with the coverage of evolution, but it doesn't mean their arguments indicate POV problems for evolution. You also didn't even have the "tact and wit" to link to the NPOV policy from Talk, you put a giant template on the article. You seem intent on proving the article remains POV even though we made all the changes you pointed out. You just look for spots on Talk to post things like "See! Evidence of POV dispute!" Read the NPOV policy again if you think "one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with" is a valid reason to make POV accusations. The NPOV policy clearly states that the existence and proportion of coverage must relate to cited, external criteria. It doesn't matter how strongly anyone feels here on Wikipedia or if they "care enough to make[...] a point." Take your whiny and unhelpful crusade elsewhere, or dive in and actually help us fix what you think is a problem. --Davidstrauss 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)