Talk:Dianetics/Archive12

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.

Contents 1 Disambiguity (was: followup from question at VP) 2 Previous intro 3 The following is Original Research 4 Traced to freud 5 The introduction (again) 5.1 What Dianetics claims/aims to treat 6 Prototype intros 7 Common knowledge need not be sourced 8 Balance is a problem 9 Terryeo's POV 10 Links Issue 11 "to treat a wide variety of conditions" 12 Anteaus's Intro that says the e-meter is used to treat 13 Xenu.net references 14 Geez, the WP:RS thing again? 15 The e-meter doesn't measure galvanic skin response 16 WP:RS 17 This is ridiculous 18 Antaeus's new Introduction 19 Second paragraph 20 Personal websites being used as secondary sources

Disambiguity (was: followup from question at VP)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Help needed interpreting a guideline, Terryeo asked about WP:ASR and whether it applies to the "disambiguation" sentence at the beginning of the article. IMO (note that I have no particular interest in the topic of this article and will not add it to my watchlist) WP:ASR does not apply, but the sentence is completely redundant with the article lead. Reading through this talk page, I gather there's some controversy about whether this sentence should be included or not. From a purely stylistic viewpoint (again, IMO), if there's any doubt about what this article covers it should be included directly in the article lead rather than in a "disambiguation" preface (which disambiguates Dianetics the term from Dianetics the book?). Please see Wikipedia:Lead section. Perhaps the article could start:

Dianetics is a theory about the human mind and associated practice for treating mental ailments. It is the secular predecessor of Scientology. Author L. Ron Hubbard developed Dianetics starting in the late 1940s, first presenting it to the general public in his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. If this is not a helpful suggestion, please feel free to ignore it, although it seems you all might want to try to find a way to stop squabbling with each other. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

EXCELLENT ! thank you Rick Block. It seems so obvious to me but I wasn't sure how to state it.

Terryeo 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Rick Block's proposed opening represents an improvement over the current intro. I suggest replacing "theory" with "set of ideas", because of the contentiousness about Dianetics being scientific. In fact, I'll be bold

and make that change, in hopes that we can find consensus on this as an acceptible intro. BTfromLA

17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Since the book itself is frequently referred to as "Dianetics", any wording that makes the distinction clear seems like a good thing to me. Friday (talk) 18:02, 27 March

2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some sense to what you say. A book is sometimes confused with ideas. For example, I've had people insist to me on yahoo chat that the Quran (spelling) IS the religion. Obviously a religion is a thought, obviously a religion is but a thought in the mind of whomever holds it. Surely most people understand that a book (physical object, paperweight, takes up space) is a physical object, independent of any thought? Terryeo 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest everybody reconsider the disambiguation tag as the article currently stands--its message is almost identical to the first three sentences of the article. I'm at a loss as to what it adds to the article at this point. I vote cut it. BTfromLA 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not needed anymore. Explaning the issue in regular article text is preferable to having a disambig tag at the top. Friday (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. The purpose of a {{otheruses4}} tag is to say "if you're looking for X, you're at the right place; if you're looking for Y, you're in the wrong place." To say the disambiguation link serves no purpose is to say that any editor, if they follow a link whose context claims it will send them to the article about the book Dianetics, but sends them instead to the article about the set of ideas "Dianetics" (and I have fixed three such links with just the past day and a half, BTW) will realize that the link they came from is incorrect and should be fixed, just because within the first few sentences there is a link to the separate article about the book. I think this idea reflects ideas of how much attention people should pay rather than how much they actually do.

How often have you as editors run across information in article "X" which wasn't actually information about X, but about "Y", a somewhat related but distinct subject? I think anyone who's spent time trying to keep the Scientology articles free of debris has encountered that -- facts about Scientology doctrine inserted into L. Ron Hubbard, for instance, or conversely biographical facts about Hubbard in Scientology beliefs and practices. And that's happens when the big title up at the top of the page makes clear what the subject of the article is and what it isn't, which is not the case with the article which is about Dianetics but not 'Dianetics. So I can see why someone might think the disambiguation isn't serving a purpose, as the existence of a separate article and the distinction between this article and that one would seem obvious. Then again, frequently things seem a lot more obvious to the people who already know them than they are to the people that need to know them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From a purely personal standpoint, I find disambigs to be much more useful than generic wikilinks. It's ultimately a style issue, but I think that disambigs promote wider reading, and I think that that is pretty much the highest goal for this encyclopedia. Tenebrous 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a style question, and I think that you both make a good case, Antaeus and Tenebrous. But please do consider my comments below regarding the disambig threshold (following a post by Android Cat). BTfromLA 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The disambiguity message is important enough to warrant its inclusion at the beginning. It lets the reader clearly know that there is also a Wikipedia article about the book which is not nearly as clear by reading the article. I think many people searching for information about the book Dianetics, may end up here thinking it is the same thing. Thus the disambuity message is necessary to let them know immediately that they are at the wrong article. Vivaldi 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just don't see your point, Vivaldi. The first sentences of the article say almost exactly the same thing as the three sentences of the disambig statement, and little else. The book is introduced and linked to early in the first paragraph... I don't think someone looking for the article on the book would find it any more easily with that disambig than without it. Anybody else want to weigh in about this? BTfromLA 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I just don't understand why you can't grasp simple concepts! People searching for a book titled "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" may inadvertantly end up at his article which is not about that book. That is the purpose of a disambiguity message to begin with, especially since it is quite likely to happen many times for this particular article. People shouldn't have to read an article or its introduction to find out that they are reading the wrong thing. I suggest we remove the redundant information that appears below in the article if your concern is that we are repeating ourselves. The very first thing a person should see when they come here is a disambiguity mention. Vivaldi 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow ! make 'em read the same nonesense enough time, soon you will control their minds. lol. Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying yourself as a rude editor who traffics in gratuitous unprovoked insults, Vivaldi. That sort of behavior is a blight on Wikipedia, and it drives away editors who are interested in civil discourse. BTfromLA 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA - You are the one who wrote "Wow!" after my response, as if what I wrote was so outlandish that it deserved an exclamation of shock and surprise. I find it humorous that you wish to engage in the more subtle sorts rude comments. I prefer a more direct and honest approach. What I wrote was to merely point out that I "got" your subtle jibe at me with your "Wow!" comment. Vivaldi 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidently my writing failed to convey the intended tone: my "wow"--no exclamation point, you added that--was meant as a friendly way of signifying amazement that two folks can see the same thing so differently. I guess I should have just written something like "I disagree with your argument"--I had hoped my less formal approach would make for a friendlier exchange, but clearly that backfired. Anyway, I'm willing to call it a misunderstanding and bury this hatchet, if you are. BTfromLA 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I guess my writing failed to convey the intended tone. My "Wow!" and other comments were to be a friendly way of signifying that I found it incomprehensible that an intelligent person could ever disagree with me because my point of view is obviously the correct one. I guess I should have stuck my head in the sand instead. I was hoping that my friendly jibe at mocking your use of the word "wow" would be interpreted as a good-natured friendly joke intended to impart lots of meaning in a friendly and spirited manner. I guess in the future, I'll have to stick to being a boring droll. However, I'm willing to admit that you are wrong and bury the hatchet as well. Vivaldi 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes forget that a number of my fellow Wikipedia editors are not yet adults. Thanks for the reminder. -- BTfromLA 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you scold me for pointing out that you have again demonstrated that you have no problems with people violating the policy at WP:NPA as long as the said violators are you alone? I sometimes forget that a number of my fellow Wikipedia editors are insufferable hypocrites. Thanks for the reminder! So are you ready to bury the hatchet (again), or do you want to start throwing sand, and saying na-na-na-na-boo-boo? I'm guessing you will want to continue with childish games and fingerpointing. Perhaps we can even start arguing about who started it again? Won't that be fun? Then maybe we can even play a rousing game of "Let's you and him fight". Vivaldi 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health

Those two look so simliar, so alike, so identical that a dismabiguation is needed? How so? Terryeo 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because many times people link to Dianetics and search for Dianetics when they are really searching for the book called Dianetics and not the subject of Dianetics. Numerous examples of this sort have already been demonstrated right here on Wikipedia. And I know from my own real world experience that many people often say things like, "Have you read Dianetics?", when they mean, ""Have you read Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health?". Dianetics is often a short form for the book title. This article isn't about the book, therefore a disambiguity message is appropriate. Vivaldi 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because, no matter how you try to rig the comparison, those two (Dianetics and Dianetics) look so similiar, so alike, ARE identical, that a disambiguation is needed. Capiche? (Well, probably, but you'd never actually admit it.) --Calton | Talk 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

nah, they look quite different to me. Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to participate in the discussion here Carlton? There's lots of it. On one hand is a book. Yes, lots of copies have been printed and yes, lots of copies have been sold and yes, they have been printed and sold in paperback, hardcover and languages besides yours and mine. On the other hand is a subject. Dianetics is both a practice and the ideas which comprise that practice. Like baseball, Dianetics is an action but the action is based on certain ideas. On the other hand there is that book. A comparison might be the subject Baseball compared to a specific book written about baseball. Capiche? (Well, probably, but you're invited to engage in discourse.) -- Terryeo 14:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to participate in the discussion here Carlton? Gee, that's a toughie. Wait, you meaning rebutting what you say and having you respond ISN'T participating in the discussion? Oh, right, it is, but your major reading comprehension and/or intellectual honesty problems leads you to ignore reality. Including something as basic as spelling.

The rest of your word salad is safely ignored, as is your weak attempt to mock my words by cutting-and-pasting and without actually understanding them. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Baseball does have a disambiguation to cut down on confusion.

This article is about the sport baseball; for a disambiguation on unrelated computer and video games entitled Baseball or similar names, see Baseball (computer game).

That was a good example! AndroidCat 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed an excellent example. Dianetics is one action, one activity. It has no video game to disambiguate from. It does not have thousands of "baseball fields' to disambiguate from. It does not have millions of "baseball fans" to disambiguate from. It does not have hundreds of authors writing thousands of articles every week to disambiguate from. Dianetics is a single activity. It does not need a disambiguation from a single book which uses that word as part of its title. An excellent example, indeed. Terryeo 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there no "Dianetics fans", no "Dianetics practitioners", no "Dianetics users", no "Dianetics auditors", no "Dianetics Centers", no "Hubbard Dianetics Foundation", no "Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation"?, No "Dianetics Self-Improvement Package"? No "Dianetics CD"? No "Dianetics Affiliate Program"? No "Dianetics Home Study Course"? No "Dianetics E-Newsletter"? No "Dianetics: Evolution of Science", no "Dianetics 55", etc...?Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Duh, when a person looks for the subject, "Dianetics", where does he look, Duh, well, he looks for an article entitled, "Dianetics". Then within the article entitled, "Dianetics", if he persists through the vast controversy you people present, he might be able to find additional links and information. Additional information about Dianetics would be within the article, if you wished to present Dianetics. On the other hand, if you wished to present the controversy of Dianetics, then you would make an even larger disambiguation until the person had to read through vast lists of books and other stuff, all of which begin with the single word, "Dianetics" but had additional, decsriptive words thereto attached. Heh.Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it amusing that on the official page of Dianetics at Dianetics.org, immediately under the large print text that says "WHAT IS DIANETICS" it says, "DIANETICS — The all-time self-help bestseller". So Terryeo, is it true? Is that what Dianetics is, or is Dianetics just a subject matter and the book something else? It seems like there is a bit of ambiguity here even on the official home page for Dianetics. Does ithat confuse you? Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt' confuse me. On the other hand I know from past chat with you that you are not implicating that the article presents Dianetics in a manner which might be confusing, but instead hoping to find an area of confusion to implement more controversy.  :) I've learned, you people do not wish to present that information which constitues Dianetics. You don't know the subject but you disallow its introduction. Instead you present the controversy of the subject, you present it in a manner which you hope will be acceptable enough that the subject does not actually become presented, but enough of its jargon is presented so that the controversy of the subject has a rich field to sprout from.Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice curve. The baseball disambiguation is solely between the activity of baseball and several baseball computer games. No baseball fields involved. No baseball fans mentioned either. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there are several books that use Dianetics as part of the title. Perhaps the disambiguation should be expanded?

Arguments that there is a link to the book in the first paragraph are ignoring the user interface concepts of expectation and least surprise. If someone is looking for "that dianetics book", and gets the Dianetics page, the user expectation is that the standard Wiki interface will tell them that they are close to what they are looking for, and they will see it in a disambiguation rather than text in the article. AndroidCat 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But isn't the user close to what they are looking for when they come to this article? There's a question of whether this situation meets the "ambiguity" threshold at all: unlike most disambigs, there is a great deal of overlap between an article on Dianetics and Dianetics the book. (I'm not sure that a separate article on the book is even warranted, but it exists at this point, so I'm not going to argue that.) Do we need a disambig now for another article that I'm dubious about, "History of Dianetics"? Or, as Terryeo suggests, "Dianetics Today"? I'm wondering whether the fact that Terryeo has championed the removal of the tag has raised suspicions that removing must be a bad, POV-ish thing to do. That's baby-with-the-bath-water thinking, if true. If we do keep or expand the disambig note, we'll need to rearrange the intro so that in is not so exactly redundant with the disambig notice. BTfromLA 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that when they are searching for Dianetics the book, they are close to the proper subject when they end up here. This disambig notice just lets them know up front they are in the wrong place. And I would agree that it might be wise to merge the articles into one place. But until these articles are merged, the disambig notice should remain. Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, but I think BTfromLA is saying the disambiguity notice isn't necessary? I don't think it is. Readers were come to this article to understand what "Dianetics" is, wouldn't they? And if they wished to understand what was between the covers of the book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health then they would go to that article. Or alternatively, if they wanted to know all about a picture of a volcano, what better source ? heh ! But a reader might start at either article and go to the other because both link to each other. I believe we can befuddle a reader if we include a large notice "this subject is not subjects X, nor Y, nor Z" on the top of every subject. These subjects use new words, new to the reader. Dianetics is such a word, "mental health" doesn't even have a real definition, although you could make an arguement for that. Let us keep the beginnings as simple as we possible can. There is lots of room for controversy, for other viewpoints, for skepticism, even for "its is all evil" but let us keep the introductions as simple as possible for the reader. I'm not sure what to say about your last comment BTfromLA. I'm just working toward good, clean introductions of subjects as I did at Fair_Game_(Scientology). Terryeo 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguity is necessary because: any person searching to find out information about the book titled Dianetics will end up here, to the subject of Dianetics, which is not the same thing. That is why we have a disambiguity notice. If we get rid of the article about Dianetics and merge the information here, then we can remove the disambiguity notice. I would be willing to consider a merge of those two seperate subjects since they overlap considerably and share the same name. Vivaldi 06:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no book titled Dianetics. Terryeo 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to all the many people who have created links to Dianetics when what they were trying to reference was Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The question is not whether there is a book whose correct title is Dianetics but whether there is a need for disambiguation. Data indicates there is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, please explain your latest revert. Tenebrous 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The first version is more clear and better. Vivaldi 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was too redundant. My attempt to shorten it was because the disambig was long and basically repeated the first couple sentences of the article. I'm not just going to put it back, but I liked the short version which read simply "For the book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.". Friday (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The otheruses template works just fine. Its okay to duplicate a little information from the introduction in the dismbig. notice. In fact it is quite common to briefly explain what the seperate terms are -- that's why the disambig template makes a special provision and space for that. Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The current disambig looks fine to me. It seems an appropriate length, and it's fairly clear. Friday (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the recent changes to both the disambiguation notice and the intro sentences have made the notice much less problematic. While I'm still not fully convinced that the Dianetics book merits a disambiguation tag, I don't see the existing one as much of a problem. BTfromLA 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the disambig template appeared destined for deletion, I changed it to the Template:for style. --Davidstrauss 10:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous intro

The lead-off sentence was terrible as it did not adequately define dianetics. A good definition has the characteristic of being a sentence with the following form: "A is a B that satisfies C" where

1. A is the term in question
2. B is a relevant superset to which the subject belongs
3. C is a set of qualifiers which distinguishes the term from all other elements contained in B.

As the intro used to read, it had features of A and B but failed to accomplish C. We need to distinguish dianetics from other practices and ideas regarding the mind in order for the definition to be editorially sound. As such, I changed it to an appropriate definitional form. --ScienceApologist 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see a "C" in there: "developed by author L. Ron Hubbard starting in the late 1940s." This sets Dianetics apart from other practices and ideas. Friday (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only in there now because I put it in there. I changed the wording of my above post to conform with this. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work with you or anyone on the introduction. But please consider before making lots of big changes, it has been worked on a lot. It is not quite a concensus, but it is nearing a concensus. Dianetics is unique in that it addresses the mind without addressing the body. No other area of study does that, does it? In this narrow sense it has no superset. Or am I missing what you mean to say, ScienceApologist? Terryeo 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is an example of a practice which addresses the mind without "addressing the body". --ScienceApologist 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that your reversion is without rationale. I understand the desire for consensus, but we should not let that excuse ugly prose. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm of the impression that both psychology and psychiatry base their work on the "mind" being an intregal part of and contained by "the brain". In particular, Psychiatiry is well known for quoting things about "chemical imbalances" and such as they prescribe psych drugs. How am I misinformed? Terryeo 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You are misinformed in assuming that psychoanalysis is interchangable with psychiatry. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be misinformed, that's possible. I understand psychoanalysis to be an activity, Psychology to have two branches, one of which makes studies and the other of which treats people. Then Psychiatry is Psychology + Medical Doctor. However, whether I have the gist of it or not, my impression is that both consider the human mind to be an intregal part of the human nervous system, especially the brain and treat the body rather than treating the spirit. Dianetics treats, "through mind," treating the spirit which is a different approach and is sometimes viewed as contrary to psychology's priniciples. Terryeo 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are now confusing psychology with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis, in particular, was developed by Freud and his followers without any "mind body connection" ideas. --ScienceApologist 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we can introduce "mind" without getting into extreme explanations of special jargon. Terryeo 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As a minor note, in the sentance "Dianetics has been highly controversial since its public introduction in 1950." the word "public" is redundant. Tenebrous 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Did you know Dianetics has structures for good definitions too? There are four of them in Logic 5 Scientology 0-8; a descriptive definition that simply describes something, or classifies it like yours. One that associates likenesses to other things, one that compares differences to other things, and that shows purposes or actions or causes and states of being. There are more details in the book. Spirit of Man 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the dogma of Dianetics regarding various terms (including "good definition structures"). Let's just say that both description and classification is important when writing an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. Would you also agree that the scope of the subject might be important? For example, for "Physics" we could say the ideas and practices Newton used to describe the motion of bodies. Or we could include thermodynamics and all the rest of the actual subject. What I'm saying is the description and classification could be very restrictive or more inclusive. I have proposed something like, "Dianetics is the philosophy, science and therapy described by L. Ron Hubbard in his books on Dianetics. This includes your A, B C idea above but is inclusive rather than restrictive. Spirit of Man 05:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition you just provided is fine with me. I have no objection to it. I had objection to the previous intro which didn't include Hubbard (which I think was an atrocious oversight). Perhaps you could rewrite your sentence to "Dianetics is the philosophy, science and therapy of the mind as described by L. Ron Hubbard in his books on Dianetics". I understand that there may be more to it than the mind, but being too broad is also a problem (as "the philosophy, science, and therapy" can be taken to mean those belonging to, or the universal philosophies, sciences and therapies -- see what I mean?) --ScienceApologist 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your definition is fine for me. We could mention "spirit" but that is in the books. We could say "works" instead of books, that would include lectures, bulletins and such. But yours is fine. You editing it is more likely to pass than mine, which usually gets summary deletion. Spirit of Man 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, why not allow a person, either myself or Spirit of Man would do, why not let us introduce the subject? We are both, after all, familar with the subject and we know the subject and it is the content, not the style of the introduction that I am myself objecting to. When the introduction has a reasonable content, then by all means, criticize it for style. Dianetics is not what the introduction states it is. Surely every editor wants the subjects to be introduced, don't they? Terryeo 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I take a different perspective: style can influence content. Arguing over who should or shouldn't write a particular sentence is contrary to the spirit of group editting and encyclopedia. Rather, let everyone add their own two cents whether it be about specific content request, stylistic requests, or even punctuation requests (some of the best editors I have met at Wikipedia are involved mostly in orthography and have enabled brilliant prose to emerge in the most controversial of subjects by focusing on form rather than function). The introduction as previously written was atrocious. It needed to change. By enacting at least a standard definitional form, we have at least not hit the reader over the head with terrible writing from the get-go -- whether it is the best introductory sentence we as editors can wrangle about later. However, style editors do not and should not take a backseat while content editors make their bold penstrokes. They are just as valuable and can contribute simultaneously. I frankly don't care what the definition says (though it should conform to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia), I really just care we have put our best foot forward. --ScienceApologist 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense, Science Apologist. Neither is it in the spirit of Wikipedia for any person or even group of persons to "own" or have exclusive control of any part of any article. I would much rather a concensus of editors arrive at a good introduction, but was just feeling desperate. Which is why I said that about the introduction. Terryeo 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is Original Research

and should not be in the article. I have removed it many times, editors continually revert what I remove. These two partial sentences, just following the introduction are (I think it was ChrisO's) Original Research and Violate WP:NOR.

"......resulting in a word similar to the already-existing Greek adjective dianoētik-os διανοητικ-ός, meaning "mental". His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by cybernetics, a vogue idea at the time of Dianetics' establishment."

Those ideas are not completely crazy but they are poorly introduced, they are Original Reseach added into the middle of an otherwise almost direct quotation from Terra Incognito. Please quit reverting Original Research into the article. Terryeo 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What part of that first sentence bit is OR? The second bit could possibly be interpreted as OR, but! You should ask for a citation before deleting it. And how is what you replace it with not OR? And really, what is your problem with it? OR is the excuse, but what does it say that you don't like? Tenebrous 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence fragment is citable within Dianetics materials, actually there are citations that do not support it. It is simply added material. Now someone in the world might have made a connection somewhere. But I don't know of any importance to it. It exists. We wouldn't put a telephone book in the article simply because it exists. I think they both should be deleted, unless someone wishes to say something more profound about them. Spirit of Man 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's break this down a bit. The first sentence is a pure statement of fact. There is indeed a Greek word, διανοητικός (dianoutikos), meaning "mental", and it is indeed very similar to "Dianetics". The first part of the second sentence explains what the -etics ending means. Again, this is a statement of fact (look it up for yourself). The second part of the second sentence notes the parallel between Hubbard's neologism Dianetics and the existing word cybernetics, which was a very fashionable concept at the time. Terryeo omits the third sentence, which notes that Hubbard explicitly linked Dianetics with cybernetics. Once again, this is pure fact - Terryeo hasn't tried to deny that Hubbard publicly made such a link in his published works.

I think Terryeo's bottom line here, though he's evidently not honest enough to admit it, is that he wants to present Dianetics as L. Ron Hubbard's own special and unique creation, being a radical departure from everything else that didn't owe anything to any lesser minds. Or it could be that Terryeo is just plain uninformed on this issue, which seems very possible (he's already asserted that διανοητικός is a German word). Most likely it's a combination of the two. Either way, he is wasting everyone's time and patience, as usual. -- ChrisO 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you speak to me directly ChrisO? I am completely upfront and honest and I stated my POV on my user page. You, however, I do not expect the same honest, upfront, emotions on the cuff of the sleeve behaviour from, nor do I expect it from any editor. It is not required. What is required is No Original Research. The phrase, "His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by" uses the word "may" and having read that article (as anyone can read that article, it is online), I know that word does not appear in that article. I further know that is your own, personal original research which you yourself did, or someone did for you and you posted it into the article. It is uncited. I have removed it many times and will continue to remove original research. While you are completely free to draw a conclusion, you are not free to state a conclusion in the article unless that conclusion is published. It is dishonest to put your own original research into an article. It is somewhat dishonest to imply that I am being dishonest by pointing out that is orignal research. Terryeo 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO clearly states why "may have been inspired by" isn't "original research." If he went out and interviewed Hubbard's wife and she told him that he named Dianteics based on thus-and-so and he put her account in the article, that would be original research. What exists is merely a reasonable supposition based on established fact. The word "may" signals that it is a supposition. But the fact that Hubbard himself linked Dianetics to cybernetics at the time he introduced it makes this line perfectly reasonable, in my view. BTfromLA 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What's more, reviewers of Dianetics at the time commented that Hubbard appeared to have borrowed concepts from cybernetics: "The terminology of dianetics is made up of words and concepts borrowed from psychiatry and psychoanalysis, mixed with language derived from physics, mathematics, engineering and cybernetics" [1]; "Dianetics is actually a sort of hasty pudding made up of ideas taken bald-faced from Freudian psychology, Cybernetics" [2]; "Cybernetics is the big new idea of the times, and it is my opinion Hubbard (who never mentions the word) has got cybernetics, and got it bad; this is to say, he has got it wrong." [3]. Don't forget that we're looking at this issue with nearly 60 years' hindsight - cybernetics was much more in the public eye back then so the links between Dianetics and cybernetics were more immediately obvious than they are now. -- ChrisO 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is Original Research WP:NOR within the context you have presented it. You introduced that paragraph and it cites Terra Incoginta as its source. Terra Incognita was written by Hubbard and he presents at its end, the source of his word. It does not state, "the suffix '-etics' may have been inspired by cybernetics" but instead tells explicity and exactly the source of Hubbard's choice of his word. You place the conjecture, "it may have been inspired by....?" without telling whose conjecture it is. Unless it is cited then it is origninal reasearch. Why not make it simple for the reader, why not present the exact quote from Terra Incognita and quit hammering away with this piece of information which the author happily supplies in Terra Incognita? Terryeo 15:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll make one additional comment here, though this is very very redundant and I have stated it perahaps 10 times and it is all over my user page. I am editing per wikipedia policy. WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. I expect other editors to likewise edit per wiki policy. I want the information which comprises the subject's name to be introduced. If any editor wishes to ask me a question about the information, I try to be responsive. It is completely false to say that I hope to "hope to present the subject" in a particular way. I fully intend that Dianetics be introduced to be what it actually is. After it is introduced a reader could understand the subject. Until a reader does understand that Dianetics is an action, a read can not understand the controversy around it. Terryeo 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Traced to freud

I know it's a semantic point, but the statement "can be traced to" would require a tracer, while "appear similar to those of," does not. I do not believe there is an RS that says that the psychometric ideas in Dianetics can be traced to Sigmund Freud, but it is clear that they appear similar. Can we think of a different wording that does not make it appear that Freud = Dianetics? Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

According to CoS, Hubbard was trained by Snake Thompson who trained under Freud. Thus the "can be traced to" statement. Of course the main reason for this statement is merely to get Hubbard's name next to some of the great thinkers of modern times, when in reality Hubbard flunked out of college after his first year and his ideas have been mocked by nearly every scientist that has ever commented on his babble. Vivaldi 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi "traces" to Freud through Thompson, but one could also "trace" to any one of the numerous people LRH credits in 50,000 years of thinking men. I think you have a point. The technology of Dianetics does not trace to Freud, and Freud was not the source. Freud was a neurologist. Dianetics deals with the spirit, mental image pictures and produces Clears. Freud didn't and psychoanalysis doesn't use those ideas nor get that kind of result. Hubbard credits Gautama Siddartha with the idea of "if it is not true for you, it is not true". He credits Dharma with the cycle of action, and many others. He credits Freud for "you can do something about the mind", which Freud got from Breur. In the Pre-Hav Scale 22 Jan 61 and the South African Congress Lectures, LRH places Freud's technology of "tokens" and other things at a level of Inverted Interest, 22 levels below the level needed to even start a Dianetics session. Dianetics started by throwing out everything, not of personal observation, testing and evaluation according to Evolution of Science. This comes from the Doctrine of The Introduction of an Arbitrary. Known in Study Tech as the first barrier to study, "the idea that you know all about it." Fixed ideas prevent learning about a subject and all of Freud's ideas had to be thrown out and ones like the "censor" are specifically named with why they are invalid. Engram running "by chains" was not introduced until 1961. Even then it included the spirit and past lives which has not been admitted to by Freudians to my knowledge. Spirit of Man 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What precisely are you saying? I see a great deal of rambling towards a point, but the point itself seems to be missing. The topic is a specific sentance in the article. Should we change it, and how? Tenebrous 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, I'm saying Freud is credited along with dozens of others for their specific contributions in Dianetics. Freud was not the source, the source is correctly described in Evolution of Science and other Dianetic materials, not the quotation and citation of Campbell in something uncited by Winter as this paragraph says. I don't think "psychometric" and its Wiki link is the correct word, but as such it has no meaning in the context of the paragraph or Dianetics and I doubt it has any meaning in psychoanalysis either. I don't see any reason for the entire paragraph at all. It certainly has no meaning in a section on the basics of Dianetics. There is no "basic" of Dianetics represented. There is a reference to Freud in the History section, but I don't see that that applies either. Both should be deleted [be bold] or rewritten by someone that cares about it. Maybe Vivaldi or a consensus committee? Spirit of Man 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't trace anything to Freud. I was just regurgitating the worthless babble that is often spouted by the Church of Scientology. From [Scientology dot org L. Ron Hubbard: Early Studies of the Mind]:

At the end of that year, young Ron traveled to the nation’s capital via the Panama Canal, meeting Commander Joseph C. Thompson of the US Navy Medical Corps. Commander Thompson was the first officer sent by the US Navy to study under Sigmund Freud, and took it upon himself to pass on the essentials of Freudian theory to his young friend. Although keenly interested in the Commander’s lessons, Ron was also left with many unanswered questions.

So it is reported that LRH was taught the essentials of Freudian theory. But big deal! L Ron Hubbard was also taught the essentials of engineering while in college but he flunked nearly every course. In fact the university had to kick L. Ron Hubbard out of college because he was so inept and uneducatable. Vivaldi 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am lol about your statement Vivaldi because that view of Hubbard's education isn't too uncommon. It looks at one element of a person's education, i.e. the degrees they can post onto their wall, and it ignores certain other elements. For example, Hubbard earned his living by the pen. Whether it is called education or called a knack or called just plain hard work, he earned his living by the pen and did reasonably well. I've seen estimations that his vocabularly was about 50,000 words while most of us do well with 20,000. It amuses me because while it has elements of truth to it, neither does it tell the whole story and that is exactly true of much of what he created. At least two websites are dedicated to defaming and making little of his work, they present a point of view that is not completely false. On the other hand, it isn't the whole story either. Terryeo 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard is not respected as a smart or learned man by educated intelligent people. For example, Hubbard said, "Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer". Click for audio clip of Hubbard telling people to smoke more cigarettes to prevent cancer. Hubbard on the subject of Calculus: "Now I hope you understand this, because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it. It must be some sort of a Black Magic operation, started out by the Luce cult -- some immoral people who are operating up in New York City, Rockefeller Plaza -- been thoroughly condemned by the whole society. Anyway, their rate-of-change theory -- I've never seen any use for that mathematics" Click to listen to Hubbard on Calculus. Hubbard on Gamma Ray radiation: "You know, it kills the human body very, very dead, but it'll go through a sixteen foot wall! A gamma ray'll go through a wall, very easily. Well, what's it -- how does it hurt a body? Nobody can tell you. A wall can't stop a gamma ray, but a body can. And we get down to our number one medical question. Gamma rays go through walls but don't go through bodies. We get the density of a body and the density of the wall and we find out that the body is less dense than the wall. So therefore we have to go in to the field of the mind, if we can't go into the field of anatomy on this subject and say "What is happening here?". And I can tell you, fortunately, what is happening here. Resistance! The wall doesn't resist and the body does." Hubbard says he cures blindness with an e-meter: "if you run it their sight should turn on" Vivaldi 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, I refer you to WP:CIV. You certainly must know that the things you quote here are out of context and you have not checked them yourself. So your intent appears to be to insert knowingly, false information to escalate an argument. If you don't know they are true or false then you should check them first. If you would like to know the truth, then that would have nothing to do with publishing these things here in this way. If you don't intend harm, then I suggest you check each of these things out for yourself as to validity and then look back to where your found them. Did they intend harm by giving you false information? I think you will find that is exactly true. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of WP:CIV would like to refer me to? I was making a comment about a convicted criminal, drug abuser, and the funder of a criminal cult named L. Ron Hubbard, who happens to be dead and not an editor of Wikipedia, so I don't understand how WP:CIV applies to this case. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to read it and not ignore it. "This policy in a nutshell: Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed." "In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize." "For example, if User A and User B are flaming each other by e-mail through a mediator, it might be best if the intermediary turns "I refuse to allow Neo-Nazi apologetics to infest the Wikipedia" to "User A is concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a certain view." Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we hear the common complaint that Hubbard's quotes are out of context, but do you think I would get any complaints if I posted the ENTIRE LECTURE here? Would you care to provide the needed "context" that makes any of Hubbard's ridiculous comments make more sense? Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have checked each and every quote myself and listened to the full context of each of the lectures that these quotes came from (NUMEROUS TIMES!) You accuse me of falsehood, when I provided you with links to Hubbard's own voice saying the words. (If you want to say the material is out-of-context, then go ahead and provide whatever context you want to clear it up). "Out-of-Context" and "False" are not the same thing. Hubbard really did spout off this nonsense. Hubbard had a drug-addled mind and his lectures only reflected his ignorance on a variety of topics. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:CIV.

Are they out of context or are they false? Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Smoking" is out of context and false. LRH is talking about causative factors not apparent symptoms. "rate-of-change theory" out of context, false, irrelavent. It is literary device to introduce a discussion. "Gamma Ray radiation" out of context, false, the handlings for radiation are given elsewhere with the its technology. This quote is from an early tape where the problem is being identified only. Gamma radiation only restimulates, it does not hit the cell and it does not stop. It is handled by key-out of the restimulation. As such Scientology is only concerned with radiation to the degree it causes hysteria. The restimulation is caused by resistence the same as any recording in the mind. "e-meter" is false as intepreted. It is also out of context, the e-meter doesn't "run" anything. Only the spirit is addressed. The meter only measures resistence in the body and displays that information to the auditor. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For example; smoking and cancer. That type of procedure has not been used since that time, there are more effective methods that are less alarming, but here is an explanation of how it would work. Per Dianetics 55! the spirit creates mental image pictures by resisting things. If the pictures are of pain influencing the body, then if these specific pictures are used at a later time, that old pain can influence the body now...to cause cancer. If the pain was caused by or associated with smoking, nicotinic acid, or resisting smoking, then that is part of the content of the picture and can influence the body again if used. But the picture is only formed when the spirit resists. The painful picture is only used when the person resists.The pain causing the cancer only appears when the person resists. So what happens if you reverse this resistance effect by having the person smoke more till the cancer is handled? He isn't resisting the pain or the content that caused the pain, and the pain will vanish. I know you don't know the logic of this and have not seen this in action. You haven't seen people get well using such a method. I can assure you the source that gave you this information did NOT tell you how many cases Hubbard had "cured" with this method. But my mother-in-law decided to stop smoking because it was bad for her health...she died of lung cancer in two weeks. She had been a smoker for 30 years before deciding to stop. Resistence has a lot to do with it. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments speak volumes about your scientific training.

You have no idea of my scientific training. You don't seem to be able to comprehend this material. Why are you here? Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

...Another example of this kind of logic: Did you know that I was able to get: a formerly wilted tomato plant to sprout up and produce large happy fruit just by paying for a little Scientology auditing? It must be true, because I saw it happen! And you know what they say, "What's true for you...". LOL. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer you WP:CIV. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys have egged Spirit of Man into an explanation. He has used Scientology jargon and exactly described what happens. You don't understand the jargon he uses and since you don't, the explanation which he gave it his best shot about, his explanation doesn't make sense to you. Then you begin the mocking, after egging him into the explanation in the first place. Auditing has, not kidding, cured diseases and done a lot of things. You are free to refuse to understand that it happens at all. You are free to an opinion. Travolta says his career is largely due to it. There is something to it whether you understand it or don't understand it. But whether you refuse to understand it or not, it isn't appropriate to egg a person into an explanation and then jeer him for his explanation. Terryeo 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a bit close to a session of mocking Scientology, which although it's highly entertaining, should probably be carried out on a different talk page---I volunteer mine. Actually, we can change it to "Why people don't like Scientology" and then Terryeo can get his answers. Tenebrous 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it is any different than a mocking session by two persons uninformed. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How lovely. Any more anecdotes you'd like to share? Hmm. Anecdotal evidence, unverifiable claims versus medical science. I guess those misspent millions towards finding a cure for cancer should have been given to LRH instead. And how many needless deaths could have been prevented simply by converting to Scientology? We could get rid of all the hospitals in the country, and do away with all this medicare nonsense, etc. etc.
Clearly some people will believe anything. I should start a religion. Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on the mocking. Scientology deals with the spirit not the body. It leaves cancer to medical science. Dianetics has received no funding from governments or medicine. You seem misinformed that funds "should have been given". Did you know Linus Pauling did a study in Ireland with a thousand terminal cancer patients as controls and 100 test subjects using 10 gm per day of vitamin C? The controls died in six months and he continued his study for seven years while some of his patients lived. I'm just saying if we leave "cancer" to medicine they still may need some help. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A modern use of nicotinic acid, niacin, is in the Purification Rundown. The effectiveness of this Rundown had been demonstrated scientifically in the New England Journal of Medicine, by doctors Denk, Megan and Samler. Small doses of niacin are given with lots of excercise, nutritional support and sweating under a medical doctors supervision. The dose is kept the same for a week or so. There will be flushing and other side reactions that take place. The dose is kept the same until there are no more side reactions for a while. Then the dose is increased. Just as you quote incorrectly above, the nicotinic acid is increased. One of the reactions that can occur temporarily with this rundown is cancer, just as you said. The procedure is to keep the dosage the same until there is no more reaction, then increase the dose. Until there is no more reaction and all of the side reactions are gone. Cancer that occurs in this way is called incipient cancer. One is basically running out the cancer that would have occured later in a harmless way. The person then doesn't get the cancer in an uncontrolled way later. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked for that study, but couldn't find it. Please provide a link. Also, your understanding of cancer is...um. Let's just say that you've been misinformed, and should do some research on the subject from non-scientology sources. Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Purification Rundown -- and the Narconon treatment -- have not been fully analyzed by any independent studies. This is because Narconon refuses to participate in any independent verification of their absurd claims. This is not a "modern use" of niacin.

Is it used?

...This is the nonsensical, uninformed, dangerous, and potentially deadly use of absurd levels of niacin which can cause liver damage, gout and other problems (see John A. Henry, British Medical Association New Guide to Medicines and Drugs, 2000 edition). Also you should read more about Hubbard's Junk Science. Vivaldi 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree Narconon has the highest success rate, two years with not reversion to drugs, of any group treating heroin addiction? Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Making a profit at something is not an accurate means of quantifying intelligence or knowledge. If this were the case, Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt would be considered geniuses, while Einstein would be considered a dolt. Just because Hubbard was able to briefly support himself by writing for a penny a word, doesn't mean he was smart. His real money didn't come until he figured out that being a charlatan, a crook, and a fraud was the means to really gain money and power. Vivaldi 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make up an arguement but some of what you say seems valid and applicable. The element of Hubbard's having learned soemthing about how Freud did things that I've seen mention of, by Hubbard though I couldn't say where exactly was that an examination of Freud's early work, Freud simply listened to people talk. This is somewhat like the Catholic Confessional where the Priest just asks the guy if he has something to confess and listens to his confession and acknowledges the guy for having confessed. If you call this a psychoalaysis technique or call it "listening" or call it "auditing," whatever you call it, that's the part of Freud's work that Hubbard found application for. And I say this not because I can remember where I read it, but because I read it someplace in the Scientology Tech. But it is the sort of thing, you know, people do with each other anyway. Its hardly rocket science. Terryeo 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Vivaldi and Terryeo, for your opinions. This conversational tangent, however, is better explored on one of your talk pages, as it does not relate to the subject of this article. Tenebrous 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrous, getting back to the "mostly evil" thing which I asked you about and which you replied by telling me that I should know it already, may I ask you for specifics of what you mean by saying that Scientology is "mostly evil?" Terryeo 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Something else that does not belong on this page. I don't believe that I used that specific phrase, though. I'm not sure I would consider it to be accurate, either. I'm working on a response/clarification to that, be patient. Tenebrous 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction (again)

The introduction presently appears to the reader as:

• This article is about the theory and practice termed Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

  Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental issues developed by developed by author L. Ron Hubbard.

Which has two elements which are non-encyclopedic. First, the disambiguation, throughly redundant, stuffs the reader's face into "Dianetics is the secular predeccssor of Scientology" before the reader has a clue what Dianetics is about. Why? What possible reason is there to introduce the reader to words he doesn't need in order to understand "Dianetics?" It is poor, very poor writing in any perspective but particularly poor encyclopedic writing when we have kilobytes to give the reader links with. In addition, the book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health is mentioned very early in the article and is linked. The disambiguation only adds length without adding content. Then the first sentence does even worse, it says that Dianetics is "for treating mental issues" and that simply isn't correct at all, that is false information within the context mentioned. Is there any chance at all of discussing the introduction with people? Everyone looks at my edits, sees it it terryeo who has edited and reverts without discussion. I understand that other editors do not understand what Dianetics is, how it is used, why it was created or any of the rest of it. Nonetheless, we should discuss these issues and so I present again, The article does not introduce Dianetics. This is exactly where we were 3 months ago. And 3 months ago, we nearly got an introduction, then ChrisO, majorly rewrote the article, dispersing our agreements. Dianetics is not introduced, people. Can we talk about it?Terryeo 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the disambig is less neccessary now that it nearly duplicates the first few sentences of the article. I'd tried trimming the disambig down to just For the book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health., but this change was reverted. I still think this would be a change for the better, but unless other people think so too, I probably won't try making that change again. As for "the subject is not introduced", I've heard this many, many times before, and I doubt this will go anywhere. If anyone has specific suggestions on how to improve the into, let us know and/or try them out. But don't just try things again that have already been shot down repeatedly by other editors. Friday (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Verily, I valued the less verbose version, but Vivaldi was very vehement. :) Tenebrous 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, the thing that we have a problem with is not that you edit this article. It's the way you edit this article. You delete the disambig when there is a consensus of opinion that says (at the least) that your excuses for removing it are not good enough. You replace the actual etymology of the word Dianetics with your factually-incorrect-but-Scientology-approved version, and without any more reason than the last time you tried it, several months ago. As for your perennial claim that the subject is not introduced, I would like to see some support for it. Actually, I have a better suggestion. Why don't you write a god damned intro yourself, and put it on this talk page, alright? End this whole discussion as to what you mean when you say it's not being introduced. Tenebrous 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

YES !

• Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment. It involves a single person listening and a second person telling them their thoughts, past and present. It is based on a set of ideas created by author L. Ron Hubbard and was first published broadly in 1950 as Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health.

I would like Spirit of Man to comment on it too, and others as well. (no disambiguation and DMSMH is right there).Terryeo 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment. It involves a single person listening and a second person telling them their thoughts, past and present."

In this version of the intro, Dianetics seems indistinguishable from a pitch-meeting at a Hollywood movie studio. Or a heart to heart discussion by aging sisters over steaming mint tea. Or pillow talk after a sexual liason at a tropical resort. In other words, your intro is way too vague--it doesn't tell us much at all of the when, what or why of Dianetics. Instead, you conjure visions of intimate dialogues and lovely surroundings. It reads like manipulative advertising copy, not encyclopedic writing. In my view, the current intro is far superior. (Though I agree about dropping that disambiguation notice.) BTfromLA 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What BTfromLA said. I can't imagine how any editor could believe that "Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment" is a good first sentence for an encyclopedia article. Change the first word, and it would be a better intro for sexual intercourse or chess than it is for Dianetics. (Not that I'm suggesting it's better than the current intros on those articles.) Friday (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you simply can not do it in an environment like a battlefield, or in a threatening environment. A quiet, relatively peaceful environment, one which is relatively comfortable is required or it can not be done. It is mandentory that the person telling of their thoughts is able to to be aware of their thoughts and not be distracted. Is there a better way to communicate the idea? Terryeo 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the phrase you want is "a distraction-free environment" as opposed to the less specific "pleasant" one. But that's a small detail that belongs in the part of the article on auditing procedure, not in the intro. --BTfromLA 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, "distraction-free" or "comfortable" or "safe and friendly" or something. How can a person remember what they did 5 minutes, and 5 years ago unless they are comfortable, so it is important. Terryeo 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with intoducing Dianetics is there are several specific things, specific to Dianetics that are just plain needed for it to work. I guess the environment question isn't exactly necessary as a first sentence. Terryeo 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, please don't tell me Terryeo is serious about that intro. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider yourself told. The present introduction is misleading, the subject has been worked for for months. Anyone who has used Dianetics would not agree with it and point out its unworkability as I have done. Please contribute to the article rather than contribute to the emotional difficulty. Terryeo 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently the introduction presents a succinct summary of the facts behind Dianetics and the popular critical perception of the field. Now, this implies that there is a generally accepted view of Dianetics, one held by mental health proffessionals and social scientists, and then there is an insider's minority view. To let this minority view dominate the intro with subjective statements about (or vague appeals in favor of) auditing would be detrimental to balanced coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding. Not a single fact is mentioned except that it is practiced today by the Church of Scientology. Claims are mentioned. But not a single fact other than the one. Not only are there no facts, the single fact isn't well stated. Before a subject can have controversy, it must be introduced or the reader can not understand what controversy there is. By all means, write whole paragraphs how different Dianetics is from your favorite subject and how it is a minority view, etc. etc. but First, let us introduce the subject. It would be nice to find even a single "fact" (differentiated from a "claim") that all of us editors would agree on.Terryeo 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, even after having been through the tutorial on proper definitional form above still continues to insist on changing the first sentence to be a combletely ambiguous definition. Every version Terryeo creates defines Dianetics as a subject that is the subset of a larger group but then he fails to distinguish it from other practices that share this quality. Why he ignores the previous discussion I can only surmize, but his insistence that he is trying to "properly" introduce Dianetics does not seem to be borne out by the examination of his edits. --ScienceApologist 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand or something. The article presently introduces with: "Dianetics is .. an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems developed by .." and that just is plain wrong. It is not diagnosis, it is not treatment and it is not psychological. Dianetics org presents it as: "self-help", as "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." What portion of that is "the treatment of psychological problems?" What portion of that is "diagnosis?" I am not attempting to stuff words into the article, I am simply attempting to get the article to present what Diaentics is. I am not defining Dianetics as a subset. I would like us to agree upon a reasonable definition that is not clearly, obviously wrong. Terryeo 13:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You, Terryeo, are the one who doesn't get it. I don't care about the content of the introduction, I only care about the style concerns. Your proposed first sentences do not conform to A is a B that is C definitional form. That's all I'm looking for. I have been clear that such is all I am looking for. When you start a sentence off with "Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment." there is no way that such a sentence conforms to the proper form. Such a statement could apply to a whole host of other activities other than Dianetics including the majority of leisure pursuits engaged in by humanity. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If A is Dianetics and B is "an action" and C is "ideas developed by Hubbard" then doesn't that comply with A, B, C ? I'm not stuck with "pleasent environment" and any "safe environement" or something would state the same situation. Terryeo 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "ideas developed by Hubbard" is the C condition, so why do you insist on removing it from the lead-off sentence? --ScienceApologist 13:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't insiste but was attempting readability and simplicity of statement. Perhaps we can try, "Dianetics is a practice based on the set of ideas about the human mind developed by author L. Ron Hubbard in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener." Which your correction suggests and sounds okay to me. Terryeo 13:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe part of the problem is this: Terryeo wants Dianetics to be defined and described in LRH/CoS language. Well, we can't do that here- this is the English Wikipedia, so we have to use standard English that will be intelligible to non-CoS-trained English speakers. We can attempt to explain and define some of the important CoS terms, but we can't write the whole article in CoS-speak. Feel free to start your own wiki that uses entirely CoS-speak rather than standard English, but realize that it won't be a useful reference at all to anyone who doesn't already know the jargon. Friday (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I can not consider it a problem to encyclopedically present the subject to the reader. Dianetics has been mis-presented to the reader for a very long time. Every word of "CoS jargon" is defined in plain english at some point. I don't believe we need to define most of the specialized words, let the interested person do that for themselves. We can present the most basic elements here, Dianetics has sold for years. Let us do that in plain english. Particularly the introduction. We need not fill the introduction with techniques, technobabble, E-meters, methods or requirements, we need only give the reader a general idea. What do you think of the potential first line which is just before your post, Friday? Does that sound reasonable to you, does it flow, is it free of "technospeak?" Terryeo 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not only free of technospeak, it's free of useful information. Describing Dianetics as something "in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener" is like describing a train as something "in which a person sits for a long time and reads a newspaper". wikipediatrix 18:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly what happens in a dianetics session. A person tells the listener his thoughts. That is the whole point. That is what Hubbard begin with and how it is done today. Today the listener rarely asks rambling questions, the procedures have improved a lot. But that's really the whole story, an individual tells a listener his thoughts. Is there a better way to introduce this single idea? Terryeo 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. An informative intro should state why anyone would need Dianetics in the first place, if it's only "telling a listener their thoughts". It should tell what the purpose of it is, namely to address engrams. It should mention auditing and e-meters. It should mention L. Ron Hubbard and it should mention that Dianetics is not accepted by mainstream science. wikipediatrix 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are saying that an introduction to Dianetics should include some sort of a sales pitch? Like, "the public needs dianetics because the public has engrams" or something? Those things could easily be part of the introduction and the whole of it might take 2 or 3 paragraphs then. I think we are kind of working on the first sentence, mainly. Terryeo 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I neither said nor implied any such thing. wikipediatrix 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I agree it would be real helpful to the reader to at least include the author and creator, L. Ron Hubbard and likewise agree those other jargon words should be somewhere in the Dianetics article. But to introduce several words which are likely to be new to the reader in an attempt to tell him what the first word, "Dianetics" means, well, that could be confusing for the reader. So that is why I suggest as a first sentence, "Dianetics is an activity in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener." And the sort of thoughts talked about (engrams) can be specified. What the conversation is called (auditing) can be secified. How the listener is trained (auditor) can be specified. What tool the listener uses (E-Meter) can be specified. And when a reader has enough information to understand the activity, then the reader can understood controversys. ok ? Terryeo 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To say "Dianetics is an activity in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener" is deceptive, because it makes the whole thing sound far simpler and more innocuous than it is. There's nothing wrong with introducing relevant jargon the reader doesn't know in the intro as long as they are wikilinked. Visit articles like DNA and Neutrino and Eigenstate and you will see that good articles do not oversimplify the intro by removing uncommon terms specific to the subject. wikipediatrix 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that is just plain wrong. It is not encyclopedic (or even good fiction) to use words which are undefined, unknown to the reader. I recognize that some editors fully intend to totally overwhelm the reader and to create a vast misunderstanding of this subject in the reader. Which is exactly why I have been working on the introduction. The whole thing is very simple, it is rooted in a person being able to speak aloud what they think and thought, speak it to another person. That's the simplicity. The Catholic Church has used the idea for years. Freud used the idea, friends use the idea when they listen to other friends. It is just common human interaction except that Dianetics has fine tuned the idea. Hubbard originally meant that it be used on expeditions when a person was feeling bad after a long, hard day, as a means to recoupe the human spirit. That is spelled out in the online Terra Incognita which is linked in the article. It is a simple idea. Terryeo 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading those article I see that specialized jargon, specialized to those area of science are linked. There is a Wiki Guideline about what to link: Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked and that spells out about "technical terms" and linking. So I am not like, opposing that, please understand. But the Dianetics jargon often takes normal english and uses it in a narrow and specialized manner and this leads to misunderstandings.Terryeo 17:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Auditing", "E-meter", "Engram", and "L. Ron Hubbard" are most certainly relevant to a Dianetics intro. There can be no misunderstandings if the intro paragraph is straightforward, as it currently is. By the way, I'm happy to hear you state that "Dianetics jargon often takes normal english and uses it in a narrow and specialized manner and this leads to misunderstandings" because this is precisely what many editors have been trying to tell you for months now when you needlessly fill articles with dense, impenetrable Hubbardspeak. The difference in this article is that these are proper nouns and gerunds, not verbs. It would be obfuscatory to avoid mentioning them by their proper names. wikipediatrix 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, but I have tried to keep what you call "Hubbardspeak" to a minimum and not introduce it into articles and especially not into the introduction of articles and have said so several times. The dictionary tells me that a gerund is: a verbal noun such as, We admired the choir's singing. A noun derived from a verb. Dianetics was a verb first, an action. The manner of doing it came under the same name and the ideas behind it became included, all under the one name which became a proper noun. It is still nothing more than two people talking and listening.Terryeo 07:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Dianetics was a gerund. wikipediatrix 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics" isn't a verb. However, mere part of speech has never stopped Scientologists before. The quiz on the back of a recent issue of "Source" asks "Are there outpoints in your think?" --Davidstrauss 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the word "Dianetics". It was "Auditing" I was specifically referring to when I said "gerund". wikipediatrix 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On May 21, 1951 Hubbard gave a lecture, Thetha-MEST Theory and quoted Funk and Wagnalls dictionary supplement #5, defining Dianetics.

A system for the analysis, control and development of human thought evolved from a set of coordinated axioms which also provide techniques for the treatment of a wide range of mental disorders and organic diseases: term and doctrines introduced by L. Ron Hubbard. American engineer. (From the Greek dianoetikos -- dia is through, plus noos, mind, or through mind.) And dianetic, adjective.

I don't have access to that dictionary supplement myself, it was a 1951 (I assume) publication of Funk and Wagnell. In any event there is a body of information and it defines an action. The action is auditing, in which a trained listener listens to a person tell about their thoughts, usually using an E-meter. Some sessions are done for specific things (my foot was hurt in the war and I haven't walked well since) and some are done as part of a larger procedure. Terryeo 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What Dianetics claims/aims to treat

The first sentence of the article has undergone some recent revisions. It starts: "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of __________ problems ..." where __________ has been:

• "psychological"
• empty
• "mental and spiritual"

I think all of these miss a central element, albeit one that is alluded to in the second sentence with the note that the problems Hubbard said it could alleviate are the ones "he regarded as psychosomatic." The problem is that we are writing this article for the average reader and if we write that the problems Dianetics claims to treat are "psychological" or "mental and spiritual", the average reader will think "oh, it's for things like depression or anxiety or phobia." Even when we introduce the "psychosomatic", the average reader will think "oh, so it covers stuff like rashes that you get when you're nervous." They won't realize that Hubbard is talking about leukemia, cancer, radiation burns -- things that no one except a Hubbardian would call "psychosomatic".

I'm not saying that we need to get into the first sentence a laundry list of all the things which are "psychosomatic" according to the Hubbardian paradigm which the average reader would never have dreamed that someone could even claim to be psychosomatic. But I do think we need to communicate to the reader, early, that what the Hubbardian paradigm considers psychosomatic is likely far, far different from what the mainstream paradigm does. Saying that Dianetics aims to treat "psychological" or "mental and spiritual" or "psychosomatic" problems is apt to greatly mislead the reader who thinks that any of these terms are being used as an ordinary person would use them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And of course arthritis is also curable with a little Dianetics. Even CoS member and OT7, Tory/Magoo is on video in 1999 discussing how her grandmother was cured of arthritis after reading Dianetics and taking some training in Dianetics. Then she and her ex-husband spent another 10 minutes trying to say that that Dianetics both does and yet doesn't cure diseases (because they can't legally say that it does) Its quite a hoot if you have the time. Perhaps someone can even find a use for it in the article (maybe): Click here for Tory and her ex-husband talking about the Dianetics "cure" for arthritis. Also note that Tory finally left the cult and is now a critic of the and she knows better and frequently is on TV criticizing her former "church" Vivaldi 14:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

But like the Christian Scientists, the Scientologists believe that many physical ailments are just the result of mental or spiritual duplicity (thus the curative powers of auditing on what we would term "physical ailments"). --ScienceApologist 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Prototype intros

I still think this is the simplest and best of all possible intros:

Dianetics is a concept, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which mental and physical problems caused by "engrams" are treated by a trained auditor, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.

It's true that it's heavy with jargon that is unfamiliar to the reader, but so are the intros to articles like DNA. I wouldn't mind losing the Engram reference, though, so how about:

Dianetics is a concept, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which mental and physical problems believed to be psychosomatic are treated by a trained auditor, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.

However, a lot of readers probably don't know what "psychosomatic" means either. It just depends on how much we want to "dumb down" the intro. In both of these examples, I would follow with the second paragraph being something like:

In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic. Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology. Dianetics is still practiced and disseminated by the Church of Scientology.

Although these intros raise more questions than they answer, that in fact is the nature of all things Hubbardian. The current intro is full of generic noninformational doubletalk: "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of mental and spiritual problems" is not only a run-on sentence, it imparts no real wisdom for all its rambling. Also, in the current edit, "Auditing" is not wikilinked. It should be. I'd do it myself but I'm hoping a better intro than the current one will replace it anyway. wikipediatrix 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is an activity, think "Catholic Confessional" and the first thing you think of is an activity, right? Well, maybe you think of a booth, but there is an activity with it. Something someone does. That's Dianeitcs too in the sense, you do it. There is a "how to do it"Terryeo 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

Terryeo, an encyclopedia isn't a "how to" manual. This seems to be an issue that we come back to again and again--"how to do it," "what it feels like to do it," etc., just isn't encyclopedic. On the other hand, much of the stuff you object to is entirely encyclopedic, such as the lines that describe the cultural context that Hubbard was influenced by when formulating Dianetics (General semantics, etc.). BTfromLA 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I don't object to that information. I object to including that information as a narrative within a paragraph which specifically quotes and uses Terra Incognita which is online. That paragraph is practicaly verbatim and would make a fine quote and citation, except it introduces several dispersive and additional informations into it. The other language, the evaluation of 1950's culture, the "Hubbard may have used '-etics' because..." are all additions which are referenced by the footnote number. But the footnote does not apply to those immediately preceeding informations that are sandwiched into that quote. Terryeo 23:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about that paragraph--I just quickly skimmed the Terra Incognita article, and didn't find much of anything related to that paragraph in the wikipedia article, let alone discovering the paragraph in question "practically verbatim." In any case, there is nothing wrong with embedding short quotations from Hubbard or paraphrases of Hubbard's writings within a larger narrative that is neither written by Hubbard nor from Hubbards POV. Indeed, that's just what we should be doing--striving for a Neutral POV based on credible sources. I still get the sense you'd like these articles to read as if they were written by Hubbard himself. That just isn't appropriate... BTfromLA 01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The almost verbatim quote is the last paragraph of page 4 of Terra Ingonita. [4] "While Dianetics does not consider the brain as an electronic computing machine except for purposes of analogy, it is nevertheless a member of that class of sciences to which belong general semantics and cybernetics and, as a matter of fact, forms a bridge between the two." My point is, if the article is to be quoted and referenced, that which Hubbard states in terra incognita should be attributed to him, the narrative, ".. the -etics may have been taken from .... in vogue at the time..." should not be part of that particular reference because those words do not appear in that reference. I am not objecting to any of the information, but to the manner it is cited. A citation should be clear what it is saying, what portion of an article is being cited. Terryeo 10:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems clear: your concern is that the footnote doesn't make clear which aspect of the paragraph it refers to, correct? A couple of possible solutions come to mind: if there isn't a Wikipedia style prohibition against it, just move the Terra Incognita note to the point in the sentence right after the "bridge between" line. It will be clear that it is referring to that, nothing that comes after it. Or, simply add specification to the note itself--tack on something like "on the bridge between cybernetics and general semantics." It also might help if the few worlds directly quoted from Hubbard had quotation marks around them. Will any of those measures solve the problem? BTfromLA 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They both seem like good intros to me. Possibly the second one is more clear to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. Second paragraph looks good to me too. You're very right, it's difficult to avoid using gibberish when discussing this topic, but you seem to have done a good job explaining things in standard English. Friday (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not a run-on sentence. It's merely long and ambiguous (the objects of the prepositions could be interpreted multiple ways). Regardless, we should use something else. I like the suggestions, but I think Dianetics should described as a noun other than a "concept". Labeling Dianetics a "concept" tells the reader nearly nothing. Here's my revised version:

Dianetics is a religious practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained auditor treats "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.

Yes, what exactly does it "treat"? The Dianetics website says it treats "the reactive mind" and were we able to use that term instead of "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems" then it would be an accurate introduction. I realize "the reactive mind" is not a real dumbed down, simple term, but it is more accurate than "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems. If a person understands the idea, what a "reactive mind" is, they can then grasp what Dianetics does and the procedures make sense. But without a concept of some memories not being available because the person was a bit unconcious at the time, it is difficult to make sense of. Terryeo 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the reactive mind responsible for all sorts of physical ailments, such as rashes, arthritis, and epilepsy? Can't Dianetics cure these things if its done properly Terryeo? Vivaldi 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reactive mind is responsible for all sorts of ailments but. A "mind" in this sense means "records of past moments." It is because some past moments contain some amount of pain and/or unconciousness that a person can not easily be aware of the past moments. The collection of mental records of that kind are called "the reactive mind." Reactive, because a person can not easily be aware of those memories, but those memories are in play anyway and react to stimulations which are similar to the earlier memory. As an example, a person gets into a car wreck and is hurt while a truck air horn is honking. Afterwards he winces slightly when he hears a truck air horn honk. If he works around truck air horns he might develop physical symptoms. Is this responsive to what you asked? Terryeo 23:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if we leave "psychosomatic" in the first, short, paragraph, but substitute the second appearance of the word with "Reactive Mind" close on its heels, in the second paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that could probably work. I pasted a blockquote here from What is Scientology that might be helpful, too. Terryeo 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipediatrix's suggested intro:

• I really can't go for "Dianetics is a concept". It just doesn't even seem the correct noun for what we're dealing with. A concept is a high-level idea, whereas Dianetics is a very large mass of ideas ranging from high-level to very low. "The reactive mind" is a concept. "Engram" is a concept. "Auditing" is a concept. Dianetics, however, encompasses all these concepts; how can it be a concept itself?

Concepts can contain and encompass other concepts. I usually expect such extreme hair-splitting and word-parsing from Terryeo, Antaeus ;) wikipediatrix 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's uncalled for, Wikipediatrix, and I still disagree. I don't think that something which encompasses other concepts can itself be called a concept. A concept may require other concepts, such as how the concept of "auditing" requires the concept of "engram", but a concept is a nearly indivisible unit. I don't see how anything which you could rightfully describe as "a body of ideas", such as Dianetics, could also be described as a single "concept". That isn't hairsplitting, it's using vocabulary with appropriate precision. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "uncalled for" to comment - and it was a lighthearted comment - that Terryeo's edits often contain extreme word-parsing, any more than it is for you to comment that my edit contained a usage of "concept" that isn't "using vocabulary with appropriate precision". In any event, I still don't see what the big deal is about the word "concept", but will leave it to those who care deeply about such things to dissect these fine nuances to their heart's content. wikipediatrix 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Extreme "word parsing?" oh never mind. lol Terryeo 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Antaeus on this--"Dianetics is a concept" doesn't seem accurate, nor does it really suggest what Dianetics is: at once, a body of ideas, a method of therapy, a human potential movement, and the founding text of a network of institutions variously described as social betterment organizations or a cult. "Dianetics is a practice" doesn't get at the whole scope of the subject, either. Ultimately, there just may have to be multiple clauses in the first sentence or two. I also agree that when a term like "auditor" is introduced, it needs to be briefly defined--a "trained auditor" means something in ordinary English usage quite different from what the Church of Scientology means. That's easy to take care of: "a trained counselor called an 'Auditor' " would do it. In general, I second Antaeus' recent comments on the intro. BTfromLA 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true that all of these many fractal aspects of Dianetics aren't spelled out in the intro, but hey, it's only an intro. As with most things Hubbardian, it's deliberately extremely multi-faceted and hard to get a complete grip on without immersing oneself into it. The more we try to cram it all into the intro, the harder it is for the average reader to make sense of. wikipediatrix 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about the slippery identities of most things Hubbardian. While we should be mindful, as you suggest, of the danger of including so many elements in our definition that it creates confusion for the reader, we also should strive to avoid oversimplifying in such a way that the reader comes away with a false impression. Terryeo seems to want to define Dianetics purely as the process of auditing--that omits too much, in my view. The earlier versions that had "set of ideas" (a slightly awkward workaround the controversial term "theory") and "method of therapy" and some allusion to the groundwork for Scientology seem to have gotten a little closer to introducing the subject as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the prose was less felicitous than some of us might desire. BTfromLA 17:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons we've both stated, it's very hard to definitively say what Dianetics "is", just as light is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave. There is, however, no doubt about what it does: it allegedly treats alleged "engrams", sometimes with an e-meter, to get rid of the alleged "reactive mind". I don't like "Method of therapy" because it implies there really is something therapeutic about it. wikipediatrix 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

here is a definition we could blockquote and not be wrong about It doesn't use technical terms and is designed to introduce a person to the subject. It is from What is Scientology, first copyrighted in 1993, big thick book, comes hardbound and in paperbound and widely distributed, some in public libraries. ISBN1573180785

Dianetics is a methodology which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses (illnesses caused or aggravated by mental stress). It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. Terryeo 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Any statement that Dianetics helps alleviate illnesses, whether psychosomatic ones or not, would probably mean we should invoke the word "pseudoscience" from the getgo, and go on to establish how there is zero scientific basis for the claim. wikipediatrix 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is an activity, an action. There are ideas, concepts, whatever you call it around the thing but it something to do. One guy listens to the other guy. Maybe we could build the introduction from mind leading to mental image pictures leading to engram, leading to reactive mind leading to Dianetics gets rid of that? Terryeo 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Use of Dianetics jargon in the intro -- it's said that DNA does the same thing. That may be true, but if you read it you'll also notice it doesn't just use specialized terms, it also describes them. i.e., it could have read "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid ... that contains genetic instructions." but instead it reads "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid ... that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and most viruses." Wordier, yes, but IMHO definitely better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The DNA article introduces nucleic acid, polymer, and nucleotide, all terms that the average reader wouldn't grasp, in its first paragraph. The second paragraph introduces loads more, like eukaryote, protist, prokaryote, archaea, cytoplasm, and organelle. Some of these terms are explained deeper into the article, others are not. The expectation is, of course, that if you don't know what a "Protist" is (and I did not), you should click the blue link and find out. Similarly, I don't see a problem with introducing a couple of Hubbard's buzzwords in the Dianetics intro if it will help us be concise and informative, not wishy-washy. wikipediatrix 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Dianetics is a practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained auditor treats the reactive mind, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter" Terryeo 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Opps, auditor should be Auditor. Terryeo 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not very good. First off, it's inaccurate, as you are describing auditing, whereas this is the article about Dianetics, which is not only the practice of auditing but the whole body of theory that explains how auditing is alleged to have an effect. Nothing clarifies that when we say "a trained auditor" we are referring not to someone trained in financial auditing but someone trained in Scientology auditing. Nothing clarifies what the "reactive mind" is. This is not any improvement on the current version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there does not exist any auditing which does not include the concepts developed in Dianetic Auditing. The questions presented may be of a Scientology nature (not of this lifetime, spiritual and not physical) but their sequence and nature of deliver and context are all Dianetics procedures. The statement I'm suggesting says that "Dianetics is a practice" and then goes on to tell about how the practice is done. Terryeo 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but you're still ignoring the obvious. The "practice" you are referring to is in fact called "auditing". The fact that auditing might be considered a proper subset of Dianetics does not change the fact that the definition you are giving of Dianetics is not the definition of Dianetics, but rather of a portion of Dianetics which happens to already have its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such hyperclarification is necessary, since "financial auditing" would be such an obvious non-sequitur in this context that I don't think anyone would make that mistake, especially with the sentence going on to say that the auditing is done with a galvanic skin response machine! Also, that's the beauty of Wiki: the terms are clickable if anyone's confused. It's true that Hubbard, auditing, e-meters, and engrams aren't the totality of Dianetics, but I do think it's the important stuff - important enough for a simple introductory paragraph. The rest can follow quickly in subsequent paragraphs. In my favorite example, DNA, it takes four introductory paragraphs to explain the basic concept before moving on to the meat of the article. wikipediatrix 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, you're both right, I made a bad link there. Here:

Dianetics is a practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained Auditor treats the reactive mind, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter. Terryeo 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel we are making some progress and do have some concensus going on. Now it reads:

Dianetics is a practice developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained Auditor uses a galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter) to treat a variety of conditions. Hubbard believed most mental and physical problems to be psychosomatic or caused by, in his terminology, the "reactive mind". The goal of Dianetics is to get rid of this portion of one's mind.

May we simplify that by removing the "psychosomatic" element which would leave:

Dianetics is a practice developed by L. Ron Hubbard which has an Auditor use an E-meter to aid a person in getting rid of their reactive mind. Terryeo 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Below is another crack at the intro (the first two paragraphs). Comments? BTfromLA 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is a controversial self-help method developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard believed that most mental and physical problems are caused by traumatic memories (which he called "engrams") stored in the unconscious mind—in his terminology, the "reactive mind." The goal of Dianetics is to become rid (or "clear") of this portion one's mind. Thus "cleared," according to Hubbard, an individual becomes able to function at their full potential. Dianetics was the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology.

The central practice of Dianetics is a two-person question-and-answer counseling technique known as "Auditing," in which a trained counselor (known as an "auditor") uses a galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter) to address the "reactive mind." In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic.

Noooooo, "a controversial..." anything is a conclusion on the part of an editor and is newspaperish rather than encyclopedic because its first presentation of information about the subject is that the subject is "controversial". A subject needs first be introduced, then after a reader understands what is being talked about, then you can massage his mind with controversy ! But not until he knows what is being talked about. "Hubbard believed..." is likewise unsubstantiated because who can look into Hubbard's mind, but what we do have is his statemetns. His statements don't say, "I believe ...." but his statements STATE informations. Example, "Hubbard stated in his 1950 lecture; 'Dianetics is about the mind' and not "Hubbard beleived Dianetics addressed the mind". Terryeo 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A conclusion on the part of the editor? perhaps. Is it true? Definitely. I would say that the controversy is the most notable aspect of Dianetics. "Controversial" is newspaperish because...it's newspaperish? How informative. You maybe want to find some sort of style guide or something that supports that? Tenebrous 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspected you wouldn't like the early mention of controversy, Terryeo, but I think it is appropriate. I'd like to read some other opinions on that. I guess you're right that we shouldn't presume that Hubbard actually believed what he wrote (although that is a standard practice when discussing the written views of philosphers, scientists or theologians, unless there is some reason to suspect they were lying). I'd have no problem saying that Hubbard "claimed," "asserted," "declared," or, your choice, "stated" those things instead of that he "believed" them. BTfromLA 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

An E-meter is not a galvanic skin response detector. In any case, Dianetics in its beginnings and as described in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health does not use an E-meter. So it is out of place to mention the E-meter when talking about the origins of the subject. Also Dianetics is not a branch of medicine and does not “treat” illnesses.California_Guy 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's make sure Lisa McPherson gets the good news on that one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "galvanic" means: "Of or relating to direct-current electricity, especially when produced chemically (as by a battery)" dictionary. Should a person pick up a common flashlight battery and hold it with a hand, covering both the positive and negative ends, the person then has a tiny amount of direct-current electricity flowing through their hand. Does a person feel this? No, rare indeed would be the person who would feel a common flashlight (1.5 volt DC) battery. The skin, however, reacts in the manner that a resistor reacts, it impedes the flow of electricity. Not every body reacts in exactly the same way and thus, there are differences between people, differences from one hour to the next, depending on how dry the skin is, how moistened the skin is by the humidity and the salt in the air, and other factors. With a sufficiently precise meter, it is possible to measure tiny differences. An E-meter is designed to and does so. It is more than a detector (which would be a yes / no machine), it is a meter, a galvanic skin response meter which detects small changes in a human body's galvanic skin response (to small direct current electricity). There, does that clarify it for you? Terryeo 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So the issue is just the distinction between measuring and detecting? That's easy enough to fix. BTfromLA 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's incorrect about the e-meter, then it should be revised. But pretty much everything I've read from third-party sources (including the Wikipedia e-meter article) plainly states that is what it is. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Your other point gets at a constant source of confusion here: Dianetics has changed a lot over the years, and it isn't always clear when we are talking about it as recently practiced or as originally defined. Not only the e-meter, but the relationship to science and the emphasis on the physical body have been sharply shifted since the 1950 book. And the e-meter use was in, then out, then in again, so it's not a simple matter that can be solved with something like "since 1953." BTfromLA 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an alternative version of the second paragraph, responding to the e-meter issue above (I've left the galvanic bit until some evidence to the contrary is offered: "In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic. The central practice of Dianetics is a two-person question-and-answer counseling technique known as "Auditing." Since the late 1950s, Dianetics auditing procedure also includes an electrical galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter), used by an "auditor" (a counselor trained in Dianetics) to address the "reactive mind." BTfromLA 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics did begin in 1950 (publicly) and it didn't use a meter. Instead the auditor paid close attention to such things as the skin tone, the brightness of the eyes, to whether the guy was smiling and looking a little more or less cheerful. The Meter (about 1955 ?) helps but isn't necessary, at least for basic processes. Terryeo 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wiki E-meter article, it was introduced in the early 50s, stopped being used in 1954 when Hubbard had a conflict with the meter's inventor, then was re-adopted in 1958. But it is a standard part of auditing since then, isn't it? Is there any significant amount of Dianetics or Scientology auditing done without an e-meter these days? BTfromLA 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many Book One auditors that don't need to use an e-meter. They can audit anything in DMSMH, Assists, Self Analysis, 15 Steps of Scientology, Group Processing and Processes from Fundamentals of Thought. Basically anything developed before 1959. When the technology of Missed Witholds was developed, the meter became a necessity for any session using that technology. Spirit of Man 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with California guy that an e-meter is not a galvanic skin response detector. Terryeo's description is not accurate, and contains the main misconception began in the 1950s that it has anything to do with skin response to sweating. It doesn't. Normally your hands are not sweaty and they certainly don't "unsweat" to give instantaneous indications. The e-meter is based on resistance, not current. It measures resistance, not current. It is based on a device or circuit, invented in the 1860s, called the Wheatstone Bridge. It compares an unknown resistance with a known resistance. The meter comes with a precision resistor to calibrate it. That device was invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English physicist. That device, since that time, has been used to measure electrical resistance and mental stress. In psychology that kind of device is called a bio-meter and I understand one was used by Freud. The resistance of a dead male body, any male body, is 12,500 ohms. This is also the resistance of a male Clear. The dead body has no resistence contribution from mental stress. The same is true for a living male Clear.

It is physically impossible to have the resistance of a dead body that is at room temperature be the same as the resistance of a live human body since resistivity is temperature dependent. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please give your quantitative estimate of what the difference in resistance would be, due to temperature for a body at 98 F and 68 F or 30 F difference? Spirit of Man 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A note of clarification. A male Clear is dynamic, so anything he chooses to place his attention on may get reads on a meter. If he has an upset in life, that may read until it is resolved. If he is anxious about something that may make the needle rise. If he accumulates upsets and problems, those can make his resistance high until resolved. When he does something else, the needle might do a little boppity-bob. Spirit of Man 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

When a person is under mental stress and is anxious his resistance will go up. In the military, when I was taking an electronics class I measured my resistance at 1 million ohms. Pretty high. When you ask a person to talk about the stress in their lives the needle on the e-meter will dip or move quickly to the right, showing the resistance dropping. If they describe five stressful things, you can choose which one changes the most to determine which is most stressful. It measures electrical resistance and is optimized to indicate mental phenonmenon and for use in spiritual counselling. It does not treat anything. In Dianetics, only the spirit heals the body or handles mental stress. If anyone knows of a place on Wiki where this "galvanic" or "skin-response" misconception is written, please let me know so I can change it. Spirit of Man 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Spirit of Man. Take a look at the E-meter and Auditing (Scientology) articles. BTfromLA 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a significant amount of Book One auditing (not done with an E-Meter) is done. This was more my point. To go into detail about any kind of meter at the beginning of the article diverts from the actual subject. It is not the key point and though there is also Dianetics counseling done with a meter, this is usually at a more advanced point on the Bridge. California guy 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge need not be sourced

We don't need to source things like 23+63=86. Its not necessary to find a reference that shows that "blue" comes before "red" if we sort them alphabetically. We don't need to source a statement that the suffix "netics" of Dianetics also appears in another word. It is what wikipedia calls Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It appears that nobody disputes these claims. Correct me if I am wrong: similar to the already-existing Greek adjective dianoētik-os διανοητικ-ός, meaning "mental" (compare Aristotle's dianoetic virtues). His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by cybernetics, a vogue idea at the time of Dianetics' establishment. Indeed, Hubbard stated that Dianetics forms a bridge between cybernetics and General Semantics, a set of ideas about education originated by Alfred Korzybski that was receiving much attention in the science fiction world in the 1940s. Now the part about Korzybski was removed for some reason, even though this is demonstrated by a Wikilink to both Semantics and Korzybski that states pretty much the same thing. Does Terryeo dispute that this is an accurate portrayal of the situation? If not it seems to me that this is just common knowledge. Surely you don't want to bring out the 20-30 references in the Korzybski and General Semantics articles and argue about whether Korzybski was influential there? I'm not sure why you object to the dianoētik-os being similar to Dianetics. Surely it won't help the reader to go into details about how in both words the mouth forms the letter "d" and then forms a dipthong "i-a" then the "n" sound... This is just common knowledge. We don't need a reference to show that "smile" rhymes with "tile" or similar such things. Vivaldi 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a pretty accurate protrayal of the information which I am talking about. It might seem trivial, kind of does as you state it, Vivaldi. But it is information which is kind of sandwitched into a statement which is well cited and historically accurate and the source of information is online and can be read. So why does there have to be the extra "padding" of this additional information. The subject is difficult enough to communicate, the citation is straightforeward. A parallel situation might be stating what addition is, but introducing that the romans used roman numerals. A nice, clean, simple statement with a nice, clean, simple citation makes a better article. If an editor thinks it is critical to the article that Korzybski be referenced as a source for General Semantics, or that General Semantics need article space, then by all means do so. But don't do it in the portion which is being cited as Terra Incognia, I hope you see the point I'm making? Terryeo 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo- I might have been inclined to agree with you had you instead presented this argument, but instead of saying that you objected to the relevancy (or obscurity) of these points in the intro, you instead chose to challenge them as having no sources. Surely, you can see from your similar travels down this course, that requesting citations as a means of removal hasn't been effective. There are lots of dedicated writers that seem to have time to do the necessary research to say what they think needs to be said. Now you and I both might agree that the General Semantics stuff is probably not important enough to include in the first paragraph, but I doubt we have consensus for that viewpoint, yet. I would like to discuss it some more and read up on the topic to see if there is something there I am missing. Vivaldi 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about a piece of information using the citation terra incognita. That is cited but what you are calling "common knowledge" is interspersed into it and that, what you are calling, "common knowledge is not within terra incognita. It could be appropriate to place the additional information, what you are calling "common knowledge" either before or after the brief mention of terra incognita, that could work. But as it stands now it sounds vaugely as if terra incognita was written in the stone age, as if it has little worth today. Whereas I would say those ideas which Hubbard presented there have grown and filled out and purchased millions of dollars worth of real property in Clearwater Florida and in Los Angeles California, and all of that because Psychiatry refused to accept and deal with Hubbard's ideas in Terra Incognita, HEH. Terryeo 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I would be kind of fun to document that General Semantics was very big in the science-fiction circles that Hubbard was in at the time, starting from at least the publishing of van Vogt's Slan as well other authors around Campbell. It might tend to bog the article down a bit, however. AndroidCat 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly bog it down. Vivaldi 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Balance is a problem

There are three quotes included in this article, which state that Dianetics has no scientific validity. Essentially these all say the same thing, so I took two out and for balance included a positive quote. The vested interest motives behind the attacks should be mentioned as well. There is evidence that the government-psychiatric establishment knew very well that Dianetics worked and wanted to crush it so as to bring it under their own control. California guy 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to cite sources for such claims. wikipediatrix 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

California guy, you forgot to mention that you included lots of dubious claims with no source, such as the claim that the U.S. government approached Hubbard "with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible", or your eyebrow-raising declaration that you, personally, have verifiable knowledge of the inner workings of the minds of psychiatrists. Would you like to explain how you could possibly state in a verifiable manner that "When psychiatrists spoke of stopping Dianetics they were really thinking in terms of how to refute it, how to forbid it and ultimately how to seize it for themselves"? Sorry, but if you think that when the facts all point to one side, the answer is to "balance" it with paranoid propaganda from the other side, you might need to learn a bit more about Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipediatrix, I have now referenced the statements being made. Antaeus, I think you missed my point. Having 3 negative views with no attempt to provide any positive reviews = POV. And your POV “your paranoid propaganda from the other side” is quite plain. Lets uphold some professionalism here and limit the backbiting, if I do something wrong, you can simply state it so I can fix it. Thanks. California guy 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken if you think that we are required to give equal time to these views. And your citations do not meet WP:V which states, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Tenebrous 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what WP:V states. And it goes on to say: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." How to do that, exactly, is spelled out at WP:CITE#Say where you got it. We find few, very few, "credible, third-party sources" Dianetics is a religious subject and not an academic subject, though I recognize many editors would prefer to treat it as an academic study. WP:V is the spawn of our senior, non-negotiable policy, WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.NPOV#Undue weight. It specifies: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.: The problem arises with Dianetics, it brings up millions of web hits in almost every search string that can be created. Therefore, I'm afraid we may be left with WP:NPOV#Religion, which is policy, it gives specific direction of how to present the obviously different informations about religion.Terryeo 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, there are plenty of credible third party sources about scientology--you just don't want to accept them because they don't parrot the official CoS line, or because they don't promote the same understanding of Scientology that you have a s a member. You've got to face the fact that a long list of reputable information sources have reported on scientology over the years: Courts and government panels, independent sociologists, religious scholars and scientists, and independent print and broadcast journalists for the very highest-profile news sources: BBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., etc. And please stop trying to confuse matters with your ridiculous claim about how the number of copies of something have been published is an index of how significant the viewpoints are. BTfromLA 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is our policy to follow, your attempt to pull me into a personal situation where you state that I am mistaken about 'number of copies' and I state you are mistaken about 'how broadly published', that's just chasing the donkey's tail. Broadly published citations are read by the reader as being more valid citations, having more weight, more arguement, more substance, than narrowly published ciations even IF they are repeated 3 times. We follow WP:V, broadly published is preferred and WP:RS should answer any particular difficulties. Terryeo 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's POV

As usual, Terryeo has proved his extremely bad faith and his total disregard for Wikipedia. His latest edit says "reverted Wikipediatrix's POV editing" in his edit summary. Let's look at some of the garbage I removed from the article, which Terryeo claims I wrongly removed based on my POV:

"In fact, immediately before the publication of Dianetics Hubbard had been approached by the U.S. government with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible, a project he refused."

Terryeo usually whines about every sentence in an article being properly sourced, and yet the lack of source for this ludicrous claim doesn't seem to bother him this time. Wonder why?

"When psychiatrists spoke of stopping Dianetics they were really thinking in terms of how to refute it, how to forbid it and ultimately how to seize it for themselves."

Could this possibly get any more blatantly POV? And Terryeo really thinks this belongs in an encyclopedia article??

"Dianetics has been successfully all over the world ever since 1950"

If Terryeo (and the other Scientologist editor responsible for these nuggets) really thinks it's POV to remove such blatant advertising and opinionated drivel from the article, he has basically, in so doing, admitted that he has no regard for Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you utterly and completely are convinced beyond any doubt that what you removed is "garbage" and have no arguement with your personal feelings. However, for purposes of concensual editing, please keep your talk page chat to less emotionally slanted wordings. For example, rather than "garbage" perhaps the word "statements" could be used, or other descriptions with less emotional bias. This suggestion is in keeping with Wikipedia editor behaviour and should not be construed as a personal attack. Terryeo 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about my personal feelings. It's about improper encyclopedia writing, which is not a matter of opinion. It is easily verifiable that these statements you continue to defend are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. I am not criticizing the editors, I am criticizing the edits. (Just as you have done a few minutes ago when you declared the Body Thetan article to be "a dumb article".) wikipediatrix 14:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, all of those statements are actually published whereas the citation which I requested is not in the article. Additionally, allow me to point out that the body thetan talk page (or if you have a personal issue, WP:PAIN or my talk page), would be the places to discuss that issue. Terryeo 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I can't comment on your motivations, but one thing seems clear to me: You're either unwilling or unable to make edits in an encyclopedic fashion. We could argue all day long about which it is (unwilling or unable), but frankly, it doesn't matter much. If your devotion to Scientology is so strong that you can't see the difference between encyclopedic writing and advertizing copy, it's probably best that you don't try to edit these articles anymore. I'm not trying to judge your intentions, but the way you edit is disruptive, whether you intend it to be or not. Friday (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix language may be lacking in civility, but her point is 100% accurate. The recent statements which she (and later myself) reverted were extremely POV and unverified. Jefffire 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of the points you make, Jeff. She is slightly less than civil, but not extremely. We have been, at times, even less civil. I also agree that the statements are extremely POV. Very true. However, those are published statements, however POV they appear to you. Your last point, they are unverified is likewise true. They should be verified, it is much more Wikipedic to verify them. However, anyone can request a citation, the statements are not actually harmful to anyone, and simply removing them is argueably, not the only avenue open to her, in order to bring to the article the sort of good sense she wishes to see. Terryeo 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I found Terryeo's initial edit-summary accusation that I removed these flagrant violations because of my own POV to be highly insulting, not to mention ludicrous. This may explain my less-than-kissyface tone. :) wikipediatrix 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Of the points from the statement that Wikipediatrix has shown above, only the first could be included (that's assuming it is correct and verifiable). The second one is obviously POV and completely unverifiable. The third contradicts the scientific consensus on the matter, so it would not be possible to include it without a major change in the consensus, which would include the publishing of multiple large randomised controled trials, which is beyond our powers as individual wikipedians. Whether or not the claim is true, without verification from medical science it must remain out of wikipedia. Jefffire 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V states the threshold for having an piece of information in an article is its publication, its verifiablility. All three of those are actually published, but should be cited. I've no arguement with you about POV, they all three present a POV. Neither do I have an arguement with you, Jeff, about their consensus, their science, their accpetence by the general public, by you, by Wikipediatrix or by anyone else. I would say though, they are published, verifiable and present a POV, which is exactly what we are doing in this article. Presenting various POVs toward a realistic protrayal of Dianetics. But they should be verified if they are in the article, I agree with that, too. Terryeo 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is (with regards to your post on my talk page as well) that the staements were not being presented as the Scientology POV, they were being presented as fact. If they were preceded by the phrase - 'scientologists claim that' and they were in the appropriate section then there would be no problem. Jefffire 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This incident illustrates two problems with Terryeo's editing. He consistently presents Scientologist POVs as hard facts (which no doubt he believes they are) and he declines to source his own statements (which I recognise as coming from that bastion of neutrality, the official lronhubbard.org website). Compare that to his insistence that any statement which contradicts his POV should be referenced up to the hilt. One standard for him, another for the rest of us? It seems so! -- ChrisO 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't find it offensive that you amsue me so much by using the emotionally slanted words such as "POV pushing", "double standards" and so on. There are more neutral ways to discuss these issues. But rather than use a straightforeward statement like, "That line needs a cite" as I often do, instead you've got to say, "double standards!" and example of "POV pushing!" I find this propensity toward emotional bias in talk pages amusing, myself, heh. In any event, as you can read and as I have already stated, yes, those sentences should be cited to be included. On the other hand, you can be sure that a subject does not exist unless some POV created it. Your contempt for the subject notwithstanding, a POV exists and the article would not exist unless it did. Therefore, it is appropriate and correct that we present that point of view and you know quite well I am not saying to exclude other points of view, but to include the point of view which origniated and created the subject which the article is about. I used the exact same edit summary which I very very frequently find, but substituted another editor for "terryeo", can you dig it?  :) Terryeo 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit in the POV as a POV, not as fact. In your edit the POV was put across as fact, which is unacceptable. You are seriously misinterprating the nature of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jefffire 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that this piece of information:

"In fact, immediately before the publication of Dianetics Hubbard had been approached by the U.S. government with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible, a project he refused."

::::is presented as a POV and is therefore unacceptable? I have said it needs a verification. However, if you understand, Jeff, that Wikipedia is not to present a POV, then you have not got the straight of it. "facts, asserstions,etc." are the things we editors present, however we do need to cite them. That particular datum there, I have read it. I did not actually put that datum into the article, I would normally cite such a datum when I entered it. It should be cited. Terryeo 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just plain lying. You personally re-inserted that datum yourself after I reverted it away. Here's the diff. wikipediatrix 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have refused to acknowledge that I fulfilled your request about the links which I provide for you above. Additionally, I see that you have understood differently that I state. I stated, "I did not actually put that datum into the article" and that is true but I did revert that statement into the article. The person who put that statement into the article may be found at this edit: [5] However, I do understand that I am your target at every opportunity, either for POV pushing, for lying, for "possibility of bad faith" or some other trumped up attitude, charge or belittlement. heh ! Almost every word you utter to me has one of those words in it somewhere. Terryeo 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you were the one recently who decided to raise a fuss about phrasing something as "Hubbard believed that <insert something that Hubbard most certainly asserted to others that he believed." You were the one who raised a fuss about this, very insistent that just because we had ample citations verifying that Hubbard had asserted that he believed something, it didn't verify that he actually believed it. But now California guy comes along and without any citations at all, he claims to know what "psychiatrists" are "really thinking" about Dianetics, and whereas you were taking exception just to the very notion that Hubbard might have meant what he said, California guy is claiming that he can look into the minds of "psychiatrists" and know what "they" are hiding. And instead of protesting that wholly unencyclopedic material, when someone quite rightly removes it, you immediately put it back. And then you claim that charges that you are POV pushing are "trumped up"? Ha. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

b..bu...but, Feldspar, But I used exactly the same edit summary you usually use on me ! Besides, I agree, some verifications are in order ! Terryeo 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Links Issue

As you will see in the edits I have done on other related pages, I am removing a number of external links as extraneous. The amount of critic’s links referenced just shows where the POV sits and its not the middle of the scales = POV not NPOV. There is a glut of links all through the article and I will be cleaning these up too – unless someone wants to go ahead and help me get the links trimmed down in a fair manner. This was a good article at one point and now it’s a mess again. Nuview 18:22, 18 April 2006 (PST)

Point #1) It is not necessary that all points-of-view receive equal air-time on Wikipedia. We just need to present each point of view that is notable and relevant. It is up to the editors to determine how much information should be presented about each point of view. Please note that in articles like KKK, the Klan does not get equal time and space to argue about how wonderful their organization is. The negative aspects of the KKK are what make it notable, just as the negative aspects of Scientology make it notable. If it wasn't for the long history of abuses by the Church of Scientology, then the notability of Scientology would be less than the United States Church of Korean Presbyterians (which has a larger membership than the CoS). Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not entirely up to the editors to determine how much information should be presented about each point of view. Wikipedia has guidelines which are specific. Widely published (and amount of time matters too) sources should be presented in the ratio they exist to narrowly published, less published sources. There is guideline on it, the presentation of quantity within an article should reflect publication, rather than how a particular editor feels about a subject. Dianetics, well, millions of books in dozens of languages should give a clue, huh? Terryeo 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is this guideline? It needs to be deleted, or clarified. There is no reason why the amount of published material should take precedence over any other criteria. Most peer-reviewed scientific journals have very small circulations. You're telling me that the National Inquirer should get more time here than Nature? I think you must be misreading policy again. Tenebrous 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:RS, a great deal of activity is going on there on its discussion page which clearly state "Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources" and in particular, Clambake.org is being discussed. It may not be cited as a secondary source and the sorts of "mirror links" or "convenience links" which Feldspar talks so much about look like they will not be accessible as links from here, to there, for them. "Exterior links" or "References to additional sources" is another matter. This should have been resolved before, but "Personal websites (like Xenu.net) can not be used within articles as secondary sources of information. That's the issue which has caused so much trouble amongst us editors. Almost all of the anti-Scientology links are on personal websites which are simply not acceptable on Wikipedia as secondary sources of information. See the WP:RS discussion page, ChrisO, Fahrenheit, Wikipediatrix are all working to force Clambake.org into enough high status to cite it. But it isn't likely to work. Terryeo 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

the sorts of "mirror links" or "convenience links" which Feldspar talks so much about Oh, you mean "the sorts of 'mirror links' or 'convenience links' which you so often use as a pretext to delete information fully referenced from the hard copy of a book which has had 31 printings (none of them from vanity presses)? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You think right, Tenebrous. No policy even hints at anything close to what Terryeo is suggesting. All power to the IKEA catalog! BTfromLA 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet a Google search for news stories on Scientology and Dianetics brings up almost solely negative reports. Even when one filters out results from xenu.net. Try it yourself. The evidence that is out there in the real world does not support your notion of a world teeming with success stories and millions of happy people who love Dianetics. 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2)Point #2) You have not developed a consensus for your edits, Nuview. This article is being edited by numerous people and large scale deletions of references and source materials is inappropriate at best, and probably is vandalism. Before deleting large swaths of material from Wikipedia, please try to develop a consensus for your edits on the talk pages. Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

2) It is not necessary for an editor to "develop a consensus" in order to edit, by that standard Wikipedia would be much, much different than it is. Quite the opposite! "Be Bold" It is so baldly, blatently obvious to the most casual observer the Dianetics article is mainly edited to produces some sort of erudite sounding Clambake.org article, and probably by some of the editors who create Clambakge.org. I've worked for months to even get the most basic ideas of what Dianetics is into the article. I've been opposed constantly, almost every word and line. Getting "activity", you know, what you do with Dianetics, into the introduction was months of constant bickering and editing. It is completely obvious to the most causual observer the article is not even close to Neutral.Terryeo 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think being "neutral" means the article has to give Dianetics the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't. There is more negative information out in the real world about Dianetics than positive, so that's what the article reflects: reality. It's as simple as that. wikipediatrix 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am real glad that we are at last discussion the quantity of information. I recognize that you are convinced there is more negative information in the real world than positive, about Dianetics. Maybe we can find some measure of comparing, I hope we can. But I know very well that any example I take, you will find a counter example. O.K. Let's start with Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, millions of books in dozens of languages. And your negative information, counter-example? Terryeo 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Point #1) Dianetics and Scientology are noteable all right. They are an economic force which has paid cash outright for millions of dollars worth of property in scattered locations world wide. I understand perfectly well that some editors can only consider these subjects for the controversy they read about them. However, the list of controversys, compared to the list of adherents is pretty minor. As an organization grows large, here and there some contorversy is going to take place. For example, how many years, how many Priests had sex with how many boys? Who knows? On the other hand, Scientology is closely scrutinized, any slightest deviation from the straight and narrows is jumped on by the media. For my nickle, Scientology is improving lives, for yours it is to be presented as controversy. Together we can work, together we can both help the common reader by presenting a good sense article. Terryeo 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, it isn't about your nickel or my nickel or anyone else's. If you have valid sources for your claims about Scientology improving lives, by all means bring them to the table. And I'm appalled that you characterize Operation Snow White's treason against the United States Government as "pretty minor", and that you characterize deaths like Lisa McPherson's as "pretty minor". wikipediatrix 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I have done that. I introduced the chronological Dianetics book list and it was reverted out of the article by almost every editors every time I placed it into the article. And it was and is well documented, appropriately formated with ISBN and so on. It wasn't until I was brought up on an Rfc and an Rfa that editors realized it wasn't appropriate to deleted large blocks of well formated information, even though the wikipedia policies, especially WP:V clearly spell out that well verified, widely published information is to be the core of Wikipedia Articles. I could place many paragraphs of published information, appropriately cited, but I have no confidence that any editor would have the courage to tolerate them. Obviously they are special interest publications. Terryeo 15:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I said VALID sources. OF COURSE Dianetics sources say nice things about themselves! If the only place you can find any sources that say anything nice about Dianetics are Dianetics/CoS sites, then you have no leg to stand on. A Google search for news stories on Scientology and Dianetics brings up almost solely negative reports. Even when one filters out results from xenu.net. Try it yourself. The evidence that is out there in the real world does not support your notion of a world teeming with success stories and millions of happy people who love Dianetics. 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "nice things" because the U.S. Navy makes a presentation which I would call factual. The government of Italy says "nice things" when they allow their teachers time to study the Scientology originated "Applied Scholastics" materials. The Government of Australia commended Scientology's CCHR and changed its laws about psychiatry due to that groups involvement and exposure of a "Sleep Therapy" psychiatric hospital in thier country. The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted, viewed and ruled on 3 separate cases which the Church brougth before them. The copyright rules which, generally, the internet runs on are the direct result of one of the Church's landmark cases which it won before the Supreme Court. Los Angeles named a short street in honor of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientologists there created a brick-covered one block street which they keep in pristine condition with no parking on the whole block. That was in the newspapers, but of course every newspaper article has to bring up some controversy or the newspaper won't sell. Terryeo 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links to the things I mention above: The U.S. Navy's information to its troops.

[6] click "About various faiths" click "Scientology" Italian Accreditation [7] The Australian Sleep Therapy on WIkipedia CCHR#Chelmsford_Hospital_and_.22sleep_therapy.22 The bricked street on Wikipedia Church_of_Scientology#PAC_Base.2C_Hollywood.2C_California and: [[8]] and [9] For the last links, I used this search string at Google: ""L. Ron Hubbard Way" bricks" Terryeo 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC) As a small point of information, the current Auditor Magazine states more than 700 people have completed OT VIII. Terryeo 19:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The US Navy only republished what the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain their own religion. For those who are unfamiliar with the "Navy" document, it is merely a copy of the work of one man, B.A. Robinson of ReligiousTolerance.org. This man is clearly biased in favor of cults. His only scholarly reference on the subject of cults include the reknowned cult apologist J. Gordon Melton. His only references that he used to find out about Scientology were from Church of Scientology owned web pages. (Robinson is admittedly not an expert on the subject of religions). So of course his analysis of Scientology is going to be nothing more than a rehashing of what the Church has already said. And just because the Church of Scientology offers up this biased "study" of its religion to the Navy doesn't mean that the Navy endorses it as anything other than a document that the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain the religion. It is not a Navy study, nor does it validate Scientology teachings at all that the Navy republishes the document. Compare ReligiousTolerance.org version to Navy copy of the same. This fact has been shown to you numerous times, Terryeo, so it is beyond silly that you would continue to argue that the US Navy has anything to say about Scientology other than what it is spoonfed by the Church of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good of you to spell that out, Vivaldi and I don't contest that presentation at all. That has been pointed out before, too. Still, it says something that the U.S. Navy considers that piece to be useable within it context. And that presentation can be compared with its Buddhism presentation, its Muslim presentation, its Catholic presentation, and so on. But of course you are implying the U.S. Navy is beanbrained and blinded, the wool pulled over thier eyes by the POV "religioustolerance.org". I understand :) Nonetheless, it isn't couched in offensive language, as it appears it makes reasonable good sense and it doesn't have the sort of ugliness that Xenu.net and Clambake.org present. There's little sense of threat, little sense of disturbance, little sense of harm to it. Do you suppose that is what the U.S. Navy intended? BTW, feel free to post up any good, neutral sites you wish, don't feel constrained just because the question was to me. Terryeo 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not imply that the US Navy was bean-brained or blinded and I don't appreciate you suggesting any such thing. I highly respect the US Navy, and the Chaplains Service. The US Navy is very politically correct and they are only reporting the information given to them by the Church of Scientology. The material they received is from a single man, a known cult-apologist, that has referenced only materials from the Church of Scientology in describing the religion. The material the US Navy duplicated on its website came from the Church of Scientology itself. If you notice, the US Navy does not have any articles that write critically of ANY of the religions that it presents, so it is completely meaningless that the US Navy Chaplains Service didn't include information from neutral or critical sources. BTW, feel free to post up any good, neutral sites you wish, don't feel constrained just because the question was to me. I already did. Time Magazine, Readers' Digest, Behar, Lieby, The Washington Post, and 60 Minutes. Each of these are independent and very popular and well known media outlets that have independently investigated the criminal cult of Scientology and each of them came to similar conclusions. You are under the misguided notion that a "neutral" source will somehow come to "neutral" opinions about Scientology after they study it, but just like the KKK or the Nazi SS, neutral sources agree -- Scientology is mainly notable for the bad things it is responsible for. Vivaldi (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As to how to websearch for information on Scientology, I used this exclusion string to get down to less than 15 million hits and begin to get some information: " "Scientology" -Xenu -Clambake -religioustolerance -factnet -whatisscientology -bonafidescientology -beliefnet -volunteerministers -scientologyhandbook -theology -scientologyreligion -site:scientology.org" I got these links which at least are a little bit neutral. [10] and [11] and [12] and finally [13] and have this suggestion. Try using a specific newspaper as a required term, as the main search feature that must be included in returns and then your desired search phrase. Terryeo 21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Try searching for Time Magazine reporter Behar and Scientology or Washington Post reporter Leiby and Scientology. There you see what two well respected and widely read media sources think about Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link (if you trust the state of Florida more than you trusth the U.S. Navy) which speaks of the effect of Scientology in a local Florida City. [14] Terryeo 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia Pollock Shea was a contributing author to a report for the Florida Sustainable Communities Center. She did not speak on behalf of the state of Florida. She was speaking for herself reporting on the FSCC efforts to justify itself. It was an effort that failed. FSCC no longer exists. The city of Clearwater does not have a thriving downtown, it is an eyesore filled with vacant and closed businesses. The Super Power Building promised by the Church of Scientology over 8 years ago, is still sitting vacant with large gaping holes in the side and contruction barricades around it. The Church of Scientology is facing fines from the city of Clearwater for its failure to live by the terms of its building agreement with the city. Recently, CoS tried to bring out a few potted plants in front of their disgusting tarp covered fences, as if 10 potted plants cover up the 8 year history of blight that CoS has left in the heart of Clearwater. And suggesting that we don't "trust the U.S. Navy" is complete hogwash and innappropriate behaviour on your part. We all trust that the Navy duplicated the material that it was given by the Church of Scientology. In fact, we proved it. We gave you the links showing you that the Navy didn't write the article, that it was in fact written by a single person, a known cult-apologist and an admitted non-expert in the field of religious studies. So it has nothing to do with "trusting the U.S. Navy". Vivaldi (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is rather interesting that you align yourself with everyone in the manner you state above, Vivialdi. But you suggest the Navy is "mindless" and unable to judge what it should and should not present to its troops, you suggest that it appealed to religioustolerence.org and then, idiomatically cut and pasted without a thought to content. Surely you recognize the U.S. Navy does quality control of their material, both hardware and software, wetware and dryware and maintains it in a manner which best serves the U. S. of A ? I feel it is very short - sighted to dismiss what the Navy presents to its troops because your opinion differs from the information the Navy chooses to present (as neutral) to its troops. Actually, hey, it makes me glad you are not the man in charge of the Navy! heh ! Yep, I trust the Navy has good judgement and is capable of posting what it considers good information and won't post what it considers bad information. You also see the Florida situation far, far different than the City Government does and present a narrow view. But of course, you point of view, happy or not, is up to you. Terryeo 22:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"to treat a wide variety of conditions"

The introduction says that, "to treat a wide variety of conditions". But the Dianetics website says, "Dianetics has one purpose, to get rid of the reactive mind". Myself, I see some disparity between the two. Perhaps no other editor does, but "one purpose..." and "treat a wide variety of condistions" have very little in common. May we introduce Dianeitcs for what it is? Terryeo 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the linguistic shell-game that the CoS uses to try to avoid "medical claims". The very first page of my copy of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health says Dianetics "gets rid of the source of your problems, fears, psychosomatic illness and unwanted emotions". This is, in fact, a wide variety of conditions. That Dianetics allegedly treats these conditions by way of the alleged source, the Reactive Mind, is immaterial. wikipediatrix 16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means, a quote that introduces the book and subject should appear in that article. I don't argue. However, this article and that article are not the same article. This article should present the subject, that one the book. Dianetics evolved. In 1950 the subject was in its infancy, an E-meter was unheard of, it was not exactly clear to Hubbard why Dianetics worked with some people better than it worked with other people. The subject evolved. Then "New Era Dianetics" came along, Hubbard wrote additional things, the E-Meter was refined and has computer electronics in it today. Terryeo 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dianetics book, which is still endorsed by the CoS, very clearly makes claims about Dianetics treating a variety of conditions. No amount of handwaving or CoS doublespeak can change this easily verifiable fact. Friday (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "Friday doublespeak"? Do you agree each Dianetics book written in 1950, endorsed by the CoS contains additional materials addressed to the Reader in the front materials, that says explicitely that Dianetics addresses the spirit, the CoS does not engage in spiritual healing, people with medical conditions are referred to competent medical people. You know very well certain states have passed laws against curing certain medical illnesses, like arthritus in California. So to claim to cure such an illness would break California law. The CoS does not break California law. For you to say it does is "Friday doublespeak". Does the text of the 1950 Dianetics book talk about "conditions" yes. Does California law forbid such claims, yes. Does the CoS make such claims, NO. Have you given a series of assists to someone with Arthritus using Dianetics procedures and seen what the result is for yourself? I don't think so, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Spirit of Man 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have proof of these assists results, do you? No? Then what is to be gained by bringing them up here? By the way, I have the 1999 edition of Dianetics:TMSMH here and I don't see anything about Dianetics "addressing the spirit". Not on the cover. Not on the back cover. Not in the introduction. Not in the first chapter, in fact. Maybe you use a different definition of "explicitly". The front cover DOES guarantee that Dianetics gets rid of "the single source of pain". The back cover does say it will remove the source of "psychosomatic aches and pains". The introduction has a quote from one "Kyle Frencher" who says Dianetics cured his sinus problems. Of course, he does the prerequisite verbal dance and notes that what has been cured is the "source" of his sinus problems, that ol' "Reactive Mind". wikipediatrix 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I found a copy of ISBN-0-88404-632-x, a 1999 edition of DMSMH and on the copyright page it says "Dianetics spiritual healing technology". Does yours say the same? Regarding assists, in Dianetics one proof is called a "Success Story". If a person that received a service, such as an assist wishes, they may send a personal statement of the result from their viewpoint to a local organization privately, so the person that gave the assist can be recognized and the organization can maintain the quality of service in its area. This document would be very similar the documents used in a scientific study, which are then witnessed and tabulated. The last one sent in on me said the person had an eye injury and the doctor said he was likely to lose the eye. The doctor had removed the left iris and removed metal from the socket. The document said that after my assist his eyesight had already returned to 20/32 in that eye. He had also had a dislocated right shoulder that had bothered him for some time and that had now healed. He also had had a sprained left ankle that had not been healing and he had had to bandage it with support bandages for the last year. He was able to remove the bandages and there was no pain, but the ankle was still sensitive when he worked on a ladder too much. His document is on file at the Church of Scientology Battle Creek. I said nothing to the effect that assists are ineffectual. BTfromLA's statement is at best argumentative and close to libelous. Spirit of Man 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That you, Spirt of Man? Please lay off the accusation of libel--that's a crime, and it's not one I'm guilty of, and it is wildly inappropriate for you to suggest as much. My point is that is that if you were saying, as you now seem to be, that the Dianetic assists successfully treat a wide range of medical conditions, you have no grounds for arguing against the phrase "to treat a wide range of conditions." BTfromLA 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I am an individual in Michigan and the CoS is in California and other states with legal constraints placed to protect AMA interests. These contraints are against known medical conditions and the medical treatment of them. I can say what I do. My argument against "conditions", is that Dianetics addresses the spirit in a context of the belief that the spirit alone may heal the body. So the medical community has no mechanism to treat psychosomatic illness spiritually, and to my knowledge does not. Likewise, I have no expertise in medicine and have nothing to do with it. In fact they lobby to have the "cure" of such medical conditions be illegal. I understand Freud is the doctor that came up with the idea the spirit or mind or psyche can cause some illnesses in the body or soma. He called such illnesses phychosomatic. So I do not use the idea of "assists" in any medical context whatsoever. Any such medical expertise indicated is refered to persons competent in those things. I only use it in the spiritual context that the spirit is addressed and only the spirit may heal the body. A specific medical condition is NOT treated. One addresses the spirit and invites the spirt to heal the body. If an individual person wishes to write and publish a Success Story describing his view of such things, that is his business. If you refrain from saying I am "attesting" to something "so ineffectual" we should be fine. Spirit of Man 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as if Spirit of Man is attesting that the attempt to use assists on a victim of arthritis is so ineffectual that there is no point arguing whether it helps the condition. If he's saying the opposite--that is does remedy that condition, well... BTfromLA 20:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is appropriate to be skeptical of stated results. We often come against this issue, "Scientology doesn't prove it!" and that is very true, Neither Dianetics nor Scientology will attempt to prove to anyone for some years now. It doesn't attempt to satisfy the scientific community by parallelling "scientific experments" nor does it appeal to the public by "studies". The disipline which would normally make such studies and present them, psychology, has chose to ignore it. Therefore, if these articles are going to present comparisons of results where could we find results? Well, the only source I know of are similar to what Spirit of Man has stated, personal attestations. I've used assists with results that were simply baffelingly good. But there's no proof behind them but the person saying, "Hey, I feel much better". What would you all think of the article containing a personal attestation or two? Scientology has published large quantities of such attestations, they are only signed by people's initials though, such as "J.G." or "B.O." Terryeo 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. You need to do a controlled study to demonstrate efficacy. It doesn't require a psychologist to set up such a study either. Almost anyone with a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science could set up a study to determine whether Dianetics is effective at doing anything. Scientology certainly isn't interested in doing such a study, because Scientology is not about "science", it is about duping people with "scientistic" (sic) sounding language. Vivaldi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, I refer you to WP:CIV. If you intend your words to sound slanderous they certainly do. Spirit of Man 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer citizen Battle Creek? Are any other expert qualified to know what slanderous words sound like and why slanderous doesn't apply to Wiki Talk pages? AndroidCat 04:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, Friday. Good. Perhaps your efforts would be more appricated at the article whose title you know a great deal about? Dianetics has changed significantly, Hubbard developed Dianetics over a period of years. Orginally it was designed to be delivered to an ailing companion on expeditions, from that it evolved to a person leaning back on a couch, today it is usually a person sitting in a quiet, comfortable chair while holding E-Meter cans in a quiet, peaceful environment. But what you mention is good history, no arguement. Terryeo 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you certainly won't object to us pointing out that when Dianetics was introduced it was advertised as being able to heal all sorts of ailments, right? You realize that the only reason that Dianetics doesn't still advertise its (non-existent) curative abilities is because the US Government had to order the Church of Scientology to stop advertising that way unless CoS had some sort of evidence to back up their claims. Instead of providing evidence for cures (which would require a controlled study), the CoS stopped marketing Dianetics and e-meters as curative devices. So now instead of saying they cure anything, they say it rehabilitates the spirit, or fixes the reactive mind, or what-have-you. CoS forgets to mention that many Scientologists believe that many physical ailments are caused by an abberated "reactive mind" (because that is what L. Ron Hubbard has preached in his lectures). Vivaldi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to any cited material. (bound to be some exception to this, lol). That is how Dianetics was first presented. But, Dianetics as practiced today, well, I think we should introduce the subject as it is present today. And a historical section (or something) could go into the details of its earlier presentation. Truely, how it is presented to the public has changed a lot. The original stuff is still practiced, the Church still supports it but the more modern stuff gets faster results. I am pretty sure that "Scientologists believe ... (anything)" is going to be a statment that will have no possible verification. Dig, I'm not trying to challenge you about that, but to point out that such studies have not been made. Terryeo 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that "Scientologists believe ... (anything)" is going to be a statment that will have no possible verification. Have you ever read the Scientology Creed? What does it mean when it says, "We of the Church believe..."? Are the "we of the church" someone other than Scientologists, or do Scientologists actually have a set of some 15-20 odd beliefs that are codified in a Creed? You keep saying Scientologists don't believe anything. It mainly comes from your lack of understanding of the word belief and believe, which do not imply anything other than what a person thinks is true. Certainly Scientologists think certain facts are true. For example, the Scientologists that attest to OT3 think that Xenu was an intergalactic overlord that blew up space aliens 75 million years ago and created body thetans. Then Scientologists think that if they pay for more auditing and training in OT4-OT8 that they will be able to get rid of their body thetans. Vivaldi (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, "What does it mean when it says, "We of the Church believe..."? Means that Church members agree these statements, the statements in the Scientology Creed are true. Yes, Church members have 15-20 odd beliefs in common that are codified in a Creed. Your statement about OT3 is not true. That is not what is being attested. The attest is the same as any attest of any level, that the person attests that he has achieved the results expected of the level. The attest has nothing to do with what you are calling a belief in "Xenu" and "body thetans". Those are not doctrines or a part of the Creed or beliefs held in common by Scientologists. I think you are simply being uncivil in violation of WP:CIV and aggressively trying to aggravate people as a troll. Spirit of Man 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 07:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify not only does Dianetics claim to alleviate psychosomatic ills, but by suggesting a psychosomatic pathology, it also puts forth an alternate methodology for the diagnosis of medical conditions. This is a very important qualification and it deserves prominent mention when introducing the practice. Also this is an outside analysis of Dianetics, attempts to refute it by resorting to semantic posturing or accusations of slander don't address the concerns of scientific validity or medical ethics. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 07:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that most of your statement is based on information. Medical conditions are treated by medical doctors. No person can receive Dianetics processes until such medical conditions by medical doctors have been done. There is the "grey" area, "psychosomatic" which medical doctors don't have consistant, reliable results with. Dianetics does address the "grey" area. Terryeo 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anetode, do you agree Dianetics only addresses the spirit? Not the physiology of the body. Do you agree medicine only addresses the physiology of the body and not the spirit? Do you agree Scientologists believe that only the spirit may heal the body? Do you agree when we are talking about Dianetics, we are talking about a spiritual healing technology? Do you agree anyone that comes to Dianetics or Scientology to be treated for a medical condition is referred to competent medical help? Spirit of Man 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, in medicine and for a short time in early Dianetics, the term "psychosomatic" was used. To my knowledge medicine still uses this term and has not defined it in spiritual terms or established the scientific validity of it. Do you agree? Do we agree medicine does NOT represent scientific validity when it comes to psychosomatic things. To my knowledge this term, or similar ideas in Dianetics, is replaced in Dianetics by "Chronic somatic". In Dianetics the idea of a "chronic somatic" is that a spiritual being creates a mental image of pain and accompanying physical states by resisting the pain, and may continue to use this energy picture of pain and physical conditions on the body causing a chronic pain and condition in the body. When the spirit no longer creates or no longer uses that image picture of pain the person no longer has the chronic pain. So I am sorry if you had spiritual "chronic somatic" confused with diagnosing or treating something medical. Dianetics addresses the spirit and the spirit's influence on the body through the mind. Spirit of Man 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anteaus's Intro that says the e-meter is used to treat

Does anyone else feel Antaeus's version says: the e-meter is used to treat... I think that is false, or at least gives a wrong idea, and should be revised.

"Dianetics is a practice developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a counselor (known as an "Auditor") uses a device, called an E-meter, that measures the electrical resistence of the human body, to treat a wide variety of conditions."

Anteaus, Dianetics addresses the spirit, and spiritual gain, not the conditions directly. Anyone seeking medical treatment is refered to medical people. The spirit heals the body. In many states this is a legal issue of spiritual healing vs medical healing. Dianetics doesn't even deal in spiritual healing in modern times. The issue needs to remain clear in any Introduction. If you wish to assert that Dianetics treats conditions, please clarify with yourself before editing that in fact, in Dianetics, the spirit, seeking spiritual gain, heals these conditions. Yes, Dianetics does address a person seeking spiritual gain, then the spirit heals the body. It is fallacious to say the meter treats such things. This is the issue of the FDA raiding the Founding Church in 1963. It is not true, never was and should not be claimed and you should not say Dianetics does claim the meter does this or is used in this way. The FDA said meters have to have little sticker that clarifies this issue. Please reword your edit to make your point more clear and along the lines of FDA rulings. Spirit of Man 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing "incorrect" about the intro after I reverted your incorrect changes to it was that it still describes auditing, one component of Dianetics, but calls it "Dianetics" as if Dianetics did not also refer to all the theory about reactive mind and engrams. As for whether the Church of Scientology is still claiming today that auditing will cure physical conditions such as arthritis of the knee, the fact is that they still do. I'm a bit puzzled by what on Earth you could be suggesting by "reword your edit to make your point ... along the lines of FDA rulings." Are you actually suggesting that we can take the fact that the FDA told the Church of Scientology not to make certain claims as proof that the Church actually stopped making them -- despite the clear evidence to the contrary? What a bizarre idea! -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored all the points of my edit, to start a new point. Let's parse out my edit: I understand the e-meter does not "treat" anything. Your text says it does. Why are you saying that? It seems like you don't get it. Spirit of Man 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the only thing that is incorrect about it is that it falsely limits "Dianetics" to "auditing", and moreover falsely limits "auditing" to "auditing with an E-meter". I'm not the one responsible for either of those two incorrect statements. The statement I made was regarding Dianetics: the Church of Scientology claims that Dianetics can treat what Scientologists may believe are psychosomatic illnesses caused by "spiritual stress" but which everyone else classifies as physical conditions, such as arthritis of the knee. If you think that the Church of Scientology stopped making such claims in the 1950s then I'm afraid you're wrong, since they are claiming it today. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I agree with your first two points. But you have failed to even address my concerns. I believe you do not understand them. Here are my concerns: the meter treats nothing in a medical sense, to say it does is a delibrate lie constructed to misrepresent the issue. Even if you don't understand the issue, it is true you have continued the lie. Even though you accept no responsibility for representing it, you seem to act as if you have a callus disregard for this truth. Spirit of Man 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, your last point is made four times I believe in the article and I really haven't looked at it in detail. I understand Dianetics addresses the spirit. The spirit heals the body. The spirit creates images of pain and then uses them to cause chronic painful conditions in the body. If the spirit no longer uses the picture in this way or no longer creates the picture then the chronic pain does not continue. This is not a medical context. If you say Scientology makes medical claims to cure psychosomatic conditions medically, then you have misinformed yourself. It does not. Do you see how these two ideas could be confused? In 1947 through Dianetics 55! in 1954 the spirit was often called the "awareness of awareness unit". The auditor addressed this "unit" which is actually the person, the spirit and the spirit healed his own body by confronting a picture of pain and handling the pain. This is spiritual healing, not medical healing. In 1950 Dianetics didn't make such a distinction between spiritual and medical because it was not known that it was needed. When you say, "the FDA told the Church of Scientology not to make certain claims" the issue was medical claims. Do you understand the Church does not make medical claims, they make spiritual claims. If you interpret the Church's claims as "medical claims" then I believe you have misinformed yourself. If put such statements into the article then you are guilty of misinforming the reading public as well. Spirit of Man 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand Dianetics addresses the spirit. The spirit heals the body. The spirit creates images of pain and then uses them to cause chronic painful conditions in the body. If the spirit no longer uses the picture in this way or no longer creates the picture then the chronic pain does not continue.

The problem is that what you have just stated there is not agreed-upon fact, it is a statement of beliefs that are held by Hubbardians and by no one else. You are saying that because Hubbardians think that arthritis, radiation poisoning, leukemia, et cetera, are "spiritual conditions" rather than "physical conditions", that the article should state that Dianetics treats "spiritual conditions" rather than "physical conditions". Let me ask you this: would you allow neo-Nazis to edit articles on the Holocaust to remove the claim that the Nazis killed six million people? "You may consider them people, but we don't, so you can't say we killed six million people." Absolutely ludicrous, but it's the exact same thing you're asking: you're claiming that the article should say that arthritis and cancer and all the other ailments of the physical body which Dianetics says it can treat are "spiritual conditions" because Dianetics claims they are.

This is spiritual healing, not medical healing. In 1950 Dianetics didn't make such a distinction between spiritual and medical because it was not known that it was needed. When you say, "the FDA told the Church of Scientology not to make certain claims" the issue was medical claims. Do you understand the Church does not make medical claims, they make spiritual claims. If you interpret the Church's claims as "medical claims" then I believe you have misinformed yourself.

Poppycock. What you are saying is that the Church of Scientology is still claiming to be able to treat all the things it was claiming to treat before, except it's calling the process of purported treatment "spiritual" to avoid the legal ramifications of calling it "medical". The Church is still making claims that it can treat the ailments that everyone but the Church considers medical ailments; refusing to buy into the renaming scheme that the Church adopted when it realized such a scheme was "needed" is not being "misinformed", quite the contrary. It's the person who thinks that "we can sell you a cure for your arthritis!" suddenly isn't a "medical claim" because the company doing the selling asserts that it believes arthritis to be a "spiritual condition" who is misinformed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Before we go on to your other problems, not the subject of this section, let me dispense with the meter treating.... You deleted my edit clarifying that the meter treats nothing. In Dianetics and Scientology, the meter treats nothing and never has. It only measures resistance electrically. The spirit is addressed. The bodies resistance is measured. The spirit heals the body. That is what is claimed, not that auditor uses the meter to treat illness. If you wish to continue that idea I suggest you start your own article and claim that "Antaeus believes Dianeticists claim the meter cures illness." That idea is false, but you may keep it as your personal opinion. It is not the opinion of Dianetics and it is not a claim of Dianetics and never has been, dispite FDA/AMA wishes to disrupt Dianetics activities with legal hassels. You have reverted my e-meter edit, without discussion. I have asked three times here and you have have not addressed the issue. I assume that it is beyond you and you wish to discuss other matters only. Consider the case closed. Spirit of Man 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit which falsely claimed that Dianetics only "incidently [sic] resolve[s] mental stress associated with a wide variety of conditions" and edited out mention of the fact that Dianetics is still claimed by the Church of Scientology to be able to treat the conditions themselves. The fact that Dianetics is incorrectly defined in the rest of the sentence does need to be fixed, something I have argued repeatedly on this talk page, but you are (rather deliberately, I think) barking up the wrong tree by claiming that, with two major errors in the first sentence of the article, you are entitled to add yet a third. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are getting close to something there Antaeus, but what is another matter. I am not a Neo-Nazi, thank you very much. I refer you to WP:CIV. I take your citation of "Nazi" as seeking to associate this discussion with a murderous activity few can confront. Your seem to be seeking a higher of coflict. Well, alright, that is what you do. I don't. Spirit of Man 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your citation of "Nazi" as seeking to associate this discussion with a murderous activity few can confront. Yes, I'm not at all surprised you'd choose that cop-out. "OH GNOES! He mentioned Neo-Nazis! I must immediately forget that posters with Neo-Nazi opinions who try to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect Neo-Nazi assumptions are a problem that Wikipedia actually faces! I must ignore the point that is actually being made, that just because we are writing about a certain set of beliefs held by a certain group of people does not mean we write assuming the worldview of that group of people to be correct! That would be LOGIC and the mention of Neo-Nazis deprives me of any ability to use my logical faculty!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept that you have not accepted what I said as "not agreed-upon fact, it is a statement of beliefs that are held by Hubbardians and by no one else." Aren't we in fact talking about what Dianeticists claim, when discussing the claims of Dianetcis? Are we not talking about what Dianeticists believe? What Dianeticists claim is that the spirit only is addressed and only the spirit may heal the body. If you take what they claim in any other way, you are not understanding what is being claimed. If we take an AMA view for a second we can say these are "medical conditions" ONLY. True, AMA people believe that. FDA people may believe that. To repeat your last statement: "you're claiming that the article should say that arthritis and cancer and all the other ailments of the physical body which Dianetics says it can treat are "spiritual conditions" because Dianetics claims they are." If the article is discussing what Dianeticists claim, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you are citing what critics say, then you may say "cures" and "medical conditions" and whatever they believe to be the case. Spirit of Man 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about what Dianeticists claim. That means it's perfectly legitimate to clarify that Dianeticists think such things as arthritis and sinus infections and radiation sickness are psychosomatic "spiritual conditions". It is definitely not legitimate for Wikipedia to describe everything that Dianeticists think are spiritual conditions as "spiritual conditions" because then Wikipedia would be endorsing, rather than just describing, Dianeticist beliefs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I can see your frustration. I don't think you are going to be able to come to terms with what Dianeticists are claiming. I think you will be tilting at windmills well into your next lifetime. Maybe several lifetimes. Let me know how that works out for you. You should limit your edits to what critics believe and not what Dianeticists believe. I understand you use the terms "treat" or "treatment" in a medical sense. In the medical sense what does the "psyche" part of "psychosomtic" mean? Does it mean spiritual or does it mean something else? Spirit of Man 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I'm afraid the failure to come to terms is yours. You seem to think that you can, if you are just persistent enough, succeed in conflating "This article should describe how Dianeticists use terms" with "This article should use terms as Dianeticists use them". The first is correct, the second is not. Please acknowledge that you understand this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

On pg.121 of the 1992 Hardcover edition of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard bluntly states: "Clears do not get colds." That is a medical claim, plain and simple. wikipediatrix 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, do you agree the term "Clear" is not a medical term? Do you agree Dianetics is not a medical study? Do you agree Clear is a Dianetic term, where Clear means the person himself, "I" p 43, "the awareness of awareness unit" Dianetics 55!, "the spiritual being" Dianetics 55!, "monitor" p 43. Do you agree when a Dianetics book claims "Clears do not get colds" it is in fact a Dianetic claim relating to the spirit, spiritual healing and not a medical claim? Now, how did you come to believe it was "a medical claim"? Spirit of Man 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how slight misunderstandings lead to vast mis-statements in the articles. Dianetics does not treat medical conditions, before receiving Dianetic auditing at a Church it is necessary to sign a document that you are not requesting Dianetic auditing for a medical condition. There are many personal attestations which talk about medical improvements, but there is no present day Claim by Dianetics that medical treatments are treated. To present that as a claim of the Church or the Dianetics website is a mis-statement. Terryeo 02:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a present-day claim of the Church of Scientology. Or is Scientology Missions International now a "personal website"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please discuss before making deletions please. Spirit of Man 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Present day Church disclaimers include, "The E-Meter, by itself, treats nothing" and that is legally sound and accurate. Possibly the problem lay in how the statement is read by the reader. "The E-Meter is used in the treatment of ..." is understood by people who are trained in its use that the meter does not act in any way to do any treatment at all. It sits there like a gas guage in an autombile, telling about how much gas the preclear has, how the preclear's gas is sloshing around in his tank. The meter does no treatment BUT the statement can be read differently but untrained in the E-Meter people. It can be read to mean, "The E-Meter is used in the treatment of ... (by apply a small electrical current it changes the human body's energy, thus treating medical conditions). So, hey, after a good deal of legal dancing and court cases we arrive at today's statement, "The E-Meter, by itself treats nothing". Terryeo 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Xenu.net references

Please don't remove all references to things at xenu.net simply because they're at that website. This is a widely recognized website, and their online reproductions of original source materials are very useful. Friday (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo seems determined to censor unflattering info about Scientology from Wikipedia articles at all costs, on any rationale, no matter how flimsy. I hope he's getting paid a lot to do this, because he's wasting his time. wikipediatrix 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The material Terryeo has been deleting is text that refers to credible sources published by reputable publishers--online versions of these publications are archved at the xenu.net website. This amounts to outright vandalism of the articles. Disgraceful behavior on the part of an experienced editor. BTfromLA 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo quite frequently attempts to Game the Rules by searching for some point in the Wiki rules that he can distort and then mass-apply, but this raises the bar to new heights. AndroidCat 02:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've long been wondering whether there was an established concept to describe the sort of "gaming the rules" that characterizes Terryeo's behavior--Friday supplied the answer, if I understand it correctly: "Wikilawyering." And yes, this episode is at the top of the charts, but don't forget "term, topic, context," the bit about the book with the most published copies is the most reliable source, and his other hits. BTfromLA 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the term gaming the rules goes back at least 25 years, but don't ask me to pull out my copies The Dragon Magazine to prove it. Rules Lawyer ditto. Odds are H.G. Wells, the war gamer and sometime writer, probably called someone that. AndroidCat 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank, AndroidCat. My particular concern is whether there is an ackowledgment within Wikipedia that the sort of behavior Terryeo has consistently engaged in--using self-serving and grossly distorted interpretations of policy as a pretext to disrupt and undermine editing--is a recognized violation of policy. It certainly should be, if it isn't formally in place already. BTfromLA 03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's generally regarded as disruptive conduct. I think we can regard this as another piece of evidence of misconduct on his part; while it's not in itself grounds for a lengthy block, it's certainly indicative of his wider pattern of misconduct. Could someone please add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence under "removal of references for POV reasons"? -- ChrisO 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have posted that information there already ChrisO. I too have posted a forth assertion there. By the way, the introduction to this article still does not introduce the subject. And WP:RS states clearly with its own emphisis Personal websites . . . may never be used as secondary sources. That simply means that such sites may never be used under any circumstances as secondary sources. This includes Xenu.net and Clambake.org which state outright they are personal websites. Terryeo 02:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A website that places a disclaimer about personal opinions does not a "personal website" make. wikipediatrix 02:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Andreas Heldal-Lund states: DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions. Well, that says that he only speaks his own, personal opinions. And he says that the site is his alone, his reponsibility utterly and alone. That doesn't make the site personal, that's what you say Wikipediatrix? You see, the situation revolves around "opinion" because by using that description of what is present on his site, any information whatsoever, of any quality whatsoever might be present. For example, he might find some, laying-around audio recording that just happens to sound vaugely like Hubbard's voice and publish it on his site. By saying "This is my site and my opinion" he excludes himself from any fact checking or verification of authenticity, also from any legal requirement, any reputability, any status in the eyes of the scientific community. Obviously his agenda is something besides repute. Would you like me to evaluate his agenda ? Or are you pretty sure that you know what it is? Repute, good quality information of high, verified repute is not his agenda. It is his personal site. According to WP:RS we may not quote nor cite such a site as a secondary source.  :) Terryeo 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would save us all a good deal of attention if we addressed the issue of how secondary sources are used. Feldspar suggests we should not follow Xenu.net's disclaimer, that is, we should not treat the information on Xenu.net as opinion. That we should judge each document or page on Xenu.net on its own merits and thereby, use that particular page as a secondary source, or not, depending on how valid it appears. Without doubt, many editors prefer to use Xenu.net as a secondary source. Without doubt, none of those who do use Xenu.net as if it were one man's opinion. None of you argue that the Church of Scientology is mis-presenting information, nor that it mis-publishes information. But all of you argue that Xenu.net is more than "opinion". Can we confront this issue of how secondary sources should appear ? Terryeo 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, the WP:RS thing again?

Okay, I went and looked at WP:RS today. Xenu.net is a great resource, but to quote RS *guidelines* (not policy): "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

So, we *can* use CoS and Xenu.net sites, but with caution, and only in conjunction with *other* sources. Xenu.net and CoS sites have *both* been found of propagating information as if it were factual, but later found to be blatantly false. Neither has a spotless record. I think we're all mostly on the same page (i.e. "be careful, that site is not absolute truth for everybody who views it"), and we're merely arguing how *reliable* data from those sites should be treated as. In this case, I think its fair to argue for adding additional sources, or additional citations, to cross reference any statements of fact or opinion derived from any of those sites (they shouldn't be the "sole source", as per above).

With regards to: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

We also have to be careful. The /~dst/ sites (Touretsky) are quite obviously personal (hence, the tilde), but touretsky has gradually established both his expertise, and his name, in the field, so we can use those pages, but (again) with caution. DST actually doesn't personally edit a lot of these CoS articles anymore, it seems, to avoid the obvious conflict. Again, adding other sites, with other authors, to cross reference, would seem reasonable.

OTOH, I'm not sure about ChrisO's stuff.... and actually I'm a bit concerned that some of it may be grey areas of WP:NOR. He may need to make very clear which pages are being linked to are his *own* work of opinion/analysis (and thus not good links under NOR), and which pages he is merely hosting or mirroring. Ronabop 06:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Grey area? Yes, if a person goes to Xenu.net and contributes a essey and comes here and quotes and cites that essey, that would be a grey area all right, no arguement. It would be very very grey. Dark grey. But even if ChrisO does not do that, his contributions to Xenu.net and the frequent quotations from Xenu.net in these articles should prevent him from editing in these articles. In addition, Xenu.net does not announce any fact checking at all. No quality control, no statement of how that personal site runs. It could be that any article is posed there by any Wikipedic editor, then cited here as a secondary source. This isn't an accusation. I'm merely repeating what ChrisO stated to me on my user page. Terryeo 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that we can use Touretsky. There are several issues with a personal website. One of them is as you state, the quality of the information presented over a period of time. But there are other issues, also. A person who does nothing but edit his website about a special field of knowledge and personally checks every item of information could still make a mistake that might stand for months or even years. He has no responsibility to anyone but himself, there is no quality control but the one individual. Besides, isn't he the guy who loves to fly and doesn't edit all the time? Terryeo 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, DST's site may, indeed, have errors (as may, oh, Britannica. :-) ). So somebody can politely ask for additional sources, and we can then have two sources. This is not the same thing as removing a source from somebody recognized in the field, because they posted the information to their own web-space. Ronabop 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo writes, I do not agree that we can use Touretsky. My response: Touretzky is recognized as an expert in the field. He is frequently cited by the media as an expert and he has been cited as an expert by many news reporters on the radio, TV, newspapers, and magazines. Dr. Touretzky has a long history of providing accurate, reliable, and verifiable information about Scientology and its many related front groups. He cites his sources frequently and with the rigor of a scholar. Dr. Touretzky does have other quality controls for his published works and people help Touretzky with fact-checking, research, and editing for clarity and style. Touretsky routinely has his site checked for accuracy and he makes changes or adjustments when new verifiable information is presented to him. I'm not sure what the "loves to fly" or "doesn't edit all the time" have to do with anything. But yes, DST flies airplanes, and he doesn't edit "all the time". He does work at a college, which does afford him some freedom to take care of his personal interests. He doesn't edit much at Wikipedia, but he frequently discusses Scientology issues in other places. He was on two radio shows in the last few weeks, where he was asked to expose the abuses of the cult of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, your chat at the talk page of WP:RS lead to Clambake.org and Xenu.net not being useable as secondary sources. But it isn't just your talk, it is Chriso's talk Fahrenheit451's talk, and other editors who edit here, who are opposing WP:RS by every means possible. Touretzky is another personal website. In actuality, maybe 95% of the POV which editors are pushing comes from personal websites. When the dust settles, the personal websites will not longer be able to be used as secondary sources. And it looks like Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky won't be able to be cited either, as presnetly appears in Thetan. We have battled this issue for months. I should have appealed to WP:RS long ago but wasn't experienced enough to know how to handle you guys and your insistance on Clambake.org and "Dr. Touretzky" as accurate and "an expert" and such. Those statements may or may not be cool sounding statements, but they don't meet Wikipedic standards and Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources WP:RS. Terryeo 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the situation, at least it is a basis to talk from. The quality of secondary sourced information has always been an issue in these articles, just because there is so much secondary information, but most of it is strongly advocated by a special interest site, suce as Xenu. This is the same discussion we have been having for a long time, "how reliable is this, or that". We all know that special interests present their view in the manner most favorable to them. I doubt if Xenu would ever post anything really positive and helpful the Church of Scientology ever did. Terryeo 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

DST actually doesn't personally edit a lot of these CoS articles anymore, it seems, to avoid the obvious conflict. Again, adding other sites, with other authors, to cross reference, would seem reasonable Ronabop - Andreas, like DST, has also established himself as an expert in the topic he presents on his web pages. He's been doing it for 10 years and has been recognized by many for his efforts. Also the main problem isn't that we are citing Andreas's writing at all. Frequently what is being provided is a source or reference to a document that is published by a third party, such as the text to a book or the text of an article (not written by Andreas and available at other locations besides his site). Andreas has convenience links to copies of these articles and books, making note that he is merely republishing the works of others as they are presented at other easily verifiable sources. Andreas has a good reputation for being reliable, honest, and open. In ten years, I've never seen anyone accuse him of manipulating or altering any text on his webpages that he has sourced to third parties. Terryeo seems to think he can keep out text and links that are sourced to books by people like Paulette Cooper and Jon Atack and he has deleted this material already, because he says that it is available on Xenu.net. However these things are also available on other sources which can be easily checked. If for some reason Xenu.net was found to be not reliable or began manipulating data then I would say we shouldn't use them to provide courtesy links, but in no circumstance should the material that is properly sourced be removed just because it happens to be courtesy hosted and mirrored at Xenu.net. Vivaldi (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My shortest comment on errors creeeping into anti-CoS advocacy sites: "The CoS said Jesus was gay?". Even professional scholars and researchers make mistakes, and mistakes happen more often, I think, when one is coming from a point of advocacy. That being said, I don't think it *hurts* our articles to X-ref xenu.net cites against other cites from other sites. (Ow, did I just write that? My apologies. :) ) If an editor wants more cites, because the primary (or only) source of a bit of information is a from a strong advocacy source, I think it's perfectly justified to dig for more sources and verify that we're not repeating errors, or deliberate smears and shading... regardless of the topic. Ronabop 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, this is not a personal thing where I am "keeping out" or I am "opposing" everyone. This is a situation that has always been present, but has been ignored by most editors, most of the time. Editors have rolled happily along and the articles suck, some of them worse than others. I am not opposing good information, I am not opposing Wikipedic standards. We are in fact defining wikipedic standards. Please don't take it that I am opposing every sort of controversy, instead please understand that I am opposing poor quality information presented as controversy. And I am doing that because with just a little bit of a turn of a phrase, these subjects can be entirely misrepresented. Look at how much trouble we have just presenting Dianetics, a little bit of slightly false information, either pro or con, false information, would make it even more difficult. Terryeo 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo -- Removing the works written by Atack, Cooper, or Behar just because they are mirrored on Xenu.net is innappropriate. Please quit running around in circles. You have removed properly sourced materials that are easily available from multiple sources just because we have provided courtesy links to the mirrored material at Xenu.net. All your doubletalk and obfuscation is getting tiresome. Your disruptive edits against consensus are also getting tiresome. Most people here view DST and O.C. as sources that have repeatedly and reliable duplicated source material and they both function as reputable and reliable mirrors for published material for nearly 10 years. Vivaldi (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The e-meter doesn't measure galvanic skin response

The E-meter is nothing more than a device that measures changes in the resistance of a small current passing through the human body. It does not measure "galvanic skin response". The e-meter produces a small current which passes through one can that is held by a person and the current goes through the body and then through the other can held by the person. Using a Wheatstone bridge and various methods of amplification and noise reduction, the e-meter provides an analog reading of the changes in Electrical resistance of the human body. These changes can be caused simply by adjusting how tight or how loose one holds onto the cans, or other subtle changes in the body. The US Patent granted to "inventor" L. Ron Hubbard is called "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and it is US Patent 3,290,589 issued Dec. 6th, 1966. You can also find a copy of the patent at the USPTO.gov website, but you'll need a free multipage TIFF viewer called AlternaTIFF, since the patent is so old, all they have are scanned imagesoof it. Anyone that suggests that the e-meter measures "galvanic skin response" is incorrect. If the device were to be used to measure the effects of the skin and not the entire body, then the electrodes would have to be placed much closer together. Yes, other folks have created devices that measure galvanic skin response, but the e-meter is not such a device. Vivaldi (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

At lower voltages, current generally travels through the skin, but as you say, if skin resistance was the only thing being measured, the electrodes would be closer together. I wouldn't read too much into the patent claims. There was little unique about "Hubbard"'s e-meter and the patent was worded to make it sound like it was doing something other than what the "party fun lie-detector" projects in electronics magazines had been doing already for many years. AndroidCat 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat -- the device is nothing more than a gimmick. I understand that. However, structure and operation of the device is not as a measurer of "galvanic skin response". The machine operates by measuring the resistence through the entire circuit through the human body (and the skin-to-tin contacts). The resistivity of the skin is only part of the problem. There is the resistivity of the skin-to-tin contact and the resistivity of the internal portions of the human body. The e-meter cannot distinguish between skin resistivity and a person breathing or between skin resistivity and an increase in gripping force or between skin resistivity and the beating of the heart. All the E-meter can do is present the change in resistivity of the entire structure. Vivaldi (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(culled from above)

It is physically impossible to have the resistance of a dead body that is at room temperature be the same as the resistance of a live human body since resistivity is temperature dependent. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, please give your quantitative estimate of what the difference in resistance would be, due to temperature for a body at 98 F and 68 F or 30 F difference? Spirit of Man 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Steinhart-Hart equation does this. For a human being, the free parameters would have to be measured but would be very close to carbon. Suffice to say that a difference of some 10 K is enough to show this nonsense false. --ScienceApologist 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that this discussion is relevant to the introduction of this article. But I think you are thinking one thing and I am thinking quite another. I am not saying that a live person would have exactly the same resistance as a cold dead body, no matter the temperature change. I agree with you that one could take a dead body and heat it or cool it and measure a change in resistance when measured at different temperatures. In this regard it would be similar to carbon or other meat body like a pig body. I believe you understand temperature as the major determining factor for changes in resistance in the human body. I disagree. I have seen quite a few living bodies at more or less 98.6 F and the electrical resistance can vary from about 2000 ohms to more than a million ohms when a combined total across the body is measured, as with an e-meter or ohm meter. I understand a rough combined average resistance of dead male bodies is 12,500 ohms. I don't know the temperature that was used when this was established in Dianetics for e-meters. I assume this could range from 10,000 to 15,000 ohms. I further understand this rough average was used when the "3" position on the e-meter that is calibrated with a precision resister of 12,500 ohms, was called "The Male Clear" reading. The idea is that the spirit may use the mind, energy pictures, to influence the living body. When this influence is measured in a living person the resistance will vary from the Male Clear reading. These readings are physical measurements that could be used by science to quantify mental response. In Scientology these readings have been recorded for every minute of every session done with an e-meter for at least the last 40 years. In Dianetics the changes in resistance of the living human body due to mental stress is important. The naming of the Male Clear read and its underlying rationale is not. Spirit of Man 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an electronics technician by occupation. I know what an ohm meter is, how it achieves a measurement and have grasped the leads of several ohm meters at several times. You get a measurement. This is because a human body resists the flow of electricity more than copper wire but less than the free air. Its a fact of life. Terryeo 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a biomedical engineer by profession. (big-whoop-de-doo!) I've built my own ohm meters as a class exercise years ago, so I'm familiar with their operation as well. I also know that when you grab the leads of an ohm meter with both hands that one is not measuring "galvanic skin response". Vivaldi (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

coolness, then perhaps you have placed the leads of an ohm meter immediately adjacent to each other, noted the reading, and placed the leads very far apart from each other on the organ which we call the human skin. Oddly enough, the readings are almost exactly the same, heh. Terryeo 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your ohmmeter is obviously broken. Skin has a resistivity that varies widely amongst various peoples, and even on a single person at various times or on various parts of the body. The skin-to-contact interface has a resistence of its own that various greatly with the amount of pressure applied. This is in large part due to the amount of metal ions in solution that are present on the surface of the skin (as sweat) and in the actual cells themselves. There is more resistivity as electricity tries to pass through the membranes of cell walls. The more cells walls they pass through, the more the resistance. The length of travel affects the resistance. If electricity was passing ONLY through the skin (and not through the interior tissues of the body) then the length between contact points would be directly proportional to the amount of resistence. (R=resistivity*length/cross-sectional area) You'd have to remove your skin from a body to show this, because electricity doesn't follow the path on the surface of the skin when there are nearby soft tissues, veins, and arteries which have much lower resistence. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, I understand what you said. However, I know and you can conclude that my ohm meter is not broken. You can conclude that by doing the small experiment which I suggested. Or not, it is up to you. Terryeo 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo. I have performed such tests literally hundreds of times Terryeo. As I told you, I am engineer. I design medical products. I've played with multimeters since I was probably 5 years old and grabbed onto the leads myself and measured my resistence even back then. In fact, nearly every time I use an ohmmeter to this day, I still grab hold of the leads to make I have it on the right settings and that its working properly. Resistivity depends on the length of travel through any material. So your own "experiment" proves that the ohmmeter (and by extension the e-meter) do not measure galvanic skin response. If the resistence isn't changing in direct proportion due to distance traveled on the skin, then the electricity must be traveling through the body on a different route (a less resistent one through the blood in fact) instead of through the skin. This is indeed what happens, and it has been documented in numerous studies which you can verify yourself in PubMed if you choose to do so. I don't feel like spoon-feeding you for your entire life. Human skin has a resistence (and impedence) that varies with the distance traveled through the skin, which has also been documented in a number of studies. Again you can find such information out yourself if you choose to do so. Vivaldi (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Steinhart-Hart equation does this. - ScienceApologist. I'm not sure how the Steinhart-Hart equation would apply to organic tissue, since it is for semi-conductors, but there is certainly a relationship between temperature and resistivity that is well-documented. For many substances this information is not determined by empirical formula, but rather by experimental data that is then analyzed to find a numerical approximation formula, or to create a graph or table to look up resistivity values. Vivaldi (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As a theorist, I'm pretty sure that the semiconductor empirical form has a pairing to organic tissue which acts if not as the typical semiconductor (which act as fermi-fluids) at least can have equivalent parameterization. Anyway, your estimation below is good enough for me. The point is, anyway, that the claims a clear has the same resistance as a dead person seem dubious from a basic physics standpoint. --ScienceApologist 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

please give your quantitative estimate of what the difference in resistance would be, due to temperature for a body at 98 F and 68 F or 30 F difference? For saline solution I figure that at 70degF the resitivity would be ~1.4 times the resistivity of the solution at 98.6degF. For a composite organic structure such as the human body, the change in resistity should be measured by experiment, rather than making thousands of assumptions. (resistivity would also be dependent on muscle tone, moisture content, contact resistence at the interface, percentage of metal ions in solution in the tissue, etc...) I think it would be a pointless exercise to guess at what the actual resistivities are. It is important to realize that in general, for most common substances, temperature and resistence are highly correlated. Vivaldi (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to reverse-engineer an e-meter here gets us nowhere for the article, because even if you do figure it out amongst yourselves, it's Original Research for the article. Let's find a reputable source that states what it is, and use it. wikipediatrix 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I cited the patent by LRH with the actual claims and diagrams of the device. Even he didn't say it measured GSR. There are also pictures and diagrams of the device that can be cited. I realize that a lot of this stuff on the talk page is original research, but there are verifiable sources for E-meters that explain what they do. And there is also information that explains the resistivity of the human body that can be cited, and there are even places where one can find working instructions on how to build a device that is identical in function to an E-meter that are published and citable. And I'm sure we can find lots of sources that explain that electricity tends to pass through the body in places with lots of salt-water and very few cell membranes to pass through (meaning the blood is a likely route of transport for electricity through the body, and the skin surface, generally is not). Really, all this is extraneous to the article and need not be mentioned there. I was just pointing out that calling an E-meter a GSR is not appropriate, because 1) it doesn't measure GSR, 2) it can't measure GSR (based on its design and construction), and 3) the man listed as the inventor of the current design never said it measured GSR. I see no reason to indicate that the E-meter is a GSR device. In fact, I'm surprised there is even a discussion. I thought it was so obvious that it was WP:Common Knowledge that a man holding onto two tin cans in opposite hand is having his body's resistence measured and not his "galvanic skin response". Vivaldi (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Its patent states it is a "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and certainly, any ohm meter is measuring the resistance of a human body if it places two leads anywhere on the skin. No matter what we call it, its action is some measure of resistance, something to do with the human body. What need to fine tune that it is measuring skin, or body, tempreture or what not, it is only interested in changes of resistance. Terryeo 05:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge? I wouldn't know an ohm from an ampere from a tesla from a picofarad. All I know is, there's lots of sites that call it a GSR device, and lots of sites that call it an ohmmeter. You sound like you know what you're talking about, and that's good enough for me, heh. But do take a look at the Volney Mathison article which will need an extensive rewrite, then. wikipediatrix 04:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I do have a large number of friends that are engineers and computer scientists, but by common knowledge, I meant that is something that is so easily verifiable, that a source isn't needed, like saying the word "idiot" comes after the name "Hubbard" if you were to put the two in alphabetical order -- or saying that 345+111=456. However you are probably correct that the discussion of resistence is technical and probably shouldn't be considered common knowledge. Anywho....there shouldn't be any problem in calling the darn thing a device that measures the resistence of the human body since that's what it does and thats what L. Ron Hubbard says it does. But do take a look at the Volney Mathison article which will need an extensive rewrite, then. The Volney Mathison article looks okay to me for the most part. Volney was a kook. He wrote about the supernatural effects of crystals. In any case, even if he was the most knowledgeable electrical engineer and psychologist ever, the article just says that he studied "galvanic skin response", which is probably a true statement. I don't think the Volney article claims that the e-meter actually measures GSP. Vivaldi (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vivaldi's statements to date on this matter. The e-meter measures the combined electrical resistance of the body as measured between the two electrodes in contact with the body. It does not measure galvanic skin response. I consider the issue closed. Any resistance in the skin would be combined into the combined total of all factors between the two electrodes. From the Dianetics viewpoint, mental energy pictures can influence this combined structure instantaneously and/or cumulatively. If a person only holds the cans without moving that will provide a constant level of resistance and the meter needle will be unmoving, indicating no changes. The dial that indicates total resistance will indicate the combined total resistance at that point in time. An ohm meter will confirm the resistance. I realize there are other discussions that could be held about what the total and what the changes might mean. Spirit of Man 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Reliable Sources, a guideline states in bold: "Personal websites . . . may never be used as secondary sources" In this article almost all of the secondary sources of information are held on a personal website. Xenu.net is presented as the personal property and the personal opinion of an individual. He answers to no one about the reliability of the information on that site. He could create any fiction he chose and present it as Dianetics. He could slightly mis-state Dianetics, for example he could say an E-Meter measures "galvanic skin response" and be perfectly within the guidelines he operates by, it being his opinion. He could take snippets from various audio tapes and combine them together to form an audio presentation which completely mis-states actuality. His opinion is his, his website is his and he is within his rights to have an opinion and to present an opinion to the public. However, Wikipedia standards do not allow us as editors to utilize any information on his site as a secondary source of information. It is in bold. It has a period after it. It does not say, "unless that information is accurate" and it does not say, "unless that information has been placed there by ChrisO (who has placed information there he says [15] ) and it does not say, "unless the information is a whole document". It says what it says, Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. Terryeo 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." are you having problems with? AndroidCat 18:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

AndroidCat, while you are of course correct, you are giving too much credence to Terryeo's preposterous argument. It's not an issue of flexible guidline vs. rigid policy--even the guideline says nothing to support Terryeo's claim. The material he's trying to disqualify is from credible third-party sources, not the musings of some kid with a blog. The guideline's concerns about a personal website or blog as a source are simply irrelevant to this issue, and not worthy of further discussion. Terryeo isn't stupid--he is deliberately aiming to waste our time and energy. BTfromLA 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To refuse to confront the actions of editors who both edit here and edit Xenu.net is to ignore the issue. That I state it and you ignore it does not help. ChrisO states that he contributes to Xenu.net here. He says so. Surely you see the difficulty? An editor might create the most rightous POV, place it on Xenu.net, then come here and quote it, cite it and present it as NPOV in Wikipedia articles. This is one of the dangers a site such as Xenu.net poses to Wikipedic presentations. We simply can not achieve good information and present it in a NPOV manner when an editor can edit Xenu.net to make any statement or misrepresent any Church document or partially present any Church document, and then that same editor come here and quote and cite that document. NPOV is simply not possible in such a situation. And that is exactly the situation as it stands now and has stood for months. Please don't ignore this obvious situation because you feel it is appropriate to ignore guidelines at your whim. Please don't emotionally react and ignore the situation just because I tell you it exists. Check out the link where ChrisO says he contributes to Xenu.net. Terryeo 05:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that xenu.com is credible. It has no fact checking and is a personal website that disclaims all of the responsibilities that one would seek in a credible source and expect of an uncreditable one. What responsible position does it hold? Its one fixed postition is the author's intention to destroy Dianetics and Scientology. In this one position it represents original research. Spirit of Man 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, are you actually trying to promote Terryeo's absurd argument? I'm not going to waste my time explaining why your argument is totally meritless--a clear and complete explanation of that already exists elsewhere on this page. After the amount of time you've spent familarizing yourself with Wikipedia, you should be ashamed of yourself for engaging in such disruptive monkey-business. BTfromLA 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I hear your hand-waving and your appeal to emotions and your personal attack on Terryeo, but I haven't seen the merits of the xenu site. Please point out the fact checking, the regard for law, the part where it acts responsibly, you know...the credibility. Why are you disavowing WP:RS on this issue? Spirit of Man 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not disavowing WP:RS, Spirit of Man, we are disavowing Terryeo's utterly ridiculous misinterpretation of it under which a source which would be completely acceptable under WP:RS somehow becomes unacceptable if a "personal website" mirrors the same information. If you have trouble grasping this, let me offer you an analogy to highlight the absurdity. Suppose you are on trial for a crime. You think you are likely to be found not guilty, because you were somewhere else at the time the crime was committed, and you have five witnesses who can positively state "Spirit of Man was at his house at the time the crime was committed." However, the prosecution then presents their own witness, lifetime criminal Larry the Liar who states, "Spirit of Man was at his house at the time the crime was committed." "Mr. Liar, weren't you in jail at the time that the crime was committed and Spirit of Man was purportedly in his house?" "Well... yes." "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there you have it! We cannot accept testimony from a witness who had no way of knowing the facts he's claiming to testify to! And since the defense's five witnesses all provided the very same testimony, the testimony of all five witnesses must be stricken from the record!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's surely true Xenu might have wonderful, exactly accurate copies of good quality documents. But right alongside it are personal opinions, contributions from Wikipedia Editors and who knows what else? Let's face it, if there is a divide of editors, the editors on "the other side" treat Xenu.net as if it were the word of god and utterly and completely disbelieve the refutability of any documentation the Church of Scientology publishes. Let me give you just one, specific example of the difficulty. The Fair Game article stood for a long time, stood because the documenation it relied on was present on Xenu.net, and presened as if it was current Church policy. The documents which have not been used in 40 years in the Church, which were trashed 40 years ago appear on Xenu.net as if they were presently in force in the Church. Xenu.net mis-represents some of its documenation, that made Fair Game completely inaccurate for along time. Then when I pointed out and quoted current Church documents, Feldspar didn't want to believe it. That article is still full of 40 year old trashed documentation because Xenu.net says it is so. Terryeo 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, first, I don't understand why you are answering for my question to BTfromLA. Second, I may not understand your issues well enough to understand your analogy. Thirdly, I understand xenu.net aka Clambake is a personal site as Terryeo says. I understand WP:RS is a guideline and personal sites are not allowed as Terryeo said. I don't see what is misrepresented, or what you feel is misrepresented. Is there anything misrepresented in what I have said so far? Spirit of Man 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think my analogy was perfectly clear, Spirit, but let's pretend that it wasn't. Let's focus on one specific example: Terryeo removed a paragraph with a citation to the Martin Gardner book Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science [16]. Why did he do this? Well, in his edit summaries, he claimed that it was because "xenu.net" was being used as a source. Well, clearly, Martin Gardner's book is the actual source. However, Terryeo is claiming that because the citation of the book contained a URL which leads to a page on xenu.net where one can read the relevant chapter of the book online -- Terryeo claims that this is all the evidence he needs to assume that whoever entered that relevant text from Gardner's book worked only from that version of the text, the chapter as it was posted on xenu.net. Even though Andreas Heldal-Lund could come to Wikipedia himself and transcribe the relevant material directly from Martin Gardner's book into the article, Terryeo is claiming that under his interpretation of the rules, the fact that Andreas Heldal-Lund transcribed from Gardner's book onto his website, and Terryeo's unproven assumption that all the material in the article which uses Gardner's book as a citation came solely from Heldal-Lund's transcription, means that Terryeo gets to remove all references to Gardner.

Unfortunately for Terryeo, his assumption was completely wrong. How do I know this? Because a month ago, I saw what I suspected was a transcription error, and to check it and if necessary correct it, I obtained a copy of the book myself, and checked the accuracy of all the material that came from the book. Therefore, the fact that a transcription was done by Heldal-Lund, and posted on Heldal-Lund's website, is completely irrelevant -- what is in the article came directly from the hard copy of the book as published by Dover in 1957. But Terryeo even ask where the transcription came from? NO HE DID NOT. He leapt directly and incorrectly to the conclusion that the existence of a transcription on a "personal website" meant that the material was only as reliable as that personal website -- without making any attempt to check his assumption that the material existing in the article had come from the transcription that existed on a "personal website". If he didn't bother to ask, that can only mean one thing: he thinks it doesn't matter. He thinks that he can push an absurd interpretation of the rules under which if someone like myself has ensured that all material quoted from the book is 100% letter-by-letter faithful to the book, and someone else has done a separate transcription of the material onto a "personal website", the existence of the first person doesn't matter.

For the record, I don't even think Terryeo is correct in interpreting the prohibition of "personal websites" as meaning the prohibition of material that came from sources such as Time and Scientific American or from highly notable figures such as Martin Gardner, but were accessed through transcriptions found on "personal websites". But by his actions Terryeo is trying to claim an absolutely ludicrous principle, that if it is possible that material from an absolutely usable source might have been accessed through a transcription found on a "personal website", it must be deemed as unreliable as if it were the opinion of the owner of a personal website without any evidence that that website's transcription was ever used. Does that make sense to you, Spirit of Man? Would you like it if you were on trial and the prosecution said "We can't rely on the testimony of this witness, because he's not reliable; therefore it's absolutely irrelevant that we do have the same testimony from reliable sources?" No? Well, then, what sense does it make for Terryeo to say "Oh, I choose to believe that Andreas Heldal-Lund is so unreliable you can't even rely on him to correctly transcribe from a Martin Gardner book -- therefore I'll remove all references to this Martin Gardner book even though I have no idea whether it came to this article via Heldal-Lund's transcription and didn't even bother to ask"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have quoted directly from the guideline. For the record, Fahrenheit451, in attempt to get the guideline modified, edited the guideline 27 times in 48 hours. For the Record, Wikipediatrix, in an effort to circumvent the guideline, posted to a main editor of the guideline, which discussion was taken to the WP:RS talk page where her attempt was replied to. For the Record, ChrisO has entered his two cents at WP:RS and a great deal of the stuff we have confronted in these articles has been discussed. The guideline stands. Further, Xenu.net is specifically being voted on by the arbitration committee as part of the arbitration I am enjoined into. The evidence about Xenu.net may be viewed here and the voting of the arbitrators on the issue of Xenu.net (Clambake.org) may be viewed here. So there is really no reason to get ruffled, the arbitration committee will eventually proclaim whether Xenu.net is a personal website or a website which may be used as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Only within the scope of the arbitration committee concerning you. AndroidCat 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With a personal website, some of its information may be wonderfully valid. Its hard work to transcribe a lot of information. Right next to the good information may be information which has been modified to suit the website's POV. If it was all good information, if it was of good repute, the website would attempt to present it as nothing but opinion. You explain some examples of good information, that some good information exits on Xenu isn't the reason that Personal Websites shouldn't be used. Terryeo 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo isn't even making any sense. "If it was all good information, if it was of good repute, the website would attempt to present it as nothing but opinion" -- what kind of messed-up logic comes out with that result?? Terryeo is simply getting desperate and arguing that even when he has no evidence whatsoever that a particular website was relied upon as a source, he can assume it to be so and remove anything he likes which is mirrored on that website as a consequence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Widely published information will be widely available. The TIME article is probably available, somehow. Narrowly published won't be so available. That's the basis of WP:V, mostly. Terryeo 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with anything? I'll repeat it for you, Terryeo -- you removed material that I personally verified was letter-to-letter accurate to the original acceptable source. You, without any attempt to determine whether the quoted material was accurate to that original acceptable source, removed all references to it because you incorrectly assumed that the transcription had come from xenu.net. Perhaps you should stop whining about the fact-checking on xenu.net when your own is so poor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As to fact checking on xenu.net. I saw Tom Cruise answer the "South Park" issue. The xenu material I just read is false. I don't see any fact checking on the site and I don't see any credibility yet. Spirit of Man 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Guideline WP:RS does not state, "unless mirroring good information" but states, "No personal websites may be used as secondary sources" What could be more plain and obvious? A person may go to a "personal website" and (and ChrisO says he does this) and contribute an article to it (perhaps even an article of his own creation) and then come here to Wikipedia and quote, cite and state that article as part of the NPOV which Wikipedia presents to the reader. Surely you all recognize that this can happen even if you refuse to recognize the other dangers of taking a personal opinion from a personal website and presenting it as valid, real information. Terryeo 04:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to word clear "source". The source is the person that is referred to on the left side of the citation, it's typically the author of the material. It is perfectly acceptable to have verifiable, reliable, and reputable source that isn't published on the internet. For these you often have to visit the building in your town called a "library". It is also perfectly acceptable for wikipedians to provide convenience or courtesy links to mirrored material that is published by others in other verifiable locations. In this example Behar and Time Magazine are the source that is verifiable and Xenu.net is just a handy means for people to see the material published by Time and Behar. It is very similar to providing a link in an external links section. The site isn't being used to source the material in the article, it's only being used to mirro material for conveninience to Wiki readers. Vivaldi (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What the guideline currently states is less than a week old and I'm not sure that it was discused in the Talk page first. But you knew that. AndroidCat 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline of that portion about secondary sources is about a year old in its form, last I read it 2 days ago. Terryeo 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

However, it is worth noting that since the issue was brought up, Fahrenheit451 edited the WP:RS guideline page many times. The obvious guess would be, he did it to cause an effect with this issue we are talking about. Terryeo 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The material which you state is from credible third party sources, but, alas, resides on a personal website is an issue. It is certainly an issue because that situation might be more common than the issue which we guard against, the issue that a personal website contains opinions which are non-Wikipedic in nature and should not be cited. However, the guideline reads, without exception, "No personal websites may be used as secondary sources" and here we have Xenu.net being used in nearly every article and used, frequently. That ChrisO has "contributed" some of that information is overlooked, thought he states that he does contribute to Xenu.net at this difference [17]and we all know he cites Xenu.net often. Terryeo 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several of Terryeo's time-wasting cycles of this type before. :) AndroidCat 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline exists. It rests on a policy, WP:V which in turn rests on the senior, non-negotiable policy, WP:NPOV. At present, and for the last year or so, a consensus of editors has been in agreement that personal websites may not be cited as secondary sources of information in Wikipedia articles. I understand that several editors here, in these articles, completely disagree with that concensus. What I am doing? I am making editors aware of this disparity of viewpoint. Editors in these articles do not agree with the broad concensus of editors which created and maintain WP:RS. Okay, good, fine. No problem. The situation begs some resolution, however. Terryeo 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo. Almost all of us agree with the guideline at WP:RS, and we also understant that it is merely a guideline and that exceptions SHOULD be made if necessary to make the article even better. #1) We disagree with your assessment of Xenu.net as a "personal website" as that term is used in the guideline #2) We have consensus to keep Xenu.net as a reference in spite of the guideline even if we would accept your assertion that it is a "personal website". The guidelines are not hard and fast -- exceptions can and should be made when it is appropriate. We let consensus decide how this plays out. You cannot justify your anti-consensus and disruptive edits with your own biased view of what a guideline is and how it should be applied. We as editors decide how to apply the guidelines and when to make exceptions when necessary. Vivaldi (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, strong claims require strong citations, I can't think of a citation that has weaker credentials, less verifiability than xenu.com. xenu.com represents an intention to destroy Dianetics and Scientology. How do you relate this to the Wiki view that all Wiki articles have a NPOV? Spirit of Man 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know the name the site? And are you saying that all the CoS sites are NPOV? AndroidCat 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you by not saying the exact domain name you expected for xenu.net. I really haven't been to the sight much. Spirit of Man 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

CoS sites are special interest sites. Well, most websites are some kind of special interest. Terryeo 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is this. Scientology sites are supported by some quantity of parishoners whom contribute money. It may not be a wealthy organization but has purchased millions of dollars worth of property for outright cash. It stands behind its sites. It is special interest, no doubt of that. Likewise, Xenu.net is special interest. However, Xenu.net is not willing to be public, even ChrisO says that many people contribute to it but you don't actually find those people where you can talk to them or a news reporter can interview them. They are more hidden, secreted and publish with a special interest. That particular personal website says that everything on it is the opinion of one individual and only expersses his opinion. It does not say, "The documents here are valid" It does not say, "The audio lectures on here are the word of Hubbard" it does not validate any of its information in any manner except to say, "This is one man's opinion". That is its only statement about how valid the information it presents, is. Terryeo 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be the same Church of Scientology which has unpersonned several people on different occasions by abruptly removing any reference of them from its websites and even editing them out of pictures? The same one that frequently blocks the Wayback Machine from archiving their sites so that there is no neutral 3rd party public archive of changes? Also, I didn't know that the quantity of members had any say in how the centrally controlled web sites are run. Groups like INCOMM seem to be under firm control from the top. AndroidCat 06:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno AndroidCat, trying to talk about quality of secondary sources right now. Talk with you, anything I know, on my user page though. Terryeo 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that, not frequenting the newsgroups you do, AndroidCat, I miss out on all the hot rumors and news. <sigh> Its such a bummer, but thank god you can keep us editors who don't, up to date. No, the Church Sites I mention, I mention them because the issue has to do with the quality of information we present here, but not what we present in newsgroups. The issue arrises, an editor could create and post anything onto a personal website ( Like ChrisO says he "contributes" sometimes to Xenu.net ) and then come here and quote and cite the contribution to Xenu which that editor just created. I hope you see how this would prevent an article from presenting an NPOV to a Wikipedia reader. Terryeo 07:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you visited the RTC.org page lately? Do you know where Mark Rathbun or Warren McShane have gone? Why have these top executives for the Church of Scientology been nearly erased from existence from your church? Rathbun was the #2 guy behind Miscavige and has been a top executive for over 30 years in CoS. Rathbun used to be credited on the Scientology sites for getting the IRS tax exemption to go through after he met with the IRS. Now he's just disappeared and not a single Scientologist will even acknowledge that he used to exist at all. What did they do, throw him in the lake at Gold Base or what? Vivaldi (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes go to that site. But I have never met or talked to or about either of those people. It is a large organization, they choose their executives and move people around as they wish to. The discussion about personal webpages revolves around quality of information, okay. Reliable quality of information. Terryeo 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Who chooses at the Church of Scientology to fire the 2nd in command of the organization that owns the copyrights to everything related to Scientology? Is this a decision that David Miscavige makes on his own whim, or does he require the approval of some Board of Directors (as most organizations would)? When most large organizations lose their top executives they generally will acknowledge it and even provide information to the press about them. Heck, most churches will even print notices when the church secretary retires after a 25 year career. Now, Mark Rathbun used to be listed as a powerful and influential leader of the Church of Scientology and he was specifically credited for his efforts to get the IRS tax-exemption -- and he just disappeared -- without a trace, despite a 30-year history of service recorded by the church (which has recently been deleted, along with the pictures of Rathbun). Large organizations generally tend to explain to their members why their top executives have left. What do you think would happen if Dick Cheney or Steve Ballmer or Desmond TuTu just disappeared one day? Do you think the Catholic Church would burn all of TuTu's works? Do you think that the White House press secretary would get away with saying "Dick Cheney? Never heard of him...next question". Vivaldi (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Who chooses at the Church of Scientology to fire the 2nd in command" That would be done by a Committe of Evidence. The type of handling your are calling "unpersonning" would be specified in the Findings of the Committee of Evidence. Why do you think such people were "fired?" and didn't just accept a special assignment requiring that handling? Spirit of Man 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I would say if I did. Nor do I understand your concern about that.Terryeo 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned, because the Church of Scientology seems to be run more like the criminal organization like the mafia or Al-Qaeda, then like a reputable business or a reputable church. I want to know why a large international organization has made its top executive an unperson. I want to know if they've dumped his body in the lake at Gold Base or if they sent him off to the island of Alba. I care, because I care about the human rights of people and I'm very afraid that the Church of Scientology has done away with Rathbun and McShane, "quietly and without sorrow" (as Hubbard instructed). Large organizations normally don't just make their top executives just disappear into thin air and then toss all their paperwork into the shredder. It's just not done. Typically the members of the organization, the employees of the organization, and interested others are informed when the 2nd in command of a group has been fired, demoted, if they resigned, if they were killed, if they killed themself, or if they ran away to Spain, or whatever else. Scientology is the only religious group I have EVER heard of in my life that routinely makes their top executives disappear and then pretends that they never worked there and then refuses to answer any questions about why they are gone. I think the disappearance of Rathbun and McShane are very telling about how the criminal cult of Scientology operates. I am extremely worried about their safety and well-being. Note: You might also check what happened to Linda Simmons-Hight, because she was a former CoS spokesperson for many years and recently she was also made an unperson and her entire history of recorded work for Scientology has been deleted on the internet pages owned by Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about personal webpages revolves around quality of information, okay. Reliable quality of information. -- Terryeo If you read WP:RS, then it appears that web-pages owned by religious groups are also banned from use. Are you going to start applying the guideline and removing Scientology.org links too? Also, if you want to talk about quality, reliability, or reputation of Xenu.net, then please cite a single example where Xenu.net has not reliably duplicated the source materials that it cites frequently. Part of judging a site's reliability is the frequent use of sources to back up its claims. Xenu.net has a distinguished 10 year history of reliably presenting information about Scientology and providing references for readers to verify the information is correct. Vivaldi (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If a consensus of editors agreed no Scientology Webpage be used in any Scientology article, that would be okay with me. With Xenu.net, the rubber meets the road with the same difficulty we have here. It is difficult to state information so the information which is significant is presented, the information which is trival is less emphicised. They have the same problem we have, hard to understand these things, then hard to communicate them. Terryeo 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Of course you'd like to see the famously documented court trials that revealed the secrets of OT3 to be removed from Wikipedia as well. You'd prefer that we just let David Miscavige put up a big banner ad here that says, "Please visit scientology.org or your local CoS church for more information." Xenu.net is very reputatable and it has a long history of providing accurate, verifiable, reliable information. Xenu.net cites all its sources with plenty of detail and in 10 years, I've never even heard one person claim that Xenu.net has made a single error (or misduplication) of any outside source for which they provide convenience links to. This means that Xenu.net is a reliable source. Vivaldi (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, strong claims require strong citations, I can't think of a citation that has weaker credentials, less verifiability than xenu.com. xenu.com represents an intention to destroy Dianetics and Scientology. How do you relate this to the Wiki view that all Wiki articles have a NPOV? Spirit of Man 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Your opinion about xenu.NET is your opinion. It is not a consensus viewpoint. Xenu.net continues to provide tons of reliable and verifiable information, including the Time Magazine article by Richard Behar. Have you read it? It's called, "SCIENTOLOGY: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power: Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as a religion but really is a ruthless global scam - and aiming for the mainstream. by Richard Behar - Time Magazine May 6, 1991 - Cover Story. It's a good article. It was also distributed by Readers Digest to tens of millions of people worldwide. Scientology sued him and lost. Now you can read the article on Xenu.net because it provides a convenience link to it. And you can go down to your local library and verify that the exact same words appear in the original article in Time. Then you come back here and tell us how Andreas introduced his own bias in the article. Then you tell us why he isn't verifiable and reliable. Vivaldi (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, if you have Time Publishing and Readers Digest to cite for your example article, why insist on a personal website like xenu.net as a secondary source? If your point is that it is a convienence site, as you assert here, then its use as an external link seems to fit. Or you could link to it more circuitously as some of the links in the article do. I think the Time position relative to Dianetics is well known over a period of more than 50 years. Your article is a prime example. You quote me, "xenu.com represents an intention to destroy Dianetics...." Isn't this true, and isn't this true for Behar and isn't this true for Behar in that article? Isn't it true for you? Now, how does this relate to the issue of NPOV on Wiki? There isn't much balancing neutrality in it is there? Are you being neutral? No, I don't think so. Are you appealing to intense emotions rather than reason? I think so. I believe you have no balancing use or knowledge of Dianetics to balance the strongly emotional texts you read at xenu.com. Well, that is your point of view. But if that is your point of view with no balancing knowledge then you could not possibly detect facts that were not true could you? You have no judgement on the subject of Dianetics. Isn't this true? Antaeus says that Hubbard is evil. Well, that is his opinion as well. But does he have any balancing knowledge or experience in Dianetics? I don't think so. He self admittedly has no recall or belief in man as an immortal spiritual being. So if there were an ancient time that could damage people now, he would be oblivious, right? In the section on "the meter is used to treat" he has reverted an edit without discussion saying Dianeticists, auditors use the meter to treat conditions. After three requests to discuss here he still can not even confront the issue enough to discuss it, he just avoids it. I expect you know the truth, that the meter only measures resistance. It treats nothing. That is because you have some balancing experience and knowledge so you can have judgement on the issue of e-meters. Except for this, you haven't corrected the article either? Why not Vivaldi? I believe it is because you know it is a falsehood, that contributes to the intention to destroy.... so you can't take responsibility for what you do know and fix it. So that is not neutral consensus is it? Now it is my view that you do not have sufficient knowledge of Dianetics to place the Behar article you cited for me, in persepetive. You have asked me to read it, isn't this true? Why? I think you want me to agree with you. What knowledge and experience do I have that could allow me to read it and arrive at a different conclusion than you? We seem to agree on meters. Why not on Dianetics? Why not on your article? Spirit of Man 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Spirit of Man's words on this issue: "We have differing points of view. My point of view must be the correct one, as proven by me having more knowledge and experience than you. Why do I say I have more knowledge and experience than you? Well, obviously, that's proven by the fact that I hold the correct point of view and you hold the wrong one." -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I refer you to WP:NPA. Spirit of Man 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man writes, "Vivaldi, if you have Time Publishing and Readers Digest to cite for your example article, why insist on a personal website like xenu.net as a secondary source?". My response: I'm not using xenu.net as a source. I'm using Time and/or Reader's Digest as the source and xenu.net as a means to provide an external link for courtesy or convenience. External links not used as sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man writes, You quote me, "xenu.com represents an intention to destroy Dianetics...." Isn't this true, and isn't this true for Behar and isn't this true for Behar in that article? Isn't it true for you?. Xenu.com represents an intention to expose and hopefully end the abuses of the Church of Scientology. I don't believe that Andreas has any intentions to destroy Scientology and in fact, he has specifically stated that he does not wish to do so. I cannot comment on Behar's motivations for exposing the scam and abuses that perpetuate throughout the criminal cult of Scientology, but I am assuming good faith on his part, and I believe that he is trying to expose the Church of Scientology's numerous abuses in order to help prevent further abuses from occuring. As far as myself. I do not wish "to destroy" Dianetics. I merely wish to provide people with as much accurate information as can be found about it so that they can make informed decisions on whether to practice it. If indeed, it can be shown through controlled studies that Dianetics is indeed a useful or beneficial tool in treating or curing (or helping or waxing floors or whatever other claims that are made to sell it) then I would certainly want to shout it from the rooftops how wonderful it is. Currently, this evidence doesn't exist, and furthermore, it appears as though it isn't forthcoming since there isn't even a single Scientologist that is willing to have Dianetics tested by an independent body in a controlled environment. Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man writes, Dianeticists, auditors use the meter to treat conditions. After three requests to discuss here he still can not even confront the issue enough to discuss it, he just avoids it.. My response: This is because we have Scientologists, in writing and on videotape, suggesting that the e-meter can help people get rid of arthritis and many other conditions. The only reason the Church of Scientology doesn't still publicly proclaim the curative abilities of the e-meter is because the U.S. government specifically told them that doing so was against the law. I am quite confident, as is the FDA, that the e-meter cannot be used to diagnose, cure, or treat any disease. I know what it does, but Scientologists and Dianeticists often and frequently proclaim that the e-meter has helped them cure physical ailments. I know they are wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report that many, if not most, Scientologists believe that the e-meter and Dianetics really does cure things like arthritis. Hubbard even discussed how Dianetics improved eyesight and that people could stop going to the eye doctor to get glasses after they followed it! Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man writes, Now it is my view that you do not have sufficient knowledge of Dianetics to place the Behar article you cited for me, in persepetive. My response: It is my view that you do not have sufficient knowledge of Dianetics. I think I have a greater understanding of Dianetics than you probably ever will have. But your knowledge of the subject and my knowledge of the subject aren't very relevant. We aren't here to evaluate each other's knowledge. It isn't about us personally. Garner consensus for your edits. Provide reputable and reliable and verifiable sources for any claims you make. Write well. Have fun! Vivaldi (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, no one is argueing with you about the specifics that you state exist. The quality of information, not the content of information is the subject being addressed. For example, the TIME article. Probably it is present on the Xenu servers exactly as TIME presented it, probably. But there is no quality control, no claim by Xenu.net that the information is accurate, as TIME published it. No one makes any claim about the athenticity of the TIME article, the site states it is "opinion" and in that manner the site can edit the TIME article if they want to, or not if they don't want to. And that is true for every bit of information on the site. Terryeo 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Every site can be edited in a biased manner by the people that own the site. Rupert Murdoch can edit any story that Fox News publishes and insert his own biased views into them if he wants. However, sites (or other sources) become reputable and reliable when they demonstrate a long history of providing accurate information that is verifiable. Xenu.net is such a site. The accuracy of the articles that it presents as convenience links to material published elsewhere has not been disputed by anyone that I have seen. You are trying to impugn the integrity and reputation of Xenu.net by stating that Andreas could be manipulating the data on his site, but thus far you have not provided even one single shred of evidence that demonstrates that Xenu.net has ever manipulated the information that comes from other people. Xenu.net has been around now for 10 years, and it has developed a reputation for being a reliable, accurate, and verifiable resource for many things about Scientology. That is why it will continue to be used here by many editors. Vivaldi (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. You have suggested that my discussion of Xenu.net is improper, that its disclaimer is an outright lie, that it contains real, validated, quality information of the highest regard and the to question such information is an attempt to impugn the integrity and reputation of Xenu.net.  :) You also tell me that "Xenu.net has never manipulated the information that comes from other people". That's an interesting point. It underscores a main problem. An editor from Wikipedia might post an unmanipulated information on Xenu.net and then quote and cite it on Wikipedia. Surely you see that possible connection is not good for wikipedia? The only "fact checking" would be the ethics of the editor ! Terryeo 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

that its disclaimer is an outright lie -- You are not doing a very good job at "reduplication", Terryeo. I suggested no such thing. I have stated that your interpretation of the statement you read is flawed. And that is something you can easily check by visiting numerous sites on the internet or your own local library. Obviously Andreas didn't write the article by Behar called Scientology: The Cult of Greed and Power that was published in Time Magazine and that is hosted on Xenu.net -- so your perverted interpretation of the disclaimer is obviously false. Andreas doesn't claim to have written the Behar article, nor does he claim to have written many of the other articles on his site. He provides the source locations for the original materials for everything on his pages. He just acknowledges that he personally owns the site and he is responsible for the content that is there, meaning that ultimately he is the one that owns the domain name and pays for the hosting of the material and if anybody has any complaints, comments, or questions about the material on his site, then they should direct them to the owner -- who is Andreas. Vivaldi (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor from Wikipedia might post an unmanipulated information on Xenu.net and then quote and cite it on Wikipedia.. And if pigs would sprout wings, perhaps they could fly! This exact same thing could happen if the editor to Wikipedia were Rupert Murdoch, or the editor of the Washington Post, or a reporter for Newsweek. Your entire argument is flawed. You can easily check to see that the convenience link that is provided by Xenu.net is correct by visiting your local library or by finding the actual sources that are cited yourself (or checking various other online sources if you have access to Lexus/Nexis for example). Xenu.net is a reputable and reliable source for reporting such information because it has been in operation for 10 years and has consistently provided accurate, reliable, and well-documented research. Xenu.net is a reliable resource. Again, you have no evidence that demonstrates that Xenu.net has ever once manipulated or changed the words that are attributed to other people. So as editors, we can either accept your view that is based on no evidence, that Xenu.net is untrustworthy, or we can look at their entire 10 year history of reporting information and notice that they have not once ever been accused of altering the materials they attribute to others. Terryeo, you should learn something from Andreas in this regard. You need to be honest and accurately quote what others have clearly stated. Then perhaps we wouldn't have to witness your constant disruptive editing and your frequently obtuse discussion points. Vivaldi (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks, people (this is not aimed at one particular person). I've nominated this article as a Good Article. It seems very well done to me. My only reservation about it - though whoever reviews it may have others - is how stable it can be when I see debate going on expressed in very acrimonious language. Metamagician3000 23:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to expose the wholesale hypocrisy on Terryeo and Spirit of Man's part, WP:RS also states that "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites [...] should never be used as sources for Wikipedia[...]" and that "[...]religious sources should be treated with caution[...]". In other words, anything official from the CoS is not a good secondary source. --Davidstrauss 22:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Davidstrauss, I want to notice you have said that anything official from the CoS is not a good secondary source. Did you mean to disperse the unresolved discussion? We are speaking of the CoS as a primary source of information for these Dianetics and Scientology articles. No one but you has mentioned the Church of Scientology as a secondary source. Did you mean to bring up an independant discussion, or to contribute to this one? This one revovles around Secondary sources of information in these articles about Dianetics and Scientology, where the Church of Scientology is used as a primary source of information. I believe you, or any editor, would find this link enlightening. [18] It is a recent history of the guideline this section of discussion is about. Since I brought the question up, Fahrenheit451 has attempted to modify that guideline many, many times in many, many ways. He might have been successful if I had not alerted an experienced admin. Interestingly enough, that admin was the subject of a crude, personal wikipedia attack just after Fahrenheit451 stated a racial slur on her discussion page. Can we get it together, people? Can we produce good articles ?Terryeo 02:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right, there's no hypocrisy. In an article about "Theodore Roseveldt" his own auto-biography would be a primary source. In an article about "Scientology", Scientology's books would be a primary source but not a secondary source. A secondary source would be other's opinions. Ideally, Scholars and Ministers of various faiths, men schooled and experienced in the manifestatation of faith in government, in neighborhood programs, and so one would state their public opinions of Scientology. These would be good, encyclopedic sorts of secondary sources. A less good quality secondary source would be expose' newspaper articles which rouse the public interest to sell newspapers such as; "Scientologist bites his dog" or "Scientologist John Traumain and his wife seek divorce", etc. Any publication which states real facts which could be verified by court records, police reports, etc would be reasonable secondary sources. Finally and almost at the bottom of the secondary source barrel would be opinions. John Smith publishes his "opinion" on his webpage in which he rants about Scientology and then that gets used as a secondary source. At the bottom of the secondary source barrel would be newsgroups which are often nothing more than rumor. We would like to present actual, valid information in these articles and the quality of information is what WP:RS concerns itself with. There is the additional difficulty with personal websites that a person might present any information one day and it be gone the next, or he might present it one day, cite it on Wikipedia that day and modify it the next day. Opinions answer to no one, everyone has one. Terryeo 01:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

This whole xenu.net as a source thing is out of control. The argument against using it rests on 2 things, as far as I can tell: 1) The interpretation of WP:RS as meaning that xenu.net can't be used as a source and 2) The idea that we must always follow the letter of the rules of WP:RS. Neither one of these things are true, in the opinion of the vast majority of editors here. Terryeo, Spirit of Man- if you can't see what the rest of us are saying by now, it seems unlikely that you ever will. How about just dropping it? I don't know if you're being deliberately dense in an attempt to hijack the talk page and fill it with useless arguing, or whether you really can't understand what's been explained to you many times in plain English, but the effect is disruptive and unhelpful in either case. When it comes down to it, an argument about what's best for our content wins every time over an argument about the letter of the rules. If you must continue discussing this, could you please find some place other than this talk page for it? Friday (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday.... this has been their technique for several months now. It'll be some other grasping-at-straws point of contention next week. I think they must believe that if they talk these issues to death and keep filibustering, all the other editors will give up and go away. (I'm fortunate enough to have a job that mostly consists of sitting at my desk surfing the web bored, so there's not much chance of me giving up in the foreseeable.) wikipediatrix 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's more than that. It also rests upon the 3) of "any time there is a possibility that the accuracy of xenu.net's transcription of another source is being relied upon, that alone requires all removal of anything that might have come from xenu.net, even when no attempt has been made to determine whether it is anything more than a possibility, or when the possibility has already been shown false." Terryeo removed information that originally came from Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science because the reference contained a link to xenu.net. Incredibly, he is still claiming he had a right to do so after I've told him that a month ago I sat down with a hard copy of the book and made sure there were no transcription errors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct on all counts, Friday. May I suggest that those editors who have concluded that any further argument along these lines by Terryeo or Spirit of Man is indeed a disruptive and unhelpful distraction from the work of editing these articles simply refuse to respond to them on the article talk pages? BTfromLA 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I disregard 90 percent of the troublemakers' posts as it is. wikipediatrix 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. Terryeo is here to handle the suppressive persons here at Wikipedia who are spreading entheta and misinformation about Scientology (meaning, anything that does not come from Source -- i.e. LRH). He is here to handle us in any way possible. That was why AI was here, that is why Terryeo is here, and that is why Terryeo's successor will be here as well. Until the entheta at Wikipedia is handled, Scientology is going to continue sending in shills like Terryeo to waste our time and argue with us, in the hope that he finally stumbles across a way to run us out of Wikipedia and allow a Scientology-approved article to be listed here. --Modemac 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you Modemac, I've eaten out of more garbage cans than you have and probably spent more time in the U.S. Military than you have, you would have too look far to find a person less a part of "the establishment" than myself. Terryeo 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, I appreciate that you are willing to evaluate my motives and I would be happy to discuss them with you on my user page. I won't simply say that you are wrong, but would instead invite that we talk about such in an appropriate area. I have replied several times to questions in the area and am perfectly willing to replie to yours. However, this is the Dianetics Talk page, would you please keep your comments to the subject? And about the subject, here is what is happening in this discussion of WP:RS and whether Xenu.net / Clambake.org is a source which may be used in these articles. Fahrenheit451 and Vivaldi have both gotten involved in the editing of that guideline and the discussions on its discussion page. It begins to look like "Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources" means exactly what its words state.TerryeoTerryeo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're twisting that a bit. You still have to show that xenu.net qualifies as a personal web site. So far, it's not. AndroidCat 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is out of my control now, AndroidCat. The arbitration committee is directly voting on Xenu.net here and my personal opinion no longer matters in the issue. At last ! The core reason which is driving these difficulties is being confronted by the authorities who define Wikipedia editing. Terryeo 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside of Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation staff there are no "authorities who define Wikipedia editing". Wikipedia policy is shaped by consensus and reasonable debate, not by appeals to authority or Wikilawyering. Taking the Xenu.net matter to an arbitration case which concerns personal conduct only wastes the time of other contributors and arbcom members. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly beginning to suspect that Terryeo wants to waste people's time, as a deliberate tactic. Check out [19] and look for "Dev-T" in para 6. I suggest that we simply ignore him in future. -- ChrisO 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I make pretty clear statements of my intent. The issue of citing personal websites as secondary sources has existed for a very long time. Some editors are strongly reactional to the issue. Fahrenheit451 made 27 edits of WP:RS in 2 days, attempting to get Xenu.net acceptable as a secondary source. Even now, ChrisO has is active on that buideline's discussion page. Yet all of this could have been handled months ago, handled by discussion page chat. Nothing to it, the issue is going to come forth somehow. Editors could have talked about it without resorting to Requests for Comment, Requests for Arbitration, without modifying policies. I tried to talk about it. I attempted to establish a basis that we could all agree to edit on. There was never any need to involve editors other than ourselves. But no one wanted to confront the issue. Everyone wanted to use Xenu.net as the holy bible or something, I don't know. Even now a couple of you are suggesting the way to handle it is to ignore it. It is an issue people, not a pimple. Whether I am here reminding people of the issue or not, the standards which Wikipedia uses will be much the same. Why not talk about it? Terryeo 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo writes, It is out of my control now, AndroidCat. The arbitration committee is directly voting on Xenu.net. You will discover that #1) ArbCom will never make a ruling that says that we cannot use Xenu.net as a link in external links or as a host for convenience links that are properly sourced. #2) ArbCom is debating your personal conduct, ArbCom doesn't author guidelines or policies. They have the authority to banish you if they determine that you are a nuisance, but they don't have the power to universally control the editing of Wikipedia or to determine policies. Vivaldi (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, ummm, thank you for your prediction, okay? BTW, the arbitration committee's vote which is still in process is here and the link where Vivaldi is currently attempting to get Xenu.net accepted as a secondary source of information in Scientology articles (failing) is here. Just to keep the heresay out of it, you understand. Terryeo 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:Well, ummm, thank you for your prediction, okay? It isn't just a prediction. It is a fact. There is no chance of an alternative outcome. It would be like saying, "Terryeo will not stop the Earth from rotating around the sun tomorrow". It passes beyond "prediction" to the nth degree. and the link where Vivaldi is currently attempting to get Xenu.net accepted as a secondary source of information in Scientology articles (failing) is... And again you are "misduplicating" me (to use your language). I was discussing the issue of Xenu.net as a "personal website" and trying to get it cleared up exactly what that means. While it is true that some editors on the talk page of WP:RS have weighed in that Xenu.net meets their definition of personal website, I still haven't received the information that makes it abundently clear on how to determine in general if a website is personal or not. Almost all webpages have particular authors that have the ability to personally control the content on the pages. Even huge companies have CEOs that can universally control the content on their pages, with no fact checking or editorial oversight by anyone else. And again WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy. It is created by consensus of editors, but we are not bound to follow it. Exceptions to guidelines CAN BE MADE (read about it at WP:POL). Also, the talk page of WP:RS holds no weight at all. It is used for editors to help try to figure out how to make WP:RS a better article and to point out how the current guideline is either wrong (by contradicting policy) or how it needs clarification. Just because one editor on the talk page of WP:RS says something that agrees with you, doesn't mean that person's opinion holds any weight. We aren't bound to agree with SlimVirgin's proclamations on the talk page of WP:RS (and even if she were to codify her talk page comments into WP:RS itself, we wouldn't be bound to follow the guideline, because guidelines HAVE EXCEPTIONS).

I guess Vivaldi created that. Since I'm following the discussion on the WP:RS page, I don't feel it appropriate to talk about here. Those exact issues are presented there. Terryeo 07:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus's new Introduction

Thanks for correcting the misinformation about the meter "treating" something. Maybe sometime we can talk about Dianetics addressing the human spirit and what the spirit does. Spirit of Man 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could. If we do I hope we'd also discuss what falsifiability is and why it's absolutely crucial for separating truth from error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you say what is on your mind re your "falsifiability" issue? Spirit of Man 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Anyone have any objection to removing the second paragragh, that has three citations to a Stehpen A. Kent personal website that presents his own paper? I take this as personal research. The content of the paragraph also disagrees with the citation. The Astounding article was addressed to a 50,000 member sci fi magazine market and not the general public. DMSMH was addressed to the general public and is widely recognized as Book One representing the first broad public release of Dianetics. The paragragh also introduces "Norns" which is an obscure synonym for engram and is not needed in the article at all. Spirit of Man 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)\

I object. Professor Kent did substantial research into Scientology to produce his paper, which has been cited in court cases and is recognized as an authoritative source of information about Scientology. It is a critical inquiry, but that does not negate its value. (Furthermore, Terryeo has been spanked for continually disrupting these articles, and his ludicrous "personal pages" argument has also been struck down.) --Modemac 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm "spanked?" Don't you believe it Modemac, my lawn needed mowing anyway, my 400 foot driveway needed some attention, my animal pens were begging for some paint. Lol, "spanked", how's your personal wiki going, Modemac? Terryeo 00:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can find another place for the citation, but what value do you see to "Norns" in the Dianetics article? If you wish to cite "Norns", then why not just cite the "Astounding Science Fiction" article it is from, which I believe is already cited. His paper says the Astounding article was adressed to the sci fi market, not the general public. Why include the misrepresentation in the edit? The next paragraph is a better second paragraph with minor work to revert it to where it was at one time. I think it should be deleted. Put your citation where it makes sense for you. Spirit of Man 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, "original research" is defined as "material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." If you were to read the page in question for yourself, you'd see immediately that it was published by a reputable source (Religious Studies and Theology 18 No. 2 (December 1999): 97-126) and presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Why, exactly, are you getting confused between the categories of "all research" and "original research"? You may wish to avoid A=A=A=A=A thinking of this nature. Please acknowledge that you now understand your error, as otherwise it will definitely create the impression that you know the falseness of your argument but are trying to push it through anyways. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, you are correct. I was not familiar with "Religious Studies and Thelogy" as a reputable publisher or Journal, I thought it was Kent's own series of papers, written by himself on his own website. I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing that part to my attention. I have no particular feelings on this OR issue. Why are you so hot about it here? I had already moved on past it with my comment to Modemec. I'm not strenuously pushing anything, I asked a question before editing? Why do you require a special aknowledgement where others have moved on past? You are taking up an issue aleady abandoned and ignoring the issues still in play. Why is the idea of "Norns" so valuable it should be in the second paragraph because of the citation you defend? Because Kent said it? LOL You understand it was used from April to May of 1950 only, in a magazine article only? What do you understand A=A=A thinking to mean? Is it intended as an insult? Spirit of Man 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you falsely asserting that I placed a particular value on keeping the reference to "Norns" in the second paragraph when, as anyone can read for themselves, I said nothing about it? As I already stated, the issue I was addressing was your mistaken description of exactly the sort of source we should be referencing for our articles as "original research," perhaps under some confused idea that everything is now "original research" if it exists on the Web. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Norns" is the only thing the citations in the paragraph apply to. The first sentence is false, out of place in the article and isn't even in the citation. The third sentence, does not belong in the Introduction. I asked if anyone objected to removing it. I understand you objected to removing the paragraph based on the citation for "Norns", which is unimportant, thus placing an undue weight on the value of that. I understand "norns" is now included in a sub-article, engram I think. I have no wish to fight you, Antaeus or defend against your attitude here. Over and out! Spirit of Man 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SpiritofMan about the inclusion of "norns" (or for that matter, "comanomes") in the introduction. Those early names that Hubbard used before settling on "engrams" may be of sufficient interest to merit inclusion in a subsection on the history and development of Dianetics, but they aren't the sort of key points that belong in a concise introductory overvue. BTfromLA 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too! It doesn't seem to be significant to this Dianetics article. It could be moved to Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science as "Differences between Astounding article and book publication". AndroidCat 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites being used as secondary sources

The first three links in this article, early in this article all point to the solitarytrees site. The only information the site offers up about itself appears to be that it is created by and claims its copyright to be: © 1998-2006 Ted Mayett and Keshet. Almost all of its information is advocacy against Scientology. It manages to recognize that Dianetics and Scientology have copyrighted their material, but that's as far as it goes with accuracy, fact checking and proposing that its information is reliable and presented as the authors of its information intended it to be presented. It is a personal website. As such it can not be used within an article to present information which it contains, and then cited as the source of that information. A personal website, however, might be included in a section titled "exterior links" or "further sites of interest" or "further reading". Terryeo 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article linked on the solitarytrees.net website is, as far as I can tell, an academic piece published by a reputable expert in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the same issue that's come up in your arbitration - I can see no good reason to delete the reference. Though having said that, I don't think your opinion is particularly relevant considering that it's just part of your ongoing POV campaign. -- ChrisO 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the information actually on a secondary website, whether it is the constitution or a created fantesy is less important than the insurance that the information is on the site as it was created. Personal websites don't have the quality of document checking, fact checking and even spelling checking that other sorts of websites which are not personal websites do. Speaking of 'Point of View, are you are or you not "Chris Owen", the individual who has 144 articles on Xenu.net, who told me that "many people contribute to Xenu.net, including myself" on my page and who replied to my statement to Chris Owen as if you were he? That individual, Chris Owen has a known POV, he is dedicated to a particular POV which is not skeptical, is not neutral but is throughly anti-scientology, anti-diantecis, and from reading some of his articles on Xenu.net (where you contribute) are so filled with venom and hatred that his dog probably has hundreds of kick marks. Terryeo 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusing a fellow editor of being an animal abuser, even jokingly, is a disgusting new low even for you, Terryeo. wikipediatrix 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"so filled with venom and hatred that his dog probably has hundreds of kick marks." Tsk tsk, Terryeo, we thought you were more able than that. Here's a concept that you might be able to understand: on our own Web sites we have our own POV. On Wikipedia we follow NPOV. --Modemac 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, do they support ChrisO being Chris Owen ? Chris Owen who's neutrual point of view has been broadly published on Xenu.net, ChrisO whose declaration that he contributes to Xenu.net was warned by Modemac ? Is that what you are saying, Wikipediatrix and Modemac? Are you suggesting that ChrisO is unwilling to respond and so then, you are responding for him?Terryeo 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, the ArbCom has already voted to put you on personal attack parole - don't push it. Everyone else, I suggest we ignore his trolling - it's not getting anyone anywhere. -- ChrisO 20:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Though it doesn't pertain to the article and I wouldn't normally mention it, their work is here and the case has not closed yet. An interesting aspect that has emerged is about Xenu.net which they have made some progress on, but are not yet finished with. :) So you are unwilling to respond to my question then ChrisO ? And invite that editors simply "ignore" me, is that what you mean to communicate ? Terryeo 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't normally mention it. Really. So this linking to Terryeo's Heated Battle Page of the Day thing of yours is just an extended period of abnormal behaviour? Tenebrous 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have invited a personal reply. You have suggested 'abnormal behavior', some editors would view that as a personal attack, I view it as seeking a personal reply. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)