Talk:Dianetics Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Name Trademark

Terryeo, I understand "L. Ron Hubbard" is a legally copywrited trademark or symbol and is not simply a name in this context. It relates to certain copywrited works like those in Dianetics and Scientology. So that format is not a name per se, and should not be abbreviated to "Hubbard" as a personal legal name might be. Is it alright with you to change it back? Spirit of Man 18:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First, a "copyrighted trademark" doesn't make sense, as trademark and copyright law are wholly separate. Second, I have doubts about the legal weight of a trademarked name when using it simply to talk about the actual person. Trademarks are for businesses to differentiate their products, not people to force certain uses or completeness of their proper names. I'm changing it to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names guidelines if it isn't already. --Davidstrauss 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly okay with me in you change it back. I didn't realize the term, "L. Ron Hubbard" was to always be used in full for the reason you stated. I begin using his name even though the full term is a tradmark just because it was more straighforeward. I did that because Wiki guildelines here: [1] state the second reference to a person should be "Hubbard" in this case. But of course if the trademark is to be specified, it should be as you state Terryeo 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

How many times are we going to go through this? Are we going to see an article created on every book ever written on Dianetics, and every such article another POV fork of Dianetics, repeating Hubbard's much-disputed claims as if they were agreed-upon facts:

Psychosomtic illnesses had been known about for a hundred years, but Hubbard was able to locate the actual source of psychosomatic illness and provide a workable remedy.

The isolation of and then the resolution of, the source of such illnesses led to a major breakthrough for Man. It was called the Reactive Mind.

The Reactive Mind is the source of all psychosomatic ills and human aberrations.

Sorry, but Hubbard's claims about Dianetics are already well-discussed at Dianetics. If you don't happen to agree with the way the subject is discussed there (for instance, because the claims of Hubbard and of those who dispute his claims are discussed there) you are not allowed to fork off a new article to discuss Dianetics as you want it discussed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Antaeus Feldspar has marked this article "NPOV" and cleanup. Might we get into some discussion of what "NPOV" means, exactly Antaeus. As I understand you understand the term, if an article, say, an article on Apples. If it doesn't have arguement in it about how the seeds contain cyanide, how too many apples can be harmful to your health, how apples are used as deadly missles in compressed gas guns, how apples fall to the ground, rot, and contribute their noxious gases to global warming. Well, then, the article is POV if it doesn't have that in it. Is that how what you mean when you mark this article "NPOV?" It doesn't have enough noxious vapor to knock a child off a hobby horse? Terryeo 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, the article is pretty short. Why exactly are you not able to "clean it up?" yourself? What exactly is your objection to the article as it now stands, Antaeus, are you able to enlighten me a little about that? Terryeo 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, this book accurately reflects the course I originally took on Dianetics. It contains a broad survey of information available 25 years after the the Dianetics book released in 1950. It contains a large amount of information about how to handle drugs effectively. The research at Dianetics Fox study, suggests this is a weakness. This book describes part of the technolgy available in 1975 to handle this huge problem for mankind. There are not many effective solutions to drugs in the world. You may dispute the effectiveness of Dianetics from your personal viewpoint, but my viewpoint has been one of lets personally test it and see if it really does work. I audited a man that was had been very messed up by LSD. I applied all of the means available in this book and he was successful in life afterward. Whatever Fox proved one way or the other in 1950 I proved Dianetics works on the most severe drug situtations if done properly. Currently there are on the order of 50,000 Clears out there. There might possibly be one or two that would admire your viewpoint. The rest would be horrified that you could do what you are doing on Wiki. You are one of the first signers on the WP:SCN project. If your actions represent that project may God have pity on your souls. Please remove you POV thingy or I will place one on your so-called "Dianetics" article. You are making an issue or "POV fork" when you fail to honor the simplest of NPOV rules. You have complained of my DMSMH article as a "fork" but then send people from that article to ChrisOs later article. You represent an extreme point of view. No one is slashing your things. Both sides must be presented fairly. You don't even answer discussion questions at Dianetics when you remove the entirety of the Philosophical section without comment. Every editor that is waiting for you to revert it. How dare you ask for discussion here by refering to the honor of the Dianetics article you personally are slashing and burning from a point of view way out there in the ozone? Spirit of Man 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remove you POV thingy or I will place one on your so-called "Dianetics" article. First of all, please do not deal with other editors by means of threats, Spirit of Man; you were lucky enough not to face worse consequences when you made threats to Wikipediatrix. Second of all, all the personal anecdotal evidence you are talking about above is what we call "original research" -- you might not have grasped this, since your friend Terryeo, the only one you seem to pay attention to, is in the habit of using it entirely incorrectly to mean "anything I don't choose to believe in myself". Third of all, please believe me that the only thing you can achieve by continuing to argue "I should be able to tell everyone what I think of Dianetics in this article!" is to further diminish your credibility as you fail to grasp the rather important point that Wikipedia doesn't do POV forks. They are specifically disallowed as a response to content disputes, which is what you continue to not only admit but volunteer is exactly your motivation. You have complained of my DMSMH article as a "fork" but then send people from that article to ChrisOs later article. Yes -- and you could only benefit if you stopped to think about why that was the case. We did not have an article about the book. ChrisO created an article about the book, which is why his article was a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. You created an article with the book's title, but by your own admission during the AfD, it was really to house opinions about Dianetics that you could not get accepted by consensus at the article about Dianetics. This is what we call "POV forking". It is not accepted, which is why out of every single vote cast on your article, yours was the only one for keeping it. Even if all your personal anecdotal evidence about "I proved Dianetics works on the most severe drug situtations if done properly" was something that we could possibly admit to the article (it isn't) you are still barking up the wrong tree by creating POV forks to house it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, you are developing the ability to misread me, misquote me, and misrepresent me to a very high degree. I would rather you just understood me. I made no threat to Wikipediatrix beyond applying the Wiki policy to write to copyright holders. From my view this is merely passing them the knowledge they require. If you had an accident on the road and I happened upon you I would help you, send for help and if you wish let others know about you. In Wikipedia's case I think she reacted to thisnot because I intended anything bad, but for her own reasons. The material she presented here is highly restimulative and the way she and ChrisO have presented it take that effect to a high level. In advertizing psychologists say of their images the exact same things that ChrisO paints so covertly and suspiciously. It's advertizing, isn't it suppossed to impinge on the mind. I don't think for a minute what he said is true beyond that. This is just relaying needful knowledge. You seem to have a view like Colton, that I may not have access to the rules here, that I may not express my own viewpoint in discussion and the viewpoint of the author in articles. You are carrying the banner of "NPOV" without the slightest integrity towards seeing your actions match your professed ideal. I explained to you elsewhere about the comments in my appeal to your delete request. You misrepresent me and disrespect yourself by altering it so terribly. My DMSMH article dates from the 4th of Jan. I saw the need and Wiki made the request for me to write it. Our dispute is that I represented the content of a single book in 1950. You conceive this to be the scope of the Dianetics article. As with the philosophy section your entirely removed there you slash what disagrees with your POV and then say others are to blame. I presented the side there for the philosopy of Dianetics. You chose not to discuss an opposite point of view, but to delete it. That is exactly the same as my DMSMH article. You did not discuss you made a seperate removal discussion that was totally your POV and people took that literally. When I made my petition, you moved it to the end after the voting as if it were comments rather than a petition. You totally misrepresented the facts there. Is there any reason I should consider your actions in a different light than what Colton confesses to so niavely? He says no access to the rules, no access to Wiki, no side or a side that has long since lost, all under the banner of NPOV. That being said, and in that light, was your POV banner on this question a "threat"? Just like your "quick deletion" ploy before? Spirit of Man 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Feldspar, you simply don't get it about what NPOV means. I believe that is the basic problem. Its all over your talk page, people have given you the message many times and you still don't get it. I'm not sure how to state it, so as to communicate it to you. First, you have to have a subject, it has to be defined. There can be no controversy until both sides have a topic to talk about. A definition is not a "claim" a definition allows a controversy to take place. Dianetics might claim to handle buttercups or something, that would be a claim. But the problem keeps cropping up about how you react to other people. You frequently edit with no discussion at all. You, like ChrisO, are perfectly willing to destroy a good deal of collaberation and work by others and put your POV in its stead. This earns you some disrespect. Spirit of man is quite polite on here. I've seen you attempt to rouse his ire more than once. Does it make no impact on you at all, Feldspar, that people react your your inflamatory edits? Both you and ChrisO have destroyed a good deal of collaberative effort, which is what Wikipedia is all about. And substituted your own POV without the least bit of discussion. That's not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Terryeo 03:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, until it sinks in: We have an article about Dianetics. It is called Dianetics. When there is already an article in existence on the subject you want to cover, you do not go starting a new article just because you don't like the way the existing article covers it. That is called POV forking and that is exactly what Spirit of Man made entirely plain that he was doing in his comments on the AfD, and it is exactly what he did again in creating this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Antaeus that the article wasn't very satisfactory - it had a lot of NPOV problems, with assertions presented as facts: "a major breakthrough for Man", "Hubbard was able to locate the actual source of psychosomatic illness and provide a workable remedy", etc. Those aren't facts, they're claims made by Hubbard. And they're not even original claims either; Antaeus is right to highlight the problems of creating POV forks of Dianetics. I'll post some suggestions tomorrow on possible ways in which we can deal with these book articles without creating unnecessary forks. Anyhow, I've rewritten the article to keep the usable nuggets of Spirit's contributions, take out the POV and material that's already dealt with on Dianetics, and add some additional background info - all properly referenced, naturally. :-) -- ChrisO 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, you really are being more disruptive than helpful. Your referencing a confidential Class VIII lecture is completely against WIkipolicy, it is completely wrong. Not only do you consider your POV to be more important than Wiki Policy, but you push your POV into articles in other ways too. You should never have removed the entire Dianetics article and substituted your article. That's just wrong. Yet you fiddle around in a book you have never read, attempting to tell people how to define "engram" when you do nothing but destroy the good information about those subjects that people are attempting to present to the reader. Terryeo 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was accomplished by the "NPOV" rewrite?

Under the guise of correcting the syntax of a book by an author citing his own quotes, to "assertions" by a Wiki editor what was actually done?

The book presents the end goal of Dianetic Auditing in 1975 which is different than 1950. If Dianetics, or any subject has any importance in the world, is it not important to state the end goal of the subject? This was deleted.

Well, what was the end goal in 1975? It was a well and happy, high IQ human being.

Now Antaeus in his wisdom, makes three bold quotes above. What do they have in common? Illness. The book after 25 years much in partnership with Scientology has the END GOAL of just these things.

Do you think they might possibly be important to have in an article about the book?

What other important matters were altered or deleted?

The Timeline of Dianetics was altered from a "conceived in 1930" direct quote from the original author, to reflect the desire for the more limited point of view [sic] of time in the Dianetics article. This book is the only authentic source for this information.

The author's own quote on the date and circumstances for the most major of his discoveries is deleted. I guess it was deemed he should not assert this as "fact" but it should be delegated to a back hand quote in a paragraph crediting Freud with the actual discovery of Dianetics. I think History is literally being rewritten under the banner of "NPOV".

"How to study the subject" was deleted. Now it may be simply true that the editors did not recognize what importance that actually has in 1975 but they might have asked. America is dead last in the education of students in Science and Technology in the Industrialized World and the schools that teach the Study Technology in this book are succeeding at a rate of nearly two years of grade level achievement per year of attendance. [Delphi schools] As you might know students drop out of math in America at the rate of 50% per year according to Educational Testing Service (ETS).

So what are the expectations expressed by the author for the use of Dianetics in 1975? I guess our "NPOV" editors expect you to read the book for yourselves, you won't find it on Wikipedia. Spirit of Man 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now Antaeus in his wisdom, makes three bold quotes above. What do they have in common? What they have in common is that they are three claims which the article was stating as if they were facts, undisputed by either side, when in reality they are very strongly disputed by ... well, by most of the world, actually. It's ironic: you claim that you think the views of both sides should be presented fairly, and then you go and do something like this, writing an article that asserts on behalf of Wikipedia "The Reactive Mind is the source of all psychosomatic ills and human aberrations" when you know that that only represents the views of those who even think the 'reactive mind' exists. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
How is it you feel empowered to represent the view of the "rest of world" in this matter? I take this as an attempt to blow smoke by over generalizing your view. How does deleting the things I mentioned, represent anything but your point of view, with disregard to the author's view as a neutral point of view, or mine as the other side on Wiki? The answer is it represents the side you represent to the exclusion of the neutral and any positive side on this matter. Starting from the neutral of what the author said, you over generalize again by saying the are represented as facts, undisputed by either side. They are in fact, citations and are presented accurately so both sides can have views relative to them. You could say the people don't get ill or don't get ill because of the mind or whatever. Actually, Antaeus it is difficult to see your point of view, because it only seems to be demonstrated by deletion of viewpoints. As if your hatred is so great you seldom discuss just destroy, or delete. OK, I have a question. If as you say, a claim should not be presented at a fact, then you have the view that it must be suppositional. So any viewpoints of it would require that neutral point be shifted by your editorial bias to suppositional. What is wrong with using the Wiki idea of citations? I don't understand that as implying any fact beyond the idea that is is simply citable. Not adding the evaluation that it is automatically wrong, but just understanding what it says and having two simple opinions or sides about that? The end product of Dianetics represented in the book is a well and happy high IQ human being. You can have the view that is crap or whatever. I can have the view it is worthwhile and achievable with what I know. Instead there is no viewpoint allowed for the neutral let alone one for those that are familair with the subject. Instead we have a view presented that the highest level person in Scientology today has supposedly suppressed 600+ Scientologists in some undefined contest that has the littlest importance possible in relation to the contents of this book. Which you say is "fork" anyway. If you are so opposed to any Scientology viewpoint why would you sign up for WP:SCN. Your views are totally suppressive to any Scientology viewpoint, why would you even involve your time with it?
I didn't say "the rest of the world"; I said "most of the world", since most of the world does not believe that the majority of illnesses are psychosomatic ills caused by "the reactive mind". "They are in fact, citations and are presented accurately so both sides can have views relative to them." That's, in fact, complete and utter nonsense; as anyone can see by looking in the edit history, you didn't even have them clearly identified as the claims of L. Ron Hubbard, let alone have them adequately cited. "If as you say, a claim should not be presented at a fact, then you have the view that it must be suppositional. So any viewpoints of it would require that neutral point be shifted by your editorial bias to suppositional. What is wrong with using the Wiki idea of citations?" No, let me turn this around and ask you, what is your opposition to following WP:NPOV, and describing the disputed claims of each side as the claims of those sides? "If you are so opposed to any Scientology viewpoint why would you sign up for WP:SCN. Your views are totally suppressive to any Scientology viewpoint, why would you even involve your time with it?" Gee, I don't know, maybe because WP:SCN is about trying to get articles to a state where, as called for at WP:NPOV, they describe the beliefs of Scientology but do not endorse the beliefs of Scientology -- which, y'know, is what they do when they outright state "The Reactive Mind is the source of all psychosomatic ills and human aberrations" and the like? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The three items you mentioned are from the book. I don't think they represent a side. If you do, then then state your claim. That is not the same as "Post NPOV", delete, delete, delete. To your question... with mine left unanswered; "No, let me turn this around and ask you, what is your opposition to following WP:NPOV, and describing the disputed claims of each side as the claims of those sides?" No problem. I understand the important claims of the book are clear enough. If you feel they are not so important or different or unlabled then say so. Is there a big need to especially label material from the book, as "the author says", or "the author claims"? And back to my question, you imply by this new question you in fact did just that. That is not true. Material important to the book was deleted as I have outlined. Spirit of Man 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Material important to the book's subject was deleted, yes. That is because the book's subject has had its own article since 28 July 2001, and creating a new article to cover an existing subject because you don't like the way the existing article covers the subject is called POV forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, you admit to telling Turnbull to create an article on Engram (Dianetics) that was defined in Dianetics. When it suits your purposes a fork is created. When it suits your purposes you misrepresent my intentions and say I created a fork. You say, my article on Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health was needless and the general subject article Dianetics is the correct choice. But you did not object to ChrisO creating an article for the same book days later. To add your final touch, you redirected my article to his, NOT Dianetics. Antaeus, you need to sit back and rethink what you are doing and why. I have not said the things you represent as me creating a fork to begin with. All of his is just in your mind and you keep stirring the pot in ways that make no rational sense. Why do you create an Engram fork if you don't believe in it? Why accept ChrisOs article days after mine, but continue to disparage me. Why continue to disparge me for something you interpreted from what I said and have three times told you I never ment. You are like the proverbial bull in a china shop. If you have a consistent point to make that is truthful, why don't you say that instead? Spirit of Man 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, you admit to telling Turnbull to create an article on Engram (Dianetics) that was defined in Dianetics. Yes, I freely admit to suggesting to User:NicholasTurnbull, who is both a Scientologist and an experienced Wikipedia editor who comprehends NPOV, that he might create an Engram (Dianetics) article, because there is a difference between covering a subject at different levels of detail and creating new articles because you are displeased with what the existing articles say. There is a difference between creating tibia to talk about tibias in more detail than is appropriate at skeleton and creating tibia because "The Skeleton article was completely rewritten in my view from a negative point of view. The revision essentially ignored the Discussion process. It deleted facts from an article by a student represented as a scientific study for example. The facts presented in Discussion there for some time represent the negative tone of the article. Many editors familiar with Skeleton say it is unrecognisable." You say, my article on Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health was needless and the general subject article Dianetics is the correct choice. Yes, and if others hadn't agreed, don't you think there would have been at least one other vote to keep besides your own? But you did not object to ChrisO creating an article for the same book days later. Of course I didn't! Because his article was actually about the book! It did not try to sneak in material that belonged at Dianetics! No one is having trouble with this concept, except you and Terryeo! To add your final touch, you redirected my article to his, NOT Dianetics. Yes, because your article was a mis-capitalized version of the title of the book and because by the time the AfD concluded there was a good article that was actually about the book itself. Should my 'final touch' have been to make sure anyone who typed in that mis-capitalized version of the book title could only arrive at the article about the book by a deliberately circuitous route? Why do you create an Engram fork if you don't believe in it? I believe that in Scientology you have the concept of learning on a gradient? You have certain beliefs that it is a bad thing to try and present a student with advanced material before they've truly grasped simple material. Well, guess what? Your arguing here shows that you still have not grasped the basic idea that when you try to dodge the process of consensus editing by creating a new article, it is a POV fork. Was I supposed to force upon you knowledge about all the ways that new articles can be created without being POV forks, clearly before you were ready for it? You are like the proverbial bull in a china shop. If you have a consistent point to make that is truthful, why don't you say that instead? Thank you for your insult and your allegation that I am not truthful. At this point I have to face the facts: you don't actually want to learn about the way Wikipedia does things, you just want someone to tell you you have permission to do things the way you want to do them. Maybe someone else can get it through your head that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, but since you've as much as called me a liar for trying time and time and time again to explain to you, it will have to be someone else. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So, you are saying your only objection to this statement: [y'know, is what they do when they outright state "The Reactive Mind is the source of all psychosomatic ills and human aberrations" and the like?] is that it should have said, The book says, "The Reactive....human aberrations". Will that solve all this for you if I do that? Spirit of Man 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No; there is still the issue that this is the article on the book Dianetics Today, not an alternative article on Dianetics for people who don't like the existing article. But if, for the sake of argument, there hadn't been any existing article on Dianetics, and you had described the claims Hubbard makes in the book with clear indications of "Hubbard claimed" or "the book claims"? Then yes, that would be my biggest two problems with the material gone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of opportunity for a POV here. There is opportunity of a small handful of the many, many attestations from people who are pleased with Dianetics. People who became better able to see, whose learning disability went away, who became better able to walk. There are many many success stories. From an antagonist's point of view (who would I be thinking of, Antaeus?) such success stories are seen as claims. Fine, good. There is room for people to present their side of the story. On the other hand, exactly who is attempting to prevent one side of the story from being told? Tuff question to answer Antaeus? :) Terryeo 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not the least bit "tuff" to answer. When was the last time you saw a "success story" in an encyclopedia article? Are "success stories" the sort of thing an encyclopedia entry contains? I can only think of one place where you find "success stories", and that's in promotional literature, which Wikipedia is not. The problem is, you are confusing your "side of the story" with the way that you want to tell your side of the story. See, I look at the actual article about Dianetics, Dianetics, and I see your side of the story:

The benefits of going "Clear" would be dramatic, according to Hubbard. A "Clear" would have no compulsions, repressions, pychoses or neuroses, and would enjoy a near-perfect memory as well as a rise in IQ of as much as fifty points. He also claimed that as much as 70 per cent of illnesses were psychosomatic and could thus be cured by Dianetics. These included asthma, poor eyesight, color blindness, hearing deficiencies, stuttering, allergies, sinusitis, arthritis, high blood pressure, coronary trouble, dermatitis, ulcers, migraine, conjunctivitis, morning sickness, alcoholism, tuberculosis and the common cold, to which Clears would be immune. Hubbard also claimed that atheism, "zealotism" (by which he seems to have meant fundamentalism) and homosexuality could be "cured" through Dianetics, as they were all caused by engrams.

It's the fact that you actually protest having your side of the story presented in this way that causes other editors concern. It's the fact that you disdain the article which states "Hubbard claimed that as much as 70 per cent of illnesses were psychosomatic and could thus be cured by Dianetics" and create multiple new articles to state "Hubbard wrote this book. Hubbard was able to locate the actual source of psychosomatic illness and provide a workable remedy" without any clarification that the second sentence is a description of the claims contained in the book mentioned in the first sentence that causes other editors to wonder whether you even understand the principles and goals of Wikipedia, or whether you understand them but think they can be gotten around. One doesn't have to be an "antagonist" to be concerned about your behavior; one just has to be committed to Wikipedian principles that you show few signs so far of understanding and intending to abide by. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
What you are actually attempting to do here, Antaeus Feldspar and ChrisO and Wikipediatrix, you are attempting to prevent a point of view. It is not that you present your own, a perfectly okay thing to do, but that you prevent any other. For 50 years people have improved their lives with Dianetics. People have walked who couldn't before and many other, what would normally be called, "miricles." It has happened often. You are preventing any mention of the good Dianetics has done for mankind with your poisonous prevention. The article should be balanced. It should present both the good and the controversy. The controversy, by actual count is a very tiny sliver of the good that has been done.Both ChrisO and Antaeus Feldspar have specifically stated they are going to edit toward none of the information of the book ever appearing here. Two Guidelines have been modified by editors here to work around a good article appearing to the public. How far do we go with your attititude about this? Do we continue to cite policy until you have to modify NPOV to get a good article here? You run back to NPOV every time a statement appears that puts Dianetics in a good light. To any disinterested third party who wants to learn a little, your attitudes reveal your hatred of good information appearing to the reading public. Terryeo 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
People have walked who couldn't before and many other, what would normally be called, "miricles." It has happened often. Then you won't have any trouble coming up with documentation for it, will you? You won't have any trouble providing verifiable evidence that it has happened, will you? Please remember WP:CITE, Terryeo. If you are going to assert (as you have) that Warren McShane describing the story of Xenu as it appears in OT III in court is not enough evidence to establish that Xenu has ever appeared in any Scientology publication, you had better provide some very complete and impressive documentation to establish that these "miricles" [sic] actually occurred. Both ChrisO and Antaeus Feldspar have specifically stated they are going to edit toward none of the information of the book ever appearing here. Well, that's one way to phrase it. An extraordinarily dishonest way, but I suppose in some vague theoretical sense it could be said to match up with "this article is not going to be a POV fork of Dianetics; any claims about Dianetics itself belong at Dianetics, not here at the article on the book Dianetics Today." I will repeat again: you are confusing your "side of the story" with the way that you want to tell your side of the story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you keep talking about all the good Dianetics has done for mankind, but you can't cite any real proof for it other than Scientology's own writings. You have to bring something more to the table than "Dianetics is good because these books by L.Ron Hubbard said so." But hey, if you really want to talk about the great things Dianetics has done, perhaps we should mention somewhere that Hubbard actually claimed that Auditing can bring the dead back to life............ wikipediatrix 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The removed citation

This citation, an Executive Directive is removed here for discussion. "[1]" Sea Org ED 2192 might exit, it might have incredibly valuable information on it. But who knows? Unless a source of information is available to both readers and editors it should not be used as a citation. This is per WP:CITE which says: "Citing sources serves several purposes: To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." So then, ChrisO. When you can provide some manner or means by which persons may read Sea Org Executive Directive 2192 then it would be appropriate to cite it.  :) You have done this with a few other cites too. For example, when you cited a Scientology confidential document. So, hey, we are all human and we all make mistakes. I guess you can get Wiki to modify its guidelines or you can use other sources, the choice is yours. Terryeo 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - check Wikipedia:Citing sources and you'll see that I've modified the policy itself to clarify this point. The line you quoted is now linked to a note which says: "Note that this does not require that a source be easily checkable. In many cases, such as rare books or historical documents, it may not be. However, as long as it exists and is capable of being consulted – even if in limited circulation, such as in subscription-only libraries – it is still a viable source."
Your modification does not actually cover the sort of trademarked, confidential documentation you are using here. If you chose to change Wikipedia guidelines to reflect your change here, "Confidential, trademarked information" I doubt if that would stand. Terryeo 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is nothing new, as there are already plenty of Wikipedia articles that rely on obscure, hard-to-find sources (check out Old European Script or Vampire watermelon for examples - the latter article relies largely on a single source from the late 1950s).
It is inappropriate for this article. In some cases an commonly unavailable text might be the cite, but that isn't the case with a confidential piece of information. It is wrong for you to have cited Scientology's trademarked, confidential documents and it is irresponsible for you to continue. Terryeo 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is, of course, that the source should be capable of being consulted. In practical terms, that means that it must still exist somewhere and that more than one person should have access to it. In the case of SO ED 2192, clearly the document does still exist and it is accessible to anyone with a collection of SO EDs, which obviously includes the Sea Org itself. So why don't you ask them if you can see it? They might say no - they probably would - but that is purely a matter of policy, not an inherent property of the document itself. -- ChrisO 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That's just wrong. If it isn't completely totally clear to you why that is just plain wrong, please ask any sane individual you know. That's just wrong. I have said several times in the above discussion which you have ignored, why it is wrong. We are not creating an informational source here, Wikipedia, a source which readers must accept what they read. Quite the opposite. We are creating information which can be used as a foundation for a person to learn more. Because you can edit Wiki Guidelines at a whim does not make your citing a confidential source right. That's just wrong. Plainly, clearly wrong. Terryeo 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure quite what your position on this issue is, Terryeo. Could you say "wrong" a few more times to clarify? Admittedly, a lot of your edits suddenly make much more sense, now that you've stated (contrary, I think, to the actual goals of the project) that we are not trying to make Wikipedia itself informational, but merely to make it a collection of pointers to information held elsewhere. I wonder if Jimbo knows that this is the goal? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, good point. Terryeo, the Open Directory Project is this way... -- ChrisO 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
How can it not be obvioius that the point of Wikipedia is to present to readers, information which they can explore as they wish, including citations? That's a main difference of Wikipedia. With the combined efforts of many POVs, many links and other sources come to view which a standard Encyclopedia can hardly put enough manpower into, to do as we can do here. But where a cite points to a piece of information which no one has access to then that doesn't serve the reader. That sort of thing might appear on Xenu Net, or some website choosing to challenge the legality of having confidential information, but as editors, our task is to enlighten the public. Terryeo 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The removed portion of the article was op-ed. The citation did not support the claim and was not relevant to the removed portion. Streamlight 13 March 2006

[edit] Spirit of Man's advertising

Spiritofman keeps wanting to insert this information:

This book applied to Dianetics of 1975, as Dianetics was used at that time, leading into the Scientology processes that result in Clear. Its use was to clear away unwanted pains, sensations, emotions, attitudes (PSEAs) and drugs before other processes. In 1950 this state was called "release". In 1975 this specific end product was called, "a well, and happy, high IQ human being." (see pages iii and iv) - - This book includes a chapter on "How to Study Dianetics". A number of concepts new to the world of education are presented. The Three Barriers to study section describes barriers that cause a student to fail. Solutions for these barriers are presented.

I started editing it, not intending to delete it entirely but to reword it, but upon examination of it I couldn't find a single sentence that was necessary. It goes without saying that a book called "Dianetics Today" and published in 1975 would apply to Dianetics in 1975. It also seems to be implying that the term "Clear" did not exist at that point, which is of course not so. The rest of Spiritofman's additions amount to more rah-rah-ing and advertising for Dianetics/Scientology to make sure everyone knows that it cures unwanted pains, makes you happy, and raises your IQ. A huge chunk of the article is ALREADY devoted to breaking down in great detail what each subsection of the book deals with, so let's leave out the sales pitch. wikipediatrix 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be tough to edit that, Spirit has put a lot of information in a close style. The paragraph says a good deal without making any strange claim and puts a historical perspective as well. Terryeo 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, let me clarify. Chriso says in the article it is not apparent why the book was "abandoned". It was not abandoned. The overall sequence of events in Scientology from bottom to top was changed at a later date. In 1975 the use of this book, Dianetics Today, was for a certain course and the processes within it, that fit into the Grade Chart at the bottom at that time. Drugs were handled first. Pains, sensations, emotions, and attitudes were then handled by Dianetics until the person went Dianetics Release. This level, in this book is called the End Product of Dianetics. In 1950, it was also called release, but what that ment in detail was not described in books at that time. As ChrisO points out, the person responsible for the compilation of the book and the term "The end product of Dianetics" was later declared. To my knowledge this is not the actual end product of Dianetics, because Dianetics is a primary clearing procedure and its use should not be linked to "illness" only. In fact with New Era Dianetics, the technology is used beyond Clear at certain OT levels. Today the basic material in the book would be included as Level 5 and the processing is called Grade 5. Every line in my edit does apply and is appropriate to this context in 1975, including the notes on study. Please revert the material. Spirit of Man 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what important information that brings to the article, sorry. If ChrisO's statement about "not sure why abandoned" is what really bothers you, we can work on that. wikipediatrix 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Abandonment" is a poor description is why. Actually, it is entirely possible the book might be published tomorrow. When reporting that a book is no longer published, is it necessary to say "abandoned" or does it more cleanly state the situation to simply state is not not published today? One is with a bias, the other is more neutral, more in keeping with NPOV. Terryeo 08:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The page currently does not point to an important new point in the book, "How to study Dianetics." Do you agree that is important? I have explained twice, let me try a third time on the other paragraph. Book One in 1950 described how to Clear people using four specific techniques. Thats all there were. This book describes something different. A different specific use. Dianetics is used at other places in Scientology. There might be 10,000 processes available to help clear someone in 1975. This book just describes the use of Dianetics to handle drugs and PSEAs until the person is a well and happy high IQ human being. He then moves on to Scientology processes that result in Clearing. The paragraph is important because it clarifies the difference between 1950 and 1975. It happens to answer a personal view of ChrisOs, about "abandoned" which leads him into an extraneous red-herring explaination of that based on SPs and then adds a POV attack on current management. Dianetics is still under developement and still used in Scientology in other ways. This book does not describe the other ways or the current use exactly enough for current use in Scientology. I don't see any reason it should not be published if there is interest in it. All of its techniques are workable. It is not so simple as Book One auditing and if one were going to invest their time in a large course they would take the most current one. Please return the material to the page. Spirit of Man 04:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the implication that Miscaviage declared 600+ people

the paragraph, "However, it may be noted that the editor, Jill Steinberg, was later declared to be a "suppressive person" by the Church of Scientology and was expelled from the Church in 1983, along with 610 other individuals who appear to have fallen out with the Church's new leadership under David Miscavige. [2]" is not cited. That is, no reference is provided which states that 611 individuals have fallen out with Miscaviage (the new leadership). That citation which appears there, a Sea Org order, is not available to readers. If it were then it would apparently be making 3 arguements. 1. 611 people were expelled in 1983. 2.All of them have had a "falling out" with Miscaviage. 3.The reason the 611 of them were declared suppressive persons and expelled from the church was because all of them had a falling out with the new leadership. Yet we can not read that Sea Org Order to determine which of these issues is real and which is original research. What sort of "falling out?" What was the nature of the difficulty. Expelling someone completely from the church is an extreme step. Can we get a source a common person can read? This is very much in keeping with WP:V (verifiability). Terryeo 08:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryo, the statement that the book was "abandoned", should be replaced with words to the effect that on such and such a date the Grade Chart was changed and the running of engrams as in Dianetics Today, was moved to Grade V, after the Scientology Grades, where lower level processes that deal with locks are done first. The format of the book does not apply to this use. All of the material in the book is workable. Dianetic running of engrams is just done after the processes dealing with locks are done, in the scheme of things. I believe ChrisO just went off on a plausible explaination. All of that material is simply extraneous to the scope of this book. Words to that effect should be added or the material simply deleted. Spirit of Man 05:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, Spirit of Man. I don't like "abandoned" myself. "Not republished" isn't anything like "abandoned." Deseased author Louis LaMore stories were once published by a publisher who abandoned them, then later he had them published as bound volumes of stories by another publisher. "Abandon" doesn't fit this context I don't think. I like your explanation of how the book's material is valid.Terryeo 14:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/a/Talk%7EDianetics_Today_8ca1.html"