Talk:Patter drill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patter drill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Oh my god! I can't believe it. Well, I do understand the creator of this article exactly represents his point of view in the article. But "patter drills" are an educational technique. They should be in the template to reflect thier use and area within Scientology. Every article has room for controversy, and their controversial nature should be presented in the article, not in the template. BTW, I've done some of them, coached others of them and everyone who does them (that I've talked with) says they were both needed and helpful. Terryeo 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Patter drills are an "educational technique" in your pov Terryeo. They are not proper Scientology, but rather fabricated by david miscavige to suit his own agenda. The controversial nature should be in the template as well as the article. I have done some of them as well, and watched others do them, and have gotten comments from others who have done them. Mostly negative to indifferent. --Fahrenheit451 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you for recognition of my POV. However please don't expect me to swollow your opinion wholesale. I am happy to learn that you have done them, watched others do them and talked with others who have done them. I have similarly done them and talked with others who did. I would like to discuss them with you. Whatever your opinion of them is, that's fine with me. You consider them to be Rote learning, is that the situation? The subject matter isn't learned, but rather a list is "memorized" and this is your objection ? Terryeo 01:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information, the first link, [1] has some mispelling and misues the word "glib." I would read his opinion with a somewhat skeptical eye rather than swollowing his opinion wholesale and completely. Terryeo 05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cloutier made a correct observation and was punished for making it. It is not advisable to swallow anyone's opinion wholesale and completely.--Fahrenheit451 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay about "drilling method" instead of "educational technique" or "rote learning". Cloutier said several things. He seemed on that page to be confused becuase "Practical Drills" involve objects and because "chinese school" is people raising their voices in unison but he couldn't pull himself out of the either .. or thing. I don't know his story and have no idea what he actually said or did that resulted in his present status. That he hasn't got the stright of it about how those policies of practical and chinese do not apply to patter drills is clear enough, however. Terryeo 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Some of it appears uncited

For example: "Some have contended that the patter drills are not practical drills" says "some people" but doesn't say who or under what circumstances. An encyclopedica reference would be more like: "John Smith said in a Times article of April 14 that patter drills are not practical drills." I could supply the verbatim quote which defines "practical" and then defines "practical drills" if you would like. I'm not trying to make you right or wrong but trying to present what you mean as clear as possible, you know? I don't yet understand except that Coltier (spelling) comments against recent Church actions, which includes patter drills somehow. Terryeo 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is in fact, correct. Weasel words are not allowed around here. Why don't you find a notable person who holds this opinion and quote him? Tenebrous 08:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rote Learning

This has always been the issue, hasn't it? That patter drills are "rote learning" and because they are, the information which comprises them is not actually understood by the student, right? That is the main issue, isn't it Fahrenheit451? I ask you because it seems that you and I are the only ones editing the article at all. Terryeo 14:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The linked article, Rote learning states: "Rote learning, is a learning technique which avoids grasping the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned." Yet that is not the manner in which patter drills are used. In every case, every single case where patter drills are used, the person must demonstrate proficiency of concept with the material. Typically a fellow student (sometimes a course supervisor) does a checkout of the student and asks the student while viewing the document in question, "what is the concept of this 3rd paragraph which begins, "During the response, if the E-meter goes low .." and the student must be able to easily and accurately respond or it is a flunk and the student then restudies the document. It is not rote learning. Proof of concept understanding is requiured in ever single case of patter drills. All of the previous study tech applies and none of it has been cancelled or altered. Patter drills are an addition and not a substitute for anything. Rote learning is just plain wrong in this situation, a wrong idea. "Verbatim learning" is the phrase that patter drills uses and it is that, but the concepts and inner complexities and inferences are learned first and the verbatim learning is learned second. HCO PL of 4 March 71 Issue II, "How to do theory checkouts and examinations" states: The important points of a bulletin, tape or policy letter are: (two) The doingingness details, exactly how it is done; and (three) The theory of why it is done." "The examiner should examine (the student) with exactness" and "be as tough as you please." Patter drills are not substitutes, they are an addition. The concepts, inferences, etc. are utterly and completely required learning as always. It is not Rote learning. If required I'll expand the article to include all the stuff a student has to learn including an expansion of what I've quoted here. Terryeo 14:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed "educational technique" as there is no validation for this description and put it "drilling method" as that indisputably describes what they are. --Fahrenheit451 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

cool Terryeo 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant link added by Terryeo

This is a link to what is essentially a blog, which is an unacceptable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. It represents a partisan point of view as the blogger is a member of the cofs, ostensibly giving their opinion on newly created drills, but does not discuss patter drills. So, this is not an official cofs statement. This blog page was created on 15 April 2006, which means it would not get into search engines until around 30 April 2006. Terryeo added the link on 19 April 2006. I wonder where he got this link so quickly? --Fahrenheit451 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to present personal websites as secondary sources, that is not acceptable. It is another thing to present a personal website as an exterior link. Clambake.org may be presented as an exterior link. I read that site frequently, Fahrenheit451. That site has some substance to it, though it serves a particular purpose. If you look through a subject dear to you, I think you'll find there is some substance to it. Many subjects are experts who answer many questions. Though their answers are personal answers, their answers shed light in areas where answers are difficult to find. Terryeo 11:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, I'm right here, or you could have talked on my user page. I added the link and did not use the information in it as a secondary source. It was clearly marked as "Other links" and not a secondary source of information, not a verification for anything. It provides an independant link to additional information relevant to the article but is not a source of information within the article. It links to an opinion and said so. The link was stated as pointing to someone's opinion. Its information is germane, its location, a substantial website and you should not remove it. The exact opposite situation, that is, such a link pointing to Xenu.net has been opposed at WP:RS, a guideline you made 27 edits to in a relatively short period of time. I understand that you and some editors are taking issue with WP:RS on various grounds. I understand you have taken the issue to the Village Pump, (at the recommendation of ChrisO), but until those findings are cleared up, and because you don't own the article, please don't remove "additional links" or "other links" or "other reading" or "educational links" or whatever we are going to call that catagory of links in these articles which are not used as secondary sources, but which provide a reader additional enlightenment in the area. Terryeo 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Here's that link again. [2] and another fun link with lots of Scientology sites [3]. Just for fun. Terryeo 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lermanet.com

Footnotes #3 and #4 cite lermanet.com, a personal website. It states: "Questions? Call Arnie Lerma: (703) 241 1498". He explains his personal story with the Church of Scientology. The whole of the site is about him and his story and even his email contact address is "alerma@belatlantic.net. It is, therefore, a personal website. It falls into the catagory of personal websites whose use as secondary sources within articles is spelled out by WP:RS. That guideline states:"A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources." and "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources."WP:RS#Personal websites as secondary sources Therefore, those citations should not appear in the article.Terryeo 04:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you are lying again for your handlers in OSA. You are about to be banned. Be gone OSA troll. --Fahrenheit451 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppsy, you just made a personal attack. It has two elements. The first is "you are lying" which is a personal attack and stated with bias and intent. The second is, "you are not a person, you are performing an action for your handlers" Neither of those elements have the slightest jot of truth to them. Lermanet.com is a personal website. I do not work for any person, nor have I asked for permission, nor do I work for anyone. But I've said all of this before. That you state it as you have is a personal attack. Terryeo 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Finally, it has a third element, "Be gone OSA troll". Therefore, I follow the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Remedies which states, "If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy." I ask that you stop attacking me and note that policy which link I have provided for you. This is the first step of the process which every editor on Wikipedia may utilize. Please stop your personal attacks, Fahrenheit451. Terryeo 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Being called a "troll" isn't a personal attack, exactly. It's an internet term for someone who argues needlessly. Since you've recently called Antaeus Feldspar "idiot" and called one of my edits "bullshit", doesn't it seem rather hypocritical to comment on anyone else's civility? wikipediatrix 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples states: "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks". It is exactly a personal attack, per that policy, in the situations spelled out by that policy.Terryeo 10:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Be gone troll. --Fahrenheit451 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the third instance of a personal attack, Fahrenheit451. Please stop your personal attacks.Terryeo 10:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article vandalized by 63.209.227.184

I am reverting this. --Fahrenheit451 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently an early sentence of the article uses the weasel worded and unattributed phrase, Some have contended that the patter drills are not practical drills. Who contends? Where do they publish that they contend? What newspaper or book contains that information? What is its publication date? That statement is the kind of weasel worded statement which is unverifiable and should never enter an article. Terryeo 03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:RS

The article contains 5 references to personal essays on personal websites. Two of those references point to the same article and the link to them is labeled differently. That in itself is misleading to a reader. All of the linked references are not published. That is, they do not meet WP:V and the are specifically banned by WP:RS because they are personal, unpublished opinion. They should all be removed as secondary sources of information, though they might be included in an Exterior Links sort of section. If they are included in an Exterior Links section, here is another web page which could only be included as an exterior link and would provide a balance to those 5 personal essays. [4] Terryeo 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, banned user Terryeo. If it is publicly accessible it is legally published. Please stop weasel wording and attempting to disrupt wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some out-points presently in the article

The weasel worded, "Some have contended that the patter drills are not practical drills" appears without attribution of any kind. Who says that, when did they say it? Who published that they said it, when was it published? Without attribution, weasel worded, rumor sorts of statements can creep into articles and reduce the quality of Wikipedia articles.

The article cites 6 sources. [1] is a good cite [2] isn't completely wrong [3] and [4] point to exactly the same webpage, though as references they are labeled differently. They both point to a page of personal opinion which is the original, unpublished research of Arnie Lerma, whose website it is. That is just plain wrong, per WP:RS. [5] and [6] point to different pages of a single personal website which belongs to Robert Dam. He states his personal opinion, his original, unsupported reasearch on those pages. His personal, unpublished opinion is not suitable for Wikipedia. This is per WP:RS. Those links might be used in an exterior links section, if attributed to their author and if their author were noted for his anti-scientology views, but they are not within Wikipedia standards when used as secondary sources of information within articles. Terryeo 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are weasel wording banned user Terryeo. Lerma's and Dam's website are published material. Stop lying and attempting to disrupt wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You have stated that I am lying. Please stop your personal attacks, User:Fahrenheit451. How can I politely say, "you misunderstand WP:RS"? The article is citing opinions that people have made on their personal websites. WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources says not to do that. Terryeo 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks and disruption of wikipedia banned user Terryeo. --Fahrenheit451 19:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to state that a user has stated a personal attack. Also, I mention politeness. Again, WP:RS spells out that opinions on personal website are not published, they are attributable but they are not published in the sense that a newspaper or book is published. Therefore, though they can be viewed by anyone, they do not satisfy WP:RS and may not be used as secondary sources of information in Wikipedia articles. The reason for this is simple. Such opinions are exactly as reliable as a man standing on a soapbox in the town square or a notice fastened to a telephone pole. They may not be used as secondary sources as this article is using them in four citations. Terryeo 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Fahrenheit51, these cites (3 & 4) seem to point to personal opinions. You state that they are published material... Am I missing something? Raymond Hill 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ANY opinion is someone's statement of their decision on a subject. The only means I know of to evaluate the validity of opinions is data evaluation. The legal definition of publish, according to Oxford, is "communicate to a third party". Websites whose content can be found by search engines or is advertised or referred to, is published. Thus, lermanet and xenu.net are published sites. It is not what you want to believe, but nevertheless, is a fact.--Fahrenheit451 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The single definition which you use from Oxford is perfectly good. There is simply nothing wrong with it. But, that definition is not the definition which Wikipedia uses. Which is exactly why I'm attempting to get a clearer statement of the definition which Wikipedia does use onto the WP:RS page, though argueably, it should be present on the parent page, WP:V. Terryeo 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, Terryeo. Evidently there is a user or two who does not understand the definition of publish and have it gotten it mixed-up with peer-review and copy edit. On the english version of wikipedia, we use common english, not propaganda by redefinition of words osa english. So, lermanet and xenu.net are published websites. --Fahrenheit451 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Per that definition of yours any website is published, meaning any may be used. In reality it totally depends on to what you are linking to if it be allowed as reference source or just an opinion found on some site. --Olberon 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, banned user Terryeo, you misrepresented the definition of publish wikipedia uses, which is identical to common english. Did I catch you in a lie again? --Fahrenheit451 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Did I catch you in a lie again" presupposes that I lied and then suggests that I have lied again. Please stop your personal attacks, User:Fahrenheit451. I have asked you this several times, in several areas including your, "Be gone Troll" which you posted in one response to my polite request to stop your personal attacks.

[5] WP:NPA states, "It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia". I am going to place a similar discussion on your user page, if you insist on continuing personal attacks, I will go ahead with the next step. You have personally attacked me a number of times and have made dispariging remarks frequently. I am attempting to addres issues, when I state "the guideline says that Personal websites my not be used as secondary sources" you call me a lier. Any disinterested third party could easily see that your have frequently attacked me personally. Terryeo 23:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo, you are notified to stop your personal attacks and stop putting your attacks on my user discussion page. Discussions with you have been non-productive. I want no further communication with you. --Fahrenheit451 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see recent postings of user Terryeo on your userpage. I also notice that you address user Terryeo as 'Banned user Terryeo', which is improper as you are supposed to address the users arguments and not the person. If you find that user Terryeo is attacking you then start being specific. --Olberon 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Terryeo 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree on this. Please do not address anyone as a "banned user". If anyone was banned you wouldn't be able to address them because we'd block them and reverse their edits on sight. Also I have to add, those comments above by Terryeo do not look like personal attacks to me. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Terryeo 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Farenheit451, please assume good faith with regard to Terryeo - you can discuss his opinion of WP:RS without getting personal. With that said, I think Terryeo is probably right - while you are correct that websites are "published," they're also "self-published," which makes them unacceptable sources under the relevant section of WP:V. TheronJ 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Terryeo 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 outpoints of the article

"...a deviation from standard Scientology[3]" is not a published report, but a reference to a personal website. "After that announcement, patter drills were put on most courses. [4][5][6]" those weblinks are not published, reputable sources of information. They can not be used as sources of information, or to support information, within articles because they are not. WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources, Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. Four (4) links to personal websites can not be used to directly reference and support information within an article. They might be used as "additional information" or as "exterior links" or a section of that nature at the end of the article. Terryeo 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Notes" should probably be called "Footnotes"

[1] should probably include the page number in that volume which is page 306. [2] should include that it is created and maintained by a splinter Scientology Group and not the official Church of Scienology. [3] St. Petersburg Times, a good reference. [4] personal website, can not be used as a secondary source, must be removed. [5] personal website, can not be used as a secondary source, must be removed. [6] personal website, can not be used as a secondary source, must be removed. [7] personal website, can not be used as a secondary source, must be removed. Terryeo 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article has defiances of WP:RS and other out-points

Rather than spell out the errors of this article again and again, I have posted an analysis here. Terryeo 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Opinion on Personal Website as secondary sources

The article references to personal opinion on personal website and uses it as the core of the article, indeed, reproduces almost word for word, the personal website opinion. Such a presentation is a direct defience of WP:RS which states that a personal website may never be used as a secondary source of information. Bad editing !!! . Terryeo 06:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion on personal websites is still be used in opposition to WP:RS Terryeo 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments in response to RFC

Hi, I'm here in response to a request by Terryeo and Chris0 for outside opinions. (Not technically an RFC, but close). Some quick comments:

  1. It seems like this article could use a good rewrite for clarity. If I understand it correctly, the point is: (1) "Patter drills" are a rote memorization technique used by the modern COS; (2) some current and former members argue that they're a modern innovation that is contrary to LRH's teachings; and (3) some church members report being harrassed as a result of their opposition to patter drills. Assuming that's it, I think you can get there with footnotes 1 and 3.
  2. Footnotes 1 and 3 - good job!
  3. Footnote 2[6]. I have a whole bunch of problems with this footnote.
    1. The footnote doesn't alert readers to what the cite is. Per Wikipedia citation guidelines, it would be preferable to say something like Hubbard, Ron L., HCO Policy Letter 16 April 1965 Issue II "Drills, Allowed, available at ronsorg.nl.
    2. I don't see that ronsorg is a reliable source.
    3. Is the Policy Letter itself verifiable, or does the COS not publish it? If it's not verifiable by a reliable source, I question this whole cite.
    4. At a minimum, if the original policy letter cannot be verified, the text should state something like "According to Scientology Critic Ron Foo, Hubbard wrote a policy letter forbidding rote drilling in 1965.[cite] Because COS policy letters are confidential, this allegation cannot be conclusively confirmed or denied." Even then, I would question whether the cite meets WP:V or RS.
  4. Footnotes 4 and 5[7]
    1. There's no reason to include the same reference in two separate footnotes. There is certainly no reason to cite it differently.
    2. The cites don't clarify who wrote this piece or what it is.
    3. If I understand this correctly, this cite can't possible meet WP:V or WP:RS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but (1) guy #1 handed typewritten pages to guy #2 at a rally; (2) guy #2 typed those pages into an e-mail or newsgroup posting; and (3) guy #3 put that posting on a self-published site.
  5. Footnote 6[8]
    1. Again, the citation doesn't say what this document is or who wrote it.
    2. This is an essay by some guy, right, published on a self-published website? If there's a basis for it under WP:V and WP:RS, I don't see it.
  6. Footnote 7[9]
    1. Again, the cite doesn't explain who wrote this piece or what it is.
    2. This is another article, presumably by Robert Dam and posted on a self-published website? If so, my strong feeling is that it doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS. If Robert Dam were some kind of expert, however, the text should probably read something like "New York Times religion reporter Robert Dam states that . . ."

Thanks, TheronJ 13:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

TheronJ seems to have done my job for me... he said it all... I agree completely. Blueboar 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. Now if we can get the unreliable sources of information removed we might have a quality article. Terryeo 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing dubious sources

I haven't gotten any negative responses to my analysis above. I'm going to start by removing Lermanet, which is, as I said, triply unverifiable by WP:V and not close to meeting WP:RS.

I would be very interested in hearing people's thoughts about how to improve this article and its citation. I don't think it needs to lose any content, but the language could be much clearer, and there appear to be verifiable, reliable sources that could be uses in place of the self-published personal pages. Thanks, TheronJ 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Is there a reason that is it called "patter drill" instead of "Memory drill" or something like that? I think the source of the term would be worth mentioning. Thanks, Cacophony 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is reason why this learning technique is called "patter drill". That reason is, it is a learning drill and it consists of one and only one element, patter. The whole action of the drill is the student's patter. There is no other action. Thus it is a "patter drill", not a "practical drill" and not a "chinese drill" and not any of the other nonesese personal website babble about. "Patter" is a kind of utterance, a person speaking words. Any dictionary will tell you more about the word. As an example, in kindergarten children use a "patter drill" but sometimes use a song, sung together, to learn "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". A patter drill is similar because it consists only of spoken words, learned in a sequence by a student. Terryeo 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As an additional point of information, it is not accurate for the article to say, "read to the wall". That is not done in a patter drill. Where some editor got that I don't know, but that isn't what is done in a patter drill. Probably the most noticable element of this article is the use of personal opinion on personal website. That sort of opinion falls under WP:NOR. Apparently the dumb as dirt, "read a section of text to the wall" comes from some of that Original Reasearch. Since, apparently there is no primary source information on this and since, apparently the whole article is based on original research, unreliable sources as secondary sources within the article and the ilk, I'll state what the article could say and be factual in saying so. Repeat verbatim while facing a wall would fulfill that portion of the article. However, I don't claim to have a citable source of information. Terryeo 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is supplying false information. Items and passages from a coursepack ARE read to a wall while a student is seated. That IS done in a "patter drill". Terryeo is giving his personal opinion and accusing others of it. --Fahrenheit451 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just not right. Nothing is "read to a wall". I'll see what I can find but that isn't the action. It is, "repeat verbatim while seated facing a wall" which is a different action than, "read to the wall". Terryeo 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You have claimed that I have supplied false information. Since you orignated this article it is incumbant on you to supply a citation which supports your created edit. I say you have supplied false information. It is your responsibility to supply a quote which supports what you have created in the article. Whether you create an article saying the moon is made of green cheese or an article saying, Passages are read to a wall, it is incumbant on you to supply a source of information for your edit. Claiming that my information is false information as a defence of your mistaken information is not sufficient for Wikipedia. You have claimed that you have reliable information but have failed to cite it. While I have only stated that the information within the article is false. So, hey, come up with your reliable information, quote your text. Terryeo 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That information is in the article.--Fahrenheit451 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the cite which is present [1] does not state so. That citation, the St. Petersburg Times presents a man's claim. Tom Smith, 49, of Clearwater, was declared an SP in August 2005 after he repeatedly challenged the validity of a "patter drill" in which he was instructed to read passages of a course to a wall. No other source of information is cited about the drill nor how the drill is to be performed. One individual who has been declared an Suppressive Person tells us what the drill is. Even a newspaper report about Patter Drills would at least tell what a patter drill is before introducing a disgruntled person's claim about it. An equivalent in the Catholic church would be an ex-communicated member being cited as an "expert" about babtism, for example. The reliability of such a source of information should at least be suspect. Yet his statement is the only cited statement about the actions performed in doing a Patter Drill. The sentence just following that sentence actually tell about the drill, but is uncited. Terryeo 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The equivalence you allege is your own opinion, but I would say that others do not share your reality. Your mention of "expert" is interesting in that you take the word, which refers to those who are versed subjects requiring considerable learning and experience, and you apply it to a more casual situation that merely requires observation. For example, if the roof of a home is burning, one does not need to be an expert on roofs or fires to truthfully report a burning roof to a fire department. I would say that you are doing this because the article runs against your POV. It sure sounds like OSA to state that because a person was labeled a SP because they objected to the patter drills, they are "disgruntled". Their policy seems to be "Don't deal with the issue, personally attack the messenger", and that is exactly what you do. Further more, the note you put on your forementioned edit is an outright misrepresentation of wikipedia policy "16:43, 3 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Patter drill (→Name - analysis of why you don't accept decared SPs as your primary source of information)". We have no such policy here and do not agree with the barbaric nonsense promulgated by the cofs, which some consider to be an anti-social group or a racket. Clearly, you are not here in good faith. --Fahrenheit451 22:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do state the "reading text to a wall until memorized" is not doing a Patter Drill. Yes, I do state so. And that is the issue I raise. Then you seem to tell me that there is no Wikipedia policy which states that SP declarations should not be acceptable in Wikipedia. But that isn't what I've said. What I have said, as a single and sole source of what a patter drill is, a declared Suppresive Person's word is not a very good basis for an ecyclopedic article. His word is not even a sworn statement, but is only something he is reported to have said. Would you take the word of a criminal for what transpired at a crime scene? You might if you no other witness, but would you create an ecyclopedic article based on the criminal's word alone? I suggest it is not a very good sole source of information. I personally know the action of a Patter Drill to be "repeat verbatim while seated and facing a wall", which entails "repeating verbatim". It is a different action than "read to the wall", though it might appear the same to a disinterested third party who is watching it happen. But the action is different. And I say so. Terryeo 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, it is ironic that the cofs, which has a history of criminal activity itself, derogatorily labels someone who has the courage to speak up. I can see why so many folks consider the cofs to be a racket rather than a religion. The so-called "sp declare" is in itself a gross human rights violation, and this itself nullifies any religious defensibility. The 1984 "newspeak" of the cofs has no validity here and these "sp's" are likely courageous people too good for the cofs. It may be that the real criminals are those who condemn such brave people, and defend an evil, corrupt group. You need to supply a verifiable, reliable citation for your statement about patter drills.--Fahrenheit451 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
"Peter", who seems to agree with your point of view, Fahrenheit451 (my guess, not a claim or a statement of fact), states about patter drills: 1- Patter Drills...What this type of drill does is teach an auditor his auditing commands verbatim. It works like this: One has a list of commands for any type of auditing, and, seated in front of a wall, one reads from the list and says the commands until he knows all of them verbatim. He does that here when questioning Laurie Hamilton. His other questions to her about the golden age of tech which she responds to are this and this. I'm saying, don't take my word for it and I dont' suggest anyone should take a declared SP's word for what a Patter Drill is. Terryeo 00:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, we are NOT discussing dianetic training drills, which you describe, we are discussing Patter Drills, the altered scientology introduced by the miscavige regime. I don't give a damn what hamilton has to say about it and again, the "declared sp" practice of the cofs only has validity in the cofs. Outside that group, it is considered nonsense, thus is irrelevant here. --Fahrenheit451 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim contravenes WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. However, if you wish your claim to become policy, WP:V is your discussion platform for such a change. Until then, the burden of an article's information is upon the editor who edits it into the article. I have, in good faith, given you some clues and in particular, "Peter" there, asks about Patter Drill. Terryeo 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Your statement is a falsehood and I don't buy into your lying and captious nonsense. You are operating in bad faith here. Our discussion ends right now. You will have to talk to the wall if you wish to continue it. Perhaps you could turn it into a patter drill. Good bye and Happy Ho Hos.--Fahrenheit451 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This was your created article, F (started article[10]). It has no primary source of information. The only sources are declared suppressive persons and unpublished personal attestations from others who are likewise disgruntled. There's no bad faith here when I spell out specifically the problems with the article. There's no human rights violation when an article isn't well written. The issue isn't one of Church policy, but one of fulfilling Wikipedia's policies. I would supply primary source information if I had it, but I don't find any. And that is what I told you when you first asked me, before you wrote this article. Accusing me of "bad faith" is a personal attack anyway. Terryeo 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo seems to be fixated on the cofs's barbaric practice of labeling someone who objects to an offbeat practice as a Suppressive Person. Outside the cofs, this label means nothing and such people are no more or less credible than anyone not thusly labeled.--Fahrenheit451 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
One more comment about the drill. It says, "seated facing a wall" but doesn't say, "seated touching a wall". A person could, according to what is stated, be 3 feet from the wall or 300 feet from the wall, whatever a comfortable distance would be. "Seated facing a wall" does not mean, you know, nose to the wall or anything, just facing toward a wall. Terryeo 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo - do you know of any verifiable source that the editors could use for more accurate information on "patter drills." Are there any COS publications or websites that are verifiable by non-church members that deal with patter drills? TheronJ 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through the HOCBs and PLs (published 1998), the volumes and indexes. I can't find any mention of them but I could have missed something. The drill booklets, I suspect, are internal distributions, distributed to Orgs and Missions and not published, not for public sale. They contain "how you do a patter drill" and the checksheets say proficiency in a patter drill is required. So, no, I don't know of and can't find (as of now) any information about them which is published for public sale. Terryeo 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. TheronJ 13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the patter drill for?

Strange, but the purpose of the patter drill is not mentioned or suggested anywhere in the article in its current form. Clearly the patter drill is a method, but a method for what?201.43.106.232 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its an educational technique. But Mr. F doesn't want to see "educational technique" in the article and reverts it out when it was entered as a description of what a Patter drill is. Terryeo 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if you didn't insist on providing only uncited, unverifiable information on the subject, Terry, perhaps then you could have your original research that a Patter drill is an "educational technique" entered into the article. But alas! since you choose not to produce a source that is published to the public, we cannot provide the reader with low-quality informations supported only by your word. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We've had a heck of a time coming up with verifiable sources for this article at all. In particular, we can't come up with any scientology or scholarly description of the practice at all. As far as I can tell, mostly from a variety of self-published websites:
  • The Church of Scientology would probably tell you that the purpose of the patter drill is to assist in memorization. (Most kids memorize spelling and arithmetic by a similar practice, although maybe not facing a wall).
  • Anti-scientologists might tell you that it's a form of (or part of a larger pattern of) brainwashing.
  • There's also apparently a schism within the Church, with some schismatic scientologists denouncing patter drills as a post-Ron Hubbard innovation that allegedly contradicts Hubbard's teaching.
TheronJ 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Would like to fix a grammatical error

In the subsection Authenticity of patter drills as Scientology Doctrine, in the Controversies section it states: "But, if they were theory drills, the drills would then violate HCO Policy Letter 13 May 1972, "Chinese School". Others have contended that the patter drills are done in accordance with TR-101, which is once a drill to improve a student auditor's ability to give auditing commands." "which is once a drill" is an obvious grammatical error in one of two ways. I would like to fix it but I don't know how. If TR-101 is a regulation that has been cancelled, either through supercedence or cancellation, then it should instead say "which WAS once a drill". However, if TR-101 is still in effect it should say "which IS a drill". Does anyone have any information regarding this? Blooddraken 11:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatter_drill_9fa8.html"