Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-09 Engram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Povmec 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Engram
Who's involved?
Povmec, Terryeo
What's going on?
Mainly, that the term Engram is also used by Dianetics. I am of the opinion that it should be made clear that:
1) In Dianetics, the meaning has no scientific basis.
2) There should be no lenghty explanation of the Dianetics' definition of engram in this article, as it detracts from the mainstream meaning. A simple mention with a wikilink to Dianetics is sufficient in my opinion. To be noted that NLP also has different meaning for the term engram, also different from the main article, with no scientific basis, and thus it deserve the same treatment.
What would you like to change about that?
We have to make sure that the reader of the Engram article won't be misled into thinking that Dianetics' definition of an engram has a scientific basis as in the main article. If the reader want to know more about the alternative use of the term, s(he) can easily follow the wikilink to Dianetics or NLP. I'm just worried that it has to be clear that these other meanings have nothing to do with the accepted mainstream definition, and have no scientific basis.
In my opinion, the following line is appropriate:
The term engram has been recycled in fringe practices such as Dianetics and NLP.
Terryeo's version, which I disagree with is as follow:
Dianetics uses the word as above, but does not take the second step, the positing of a physical change in the body. Thus, Dianetic's use of the term is even more narrow than than the scientific definition of the word, as above. Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, published by Bridge Publications, Inc. ISBN 0884044165.

The term engram has been recycled in fringe practices.
Note that in Dianetics, engrams are something negative: the person applying Dianetics tries to rid himself from all engrams in order to get rid of his reactive mind (a negative thing in Dianetics and Scientology). I fail to see how it is even closer to the mainstream definition, which doesn't assign a value to an engram. Because of this, a short one liner stating that the word has been recycled in other fringe practices with wikilinks should be sufficient in the event the reader is interested to know more (that's why I also include a wikilink to NLP, Terryeo's version discards this fact even though NLP also uses the term engram.)
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
(I don't mind open discussion)

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Mediator response

Right, OK. Well, I'm an experienced Dianetics (and Scientology) auditor, long-time Scientologist, and the coordinator down here at the Mediation Cabal. I think I could quite easily bring this one to rest, but the parties in question may not be entirely comfortable with my involvement since I could not really say, hand-on-heart, that I would be an entirely neutral observer. If both parties don't mind, then I suggest that propose an alternate wording for the page (perhaps on a subpage) that would satisfy both definition requirements; then we can simply take it from there. I would be most grateful if you would tell me whether or not this would be suitable; if alternatively the parties would prefer an entirely neutral person to look over it, then I will assign it to someone else. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, its good to see this in mediation. I'm perfectly willing to go with less page space but object to "pseudoscientific" (a judgement) jumping into a defintion like: "Dianetics uses the term 'engram' as a particular sort of memory." My justification for such a short bit is that "engram" will be defined fully in a Dianetics article and only needs a brief, linked to Dianetics mention. Further, in a Dianetics article cites and verifications have room to appear. I think it completely detracts from the science which is clearly develop and looking toward physical changes to make a controversy of "engram" Terryeo 06:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respects, I would prefer an independant neutral source to take care of this issue. Thank you. Povmec 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Povmec: Why of course, if that is your preference, I shall respect that; I'll assign someone else from the Mediation Cabal to handle this. I would never, of course, use mediation to expound my point of view, but indeed I can perfectly understand your concerns in this regard. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) copied from user talk pages --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator unable to handle due to party request - evaluation

A party in this mediation case, Povmec, has indicated in the message copied above that a completely neutral mediator would be preferred. As a consequence, I shall no longer be the mediator for this case; another individual from the Mediation Cabal will handle this request. However, even so, I'll outline what I think would be the best solution to this dispute:

It may be found more beneficial to use the wording "The term engram may refer to one of the following" to avoid arguments over precedence.

Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the above. My only comment would be that it is not worth to create engram articles for Dianetics and NLP, so the disambiguation page could link directly to Dianetics and NLP as follow:
My only concern was to prevent misleading the user into thinking that Dianetics is scientifically sound. Povmec 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I would hope that a disambiguation page would at least allay concerns of the conflation between neuropsychology and Dianetics - indeed, I agree that the two should be handled as separate and distinct meanings (although I shall not comment re. scientific soundness). I expect that linking to the Dianetics and NLP articles, rather than writing new ones, should suffice. If this satisfies your requirements further, shall I implement this disambiguation? Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I've completed the disambig now, as you suggested; Engram is now the disambig, linking to Engram (neuropsychology), Dianetics and Neuro-linguistic programming. I do hope this may resolve the scenario. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New mediator required

Note to cabalists: Please take this case over if desired. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator still needed?

To all parties: Since Engram is now a disambiguation page, and both parties appear to be satisfied with this dispute, is there any further attention required from a mediator in this case? I would be most grateful if the parties would indicate to me whether this mediation has been completed, or whether they would like me to assign a new mediator to this case (as I can no longer mediate, as per Povmec's request). Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with using a disambiguation page as my main concern is being addressed with this solution. Thank you very much for your involvment, and disregard me asking for another mediator as I am satisfied with the neutrality of your proposal. Povmec 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you Povmec. I am thus closing the case now. I thank all participants most warmly for their participation in the mediation process. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)