| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
At Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Help needed interpreting a guideline, Terryeo asked about WP:ASR and whether it applies to the "disambiguation" sentence at the beginning of the article. IMO (note that I have no particular interest in the topic of this article and will not add it to my watchlist) WP:ASR does not apply, but the sentence is completely redundant with the article lead. Reading through this talk page, I gather there's some controversy about whether this sentence should be included or not. From a purely stylistic viewpoint (again, IMO), if there's any doubt about what this article covers it should be included directly in the article lead rather than in a "disambiguation" preface (which disambiguates Dianetics the term from Dianetics the book?). Please see Wikipedia:Lead section. Perhaps the article could start:
- Dianetics is a theory about the human mind and associated practice for treating mental ailments. It is the secular predecessor of Scientology. Author L. Ron Hubbard developed Dianetics starting in the late 1940s, first presenting it to the general public in his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. If this is not a helpful suggestion, please feel free to ignore it, although it seems you all might want to try to find a way to stop squabbling with each other. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- EXCELLENT ! thank you Rick Block. It seems so obvious to me but I wasn't sure how to state it.
Terryeo 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Rick Block's proposed opening represents an improvement over the current intro. I suggest replacing "theory" with "set of ideas", because of the contentiousness about Dianetics being scientific. In fact, I'll be bold
and make that change, in hopes that we can find consensus on this as an acceptible intro. BTfromLA
17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. Since the book itself is frequently referred to as "Dianetics", any wording that makes the distinction clear seems like a good thing to me. Friday (talk) 18:02, 27 March
2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is some sense to what you say. A book is sometimes confused with ideas. For example, I've had people insist to me on yahoo chat that the Quran (spelling) IS the religion. Obviously a religion is a thought, obviously a religion is but a thought in the mind of whomever holds it. Surely most people understand that a book (physical object, paperweight, takes up space) is a physical object, independent of any thought? Terryeo 19:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest everybody reconsider the disambiguation tag as the article currently stands--its message is almost identical to the first three sentences of the article. I'm at a loss as to what it adds to the article at this point. I vote cut it. BTfromLA 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not needed anymore. Explaning the issue in regular article text is preferable to having a disambig tag at the top. Friday (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. The purpose of a {{otheruses4}} tag is to say "if you're looking for X, you're at the right place; if you're looking for Y, you're in the wrong place." To say the disambiguation link serves no purpose is to say that any editor, if they follow a link whose context claims it will send them to the article about the book Dianetics, but sends them instead to the article about the set of ideas "Dianetics" (and I have fixed three such links with just the past day and a half, BTW) will realize that the link they came from is incorrect and should be fixed, just because within the first few sentences there is a link to the separate article about the book. I think this idea reflects ideas of how much attention people should pay rather than how much they actually do.
- How often have you as editors run across information in article "X" which wasn't actually information about X, but about "Y", a somewhat related but distinct subject? I think anyone who's spent time trying to keep the Scientology articles free of debris has encountered that -- facts about Scientology doctrine inserted into L. Ron Hubbard, for instance, or conversely biographical facts about Hubbard in Scientology beliefs and practices. And that's happens when the big title up at the top of the page makes clear what the subject of the article is and what it isn't, which is not the case with the article which is about Dianetics but not 'Dianetics. So I can see why someone might think the disambiguation isn't serving a purpose, as the existence of a separate article and the distinction between this article and that one would seem obvious. Then again, frequently things seem a lot more obvious to the people who already know them than they are to the people that need to know them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- From a purely personal standpoint, I find disambigs to be much more useful than generic wikilinks. It's ultimately a style issue, but I think that disambigs promote wider reading, and I think that that is pretty much the highest goal for this encyclopedia. Tenebrous 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is indeed a style question, and I think that you both make a good case, Antaeus and Tenebrous. But please do consider my comments below regarding the disambig threshold (following a post by Android Cat). BTfromLA 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The disambiguity message is important enough to warrant its inclusion at the beginning. It lets the reader clearly know that there is also a Wikipedia article about the book which is not nearly as clear by reading the article. I think many people searching for information about the book Dianetics, may end up here thinking it is the same thing. Thus the disambuity message is necessary to let them know immediately that they are at the wrong article. Vivaldi 01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I just don't see your point, Vivaldi. The first sentences of the article say almost exactly the same thing as the three sentences of the disambig statement, and little else. The book is introduced and linked to early in the first paragraph... I don't think someone looking for the article on the book would find it any more easily with that disambig than without it. Anybody else want to weigh in about this? BTfromLA 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! I just don't understand why you can't grasp simple concepts! People searching for a book titled "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" may inadvertantly end up at his article which is not about that book. That is the purpose of a disambiguity message to begin with, especially since it is quite likely to happen many times for this particular article. People shouldn't have to read an article or its introduction to find out that they are reading the wrong thing. I suggest we remove the redundant information that appears below in the article if your concern is that we are repeating ourselves. The very first thing a person should see when they come here is a disambiguity mention. Vivaldi 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow ! make 'em read the same nonesense enough time, soon you will control their minds. lol. Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for identifying yourself as a rude editor who traffics in gratuitous unprovoked insults, Vivaldi. That sort of behavior is a blight on Wikipedia, and it drives away editors who are interested in civil discourse. BTfromLA 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- BTfromLA - You are the one who wrote "Wow!" after my response, as if what I wrote was so outlandish that it deserved an exclamation of shock and surprise. I find it humorous that you wish to engage in the more subtle sorts rude comments. I prefer a more direct and honest approach. What I wrote was to merely point out that I "got" your subtle jibe at me with your "Wow!" comment. Vivaldi 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Evidently my writing failed to convey the intended tone: my "wow"--no exclamation point, you added that--was meant as a friendly way of signifying amazement that two folks can see the same thing so differently. I guess I should have just written something like "I disagree with your argument"--I had hoped my less formal approach would make for a friendlier exchange, but clearly that backfired. Anyway, I'm willing to call it a misunderstanding and bury this hatchet, if you are. BTfromLA 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. I guess my writing failed to convey the intended tone. My "Wow!" and other comments were to be a friendly way of signifying that I found it incomprehensible that an intelligent person could ever disagree with me because my point of view is obviously the correct one. I guess I should have stuck my head in the sand instead. I was hoping that my friendly jibe at mocking your use of the word "wow" would be interpreted as a good-natured friendly joke intended to impart lots of meaning in a friendly and spirited manner. I guess in the future, I'll have to stick to being a boring droll. However, I'm willing to admit that you are wrong and bury the hatchet as well. Vivaldi 08:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I sometimes forget that a number of my fellow Wikipedia editors are not yet adults. Thanks for the reminder. -- BTfromLA 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Will you scold me for pointing out that you have again demonstrated that you have no problems with people violating the policy at WP:NPA as long as the said violators are you alone? I sometimes forget that a number of my fellow Wikipedia editors are insufferable hypocrites. Thanks for the reminder! So are you ready to bury the hatchet (again), or do you want to start throwing sand, and saying na-na-na-na-boo-boo? I'm guessing you will want to continue with childish games and fingerpointing. Perhaps we can even start arguing about who started it again? Won't that be fun? Then maybe we can even play a rousing game of "Let's you and him fight". Vivaldi 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics
Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health
Those two look so simliar, so alike, so identical that a dismabiguation is needed? How so? Terryeo 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because many times people link to Dianetics and search for Dianetics when they are really searching for the book called Dianetics and not the subject of Dianetics. Numerous examples of this sort have already been demonstrated right here on Wikipedia. And I know from my own real world experience that many people often say things like, "Have you read Dianetics?", when they mean, ""Have you read Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health?". Dianetics is often a short form for the book title. This article isn't about the book, therefore a disambiguity message is appropriate. Vivaldi 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because, no matter how you try to rig the comparison, those two (Dianetics and Dianetics) look so similiar, so alike, ARE identical, that a disambiguation is needed. Capiche? (Well, probably, but you'd never actually admit it.) --Calton | Talk 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- nah, they look quite different to me. Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would you like to participate in the discussion here Carlton? There's lots of it. On one hand is a book. Yes, lots of copies have been printed and yes, lots of copies have been sold and yes, they have been printed and sold in paperback, hardcover and languages besides yours and mine. On the other hand is a subject. Dianetics is both a practice and the ideas which comprise that practice. Like baseball, Dianetics is an action but the action is based on certain ideas. On the other hand there is that book. A comparison might be the subject Baseball compared to a specific book written about baseball. Capiche? (Well, probably, but you're invited to engage in discourse.) -- Terryeo 14:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would you like to participate in the discussion here Carlton? Gee, that's a toughie. Wait, you meaning rebutting what you say and having you respond ISN'T participating in the discussion? Oh, right, it is, but your major reading comprehension and/or intellectual honesty problems leads you to ignore reality. Including something as basic as spelling.
- The rest of your word salad is safely ignored, as is your weak attempt to mock my words by cutting-and-pasting and without actually understanding them. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see that Baseball does have a disambiguation to cut down on confusion.
This article is about the sport baseball; for a disambiguation on unrelated computer and video games entitled Baseball or similar names, see Baseball (computer game).
That was a good example! AndroidCat 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is indeed an excellent example. Dianetics is one action, one activity. It has no video game to disambiguate from. It does not have thousands of "baseball fields' to disambiguate from. It does not have millions of "baseball fans" to disambiguate from. It does not have hundreds of authors writing thousands of articles every week to disambiguate from. Dianetics is a single activity. It does not need a disambiguation from a single book which uses that word as part of its title. An excellent example, indeed. Terryeo 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are there no "Dianetics fans", no "Dianetics practitioners", no "Dianetics users", no "Dianetics auditors", no "Dianetics Centers", no "Hubbard Dianetics Foundation", no "Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation"?, No "Dianetics Self-Improvement Package"? No "Dianetics CD"? No "Dianetics Affiliate Program"? No "Dianetics Home Study Course"? No "Dianetics E-Newsletter"? No "Dianetics: Evolution of Science", no "Dianetics 55", etc...?Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Duh, when a person looks for the subject, "Dianetics", where does he look, Duh, well, he looks for an article entitled, "Dianetics". Then within the article entitled, "Dianetics", if he persists through the vast controversy you people present, he might be able to find additional links and information. Additional information about Dianetics would be within the article, if you wished to present Dianetics. On the other hand, if you wished to present the controversy of Dianetics, then you would make an even larger disambiguation until the person had to read through vast lists of books and other stuff, all of which begin with the single word, "Dianetics" but had additional, decsriptive words thereto attached. Heh.Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also find it amusing that on the official page of Dianetics at Dianetics.org, immediately under the large print text that says "WHAT IS DIANETICS" it says, "DIANETICS — The all-time self-help bestseller". So Terryeo, is it true? Is that what Dianetics is, or is Dianetics just a subject matter and the book something else? It seems like there is a bit of ambiguity here even on the official home page for Dianetics. Does ithat confuse you? Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Doesnt' confuse me. On the other hand I know from past chat with you that you are not implicating that the article presents Dianetics in a manner which might be confusing, but instead hoping to find an area of confusion to implement more controversy. :) I've learned, you people do not wish to present that information which constitues Dianetics. You don't know the subject but you disallow its introduction. Instead you present the controversy of the subject, you present it in a manner which you hope will be acceptable enough that the subject does not actually become presented, but enough of its jargon is presented so that the controversy of the subject has a rich field to sprout from.Terryeo 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nice curve. The baseball disambiguation is solely between the activity of baseball and several baseball computer games. No baseball fields involved. No baseball fans mentioned either. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there are several books that use Dianetics as part of the title. Perhaps the disambiguation should be expanded?
- Arguments that there is a link to the book in the first paragraph are ignoring the user interface concepts of expectation and least surprise. If someone is looking for "that dianetics book", and gets the Dianetics page, the user expectation is that the standard Wiki interface will tell them that they are close to what they are looking for, and they will see it in a disambiguation rather than text in the article. AndroidCat 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- But isn't the user close to what they are looking for when they come to this article? There's a question of whether this situation meets the "ambiguity" threshold at all: unlike most disambigs, there is a great deal of overlap between an article on Dianetics and Dianetics the book. (I'm not sure that a separate article on the book is even warranted, but it exists at this point, so I'm not going to argue that.) Do we need a disambig now for another article that I'm dubious about, "History of Dianetics"? Or, as Terryeo suggests, "Dianetics Today"? I'm wondering whether the fact that Terryeo has championed the removal of the tag has raised suspicions that removing must be a bad, POV-ish thing to do. That's baby-with-the-bath-water thinking, if true. If we do keep or expand the disambig note, we'll need to rearrange the intro so that in is not so exactly redundant with the disambig notice. BTfromLA 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that when they are searching for Dianetics the book, they are close to the proper subject when they end up here. This disambig notice just lets them know up front they are in the wrong place. And I would agree that it might be wise to merge the articles into one place. But until these articles are merged, the disambig notice should remain. Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused, but I think BTfromLA is saying the disambiguity notice isn't necessary? I don't think it is. Readers were come to this article to understand what "Dianetics" is, wouldn't they? And if they wished to understand what was between the covers of the book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health then they would go to that article. Or alternatively, if they wanted to know all about a picture of a volcano, what better source ? heh ! But a reader might start at either article and go to the other because both link to each other. I believe we can befuddle a reader if we include a large notice "this subject is not subjects X, nor Y, nor Z" on the top of every subject. These subjects use new words, new to the reader. Dianetics is such a word, "mental health" doesn't even have a real definition, although you could make an arguement for that. Let us keep the beginnings as simple as we possible can. There is lots of room for controversy, for other viewpoints, for skepticism, even for "its is all evil" but let us keep the introductions as simple as possible for the reader. I'm not sure what to say about your last comment BTfromLA. I'm just working toward good, clean introductions of subjects as I did at Fair_Game_(Scientology). Terryeo 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- The disambiguity is necessary because: any person searching to find out information about the book titled Dianetics will end up here, to the subject of Dianetics, which is not the same thing. That is why we have a disambiguity notice. If we get rid of the article about Dianetics and merge the information here, then we can remove the disambiguity notice. I would be willing to consider a merge of those two seperate subjects since they overlap considerably and share the same name. Vivaldi 06:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is no book titled Dianetics. Terryeo 15:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tell that to all the many people who have created links to Dianetics when what they were trying to reference was Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The question is not whether there is a book whose correct title is Dianetics but whether there is a need for disambiguation. Data indicates there is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, please explain your latest revert. Tenebrous 06:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- The first version is more clear and better. Vivaldi 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought it was too redundant. My attempt to shorten it was because the disambig was long and basically repeated the first couple sentences of the article. I'm not just going to put it back, but I liked the short version which read simply "For the book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.". Friday (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- The otheruses template works just fine. Its okay to duplicate a little information from the introduction in the dismbig. notice. In fact it is quite common to briefly explain what the seperate terms are -- that's why the disambig template makes a special provision and space for that. Vivaldi 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- The current disambig looks fine to me. It seems an appropriate length, and it's fairly clear. Friday (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the recent changes to both the disambiguation notice and the intro sentences have made the notice much less problematic. While I'm still not fully convinced that the Dianetics book merits a disambiguation tag, I don't see the existing one as much of a problem. BTfromLA 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the disambig template appeared destined for deletion, I changed it to the Template:for style. --Davidstrauss 10:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The lead-off sentence was terrible as it did not adequately define dianetics. A good definition has the characteristic of being a sentence with the following form: "A is a B that satisfies C" where
- A is the term in question
- B is a relevant superset to which the subject belongs
- C is a set of qualifiers which distinguishes the term from all other elements contained in B.
As the intro used to read, it had features of A and B but failed to accomplish C. We need to distinguish dianetics from other practices and ideas regarding the mind in order for the definition to be editorially sound. As such, I changed it to an appropriate definitional form. --ScienceApologist 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see a "C" in there: "developed by author L. Ron Hubbard starting in the late 1940s." This sets Dianetics apart from other practices and ideas. Friday (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's only in there now because I put it in there. I changed the wording of my above post to conform with this. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am willing to work with you or anyone on the introduction. But please consider before making lots of big changes, it has been worked on a lot. It is not quite a concensus, but it is nearing a concensus. Dianetics is unique in that it addresses the mind without addressing the body. No other area of study does that, does it? In this narrow sense it has no superset. Or am I missing what you mean to say, ScienceApologist? Terryeo 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Psychoanalysis is an example of a practice which addresses the mind without "addressing the body". --ScienceApologist 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note that your reversion is without rationale. I understand the desire for consensus, but we should not let that excuse ugly prose. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm of the impression that both psychology and psychiatry base their work on the "mind" being an intregal part of and contained by "the brain". In particular, Psychiatiry is well known for quoting things about "chemical imbalances" and such as they prescribe psych drugs. How am I misinformed? Terryeo 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are misinformed in assuming that psychoanalysis is interchangable with psychiatry. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I could be misinformed, that's possible. I understand psychoanalysis to be an activity, Psychology to have two branches, one of which makes studies and the other of which treats people. Then Psychiatry is Psychology + Medical Doctor. However, whether I have the gist of it or not, my impression is that both consider the human mind to be an intregal part of the human nervous system, especially the brain and treat the body rather than treating the spirit. Dianetics treats, "through mind," treating the spirit which is a different approach and is sometimes viewed as contrary to psychology's priniciples. Terryeo 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are now confusing psychology with psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis, in particular, was developed by Freud and his followers without any "mind body connection" ideas. --ScienceApologist 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe we can introduce "mind" without getting into extreme explanations of special jargon. Terryeo 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As a minor note, in the sentance "Dianetics has been highly controversial since its public introduction in 1950." the word "public" is redundant. Tenebrous 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist: Did you know Dianetics has structures for good definitions too? There are four of them in Logic 5 Scientology 0-8; a descriptive definition that simply describes something, or classifies it like yours. One that associates likenesses to other things, one that compares differences to other things, and that shows purposes or actions or causes and states of being. There are more details in the book. Spirit of Man 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I was aware of the dogma of Dianetics regarding various terms (including "good definition structures"). Let's just say that both description and classification is important when writing an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I agree. Would you also agree that the scope of the subject might be important? For example, for "Physics" we could say the ideas and practices Newton used to describe the motion of bodies. Or we could include thermodynamics and all the rest of the actual subject. What I'm saying is the description and classification could be very restrictive or more inclusive. I have proposed something like, "Dianetics is the philosophy, science and therapy described by L. Ron Hubbard in his books on Dianetics. This includes your A, B C idea above but is inclusive rather than restrictive. Spirit of Man 05:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- The definition you just provided is fine with me. I have no objection to it. I had objection to the previous intro which didn't include Hubbard (which I think was an atrocious oversight). Perhaps you could rewrite your sentence to "Dianetics is the philosophy, science and therapy of the mind as described by L. Ron Hubbard in his books on Dianetics". I understand that there may be more to it than the mind, but being too broad is also a problem (as "the philosophy, science, and therapy" can be taken to mean those belonging to, or the universal philosophies, sciences and therapies -- see what I mean?) --ScienceApologist 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your definition is fine for me. We could mention "spirit" but that is in the books. We could say "works" instead of books, that would include lectures, bulletins and such. But yours is fine. You editing it is more likely to pass than mine, which usually gets summary deletion. Spirit of Man 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Let me ask you this, why not allow a person, either myself or Spirit of Man would do, why not let us introduce the subject? We are both, after all, familar with the subject and we know the subject and it is the content, not the style of the introduction that I am myself objecting to. When the introduction has a reasonable content, then by all means, criticize it for style. Dianetics is not what the introduction states it is. Surely every editor wants the subjects to be introduced, don't they? Terryeo 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I take a different perspective: style can influence content. Arguing over who should or shouldn't write a particular sentence is contrary to the spirit of group editting and encyclopedia. Rather, let everyone add their own two cents whether it be about specific content request, stylistic requests, or even punctuation requests (some of the best editors I have met at Wikipedia are involved mostly in orthography and have enabled brilliant prose to emerge in the most controversial of subjects by focusing on form rather than function). The introduction as previously written was atrocious. It needed to change. By enacting at least a standard definitional form, we have at least not hit the reader over the head with terrible writing from the get-go -- whether it is the best introductory sentence we as editors can wrangle about later. However, style editors do not and should not take a backseat while content editors make their bold penstrokes. They are just as valuable and can contribute simultaneously. I frankly don't care what the definition says (though it should conform to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia), I really just care we have put our best foot forward. --ScienceApologist 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- That certainly makes sense, Science Apologist. Neither is it in the spirit of Wikipedia for any person or even group of persons to "own" or have exclusive control of any part of any article. I would much rather a concensus of editors arrive at a good introduction, but was just feeling desperate. Which is why I said that about the introduction. Terryeo 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
and should not be in the article. I have removed it many times, editors continually revert what I remove. These two partial sentences, just following the introduction are (I think it was ChrisO's) Original Research and Violate WP:NOR.
"......resulting in a word similar to the already-existing Greek adjective dianoētik-os διανοητικ-ός, meaning "mental". His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by cybernetics, a vogue idea at the time of Dianetics' establishment."
Those ideas are not completely crazy but they are poorly introduced, they are Original Reseach added into the middle of an otherwise almost direct quotation from Terra Incognito. Please quit reverting Original Research into the article. Terryeo 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What part of that first sentence bit is OR? The second bit could possibly be interpreted as OR, but! You should ask for a citation before deleting it. And how is what you replace it with not OR? And really, what is your problem with it? OR is the excuse, but what does it say that you don't like? Tenebrous 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the first sentence fragment is citable within Dianetics materials, actually there are citations that do not support it. It is simply added material. Now someone in the world might have made a connection somewhere. But I don't know of any importance to it. It exists. We wouldn't put a telephone book in the article simply because it exists. I think they both should be deleted, unless someone wishes to say something more profound about them. Spirit of Man 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Let's break this down a bit. The first sentence is a pure statement of fact. There is indeed a Greek word, διανοητικός (dianoutikos), meaning "mental", and it is indeed very similar to "Dianetics". The first part of the second sentence explains what the -etics ending means. Again, this is a statement of fact (look it up for yourself). The second part of the second sentence notes the parallel between Hubbard's neologism Dianetics and the existing word cybernetics, which was a very fashionable concept at the time. Terryeo omits the third sentence, which notes that Hubbard explicitly linked Dianetics with cybernetics. Once again, this is pure fact - Terryeo hasn't tried to deny that Hubbard publicly made such a link in his published works.
- I think Terryeo's bottom line here, though he's evidently not honest enough to admit it, is that he wants to present Dianetics as L. Ron Hubbard's own special and unique creation, being a radical departure from everything else that didn't owe anything to any lesser minds. Or it could be that Terryeo is just plain uninformed on this issue, which seems very possible (he's already asserted that διανοητικός is a German word). Most likely it's a combination of the two. Either way, he is wasting everyone's time and patience, as usual. -- ChrisO 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you speak to me directly ChrisO? I am completely upfront and honest and I stated my POV on my user page. You, however, I do not expect the same honest, upfront, emotions on the cuff of the sleeve behaviour from, nor do I expect it from any editor. It is not required. What is required is No Original Research. The phrase, "His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by" uses the word "may" and having read that article (as anyone can read that article, it is online), I know that word does not appear in that article. I further know that is your own, personal original research which you yourself did, or someone did for you and you posted it into the article. It is uncited. I have removed it many times and will continue to remove original research. While you are completely free to draw a conclusion, you are not free to state a conclusion in the article unless that conclusion is published. It is dishonest to put your own original research into an article. It is somewhat dishonest to imply that I am being dishonest by pointing out that is orignal research. Terryeo 14:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- ChrisO clearly states why "may have been inspired by" isn't "original research." If he went out and interviewed Hubbard's wife and she told him that he named Dianteics based on thus-and-so and he put her account in the article, that would be original research. What exists is merely a reasonable supposition based on established fact. The word "may" signals that it is a supposition. But the fact that Hubbard himself linked Dianetics to cybernetics at the time he introduced it makes this line perfectly reasonable, in my view. BTfromLA 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- What's more, reviewers of Dianetics at the time commented that Hubbard appeared to have borrowed concepts from cybernetics: "The terminology of dianetics is made up of words and concepts borrowed from psychiatry and psychoanalysis, mixed with language derived from physics, mathematics, engineering and cybernetics" ; "Dianetics is actually a sort of hasty pudding made up of ideas taken bald-faced from Freudian psychology, Cybernetics" ; "Cybernetics is the big new idea of the times, and it is my opinion Hubbard (who never mentions the word) has got cybernetics, and got it bad; this is to say, he has got it wrong." . Don't forget that we're looking at this issue with nearly 60 years' hindsight - cybernetics was much more in the public eye back then so the links between Dianetics and cybernetics were more immediately obvious than they are now. -- ChrisO 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is Original Research WP:NOR within the context you have presented it. You introduced that paragraph and it cites Terra Incoginta as its source. Terra Incognita was written by Hubbard and he presents at its end, the source of his word. It does not state, "the suffix '-etics' may have been inspired by cybernetics" but instead tells explicity and exactly the source of Hubbard's choice of his word. You place the conjecture, "it may have been inspired by....?" without telling whose conjecture it is. Unless it is cited then it is origninal reasearch. Why not make it simple for the reader, why not present the exact quote from Terra Incognita and quit hammering away with this piece of information which the author happily supplies in Terra Incognita? Terryeo 15:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll make one additional comment here, though this is very very redundant and I have stated it perahaps 10 times and it is all over my user page. I am editing per wikipedia policy. WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. I expect other editors to likewise edit per wiki policy. I want the information which comprises the subject's name to be introduced. If any editor wishes to ask me a question about the information, I try to be responsive. It is completely false to say that I hope to "hope to present the subject" in a particular way. I fully intend that Dianetics be introduced to be what it actually is. After it is introduced a reader could understand the subject. Until a reader does understand that Dianetics is an action, a read can not understand the controversy around it. Terryeo 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a semantic point, but the statement "can be traced to" would require a tracer, while "appear similar to those of," does not. I do not believe there is an RS that says that the psychometric ideas in Dianetics can be traced to Sigmund Freud, but it is clear that they appear similar. Can we think of a different wording that does not make it appear that Freud = Dianetics? Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to CoS, Hubbard was trained by Snake Thompson who trained under Freud. Thus the "can be traced to" statement. Of course the main reason for this statement is merely to get Hubbard's name next to some of the great thinkers of modern times, when in reality Hubbard flunked out of college after his first year and his ideas have been mocked by nearly every scientist that has ever commented on his babble. Vivaldi 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Vivaldi "traces" to Freud through Thompson, but one could also "trace" to any one of the numerous people LRH credits in 50,000 years of thinking men. I think you have a point. The technology of Dianetics does not trace to Freud, and Freud was not the source. Freud was a neurologist. Dianetics deals with the spirit, mental image pictures and produces Clears. Freud didn't and psychoanalysis doesn't use those ideas nor get that kind of result. Hubbard credits Gautama Siddartha with the idea of "if it is not true for you, it is not true". He credits Dharma with the cycle of action, and many others. He credits Freud for "you can do something about the mind", which Freud got from Breur. In the Pre-Hav Scale 22 Jan 61 and the South African Congress Lectures, LRH places Freud's technology of "tokens" and other things at a level of Inverted Interest, 22 levels below the level needed to even start a Dianetics session. Dianetics started by throwing out everything, not of personal observation, testing and evaluation according to Evolution of Science. This comes from the Doctrine of The Introduction of an Arbitrary. Known in Study Tech as the first barrier to study, "the idea that you know all about it." Fixed ideas prevent learning about a subject and all of Freud's ideas had to be thrown out and ones like the "censor" are specifically named with why they are invalid. Engram running "by chains" was not introduced until 1961. Even then it included the spirit and past lives which has not been admitted to by Freudians to my knowledge. Spirit of Man 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- What precisely are you saying? I see a great deal of rambling towards a point, but the point itself seems to be missing. The topic is a specific sentance in the article. Should we change it, and how? Tenebrous 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tenebrous, I'm saying Freud is credited along with dozens of others for their specific contributions in Dianetics. Freud was not the source, the source is correctly described in Evolution of Science and other Dianetic materials, not the quotation and citation of Campbell in something uncited by Winter as this paragraph says. I don't think "psychometric" and its Wiki link is the correct word, but as such it has no meaning in the context of the paragraph or Dianetics and I doubt it has any meaning in psychoanalysis either. I don't see any reason for the entire paragraph at all. It certainly has no meaning in a section on the basics of Dianetics. There is no "basic" of Dianetics represented. There is a reference to Freud in the History section, but I don't see that that applies either. Both should be deleted [be bold] or rewritten by someone that cares about it. Maybe Vivaldi or a consensus committee? Spirit of Man 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't trace anything to Freud. I was just regurgitating the worthless babble that is often spouted by the Church of Scientology. From [Scientology dot org L. Ron Hubbard: Early Studies of the Mind]:
At the end of that year, young Ron traveled to the nation’s capital via the Panama Canal, meeting Commander Joseph C. Thompson of the US Navy Medical Corps. Commander Thompson was the first officer sent by the US Navy to study under Sigmund Freud, and took it upon himself to pass on the essentials of Freudian theory to his young friend. Although keenly interested in the Commander’s lessons, Ron was also left with many unanswered questions.
- So it is reported that LRH was taught the essentials of Freudian theory. But big deal! L Ron Hubbard was also taught the essentials of engineering while in college but he flunked nearly every course. In fact the university had to kick L. Ron Hubbard out of college because he was so inept and uneducatable. Vivaldi 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am lol about your statement Vivaldi because that view of Hubbard's education isn't too uncommon. It looks at one element of a person's education, i.e. the degrees they can post onto their wall, and it ignores certain other elements. For example, Hubbard earned his living by the pen. Whether it is called education or called a knack or called just plain hard work, he earned his living by the pen and did reasonably well. I've seen estimations that his vocabularly was about 50,000 words while most of us do well with 20,000. It amuses me because while it has elements of truth to it, neither does it tell the whole story and that is exactly true of much of what he created. At least two websites are dedicated to defaming and making little of his work, they present a point of view that is not completely false. On the other hand, it isn't the whole story either. Terryeo 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hubbard is not respected as a smart or learned man by educated intelligent people. For example, Hubbard said, "Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer". Click for audio clip of Hubbard telling people to smoke more cigarettes to prevent cancer. Hubbard on the subject of Calculus: "Now I hope you understand this, because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it. It must be some sort of a Black Magic operation, started out by the Luce cult -- some immoral people who are operating up in New York City, Rockefeller Plaza -- been thoroughly condemned by the whole society. Anyway, their rate-of-change theory -- I've never seen any use for that mathematics" Click to listen to Hubbard on Calculus. Hubbard on Gamma Ray radiation: "You know, it kills the human body very, very dead, but it'll go through a sixteen foot wall! A gamma ray'll go through a wall, very easily. Well, what's it -- how does it hurt a body? Nobody can tell you. A wall can't stop a gamma ray, but a body can. And we get down to our number one medical question. Gamma rays go through walls but don't go through bodies. We get the density of a body and the density of the wall and we find out that the body is less dense than the wall. So therefore we have to go in to the field of the mind, if we can't go into the field of anatomy on this subject and say "What is happening here?". And I can tell you, fortunately, what is happening here. Resistance! The wall doesn't resist and the body does." Hubbard says he cures blindness with an e-meter: "if you run it their sight should turn on" Vivaldi 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Vivaldi, I refer you to WP:CIV. You certainly must know that the things you quote here are out of context and you have not checked them yourself. So your intent appears to be to insert knowingly, false information to escalate an argument. If you don't know they are true or false then you should check them first. If you would like to know the truth, then that would have nothing to do with publishing these things here in this way. If you don't intend harm, then I suggest you check each of these things out for yourself as to validity and then look back to where your found them. Did they intend harm by giving you false information? I think you will find that is exactly true. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- What part of WP:CIV would like to refer me to? I was making a comment about a convicted criminal, drug abuser, and the funder of a criminal cult named L. Ron Hubbard, who happens to be dead and not an editor of Wikipedia, so I don't understand how WP:CIV applies to this case. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would like you to read it and not ignore it. "This policy in a nutshell: Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed." "In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize." "For example, if User A and User B are flaming each other by e-mail through a mediator, it might be best if the intermediary turns "I refuse to allow Neo-Nazi apologetics to infest the Wikipedia" to "User A is concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a certain view." Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Of course we hear the common complaint that Hubbard's quotes are out of context, but do you think I would get any complaints if I posted the ENTIRE LECTURE here? Would you care to provide the needed "context" that makes any of Hubbard's ridiculous comments make more sense? Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have checked each and every quote myself and listened to the full context of each of the lectures that these quotes came from (NUMEROUS TIMES!) You accuse me of falsehood, when I provided you with links to Hubbard's own voice saying the words. (If you want to say the material is out-of-context, then go ahead and provide whatever context you want to clear it up). "Out-of-Context" and "False" are not the same thing. Hubbard really did spout off this nonsense. Hubbard had a drug-addled mind and his lectures only reflected his ignorance on a variety of topics. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I refer you to WP:CIV.
- Are they out of context or are they false? Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Smoking" is out of context and false. LRH is talking about causative factors not apparent symptoms. "rate-of-change theory" out of context, false, irrelavent. It is literary device to introduce a discussion. "Gamma Ray radiation" out of context, false, the handlings for radiation are given elsewhere with the its technology. This quote is from an early tape where the problem is being identified only. Gamma radiation only restimulates, it does not hit the cell and it does not stop. It is handled by key-out of the restimulation. As such Scientology is only concerned with radiation to the degree it causes hysteria. The restimulation is caused by resistence the same as any recording in the mind. "e-meter" is false as intepreted. It is also out of context, the e-meter doesn't "run" anything. Only the spirit is addressed. The meter only measures resistence in the body and displays that information to the auditor. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- For example; smoking and cancer. That type of procedure has not been used since that time, there are more effective methods that are less alarming, but here is an explanation of how it would work. Per Dianetics 55! the spirit creates mental image pictures by resisting things. If the pictures are of pain influencing the body, then if these specific pictures are used at a later time, that old pain can influence the body now...to cause cancer. If the pain was caused by or associated with smoking, nicotinic acid, or resisting smoking, then that is part of the content of the picture and can influence the body again if used. But the picture is only formed when the spirit resists. The painful picture is only used when the person resists.The pain causing the cancer only appears when the person resists. So what happens if you reverse this resistance effect by having the person smoke more till the cancer is handled? He isn't resisting the pain or the content that caused the pain, and the pain will vanish. I know you don't know the logic of this and have not seen this in action. You haven't seen people get well using such a method. I can assure you the source that gave you this information did NOT tell you how many cases Hubbard had "cured" with this method. But my mother-in-law decided to stop smoking because it was bad for her health...she died of lung cancer in two weeks. She had been a smoker for 30 years before deciding to stop. Resistence has a lot to do with it. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments speak volumes about your scientific training.
- You have no idea of my scientific training. You don't seem to be able to comprehend this material. Why are you here? Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- ...Another example of this kind of logic: Did you know that I was able to get: a formerly wilted tomato plant to sprout up and produce large happy fruit just by paying for a little Scientology auditing? It must be true, because I saw it happen! And you know what they say, "What's true for you...". LOL. Vivaldi 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I refer you WP:CIV. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- You guys have egged Spirit of Man into an explanation. He has used Scientology jargon and exactly described what happens. You don't understand the jargon he uses and since you don't, the explanation which he gave it his best shot about, his explanation doesn't make sense to you. Then you begin the mocking, after egging him into the explanation in the first place. Auditing has, not kidding, cured diseases and done a lot of things. You are free to refuse to understand that it happens at all. You are free to an opinion. Travolta says his career is largely due to it. There is something to it whether you understand it or don't understand it. But whether you refuse to understand it or not, it isn't appropriate to egg a person into an explanation and then jeer him for his explanation. Terryeo 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting a bit close to a session of mocking Scientology, which although it's highly entertaining, should probably be carried out on a different talk page---I volunteer mine. Actually, we can change it to "Why people don't like Scientology" and then Terryeo can get his answers. Tenebrous 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see that it is any different than a mocking session by two persons uninformed. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- How lovely. Any more anecdotes you'd like to share? Hmm. Anecdotal evidence, unverifiable claims versus medical science. I guess those misspent millions towards finding a cure for cancer should have been given to LRH instead. And how many needless deaths could have been prevented simply by converting to Scientology? We could get rid of all the hospitals in the country, and do away with all this medicare nonsense, etc. etc.
Clearly some people will believe anything. I should start a religion. Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto on the mocking. Scientology deals with the spirit not the body. It leaves cancer to medical science. Dianetics has received no funding from governments or medicine. You seem misinformed that funds "should have been given". Did you know Linus Pauling did a study in Ireland with a thousand terminal cancer patients as controls and 100 test subjects using 10 gm per day of vitamin C? The controls died in six months and he continued his study for seven years while some of his patients lived. I'm just saying if we leave "cancer" to medicine they still may need some help. Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- A modern use of nicotinic acid, niacin, is in the Purification Rundown. The effectiveness of this Rundown had been demonstrated scientifically in the New England Journal of Medicine, by doctors Denk, Megan and Samler. Small doses of niacin are given with lots of excercise, nutritional support and sweating under a medical doctors supervision. The dose is kept the same for a week or so. There will be flushing and other side reactions that take place. The dose is kept the same until there are no more side reactions for a while. Then the dose is increased. Just as you quote incorrectly above, the nicotinic acid is increased. One of the reactions that can occur temporarily with this rundown is cancer, just as you said. The procedure is to keep the dosage the same until there is no more reaction, then increase the dose. Until there is no more reaction and all of the side reactions are gone. Cancer that occurs in this way is called incipient cancer. One is basically running out the cancer that would have occured later in a harmless way. The person then doesn't get the cancer in an uncontrolled way later. Spirit of Man 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I looked for that study, but couldn't find it. Please provide a link. Also, your understanding of cancer is...um. Let's just say that you've been misinformed, and should do some research on the subject from non-scientology sources. Tenebrous 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Purification Rundown -- and the Narconon treatment -- have not been fully analyzed by any independent studies. This is because Narconon refuses to participate in any independent verification of their absurd claims. This is not a "modern use" of niacin.
- Is it used?
- ...This is the nonsensical, uninformed, dangerous, and potentially deadly use of absurd levels of niacin which can cause liver damage, gout and other problems (see John A. Henry, British Medical Association New Guide to Medicines and Drugs, 2000 edition). Also you should read more about Hubbard's Junk Science. Vivaldi 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you agree Narconon has the highest success rate, two years with not reversion to drugs, of any group treating heroin addiction? Spirit of Man 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Making a profit at something is not an accurate means of quantifying intelligence or knowledge. If this were the case, Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt would be considered geniuses, while Einstein would be considered a dolt. Just because Hubbard was able to briefly support himself by writing for a penny a word, doesn't mean he was smart. His real money didn't come until he figured out that being a charlatan, a crook, and a fraud was the means to really gain money and power. Vivaldi 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to make up an arguement but some of what you say seems valid and applicable. The element of Hubbard's having learned soemthing about how Freud did things that I've seen mention of, by Hubbard though I couldn't say where exactly was that an examination of Freud's early work, Freud simply listened to people talk. This is somewhat like the Catholic Confessional where the Priest just asks the guy if he has something to confess and listens to his confession and acknowledges the guy for having confessed. If you call this a psychoalaysis technique or call it "listening" or call it "auditing," whatever you call it, that's the part of Freud's work that Hubbard found application for. And I say this not because I can remember where I read it, but because I read it someplace in the Scientology Tech. But it is the sort of thing, you know, people do with each other anyway. Its hardly rocket science. Terryeo 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Vivaldi and Terryeo, for your opinions. This conversational tangent, however, is better explored on one of your talk pages, as it does not relate to the subject of this article. Tenebrous 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Tenebrous, getting back to the "mostly evil" thing which I asked you about and which you replied by telling me that I should know it already, may I ask you for specifics of what you mean by saying that Scientology is "mostly evil?" Terryeo 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Something else that does not belong on this page. I don't believe that I used that specific phrase, though. I'm not sure I would consider it to be accurate, either. I'm working on a response/clarification to that, be patient. Tenebrous 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The introduction presently appears to the reader as:
- This article is about the theory and practice termed Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
- Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated practice for treating mental issues developed by developed by author L. Ron Hubbard.
Which has two elements which are non-encyclopedic. First, the disambiguation, throughly redundant, stuffs the reader's face into "Dianetics is the secular predeccssor of Scientology" before the reader has a clue what Dianetics is about. Why? What possible reason is there to introduce the reader to words he doesn't need in order to understand "Dianetics?" It is poor, very poor writing in any perspective but particularly poor encyclopedic writing when we have kilobytes to give the reader links with. In addition, the book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health is mentioned very early in the article and is linked. The disambiguation only adds length without adding content. Then the first sentence does even worse, it says that Dianetics is "for treating mental issues" and that simply isn't correct at all, that is false information within the context mentioned. Is there any chance at all of discussing the introduction with people? Everyone looks at my edits, sees it it terryeo who has edited and reverts without discussion. I understand that other editors do not understand what Dianetics is, how it is used, why it was created or any of the rest of it. Nonetheless, we should discuss these issues and so I present again, The article does not introduce Dianetics. This is exactly where we were 3 months ago. And 3 months ago, we nearly got an introduction, then ChrisO, majorly rewrote the article, dispersing our agreements. Dianetics is not introduced, people. Can we talk about it?Terryeo 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the disambig is less neccessary now that it nearly duplicates the first few sentences of the article. I'd tried trimming the disambig down to just For the book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health., but this change was reverted. I still think this would be a change for the better, but unless other people think so too, I probably won't try making that change again. As for "the subject is not introduced", I've heard this many, many times before, and I doubt this will go anywhere. If anyone has specific suggestions on how to improve the into, let us know and/or try them out. But don't just try things again that have already been shot down repeatedly by other editors. Friday (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verily, I valued the less verbose version, but Vivaldi was very vehement. :) Tenebrous 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, the thing that we have a problem with is not that you edit this article. It's the way you edit this article. You delete the disambig when there is a consensus of opinion that says (at the least) that your excuses for removing it are not good enough. You replace the actual etymology of the word Dianetics with your factually-incorrect-but-Scientology-approved version, and without any more reason than the last time you tried it, several months ago. As for your perennial claim that the subject is not introduced, I would like to see some support for it. Actually, I have a better suggestion. Why don't you write a god damned intro yourself, and put it on this talk page, alright? End this whole discussion as to what you mean when you say it's not being introduced. Tenebrous 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- YES !
- Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment. It involves a single person listening and a second person telling them their thoughts, past and present. It is based on a set of ideas created by author L. Ron Hubbard and was first published broadly in 1950 as Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health.
- I would like Spirit of Man to comment on it too, and others as well. (no disambiguation and DMSMH is right there).Terryeo 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment. It involves a single person listening and a second person telling them their thoughts, past and present."
- In this version of the intro, Dianetics seems indistinguishable from a pitch-meeting at a Hollywood movie studio. Or a heart to heart discussion by aging sisters over steaming mint tea. Or pillow talk after a sexual liason at a tropical resort. In other words, your intro is way too vague--it doesn't tell us much at all of the when, what or why of Dianetics. Instead, you conjure visions of intimate dialogues and lovely surroundings. It reads like manipulative advertising copy, not encyclopedic writing. In my view, the current intro is far superior. (Though I agree about dropping that disambiguation notice.) BTfromLA 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- What BTfromLA said. I can't imagine how any editor could believe that "Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment" is a good first sentence for an encyclopedia article. Change the first word, and it would be a better intro for sexual intercourse or chess than it is for Dianetics. (Not that I'm suggesting it's better than the current intros on those articles.) Friday (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you simply can not do it in an environment like a battlefield, or in a threatening environment. A quiet, relatively peaceful environment, one which is relatively comfortable is required or it can not be done. It is mandentory that the person telling of their thoughts is able to to be aware of their thoughts and not be distracted. Is there a better way to communicate the idea? Terryeo 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like the phrase you want is "a distraction-free environment" as opposed to the less specific "pleasant" one. But that's a small detail that belongs in the part of the article on auditing procedure, not in the intro. --BTfromLA 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, "distraction-free" or "comfortable" or "safe and friendly" or something. How can a person remember what they did 5 minutes, and 5 years ago unless they are comfortable, so it is important. Terryeo 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with intoducing Dianetics is there are several specific things, specific to Dianetics that are just plain needed for it to work. I guess the environment question isn't exactly necessary as a first sentence. Terryeo 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear God, please don't tell me Terryeo is serious about that intro. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Consider yourself told. The present introduction is misleading, the subject has been worked for for months. Anyone who has used Dianetics would not agree with it and point out its unworkability as I have done. Please contribute to the article rather than contribute to the emotional difficulty. Terryeo 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Currently the introduction presents a succinct summary of the facts behind Dianetics and the popular critical perception of the field. Now, this implies that there is a generally accepted view of Dianetics, one held by mental health proffessionals and social scientists, and then there is an insider's minority view. To let this minority view dominate the intro with subjective statements about (or vague appeals in favor of) auditing would be detrimental to balanced coverage. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 09:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're kidding. Not a single fact is mentioned except that it is practiced today by the Church of Scientology. Claims are mentioned. But not a single fact other than the one. Not only are there no facts, the single fact isn't well stated. Before a subject can have controversy, it must be introduced or the reader can not understand what controversy there is. By all means, write whole paragraphs how different Dianetics is from your favorite subject and how it is a minority view, etc. etc. but First, let us introduce the subject. It would be nice to find even a single "fact" (differentiated from a "claim") that all of us editors would agree on.Terryeo 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, even after having been through the tutorial on proper definitional form above still continues to insist on changing the first sentence to be a combletely ambiguous definition. Every version Terryeo creates defines Dianetics as a subject that is the subset of a larger group but then he fails to distinguish it from other practices that share this quality. Why he ignores the previous discussion I can only surmize, but his insistence that he is trying to "properly" introduce Dianetics does not seem to be borne out by the examination of his edits. --ScienceApologist 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- You don't understand or something. The article presently introduces with: "Dianetics is .. an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems developed by .." and that just is plain wrong. It is not diagnosis, it is not treatment and it is not psychological. Dianetics org presents it as: "self-help", as "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." What portion of that is "the treatment of psychological problems?" What portion of that is "diagnosis?" I am not attempting to stuff words into the article, I am simply attempting to get the article to present what Diaentics is. I am not defining Dianetics as a subset. I would like us to agree upon a reasonable definition that is not clearly, obviously wrong. Terryeo 13:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- You, Terryeo, are the one who doesn't get it. I don't care about the content of the introduction, I only care about the style concerns. Your proposed first sentences do not conform to A is a B that is C definitional form. That's all I'm looking for. I have been clear that such is all I am looking for. When you start a sentence off with "Dianetics is an action performed by two people in a pleasent environment." there is no way that such a sentence conforms to the proper form. Such a statement could apply to a whole host of other activities other than Dianetics including the majority of leisure pursuits engaged in by humanity. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- If A is Dianetics and B is "an action" and C is "ideas developed by Hubbard" then doesn't that comply with A, B, C ? I'm not stuck with "pleasent environment" and any "safe environement" or something would state the same situation. Terryeo 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, "ideas developed by Hubbard" is the C condition, so why do you insist on removing it from the lead-off sentence? --ScienceApologist 13:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I won't insiste but was attempting readability and simplicity of statement. Perhaps we can try, "Dianetics is a practice based on the set of ideas about the human mind developed by author L. Ron Hubbard in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener." Which your correction suggests and sounds okay to me. Terryeo 13:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe part of the problem is this: Terryeo wants Dianetics to be defined and described in LRH/CoS language. Well, we can't do that here- this is the English Wikipedia, so we have to use standard English that will be intelligible to non-CoS-trained English speakers. We can attempt to explain and define some of the important CoS terms, but we can't write the whole article in CoS-speak. Feel free to start your own wiki that uses entirely CoS-speak rather than standard English, but realize that it won't be a useful reference at all to anyone who doesn't already know the jargon. Friday (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can not consider it a problem to encyclopedically present the subject to the reader. Dianetics has been mis-presented to the reader for a very long time. Every word of "CoS jargon" is defined in plain english at some point. I don't believe we need to define most of the specialized words, let the interested person do that for themselves. We can present the most basic elements here, Dianetics has sold for years. Let us do that in plain english. Particularly the introduction. We need not fill the introduction with techniques, technobabble, E-meters, methods or requirements, we need only give the reader a general idea. What do you think of the potential first line which is just before your post, Friday? Does that sound reasonable to you, does it flow, is it free of "technospeak?" Terryeo 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not only free of technospeak, it's free of useful information. Describing Dianetics as something "in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener" is like describing a train as something "in which a person sits for a long time and reads a newspaper". wikipediatrix 18:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that is exactly what happens in a dianetics session. A person tells the listener his thoughts. That is the whole point. That is what Hubbard begin with and how it is done today. Today the listener rarely asks rambling questions, the procedures have improved a lot. But that's really the whole story, an individual tells a listener his thoughts. Is there a better way to introduce this single idea? Terryeo 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. An informative intro should state why anyone would need Dianetics in the first place, if it's only "telling a listener their thoughts". It should tell what the purpose of it is, namely to address engrams. It should mention auditing and e-meters. It should mention L. Ron Hubbard and it should mention that Dianetics is not accepted by mainstream science. wikipediatrix 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, you are saying that an introduction to Dianetics should include some sort of a sales pitch? Like, "the public needs dianetics because the public has engrams" or something? Those things could easily be part of the introduction and the whole of it might take 2 or 3 paragraphs then. I think we are kind of working on the first sentence, mainly. Terryeo 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I neither said nor implied any such thing. wikipediatrix 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, well I agree it would be real helpful to the reader to at least include the author and creator, L. Ron Hubbard and likewise agree those other jargon words should be somewhere in the Dianetics article. But to introduce several words which are likely to be new to the reader in an attempt to tell him what the first word, "Dianetics" means, well, that could be confusing for the reader. So that is why I suggest as a first sentence, "Dianetics is an activity in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener." And the sort of thoughts talked about (engrams) can be specified. What the conversation is called (auditing) can be secified. How the listener is trained (auditor) can be specified. What tool the listener uses (E-Meter) can be specified. And when a reader has enough information to understand the activity, then the reader can understood controversys. ok ? Terryeo 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- To say "Dianetics is an activity in which a person tells their thoughts to a trained listener" is deceptive, because it makes the whole thing sound far simpler and more innocuous than it is. There's nothing wrong with introducing relevant jargon the reader doesn't know in the intro as long as they are wikilinked. Visit articles like DNA and Neutrino and Eigenstate and you will see that good articles do not oversimplify the intro by removing uncommon terms specific to the subject. wikipediatrix 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, that is just plain wrong. It is not encyclopedic (or even good fiction) to use words which are undefined, unknown to the reader. I recognize that some editors fully intend to totally overwhelm the reader and to create a vast misunderstanding of this subject in the reader. Which is exactly why I have been working on the introduction. The whole thing is very simple, it is rooted in a person being able to speak aloud what they think and thought, speak it to another person. That's the simplicity. The Catholic Church has used the idea for years. Freud used the idea, friends use the idea when they listen to other friends. It is just common human interaction except that Dianetics has fine tuned the idea. Hubbard originally meant that it be used on expeditions when a person was feeling bad after a long, hard day, as a means to recoupe the human spirit. That is spelled out in the online Terra Incognita which is linked in the article. It is a simple idea. Terryeo 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reading those article I see that specialized jargon, specialized to those area of science are linked. There is a Wiki Guideline about what to link: Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked and that spells out about "technical terms" and linking. So I am not like, opposing that, please understand. But the Dianetics jargon often takes normal english and uses it in a narrow and specialized manner and this leads to misunderstandings.Terryeo 17:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Auditing", "E-meter", "Engram", and "L. Ron Hubbard" are most certainly relevant to a Dianetics intro. There can be no misunderstandings if the intro paragraph is straightforward, as it currently is. By the way, I'm happy to hear you state that "Dianetics jargon often takes normal english and uses it in a narrow and specialized manner and this leads to misunderstandings" because this is precisely what many editors have been trying to tell you for months now when you needlessly fill articles with dense, impenetrable Hubbardspeak. The difference in this article is that these are proper nouns and gerunds, not verbs. It would be obfuscatory to avoid mentioning them by their proper names. wikipediatrix 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see, but I have tried to keep what you call "Hubbardspeak" to a minimum and not introduce it into articles and especially not into the introduction of articles and have said so several times. The dictionary tells me that a gerund is: a verbal noun such as, We admired the choir's singing. A noun derived from a verb. Dianetics was a verb first, an action. The manner of doing it came under the same name and the ideas behind it became included, all under the one name which became a proper noun. It is still nothing more than two people talking and listening.Terryeo 07:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say Dianetics was a gerund. wikipediatrix 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Dianetics" isn't a verb. However, mere part of speech has never stopped Scientologists before. The quiz on the back of a recent issue of "Source" asks "Are there outpoints in your think?" --Davidstrauss 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about the word "Dianetics". It was "Auditing" I was specifically referring to when I said "gerund". wikipediatrix 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- On May 21, 1951 Hubbard gave a lecture, Thetha-MEST Theory and quoted Funk and Wagnalls dictionary supplement #5, defining Dianetics.
A system for the analysis, control and development of human thought evolved from a set of coordinated axioms which also provide techniques for the treatment of a wide range of mental disorders and organic diseases: term and doctrines introduced by L. Ron Hubbard. American engineer. (From the Greek dianoetikos -- dia is through, plus noos, mind, or through mind.) And dianetic, adjective.
- I don't have access to that dictionary supplement myself, it was a 1951 (I assume) publication of Funk and Wagnell. In any event there is a body of information and it defines an action. The action is auditing, in which a trained listener listens to a person tell about their thoughts, usually using an E-meter. Some sessions are done for specific things (my foot was hurt in the war and I haven't walked well since) and some are done as part of a larger procedure. Terryeo 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
What Dianetics claims/aims to treat
The first sentence of the article has undergone some recent revisions. It starts: "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of __________ problems ..." where __________ has been:
- "psychological"
- empty
- "mental and spiritual"
I think all of these miss a central element, albeit one that is alluded to in the second sentence with the note that the problems Hubbard said it could alleviate are the ones "he regarded as psychosomatic." The problem is that we are writing this article for the average reader and if we write that the problems Dianetics claims to treat are "psychological" or "mental and spiritual", the average reader will think "oh, it's for things like depression or anxiety or phobia." Even when we introduce the "psychosomatic", the average reader will think "oh, so it covers stuff like rashes that you get when you're nervous." They won't realize that Hubbard is talking about leukemia, cancer, radiation burns -- things that no one except a Hubbardian would call "psychosomatic".
I'm not saying that we need to get into the first sentence a laundry list of all the things which are "psychosomatic" according to the Hubbardian paradigm which the average reader would never have dreamed that someone could even claim to be psychosomatic. But I do think we need to communicate to the reader, early, that what the Hubbardian paradigm considers psychosomatic is likely far, far different from what the mainstream paradigm does. Saying that Dianetics aims to treat "psychological" or "mental and spiritual" or "psychosomatic" problems is apt to greatly mislead the reader who thinks that any of these terms are being used as an ordinary person would use them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- And of course arthritis is also curable with a little Dianetics. Even CoS member and OT7, Tory/Magoo is on video in 1999 discussing how her grandmother was cured of arthritis after reading Dianetics and taking some training in Dianetics. Then she and her ex-husband spent another 10 minutes trying to say that that Dianetics both does and yet doesn't cure diseases (because they can't legally say that it does) Its quite a hoot if you have the time. Perhaps someone can even find a use for it in the article (maybe): Click here for Tory and her ex-husband talking about the Dianetics "cure" for arthritis. Also note that Tory finally left the cult and is now a critic of the and she knows better and frequently is on TV criticizing her former "church" Vivaldi 14:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- But like the Christian Scientists, the Scientologists believe that many physical ailments are just the result of mental or spiritual duplicity (thus the curative powers of auditing on what we would term "physical ailments"). --ScienceApologist 15:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think this is the simplest and best of all possible intros:
Dianetics is a concept, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which mental and physical problems caused by "engrams" are treated by a trained auditor, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.
It's true that it's heavy with jargon that is unfamiliar to the reader, but so are the intros to articles like DNA. I wouldn't mind losing the Engram reference, though, so how about:
Dianetics is a concept, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which mental and physical problems believed to be psychosomatic are treated by a trained auditor, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.
However, a lot of readers probably don't know what "psychosomatic" means either. It just depends on how much we want to "dumb down" the intro. In both of these examples, I would follow with the second paragraph being something like:
In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic. Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology. Dianetics is still practiced and disseminated by the Church of Scientology.
Although these intros raise more questions than they answer, that in fact is the nature of all things Hubbardian. The current intro is full of generic noninformational doubletalk: "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the human mind and an associated method of diagnosis and treatment of mental and spiritual problems" is not only a run-on sentence, it imparts no real wisdom for all its rambling.
Also, in the current edit, "Auditing" is not wikilinked. It should be. I'd do it myself but I'm hoping a better intro than the current one will replace it anyway. wikipediatrix 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dianetics is an activity, think "Catholic Confessional" and the first thing you think of is an activity, right? Well, maybe you think of a booth, but there is an activity with it. Something someone does. That's Dianeitcs too in the sense, you do it. There is a "how to do it"Terryeo 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
- Terryeo, an encyclopedia isn't a "how to" manual. This seems to be an issue that we come back to again and again--"how to do it," "what it feels like to do it," etc., just isn't encyclopedic. On the other hand, much of the stuff you object to is entirely encyclopedic, such as the lines that describe the cultural context that Hubbard was influenced by when formulating Dianetics (General semantics, etc.). BTfromLA 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, no, I don't object to that information. I object to including that information as a narrative within a paragraph which specifically quotes and uses Terra Incognita which is online. That paragraph is practicaly verbatim and would make a fine quote and citation, except it introduces several dispersive and additional informations into it. The other language, the evaluation of 1950's culture, the "Hubbard may have used '-etics' because..." are all additions which are referenced by the footnote number. But the footnote does not apply to those immediately preceeding informations that are sandwiched into that quote. Terryeo 23:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean about that paragraph--I just quickly skimmed the Terra Incognita article, and didn't find much of anything related to that paragraph in the wikipedia article, let alone discovering the paragraph in question "practically verbatim." In any case, there is nothing wrong with embedding short quotations from Hubbard or paraphrases of Hubbard's writings within a larger narrative that is neither written by Hubbard nor from Hubbards POV. Indeed, that's just what we should be doing--striving for a Neutral POV based on credible sources. I still get the sense you'd like these articles to read as if they were written by Hubbard himself. That just isn't appropriate... BTfromLA 01:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The almost verbatim quote is the last paragraph of page 4 of Terra Ingonita. "While Dianetics does not consider the brain as an electronic computing machine except for purposes of analogy, it is nevertheless a member of that class of sciences to which belong general semantics and cybernetics and, as a matter of fact, forms a bridge between the two." My point is, if the article is to be quoted and referenced, that which Hubbard states in terra incognita should be attributed to him, the narrative, ".. the -etics may have been taken from .... in vogue at the time..." should not be part of that particular reference because those words do not appear in that reference. I am not objecting to any of the information, but to the manner it is cited. A citation should be clear what it is saying, what portion of an article is being cited. Terryeo 10:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, that seems clear: your concern is that the footnote doesn't make clear which aspect of the paragraph it refers to, correct? A couple of possible solutions come to mind: if there isn't a Wikipedia style prohibition against it, just move the Terra Incognita note to the point in the sentence right after the "bridge between" line. It will be clear that it is referring to that, nothing that comes after it. Or, simply add specification to the note itself--tack on something like "on the bridge between cybernetics and general semantics." It also might help if the few worlds directly quoted from Hubbard had quotation marks around them. Will any of those measures solve the problem? BTfromLA 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- They both seem like good intros to me. Possibly the second one is more clear to people unfamiliar with the subject matter. Second paragraph looks good to me too. You're very right, it's difficult to avoid using gibberish when discussing this topic, but you seem to have done a good job explaining things in standard English. Friday (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually not a run-on sentence. It's merely long and ambiguous (the objects of the prepositions could be interpreted multiple ways). Regardless, we should use something else. I like the suggestions, but I think Dianetics should described as a noun other than a "concept". Labeling Dianetics a "concept" tells the reader nearly nothing. Here's my revised version:
Dianetics is a religious practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained auditor treats "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter.
- Yes, what exactly does it "treat"? The Dianetics website says it treats "the reactive mind" and were we able to use that term instead of "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems" then it would be an accurate introduction. I realize "the reactive mind" is not a real dumbed down, simple term, but it is more accurate than "psychosomatic" mental and physical problems. If a person understands the idea, what a "reactive mind" is, they can then grasp what Dianetics does and the procedures make sense. But without a concept of some memories not being available because the person was a bit unconcious at the time, it is difficult to make sense of. Terryeo 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the reactive mind responsible for all sorts of physical ailments, such as rashes, arthritis, and epilepsy? Can't Dianetics cure these things if its done properly Terryeo? Vivaldi 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the reactive mind is responsible for all sorts of ailments but. A "mind" in this sense means "records of past moments." It is because some past moments contain some amount of pain and/or unconciousness that a person can not easily be aware of the past moments. The collection of mental records of that kind are called "the reactive mind." Reactive, because a person can not easily be aware of those memories, but those memories are in play anyway and react to stimulations which are similar to the earlier memory. As an example, a person gets into a car wreck and is hurt while a truck air horn is honking. Afterwards he winces slightly when he hears a truck air horn honk. If he works around truck air horns he might develop physical symptoms. Is this responsive to what you asked? Terryeo 23:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- How about if we leave "psychosomatic" in the first, short, paragraph, but substitute the second appearance of the word with "Reactive Mind" close on its heels, in the second paragraph? wikipediatrix 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that could probably work. I pasted a blockquote here from What is Scientology that might be helpful, too. Terryeo 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding Wikipediatrix's suggested intro:
- I really can't go for "Dianetics is a concept". It just doesn't even seem the correct noun for what we're dealing with. A concept is a high-level idea, whereas Dianetics is a very large mass of ideas ranging from high-level to very low. "The reactive mind" is a concept. "Engram" is a concept. "Auditing" is a concept. Dianetics, however, encompasses all these concepts; how can it be a concept itself?
- Concepts can contain and encompass other concepts. I usually expect such extreme hair-splitting and word-parsing from Terryeo, Antaeus ;) wikipediatrix 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's uncalled for, Wikipediatrix, and I still disagree. I don't think that something which encompasses other concepts can itself be called a concept. A concept may require other concepts, such as how the concept of "auditing" requires the concept of "engram", but a concept is a nearly indivisible unit. I don't see how anything which you could rightfully describe as "a body of ideas", such as Dianetics, could also be described as a single "concept". That isn't hairsplitting, it's using vocabulary with appropriate precision. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's "uncalled for" to comment - and it was a lighthearted comment - that Terryeo's edits often contain extreme word-parsing, any more than it is for you to comment that my edit contained a usage of "concept" that isn't "using vocabulary with appropriate precision". In any event, I still don't see what the big deal is about the word "concept", but will leave it to those who care deeply about such things to dissect these fine nuances to their heart's content. wikipediatrix 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Extreme "word parsing?" oh never mind. lol Terryeo 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Antaeus on this--"Dianetics is a concept" doesn't seem accurate, nor does it really suggest what Dianetics is: at once, a body of ideas, a method of therapy, a human potential movement, and the founding text of a network of institutions variously described as social betterment organizations or a cult. "Dianetics is a practice" doesn't get at the whole scope of the subject, either. Ultimately, there just may have to be multiple clauses in the first sentence or two. I also agree that when a term like "auditor" is introduced, it needs to be briefly defined--a "trained auditor" means something in ordinary English usage quite different from what the Church of Scientology means. That's easy to take care of: "a trained counselor called an 'Auditor' " would do it. In general, I second Antaeus' recent comments on the intro. BTfromLA 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's true that all of these many fractal aspects of Dianetics aren't spelled out in the intro, but hey, it's only an intro. As with most things Hubbardian, it's deliberately extremely multi-faceted and hard to get a complete grip on without immersing oneself into it. The more we try to cram it all into the intro, the harder it is for the average reader to make sense of. wikipediatrix 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are certainly correct about the slippery identities of most things Hubbardian. While we should be mindful, as you suggest, of the danger of including so many elements in our definition that it creates confusion for the reader, we also should strive to avoid oversimplifying in such a way that the reader comes away with a false impression. Terryeo seems to want to define Dianetics purely as the process of auditing--that omits too much, in my view. The earlier versions that had "set of ideas" (a slightly awkward workaround the controversial term "theory") and "method of therapy" and some allusion to the groundwork for Scientology seem to have gotten a little closer to introducing the subject as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the prose was less felicitous than some of us might desire. BTfromLA 17:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the reasons we've both stated, it's very hard to definitively say what Dianetics "is", just as light is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave. There is, however, no doubt about what it does: it allegedly treats alleged "engrams", sometimes with an e-meter, to get rid of the alleged "reactive mind". I don't like "Method of therapy" because it implies there really is something therapeutic about it. wikipediatrix 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
here is a definition we could blockquote and not be wrong about It doesn't use technical terms and is designed to introduce a person to the subject. It is from What is Scientology, first copyrighted in 1993, big thick book, comes hardbound and in paperbound and widely distributed, some in public libraries. ISBN1573180785
Dianetics is a methodology which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses (illnesses caused or aggravated by mental stress). It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. Terryeo 23:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Any statement that Dianetics helps alleviate illnesses, whether psychosomatic ones or not, would probably mean we should invoke the word "pseudoscience" from the getgo, and go on to establish how there is zero scientific basis for the claim. wikipediatrix 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dianetics is an activity, an action. There are ideas, concepts, whatever you call it around the thing but it something to do. One guy listens to the other guy. Maybe we could build the introduction from mind leading to mental image pictures leading to engram, leading to reactive mind leading to Dianetics gets rid of that? Terryeo 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Use of Dianetics jargon in the intro -- it's said that DNA does the same thing. That may be true, but if you read it you'll also notice it doesn't just use specialized terms, it also describes them. i.e., it could have read "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid ... that contains genetic instructions." but instead it reads "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid ... that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life, and most viruses." Wordier, yes, but IMHO definitely better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The DNA article introduces nucleic acid, polymer, and nucleotide, all terms that the average reader wouldn't grasp, in its first paragraph. The second paragraph introduces loads more, like eukaryote, protist, prokaryote, archaea, cytoplasm, and organelle. Some of these terms are explained deeper into the article, others are not. The expectation is, of course, that if you don't know what a "Protist" is (and I did not), you should click the blue link and find out. Similarly, I don't see a problem with introducing a couple of Hubbard's buzzwords in the Dianetics intro if it will help us be concise and informative, not wishy-washy. wikipediatrix 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
How about: "Dianetics is a practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained auditor treats the reactive mind, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter" Terryeo 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Opps, auditor should be Auditor. Terryeo 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not very good. First off, it's inaccurate, as you are describing auditing, whereas this is the article about Dianetics, which is not only the practice of auditing but the whole body of theory that explains how auditing is alleged to have an effect. Nothing clarifies that when we say "a trained auditor" we are referring not to someone trained in financial auditing but someone trained in Scientology auditing. Nothing clarifies what the "reactive mind" is. This is not any improvement on the current version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there does not exist any auditing which does not include the concepts developed in Dianetic Auditing. The questions presented may be of a Scientology nature (not of this lifetime, spiritual and not physical) but their sequence and nature of deliver and context are all Dianetics procedures. The statement I'm suggesting says that "Dianetics is a practice" and then goes on to tell about how the practice is done. Terryeo 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, but you're still ignoring the obvious. The "practice" you are referring to is in fact called "auditing". The fact that auditing might be considered a proper subset of Dianetics does not change the fact that the definition you are giving of Dianetics is not the definition of Dianetics, but rather of a portion of Dianetics which happens to already have its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that such hyperclarification is necessary, since "financial auditing" would be such an obvious non-sequitur in this context that I don't think anyone would make that mistake, especially with the sentence going on to say that the auditing is done with a galvanic skin response machine! Also, that's the beauty of Wiki: the terms are clickable if anyone's confused. It's true that Hubbard, auditing, e-meters, and engrams aren't the totality of Dianetics, but I do think it's the important stuff - important enough for a simple introductory paragraph. The rest can follow quickly in subsequent paragraphs. In my favorite example, DNA, it takes four introductory paragraphs to explain the basic concept before moving on to the meat of the article. wikipediatrix 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Right, you're both right, I made a bad link there. Here:
Dianetics is a practice, developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained Auditor
treats the reactive mind, usually with a galvanic skin response detector called an E-meter. Terryeo 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I feel we are making some progress and do have some concensus going on. Now it reads:
Dianetics is a practice developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in which a trained Auditor uses a galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter) to treat a variety of conditions. Hubbard believed most mental and physical problems to be psychosomatic or caused by, in his terminology, the "reactive mind". The goal of Dianetics is to get rid of this portion of one's mind.
May we simplify that by removing the "psychosomatic" element which would leave:
Dianetics is a practice developed by L. Ron Hubbard which has an Auditor use an E-meter to aid a person in getting rid of their reactive mind. Terryeo 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Below is another crack at the intro (the first two paragraphs). Comments? BTfromLA 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dianetics is a controversial self-help method developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard believed that most mental and physical problems are caused by traumatic memories (which he called "engrams") stored in the unconscious mind—in his terminology, the "reactive mind." The goal of Dianetics is to become rid (or "clear") of this portion one's mind. Thus "cleared," according to Hubbard, an individual becomes able to function at their full potential. Dianetics was the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology.
- The central practice of Dianetics is a two-person question-and-answer counseling technique known as "Auditing," in which a trained counselor (known as an "auditor") uses a galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter) to address the "reactive mind." In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic.
- Noooooo, "a controversial..." anything is a conclusion on the part of an editor and is newspaperish rather than encyclopedic because its first presentation of information about the subject is that the subject is "controversial". A subject needs first be introduced, then after a reader understands what is being talked about, then you can massage his mind with controversy ! But not until he knows what is being talked about. "Hubbard believed..." is likewise unsubstantiated because who can look into Hubbard's mind, but what we do have is his statemetns. His statements don't say, "I believe ...." but his statements STATE informations. Example, "Hubbard stated in his 1950 lecture; 'Dianetics is about the mind' and not "Hubbard beleived Dianetics addressed the mind". Terryeo 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- A conclusion on the part of the editor? perhaps. Is it true? Definitely. I would say that the controversy is the most notable aspect of Dianetics. "Controversial" is newspaperish because...it's newspaperish? How informative. You maybe want to find some sort of style guide or something that supports that? Tenebrous 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I suspected you wouldn't like the early mention of controversy, Terryeo, but I think it is appropriate. I'd like to read some other opinions on that. I guess you're right that we shouldn't presume that Hubbard actually believed what he wrote (although that is a standard practice when discussing the written views of philosphers, scientists or theologians, unless there is some reason to suspect they were lying). I'd have no problem saying that Hubbard "claimed," "asserted," "declared," or, your choice, "stated" those things instead of that he "believed" them. BTfromLA 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- An E-meter is not a galvanic skin response detector. In any case, Dianetics in its beginnings and as described in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health does not use an E-meter. So it is out of place to mention the E-meter when talking about the origins of the subject. Also Dianetics is not a branch of medicine and does not “treat” illnesses.California_Guy 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Let's make sure Lisa McPherson gets the good news on that one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- The word "galvanic" means: "Of or relating to direct-current electricity, especially when produced chemically (as by a battery)" dictionary. Should a person pick up a common flashlight battery and hold it with a hand, covering both the positive and negative ends, the person then has a tiny amount of direct-current electricity flowing through their hand. Does a person feel this? No, rare indeed would be the person who would feel a common flashlight (1.5 volt DC) battery. The skin, however, reacts in the manner that a resistor reacts, it impedes the flow of electricity. Not every body reacts in exactly the same way and thus, there are differences between people, differences from one hour to the next, depending on how dry the skin is, how moistened the skin is by the humidity and the salt in the air, and other factors. With a sufficiently precise meter, it is possible to measure tiny differences. An E-meter is designed to and does so. It is more than a detector (which would be a yes / no machine), it is a meter, a galvanic skin response meter which detects small changes in a human body's galvanic skin response (to small direct current electricity). There, does that clarify it for you? Terryeo 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- So the issue is just the distinction between measuring and detecting? That's easy enough to fix. BTfromLA 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- If that's incorrect about the e-meter, then it should be revised. But pretty much everything I've read from third-party sources (including the Wikipedia e-meter article) plainly states that is what it is. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Your other point gets at a constant source of confusion here: Dianetics has changed a lot over the years, and it isn't always clear when we are talking about it as recently practiced or as originally defined. Not only the e-meter, but the relationship to science and the emphasis on the physical body have been sharply shifted since the 1950 book. And the e-meter use was in, then out, then in again, so it's not a simple matter that can be solved with something like "since 1953." BTfromLA 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here's an alternative version of the second paragraph, responding to the e-meter issue above (I've left the galvanic bit until some evidence to the contrary is offered: "In his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry, claiming that it could increase intelligence, eliminate unwanted emotions and alleviate a wide range of illnesses he regarded as psychosomatic. The central practice of Dianetics is a two-person question-and-answer counseling technique known as "Auditing." Since the late 1950s, Dianetics auditing procedure also includes an electrical galvanic skin response detector (called an E-meter), used by an "auditor" (a counselor trained in Dianetics) to address the "reactive mind." BTfromLA 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dianetics did begin in 1950 (publicly) and it didn't use a meter. Instead the auditor paid close attention to such things as the skin tone, the brightness of the eyes, to whether the guy was smiling and looking a little more or less cheerful. The Meter (about 1955 ?) helps but isn't necessary, at least for basic processes. Terryeo 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Wiki E-meter article, it was introduced in the early 50s, stopped being used in 1954 when Hubbard had a conflict with the meter's inventor, then was re-adopted in 1958. But it is a standard part of auditing since then, isn't it? Is there any significant amount of Dianetics or Scientology auditing done without an e-meter these days? BTfromLA 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are many Book One auditors that don't need to use an e-meter. They can audit anything in DMSMH, Assists, Self Analysis, 15 Steps of Scientology, Group Processing and Processes from Fundamentals of Thought. Basically anything developed before 1959. When the technology of Missed Witholds was developed, the meter became a necessity for any session using that technology. Spirit of Man 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with California guy that an e-meter is not a galvanic skin response detector. Terryeo's description is not accurate, and contains the main misconception began in the 1950s that it has anything to do with skin response to sweating. It doesn't. Normally your hands are not sweaty and they certainly don't "unsweat" to give instantaneous indications. The e-meter is based on resistance, not current. It measures resistance, not current. It is based on a device or circuit, invented in the 1860s, called the Wheatstone Bridge. It compares an unknown resistance with a known resistance. The meter comes with a precision resistor to calibrate it. That device was invented by Sir Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English physicist. That device, since that time, has been used to measure electrical resistance and mental stress. In psychology that kind of device is called a bio-meter and I understand one was used by Freud. The resistance of a dead male body, any male body, is 12,500 ohms. This is also the resistance of a male Clear. The dead body has no resistence contribution from mental stress. The same is true for a living male Clear.
- It is physically impossible to have the resistance of a dead body that is at room temperature be the same as the resistance of a live human body since resistivity is temperature dependent. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist, please give your quantitative estimate of what the difference in resistance would be, due to temperature for a body at 98 F and 68 F or 30 F difference? Spirit of Man 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- A note of clarification. A male Clear is dynamic, so anything he chooses to place his attention on may get reads on a meter. If he has an upset in life, that may read until it is resolved. If he is anxious about something that may make the needle rise. If he accumulates upsets and problems, those can make his resistance high until resolved. When he does something else, the needle might do a little boppity-bob. Spirit of Man 02:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- When a person is under mental stress and is anxious his resistance will go up. In the military, when I was taking an electronics class I measured my resistance at 1 million ohms. Pretty high. When you ask a person to talk about the stress in their lives the needle on the e-meter will dip or move quickly to the right, showing the resistance dropping. If they describe five stressful things, you can choose which one changes the most to determine which is most stressful. It measures electrical resistance and is optimized to indicate mental phenonmenon and for use in spiritual counselling. It does not treat anything. In Dianetics, only the spirit heals the body or handles mental stress. If anyone knows of a place on Wiki where this "galvanic" or "skin-response" misconception is written, please let me know so I can change it. Spirit of Man 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Spirit of Man. Take a look at the E-meter and Auditing (Scientology) articles. BTfromLA 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a significant amount of Book One auditing (not done with an E-Meter) is done. This was more my point. To go into detail about any kind of meter at the beginning of the article diverts from the actual subject. It is not the key point and though there is also Dianetics counseling done with a meter, this is usually at a more advanced point on the Bridge. California guy 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to source things like 23+63=86. Its not necessary to find a reference that shows that "blue" comes before "red" if we sort them alphabetically. We don't need to source a statement that the suffix "netics" of Dianetics also appears in another word. It is what wikipedia calls Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It appears that nobody disputes these claims. Correct me if I am wrong: similar to the already-existing Greek adjective dianoētik-os διανοητικ-ός, meaning "mental" (compare Aristotle's dianoetic virtues). His choice of the suffix "-etics" (meaning, roughly, "discipline") may have been inspired by cybernetics, a vogue idea at the time of Dianetics' establishment. Indeed, Hubbard stated that Dianetics forms a bridge between cybernetics and General Semantics, a set of ideas about education originated by Alfred Korzybski that was receiving much attention in the science fiction world in the 1940s. Now the part about Korzybski was removed for some reason, even though this is demonstrated by a Wikilink to both Semantics and Korzybski that states pretty much the same thing. Does Terryeo dispute that this is an accurate portrayal of the situation? If not it seems to me that this is just common knowledge. Surely you don't want to bring out the 20-30 references in the Korzybski and General Semantics articles and argue about whether Korzybski was influential there? I'm not sure why you object to the dianoētik-os being similar to Dianetics. Surely it won't help the reader to go into details about how in both words the mouth forms the letter "d" and then forms a dipthong "i-a" then the "n" sound... This is just common knowledge. We don't need a reference to show that "smile" rhymes with "tile" or similar such things. Vivaldi 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is a pretty accurate protrayal of the information which I am talking about. It might seem trivial, kind of does as you state it, Vivaldi. But it is information which is kind of sandwitched into a statement which is well cited and historically accurate and the source of information is online and can be read. So why does there have to be the extra "padding" of this additional information. The subject is difficult enough to communicate, the citation is straightforeward. A parallel situation might be stating what addition is, but introducing that the romans used roman numerals. A nice, clean, simple statement with a nice, clean, simple citation makes a better article. If an editor thinks it is critical to the article that Korzybski be referenced as a source for General Semantics, or that General Semantics need article space, then by all means do so. But don't do it in the portion which is being cited as Terra Incognia, I hope you see the point I'm making? Terryeo 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo- I might have been inclined to agree with you had you instead presented this argument, but instead of saying that you objected to the relevancy (or obscurity) of these points in the intro, you instead chose to challenge them as having no sources. Surely, you can see from your similar travels down this course, that requesting citations as a means of removal hasn't been effective. There are lots of dedicated writers that seem to have time to do the necessary research to say what they think needs to be said. Now you and I both might agree that the General Semantics stuff is probably not important enough to include in the first paragraph, but I doubt we have consensus for that viewpoint, yet. I would like to discuss it some more and read up on the topic to see if there is something there I am missing. Vivaldi 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I am talking about a piece of information using the citation terra incognita. That is cited but what you are calling "common knowledge" is interspersed into it and that, what you are calling, "common knowledge is not within terra incognita. It could be appropriate to place the additional information, what you are calling "common knowledge" either before or after the brief mention of terra incognita, that could work. But as it stands now it sounds vaugely as if terra incognita was written in the stone age, as if it has little worth today. Whereas I would say those ideas which Hubbard presented there have grown and filled out and purchased millions of dollars worth of real property in Clearwater Florida and in Los Angeles California, and all of that because Psychiatry refused to accept and deal with Hubbard's ideas in Terra Incognita, HEH. Terryeo 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think I would be kind of fun to document that General Semantics was very big in the science-fiction circles that Hubbard was in at the time, starting from at least the publishing of van Vogt's Slan as well other authors around Campbell. It might tend to bog the article down a bit, however. AndroidCat 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- It would certainly bog it down. Vivaldi 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There are three quotes included in this article, which state that Dianetics has no scientific validity. Essentially these all say the same thing, so I took two out and for balance included a positive quote. The vested interest motives behind the attacks should be mentioned as well. There is evidence that the government-psychiatric establishment knew very well that Dianetics worked and wanted to crush it so as to bring it under their own control.
California guy 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- You need to cite sources for such claims. wikipediatrix 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- California guy, you forgot to mention that you included lots of dubious claims with no source, such as the claim that the U.S. government approached Hubbard "with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible", or your eyebrow-raising declaration that you, personally, have verifiable knowledge of the inner workings of the minds of psychiatrists. Would you like to explain how you could possibly state in a verifiable manner that "When psychiatrists spoke of stopping Dianetics they were really thinking in terms of how to refute it, how to forbid it and ultimately how to seize it for themselves"? Sorry, but if you think that when the facts all point to one side, the answer is to "balance" it with paranoid propaganda from the other side, you might need to learn a bit more about Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you Wikipediatrix, I have now referenced the statements being made. Antaeus, I think you missed my point. Having 3 negative views with no attempt to provide any positive reviews = POV. And your POV “your paranoid propaganda from the other side” is quite plain. Lets uphold some professionalism here and limit the backbiting, if I do something wrong, you can simply state it so I can fix it. Thanks. California guy 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're mistaken if you think that we are required to give equal time to these views. And your citations do not meet WP:V which states, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Tenebrous 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is exactly what WP:V states. And it goes on to say: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." How to do that, exactly, is spelled out at WP:CITE#Say where you got it. We find few, very few, "credible, third-party sources" Dianetics is a religious subject and not an academic subject, though I recognize many editors would prefer to treat it as an academic study. WP:V is the spawn of our senior, non-negotiable policy, WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.NPOV#Undue weight. It specifies: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.: The problem arises with Dianetics, it brings up millions of web hits in almost every search string that can be created. Therefore, I'm afraid we may be left with WP:NPOV#Religion, which is policy, it gives specific direction of how to present the obviously different informations about religion.Terryeo 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, there are plenty of credible third party sources about scientology--you just don't want to accept them because they don't parrot the official CoS line, or because they don't promote the same understanding of Scientology that you have a s a member. You've got to face the fact that a long list of reputable information sources have reported on scientology over the years: Courts and government panels, independent sociologists, religious scholars and scientists, and independent print and broadcast journalists for the very highest-profile news sources: BBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., etc. And please stop trying to confuse matters with your ridiculous claim about how the number of copies of something have been published is an index of how significant the viewpoints are. BTfromLA 00:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:V is our policy to follow, your attempt to pull me into a personal situation where you state that I am mistaken about 'number of copies' and I state you are mistaken about 'how broadly published', that's just chasing the donkey's tail. Broadly published citations are read by the reader as being more valid citations, having more weight, more arguement, more substance, than narrowly published ciations even IF they are repeated 3 times. We follow WP:V, broadly published is preferred and WP:RS should answer any particular difficulties. Terryeo 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As usual, Terryeo has proved his extremely bad faith and his total disregard for Wikipedia. His latest edit says "reverted Wikipediatrix's POV editing" in his edit summary. Let's look at some of the garbage I removed from the article, which Terryeo claims I wrongly removed based on my POV:
"In fact, immediately before the publication of Dianetics Hubbard had been approached by the U.S. government with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible, a project he refused."
Terryeo usually whines about every sentence in an article being properly sourced, and yet the lack of source for this ludicrous claim doesn't seem to bother him this time. Wonder why?
"When psychiatrists spoke of stopping Dianetics they were really thinking in terms of how to refute it, how to forbid it and ultimately how to seize it for themselves."
Could this possibly get any more blatantly POV? And Terryeo really thinks this belongs in an encyclopedia article??
"Dianetics has been successfully all over the world ever since 1950"
If Terryeo (and the other Scientologist editor responsible for these nuggets) really thinks it's POV to remove such blatant advertising and opinionated drivel from the article, he has basically, in so doing, admitted that he has no regard for Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 13:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that you utterly and completely are convinced beyond any doubt that what you removed is "garbage" and have no arguement with your personal feelings. However, for purposes of concensual editing, please keep your talk page chat to less emotionally slanted wordings. For example, rather than "garbage" perhaps the word "statements" could be used, or other descriptions with less emotional bias. This suggestion is in keeping with Wikipedia editor behaviour and should not be construed as a personal attack. Terryeo 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't about my personal feelings. It's about improper encyclopedia writing, which is not a matter of opinion. It is easily verifiable that these statements you continue to defend are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. I am not criticizing the editors, I am criticizing the edits. (Just as you have done a few minutes ago when you declared the Body Thetan article to be "a dumb article".) wikipediatrix 14:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no, all of those statements are actually published whereas the citation which I requested is not in the article. Additionally, allow me to point out that the body thetan talk page (or if you have a personal issue, WP:PAIN or my talk page), would be the places to discuss that issue. Terryeo 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, I can't comment on your motivations, but one thing seems clear to me: You're either unwilling or unable to make edits in an encyclopedic fashion. We could argue all day long about which it is (unwilling or unable), but frankly, it doesn't matter much. If your devotion to Scientology is so strong that you can't see the difference between encyclopedic writing and advertizing copy, it's probably best that you don't try to edit these articles anymore. I'm not trying to judge your intentions, but the way you edit is disruptive, whether you intend it to be or not. Friday (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipediatrix language may be lacking in civility, but her point is 100% accurate. The recent statements which she (and later myself) reverted were extremely POV and unverified. Jefffire 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with both of the points you make, Jeff. She is slightly less than civil, but not extremely. We have been, at times, even less civil. I also agree that the statements are extremely POV. Very true. However, those are published statements, however POV they appear to you. Your last point, they are unverified is likewise true. They should be verified, it is much more Wikipedic to verify them. However, anyone can request a citation, the statements are not actually harmful to anyone, and simply removing them is argueably, not the only avenue open to her, in order to bring to the article the sort of good sense she wishes to see. Terryeo 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I found Terryeo's initial edit-summary accusation that I removed these flagrant violations because of my own POV to be highly insulting, not to mention ludicrous. This may explain my less-than-kissyface tone. :) wikipediatrix 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Of the points from the statement that Wikipediatrix has shown above, only the first could be included (that's assuming it is correct and verifiable). The second one is obviously POV and completely unverifiable. The third contradicts the scientific consensus on the matter, so it would not be possible to include it without a major change in the consensus, which would include the publishing of multiple large randomised controled trials, which is beyond our powers as individual wikipedians. Whether or not the claim is true, without verification from medical science it must remain out of wikipedia. Jefffire 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:V states the threshold for having an piece of information in an article is its publication, its verifiablility. All three of those are actually published, but should be cited. I've no arguement with you about POV, they all three present a POV. Neither do I have an arguement with you, Jeff, about their consensus, their science, their accpetence by the general public, by you, by Wikipediatrix or by anyone else. I would say though, they are published, verifiable and present a POV, which is exactly what we are doing in this article. Presenting various POVs toward a realistic protrayal of Dianetics. But they should be verified if they are in the article, I agree with that, too. Terryeo 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is (with regards to your post on my talk page as well) that the staements were not being presented as the Scientology POV, they were being presented as fact. If they were preceded by the phrase - 'scientologists claim that' and they were in the appropriate section then there would be no problem. Jefffire 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- This incident illustrates two problems with Terryeo's editing. He consistently presents Scientologist POVs as hard facts (which no doubt he believes they are) and he declines to source his own statements (which I recognise as coming from that bastion of neutrality, the official lronhubbard.org website). Compare that to his insistence that any statement which contradicts his POV should be referenced up to the hilt. One standard for him, another for the rest of us? It seems so! -- ChrisO 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I hope you don't find it offensive that you amsue me so much by using the emotionally slanted words such as "POV pushing", "double standards" and so on. There are more neutral ways to discuss these issues. But rather than use a straightforeward statement like, "That line needs a cite" as I often do, instead you've got to say, "double standards!" and example of "POV pushing!" I find this propensity toward emotional bias in talk pages amusing, myself, heh. In any event, as you can read and as I have already stated, yes, those sentences should be cited to be included. On the other hand, you can be sure that a subject does not exist unless some POV created it. Your contempt for the subject notwithstanding, a POV exists and the article would not exist unless it did. Therefore, it is appropriate and correct that we present that point of view and you know quite well I am not saying to exclude other points of view, but to include the point of view which origniated and created the subject which the article is about. I used the exact same edit summary which I very very frequently find, but substituted another editor for "terryeo", can you dig it? :) Terryeo 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Edit in the POV as a POV, not as fact. In your edit the POV was put across as fact, which is unacceptable. You are seriously misinterprating the nature of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jefffire 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are saying that this piece of information:
"In fact, immediately before the publication of Dianetics Hubbard had been approached by the U.S. government with a request to work on research to make man more suggestible, a project he refused."
::::is presented as a POV and is therefore unacceptable? I have said it needs a verification. However, if you understand, Jeff, that Wikipedia is not to present a POV, then you have not got the straight of it. "facts, asserstions,etc." are the things we editors present, however we do need to cite them. That particular datum there, I have read it. I did not actually put that datum into the article, I would normally cite such a datum when I entered it. It should be cited. Terryeo 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just plain lying. You personally re-inserted that datum yourself after I reverted it away. Here's the diff. wikipediatrix 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you have refused to acknowledge that I fulfilled your request about the links which I provide for you above. Additionally, I see that you have understood differently that I state. I stated, "I did not actually put that datum into the article" and that is true but I did revert that statement into the article. The person who put that statement into the article may be found at this edit: However, I do understand that I am your target at every opportunity, either for POV pushing, for lying, for "possibility of bad faith" or some other trumped up attitude, charge or belittlement. heh ! Almost every word you utter to me has one of those words in it somewhere. Terryeo 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, you were the one recently who decided to raise a fuss about phrasing something as "Hubbard believed that <insert something that Hubbard most certainly asserted to others that he believed." You were the one who raised a fuss about this, very insistent that just because we had ample citations verifying that Hubbard had asserted that he believed something, it didn't verify that he actually believed it. But now California guy comes along and without any citations at all, he claims to know what "psychiatrists" are "really thinking" about Dianetics, and whereas you were taking exception just to the very notion that Hubbard might have meant what he said, California guy is claiming that he can look into the minds of "psychiatrists" and know what "they" are hiding. And instead of protesting that wholly unencyclopedic material, when someone quite rightly removes it, you immediately put it back. And then you claim that charges that you are POV pushing are "trumped up"? Ha. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- b..bu...but, Feldspar, But I used exactly the same edit summary you usually use on me ! Besides, I agree, some verifications are in order ! Terryeo 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As you will see in the edits I have done on other related pages, I am removing a number of external links as extraneous. The amount of critic’s links referenced just shows where the POV sits and its not the middle of the scales = POV not NPOV. There is a glut of links all through the article and I will be cleaning these up too – unless someone wants to go ahead and help me get the links trimmed down in a fair manner. This was a good article at one point and now it’s a mess again. Nuview 18:22, 18 April 2006 (PST)
- Point #1) It is not necessary that all points-of-view receive equal air-time on Wikipedia. We just need to present each point of view that is notable and relevant. It is up to the editors to determine how much information should be presented about each point of view. Please note that in articles like KKK, the Klan does not get equal time and space to argue about how wonderful their organization is. The negative aspects of the KKK are what make it notable, just as the negative aspects of Scientology make it notable. If it wasn't for the long history of abuses by the Church of Scientology, then the notability of Scientology would be less than the United States Church of Korean Presbyterians (which has a larger membership than the CoS). Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not entirely up to the editors to determine how much information should be presented about each point of view. Wikipedia has guidelines which are specific. Widely published (and amount of time matters too) sources should be presented in the ratio they exist to narrowly published, less published sources. There is guideline on it, the presentation of quantity within an article should reflect publication, rather than how a particular editor feels about a subject. Dianetics, well, millions of books in dozens of languages should give a clue, huh? Terryeo 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this guideline? It needs to be deleted, or clarified. There is no reason why the amount of published material should take precedence over any other criteria. Most peer-reviewed scientific journals have very small circulations. You're telling me that the National Inquirer should get more time here than Nature? I think you must be misreading policy again. Tenebrous 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline is WP:RS, a great deal of activity is going on there on its discussion page which clearly state "Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources" and in particular, Clambake.org is being discussed. It may not be cited as a secondary source and the sorts of "mirror links" or "convenience links" which Feldspar talks so much about look like they will not be accessible as links from here, to there, for them. "Exterior links" or "References to additional sources" is another matter. This should have been resolved before, but "Personal websites (like Xenu.net) can not be used within articles as secondary sources of information. That's the issue which has caused so much trouble amongst us editors. Almost all of the anti-Scientology links are on personal websites which are simply not acceptable on Wikipedia as secondary sources of information. See the WP:RS discussion page, ChrisO, Fahrenheit, Wikipediatrix are all working to force Clambake.org into enough high status to cite it. But it isn't likely to work. Terryeo 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- the sorts of "mirror links" or "convenience links" which Feldspar talks so much about Oh, you mean "the sorts of 'mirror links' or 'convenience links' which you so often use as a pretext to delete information fully referenced from the hard copy of a book which has had 31 printings (none of them from vanity presses)? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- You think right, Tenebrous. No policy even hints at anything close to what Terryeo is suggesting. All power to the IKEA catalog! BTfromLA 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- And yet a Google search for news stories on Scientology and Dianetics brings up almost solely negative reports. Even when one filters out results from xenu.net. Try it yourself. The evidence that is out there in the real world does not support your notion of a world teeming with success stories and millions of happy people who love Dianetics. 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- 2)Point #2) You have not developed a consensus for your edits, Nuview. This article is being edited by numerous people and large scale deletions of references and source materials is inappropriate at best, and probably is vandalism. Before deleting large swaths of material from Wikipedia, please try to develop a consensus for your edits on the talk pages. Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- 2) It is not necessary for an editor to "develop a consensus" in order to edit, by that standard Wikipedia would be much, much different than it is. Quite the opposite! "Be Bold" It is so baldly, blatently obvious to the most casual observer the Dianetics article is mainly edited to produces some sort of erudite sounding Clambake.org article, and probably by some of the editors who create Clambakge.org. I've worked for months to even get the most basic ideas of what Dianetics is into the article. I've been opposed constantly, almost every word and line. Getting "activity", you know, what you do with Dianetics, into the introduction was months of constant bickering and editing. It is completely obvious to the most causual observer the article is not even close to Neutral.Terryeo 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to think being "neutral" means the article has to give Dianetics the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't. There is more negative information out in the real world about Dianetics than positive, so that's what the article reflects: reality. It's as simple as that. wikipediatrix 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am real glad that we are at last discussion the quantity of information. I recognize that you are convinced there is more negative information in the real world than positive, about Dianetics. Maybe we can find some measure of comparing, I hope we can. But I know very well that any example I take, you will find a counter example. O.K. Let's start with Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, millions of books in dozens of languages. And your negative information, counter-example? Terryeo 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Point #1) Dianetics and Scientology are noteable all right. They are an economic force which has paid cash outright for millions of dollars worth of property in scattered locations world wide. I understand perfectly well that some editors can only consider these subjects for the controversy they read about them. However, the list of controversys, compared to the list of adherents is pretty minor. As an organization grows large, here and there some contorversy is going to take place. For example, how many years, how many Priests had sex with how many boys? Who knows? On the other hand, Scientology is closely scrutinized, any slightest deviation from the straight and narrows is jumped on by the media. For my nickle, Scientology is improving lives, for yours it is to be presented as controversy. Together we can work, together we can both help the common reader by presenting a good sense article. Terryeo 15:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the thousandth time, it isn't about your nickel or my nickel or anyone else's. If you have valid sources for your claims about Scientology improving lives, by all means bring them to the table. And I'm appalled that you characterize Operation Snow White's treason against the United States Government as "pretty minor", and that you characterize deaths like Lisa McPherson's as "pretty minor". wikipediatrix 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is, I have done that. I introduced the chronological Dianetics book list and it was reverted out of the article by almost every editors every time I placed it into the article. And it was and is well documented, appropriately formated with ISBN and so on. It wasn't until I was brought up on an Rfc and an Rfa that editors realized it wasn't appropriate to deleted large blocks of well formated information, even though the wikipedia policies, especially WP:V clearly spell out that well verified, widely published information is to be the core of Wikipedia Articles. I could place many paragraphs of published information, appropriately cited, but I have no confidence that any editor would have the courage to tolerate them. Obviously they are special interest publications. Terryeo 15:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I said VALID sources. OF COURSE Dianetics sources say nice things about themselves! If the only place you can find any sources that say anything nice about Dianetics are Dianetics/CoS sites, then you have no leg to stand on. A Google search for news stories on Scientology and Dianetics brings up almost solely negative reports. Even when one filters out results from xenu.net. Try it yourself. The evidence that is out there in the real world does not support your notion of a world teeming with success stories and millions of happy people who love Dianetics. 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that would depend on what you mean by "nice things" because the U.S. Navy makes a presentation which I would call factual. The government of Italy says "nice things" when they allow their teachers time to study the Scientology originated "Applied Scholastics" materials. The Government of Australia commended Scientology's CCHR and changed its laws about psychiatry due to that groups involvement and exposure of a "Sleep Therapy" psychiatric hospital in thier country. The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted, viewed and ruled on 3 separate cases which the Church brougth before them. The copyright rules which, generally, the internet runs on are the direct result of one of the Church's landmark cases which it won before the Supreme Court. Los Angeles named a short street in honor of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientologists there created a brick-covered one block street which they keep in pristine condition with no parking on the whole block. That was in the newspapers, but of course every newspaper article has to bring up some controversy or the newspaper won't sell. Terryeo 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here are the links to the things I mention above: The U.S. Navy's information to its troops.
click "About various faiths" click "Scientology"
Italian Accreditation
The Australian Sleep Therapy on WIkipedia
CCHR#Chelmsford_Hospital_and_.22sleep_therapy.22
The bricked street on Wikipedia
Church_of_Scientology#PAC_Base.2C_Hollywood.2C_California
and: []
and
For the last links, I used this search string at Google: ""L. Ron Hubbard Way" bricks" Terryeo 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
As a small point of information, the current Auditor Magazine states more than 700 people have completed OT VIII. Terryeo 19:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The US Navy only republished what the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain their own religion. For those who are unfamiliar with the "Navy" document, it is merely a copy of the work of one man, B.A. Robinson of ReligiousTolerance.org. This man is clearly biased in favor of cults. His only scholarly reference on the subject of cults include the reknowned cult apologist J. Gordon Melton. His only references that he used to find out about Scientology were from Church of Scientology owned web pages. (Robinson is admittedly not an expert on the subject of religions). So of course his analysis of Scientology is going to be nothing more than a rehashing of what the Church has already said. And just because the Church of Scientology offers up this biased "study" of its religion to the Navy doesn't mean that the Navy endorses it as anything other than a document that the Church of Scientology gave to them to explain the religion. It is not a Navy study, nor does it validate Scientology teachings at all that the Navy republishes the document. Compare ReligiousTolerance.org version to Navy copy of the same. This fact has been shown to you numerous times, Terryeo, so it is beyond silly that you would continue to argue that the US Navy has anything to say about Scientology other than what it is spoonfed by the Church of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Good of you to spell that out, Vivaldi and I don't contest that presentation at all. That has been pointed out before, too. Still, it says something that the U.S. Navy considers that piece to be useable within it context. And that presentation can be compared with its Buddhism presentation, its Muslim presentation, its Catholic presentation, and so on. But of course you are implying the U.S. Navy is beanbrained and blinded, the wool pulled over thier eyes by the POV "religioustolerance.org". I understand :) Nonetheless, it isn't couched in offensive language, as it appears it makes reasonable good sense and it doesn't have the sort of ugliness that Xenu.net and Clambake.org present. There's little sense of threat, little sense of disturbance, little sense of harm to it. Do you suppose that is what the U.S. Navy intended? BTW, feel free to post up any good, neutral sites you wish, don't feel constrained just because the question was to me. Terryeo 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The first three links in this article, early in this article all point to the solitarytrees site. The only information the site offers up about itself appears to be that it is created by and claims its copyright to be: © 1998-2006 Ted Mayett and Keshet. Almost all of its information is advocacy against Scientology. It manages to recognize that Dianetics and Scientology have copyrighted their material, but that's as far as it goes with accuracy, fact checking and proposing that its information is reliable and presented as the authors of its information intended it to be presented. It is a personal website. As such it can not be used within an article to present information which it contains, and then cited as the source of that information. A personal website, however, might be included in a section titled "exterior links" or "further sites of interest" or "further reading". Terryeo 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article linked on the solitarytrees.net website is, as far as I can tell, an academic piece published by a reputable expert in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the same issue that's come up in your arbitration - I can see no good reason to delete the reference. Though having said that, I don't think your opinion is particularly relevant considering that it's just part of your ongoing POV campaign. -- ChrisO 10:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The issue of the information actually on a secondary website, whether it is the constitution or a created fantesy is less important than the insurance that the information is on the site as it was created. Personal websites don't have the quality of document checking, fact checking and even spelling checking that other sorts of websites which are not personal websites do. Speaking of 'Point of View, are you are or you not "Chris Owen", the individual who has 144 articles on Xenu.net, who told me that "many people contribute to Xenu.net, including myself" on my page and who replied to my statement to Chris Owen as if you were he? That individual, Chris Owen has a known POV, he is dedicated to a particular POV which is not skeptical, is not neutral but is throughly anti-scientology, anti-diantecis, and from reading some of his articles on Xenu.net (where you contribute) are so filled with venom and hatred that his dog probably has hundreds of kick marks. Terryeo 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Accusing a fellow editor of being an animal abuser, even jokingly, is a disgusting new low even for you, Terryeo. wikipediatrix 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- "so filled with venom and hatred that his dog probably has hundreds of kick marks." Tsk tsk, Terryeo, we thought you were more able than that. Here's a concept that you might be able to understand: on our own Web sites we have our own POV. On Wikipedia we follow NPOV. --Modemac 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses, do they support ChrisO being Chris Owen ? Chris Owen who's neutrual point of view has been broadly published on Xenu.net, ChrisO whose declaration that he contributes to Xenu.net was warned by Modemac ? Is that what you are saying, Wikipediatrix and Modemac? Are you suggesting that ChrisO is unwilling to respond and so then, you are responding for him?Terryeo 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Terryeo, the ArbCom has already voted to put you on personal attack parole - don't push it. Everyone else, I suggest we ignore his trolling - it's not getting anyone anywhere. -- ChrisO 20:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Though it doesn't pertain to the article and I wouldn't normally mention it, their work is here and the case has not closed yet. An interesting aspect that has emerged is about Xenu.net which they have made some progress on, but are not yet finished with. :) So you are unwilling to respond to my question then ChrisO ? And invite that editors simply "ignore" me, is that what you mean to communicate ? Terryeo 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You wouldn't normally mention it. Really. So this linking to Terryeo's Heated Battle Page of the Day thing of yours is just an extended period of abnormal behaviour? Tenebrous 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have invited a personal reply. You have suggested 'abnormal behavior', some editors would view that as a personal attack, I view it as seeking a personal reply. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 12:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)