"

 Introductions and order 

The exchange below began between user:Terryeo and user:BTfromLA on personal talk pages.  With Terreyo's permision, I have pasted the discussion here, as I think it is relevant to the editing of the page, and may be of interest to other editors.  

Specifically about NPOV as it manifests in the Dianetics article.  Untill a subject is introduced it can not be argued.  The latest and greatest ""One more try"" intertwines two points of view, I'll grant that.  But don't you see all the discussion on the page from everyone who has done some Dianetics saying, ""This article makes no sense, it isn't something that can be followed even by a person knowledgeable in Dianetics""  Don't you see that happening?  The problem is real, real simple.  You seem to be creating an article that says, ""Dianetics is a controversial subject ! ! !""  
Well, that is all right, as far as it goes.  But it does not make clear what Dianetics is, do you see the problem?  I believe the reason why is simply that Dianetics is never allowed to be introduced because you have to make the article have controversy in every damn line of it !  

No, Terryeo, I don't think controversy and criticism belong in every line, and I think if you look closely at what I've written, you'll see that isn't the case.  I know you wish it were otherwise, but the social consensus about Dianetics is at odds with the way Hubbard and Scientologists view it.  Readers should be informed of this from the outsetit is the social context in which Dianetics exists. That doesn't mean that Hubbard's ideas can't be fairly represented, and I think they should be.   

I did look closely at what you wrote, the very first line of it had a lie in it, an unverifiable statement.  I am very glad you used the word ""context"" because that is exactly my point.  If you will look at this wiki link about introductions it tells you where ""context"" should appear in an introduction and it is an important thing to know.  However, it is not to appear in the first line of an introduction.  I am simply following wiki policy here and please get off the ""I know you think it should be otherwise"" because i am going to continue to insist on wiki policy being followed.  Here is the link which tells when in an introduction, context should be stated:

Wikipedia:Introductions

First the term is introduced.  In the case of Dianetics  the introduction of the term should probably include its origins because it is a word created from Greek roots unfamilar to many people.  Then, after the term itself is introduced the topic needs be introduced.  This is the policy, read it right there.  Then, after the topic is introduced (so readers can know what is being talked about) then, at that point context.  It is not that you are doing things wrong, but slightly out of sequence for a reader to be able to understand, okay? Happy New Year !  

Terryeo, I'd suggest that this sort of discussion take place on the article's talk page in the future, since it is likley to be seen as relevant by other editors.  As to the policy about introductions, I find it hard to believe you mean this seriously. The guideline says that the introduction ""defines the term and topic and context"": it says nothing about the order in which those things are presented. And introducing a term rarely involves spelling out the etymology of the term. Again, it doesn't all need to happen in the short intro.  Look at line #2 of that intro guideline.   

BTfromLA, what part of ""term, topic, context is unclear to you?  Term, this means the word itself.  Topic, this means the topic itself.  The Wiki Policy makes this clear, it spells it out A, B, C.  What is your argument?  It does not say, ""Context and controversy first! and then, when people understand the whole subject is nothing but a controversy and should be left alone and never understood, then introduces the definition of the term. No, it does not say, Stuff these things in the intro any way you want to.  It says, Term.  Topic. Context.  A and then B and then C.  okay?  It says everything about the order of presentation.  First is says Term. How simple can it be, you got to tell your student the meaning of the word you use.  Then it says topic.  How simple can it be, you have to tell the student what you are going to be talking about.  Then, after that, after people know what the topic is, then, then is the time for context. okay?  You read any good ariticle on Wiki and you will find this procedure followed. This IS wiki policy.  This IS the source of the ar