Talk:Dianetics/Archive 5

message: * One: Theory WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories.  Dianetics has some theory about how to think of the mind.  It has a jargon, "mental image pictures, engram, reactive mind" and these things together comprise a theory.  
* Two: Pseudoscience WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience.  Hubbard presented Dianetics as along "scientific" lines when he introduced Dianetics in the 1950s and the "pseudoscience" counter-arguement has some basis.
:What basis? I have presented here citations for the evaluations of what tests to use, what tests may be used, what test results might be exptected and what before and after test results look like. There are 50,000 Clears that have used these methods. I have shown a development history from 1930 to present day. The Fox article presented by ChrisO presents a possibility of falsifiability. More modern developements show the danger to man of heavy drugs, but they are are handled by the science. Again, What basis? Spirit of Man 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, there is no basis because no scientific disipline has undertaken a study (except for the positive results in Science of Survival introduction.)  However, ChrisO has hugely stated the information should be addressed in that manner.  Because there is no "pro" and "con" I don't see how it can be presented as pseudoscientific. Terryeo 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea ! and if one begats the other, okay, well and goodTerryeo 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In Dianetics it is necessary to be precise or you don't get results. A mental image picture is a copy of the physical universe as it goes by. This recording contains the perceptions of the physical universe and the exact time the picture was made. It is very, very precise in terms of when it was created. When we think of the memory of a normal person that is not a clear, we are bringing something to mind. We are making a picture created right now, about a mental image picture of a very exact time in the past. A clear can easily just look at the actual original record, often in full detail. This is called "returning" and actually everyone has this potential, but clears can do it easily without someone helping them. Very few normal people can do this at all, but some can. A normal memory is just a partial copy of the original. If we are talking about a mental image picture containing pain, and the person wants to get rid of this pain. I will do no good to talk about the normal memory. You can go to psychotherapy for 10 years and talk about that memory and nothing happens. In Dianetics you help the person confront and actually view the exact original record of the pain. When he confronts the pain at that point it is easily handled because he created the picture and there is nothing more basic. He goes over it a few times and it vanishes. The pain in his life vanishes too. That might take an hour or 10 hours, not 10 years and nothing happens. Spirit of Man 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  This illustrates perfectly how "a simple explanation" from a Scientology POV has absolutely nothing in common with what the average reader would consider such. What you call "presenting the idea of a memory "mental image picture" because this is really the basic idea which all of Dianetics is built on", I call a colloidal suspension of words in sheer applesauce. Perhaps we can have two versions of the article: one in Hubbardese, one in plain English? Seriously. wikipediatrix 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have said something.  I think you have said, "No one will ever understand what is meant by the term, 'mental image picture?'" Terryeo 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not what I said. What I said is stated plainly above. wikipediatrix 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So you are quite certain then, no occurence of "mental image picture" may appear in this Dianetics article without the inclusion of "sheer applesauce?"  While I would hope at least the meaning of the term be included, though not the term itself (i.e. why include dispersive to the subject terms when uneeded). Terryeo 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Wikipediatrix, if you don't wish to see Dianetics treated as theory, why don't you just say so?  The discussion page is all full of "how do we treat it" Terryeo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not object to any organizational method as long as it communicates what Dianetics is about. I am not even certain we want to include Dianetics or Scientology's vocabulary at all.  A memory is a memory whether called a memory or called a mental image picture.  A painful memory is a painful memory whether called that, or called an engram.  I would minimize the vocabularly and delete the articles except for Dianetics, Scientology and their orgainzations.  I would include a small piece in this Dianetics article about the vocabulary which it uses.  Maybe, "Dianetics has created and uses a specialized vocabularly about the mind" or something like that. Terryeo 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible content approaches 

message: (If theory is an approach) Could we present the idea of a memory "mental image picture" because this is really the basic idea which all of Dianetics is built on.  Other things are needed but until a person can consider it might at least be possible that their memories are in the form, Mental Image Picture, the rest of it can not make sense.  The real problem with this idea lies in how individual everyone is.  One person hears the term, looks at a memory, recalls the watermelon on the table, its color, where he is standing and how hot the sun was that day.  He goes, "Oh yeah, mental image picture, no problem."  But the next person sees the term, thinks of a memory and gets nothing but a negative emotion from the memory.  And therefore doesn't understand the term, "mental image picture."  Terryeo 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Dianetics it is necessary to be precise or you don't get results. A mental image picture is a copy of the physical universe as it goes by. This recording contains the perceptions of the physical universe and the exact time the picture was made. It is very, very precise in terms of when it was created. When we think of the memory of a normal person that is not a clear, we are bringing something to mind. We are making a picture created right now, about a mental image picture of a very exact time in the past. A clear can easily just look at the actual original record, often in full detail. This is called "returning" and actually everyone has this potential, but clears can do it easily without someone helping them. Very few normal people can do this at all, but some can. A normal memory is just a partial copy of the original. If we are talking about a mental image picture containing pain, and the person wants to get rid of this pain. I will do no good to talk about the normal memory. You can go to psychotherapy for 10 years and talk about that memory and nothing happens. In Dianetics you help the person confront and actually view the exact original record of the pain. When he confronts the pain at that point it is easily handled because he created the picture and there is nothing more basic. He goes over it a few times and it vanishes. The pain in his life vanishes too. That might take an hour or 10 hours, not 10 years and nothing happens. Spirit of Man 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This illustrates perfectly how "a simple explanation" from a Scientology POV has absolutely nothing in common with what the average reader would consider such. What you call "presenting the idea of a memory "mental image picture" because this is really the basic idea which all of Dianetics is built on", I call a colloidal suspension of words in sheer applesauce. Perhaps we can have two versions of the article: one in Hubbardese, one in plain English? Seriously. wikipediatrix 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have said something.  I think you have said, "No one will ever understand what is meant by the term, 'mental image picture?'" Terryeo 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not what I said. What I said is stated plainly above. wikipediatrix 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So you are quite certain then, no occurence of "mental image picture" may appear in this Dianetics article without the inclusion of "sheer applesauce?"  While I would hope at least the meaning of the term be included, though not the term itself (i.e. why include dispersive to the subject terms when uneeded). Terryeo 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Wikipediatrix, if you don't wish to see Dianetics treated as theory, why don't you just say so?  The discussion page is all full of "how do we treat it" Terryeo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not object to any organizational method as long as it communicates what Dianetics is about. I am not even certain we want to include Dianetics or Scientology's vocabulary at all.  A memory is a memory whether called a memory or called a mental image picture.  A painful memory is a painful memory whether called that, or called an engram.  I would minimize the vocabularly and delete the articles except for Dianetics, Scientology and their orgainzations.  I would include a small piece in this Dianetics article about the vocabulary which it uses.  Maybe, "Dianetics has created and uses a specialized vocabularly about the mind" or something like that. Terryeo 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If and only if Theory 

message: Well, I've added my two cents to the template. There is some concensus that the information which comprises Dianetics might be treated per the wiki policy Theory, so I've included that link in the template.  Also, because Dianetics is owned and disseminated by the Church of Scientology, I've included that in the template also.  And maybe one or two other things should be included in the template also.  Anyway, I've contributed and no longer object to the template being there.  My objection to it was that it attempted to constrain the chat on this page to talking about Dianetics in one and only one way, as a pseudoscience.  I don't believe that is the intention of Wikipedia.  Many editors, many opinions, arrive at concensus, create good articles.  Let's do it ! Terryeo 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see you've chosen  instead of deletion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well hell, Killer, I'm willing to flex.  What I'm not willing to do is swollow an editor's point of view whole who excludes any discussion but his own POV (ChrisO insists, "dianetics is pseudoscience").  Feel free, heh ! Hey, you're not from the Ft. Huahuacha ?? spelling, a fort in New Mexico, from that area are you?  Noticing a similarity in spelling ?Terryeo 11:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, its after the Chihuahua, a small, annoying yappy dog from the Chihuahua state in Mexico. The Killer part any Chihuahua owner would recognize - they can barely reach your ankles, but they think they are Big and Bad and have no fear. I also have been described as unimpressed by intimidation or stature. Its a bit of a joke. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a reply. As a small point of information, I have read they were developed to be the lapdogs or watchdogs of royalty. Being a small dog they are out of the way, being verbally umm, active, they are hard to ignore when roused. heh ! Terryeo 14:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contributing to the template 

message: Hi User:Terryeo. I think it is encouraging that you seem willing to accept that there are mainstream scientists that consider Dianetics to be pseudoscience. In particular, it is clear from the article that the psychiatrists and the medical scientists that have independently evaluated auditing have found its claims to not be backed up by the scientific evidence. You seem to be concerned that alternative points of view are not well explained. I wonder at this. In fact, such points of view are already included in the article: to wit that the promoters of dianetics believe that it is an alternative to these mainstream science works. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Science guy, why don't you post your informational sources?  That, if you follow, is the task before a presentation of Dianetics as pseudoscience.  So hey, post up links, publications, whatever sources of information you know about which evaluate what you have typed as being factual. Terryeo 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be more to the point. I don't believe Psychiatry has ever commented on Dianetics except to say they choose to ignore it.  Dianetics takes great pains to be completely clear the subject of Dianetics does not in any way address any of the things which the medical community addresses.  To compare medical knowledge to Dianetics is to compare apples and ferns. So post up your purported information.  Myself, I am convinced you have convinced yourself of a fallacy.  But why don't you post your information, we can all look at it and make decisions of our own, hey? Terryeo 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to consider your point that Dianetics deals with "something different" from medical science (or psychiatry too if I understand you correctly). The question is, does Dianetics claim to be scientific? If it claims to be only faith based then you are correct, it is not pseudoscience. However, if any of its claims are in contradiction with science or meant to be in competition with science then it is correctly described. The intro claims that Hubbard described Dianetics as an alternative to medicine. Is this the same way in which homeopathy is an "alternative"? If so, then it is clear that Dianetics is correctly described as a pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yer a tickle.  Giggle. Terryeo 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm serious, User:Terryeo. Remove the attacks, please. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: Well I'm seeing talk, as stated in the edit summary - what I'm not seeing is anything about the section header title. Requesting it now. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this talk page seems to be getting a bit hard to navigate... see under #The emergence of Dianetics. -- ChrisO 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole "kansas" section is plainly not about Dianetics at all. Instead it is a tortured attempt to make small of Hubbard.  Just preceeding it too, it implies without stating that Hubbard is having economic problems, etc.  This is an article about Dianetics and not about Hubbard.  Many of ChrisO's citations are not direct, either.  For example,  whole books are cited to support some points.  A citation should be a quote, or nearly a quote and the cited material easily available,  ideally with a mouse click where a person could read the context of the quotation.  In this manner a person could explore the knowledge which is Dianetics to their satisfaction. Terryeo 07:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto

message: As part of the issue is the relevancy of who publishes what, removing publishing company names under the pretense that they are already dealt with by the ISBN is unreasonable. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, publisher is expected per WP:CITE, along with year, author, and title. For footnotes page number is often desirable. And there is a handy-dandy example page here. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, note that this list was introduced by Terryeo on Feb. 6, with the argument that it was to counterbalance the fact that Dianetics was shown 'in a bad light', as a pseudoscience.  At first it was placed quite in the middle of the article. It is my opinion that such a list is not needed since Terryeo's argument that the list is a proof that makes Dianetics less pseudoscientific is not reasonable (we don't judge the scientific nature of a topic by the amount of published books by the corporation that owns the copyrights) We already have L. Ron Hubbard bibliography, do we really need that list here? Raymond Hill 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its okay, go ahead and talk about Dianetics as a pseudoscience, that's okay with me.  My objection was that not enough information was available about what Dianetics publications there have been and are today.  I felt there was nothing but "pseudoscience" presentations without anything but slander, as if Dianetics happened 50 years ago and was no longer published. If there is some good and realistic information in the article about Dianetics, then I'm okay with other editiors sounding off about it being pseudoscience. heh. Terryeo 18:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more than a stretch to assume that the reasons given for citing sources used in the article are also valid for references that are not used in the article. But I will concede the argument: it makes sense to keep a consistent style through the article. As to the necessity of this list, I don't think it's unreasonable to include a list of further reading on Dianetics and various criticisms of Dianetics that are not used as sources by the article. His argument for the inclusion of a list of further reading is obviously invalid, but it does not automatically follow that such a list does not belong in this article. Tenebrous 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did introduce the book list, maybe 2 months ago.  I did introduce it because at that time the article implied hardly anything had ever been published about dianetics.  All Dianetics books published today have Hubbard as the author. The whole list is about a dozen books.  As a "further reading" list it isn't too long.  Since he is deceased, it isn't going to grow longer.  2 books about Dianetics were published with the permission of the author.  Neither of them was repuplished.  One of those was Ruth Michells (spelling might be wrong) How to Choose Your People.  it was an easier, more readable version of Science of Survival.  I am not really sure whether to include the publisher or not.  I use [] to be sure the current ISBNs are used.Terryeo 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I first introduced the whole list of publications that comprises Dianetics on Jan 16. [here and called it, "Chronologically Listed Publications".  I realized the subject is closed, the list of publications not terribly long. It seemed a reasonable inclusion.Terryeo 17:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing publishing company

message: I hereby request that User:Terryeo tone down his advocacy and engage in discussions. In particular, he has ignored fundamental points of Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and Wikipedia:Consensus. I suggest if User:Terryeo persists that a User RfC be brought against him. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you have a nice day Mr. Apologist. Terryeo 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please tone it down

message: Question about this entry:
*1938 Excalibur (The Church of Scientology says this was written at this point, though never published whole, ). From Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter 26 April 1970R revised 15 March 1975, which appears in The Management Series Volume 1, page 3 (Bridge Publications, Inc. )
What the heck? Would someone explain this to me? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Hubbard wrote Excalibur in 1938.  The way I've heard it, it was lost overboard on a ship.  The information within the typewritten pages has been published in various other publications according to the Church of Scientology.  Their statement of that is to be found in the 26 April Policy Letter which is sold to the public as a single Policy Letter or sold to the public within a book whose ISBN you see. Terryeo 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, here is the Library of Congress data link:  KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a small piece of information, that link will never again be good.  It was good when you got it, but the Library of Congress is arranged so a link (kind of quickly) times out. Terryeo 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated link to Library of Congress Search page, wasn't thinking, thanks. However, the  goes to The management series, v. 1. The data series published in 1991. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The policy letter which has that statement is the first policy letter in the book, The Management Series (volume 1) which is itself the first book of a series of books which together comprise The Organization Executive Course and Management Series, the Index of that series of books (itself a 600 page volume) is  Terryeo 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more about that. the title, The Organization Executive Course by L. Ron Hubbard should bring up a group of books. The Management Series is 3 books. There is then the Index to 3 Management Series (volumes) + 7 Mangement Series (volumes).Terryeo 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job in the article User:KillerChihuahua, the list is crisp and sufficient. Terryeo 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I tidied it a little and put it in order. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever reason there was a missing single ' thing like that just was and I linked the terra incognita article to its online source.  The guidelines says we might link book titles to articles within wikipedia, link authors in such lists and so on.  It looks incredibly better Killer, heh !Terryeo 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it. Now, if only the rest of the article were so easy to tidy... But we'll get there. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: The introduction to this article is POV - critical POV without any clear indication of sources. --JimmyT 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at last! a breath of sanity ! Terryeo 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you're surprised considering that he's also a Scientologist, as evidenced by him signing at least one comment on his talk page with "ARC". --Davidstrauss 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Haha! :) While the first paragraph may contain tricky innacuracies, it is apparently a middle-of-the-road report.  The second paragraph is clearly critical of Dianetics with absolutely no obvious reference given at all.  I changed "most" to "some" but I think the entire introduction should be re-composed.  Evaluation should be presented with specific references to individuals from the scientific community or linked to the part of the article which gives the reference, and those evaluations should be presented from an unbiased NPOV rather than a critical POV. --JimmyT 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding, where in the article is there a specific instance of unsourced assertions? Because we should definately knock those out, one at a time. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent reversion by you shows that you might possibly already know what I'm talking about. Second paragraph of the introduction to the article, second sentence: It has been criticized as pseudoscientific quackery by most professional scientists and members of the medical community. Please cite all relevant references. And, is quackery the best scholarly and scientific term Wikipedia editors can come up with? --JimmyT 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the interests of transparency, I feel I should point out that as a self-identified "scientologist in good standing with the church"  you're not exactly a neutral observer in this discussion... -- ChrisO 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of obtaining a balanced, neutral article, ChrisO, and because you frequently cite unpublished, what you say is, Church of Scientology documentation and additionally have the tendancy to say things along the lines of (you don't know much about Scientology), I am going to reference you to WP:NOR#The_role_of_expert_editors which states explicitly: "On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts".  Your statements, ChrisO, lean more toward defining sides of an arguement than toward our objective.  I seem to remind you of this, in one manner or another manner, more frequently than should be necessary. Terryeo 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many, many references to Dianetics as "quackery". Check this Google search query: . It was described as such by medical professionals at the time (see e.g. this 1951 article from "Clinical Medicine"), and the article reflects that. -- ChrisO 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes the Razor link is to the same 1950's article. Link a ref, I have no preference. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Dianetics is to presented as "quackery" then a good cite should be made.  Apparently Psychology (at least officially) does not state that Dianetics is "quackery", instead it chooses to ignore it.  How about Medicine, has any offical medical organization issued an offical statement defining Dianetics to be "quackery" or "pseudoscience?"  If Dianetics is to be characterized by those terms the best possible citation should be made, it would have the most weight. Terryeo 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you refer to "Psychology" and "Medicine" as monolithic, official agencies makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about. There are associations (both academic and professional) and government agencies, but there are no organizations known as simply "Psychology" and "Medicine". --Davidstrauss 10:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV intro

message: Why that stuff in this dispersed, difficult to arrive at a consensus article?  Why stick in further dispersive, off topic, unagreed topics?  This sucker is plenty tough enough, we have hardly introduced the subject, we haven't really defined what a dang "engram" is within the context of Dianetics, we certainly haven't developed "reactive" and "analytical mind" yet and Povmec (Raymond Hill) is sticking additional, disruptive and dispersive maybe this NPL and maybe that nerolinguistic programming into the article. WHY?  how does that contribute to this article?  Terryeo 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, I didn't add this to the article.   I merely wikified to bypass disambiguation, as noted in the edit summary.   I actually share your opinion that this is not helping the article (especially that I couldn't find any "engram" occurrence in the EST article.) A few days ago you said that I stated "alphabetize everything" while I never said such a thing , so please, be careful with your comments. Raymond Hill 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Povmec or Raymond Hill. on 14:31, 2 February 2006 Povmec (→References - reordered properly references alphabetically after Terryeo's changes...) at this edit:  which in the context of a convoluted sequence of references which is a complex mix of online, offline, books and even sometimes unpublished and rarely confidential information, makes a difficulty.  Alphabetizing in this instance creates more difficulty than it solves (my opinion) and that isn't the only time you have alaphbetized things.  Usually I will agree, alaphabetizing minimizes randomity, providing a reader with access to information.  But in this area where we are dealing with a vast amount of footnotes and our references to a mix of sources I can't think alphabetizing is helpful. Terryeo 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why NPL and nero-linguistic programming

message: The primary source: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should be included in the References section and is reinstated after Antaeus Feldspar's "rv". --JimmyT 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a curious way you chose that phrasing, JimmyT.  "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should be included in the References section and is reinstated after Antaeus Feldspar's "rv"."  Why, it almost sounds as if you are falsely trying to create the impression that I performed a revert which removed that book from the list.  Tell me, what reason would you have for saying you "reinstated" something which was never missing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Antaeus, that was my mistake.  I overlooked the listing of Dianetics at the bottom of the list.  I wasn't falsely trying anything, I was simply doing what I thought was best and made a mistake. Cheers! --JimmyT 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source

message: This:
The current estimate of Clears in 2006 is about 50,000. (REF)Auditor Magizine, published as an ongoing tally by the American Saint Hill Organisation. (END REF)
IMHO needs tweaking. The ref is hidden, of course, unless the reader chooses to follow it. Here is where I feel it is a little unclear (no pun intended): The sentence itself doesn't attribute whose estimate it is. The footnote doesn't make it clear who the American Saint Hill Org is - they're a CoS outfit in LA. So can we say this is an official CoS estimate? We cannot leave this unattributed. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is an official estimate or "tally" actually. It is assembled from around the world. I said "estimate" because the total number is ungoing. A person can be removed if he feels he is not clear. Normally such a person would handle what is needed and request to be recertified. I couldn't find a recent Auditor with the most current official number. But practically this number is even posted on many anti-scientology sites and so can be considered neutral and proven, I think. Spirit of Man 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, what specifically is it "hidden" about this? And why are you applying such scrutiny to this citation when the previous one was covertly devious in a major way by quoting a number from before DMSMH was even released in 1950? The order of magnitude for Clears is now 50,000. In DMSMH in May of 1950 it was 273. The current number of people released from specific neuroses, psychoses and self-generated illnesses is far, far higher than 50,000. I just don't have a ref. for that. A specific minor illness or pain, may be handled in the timeframe of an office visit. A local Chiropracter uses Dianetics in his practice. Spirit of Man 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a number of internet sites which kept track of the number of clears.  But all of the ones I could find reference back to the source document, Auditor Magazine.  For years it published every month.  Some webistes have the number of Clears month by month.  Then, a few years ago it quit publishing that information.  That is how I put it together.  Which leaves no source of information of how many Clears exist today, except that the quantity was "about 50,000" not too many years ago. Terryeo 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it needs to be attributed, since "Clear" is meaningful only to practioners of Scientology, and left without attribution could give the impression that the term is meaningful outside Scientology. Some sites critical of Scientology seems to agree with this estimate, but they base their numbers on the Church of Scientology's own publications, and thus the estimate really comes from the Church.  Raymond Hill 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplicity is, no one but the Church of Scientology has defined what a Clear is nor has produced a Clear.  There is one and only one source of information about Clears.  It is one of those "primary source", no "secondary source" informations as per  and WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources.Terryeo 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, it just was not attributed in the article. Now it is. I am a happy puppy. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clears

message: The editors here are presenting Dianetics as a pseudoscience.  The Dianetics website , does not present Dianetics as a science.  It says, "Dianetics is an activity".  Would the editors here please be professional enough to recognize there is a body of information which is Dianetics.  If you wish to present the information which talks about its pseudoscientific view, then okay.  But it is wrong to not present the information which is Dianetics.  I mean, how can you possibly present "pseudoscience" until you have presented the information which the judgement "pseudoscience" applies to?   Let us follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and present the information which comprises Dianetics.  Then when the information has been presented, present the pseudoscience arguement.  This allows the reader to see what is being talked about first.Terryeo 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is included in the page. It is clearly stated for people to see what the proponents of dianetics claim it does. What you seem to want is such a presentation to be made without reference to criticism. This is unacceptable as dianetics is subject to criticism and so to exclude that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI there, Science Apologist, I see you have joined us at ChrisO's request found [] and stating, "Would it be possible for you to lend a hand in Talk:Dianetics? ChrisO 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, is it your contention that if Dianetics was a pseudoscience, the Dianetics website would surely say so?  If not, is it your contention that nothing can ever be said to be anything that the official website for it does not claim it to be?  I really am curious what you'll answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the article present Dianetics as pseudoscience (properly referenced) is okay with me. I believe the article should include Dianetics as the official website presents it. ChrisO and some other editors are following WP:NOR and disallow any information which comprises Dianetics to appear in the article.  I hold that [] applies.  That the pseudoscience presentation by secondary sources should be in the article. However, in addition to secondary sources, I would present orginal sources as per the above stated policy.  This would include a link to the Dianetics website.  This would include a brief quote from the Dianetics site, perhaps, "Dianetics is an activity" or "The whole purpose of Dianetics is to handle the reactive mind".  Because Dianetics is widely published and has been for years, there are many books and lectures available.  According to wikipolicy about how established a subject is, we can probably get along with each other.  Is this an answer that makes sense to you, Feldspar?  I do not mean to exclude sources of information. Terryeo 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will the '''real''' Dianetics please stand up 

message: Do you have ref for this template in the context of this article? Who wrote it and placed it there? Spirit of Man 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref for this template? What are you talking about? Please clarify your question. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! You have asked me above for my ref for the comments at the Carroll data. Why did you ask for that "ref"? It is a simple question, "Who wrote it and placed it there?" Spirit of Man 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. An OR template is not content. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is complete nonesense. ChrisO placed it there at this revision.  and it was his attempt to prevent any discussion which does not support his personal POV.  Which is, "Dianetics is original research, no portion of it shall ever appear in any wikipedia article".  Therefore he (and his group) insist WP:NOR applies.Terryeo 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely appropriate, as "both sides" have complained about OR being inserted. It is one of your most common complaints, Terryeo. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presentation of uncited opinions and criteria that "prove that Dianetics is a pseudoscience" is OR by Wikipedia contributors.  That is unacceptable and against Wikipedia policies.  Only citations to writers/scientists should be presented. --JimmyT 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOR refers to original research by Wikipedia contributors. WP:NOR does not refer to citing sources which may be orginal research in themselves. --JimmyT 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. Anything that is not published by a reputable source is OR.  Tenebrous 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  If you want to start an article on a book called Bibblygoops, then citing the book Bibblygoops itself should not qualify as OR. I think you are confused by some editors here who are bent on discrediting Dianetics rather than presenting it as a subject of the article. --JimmyT 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tenebrous is correct, and this is the approach which has been taken on Wikipedia for a long time. The policy says: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source... Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Bridge Publications - as a de facto vanity imprint for L. Ron Hubbard's works - does not count as a "reputable publisher" for the purpose of WP:NOR. -- ChrisO 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: NOR is also a primary policy---what are you saying? Tenebrous 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your question was to me, my mention of WP:V was to JimmyT, who is seems confused about what constitutes OR and what does not. Verifiable sources are by definition not OR, hence, I pointed him to the page which would clarify things for him. What that what you were asking? Your question was a little argumentative and vague. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it came across as being argumentative, I apologize. It was merely a request for clarification, your comment was not explanatory. Us iggerent people need to be led directly to the water before we know what we're supposed to be drinking :) Tenebrous 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I appreciate the humor, and apologis if I seemed to detailed or didactic - being unsure of what was being asked, I was trying to be thorough. No offense was meant. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not confused about what Wikipedia means by OR, but I think some of the editors here do.  Or perhaps Wikipedia is confused itself, that might explain it's tabloid-ey tendency. --JimmyT 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the portion of WP:NOR which applies is WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is which states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" and so on down to barely published by irrefutable publishers. There might be a question of what constitutes a refutable publishers.  Dianetics is published by a special interest group, but published by Bridge Publications.  According to Wiki guidelines Bridge Publications is a refutable publisher because it is large, has several layers of editors and staff, doesn't publish mistakes in print, publishes a great many books, has been established for some while, lists in the Library of Congress, etc. Terryeo 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, Dianetics is published by a notable and respectable publisher.  So I guess Tenebrous' statement about "respectable publisher" is his POV and OR. --JimmyT 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dianetics is not self-published. --JimmyT 19:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So sorry, yes it is. See Bridge Publications (Scientology). KillerChihuahua?!? 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it was originally published by Heritage House, a psychiatric publishing house. Spirit of Man 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but the subject is notable, and it's publisher is likewise notable. I dare you to argue this one... :) --JimmyT 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. What do you base that on? Surely not wikipedia alone. At least, I hope not, in light of this and your own comments. Either way, they're not a reliable source, so notability is beside the point. Tenebrous 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be biased (extreme POV) to thoroughly disclude a subject itself as one of the references used to compose an article. --JimmyT 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edition of Dianetics was published by Heritage House (in 1950), but every single edition since then - at least 60 - has been published by Scientology publishers, i.e. Bridge Publications and its predecessors. It's worth noting that Hubbard's works comprise virtually the entire Bridge range; in effect, it's a vanity publishing outfit. -- ChrisO 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Quit. If you don't want to follow fundamental, basic Wikipedia policy, you have no place here. Simple as that. -- ChrisO 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *1. ChrisO's attitude should to be taken into consideration by the mediation process. --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *2. Why did ChrisO violate WP:V by presenting a reference which is unverifiable? --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *3. Why would someone violate the rules and then intimidate a new user? --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *3. The "intimidation" is because you are making a lot of newbie mistakes, being generally accusatory and uncivil, not assuming good faith, and indicating rather vocally your dislike of wikipedia and the policies it follows, which could be construed as unwillingness to comply with those policies. Also, it's generally advised to read the policies before you start posting, especially on a controversial issue. Personally, I think it's very hypocritical to criticize WP:V because you don't understand it and it doesn't support your argument, and then cite it in support of a different argument. Your complaints regarding ChrisO's cite are not valid for several reasons, but the important one is that he's not citing the paper document, but the online one. Tenebrous 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Here is ChrisO's edit of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health that cites an unpublished, CONFIDENTIAL Church of Scientology document. . The difference his edit made from the previous version is here. 
It led to a nearly constant edit war in which several editors assumed ChrisO was right to cite the document.
*And it led to ChrisO modifying WP:CITE (a Wikipedia style guideline) to justify his edit.  At WP:CITE ChrisO added a note to the page in the form of a dagger which, he apparently felt, justified his citing unpublished, CONFIDENTIAL Church of Scientology documents. Those edits took the form:
*13:20, 23 January 2006 ChrisO (added a clarification re ease of checking)
*14:32, 23 January 2006 Terryeo (removed the poorly stated dagger)
*15:02, 23 January 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (restore clarification deleted without discussion by Terryeo)
*14:15, 24 January 2006 Terryeo (removed the dagger. Citations should generally follow these procedures because readers read to learn the subject, not how esoteric the subject is.)
*16:00, 24 January 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (restore clarification deleted by Terryeo)
*20:54, 24 January 2006 JesseW (rv; Terryo has given more explanation so far - we all should take this to the talk page)
*14:35, 25 January 2006 ChrisO (restored deleted dagger; see Talk page comments)
*14:55, 25 January 2006 Terryeo (There is a conflict of ChrisO's dagger and WP:V)
*03:11, 28 January 2006 JesseW (rm dagger; see old comment by Jimbo, and talk page)
*03:12, 28 January 2006 JesseW (typo; still rm'ing dagger; see old comment by Jimbo, and talk page)
The discussion of that editing is here: 
Terryeo 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research template. 

message: Every Wikipedia article falls under the same Wikipedia Policies.  Why do we all need to scroll through the template every time we want to discuss ?  It was originally posted by ChrisO and attempted to declare that no discussion would happen on this page unless it was about Dianetics being a pseudoscience.  That's a prefectly good topic to discuss, but the Dianetics website  presents Dianetics as an activity while a pseudoscience is a theory.  Dianetics is doing things which is quite different than the article the template came from.  In addition, Dianetics is owned and disseminated by a Church and the element of religion is likely to be discussed on this page also.  When you say something in the policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V and then say the same thing again it is redundant.  The template is redundant and does no one any good because the policies which we operate under apply whether we are reminded of them by a template or not.  Addintionally, discussion pages are designed to discuss so we can present articles.  ChrisO attempted to limit our discussions with the template.  Of what possible use is it? 65.147.84.67 15:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Terryeo?), please explains how this template limits discussion. Specifically, quote the part of it that says you aren't allowed to state your opinion here. Raymond Hill 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Raymond.  Yes, I am User:65.147.84.65 and had trouble signing on, Wiki was really really slow.  The template ChrisO posted said: "The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter."  which is false because it says there is no editor discussion outside of those narrow limits.  Any casual viewing of the discussion shows lots of discussion outside of those limits.  Any mention of religion or of theory is outside of those limits. Any mention of "refutable publisher" or WP:V is outside of those limits.  Any mention of "engram" as a valid concept is outside of those limits, it implies "engram" can only be discussed if it is discussed as a pseudosciece. Terryeo 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also seem to be overlooking the fact that you should not be removing content on a talk page that you haven't personally posted. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- ChrisO 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did remove the template, and removed it a number of times.  It is completely redundant and appears to me to be ChrisO's personal attempt to limit all discussion on this page to his personal POV.  We will talk about everything we think applies whether ChrisO likes it or not.  This should appropriately include theories about "engram", religion and other elements which together are all convered under the policies and guidelines which govern every wikipedia article. #note. I have since added to the template since its inclusion seems so important to other editorsTerryeo 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That redundant template

message: Concerning the position of the American Psychological Association on Dianetics, we could add a footnote containing the following link: Council Policy Manual: M. Scientific Affairs - IV. DIANETICS. Raymond Hill 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good citation and verification to me, Raymond. Terryeo 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, its great.  It pops right up, it is an official site, it states its position cleanly without predjudice, the link goes right to the pertinent material, its a good cite ! You probably prefer "Raymond" as a means of address, right? Terryeo 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice find! But why the "opposition to Scientology" heading? -- ChrisO 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I must have been absent-minded, somehow I wrote "Opposition to scientology" instead of "Opposition to Dianetics" (where the paragraph is.) Raymond Hill 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in psychology they call that a Freudian Slip. :) Spirit of Man 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be a plesure to see clean citations like above instead of the convoluted verifications from single individuals on websites that are themselves confusing to navigate.  Also, the APA is a well recognized organization and not an impossible to find publication from 1952 which isn't available.  Maybe we can clean the article up some and present both sides appropriately?  And not revert each other's shoes off when those of us who know the subject write an introduction or a small piece? Terryeo 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Opposition to Dianetics" section 

message: Is "[26]^ "The Integrity of Source", Scientology Policy Directive 19 of July 7, 1982; cited in "The Ultimate Spin Doctor: L. Ron Hubbard - The Man and His Myth", Watchman Expositor Vol. 13, No. 5, 1996 ".  As ChrisO spelled out earlier, that (internal to Scientology) policy directive was not published to the public.  It was created by an agency which itself is no longer in existence, its parent body, the Guardian's Office is no longer in existence, its created documents have long since lost their force and besides which, it was never published to the public.  To use it as "proof" that Dianetics is a pseudoscience is too big a streach.  It should come out. Terryeo 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite your source that this specific document has "lost its force". -- ChrisO 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Office of Special Affairs "It is the successor to the now-defunct Guardian's Office".Terryeo 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be necessary.  It is actually incumbant on you as an editor to provide a clean verification but I will spell out how that internally created and internally used (Internal the the Church of Scientology) document has lost its force.  It was created by a group which was formed under the Guardian's Office.  The Guardian's Office no longer exists.  The documents which they generated no longer have force within the Church of Scientology.  The group(s) which were spawned and worked under their direction are no longer extant.  That a group within the Church of Scientology has the same name as one of the groups under the Guardian's Office had does not make a document created by the group under the Guardian's Office to be valid.  That document was created by the Guardian's Office.  Quoting it is using it completely out of context to prove a point which is intuitive.  Hubbard is dead.  Dianetics (as practiced by the Church of Scientology) is not going to produce more Dianetics.  There might be some very small and minor things, but nothing much, per Church policy.  It is my understanding the document was created because there was a time when an individual high in the Church, modified and created policy and technical information which Hubbard was not aware of and which other, equally high persons, were not aware were harmful to the delivery of Church technology.  That was stopped.  That document stopped it.  It seems to me to be a silly, frivolous citation in a weak attempt to prove a point which is already intuitive.  Why use such a long dead document from a subgroup which was disbanded?  Why go to all this trouble? Terryeo 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian's Office doesn't exist anymore but an office with the same name does. Hmm. I'll accept the possibility, but you're going to have to prove that they're not the same organization. Also, this story about this high-level saboteur---where did you hear it? Can we see this source? 137.229.152.246 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My user page has a very brief description of that difficulty. Call it a "growing pain" if you like. Terryeo 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Office of Special Affairs. "It is the successor to the now-defunct Guardian's Office".Terryeo 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other wikipedia pages are not valid sources, try again. Also, a story on your user page carries no more weight than a story here or a story scribbled on a toilet stall. Please provide valid sources. Tenebrous 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, here's what this toilet stall can produce.  which is from, as you see, the church of scientology.  It tells about the stinky situation the G.O. was involved in and a little of the difficulty it ensnared into the church which the church had to sort through. Terryeo 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It also says nothing about whether this specific policy was repealed. Cite a source that addresses that issue, please. -- ChrisO 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I make what I consider to be a perfectly valid point of why the verification you dredged up, ChrisO, does not apply in the context you use it in.  Why isn't that enough?  Now I've provided a link to the Church of Scientology's site which explains that the Guardian's Office (which you said it come from) is not in force.  The point I would hope you would eventually see is that a selected 20 word phrase doesn't apply to the point you make in the article.   You are trying to prove "pseudoscience" and particularly with that citation, prove that Dianetics is not dynamically active, changing and correcting itself based on new research. Duh. The Dianetics website says that right up front as practically their first line.  "Created by L. Ron Hubbard" now deceased, and makes no mention of any changes, further research, scientific studies or anything of that nature.  How clear can the situation be? Terryeo 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we please not get sidetracked here? The issue is that Terryeo has made an assertion for which he has failed to provide any citation. Furthermore, if he does manage to provide a citation, he will have to provide something that is verifiable. Saying "this is what I believe to be the case" is both original research and unverifiable. -- ChrisO 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Office of Special Affairs. "It is the successor to the now-defunct Guardian's Office".Terryeo 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo states "It shouldn't be necessary.  It is actually incumbant on you as an editor to provide a clean verification". Aren't you yourself an editor? Don't you also want to contribute and provide good sources for what you state, rather than merely pointing at what you consider a lack of good sources from others? (you removed sentences along with their referenced sources from other articles a few hours ago, as in , ) Is it your view we should add the following to the article "Some Dianetics advocates are of the opinion that this unpublished and confidential document has lost its force", with no further references? Raymond Hill 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Office of Special Affairs."  It is the successor to the now-defunct Guardian's Office".  My tickle with you guys is not that you mean well or don't, but that you are not terribly informed in an area that is complicated and easily misunderstood.  Further, if you read that article and link to the Scientology official website, it too explains how the Guardian's Office was disbanded some time ago.Terryeo 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ChrisO, how many times must you be told that you are to edit under WP:V?  The source you cite is not published.  I tell you so. You have been told so.  Anyone can get it, it is unpublished.  You are refusing to responsively edit and you are refusing to accept responsibility when your mistakes are pointed out to you.  You should never have used that verification.  You should never use unpublished sources when you edit on Wikipedia. Period. Terryeo 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me where it says that you can't use online sources. 137.229.152.246 11:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Gosh, then I guess you don't want us to quote from the two dozen or so Web sites listed in this Google search. --Modemac 13:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh Modemac, please understand. I know there is a good deal of Scientology critism and it is perfectly okay with me that you do nothing with your whole life BUT criticize Scientology, okay?  Now, can we get back to wiki policy and creating a Dianetics article?  BTW, you get a lot of sites with a simple search word like "Scientology" too. heh. Terryeo 09:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flunk, that's a poor attempt to change the subject.  You yourself claimed that the HCOPL "The Integrity of Source" is unpublished, and I showed you (and everyone here) that it is indeed published and available on any number of Web sites via a simple Google search.  Your claim that it is an "unpublished" document is unverified, and we have little reason to accept your claim as such...in the same way that nearly everything in Dianetics claimed by Hubbard has been shown to be unverified.  BTW, when you do a simple word search like "Scientology," the #2 site listed there is www.xenu.net.  That suggests that xenu.net is indeed a popular and reliable source of information that can be cited on Wikipedia, in this article and others.  In fact, it already is. --Modemac 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have I heard "flunk" before, lemme think.  heh. It would appear that an internal to the organization which is Scientology document, if placed on a website, is to be considered "published" for our uses of inclusion as a cite.  I see real problems with such a policy because Xenu and Clambake have without doubt, documents which are legally contested.  In any event, because Dianetics was developed a long time ago it probably isn't going to matter for this article. Terryeo 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, WP:V tells you so, tells me so too. It says: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. (informations) may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."  Then it is incumbant on an editor to understand what "published by reliable and reputable sources" means.  It means, "published to the public" and this is a different meaning than "personal letters" and a different meaning than "post-it notes to fellow workers" and a different meaning than "internal-to-an- organization emails" and a different meaning than "executive directives issued by a department to the organization".  Published means, "published to the public" and that is the standard we work by.  I believe you are pointing out the situation where, say, the Clambake site procures a dead document from an indivdual who has stolen it from the Church of Scientology and then Clambake posts that stolen document on their website.  That, you reason, is published.  In some cases the Church of Scientology has take those situations to court.  Clearly those situations are not as good of sources of information as, say any published book.  The minium threshold for inclusion for us editors is "Verifiability" and a link to a legally contested document would be verifiable, even if it was unpublished.  If that is the level article everyone insists on, then that is the level of refutability that Wikipedia will have.  I think we can do better.  I don't think we need legally contested, long dead, unpublished documents cited to present what Dianetics is. Terryeo 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a document was never meant to be published, but some investigative reporter turns it up and publishes it as part of a story, the document is now published, regardless of the original intent.  Friday (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, does that mean that Xenu.net (which publishes on their website certain documents which are confidential and stolen from the Church of Scientology) is a refutable source and may be quoted and linked to?  In particular, there is a Church of Scientology confidential Class VIII lecture which ChrisO cites which was on a website not long ago, but which is legally contested (I'm pretty sure it is presently contested).  And there are many other such documentations on Xenu and Clambake.  Some are legally contested, some are old copies of what were copyrighted Church policy when they were created, but which have been cancelled, modified, revoked, and so on by the Church.  The Fair game article is full of such older, cancelled references.  Could you comment please, User:Friday because this is one of the beanpoles we are beating each other with. Terryeo 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far we've only your word to say that these articles were stolen. And the word is "reputable" not "refutable". You haven't shown any evidence that these articles have been cancelled. The "copyright" card is also void: this is fair use. All of this has been mentioned before; you have ignored it, and kept repeating your same argument, and misreading policy to support whatever you want it to say. The personal attacks are also getting old. Tenebrous 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tenebrous.  I am not opposing good information in articles.  I am not opposing good citations.  In the Fair Game article I stated a good deal about policy and how a person could view policy and church documents and so on.  99 percent of it is widely published and listed with an ISBN, these citations to early inter-agency documents are real hard to find.  I'm perfectly willing to talk about any part of any of them and I surely don't know all there is to know.  But why must these esoteric documents be used as verifications at all?  What kind of convoluted points are being supported by long gone, inter-agency documentations?  This isn't a rag newspaper but an encyclopedia.  For example, Povmec's cite of what the American Psychiatric organization says about Dianetics is a reputable source of information.  I support my points with widely published books, good sources.  What need is there for others to support their points with secret communications, hidden documents, sources from legally contested sources,etc, etc, ad nauseam? Terryeo 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also using your own definition of a "good citation". If we were citing the paper document you would have a point. We aren't, you don't. Simple. WP:RS says that neither online nor print sources are inherently more reliable. At this point, the document in question is neither secret, hidden, or legally contested. It's widely available online. Now, you are free to disagree on this point, but the rest of us think that this information is highly relevant and should be included in the article. One of the reasons is that internal memos tell you a lot about the organization they come from (as opposed to PR statements). Refer to any of the famous memos from Microsoft, FEMA, Enron, or even the Downing Street Memo. 137.229.152.246 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above.  The internal memos are great sources. Friday (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this particular case, the source is a well-established print publication (the Watchman Expositor, the journal of the Watchman Fellowship) with a web edition. The WE has been in publication since 1983 and has a pretty solid reputation as a commentator on so-called cults and new age religions. I note that Terryeo isn't disputing the accuracy of the quote. He is also conflating the "Integrity of Source" policy letter - which I understand was widely distributed to ordinary Scientologists in the 1980s and isn't in any way confidential - with the secret Xenu materials, which are indeed very tightly controlled (though evidently not tightly enough!). -- ChrisO 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friday, that's very true. The Pentagon Papers are a classic example - they were never meant to be published, they're still unpublished by the US Government, but they were published by the NY Times and others following their leakage. Having pointed this out, I'm confident that Terryeo will make his way to Talk:Pentagon Papers and argue for the deletion or redaction of most of that article - after all, "how would a person characterize an editor who cited a military secret to a wikipedia article", as he puts it in #Slander. The Pentagon Papers article is a prima facie example of such a situation. Go get 'em, Terryeo! ;-) -- ChrisO 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisO, allow me to make 4 points here.  First, Friday has administrative powers.  Secondly, I asked him a question which pertains to information we are having difficulty with in this article, your stance in this area is widely known and does not contribute to his answer nor to resolution of the difficulties. Third, Friday has reminded us below, at [Talk:Dianetics#Reminder_about_the_purpose_of_talk_pages] how the sort of baiting comment you just made isn't appropriate. And Forth, you have not yet stated that you will accept mediation at the mediation page, .  Yep, that's 4. Terryeo 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, so have I. What's the relevance of that? Second, my point is obvious - as the example of the Pentagon Papers shows, we've already dealt with issues of unpublished, indeed secret material in ways other than your bizarre, novel and logic-defying interpretations of WP:V. Third, I certainly hope that you'll desist from personal attacks - you still owe ScienceApologist an apology. Fouth, be patient! -- ChrisO 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first time in a very long time you have replied to something I have stated.  Unfortunately you are unable to prevent yourself from using "bizarre, novel, and logic-defying" and simply reply.  Would you kindly refrain from such emotionally weighted words in the future?  But that's a real big improvement.  Could we move on to actualy discussing things now?  For example.  Do you still hold the position that nothing published by Bridge publications can be quoted on in the article? Terryeo 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never held that position, as you very well know. I'll add some comments on this under #Vanity publications and sources. -- ChrisO 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unpublished "proof of pseudoscience"