Talk:Dianetics/Archive 12

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Psychoanalysis is an example of a practice which addresses the mind without "addressing the body". --ScienceApologist 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: You are misinformed in assuming that psychoanalysis is interchangable with psychiatry. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe we can introduce "mind" without getting into extreme explanations of special jargon. Terryeo 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Previous intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What Dianetics claims/aims to treat

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: It would certainly bog it down. Vivaldi 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common knowledge need not be sourced 

message: 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)
replies: text: You need to cite sources for such claims. wikipediatrix 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Balance is a problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Terryeo's POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I did not imply that the US Navy was bean-brained or blinded and I don't appreciate you suggesting any such thing.  I highly respect the US Navy, and the Chaplains Service.  The US Navy is very politically correct and they are only reporting the information given to them by the Church of Scientology.  The material they received is from a single man, a known cult-apologist, that has referenced only materials from the Church of Scientology in describing the religion.  The material the US Navy duplicated on its website came from the Church of Scientology itself.  If you notice, the US Navy does not have any articles that write critically of ANY of the religions that it presents, so it is completely meaningless that the US Navy Chaplains Service didn't include information from neutral or critical sources.  BTW, feel free to post up any good, neutral sites you wish, don't feel constrained just because the question was to me.  I already did.  Time Magazine, Readers' Digest, Behar, Lieby, The Washington Post, and 60 Minutes.   Each of these are independent and very popular and well known media outlets that have independently investigated the criminal cult of Scientology and each of them came to similar conclusions.  You are under the misguided notion that a "neutral" source will somehow come to "neutral" opinions about Scientology after they study it, but just like the KKK or the Nazi SS, neutral sources agree -- Scientology is mainly notable for the bad things it is responsible for.    Vivaldi (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Try searching for Time Magazine reporter Behar and Scientology or Washington Post reporter Leiby and Scientology.  There you see what two well respected and widely read media sources think about Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link (if you trust the state of Florida more than you trusth the U.S. Navy) which speaks of the effect of Scientology in a local Florida City.  Terryeo 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cynthia Pollock Shea was a contributing author to a report for the Florida Sustainable Communities Center.  She did not speak on behalf of the state of Florida.  She was speaking for herself reporting on the FSCC efforts to justify itself.  It was an effort that failed.  FSCC no longer exists.  The city of Clearwater does not have a thriving downtown, it is an eyesore filled with vacant and closed businesses.  The Super Power Building promised by the Church of Scientology over 8 years ago, is still sitting vacant with large gaping holes in the side and contruction barricades around it.  The Church of Scientology is facing fines from the city of Clearwater for its failure to live by the terms of its building agreement with the city.  Recently, CoS tried to bring out a few potted plants in front of their disgusting tarp covered fences, as if 10 potted plants cover up the 8 year history of blight that CoS has left in the heart of Clearwater.  And suggesting that we don't "trust the U.S. Navy" is complete hogwash and innappropriate behaviour on your part.  We all trust that the Navy duplicated the material that it was given by the Church of Scientology.  In fact, we proved it.  We gave you the links showing you that the Navy didn't write the article, that it was in fact written by a single person, a known cult-apologist and an admitted non-expert in the field of religious studies.  So it has nothing to do with "trusting the U.S. Navy".  Vivaldi (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is rather interesting that you align yourself with everyone in the manner you state above, Vivialdi.  But you suggest the Navy is "mindless" and unable to judge what it should and should not present to its troops, you suggest that it appealed to religioustolerence.org and then, idiomatically cut and pasted without a thought to content.   Surely you recognize the U.S. Navy does quality control of their material, both hardware and software, wetware and dryware and maintains it in a manner which best serves the U. S. of A ?  I feel it is very short - sighted to dismiss what the Navy presents to its troops because your opinion differs from the information the Navy chooses to present (as neutral) to its troops.  Actually, hey, it makes me glad you are not the man in charge of the Navy! heh !  Yep, I trust the Navy has good judgement and is capable of posting what it considers good information and won't post what it considers bad information. You also see the Florida situation far, far different than the City Government does and present a narrow view.  But of course, you point of view, happy or not, is up to you. Terryeo 22:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Issue 

message: The introduction says that, "to treat a wide variety of conditions".  But the Dianetics website says, "Dianetics has one purpose, to get rid of the reactive mind".  Myself, I see some disparity between the two.  Perhaps no other editor does, but "one purpose..." and "treat a wide variety of condistions" have very little in common.  May we introduce Dianeitcs for what it is? Terryeo 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is precisely the linguistic shell-game that the CoS uses to try to avoid "medical claims". The very first page of my copy of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health says Dianetics "gets rid of the source of your problems, fears, psychosomatic illness and unwanted emotions". This is, in fact, a wide variety of conditions. That Dianetics allegedly treats these conditions by way of the alleged source, the Reactive Mind, is immaterial. wikipediatrix 16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then by all means, a quote that introduces the book and subject should appear in that article.  I don't argue.  However, this article and that article are not the same article.  This article should present the subject, that one the book.  Dianetics evolved. In 1950 the subject was in its infancy, an E-meter was unheard of, it was not exactly clear to Hubbard why Dianetics worked with some people better than it worked with other people.  The subject evolved.  Then "New Era Dianetics" came along, Hubbard wrote additional things, the E-Meter was refined and has computer electronics in it today.  Terryeo 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dianetics book, which is still endorsed by the CoS, very clearly makes claims about Dianetics treating a variety of conditions.  No amount of handwaving or CoS doublespeak can change this easily verifiable fact.  Friday (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Friday doublespeak"? Do you agree each Dianetics book written in 1950, endorsed by the CoS contains additional materials addressed to the Reader in the front materials, that says explicitely that Dianetics addresses the spirit, the CoS does not engage in spiritual healing, people with medical conditions are referred to competent medical people. You know very well certain states have passed laws against curing certain medical illnesses, like arthritus in California. So to claim to cure such an illness would break California law. The CoS does not break California law. For you to say it does is "Friday doublespeak". Does the text of the 1950 Dianetics book talk about "conditions" yes. Does California law forbid such claims, yes. Does the CoS make such claims, NO. Have you given a series of assists to someone with Arthritus using Dianetics procedures and seen what the result is for yourself? I don't think so, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Spirit of Man 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't suppose you have proof of these assists results, do you? No? Then what is to be gained by bringing them up here? By the way, I have the 1999 edition of Dianetics:TMSMH here and I don't see anything about Dianetics "addressing the spirit". Not on the cover. Not on the back cover. Not in the introduction. Not in the first chapter, in fact. Maybe you use a different definition of "explicitly". The front cover DOES guarantee that Dianetics gets rid of "the single source of pain". The back cover does say it will remove the source of "psychosomatic aches and pains". The introduction has a quote from one "Kyle Frencher" who says Dianetics cured his sinus problems. Of course, he does the prerequisite verbal dance and notes that what has been cured is the "source" of his sinus problems, that ol' "Reactive Mind". wikipediatrix 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a copy of ISBN-0-88404-632-x, a 1999 edition of DMSMH and on the copyright page it says "Dianetics spiritual healing technology". Does yours say the same? Regarding assists, in Dianetics one proof is called a "Success Story". If a person that received a service, such as an assist wishes, they may send a personal statement of the result from their viewpoint to a local organization privately, so the person that gave the assist can be recognized and the organization can maintain the quality of service in its area. This document would be very similar the documents used in a scientific study, which are then witnessed and tabulated. The last one sent in on me said the person had an eye injury and the doctor said he was likely to lose the eye. The doctor had removed the left iris and removed metal from the socket. The document said that after my assist his eyesight had already returned to 20/32 in that eye. He had also had a dislocated right shoulder that had bothered him for some time and that had now healed. He also had had a sprained left ankle that had not been healing and he had had to bandage it with support bandages for the last year. He was able to remove the bandages and there was no pain, but the ankle was still sensitive when he worked on a ladder too much. His document is on file at the Church of Scientology Battle Creek. I said nothing to the effect that assists are ineffectual. BTfromLA's statement is at best argumentative and close to libelous. Spirit of Man 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That you, Spirt of Man? Please lay off the accusation of libel--that's a crime, and it's not one I'm guilty of, and it is wildly inappropriate for you to suggest as much.  My point is that is that if you were saying, as you now seem to be, that the Dianetic assists successfully treat a wide range of medical conditions, you have no grounds for arguing against the phrase "to treat a wide range of conditions."  BTfromLA 03:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that I am an individual in Michigan and the CoS is in California and other states with legal constraints placed to protect AMA interests. These contraints are against known medical conditions and the medical treatment of them. I can say what I do. My argument against "conditions", is that Dianetics addresses the spirit in a context of the belief that the spirit alone may heal the body. So the medical community has no mechanism to treat psychosomatic illness spiritually, and to my knowledge does not. Likewise, I have no expertise in medicine and have nothing to do with it. In fact they lobby to have the "cure" of such medical conditions be illegal.  I understand Freud is the doctor that came up with the idea the spirit or mind or psyche can cause some illnesses in the body or soma. He called such illnesses phychosomatic. So I do not use the idea of "assists" in any medical context whatsoever. Any such medical expertise indicated is refered to persons competent in those things.  I only use it in the spiritual context that the spirit is addressed and only the spirit may heal the body. A specific medical condition is NOT treated. One addresses the spirit and invites the spirt to heal the body. If an individual person wishes to write and publish a Success Story describing his view of such things, that is his business. If you refrain from saying I am "attesting" to something "so ineffectual" we should be fine. Spirit of Man 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds as if Spirit of Man is attesting that the attempt to use assists on a victim of arthritis is so ineffectual that there is no point arguing whether it helps the condition.  If he's saying the opposite--that is does remedy that condition, well...  BTfromLA 20:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it is appropriate to be skeptical of stated results.  We often come against this issue, "Scientology doesn't prove it!" and that is very true,  Neither Dianetics nor Scientology will attempt to prove to anyone for some years now.  It doesn't attempt to satisfy the scientific community by parallelling "scientific experments" nor does it appeal to the public by "studies".  The disipline which would normally make such studies and present them, psychology, has chose to ignore it.  Therefore, if these articles are going to present comparisons of results where could we find results?  Well, the only source I know of are similar to what Spirit of Man has stated, personal attestations.  I've used assists with results that were simply baffelingly good.  But there's no proof behind them but the person saying, "Hey, I feel much better".  What would you all think of the article containing a personal attestation or two?  Scientology has published large quantities of such attestations, they are only signed by people's initials though, such as "J.G." or "B.O." Terryeo 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anecdotal evidence is meaningless.  You need to do a controlled study to demonstrate efficacy.  It doesn't require a psychologist to set up such a study either.  Almost anyone with a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science could set up a study to determine whether Dianetics is effective at doing anything.  Scientology certainly isn't interested in doing such a study, because Scientology is not about "science", it is about duping people with "scientistic" (sic) sounding language.  Vivaldi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vivaldi, I refer you to WP:CIV. If you intend your words to sound slanderous they certainly do. Spirit of Man 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a lawyer citizen Battle Creek? Are any other expert qualified to know what slanderous words sound like and why slanderous doesn't apply to Wiki Talk pages? AndroidCat 04:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good, Friday. Good.  Perhaps your efforts would be more appricated at the article whose title you know a great deal about?  Dianetics has changed significantly, Hubbard developed Dianetics over a period of years.  Orginally it was designed to be delivered to an ailing companion on expeditions, from that it evolved to a person leaning back on a couch, today it is usually a person sitting in a quiet, comfortable chair while holding E-Meter cans in a quiet, peaceful environment.  But what you mention is good history, no arguement. Terryeo 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you certainly won't object to us pointing out that when Dianetics was introduced it was advertised as being able to heal all sorts of ailments, right?  You realize that the only reason that Dianetics doesn't still advertise its (non-existent) curative abilities is because the US Government had to order the Church of Scientology to stop advertising that way unless CoS had some sort of evidence to back up their claims.  Instead of providing evidence for cures (which would require a controlled study), the CoS stopped marketing Dianetics and e-meters as curative devices.  So now instead of saying they cure anything, they say it rehabilitates the spirit, or fixes the reactive mind, or what-have-you.  CoS forgets to mention that many Scientologists believe that many physical ailments are caused by an abberated "reactive mind" (because that is what L. Ron Hubbard has preached in his lectures). Vivaldi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to any cited material. (bound to be some exception to this, lol).  That is how Dianetics was first presented.  But, Dianetics as practiced today, well, I think we should introduce the subject as it is present today.  And a historical section (or something) could go into the details of its earlier presentation.  Truely, how it is presented to the public has changed a lot.  The original stuff is still practiced, the Church still supports it but the more modern stuff gets faster results.  I am pretty sure that "Scientologists believe ... (anything)" is going to be a statment that will have no possible verification.  Dig, I'm not trying to challenge you about that, but to point out that such studies have not been made.  Terryeo 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am pretty sure that "Scientologists believe ... (anything)" is going to be a statment that will have no possible verification.  Have you ever read the Scientology Creed?   What does it mean when it says, "We of the Church believe..."?  Are the "we of the church" someone other than Scientologists, or do Scientologists actually have a set of some 15-20 odd beliefs that are codified in a Creed?  You keep saying Scientologists don't believe anything.  It mainly comes from your lack of understanding of the word belief and believe, which do not imply anything other than what a person thinks is true.  Certainly Scientologists think certain facts are true.  For example, the Scientologists that attest to OT3 think that Xenu was an intergalactic overlord that blew up space aliens 75 million years ago and created body thetans.  Then Scientologists think that if they pay for more auditing and training in OT4-OT8 that they will be able to get rid of their body thetans.  Vivaldi (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vivaldi, "What does it mean when it says, "We of the Church believe..."? Means that Church members agree these statements, the statements in the Scientology Creed are true. Yes, Church members have 15-20 odd beliefs in common that are codified in a Creed. Your statement about OT3 is not true. That is not what is being attested. The attest is the same as any attest of any level, that the person attests that he has achieved the results expected of the level. The attest has nothing to do with what you are calling a belief in "Xenu" and "body thetans". Those are not doctrines or a part of the Creed or beliefs held in common by Scientologists. I think you are simply being uncivil in violation of WP:CIV and aggressively trying to aggravate people as a troll. Spirit of Man 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have to say that most of your statement is based on information.  Medical conditions are treated by medical doctors.  No person can receive Dianetics processes until such medical conditions by medical doctors have been done.  There is the "grey" area, "psychosomatic" which medical doctors don't have consistant, reliable results with.  Dianetics does address the "grey" area. Terryeo 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Anetode, do you agree Dianetics only addresses the spirit? Not the physiology of the body. Do you agree medicine only addresses the physiology of the body and not the spirit? Do you agree Scientologists believe that only the spirit may heal the body? Do you agree when we are talking about Dianetics, we are talking about a spiritual healing technology? Do you agree anyone that comes to Dianetics or Scientology to be treated for a medical condition is referred to competent medical help? Spirit of Man 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For example, in medicine and for a short time in early Dianetics, the term "psychosomatic" was used. To my knowledge medicine still uses this term and has not defined it in spiritual terms or established the scientific validity of it. Do you agree? Do we agree medicine does NOT represent scientific validity when it comes to psychosomatic things. To my knowledge this term, or similar ideas in Dianetics, is replaced in Dianetics by "Chronic somatic". In Dianetics the idea of a "chronic somatic" is that a spiritual being creates a mental image of pain and accompanying physical states by resisting the pain, and may continue to use this energy picture of pain and physical conditions on the body causing a chronic pain and condition in the body. When the spirit no longer creates or no longer uses that image picture of pain the person no longer has the chronic pain. So I am sorry if you had spiritual "chronic somatic" confused with diagnosing or treating something medical. Dianetics addresses the spirit and the spirit's influence on the body through the mind. Spirit of Man 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "to treat a wide variety of conditions" 

message: Please don't remove all references to things at xenu.net simply because they're at that website.  This is a widely recognized website, and their online reproductions of original source materials are very useful.  Friday (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo seems determined to censor unflattering info about Scientology from Wikipedia articles at all costs, on any rationale, no matter how flimsy. I hope he's getting paid a lot to do this, because he's wasting his time. wikipediatrix 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material Terryeo has been deleting is text that refers to credible sources published by reputable publishers--online versions of these publications are archved at the xenu.net website.  This amounts to outright vandalism of the articles.  Disgraceful behavior on the part of an experienced editor.  BTfromLA 01:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo quite frequently attempts to Game the Rules by searching for some point in the Wiki rules that he can distort and then mass-apply, but this raises the bar to new heights. AndroidCat 02:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've long been wondering whether there was an established concept to describe the sort of "gaming the rules" that characterizes Terryeo's behavior--Friday supplied the answer, if I understand it correctly: "Wikilawyering."  And yes, this episode is at the top of the charts, but don't forget "term, topic, context," the bit about the book with the most published copies is the most reliable source, and his other hits.  BTfromLA 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the term gaming the rules goes back at least 25 years, but don't ask me to pull out my copies The Dragon Magazine to prove it. Rules Lawyer ditto. Odds are H.G. Wells, the war gamer and sometime writer, probably called someone that. AndroidCat 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank, AndroidCat.  My particular concern is whether there is an ackowledgment within Wikipedia that the sort of behavior Terryeo has consistently engaged in--using self-serving and grossly distorted interpretations of policy as a pretext to disrupt and undermine editing--is a recognized violation of policy.  It certainly should be, if it isn't formally in place already. BTfromLA 03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally regarded as disruptive conduct. I think we can regard this as another piece of evidence of misconduct on his part; while it's not in itself grounds for a lengthy block, it's certainly indicative of his wider pattern of misconduct. Could someone please add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence under "removal of references for POV reasons"? -- ChrisO 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  A website that places a disclaimer about personal opinions does not a "personal website" make. wikipediatrix 02:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, Andreas Heldal-Lund states: DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.  Well, that says that he only speaks his own, personal opinions.  And he says that the site is his alone, his reponsibility utterly and alone.  That doesn't make the site personal, that's what you say Wikipediatrix?  You see, the situation revolves around "opinion" because by using that description of what is present on his site, any information whatsoever, of any quality whatsoever might be present.  For example, he might find some, laying-around audio recording that just happens to sound vaugely like Hubbard's voice and publish it on his site.  By saying "This is my site and my opinion" he excludes himself from any fact checking or verification of authenticity, also from any legal requirement, any reputability, any status in the eyes of the scientific community. Obviously his agenda is something besides repute.  Would you like me to evaluate his agenda ?  Or are you pretty sure that you know what it is?  Repute, good quality information of high, verified repute is not his agenda.  It is his personal site.  According to WP:RS we may not quote nor cite such a site as a secondary source.  :) Terryeo 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenu.net references 

message: Okay, I went and looked at WP:RS today. Xenu.net is a great resource, but to quote RS *guidelines* (not policy): "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."
So, we *can* use CoS and Xenu.net sites, but with caution, and only in conjunction with *other* sources. Xenu.net and CoS sites have *both* been found of propagating information as if it were factual, but later found to be blatantly false. Neither has a spotless record. I think we're all mostly on the same page (i.e. "be careful, that site is not absolute truth for everybody who views it"), and we're merely arguing how *reliable* data from those sites should be treated as. In this case, I think its fair to argue for adding additional sources, or additional citations, to cross reference any statements of fact or opinion derived from any of those sites (they shouldn't be the "sole source", as per above).
With regards to: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."
We also have to be careful. The /~dst/ sites (Touretsky) are quite obviously personal (hence, the tilde), but touretsky has gradually established both his expertise, and his name, in the field, so we can use those pages, but (again) with caution. DST actually doesn't personally edit a lot of these CoS articles anymore, it seems, to avoid the obvious conflict. Again, adding other sites, with other authors, to cross reference, would seem reasonable.
OTOH, I'm not sure about ChrisO's stuff.... and actually I'm a bit concerned that some of it may be grey areas of WP:NOR. He may need to make very clear which pages are being linked to are his *own* work of opinion/analysis (and thus not good links under NOR), and which pages he is merely hosting or mirroring. Ronabop 06:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grey area?  Yes, if a person goes to Xenu.net and contributes a essey and comes here and quotes and cites that essey, that would be a grey area all right, no arguement.  It would be very very grey. Dark grey.  But even if ChrisO does not do that, his contributions to Xenu.net and the frequent quotations from Xenu.net in these articles should prevent him from editing in these articles. In addition, Xenu.net does not announce any fact checking at all.  No quality control, no statement of how that personal site runs.  It could be that any article is posed there by any Wikipedic editor, then cited here as a secondary source.  This isn't an accusation.  I'm merely repeating what ChrisO stated to me on my user page. Terryeo 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that we can use Touretsky.  There are several issues with a personal website.  One of them is as you state, the quality of the information presented over a period of time.  But there are other issues, also.  A person who does nothing but edit his website about a special field of knowledge and personally checks every item of information could still make a mistake that might stand for months or even years.  He has no responsibility to anyone but himself, there is no quality control but the one individual.  Besides, isn't he the guy who loves to fly and doesn't edit all the time? Terryeo 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, DST's site may, indeed, have errors (as may, oh, Britannica. :-) ). So somebody can politely ask for additional sources, and we can then have two sources. This is not the same thing as removing a source from somebody recognized in the field, because they posted the information to their own web-space. Ronabop 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Terryeo writes, I do not agree that we can use Touretsky. My response:  Touretzky is recognized as an expert in the field.  He is frequently cited by the media as an expert and he has been cited as an expert by many news reporters on the radio, TV, newspapers, and magazines.  Dr. Touretzky has a long history of providing accurate, reliable, and verifiable information about Scientology and its many related front groups.  He cites his sources frequently and with the rigor of a scholar.  Dr. Touretzky does have other quality controls for his published works and people help Touretzky with fact-checking, research, and editing for clarity and style.  Touretsky routinely has his site checked for accuracy and he makes changes or adjustments when new verifiable information is presented to him.  I'm not sure what the "loves to fly" or "doesn't edit all the time" have to do with anything.  But yes, DST flies airplanes, and he doesn't edit "all the time".  He does work at a college, which does afford him some freedom to take care of his personal interests.  He doesn't edit much at Wikipedia, but he frequently discusses Scientology issues in other places.  He was on two radio shows in the last few weeks, where he was asked to expose the abuses of the cult of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vivaldi, your chat at the talk page of WP:RS lead to Clambake.org and Xenu.net not being useable as secondary sources.  But it isn't just your talk, it is Chriso's talk Fahrenheit451's talk, and other editors who edit here, who are opposing WP:RS by every means possible.  Touretzky is another personal website.  In actuality, maybe 95% of the POV which editors are pushing comes from personal websites.  When the dust settles, the personal websites will not longer be able to be used as secondary sources.  And it looks like Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky won't be able to be cited either, as presnetly appears in Thetan.  We have battled this issue for months.  I should have appealed to WP:RS long ago but wasn't experienced enough to know how to handle you guys and your insistance on Clambake.org and "Dr. Touretzky" as accurate and "an expert" and such.  Those statements may or may not be cool sounding statements, but they don't meet Wikipedic standards and Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources WP:RS. Terryeo 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for stating the situation, at least it is a basis to talk from.  The quality of secondary sourced information has always been an issue in these articles, just because there is so much secondary information, but most of it is strongly advocated by a special interest site, suce as Xenu.  This is the same discussion we have been having for a long time, "how reliable is this, or that".  We all know that special interests present their view in the manner most favorable to them.  I doubt if Xenu would ever post anything really positive and helpful the Church of Scientology ever did. Terryeo 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: DST actually doesn't personally edit a lot of these CoS articles anymore, it seems, to avoid the obvious conflict. Again, adding other sites, with other authors, to cross reference, would seem reasonable  Ronabop - Andreas, like DST, has also established himself as an expert in the topic he presents on his web pages.  He's been doing it for 10 years and has been recognized by many for his efforts.  Also the main problem isn't that we are citing Andreas's writing at all.  Frequently what is being provided is a source or reference to a document that is published by a third party, such as the text to a book or the text of an article (not written by Andreas and available at other locations besides his site).  Andreas has convenience links to copies of these articles and books, making note that he is merely republishing the works of others as they are presented at other easily verifiable sources.  Andreas has a good reputation for being reliable, honest, and open.  In ten years, I've never seen anyone accuse him of manipulating or altering any text on his webpages that he has sourced to third parties.  Terryeo seems to think he can keep out text and links that are sourced to books by people like Paulette Cooper and Jon Atack and he has deleted this material already, because he says that it is available on Xenu.net.  However these things are also available on other sources which can be easily checked.  If for some reason Xenu.net was found to be not reliable or began manipulating data then I would say we shouldn't use them to provide courtesy links, but in no circumstance should the material that is properly sourced be removed just because it happens to be courtesy hosted and mirrored at Xenu.net.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My shortest comment on errors creeeping into anti-CoS advocacy sites: "The CoS said Jesus was gay?". Even professional scholars and researchers make mistakes, and mistakes happen more often, I think, when one is coming from a point of advocacy. That being said, I don't think it *hurts* our articles to X-ref xenu.net cites against other cites from other sites. (Ow, did I just write that? My apologies. :) ) If an editor wants more cites, because the primary (or only) source of a bit of information is a from a strong advocacy source, I think it's perfectly justified to dig for more sources and verify that we're not repeating errors, or deliberate smears and shading... regardless of the topic. Ronabop 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vivaldi, this is not a personal thing where I am "keeping out" or I am "opposing" everyone. This is a situation that has always been present, but has been ignored by most editors, most of the time. Editors have rolled happily along and the articles suck, some of them worse than others. I am not opposing good information, I am not opposing Wikipedic standards. We are in fact defining wikipedic standards. Please don't take it that I am opposing every sort of controversy, instead please understand that I am opposing poor quality information presented as controversy. And I am doing that because with just a little bit of a turn of a phrase, these subjects can be entirely misrepresented. Look at how much trouble we have just presenting Dianetics, a little bit of slightly false information, either pro or con, false information, would make it even more difficult. Terryeo 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo -- Removing the works written by Atack, Cooper, or Behar just because they are mirrored on Xenu.net is innappropriate.  Please quit running around in circles.  You have removed properly sourced materials that are easily available from multiple sources just because we have provided courtesy links to the mirrored material at Xenu.net.  All your doubletalk and obfuscation is getting tiresome.  Your disruptive edits against consensus are also getting tiresome.  Most people here view DST and O.C. as sources that have repeatedly and reliable duplicated source material and they both function as reputable and reliable mirrors for published material for nearly 10 years.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geez, the WP:RS thing again? 

message: The E-meter is nothing more than a device that measures changes in the resistance of a small current passing through the human body.  It does not measure "galvanic skin response".  The e-meter produces a small current which passes through one can that is held by a person and the current goes through the body and then through the other can held by the person.  Using a Wheatstone bridge and various methods of amplification and noise reduction, the e-meter provides an analog reading of the changes in Electrical resistance of the human body.  These changes can be caused simply by adjusting how tight or how loose one holds onto the cans, or other subtle changes in the body.  The US Patent granted to "inventor" L. Ron Hubbard is called "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and it is US Patent 3,290,589 issued Dec. 6th, 1966.  You can also find a copy of the patent at the USPTO.gov website, but you'll need a free multipage TIFF viewer called AlternaTIFF, since the patent is so old, all they have are scanned imagesoof it.  Anyone that suggests that the e-meter measures "galvanic skin response" is incorrect.  If the device were to be used to measure the effects of the skin and not the entire body, then the electrodes would have to be placed much closer together.  Yes, other folks have created devices that measure galvanic skin response, but the e-meter is not such a device. Vivaldi (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At lower voltages, current generally travels through the skin, but as you say, if skin resistance was the only thing being measured, the electrodes would be closer together. I wouldn't read too much into the patent claims. There was little unique about "Hubbard"'s e-meter and the patent was worded to make it sound like it was doing something other than what the "party fun lie-detector" projects in electronics magazines had been doing already for many years. AndroidCat 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AndroidCat -- the device is nothing more than a gimmick.  I understand that.   However, structure and operation of the device is not as a measurer of "galvanic skin response".  The machine operates by measuring the resistence through the entire circuit through the human body (and the skin-to-tin contacts).   The resistivity of the skin is only part of the problem.  There is the resistivity of the skin-to-tin contact and the resistivity of the internal portions of the human body.  The e-meter cannot distinguish between skin resistivity and a person breathing or between skin resistivity and an increase in gripping force or between skin resistivity and the beating of the heart.  All the E-meter can do is present the change in resistivity of the entire structure. Vivaldi (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Steinhart-Hart equation does this. For a human being, the free parameters would have to be measured but would be very close to carbon. Suffice to say that a difference of some 10 K is enough to show this nonsense false. --ScienceApologist 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that this discussion is relevant to the introduction of this article. But I think you are thinking one thing and I am thinking quite another. I am not saying that a live person would have exactly the same resistance as a cold dead body, no matter the temperature change. I agree with you that one could take a dead body and heat it or cool it and measure a change in resistance when measured at different temperatures. In this regard it would be similar to carbon or other meat body like a pig body. I believe you understand temperature as the major determining factor for changes in resistance in the human body. I disagree. I have seen quite a few living bodies at more or less 98.6 F and the electrical resistance can vary from about 2000 ohms to more than a million ohms when a combined total across the body is measured, as with an e-meter or ohm meter. I understand a rough combined average resistance of dead male bodies is 12,500 ohms. I don't know the temperature that was used when this was established in Dianetics for e-meters. I assume this could range from 10,000 to 15,000 ohms. I further understand this rough average was used when the "3" position on the e-meter that is calibrated with a precision resister of 12,500 ohms, was called "The Male Clear" reading. The idea is that the spirit may use the mind, energy pictures, to influence the living body. When this influence is measured in a living person the resistance will vary from the Male Clear reading. These readings are physical measurements that could be used by science to quantify mental response. In Scientology these readings have been recorded for every minute of every session done with an e-meter for at least the last 40 years. In Dianetics the changes in resistance of the living human body due to mental stress is important. The naming of the Male Clear read and its underlying rationale is not. Spirit of Man 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a biomedical engineer by profession. (big-whoop-de-doo!)  I've built my own ohm meters as a class exercise years ago, so I'm familiar with their operation as well.  I also know that when you grab the leads of an ohm meter with both hands that one is not measuring "galvanic skin response".  Vivaldi (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  coolness, then perhaps you have placed the leads of an ohm meter immediately adjacent to each other, noted the reading, and placed the leads very far apart from each other on the organ which we call the human skin.  Oddly enough, the readings are almost exactly the same, heh. Terryeo 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terryeo, your ohmmeter is obviously broken.  Skin has a resistivity that varies widely amongst various peoples, and even on a single person at various times or on various parts of the body.  The skin-to-contact interface has a resistence of its own that various greatly with the amount of pressure applied.  This is in large part due to the amount of metal ions in solution that are present on the surface of the skin (as sweat) and in the actual cells themselves.  There is more resistivity as electricity tries to pass through the membranes of cell walls.  The more cells walls they pass through, the more the resistance.   The length of travel affects the resistance.  If electricity was passing ONLY through the skin (and not through the interior tissues of the body) then the length between contact points would be directly proportional to the amount of resistence.  (R=resistivity*length/cross-sectional area)  You'd have to remove your skin from  a body to show this, because electricity doesn't follow the path on the surface of the skin when there are nearby soft tissues, veins, and arteries which have much lower resistence. Vivaldi (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vivaldi, I understand what you said.  However, I know and you can conclude that my ohm meter is not broken.  You can conclude that by doing the small experiment which I suggested.  Or not, it is up to you. Terryeo 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terryeo.  I have performed such tests literally hundreds of times Terryeo.  As I told you, I am engineer.  I design medical products.  I've played with multimeters since I was probably 5 years old and grabbed onto the leads myself and measured my resistence even back then.  In fact, nearly every time I use an ohmmeter to this day, I still grab hold of the leads to make I have it on the right settings and that its working properly.  Resistivity depends on the length of travel through any material.  So your own "experiment" proves that the ohmmeter (and by extension the e-meter) do not measure galvanic skin response.  If the resistence isn't changing in direct proportion due to distance traveled on the skin, then the electricity must be traveling through the body on a different route (a less resistent one through the blood in fact) instead of through the skin.  This is indeed what happens, and it has been documented in numerous studies which you can verify yourself in PubMed if you choose to do so.  I don't feel like spoon-feeding you for your entire life.  Human skin has a resistence (and impedence) that varies with the distance traveled through the skin, which has also been documented in a number of studies.  Again you can find such information out yourself if you choose to do so.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Steinhart-Hart equation does this. - ScienceApologist.  I'm not sure how the Steinhart-Hart equation would apply to organic tissue, since it is for semi-conductors, but there is certainly a relationship between temperature and resistivity that is well-documented.  For many substances this information is not determined by empirical formula, but rather by experimental data that is then analyzed to find a numerical approximation formula, or to create a graph or table to look up resistivity values.  Vivaldi (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a theorist, I'm pretty sure that the semiconductor empirical form has a pairing to organic tissue which acts if not as the typical semiconductor (which act as fermi-fluids) at least can have equivalent parameterization. Anyway, your estimation below is good enough for me. The point is, anyway, that the claims a clear has the same resistance as a dead person seem dubious from a basic physics standpoint. --ScienceApologist 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Trying to reverse-engineer an e-meter here gets us nowhere for the article, because even if you do figure it out amongst yourselves, it's Original Research for the article. Let's find a reputable source that states what it is, and use it. wikipediatrix 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited the patent by LRH with the actual claims and diagrams of the device.  Even he didn't say it measured GSR.   There are also pictures and diagrams of the device that can be cited.   I realize that a lot of this stuff on the talk page is original research, but there are verifiable sources for E-meters that explain what they do.  And there is also information that explains the resistivity of the human body that can be cited, and there are even places where one can find working instructions on how to build a device that is identical in function to an E-meter that are published and citable.  And I'm sure we can find lots of sources that explain that electricity tends to pass through the body in places with lots of salt-water and very few cell membranes to pass through (meaning the blood is a likely route of transport for electricity through the body, and the skin surface, generally is not).  Really, all this is extraneous to the article and need not be mentioned there.  I was just pointing out that calling an E-meter a GSR is not appropriate, because 1) it doesn't measure GSR, 2) it can't measure GSR (based on its design and construction), and 3) the man listed as the inventor of the current design never said it measured GSR.  I see no reason to indicate that the E-meter is a GSR device.  In fact, I'm surprised there is even a discussion.  I thought it was so obvious that it was WP:Common Knowledge that a man holding onto two tin cans in opposite hand is having his body's resistence measured and not his "galvanic skin response". Vivaldi (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its patent states it is a "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" and certainly, any ohm meter is measuring the resistance of a human body if it places two leads anywhere on the skin. No matter what we call it, its action is some measure of resistance, something to do with the human body.  What need to fine tune that it is measuring skin, or body, tempreture or what not, it is only interested in changes of resistance. Terryeo 05:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Common knowledge? I wouldn't know an ohm from an ampere from a tesla from a picofarad. All I know is, there's lots of sites that call it a GSR device, and lots of sites that call it an ohmmeter. You sound like you know what you're talking about, and that's good enough for me, heh. But do take a look at the Volney Mathison article which will need an extensive rewrite, then.  wikipediatrix 04:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I suppose I do have a large number of friends that are engineers and computer scientists, but by common knowledge, I meant that is something that is so easily verifiable, that a source isn't needed, like saying the word "idiot" comes after the name "Hubbard" if you were to put the two in alphabetical order -- or saying that 345+111=456.  However you are probably correct that the discussion of resistence is technical and probably shouldn't be considered common knowledge.  Anywho....there shouldn't be any problem in calling the darn thing a device that measures the resistence of the human body since that's what it does and thats what L. Ron Hubbard says it does. But do take a look at the Volney Mathison article which will need an extensive rewrite, then.  The Volney Mathison article looks okay to me for the most part.  Volney was a kook.  He wrote about the supernatural effects of crystals.  In any case, even if he was the most knowledgeable electrical engineer and psychologist ever, the article just says that he studied "galvanic skin response", which is probably a true statement.  I don't think the Volney article claims that the e-meter actually measures GSP.  Vivaldi (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Vivaldi's statements to date on this matter. The e-meter measures the combined electrical resistance of the body as measured between the two electrodes in contact with the body. It does not measure galvanic skin response. I consider the issue closed. Any resistance in the skin would be combined into the combined total of all factors between the two electrodes. From the Dianetics viewpoint, mental energy pictures can influence this combined structure instantaneously and/or cumulatively. If a person only holds the cans without moving that will provide a constant level of resistance and the meter needle will be unmoving, indicating no changes. The dial that indicates total resistance will indicate the combined total resistance at that point in time. An ohm meter will confirm the resistance. I realize there are other discussions that could be held about what the total and what the changes might mean. Spirit of Man 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The e-meter doesn't measure galvanic skin response

message: This whole xenu.net as a source thing is out of control.  The argument against using it rests on 2 things, as far as I can tell: 1) The interpretation of WP:RS as meaning that xenu.net can't be used as a source and 2) The idea that we must always follow the letter of the rules of WP:RS.  Neither one of these things are true, in the opinion of the vast majority of editors here.  Terryeo, Spirit of Man- if you can't see what the rest of us are saying by now, it seems unlikely that you ever will.  How about just dropping it?  I don't know if you're being deliberately dense in an attempt to hijack the talk page and fill it with useless arguing, or whether you really can't understand what's been explained to you many times in plain English, but the effect is disruptive and unhelpful in either case.  When it comes down to it, an argument about what's best for our content wins every time over an argument about the letter of the rules.  If you must continue discussing this, could you please find some place other than this talk page for it?  Friday (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Friday.... this has been their technique for several months now. It'll be some other grasping-at-straws point of contention next week. I think they must believe that if they talk these issues to death and keep filibustering, all the other editors will give up and go away. (I'm fortunate enough to have a job that mostly consists of sitting at my desk surfing the web bored, so there's not much chance of me giving up in the foreseeable.)  wikipediatrix 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, it's more than that.  It also rests upon the 3) of "any time there is a possibility that the accuracy of xenu.net's transcription of another source is being relied upon, that alone requires all removal of anything that might have come from xenu.net, even when no attempt has been made to determine whether it is anything more than a possibility, or when the possibility has already been shown false."  Terryeo removed information that originally came from Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science because the reference contained a link to xenu.net.  Incredibly, he is still claiming he had a right to do so after I've told him that a month ago I sat down with a hard copy of the book and made sure there were no transcription errors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct on all counts, Friday.  May I suggest that those editors who have concluded that any further argument along these lines by Terryeo or Spirit of Man is indeed a disruptive and unhelpful distraction from the work of editing these articles simply refuse to respond to them on the article talk pages?  BTfromLA 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I disregard 90 percent of the troublemakers' posts as it is. wikipediatrix 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The issue is very simple.  Terryeo is here to handle the suppressive persons here at Wikipedia who are spreading entheta and misinformation about Scientology (meaning, anything that does not come from Source -- i.e. LRH).  He is here to handle us in any way possible.  That was why AI was here, that is why Terryeo is here, and that is why Terryeo's successor will be here as well.  Until the entheta at Wikipedia is handled, Scientology is going to continue sending in shills like Terryeo to waste our time and argue with us, in the hope that he finally stumbles across a way to run us out of Wikipedia and allow a Scientology-approved article to be listed here. --Modemac 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll tell you Modemac, I've eaten out of more garbage cans than you have and probably spent more time in the U.S. Military than you have, you would have too look far to find a person less a part of "the establishment" than myself. Terryeo 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Modemac, I appreciate that you are willing to evaluate my motives and I would be happy to discuss them with you on my user page.  I won't simply say that you are wrong, but would instead invite that we talk about such in an appropriate area.  I have replied several times to questions in the area and am perfectly willing to replie to yours.  However, this is the Dianetics Talk page, would you please keep your comments to the subject?  And about the subject, here is what is happening in this discussion of WP:RS and whether Xenu.net / Clambake.org is a source which may be used in these articles.  Fahrenheit451 and Vivaldi have both gotten involved in the editing of that guideline and the discussions on its discussion page.  It begins to look like "Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources" means exactly what its words state.TerryeoTerryeo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're twisting that a bit. You still have to show that xenu.net qualifies as a personal web site. So far, it's not. AndroidCat 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is out of my control now, AndroidCat.  The arbitration committee is directly voting on Xenu.net here and my personal opinion no longer matters in the issue.  At last !  The core reason which is driving these difficulties is being confronted by the authorities who define Wikipedia editing. Terryeo 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation staff there are no "authorities who define Wikipedia editing". Wikipedia policy is shaped by consensus and reasonable debate, not by appeals to authority or Wikilawyering. Taking the Xenu.net matter to an arbitration case which concerns personal conduct only wastes the time of other contributors and arbcom members. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm strongly beginning to suspect that Terryeo wants to waste people's time, as a deliberate tactic. Check out  and look for "Dev-T" in para 6. I suggest that we simply ignore him in future. -- ChrisO 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I make pretty clear statements of my intent.  The issue of citing personal websites as secondary sources has existed for a very long time.  Some editors are strongly reactional to the issue. Fahrenheit451 made 27 edits of WP:RS in 2 days, attempting to get Xenu.net acceptable as a secondary source.  Even now, ChrisO has is active on that buideline's discussion page.  Yet all of this could have been handled months ago, handled by discussion page chat.  Nothing to it, the issue is going to come forth somehow.  Editors could have talked about it without resorting to Requests for Comment, Requests for Arbitration, without modifying policies.  I tried to talk about it.  I attempted to establish a basis that we could all agree to edit on.  There was never any need to involve editors other than ourselves.  But no one wanted to confront the issue.  Everyone wanted to use Xenu.net as the holy bible or something, I don't know.  Even now a couple of you are suggesting the way to handle it is to ignore it.  It is an issue people, not a pimple.  Whether I am here reminding people of the issue or not, the standards which Wikipedia uses will be much the same.  Why not talk about it?  Terryeo 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Terryeo writes, It is out of my control now, AndroidCat.  The arbitration committee is directly voting on Xenu.net.  You will discover that #1) ArbCom will never make a ruling that says that we cannot use Xenu.net as a link in external links or as a host for convenience links that are properly sourced.  #2) ArbCom is debating your personal conduct, ArbCom doesn't author guidelines or policies.  They have the authority to banish you if they determine that you are a nuisance, but they don't have the power to universally control the editing of Wikipedia or to determine policies. Vivaldi (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, ummm, thank you for your prediction, okay?  BTW, the arbitration committee's vote which is still in process is here and the link where Vivaldi is currently attempting to get Xenu.net accepted as a secondary source of information in Scientology articles (failing) is here. Just to keep the heresay out of it, you understand. Terryeo 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ummm, thank you for your prediction, okay?  It isn't just a prediction.  It is a fact.  There is no chance of an alternative outcome.  It would be like saying, "Terryeo will not stop the Earth from rotating around the sun tomorrow".  It passes beyond "prediction" to the nth degree.  and the link where Vivaldi is currently attempting to get Xenu.net accepted as a secondary source of information in Scientology articles (failing) is...  And again you are "misduplicating" me (to use your language).  I was discussing the issue of Xenu.net as a "personal website" and trying to get it cleared up exactly what that means.  While it is true that some editors on the talk page of WP:RS have weighed in that Xenu.net meets their definition of personal website, I still haven't received the information that makes it abundently clear on how to determine in general if a website is personal or not.  Almost all webpages have particular authors that have the ability to personally control the content on the pages.  Even huge companies have CEOs that can universally control the content on their pages, with no fact checking or editorial oversight by anyone else.  And again WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy.  It is created by consensus of editors, but we are not bound to follow it.  Exceptions to guidelines CAN BE MADE (read about it at WP:POL).  Also, the talk page of WP:RS holds no weight at all.  It is used for editors to help try to figure out how to make WP:RS a better article and to point out how the current guideline is either wrong (by contradicting policy) or how it needs clarification.  Just because one editor on the talk page of WP:RS says something that agrees with you, doesn't mean that person's opinion holds any weight.  We aren't bound to agree with SlimVirgin's proclamations on the talk page of WP:RS (and even if she were to codify her talk page comments into WP:RS itself, we wouldn't be bound to follow the guideline, because guidelines HAVE EXCEPTIONS).
I guess Vivaldi created that.  Since I'm following the discussion on the WP:RS page, I don't feel it appropriate to talk about here.  Those exact issues are presented there. Terryeo 07:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is ridiculous 

message: Thanks for correcting the misinformation about the meter "treating" something. Maybe sometime we can talk about Dianetics addressing the human spirit and what the spirit does. Spirit of Man 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could.  If we do I hope we'd also discuss what falsifiability is and why it's absolutely crucial for separating truth from error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you say what is on your mind re your "falsifiability" issue? Spirit of Man 02:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antaeus's new Introduction 

message: Anyone have any objection to removing the second paragragh, that has three citations to a Stehpen A. Kent personal website that presents his own paper? I take this as personal research. The content of the paragraph also disagrees with the citation. The Astounding article was addressed to a 50,000 member sci fi magazine market and not the general public. DMSMH was addressed to the general public and is widely recognized as Book One representing the first broad public release of Dianetics. The paragragh also introduces "Norns" which is an obscure synonym for engram and is not needed in the article at all. Spirit of Man 03:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  Professor Kent did substantial research into Scientology to produce his paper, which has been cited in court cases and is recognized as an authoritative source of information about Scientology.  It is a critical inquiry, but that does not negate its value.  (Furthermore, Terryeo has been spanked for continually disrupting these articles, and his ludicrous "personal pages" argument has also been struck down.) --Modemac 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm "spanked?"  Don't you believe it Modemac, my lawn needed mowing anyway, my 400 foot driveway needed some attention, my animal pens were begging for some paint.  Lol, "spanked", how's your personal wiki going, Modemac? Terryeo 00:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you can find another place for the citation, but what value do you see to "Norns" in the Dianetics article? If you wish to cite "Norns", then why not just cite the "Astounding Science Fiction" article it is from, which I believe is already cited. His paper says the Astounding article was adressed to the sci fi market, not the general public. Why include the misrepresentation in the edit? The next paragraph is a better second paragraph with minor work to revert it to where it was at one time. I think it should be deleted. Put your citation where it makes sense for you. Spirit of Man 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Spirit of Man, "original research" is defined as "material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."  If you were to read the page in question for yourself, you'd see immediately that it was published by a reputable source (Religious Studies and Theology 18 No. 2 (December 1999): 97-126) and presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.  Why, exactly, are you getting confused between the categories of "all research" and "original research"?  You may wish to avoid A=A=A=A=A thinking of this nature.  Please acknowledge that you now understand your error, as otherwise it will definitely create the impression that you know the falseness of your argument but are trying to push it through anyways. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus, you are correct. I was not familiar with "Religious Studies and Thelogy" as a reputable publisher or Journal, I thought it was Kent's own series of papers, written by himself on his own website. I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing that part to my attention. I have no particular feelings on this OR issue. Why are you so hot about it here? I had already moved on past it with my comment to Modemec. I'm not strenuously pushing anything, I asked a question before editing? Why do you require a special aknowledgement where others have moved on past?  You are taking up an issue aleady abandoned and ignoring the issues still in play. Why is the idea of "Norns" so valuable it should be in the second paragraph because of the citation you defend? Because Kent said it? LOL You understand it was used from April to May of 1950 only, in a magazine article only? What do you understand A=A=A thinking to mean? Is it intended as an insult? Spirit of Man 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you falsely asserting that I placed a particular value on keeping the reference to "Norns" in the second paragraph when, as anyone can read for themselves, I said nothing about it?  As I already stated, the issue I was addressing was your mistaken description of exactly the sort of source we should be referencing for our articles as "original research," perhaps under some confused idea that everything is now "original research" if it exists on the Web. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Norns" is the only thing the citations in the paragraph apply to. The first sentence is false, out of place in the article and isn't even in the citation. The third sentence, does not belong in the Introduction. I asked if anyone objected to removing it. I understand you objected to removing the paragraph based on the citation for "Norns", which is unimportant, thus placing an undue weight on the value of that. I understand "norns" is now included in a sub-article, engram I think. I have no wish to fight you, Antaeus or defend against your attitude here. Over and out! Spirit of Man 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with SpiritofMan about the inclusion of "norns" (or for that matter, "comanomes") in the introduction.  Those early names that Hubbard used before settling on "engrams" may be of sufficient interest to merit inclusion in a subsection on the history and development of Dianetics, but they aren't the sort of key points that belong in a concise introductory overvue.  BTfromLA 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too! It doesn't seem to be significant to this Dianetics article. It could be moved to Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science as "Differences between Astounding article and book publication". AndroidCat 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Personal websites being used as secondary sources