Talk:Dianetics/Archive 6

message: I've reverted Terryeo's plastering of the  template over the first sections of the article. It may be appropriate to highlight one or two issues like that, but surely not many times over. Terryeo, if you have citation issues, could you please highlight them here on the talk page instead of cluttering up the article? Also, is there any chance that you could try to find citations yourself rather than depending on everyone else to do it for you? Have you actually contributed so much as a single citation in the entire article? If not, why not? -- ChrisO 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too long ago I spelled out 7 wrongnesses with the citations as they stand, for example citing a whole book as a reference for a 7 word phrase. Quantity does not quality begat. Terryeo 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Especially the idea that a citation is needed for "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments."  That's blatant abuse of the process, right there.  "I want you to describe Dianetics in my wording!  If you use any other words besides mine I'll slap a hundred demands for citations on the article!"  Such petty gamesmanship is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the article to accurately describe Dianetics.  An excellent and available to everyone reference is to be found  which has on its first page, "Dianetics is an activity."  I appriciate it, Feldspar, that you consider I am a dyed-in-the-wool, born again (something) who would strike with lightening those whom think bad thoughts.  Such is not the case.  I want the article to accurately describe what Dianetics is.  This should take perhaps one paragraph.  It should be the first paragraph.  After readers understand what the article is about, hey, say anything within wikipedia's policies that makes sense to you.  The opening sentence everyone keeps reverting to is not an accurate description of Dianetics. Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Terryeo, I can't find where it says that. Perhaps you are referring to a different site? Tenebrous 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't read this either (although I wouldn't be surprised to see it appearing after 14h00). Anyways, that would be irrelevant even if the site says it's an activity, this means nothing. It's more useful to state what it is exactly. Also, Terryeo, remember that you reworded a lot the intro of this article at previous time, and you have gone through different description of what is Dianetics: a "philosophy", a "body of information", a "theory", etc. Now you want it to be an "activity"... Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, Tenebrous Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Friday. Dianetics is first and foremost an action.  Like the Catholic confessional, it has ideas which it is based on.  But you wouldn't present the confessional as "a set of ideas .. which attempt to alleviate ..."  but instead you would present it as an action.  Dianetics is an action which involves communication.  Sure, there are ideas it is based on.  Sure, it purports to provide some kinds of relief.  But it is (usually 2 people) an activity, it is communication.  The subject is easily misunderstood.  Can we have "activity" as an early word in its description? Terryeo 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying Dianetics is more a religious practice than a therapy? Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the Dianetics site no longer says "Dianetics is an activity" but instead says, "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does."  Phased slightly differently it would be: "Dianetics is an activity that gets rid of the reactive mind".  I do mean to say that Dianetics is an action (based on ideas of course).  This separates Dianetics from Intelligent Design because Dianetics does something, that's why it exists at all. But Intelligent Design is a theory without an action.  Dianetics has you pare off they guy's reactive mind.  Intelligent Design has you look at the growing grass.  Dianetics is an activity.  Intelligent Design is an observation. I am not introducing "religious practice" at this time.Terryeo 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's follow this out.  Terryeo says "Site X says 'Dianetics is an activity' therefore we should describe it as an activity".  Someone points out that Site X doesn't say 'Dianetics is an activity'.  Terryeo replies that the site says 'Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' as if this was the textual support he claimed he had that Dianetics is an activity.  Does the sentence 'X gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' still make as much sense if we substitute something that is not an activity, such as a dietary supplement or a pill?  Just as much sense.  So why is this sentence in any way relevant to the current discussion, since it doesn't actually support any of the claims that anyone considers to be at issue? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do follow it out.  I'm not stuck on using the word "activity".  I do want the article to accurately present Dianetics.  I used that word and that link because (at that time) it used the word "activity."  Its an action, you know, an activity, a practice, something people do.  Yes, it is based on ideas.  The reason I bring it up is to cause the first paragraph of the article to present what Dianetics is to the reader.  Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dianetics has a much wider scope than "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments". It contains at least 10 basic books, innumerable courses and tapes that describe the philosophy, science, research, therapy and practice of Dianetics as it applies to the spirit, mind and body, over a span of 75 years that produced at least 50,000 Clears and has been read by something like 20,000,000 people. Terryeo chooses to call this "activity". Certainly we can come up with something closer to the actual scope than what we have in the article now. Does anyone agree? Spirit of Man 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole lot of information, no arguement. And the Scientology books and lectures often reference Dianetics ideas.Terryeo 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The books and courses and tapes, as you yourself say, describe Dianetics.  They are not Dianetics itself.  If you disagree with this then please explain what is in the books, courses, tapes, et cetera that is not contained in Dianetics, the set of ideas and associated practices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's true, there exists a group of information which a guy could point to and say, "Dianetics".  That's true.  But there is action which is done by people that have read that information. Read it, do it.  That kind of thingTerryeo 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, Dianetics has "a much wider scope". I also said in the request for mediation that the calling parties are seeking "to diminsish the scope of the subject". I did not say, "They are not Dianetics itself."  Your question seeks to limit the scope to ideas and practices of the mind. Let's take your question as an example of a thought process I think you have constructed, believe in, and continue to represent. You wish to diminish the scope of the subject as I presented it, and in your mind you diminish this scope to a "set of ideas and associated practices." So in your mind you wish to limit the scope of Discussion, so you limit your question here to "books and courses and tapes". So far, you have deleted 20,000,000 people at least, reading and speculating on Dianetics, 50,000 Clears produced by Dianetics, about 50,000 staff members world-wide actively conducting the activity of Dianetics each day, towards a Goal "to Clear the planet". The study referenced in Science of Survival with 88 students getting an IQ gain of 10+ points and providing one public example of test results for Dianetics. There is a meter that makes visible spiritual and mental reactions that no other mental study can match. So back to the limits of your question.  What do the "books, courses and tapes" say beyond "ideas and practices" of the mind. First of all ideas and practices is more of a concise dictionary entry than an Introduction to an article on Dianetics of many thousands of words, with sub-articles. One book and many tapes, describe the philosophy of Dianetics, how Dianetics is different than other philosophies by starting with the novel idea that nothing is known. This at once bypasses all fixed ideas of philosophy and the starting points of all other philosophies. From that beginning comes major discoveries that explain all existence, explain the nature and scope of the human spirit and explains the demonstrable potentials of the human mind. One of the qualities of the human spirit is that it creates the mind. A second quality is that it doesn't need a mind to operate at all. It can view the human mind. The human mind is visible, measurable, testable and demonstrable. Simply compressing a description of all existence, the nature of the human soul, the solution to all insanity, criminality and war, self-generated illness and inability, and the technology of how you do all this, to a non-descriptive term like "idea", I say misrepresents the scope. The books, courses and tapes represent a developing subject over a period of 75 years. The ideas in the article mostly reflect a couple of controversial years when the public was buying a book and testing new ideas with little or no training to back them up, that were also being rejected and hammered by competing political and mental studies without any testing by those entities what-so-ever. It really discusses little more than way too much conflict relative to some of the ideas and 55 year-old practices in one book. Most of which is taken out of context by quoting Winter who was in conflict with the basic ideas of Dianetics anyways. The pictures and auditing required to be given and received in the Dianetics Seminar Course provide hands on experience with each of the "ideas" of the materials of Dianetics as currently used. Yes, YOU could condense the world to two words, "ideas" and "practices", but you lose the world when you do it. I would rather you just NOT do it. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy presented by L. Ron Hubbard and its publishers as a record of his personal researches into the human spirit and mind, which is now incorporated into the activities of the applied religious philosophy of Scientology." is a better introduction of the scope of the subject, I think. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we back to "term, topic, context?"  An introduction should present what the article is about.  Dianetics is an action, it is something people do.  Usually 2 people do it together.  Yeah, there is, you know, ideas or theory or whatever you want to call the information that tells what to do.  But it is something to do. Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The header at the top of this discussion page you mean?  ChrisO placed it there (dumbo template).  It was his opinion at the time that this article's talk page should follow Intelligent Design's talk page and he attempted to limit discussion on this page to a single area of presentation which was "how to treat a subject as a pseudoscience".  I removed said template a couple of times, people reverted it.  I brought up that this talk page and article follows exactly all of the policies of every article and finally, in fustration, expanded the thing to include the possibility of talking of religion on this talk page and of talking of theory on this talk page too.  Duh, we can talk anything, expand the template all you want, its useless anyway.Terryeo 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of citation templates 

message: "The preclear is asked to inspect and familiarize himself with the exact details of his own experience and the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds.  This is entirely up to the preclear."  This is a perfect example of a point made much earlier, that although DMSMH et al. might be primary sources on aspects of Dianetics they are not unimpeachable sources -- it is not as simply as "DMSMH said it so that's the way it is."  Above we see claims that Spirit of Man added to the article today, that the auditor "may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds".  However, transcripts from Winter show the auditor most definitely evaluating the information the preclear finds, asking leading questions, declining to accept any of the preclear's own explanations and inserting his own, etc.  In theory, it might be "entirely up to the preclear", but in practice, it is clearly not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I think I'm pretty reasonable about the information comprises Scientology.  The Winter example (which is Winter's statement and not anyone else's statement, not the Church of Scientology's statement) could be 100% accurate.  Maybe.  Or, because Winter was disabused of the ideas of Dianetics, it could be just slightly inaccurate.  Or even a whole bunch inaccurate.  We only have Winter's word about it and we don't have any verification besides his written word.  We don't have a second source.  At least his statement should be viewed with a tiny bit of skepticsm because he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics.  It hasn't been notorized or witnessed, its only his word. Terryeo 03:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're still fighting tooth and nail the sworn testimony of Scientology's own witness, you're clearly not a very good judge of when skepticism is appropriate.  Your prejudice is showing, by the way, when you declare that "he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics," an assertion for which you provide no evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I read your link there Feldspar.  The guy's headache cleared up.  There was some suggestion the therapist (dianetics auditor) used.  There was very little evaluation.  It is a typical Xenu.net sort of example.  It is an early example, modern sessions by trained (within the church) auditors don't go like that.Terryeo 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The guy's headache cleared up."  Excuse me, how is that relevant?  The point at issue is not "does Dianetics clear up headaches?" but "can the assertion 'the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds' be inserted into the article as fact because, for instance, DMSMH tells us that this is how it works?"  To get the answer "no" all we need to do is find counter-examples, and while you make a big deal of the example being found on Xenu.net, very clearly you failed to read the context and realize that this sample auditing session was presented to the public by a supporter of Dianetics as an example of Dianetics done right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The guy's headache cleared up" is relevent because the leading questions (or whatever they be called) produced a result? The Auditor clearly evaluates what Winter said and used Winter's chest scratching also, in asking the questions he asked.  Of course the auditor evaluated.  His evaluations are used toward asking helpful questions and he does't say things like, "are you aware you are scratching your chest, why are you doing that?' Terryeo 22:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed Feldspar, an excellent example of how Xenu.net exaggerates beyond any jot of good sense.  The actual situation is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be, the Auditor's Code spells out the degree of CRIME it is to evaluate a preclear's statements to him, while Xenu.net would find some tiniest bit of evaluation somewhere in vast pages and pages and present it as COMMON.  It is as Spirit of Man has stated and not as Xenu.net says.  It is possible you will find some imperfection and flaw in a body of practices.  Even Catholic Priests are known to molest little boys (given a very large body of priests and a long period of time), but the generality and the practice is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be.Terryeo 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for using that metaphor.  Really.  =)  You may have meant to be offensive to my religion but what you actually did was give me the chance to show how one can be reasonable about one's own religion and avoid playing the religion card.  If someone added to an article about Roman Catholic priests the sentence "they are always celibate", would I say "Oh, yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, so let's pretend it always does work that way"?  No.  Instead, I would say something like "While all Roman Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, in practice there have been violations, many of which came to light in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal."  See?  Not only do I not feel the need to assault and discredit the source that brings to light a less-than-pretty part of my religion, I acknowledge its truth and give people a link to find out more.  That's part of what it means to edit in good faith, Terryeo; if you were interested in editing in good faith, this would be a valuable learning opportunity for you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, some Catholic priests molest little boys. Is this typical of all Catholic priests? No. Does that mean that we can't have a whole article devoted to the subject? Nope. Same with this, except that neither you nor I have any idea on how often this occurs. Should this information be in this article? Yes, I consider it to be relevant. What can we say about it? One, that it has happened. Two, that the CoS considers it to be wrong when it does happen. Three, there is no information as to frequency of occurence. That's all there is. Tenebrous 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course its not common or the Catholic Church would soon fail.  We can also spell out the preventitive procedures the Church of Scientology invokes to prevent evaluations and the corrective procedures the Church uses to insure it doesn't continue to happen.  But no, there's no published, statistical data.Terryeo 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While Dianetics was being developed and publically used by Hubbard (1950 to 1954), I have no idea how often that exception happened.  In more recent times the Auditor's Code has spelled it out to be a CRIME and this is not an idication of punishment, but an indication of the procedure used to correct an auditor who does evaluate for a preclear, to a preclear.  It might happen once in a while but the Church of Scientology has a corrective procedure for a CRIME which gets the auditor to understand the situation so he doesn't continue to perform the CRIME.  In addition, the Church procedures put in place "an examination" to happen immediate after every session, done by a second auditor in a separate location (preclear goes to the examiner immediately after session) which is designed to assure such instances of evaluation (and some other possible problems) are uncovered immediately.  However, it is possible in sessions which happen outside of Church bounds that evaluations might happen.  Unheard of? no. Common?  no. Terryeo 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's neccessary to spell out all of how the CoS tries to keep it from happening, but if you've got a citation that describes it, you could add something like "The CoS considers this to be dangerous and follows a strict protocol to prevent it from happening." and tack the cite to the end. Tenebrous 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself, I would not include this element of "What happens when the auditor evaluates a preclear's statement for and to the preclear".  I just wouldn't bring the question up or go through the complexity of technology, corrective technology and all the rest because it involves additional documentation, (The Auditor's Code which is solid page long) and involves CRIME and involves a number of corrective technologies the Church uses.  However, if Xenu.net (dispicable!) is going to be cited as to state such evaluations are commonplace then, to give a balanced presentation to the reader of these articles, it would be necessary to put a perspective.  It is not commonplace.  It is carefully guarded against.  The procedures to isure an auditing session remain free of evaluation, like many  technologies, can't be stated in a single sentence.Terryeo 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just make an Auditor's Code article and link to it? --Davidstrauss 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, David, that would be OKAY, but that we would pretty much have to quote the whole Auditor's Code (about a typewritten page long) and wouldn't that get us onto the edge of copyright violations? Terryeo 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might need to rephrase it, but even including it even directly may be fair use. --Davidstrauss 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Joe Winter [1950] parted ways with Dianetics on just this exact issue. He would not accept information the preclear felt was real. He evaluated for preclears in violation of the Auditor's Code. He even tried to force the entire Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation to reject what preclears said when they mentioned anything earlier than this life. He is perhaps "the classic example" of why one does not violate this first principle of the Auditor's Code. It is NOT a Dianetic principle to evaluate anything FOR the preclear, and even J. Winter left Dianetics when he failed to appreciate how great its implications and can be and the resulting damage that can be caused. Spirit of Man 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect example 

message: I would like to remove this statement from the article, but Antaeus retains it:
"(often also referred to by Hubbard as the "patient")"
The Research and Discovery Series 2, July-Aug 1950, page 576, says, ["patient", indexed here in non-Dianetic contexts, see "preclear" for term used in any Dianetic contexts.] This term is not appropriate here for many reasons, such as not being used in Dianetics in the last 50 years at lease. Does anyone mind if I delete it? Spirit of Man 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus has once again reverted the deleted "patient" material without Discussion. Why do you want it there Antaeus? It hasn't been used in Dianetic practice for 55 years, which I clearly stated in the edit. Why would you want to direct people's attention to it in a section on "current" Dianetic practice? Do you intend to mislead people into believing a "treatment" is implied when it is not? I think that is truly the case. I refer you to the inside cover or copyright page of DMSMH or church policy that says, anyone with a medical condition or wants medical treatment will be referred to a medical doctor. Only those seeking spiritual gain are accepted for auditing. That would be a "preclear". Spirit of Man 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely nothing in either the article itself or here on the talk page indicating that that section of the article is on "current" Dianetic practice only.  Where do you see that?  With no such indication and no such agreement I think the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed that auditing was capable of curing a great number of conditions which would definitely be counted as "medical" and not "spiritual" by the vast majority of the population, also referred to the person receiving the benefit of the auditing as the "patient" and not just the "preclear", is entirely relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dianetics has been practiced in the public eye for about 55 years.  For the first year or two, while it was being developed "patient" was used.  Historically that is accurate.  But for 50 years now, that isn't accurate.  "Preclear" is accurate.  Just last week I got a newsleter, talks about Dianetics being used in Africa.  Some person had be tortured, it healed but they still couldn't walk on one foot.  They did a Dianetics session with the "preclear", the person was soon walking.  As long as we present a historical perspective, "patient" would be okay, but if we present it in broad, general ways without mentioning the year of it, "preclear" is more accurate. Terryeo 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dianetics procedure in practice 

message: "Dianetics is a practice, based on ideas about the human mind, gives as its goal "getting rid of the reactive mind."
OK, first of all, this isn't even grammatical, which shows the care that was taken with it.  Secondly, "based on ideas about the human mind" begs the question:  which ideas about the human mind?  Thirdly, what sort of sense does it make to insert a quote that Dianetics is about "getting rid of the reactive mind" when the phrase "reactive mind" has absolutely no meaning except to a reader who doesn't need the article because they already know?  What is the ultimate goal of editing like this?  Is it to make a reader throw up their hands in disgust and say "I give up!  Obviously the Wikipedia articles on Dianetics will never contain any comprehensible information on Dianetics; I guess I have to go to the Official Dianetics Website in order to get any simple answers!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antaeus: Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. You're obviously assuming a motive of confusion. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess that would make real good sense if you did, Feldspar.  You seem to think every other word I say is either a "lie" or some sort of misrepresentation.  Why don't you perk on over to  and get the straight skinny? Terryeo 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo: Stop the personal attacks. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Terryeo:  Please develop some sort of reading comprehension.  The issue here is that while purportedly being interested in communicating Dianetics to the reader, you are consistently making changes to the Dianetics articles which, if we were to judge from their effect, represent an attempt to make them as cryptic and unreadable and absolutely uninformative as possible.  The issue is not that I don't recognize your "restatements" as accurate to the spirit of Dianetics, it's that very often I can't even recognize them as English, and I can never discern any attempt on your part to make the article more precise, accurate and accessible.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: errr, That's sure what I'm trying to do. Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While Antaeus' tone above is a bit too harsh for my taste, I have to agree with his assertion that many of Terryeo's changes make the articles more vague and imprecise.  I am willing to allow that Terryeo may be sincerly trying to make them more accurate, but the effect is the opposite, and Antaeus has outlined a number of specific examples of this elsewhere on the talk page (and the talk pages for other Scientology-related articles). BTfromLA 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, okay.  How can it be said that Dianetics is an action? Yeah, there is a body of information and it is an action?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest 'restatement' of the first sentence 

message: What possible use is it?  It is too long, states nothing useful and if we just work on it a little more, hey, maybe we can include the whole history of Wikipedia, huh? Terryeo 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the discussion page template