Talk:Dianetics/Archive 2

message: Okay, I reorganized some of it and included a much more complete publication / reference list of books (omitting the lectures which would be very much too much).  What do you all think? Terryeo 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it look now

message: Hubbard in Dianetics states: "[Dianetics is] ... an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences". Critics argue that the phrase 'definite axiom' is redundant, and regardless, a science cannot depend on axioms, only on hypotheses based on experimental evidence.
Let's break that into three parts.  The first part is uncontroversial, because Hubbard said it.
:Let's break that into 2 parts.  The part which Mr. Hubbard stated and the part which some other, third person is evaluating, interpreting, and then presenting you a point of view.  That is 2 parts.  The problem is though,  You can not understand the first part because that is one part of one sentence.  It is not even the whole sentence !  To understand his use of "definite axiom" you must have a little more of that sentence and the sentences around that sentence.  Then the use of "definite" becomes an easily understood idea because he has surrounded that fragment of the sentence which you are swollowing someone else's judgement of with information which gives it a context.  My Opinion now - He says there that he is constrained and he must call the statements axioms, definite axiom and not any other sort of statement (such as comment, theorem, corallary, etc)  and therefore he says "definite axiom."  Now that is my idea, you should read the whole passage to understand.  And I do hope you understand what I mean here.  Read for yourself, it is wrong to take a sentence fragment, combine it with some "expert's opinion" and hammer it for meaning. Terryeo 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's settle the "axioms" bit 

message: :Dianetics is a method of therapy and an accompanying set of claims 
about the nature of the human mind created by L. Ron Hubbard. Beginning in the late 1940s, Hubbard promoted Dianetics as "The Modern Science of Mental Health,"
Nope, dianetics is not a set of claims.  You are free, completely free to find references which state diantics claims .... and post those cited sources as facts in an article.  While dianetics may be, to you, nothing BUT claims it is not a set of claims.  I hope you can understand a body of knowledge may or may not be believed but when you say "set of claims" you judge the quality and validity of that body of knowledge.  Thus, you must cite a source for the assertion that dianetics is a set of claims or you have just done original research which is not allowed in Wiki articles.  see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth 
Next point. Hubbard did not use the phrase in the late 1940s, but if I am wrong and you can cite a source that he did, feel free to do so. He did promote dianetics as 'the modern science of mental health' from May 1951 on, that is citeable information.
Next point.  Re: "claims about the nature of the human mind" it is easy to become overwhelmed by the amount of information but there is less claimed in this area than you might expect.  Whereas psychiatry claims the mind is manifested in the brain, Hubbard did not.  His claims about a human mind were less substantial.  His claims did not exactly deny a mind's location and did not deny there might be some physical change in the brain.  His claims were along the lines, "you can conceive of a mind as thoughts (no physical aspect but if you want to trace out physical aspect then go right ahead, I'll call mine dianetics and you call yours something else).  Hubbard defined ways in which one thought is different from the next thought (analytical vs reactive mind) and methods of causing effects with thoughts.
:"one of the first successful "self-help" books"
Nope, that is just not accurate.  If you can find any source which states that Dianetics is "self-help" then you might have some argument.  It is not exactly self-help because it relies on a 2 person action.  But, if you can state it as a Wiki fact, a verified fact, then you have a reason to state it.  Untill then it is original research and belongs in no Wiki Article.Terryeo 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, it is increasingly difficult to assume that you are operating in good faith.  These changes are clearly in support of a pro-Hubbard, pro-Dianetics POV, and your arguments in support of them are bizarre.  Here, by the way, is the headline on the page www.diantetics.org: "DIANETICS — The all-time self-help bestseller."  Your changes are obscuring, rather than clarifying, an understanding of the subject.  BTfromLA 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: hello BTfromLA and thank you for saying so.  May we talk about good faith?  I mean to contribute to an article that can be read and understood, which lets a person understand what Diantics is, how it manifests historically and today, and the controversial points of view about the subject.  That is my intent.  I see that you have cited an excellent source for the "self-help" statement and so the self help statement can be in the article but it should really be cited.  And this is not some newbie beanbrain idea, but the policy of Wiki NPOV.  As I get your communication, you are fustrated that such a simple and obvious statement should not be questioned.  About that I am willing to talk because I do see how the editing done has been vastly under-cited.  And I am baffled because wiki pollicy clearly lays out that "Facts are cited statements" and "articles are built of facts."   I have agreed that is an excellent citation for that statement and should probably appear in the article. What part of "good faith" am I missing here?  What part of my edit obscures understanding instead of contributing to a cited, understandable article ? Terryeo 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, you seem to be creating controversies where none exist as a pretext to load the article (and most of the other scientology-related articles) with blatant advocacy for Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.  Yes, facts should be cited, but one chooses what needs citing: not every word in an article needs a citation.  It is preposterous to say that Dianetics does not include claims about the human mind.  Of course it does--you start talking about Hubbard's claims about the mind in your next paragraph!  The existence of "the reactive mind" is a claim made by Hubbard, as is the role of "engrams."  To call these claims is not to imply they aren't  true--one could as well write that Copernicus claimed the earth rotates around the sun.  (In the case of Hubbard, it would be accurate to add that his claims are unsupported by empirical evidence, as opposed to, say, the claims of Copernicus.) I also think that some of your additions are confusingly written, and that sentences like "Dianetics is about thought, it addresses thought" add nothing useful.  Sorry if I seem harsh: I think that sympathetic practioners of Diantetics and Scientology should definitely have a hand in these articles, and help us to get the facts right. But it seems to me that your efforts are aiming more toward creating Scientology recruitment literature  that disinteterested encyclopedia articles.  BTfromLA 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for saying so, BTfromLA and I was certainly wrong about that "self-help" issue, thanks for enlightening me.  But don't you think it a better article for it being cited within the article?   Hubbard defined some things including engram and reactive mind.  His definitions make statements.  After a person can understand what he ment by, say, engram, then a person can say he claimed its existence.  In the wiki engram article I posted, briefly, its definition.  When dianetics defines "mind" only in terms of thought and with no pointing finger or reference whatsoever to the brain, nervous system or other body part, then I try to make that clear in the definition.  Perhaps you are right, perhaps my definition confuses rather than clarifies.  Mainly I am trying to make clear easy to understand definitions. and cite information instead of so many uncited controversial things which descends into into newsgroup chatter areas.  If 2/3 of an introduction were spent introducing diantics from one cited source and the last 1/3 from another pretty good source (controversy) that would work I think.  At this present time the source of the controversy in the introduction is a long dead New York Times article which is not readily available (a 1950 NYT article, not available online).   No, I don't expect Wiki articles to sound like recruitment, yes I do expect Wiki articles to let a person understand the word's root, concept and the rest as specified at Wiki introductions.  But that's it, not more than that in either direction. Terryeo 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cut and pasting here, 3 unciteable, false sentences

message: I have reverted Terryeo's most recent change, switching the order of and slightly rewording the first two sentences.  Two reasons for my revert: 1. From the standpoint of clear writing, the change was definitely for the worse, adding confusion while offering nothing as a benefit (at least not that I can comprehend).  Nobody will miss the word root if it's in the second sentence, and in any case the etymology of the word is not the definition of the word.  2.  After much difficult wrangling, we seem to have, just before that change, arrived at an introduction that the various involved editors find acceptible, even if none find it ideal.  
Does everyone agree that the rest of the article has big problems?  I'm assuming as much.  While we work on those, I would like to propose that the intro (as of the version of 15:34, January 1, 2006 by Spirit of Man) remain in it's current state until considerable progress has been made on drafting the body of the article. I think this temporary "freeze" will allow the editorial back-and-forth to shift from the intro to the body of the article, without the constant distraction of reworking the intro at the same time.  Make sense? Is this agreeable?  BTfromLA 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a HUGE problem.  You people are refusing to follow the clearly stated directions in front of your nose.  Term, Topic, Context.  What part of that don't you understand? Terryeo 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terreyeo, again, you are making it difficult for me to continue to assume that you are operating in good faith.  To repeat: 1. The "clearly stated directions" are a "rule of thumb" gudeline, not a set of inviolate rules (i.e., they are not wikipedia policy). 2. As it stands, those guidelines say nothing whatsoever about the order in which "term, topic and context" should be presented (in fact, the examples provided with the guidelines place "context" first).  3.  The etymology of a word is not the definition of the term. 4. The aim here (at least as I understand it) is to write accurate descriptions in a clear, communicative way.  I'm comfortable in predicting that 100 out of 100 professional editors would agree that the version beginning "Dianetics is a therapeutic method and a set of ideas..." is clearer and more communicative than your revision, which begins "Dianetics was coined by Hubbard, based on the Greek roots..."  Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I am increasingly forced to conclude that you are not interested in communicating clearly and accurately about the subjects of these articles, nor in collaborating in good faith with those whose perspective differs from your own.  BTfromLA 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTfromLA and Terryeo, this issue has become heated and prolonged, I would like to offer my services as arbitrator. It makes sense to me that a term should be understood by a reader before he has to use it, to understand something else. So, "define the term" first, then use it. But, I see no real distinction between which of these definitions is THE definition, they both contribute to the idea of Dianetics. Either one could be placed first. The standard sequence in dictionaries is to place entymologies last. In the Introduction to "Dianetics Today", Terryeo's version is used. I think either could be used. Also, I think Terryeo's training is that it is not just important to define a term before requiring someone to think with it, it would be criminal to confuse them by doing anything else. So, BTfromLA, please understand this view. The order is important to Terryeo. Terryeo you must understand this is not a discline BTfromLA has been exposed to or trained in and take a look at both definitions. She may not even understand the distinction. I hope she does now. Peace. Spirit of Man 07:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for making an attempt to cool it off Spirit.  I do understand BTfromLA has a point of view and we are working toward a common cause.  I do expect I will in general stick with Wiki Policy about introductions.  Not that I won't budge at all, nothing that extreme, but as a general guide I have to think Wiki Policy is usually the way to go. Terryeo 07:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal about the intro 

message: There are various schools of thought regarding the volcano on post-1968 editions of Dianetics. One conjecture is that it is a reference to the story of Xenu and another being that this image was used as volcanos are referenced in Hubbard's book "Scientology: A History of Man" written in 1952.  Yet another is that it was used, as according to Hubbard, "Man responds to an exploding volcano." ("Assists", lecture of 3 October 1968)
:Excuse me, who cares about the volcano?  The book has been on sale for 50 years.  The book has sold some large number of copies.  It is a sales gimmik, get it ?  It sells books, you follow this reasoning?  If you are running a company and your sales are failing then you might consider the significance of emplacing a volcano on your forehead or something.  Have a nice day. Terryeo 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I want an introduction per Wikipedia:Introductions.  I want to follow Wikipedia guidelines on this because skepticism has nothing to be skeptical about untill it has some introduced subject.  Once the subject is introduced then the arguement can begin !  The Skepticsm, the Dis, the link and counter link.  Per Wiki Policy the word is to be stated, and this is called a "term"  Dianetics is a term (as used in this case).  "Pumpkin" in another term and it introduces another Wiki Article.  But this article is about Diantics.  After the term is used then comes some words about the topic.  The topic of this article is, duh, Dianetics.  Okay, So that is exactly how far this article has gone and no farther.  There is no agreement of "What is Dianetics" and until there is an agreement of "what is dianetics" we can not make an article.  So that is exactly where we are.  But, should we be able to make a definition that tells us our topic, then we can post all the criticism, all the skepticism, all the support, all the raves we want. Because we have a topic to talk about.  Wiki Policy.  Term, Topic (opps, we haven't done this one so we can't get to context and controversy).  Terryeo 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: It seems to me the intention of the current article and the intentions of the current Editors have been defined by the Discussion above.
I see four main contexts that make sense for an article named "Dianetics":
1) Dianetics, The Controversy.
2) Dianetics, The Philosophy
3) Dianetics, The Science
4) Dianetics, The Therapy
I don't think the best interests of all Readers and all Editors is met, when only one of the above contexts is tolerated. The nature of that context then defines for an Editor what is neutral when an Editor views the intention of Wiki NPOV for the Article.
Can everyone agree that the context for the current article is, "Dianetics, The Controversy" only?
Is it desirable to have all four contexts being represented or just the one? If just one, shouldn't the name of the Article be changed to represent what is being done in fact? Spirit of Man 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the best way to do it. It would be more satisfactory to either cover all of these topics in a single article, or have an overview article linking to more detailed articles on subtopics. -- ChrisO 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm working on just that! -- ChrisO 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Context for an Article on Dianetics.

message: Here is the removed text: 
Hubbard claimed that the state of Clear was desireable.  He attempted to demonstrate in August of 1950 when he introduced the "world's first Clear," a college student named Sonya Bianca, to an audience on stage with a demonstration of her abilities.  Unfortunately, Bianca was unable to exhibit any of the abilities claimed by Hubbard, and further demonstrations of Dianetics by Hubbard were considerably scaled back. (Scientology -- The Now Religion pg. 57) 
The paragraph talks of Sonya Bianca. Then the link points to a page of links. Exploring the links leads to George Malko which is there stated to be the "world's first clear."   This isn't appropriate use of links because 1. it links to information which conflicts with the article's statement.  and because 2. The link goes to a page of nothing but links which is confusing in itself. Terryeo 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you said so, I didn't know that.  I did know, in those days, any past life memory was a woo-woo, methods to continue the session and the communication were not so well hammered out, drilled, clean, easily handled.  Thanks :) Terryeo 14:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed this paragraph here for discussion and citing

message: I seem to be going for a Wikipedia record in footnoting the revised version that I'm working on - I've reached 50 footnotes already and there's no end in sight. Hopefully it'll keep Terryeo happy about the sourcing. ;-) -- ChrisO 17:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not introduce Dianetics.  Many things can be said about Dianetics, and against Dianetics with a lot of footnotes.  With 10 books, many printings, lectures, newspaper articles, counter-books, counter-newspaper articles and so on, much can be cited and stated.  But until the subject is introduced is there a point it in?  More basic than verification is communication.  Cites are a method to insure a communication's validity.  If the article held information about how modern varieties of corn were developed, it would not help a reader understand Dianetics.  Neither does your array of footnotes help a reader understand Dianetics.  I hesitate to call it poor writing, but how can it help a reader understand the source of the word "Dianetics" to put it under "Theory" (which should be about what axioms or theories it is based on) and to put "through soul" right up against another datum of equal magnitude (so and so originated it years ago)?   For a reader to use Wiki, we want them to understand Dianetics and understand what points of view exist counterwise.   But instead, you baffle them with intertwined barrage of information. How about we get a good, clean introduction to this topic and THEN everyone jump on their respective POVs ? Terryeo 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes galore