| Revision as of 16:01, 14 January 2006 editTerryeo (talk | contribs)7,752 edits ~~~~← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:08, 28 September 2024 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators20,432 edits add blar notice; reorganizeTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (310 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
This statement is not true and should be revised, "He then developed counseling (auditing) techniques for getting rid of engrams. This is still the technique used by Dianetics-trained counselors today." Auditing techiques have developed continuously since 1947 when the first clears were made. Their development was not halted in 1950 as this statement implies. People who use this book may use the book exactly as is and get the results published. The modern course to do this is the Dianetics Seminar Course. The modern course that updates all auditor training is the Hubbard Dianetic Auditor course. The course that includes the E-Meter is the New Era Dianetics Course. ] 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{blarn|Arthur Ceppos|28 September 2024|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2006-05-09|oldid1=52286391|date2=2007-05-09|oldid2=129645897|date3=2008-05-09|oldid3=210729430|date4=2009-05-09|oldid4=288686096}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
The statements here about Xenu are false and malicious. This information is not in Dianetics or Scientology published materials and is uncitable within the context presented. It should be removed. It was not added with discussion here. ] 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't ] mentioned in the current version of this article? ] (]) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Well someone could cite the fishman document as a source for volcanoes and Hubbard, but I'm not sure there's a source for stating that the dianetics volcano cover has much to do with Xenu... ] 06:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, there is a source for this statement, I read it just yesterday. Hang on, and I'll find it. ] 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Okay, it's fixed. There are three sources for the Xenu-Dianetics cover connection listed on the article and I can get more if you like. As an added bonus, I added two sources for the statement that critics have noted that many of the volcanoes specifically named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago. ] 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Excalibur is not mentioned in the DMSMH book. It ''is'' mentioned in the Misplaced Pages articles ] and ]. ] (]) 00:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
Why do you people oppose simplicites? The book itself has been widely sold, reprinted many many times in hardback and softback. People come here and what do they read about it? Some beanbrain vast controversy about the significance of the only picture the book has, its cover. That's one page people, one picture. There is no statement why a volcano is used on its cover. But you people are so willing to provide the reasons the publisher uses. Meanwhile, any information within the book is ignored in favor of a vast controversy, all of it suppositioned, about its cover. Does it not occur to the thinking mind the article doesn't serve Misplaced Pages when drivel about Xenu is artfully inserted into a DMSMH article because the editors are restimulated by a picture? Does it not occur to you at all that Xenu didn't exist for many years after DMSMH was written, published, sold, re-published, re-copyrighted, etc? A + B = beanbrain, I mean c'mon, really. ] 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, any argument with the word "beanbrain" in it is automatically at a high, erudite level of discourse, but I'll try to explain it to you anyways. The reason we went for so very long without ''any'' article called ] is because that article would have had to be one of two things: either it would be ''about the book'' (rather than about the contents, which are already described at ]) or it would be an unallowable POV fork of ]. Spirit of Man already tried the latter, and only succeeded in producing a POV fork. ChrisO did the former, and produced an article about the book. It's .... rather '''strange''', to say the least, for you to have spent so much time at ] trying to insert factually dubious claims about the book and then to come here, to the now-extant article ''about the book'', and complain that it's about the book. But hey, if calling your fellow editors "beanbrains" is what you need to do to get to sleep at night, it won't be hurting us none. -- ] 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Antaeus, tell us more about why an article on a book should not discuss the contents of the book? ] 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I find no contents of the book at ]. The article Dianetics should encompass the subject of Dianetics which includes many, many books, articles, lectures and videos by L. Ron Hubbar over a period of 70 years. It should include any resulting controversy. ] is not the same topic as this one book. You have a POV and you seem to have a problem with me. You did not discuss it at the talk page for the article you redirected to this one and recommended for deletion. Are you willing to talk it out? ] 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because that would be a POV fork, and indeed in the ] for your article you yourself spelled out that it ''was'' a POV fork, that because you did not like the existing ] article you set out to create a new article to cover the ''same'' subject, but in the way ''you'' wanted it covered. That's called a POV fork. ] allows those. Misplaced Pages doesn't. -- ] 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: To address Terryeo's concerns: I don't oppose simplicities, but if I made the article even simpler and clearer than it already is, you would ''not'' like the way I would go about it, believe me. I think the article in its present form already gives a more-than-fair explanation of what Dianetics is/was/has been in the past, without turning into an advertisement for the Church of Scientology. And I think it's interesting that you say Xenu didn't exist until after Dianetics was written: Hubbard said Xenu existed ''billions of years ago''. Who's right, you or Hubbard? ] 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oops, I didn't spell out the sequece clearly enough. 1950, Dianetics. Book. Many copies sold, reprinted, many more copies sold. Then maybe in 1965, I don't know when, A company which publishes the book decides to put a volcano on its cover. Why? Gosh, maybe they think it will sell books, you think? But they don't tell the reading public, "we put a volcano on there to spark your interest," they just publish the book. If there is a reason for that choice of pictures, then it would be up to you to find it and post it. As it is, you are doing original research, stating your own opinions without any verification and then stating a lot of information about volcanoes that Scientology has mentioned. None of which says, "We put the volcano on there because of this reason ..." ] 16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipediatrix, you have citations, but they do not place the heated issue of "Xenu" in the context of this 1950 book article or even ] the more general article on Dianetics. Your comments relating to Xenu should be removed as extraneous and confusing. I believe you are violating the rights of the copyright holder that are a condition of editing here and could subject Wiki to actions copyright holders can take. Also, your comments here are heated. They only represent a personal POV. I dispute that you personally have the right to represent the point of view of higher level people in Scientology in this context. It is a personal point of view. Please remove it. ] 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Oh, so now you're hinting at legal threats? If this is the substance of your argument, I can no longer waste further time trying to cooperate with you on this article. I will follow Scientology's advice and ] with down-stat ]s such as yourself who seek to ]. ] 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The substance is you should remove the extraneous material you added, that have nothing to do with this book. You have represented your personal point of view as the beliefs of people you do not represent. This book only represents the time period for an individual from conception to the present. Please review the line just below this Wiki edit window; it says "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL." Your xenu comments do not meet this criteria for submission. Remove it. ] 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Uhm, I'm not seeing any copyrighted material added here (unless you can point me out to a web page that had been clearly plagarized)... so is this a NPOV dispute over linking Xenu and the volcano, or ] or ] or what? As far as the current "Xenu-Volcano-Dianetics Cover" links go, the first one uses wikipedia for it's source (so, no good), the second I couldn't find the connection in the text. The third link explicitly states a connection. |
|
|
::::Oh, and here's my opinion on the two articles: This should be a sub-article about one book, which is a part of a larger field, which would be another article. ] 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The significance of the Volcano on the cover== |
|
|
Here is the paragraph someone put in the article. It talks about various volcanic eruptions but it does not say one single word about why the volcano is on the front cover. A picture does not mean "free associate anything about volcanoes you can find. If there is good evidence why the CoS chose the volcano, then cite it. These other citations are not about the cover of Dianetics. The volcano has the significance the reader wishes to put on it. By falsely stating what the volcano "refers" to, you are placing your personal idea into the head of the reader. What you want to do is find some citation, however remote, which the Church of Scientology has published and which says, "The Volcano on the cover of DMSMH is to remind the reading public about the Xenu document which is in the public domain" None of those links even remotely talk about the cover of DMSMH. The topic here is DMSMH. Talk about it, post about it, verify about it. The subject of volcanoes, the subject of Xenu, the subject of peaches, those are other articles. When you cite a source, it must apply to the information. That isn't the case with this paragraph: |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] on post-] editions of ''Dianetics'' refers to upper-level Scientologists' belief in ], an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, allegedly placed billions of his people around Earth's volcanoes and killed them there. Critics, however, have pointed out that many of the volcanoes specifically named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago. |
|
|
] 15:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
