| Revision as of 07:44, 22 January 2006 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits →Wikipediatrix and your removal of Copyright and reserved Rights notices← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:08, 28 September 2024 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators20,649 edits add blar notice; reorganizeTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (260 intermediate revisions by 49 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 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
:Antaeus, you have removed the edits related to this discussion without discussion. The clarifying material should be in the article, otherwise the article misrepresents the facts of the situation. Please restore this material. ] 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't ] mentioned in the current version of this article? ] (]) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Excalibur is not mentioned in the DMSMH book. It ''is'' mentioned in the Misplaced Pages articles ] and ]. ] (]) 00:27, 7 March 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It was not what you call a "POV fork", it was a separate one book only article with nothing outside the scope of that book, not even my own POV. I did express the author's intentions in that book without quoting his exact words which could have violatee a copyright as Wiki mentions below each edit window, but I do believe I followed the context expressed within the book. I believe the idea of each paragraph I wrote is citable by page number within that book. I mentioned the context of the ] article on your deletion page, only in reference to your deletion, not my creating of the book article. Since you accept ChrisO's book article's existence and the need for its existence, which is in fact the same book. How can you justify your recommendation to delete the earlier version without discussion there? It might be that you can not distinguish this one book article from the ] article that should encompass 70 years of development, at least 10 books and lots more. I have not seen you allow much development there beyond the scope of this book. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::''nothing outside the scope of that book, not even my own POV...'' Ahem. "Fascist Germany had its propaganda machines, Communist Russia had its propaganda machines and one could assume any tyranny invented by man would defend itself by any of the means it uses. Dianetics has attracted its share Controversy {{sic}} from 1938 onward... this book ... sent a message to all that might attempt to enslave mankind." If you are going to try to argue that ''that'' text represented NPOV discussion of the book rather than your own POV, it only serves to indicate that you don't even understand the difference between the two. And if you are going to argue that that is the ''book's'' claim and that Misplaced Pages should be perfectly okay with repeating a book's own claims (as if they were universally agreed facts) about how important and wonderful the book is, then you need to read ]; Misplaced Pages is not for advertising. -- ] 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Antaeus, you have argued that a book's own claims (and you have added your own emphasis, "as...universally agreed facts".") may not be used. I think this is an error. NPOV says that both "sides" should be presented fairly. Do you agree this is true and we should use this Wiki policy? I think ChrisO has provided ample examples of the side I call "Controversy" the second side is not mine and you will not permit a CoS view, is not the view from the book the "second side". I merely present the "facts" of the book or state what the intention of the author certainly is. I make no claims of universal facts and you should not insist on always placing me on the defensive only. Both sides have the right to fair presentation. You and CrisO have presented "one side" by why the venomous super-criticism of the second side that is required by NPOV to be fairly represented? ] 02:56, 19 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The material is extraneous to the article. In the terms Anteaus uses it has to be a POV fork. Wikipediatrix, has not defended her POV about how she can speak for high level Scientoligists and place these highly inflamatory words into a context where they would never authorize anything of such nature on a review of a book on Wiki. It is a personal opinion about beliefs she could not possibly defend. Her citation three looks like an altered glossary written in an email. It is not a credible citation. It also mentions Hubbard's intentions for the volocano representation which could not possbibly be true and they represent only personal opinion. I have a set of books from the time period of the original volcano book cover. They say, "Cover Design Copyright 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Right Reserved." Wikipediatrix does not own the "right" to represent this cover in any way, let alone in her personal highly inflamatory disinformation compaign. Her citation specifically brings to us to her of idea of "the intention to restimulate". What other intention than harm, could she have for going into the details and citations she uses without consent of the owners and misrepresentation of the intentions of Hubbard and higher-level Scientologists? More calmness is needed in the world not troubles that are extraneous to the topic. The correct citation is: "Cover Design Copyright 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Right Reserved." or whichever year that picture represents. All of her extraneous notes intended to damage and harm L. Ron Hubbard, the owners of the copyright and reserved rights, and the general public, should be removed. ] 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"In the terms Anteaus uses it has to be a POV fork." Holy moley. OK, I'll bite; ''how'' is it a POV fork? I mean, it's not, obviously, but how are you misunderstanding all the terms you're using so badly as to believe it "has to be"? Do you have any clue at all what a POV fork is? Have you taken the elementary steps of reading ] and ] in order to at least ''sound'' like you comprehend what you're saying? -- ] 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::No I hadn't read your "POV fork" thingy. I apologize, I should not have used your words. I did not mean to include the context of creating a new article. A person with a non-neutral point of view has edited an existing article to point it in a new direction that is extraneous to the context of the article. It is not about the article and it is not within the context of the article. It tends to fork the readers attention off into left field, a field of hot Controversy. Do you understand this use of words to describe the current situation? Now to your use of the term on my article. I found this at your ref site: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." How did "POV fork" apply to my article to begin with? ] 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Hmmm, thank you for pointing out language that's going to need to be corrected; that sentence doesn't even make sense given the Wikipedian definition of vandalism. To explain it simply: One could argue that Wikipediatrix's edits to an existing article were POV edits, but even if that premise was agreed upon by all, it would still not be a POV fork, because no "forking", no creation of a new article on an already-created subject, took place. Now, it is possible for someone to create a new article on an already-created subject, without that being content forking: a couple of different ways are listed at ] but the most obvious is when it happens by accident, such as ironically happened at ] and ] themselves, when two different people independently started articles to describe the same point of established Misplaced Pages practice without being aware of the other's efforts. However, when someone creates a new article with the reasoning of "There already ''is'' an article on the topic that I want to cover, however, my material is not being accepted by consensus there; I will therefore create a ''new'' article that lets me talk about the other article's topic and insert all the things I ''would have'' said in the other article," well, that is a POV fork, with no question. The forking has occurred and the motivation was clearly POV. -- ] 15:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Anteaus, please ignore the new indents for this thread. If you are explaining Wikipediatrix's edits as unacceptable, then I agree, and I think everyone else does to. If you are repeating my statement of those edits relative to the idea of a POV fork. Then I agree. If you are saying my intention for my DMSMH article meets the criteria you have outlined, for "POV fork" I do not agree. I did not say those things you outlined and that was not my intention. I believe the Dianetics article is broad in scope. My or Chris's DMSMH article should have the scope of just that one book from 1950. Now that is a lot, but it is not the huge scope of the subject of Dianetics. I thought it should be separate from Dianetics and so did Chris. We thought of this separately. I just got to it earlier. I understand you did not address the idea of extreme "vandelism". I asserted that is required to use the term the way you did and there was none. I tried to represent the intent of the author with ideas that I believe are citable in DMSMH. If they are not then you have an argument for that citation, not insisting on extreme "POV fork" deletion or redirection to Chris's less complete version. Do we agree? What he has is brief but well written, but he didn't seem to be aware of the earlier work as you did. You should have told him. ] 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The other covers in the 1971 series include: A large man standing on mountain tops for The Problems of Work, A Judge with White Hair and Beard for Introduction to Scientology Ethics, A White Picture of a Bearded Man on a Red Background for The Fundamentals of Thought. The face might look like Socrates. Dianetics 55 has a white uniformed man taking control of a serpent in a tree suggesting "The Temptation" from the Bible.] 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
|
:: The links I cited as sources do indeed refer to the text in the article. If you didn't see it, you didn't read them thoroughly enough. And please use the discussion page FIRST before you delete an entire third of an article! ] 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Wikipediatrix, it is unfortunate that the dispersion and heated controversy has got you wrapped up in it enough to prevent you from understanding about Xenu. That event, according to the document on the Xenu website happend about 75,000,000,000 (million), 75 million years ago. The diansours went extinct about 65 million years ago. So that happened when diansours were walking earth, according to the document on the Xenu site. But this trival bit of information is just a point which prevents Dianetics from being communicated. Several editors disperse and disrupt any real communication of the subject. Its not your fault, but surely anyone can see the subject is not communicated. What is communicated is, "Dianetics '''IS''' a controversy. That's all this article says. Its not your fault. Its not my fault. And you and everyone knows the real score. A few of us are trying to communicate Dianetics to the reader. Too many more are trying to prevent that communication, hiding behind the guise of "It must be NPOV" and "there is controversy on that point" etc. ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::My point was that the book and its content has no connection to them or their content or your additions whatsoever. You bring extraneous and extremely heated material that does not belong in the context of this book. You have no right to represent the beliefs of Scientologists. Can you find any mention in this book of anything not in the time frame, from conception to death of an individual? No! I say your intention is not neutral and you intend to add and invite hot controversy with Scientologists you don't represent, and bring it here, where there is enough for this book alone within its own context. You attempt to provoke issues with copyright owners and rights owners and drag Misplaced Pages with you into your scheme. Remove all of your comments, please! ] 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As I expected, Terryeo is having to move from merely ''suspect'' claims of "I only know about policy X and I'm following policy X to the letter so even if you are moderating policy X with equally valid policy Y '''you''' are in the wrong for violating policy X and therefore I'll threaten you with 'every sentence you create through this lengthy process of reminding you of Wiki Policy, pointing out line by line where and how you have failed and done wrong'" and is now moving into completely ignoring policies that he knows full well to be in effect. Well, it just means that the evidence against him is stacking up higher and higher. Too bad for him. -- ] 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::well, you've said how you see it Antaeus. If you really work at it with ChrisO and a few you, you can prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader. So far it is presented as a controversy. I know it is more than that. Hell, its worked miricles for people for years. That doesn't mean you have to let anyone know it, does it? Instead you can controversialize statements, disperse other statements and generally, prevent the subject from being communicated. That's what you have been doing for weeks. ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Actually, no, what I've been doing for weeks is keeping a couple of POV-pushing editors from forcing their double standards on the articles. "Hubbard claimed that Dianetics makes people more able human beings? Great! We can state that as ''fact'' in the article, rather than as the claim of a materially interested party with a long history of false statements! Oh, wait -- Hubbard also claimed something which is now embarrassing to us? We'll find a reason to take it out!" You're full of crap, Terryeo. Why are you full of crap? I'll '''tell you''' why you're full of crap. Because if I wanted to "prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader", I would not have ''asked'' ] to create ], to communicate this Dianetics concept to readers. And you know full well I did that, too, which means that your nasty insinuation about "If you really work at it ... you can prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader" is a knowing lie on your part. -- ] 05:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::We should provide Hubbard's POV in the article. If he said Dianetics works miricles, it should appear in the article. Does it? Well, no, at least not at present. Does, say, 1/2 the article present the pro, and the other 1/2 the con? Well no. In fact the idea that the book has sold millions of copies hardly gets mentioned. That it sells today in a number of languages hardly gets mentioned. That its use is, a person can read it and help his neighbor doesn't get mentioned at all. What is important? Well, that which is most popularly done is important. People buy it no matter what anyone said about the picture on the cover. How is it that NicholasTurnbull's link gets put into Antaeus' signed post? ] 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::First of all, you are forgetting '''once again''' that this is not the article for discussing Dianetics. That article, strangely enough, is ]. ''This'' is the article for discussing the book ''Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health''. Second of all, in suggesting that the article is not NPOV if it does not present "1/2 ... the pro, 1/2 the con", you are getting ] confused with ]. "That its use is, a person can read it and help his neighbor doesn't get mentioned at all." Yeah, and if you ''still'' don't understand why a sentence like "A person can read it and help his neighbor." will never go into the article in that form, you are ''really'' whiffing when it comes to comprehending NPOV. As for "How is it that NicholasTurnbull's link gets put into Antaeus' signed post?" I really have no idea ''what'' the f--- you're talking about at this point. Am I right that you are now objecting to my defending myself against your absurd and malicious charges of trying to "prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader"? -- ] 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Hello again Antaeus Feldspar. I will continue to freely remove those materials which are against NPOV. I would rather talk with you than not. I'll once again explain how it is appropriate to remove items of information (such as "the volcano is on the cover because ...") which are directly and explicity against NPOV. The idea of NPOV is that Misplaced Pages present information which is attributed to a source. A book. An author in an interview. A publisher who makes a statement about the cover of their book (perhaps). A newspaper article. Misplaced Pages presents that information. Misplaced Pages cites that information to accredit it to its source. That is our action as editors. This is a Neutral Point of View because it does not take a point of view. It reports someone else's point of view. The people who publish that book with that cover have not said why they chose that cover picture. ALAS ! no one knows why they chose that picture. Unfortunately every person who views that picture has to figure it out for themselves. You can not be helpful while you edit on Misplaced Pages. If you want to help those poor souls who don't know why the Church of Scientology chose a volcano for the cover, you will have to publish your opinion in a newspaper or a book or in some method or manner. Then, after that, you can have a friend quote you and cite the publication and then, at last, the TRUTH CAN BE KNOWN. But until it is published and the source cited, it is origninal research by an individual editor and can not appear in Misplaced Pages articles. ] 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Wikipediatrix and your removal of Copyright and reserved Rights notices== |
|
|
|
|
|
You must do what you must do. So must I! |
|
|
|
|
|
If you do not revert the Copyright notice, the Artwork notice, the All Right Reserved Notice, your extreme POV representations of the beliefs of high-level Scientologists that you are not a part of nor represent, along with the entirety of your Xenu material that is inflamatory and extraneous to this book article from 1950, and notify me of same on my Spirit of Man profile, I will personally write a Knowledge Report on all this and any other relavant material I can find on your activities and WP:SCN as well, to the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
L. Ron Hubbard copyright and Reserved Rights owner. |
|
|
Arkwork Copyright and Reserved Rights owner. |
|
|
The Director RTC, the Religious Technology Center, responsible for the ethical use of all Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard technical and administrative materials. |
|
|
The publisher of this book, Bridge Publications in care of: Patrick. |
|
|
Your profile on Wiki. |
|
|
The world wide headquarters for high-level Scientologists and their OT Committees. |
|
|
The home page for WP:SCN on Wiki |
|
|
Your auditing folders if any exist on the planet. |
|
|
My profile on Wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
I encourage you to consider what you do next very carefully.] 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Some policy to review: ] and ] and ]. We have policies on legal threats, and handling copyright disputes, including fair use. ] 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do you agree this is a correct Wiki policy from your CV link? "Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!)."] 02:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ronabob, I said or implied no "legal threat". I offered to make the situation known to the principle parties. Wikipediatrix has reverted material after two editors have discussed things here and deleted specific materials for good reasons after discussion. She now claims personal fear after "threats" when there were none. Rationally speaking is it a "threat" to simply make her actions known to those she is acting against? I think not. It simple makes known to all interested parties what she claims is her right. I disagree. I will apologize to her for any misinterpretations where my actions may have been misconstrued by herself or her parents as a "legal issue" by me. That was not intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Against my most basic instincts, I have removed all material from the article that offends ], not because I think it is the right thing to do, but because my parents have urged me to do so, fearing for my (and their) safety after Spirit of Man's threats. I still don't understand why he blames me about copyrighted use of the Dianetics book cover - I had nothing to do with that image. Someone else can put it back on the page if they want. ] 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thank you for removing your material on Xenu and your opinions of higher-level scientologists. I have no issue with the bookcover or its use here if the owners do not. I had already mentioned these issues to others and there is no issue to my knowledge on that. That is not an issue for me and I did not ask you to remove that. Thank you for reverting the copyright and Rights information you deleted. I did not intend for you to remove material you are not personally responsible for placing here. I apologize if you or your parents in any way interpreted anything I said or did from a "legal context" or became fearful of that issue. That was not my intention. I think you must agree that if the owner of property is being damaged someone should let them know about the damage so they can do something if needed, or nothing if nothing is indicated. What they do with the knowledge is not my concern only that they are aware of it. There may be Wiki policies that also cover this issue. I will try to make myself more aware of their policies. I do not believe they could possibly have policy that forbids informing the owners of property that something is happening concerning their property. Thank for reverting the things I requested. Please inform you parents of this discussion and that it is all resolved for me as I have described. As far as I am concerned this issue with you is fully closed and nothing further is expected, required or planned. I will take up any remaining issues with others as I have time for them. ] 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have restored the edits. If ] has a problem with this, he can come to me -- or the countless other editors and administrators who believe inNPOV and oppose censorship. Intimidation or threats -- no matter how veiled -- are not welcome at Misplaced Pages. Neither he -- nor the people he is trying to represent -- control the site or this article: he is a guest here, subject to its rules and norms, and while his '''opinion''' is always welcome, any attempt at unilateral control isn't. I encourage him to consider what he does next very carefully. --] | ] 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Calton, all you are doing is preventing a reader from understanding Dianetics. Spirit of Man knows Dianetics, he can communicate it. What you are doing is prevent any real communication to any reader, about Dianetics. Who wins? You, for being able to make a threat? Misplaced Pages, for not having readable articles about Dianetics? who? ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Calton, how can I help you? ] 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Calton, you have failed to represent your one time view. The material should be removed. ] 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Indeed. Misplaced Pages has procedures to deal with alleged copyright violations, Spirit of Man. They include verifying whether there is in fact any actual copyright violation going on, which is not always the case. They do not include terroristic vigilante threats. -- ] 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The point of discussion originates as: "Why does the the book have a picture of a *gasp* volcano on its cover." Well, duh, it sells books. Why don't those of you who are so certain the picture chosen for its cover has some significance beyond merely selling books (why would anyone want to sell books?), why don't you find some skinny little opinion published by some big, brave, macho man who says, "Dianetics books have a volcano on the cover because ..." and post that here? I personally know an author who has published several books. He has some control of what goes on the cover. He choses his cover pictures to sell books. Seem like a good idea to you? LOL. ] 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think "terroristic vigilante threats" is a wild exaggeration. Spirit has apologised; let's leave it there, shall we? -- ] 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Except I found his apology -- or at least his disingenuous and passive-aggressive excuse (gee, there's no rule against me telling anyone things, is there?) to be unconvincing. Given the CoS's well-documented track record, there's ''every'' reason to be concerned when rhetoric associated with veiled threats is employed. If anyone should be careful about what he's saying, it's the so-called ]. --] | ] 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Calton, what do you hope to achieve? You seem to hope no reader can understand anything about Dianetics. ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Calton, how can I help you? ] 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Going back to your masters and reporting your failure is a good start. --] | ] 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Calton, you have failed to your defend your actions. The material should be removed. ] 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::They were defended and settled a long time ago. Your side -- and it is a side -- lost. Not your site, not your rules, NPOV and verifiability wins. Deal with it. --] | ] 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== pasting here, discussion of the significance of the volcano == |
|
|
There is a volcano on the cover. Someone sees huge significance in it. They have posted their conclusion of its significance in the article. ALAS ! Misplaced Pages policy, NO Original Research does not allow that perfectly wonderful, original research to be stated. It is such a shame, but whomever is so convinced in regards to the volcano and the following discussion pasted here, will have to find someone who has the same conclusion they do, someone who has published their opinion and has the courage to publically state their opinion. Then, their opinion can be cited and put as an opionion into the article. An editor's opinion is not allowed. How simple can it be, the Church of Scientology does not state "our volcano on our cover refers to .......all the doublebabble below. The volcano sells books, It is your duty to edit and present opinions of others in a way that makes sense. It is not your duty to conclude what the volcano means and tell the public what your conclusion is. Period. This is about the 19th time or something. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. Hubbard's interest in volcanos is also reflected in his announcement of ] while at ], and in his declaration ''"Man responds to an exploding volcano."'' ("Assists", lecture of ] ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The volcano on the cover is there because the publisher put it on the cover. Why did the publisher put the picture on the cover. '''''That''''' is your duty to find. Then, when you have found that reason, then you can say, "the volcano is on the cover because ..." and give the publisher's reason. What you are doing is what psychology calls "free association" and what Misplaced Pages calls "Original Research." Having found some datum about volcanoes and the church of scientology you begin to free associate. You spill your guts. However, fortunately, wikipedia has policy which states: '''''No Original Research''''' If you think you know why there is a volcano on the cover, you can talk about it here. We'll listen to you and pat your head and you can feel better. When you find a source of published information that states why there is a volcano on the cover, then we can put in the article along with where it came from. ] 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Found it, and it's from LRH himself. I do agree, though, that the sources cited in the earlier version weren't very satisfactory; you were right to highlight this issue. The bottom line is that primary sources are usually better than second- or third-hand reporting. -- ] 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Gosh, does this mean we don't get the patronizing pat on the head that Terryeo promised us? Darn! (P.S. I disagree with the idea that Terryeo was "right to highlight this issue", at least if we mean in the only manner he seems to know how to do it: with plenty of smug prejudice, which turns out to be wrong, about how no one will ever find any of the needed citation for what Terryeo tiresomely insists on falsely calling "original research".) -- ] 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::On October 3, 1968, L. Ron Hubbard was giving confidential lectures to Class VIII auditors. Today those lectures are confidential and can not be purchased by the public, nor do they exist in an uncopyrighted form. What exactly are you saying, ChrisO ? ] 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You really think that nobody outside the Church of Scientology has read those lectures? ''You'' may be bound by religious prohibitions, but that's certainly not true for non-Scientologists. -- ] 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisO, you mention "primary sources". I understand there is nothing of this entire Xenu affair in any Dianetics or Scientology publication. |
|
|
|
|
|
: You understand wrong, then - it's been acknowledged by the CoS in the press and in court. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are citing a non-Scientology Wiki reference that itself is controversial and suspect. You misunderstand or are pretending to misunderstand my point. Is there anything actually in the subject of Scientology as copyrighted that would lead you to believe you are authorized by them or high-level scientologists to represent this view in any way. I concede that sites that seek to be controversial only do present this view. Is this the nature of Misplaced Pages? If this is the context of your presentation then let's state the facts of that, that your view in no way represents the Scientology view and if fact doesn't even represent Misplaced Pages. I understand this is true enough. Do you? ] 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your reference is "Corydon, Bent. L. Ron Hubbard: Madman or Messiah?, p. 361. Lyle Stuart, Inc. (1987)" I understand this is your "primary source". That is not a primary source for this book or this cover or in any way an authorization to you to author your personal "nuclear genocide" issue here. As Terryeo has said the article should convey an understanding of this 1950 book. What are you intending to communicate? ] 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I haven't used Corydon as a primary source for the Xenu story. He does, however, provide an interesting account of the way in which the covers were used. I haven't attempted to verify whether what he says is true (''"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.'' - ]) but I imagine that someone who was there at the time could probably do so. -- ] 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you. You have confirmed this information is in fact hearsay from Corydon and in no way represents an official view of Scientology. ] 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your edits are preventing the subject from being understood == |
|
|
|
|
|
By your continual insistence and continual insertions of more and more controversial topics and materials you are preventing the subject from being understood. One example (there are many) would be wikipediatrix stating here on the talk page, "Xenu happened billions of years ago." The manner in which several of you introduce controversy prevents any communication about the subject. A person can be for a subject, a person can be neutral on a subject, a person can be skeptical about a subject. Or, as is happening here, editors are preventing the subject from being communicated to the reader. Xenu happened millions of years ago (according to the Xenu website). Myself, I haven't a clue how anyone can know what was happening when the dianasours were walking earth. The manner in which the controversial material is posted prevented Wikipediatrix from understanding the time frame. But it is not her my post is about. I am saying. You can, if a number of people constantly work at, you can destroy any meaning. You can prevent any communication of the subject. This is exactly what a hositile person would do, a hostile person would work to prevent the subject from being communicated to the reader. That's the way it is. If enough people work at it, the subject can't get communicated. Who wins in that case? ] 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: '''Firstly,''' this is the fourth or fifth time you have attributed a comment to me that I did not make. If your reading comprehension skills are really that low, you have no business editing Misplaced Pages articles. '''I''' didn't say Xenu happened billions of years ago, your precious L.Ron Hubbard said it. If you have a problem with it, go dig him up and ask him why he claimed to know what was happening when the dinosaurs (note correct spelling) were walking earth, and long before it as well. '''Secondly,''' stop boo-hooing that the subject isn't being communicated. It isn't being communicated the way YOU want it. No matter how many hours a day every day you work at it (don't you have a job? or IS THIS your job?), you will never succeed in turning these articles into whitewashed advertisements for Scientology and Dianetics. Many of us have wasted much patience trying to compromise with you and have gotten nowhere for our efforts. ] 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Peer Review: Why has Anteaus removed the citation of test results that validate the therapy presented in this book? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since there is no discussion to the contrary, the test results should be reverted. ] 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would have preferred an explanation too, but I think it's probably right to leave out the test results. We should be describing the book; we have a much longer separate article describing its contents. I suggest having a brief mention of the scientific controversy and then referring the reader to the fuller treatment of scientific evaluations at ]. Otherwise we will just end up duplicating content, which isn't worth doing. -- ] 11:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Separate article ] should include the entire subject and its developement from 1930 to 2006, and it should not be conceived to be limited to the contents of this single book. Your citations there clearly demonstrate you do not believe that to be the case. It currently does not represent the richness of the subject fairly because of extensive deletions by you and Antaeus and alterations to misrepresent the facts. You have deleted the actual citations used to present the subject. You have included the context of "Dianetics Groups" of the day from the first writing of this article. These test results are within the scope of context of the book and your edits that are not in the book. You have cited scientific deficiencies in this article that are exactly answered by these test results. It is illogical to remove the test results and then falsely claim they are deficient. In the main article you have not accepted the valid results from this study. You have deleted that in that context and altered the importance, by placing the study into a review that you have a negative citation for that does not apply. The sci-fi fanzine citation specifically does not apply to the study and is not a refutation for the study in any way. You imply someone else made this last reversion, but it was you. Do you intend to be viewed as enforcing the NPOV concept that both sides of the issue should be presented fairly or do you intend to be viewed for the above? ] 14:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: If these nebulous "test results" you guys keep referring to are available in print in any ''legitimate scientific journal'', feel free to cite the reference. And publications generated by Hubbard himself DO NOT COUNT. ] 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Per Misplaced Pages NPOV both sides of an issue are required to be presented fairly. Do you agree this is the way it should be? This article is named "Dianetics" which is a philosophy, science and therapy named, researched, developed and written by L. Ron Hubbard. The test results in ] are presented in the Introduction by the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation, the owner of the copyrights and the organization doing research in 1950. This organization is the organization responsible for supplying the test results supportive of their claims requested by or at least mentioned by the APA in their 8 Sept 1950 resolution. Do you agree the APA said they were expecting to see proof of claims from the HDRF? Also, in that resolution the APA announced they were advising 8000 members to use Dianetics for test purposes only. They produced no test data that conflicted with the study of 88 students tested by 3 licensed professional psychometrists using the Wechsler IQ test that I cited. ChrisO has described a survey that apparently has nothing to do with this cited study. In ChrisO's own citations, Hubbard had no legal interest in the HDRF in January of 1951, so this is a third party foundation publishing the test data in their way. I will point out that no other science of mental health has every published even this level of self test showing supportive evidence. ChrisO references a Mr. Carroll that is not even clear what tests and evidence would look like. Professor Hiyakawa says that no test results are even possible. Also, no other mental science has ever even been asked to. I have explained the view of one side of this issue. Could you please explain your side of the issue as NPOV requires? Why have you explicitely refused Dianetics publications on a Dianetics article in violation of fair presentation of both sides? ] 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: If the Moonies printed their own book that said "we did a scientific study in 1950 that demonstrated the moon is made of cheese but we can't prove it because it wasn't peer-reviewed in any real scientific journals", should we say in their Misplaced Pages article that the moon IS DEFINITELY made of cheese and cite their own book as a source? ] 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
