Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:22, 16 February 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Dianetics received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please read before starting
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Dianetics article.

Newcomers to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

This article is presently in mediation.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Dianetics in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Dianetics is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy WP:NPOV, while WP:NOR and WP:V require equal attention. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are reasoning behind NPOV, the neutral point of view, NPOV: Pseudoscience, Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", How to deal with Theories. The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Dianetics. See WP:NOT.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (to mid-December 2005)
• Archive 2 (to Jan 2006 rewrite)
• Archive 3 (to late Jan 2006)
• Archive 4 (to early Feb 2006)

A Discussion of ChrisO's section in the article on Dianetics and pseudoscience.

I think ChrisO is about 50 years too late for this discussion to be of much value to the world.

I think Dianetics has been integrated into the applied religious philosophy of Scientology for the last 50 years. It produces excellent results in that environment and has made little effort to seek the type of recognition that might or might not be enjoyed by a validation from the scientific community.

I have been aware of Dianetics for 35 years and know people that have known L. Ron Hubbard since 1946. Many of the people I audited years ago have gone Clear and higher. Many have recovered from drugs and other things that continue to ruin the lives of many.

I understand L. Ron Hubbard based his research on the methods of Bacon and others, and credits the works of fifty thousand years of thinking men. It was not based on the eight uncited precepts in the section.

I note that ChrisO claims "Dianetics is regarded by mainstream science as a pseudoscience" without citation.

I note that ChrisO claims "…is not accepted by the vast majority of scientists as a bona fide scientific theory," also without citation.

His eight precepts are also uncited.

But starting with what we have:

Consistent (internally and externally): Dianetics starts with a proposed single basic principle of existence, survive! An evaluation of that, to find what it meant, led to 29 Logics or Doctrines developed to evaluate data. With these tools, consistent definitions evolved based on the basic principle, tests Evolution of a Science and experience; Intelligence, Mental Image Picture, Time Track, Pleasure and Pain, and so forth. The Mind was found to consist of Mental Image Pictures. These were exquisitely detailed, each one perfect. All the experience from conception forward was available in the mind. This is called the Time Track. The ones with the most negative survival value were not available to the individual without assistance. These vivid recordings of experience were found to always contain pain and unconsciousness, and actual impact or injury. These mental image pictures were called Engrams. They cause a stimulus-response behavior much like when a Hypnotist installs a post-hypnotic suggestion to do something. All of the Engrams together were called the Reactive Mind. This Reactive Mind was found to cause all stimulus-response behavior and when reviewed with Dianetics procedures was found to eliminate all stimulus response behaviors it was applied to, and to raise intelligence. An individual that no longer has his own Reactive Mind is called a Clear. This behavior was then adopted as the optimum individual and the optimum conduct. The Clear can be tested and found to be without neuroses, psychoses, aberrations and self-generated illnesses. The basic understandings to accomplish clearing or what Hubbard believed to be the natural laws needed to produce Clears were written as axioms. There are 194 Dianetic axioms. It was found that the person that conducts these procedures needs to act like a Clear. These methods, or dos and don'ts were written as a consistent method of behavior known as The Auditors Code. This auditor needed certain communication skills to be most effective, and again the conduct of Clears was taken as the optimum. Specific training methods to train auditors in communication theory to the level of "synthetic Clear" were developed and called Training Routines or TRs. The basic methods that auditors use to address the specific contents of the mind are called 'Processes".

These principles, Logics, definitions, axioms, Codes, TRs, and processes that result in Clears are all consistent with each other and produce the goal of Dianetics, Clears.

ChrisO says, "Typical objections to defining Dianetics as science are that it lacks consistency…" I disagree. Dianetics is consistent and it is a science.

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations , see Occam's Razor): A single principle of existence: survive!. How do you work out what that means? 27 Logics. One that tells how to define the words that define the subject of the Mind. The list of words used to describe the mind is small and much smaller than other subjects. A single element to the Mind, the Mental Image Picture. All the experience of a lifetime from conception to present is recorded and available and perfect, the Time Track. This describes the true potential recall available in the human mind. A single source for all aberration, the Reactive Mind. When this Mind is removed by the individual we have the optimum individual, the Clear. This defines the potential gain made available by addressing the Mind with Dianetics.

This material is simple enough to train people to begin to use Dianetics in a few weekends. A full months course was available in 1970 when I became interested. That course would handle most things one needed to know to apply the subject and get results.

I think Dianetics is Parsimonious. I'm not sure how important that is in Science. I have taken a lot of engineering, physics, chemistry and math and that part of science never really came up. I understand in psychology one has to train for 12 years. That doesn't sound so parsimonious to me.

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena): What is Intelligence and how do you improve it? That is useful information for many people. Many people wonder what is the true potential of the human mind? Dianetics answers that and demonstrates it. People that have known someone that is mentally ill usually wonder how does one fix that? Well, that is useful information to know. Drugs is a major problem in the world, how does one fix that? That is answered by Dianetics. One of the definitions of Dianetics is Emotion. From the idea of Emotion a scale of emotions from low to high, from low survival level, to high survival level was constructed. The human behaviors associated with each emotional level was then tabulated in a chart. This chart is called the Chart of Human Evaluation and can be used to predict human behavior. If you know the emotional level then you can predict human behavior in about 50 different areas. Likewise if you know a few common behavior patterns you can determine the emotional level, then predict the behavior pattern across all 50 different areas. There are too many uses to list here. Dianetics is useful. Dianetics is a science.

That's all I have time for tonight, I might try some more tomorrow. Spirit of Man 08:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Empirically Testable & Falsifiable: One claim of Dianetics is that intelligence can be improved. A standard IQ test can be taken before applying Dianetics, as recomended, and after a number of hours like 40 or 60 or after Clearing. The two test results can be compared. There is an example of this in Science of Survival The same with reaction time, with before and after tests. Tests can be conducted of personality and self generated illnesses. After Dianetic Clearing the tests can be repeated. There are about 50,000 Clears. Observations of the behavior of these Clears can be done. ChrisO's claim that it is not based on multiple observations is simply not true. In terms of testibility this population of people are available for testing and multiple observations at this time. The subject is testable and multiple observations are easily available at this time.

Correctable & Dynamic: ChrisO claims the original TEXT has not been updated, implying the subject has not moved forward. This is not true. Science of Survival was written in 1951 and Dianetics 55! in 1954. Dianetics Today was written to bring all information up todate for the 25th year of Dianetics. This book provides current case studies, use the of e-meter, study technology, training routines, special rundowns to handle current problems like drugs and allergies and to integrate its use with Scientology processes. Later New Era Dianetics was developed and released. New Era Dianetics for OTs was released after that. In 1990 the Golden Age of Technology brought a whole new level of skills for Dianetic Auditors, flanked by a multitude of Scientology processes and knowledge to further the art. These developements are after Hubbard's physical death, so that is irrelavent. Also, the workability of the subject is being expanded to include all workable processes, that may have been "left behind" one way or the other.

ChrisO mentions how might the causal link between between aberrations and physical ailments be tested? One way this could be done was described in DMSMH. A hypnotist can install post-hypnotic suggestions that demonstrate each aberration or physcial ailment. By then making known to the hypnotic subject the facts of the matter the illness can be undone. Likewise with Dianetics, it was found that the verbal content of specific engrams mimiced this exact behavior. A person with leukemia was found to have a phrase like, "My blood is turning to water", that when processed with Dianetics was found to no longer have leukemia. The last I heard of that was 13 cases had been found with nearly those exact words. The point is not this one phrase, or this one ailment, but the concept. This concept describes the causal link between the aberration and the physical ailment and then the relief of the ailment by Clearing. It would be a simple matter to create a study of these matters if ChrisO or science were interested, but I don't think that is the case. In the early 50s this procedure was the basis of the doctorate course and was required to be a Doctorate in Dianetics. One had to take a new ailment and do just that. Characterise it and resolve it with Dianetics. It was found that all such illnesses are handled by Clearing anyway and to my knowledge the effort was not brought forward. Spirit of Man 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in these eight criteria that require publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Could someone please point that out to me?

Is there any factor I have not addressed or you feel is not adaquately addressed to present the case fully, that Dianetics is a Science per these precepts and should not be characterized in this Article or Discussion in a general way as psuedoscience instead of science? Spirit of Man 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My presentation remains uncontested. ChrisO's section on pseudoscience should be removed. Spirit of Man 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's argument from silence and therefore invalid. Speaking for myself, it would be an extremely lengthy process to explain each of those concepts to you and tell you why you are wrong, especially as you are clearly biased in your interpretation, which is why I haven't bothered. Also, the talk page really isn't the place for that. Furthermore, it's not up to you to say whether this idea is scientific, as you do not represent in any way the scientific community. Tenebrous 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Frankly I don't think it's worth wasting my time addressing these issues: Spirit has clearly made up his mind here, and I don't think reason on my part is going to overcome faith on his part. -- ChrisO 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed ChrisO's POV caution

Because I don't agree that those are the policies that apply here. ChrisO has refused (with one brief posted exception) to discuss anything with anyone. He posted his POV as a caution at the top of the page. While I disagree that those are the appropriate policies which should be followed, whether I personally agree or don't agree, the wrongess is that ChrisO put his personal point of view of which elements of Misplaced Pages Policy and Guideline apply here. He did not get a concensus of editor opinion. He simply chose which policies apply to his own, personal POV. That isn't right. I removed it. ChrisO can talk here as well as anyone. Some of us have opinions that Dianetics information should be presented as a Theory. ChrisO utterly ignored all of that. Theory was no part of the notice template he posted. Therefore I removed it. ChrisO, should he wish to post how the Dianetics information should be presented, should discuss it. That is what the rest of us are doing. ChrisO's POV which removes the whole article so he can post his Personally Written, Personal POV which communicates Nothing of the meaning of Dianetics is simply not tolerable. The article is to reflect a concensus of opinion. First he removes everyone's hard work. Then he posts his own personal POV. then he posts a "Read this First" template which supports his POV and doesn't include anything about treating Dianetics information as a theory. So I removed it. It isn't right. And ChrisO isn't right to cite unpublished documents, either. Terryeo 06:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see I better make more clear what about the template is not useful (my opinion). First, the template does not contribute to this discussion page because all discussion pages fall under those policies and under the guideline WP:CITE. Because it does not contribute, not a farthing, to the discussion I feel it is dispersive and should be removed. There's no need for a caution. Secondly, it does not include that guideline which, at this point, several editors have agreed should at least be considered, and which, myself, consider to be critically important toward finding a common basis to edit the article on. Specifically, WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. It lacks that. Lastly, Dianetics has been around 55 years. Thousands, maybe millions of people have done it, at least millions have purchased one of its books Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health. It is owned, practiced and disseminated by a church which itself owns millions of dollars worth of property. Thus it should not be treated "exactly the same way" as the new theory, intelligent design.Terryeo 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An apology

First of all, my apologies for accidentally removing comments when I entered my own commentary; as Antaeus noted, it was entirely unintentional. Now having said that, I shall restore the template that was added to this article, and subsequently removed by Terryeo. --Modemac 13:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay Modemac. have fun. By the way, the template was placed by one user, ChrisO. It was placed by him without a bit of discussion for its contents. I am going to remove it every time I see it until its contents fulfill WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The reason why is the discussion on this page. We have talked for 2 weeks about how to present the information which is Dianetics. Several of us consider "theory" a good way to do it. ChrisO disagrees. His disagreement does not give him the right to place a template which states his opinion and does not state the opinion of the rest of the editors who are working on this. Terryeo 16:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "my" template; I haven't written a word of it. The template is from Talk:Intelligent design, another controversial pseudoscience topic, with "Dianetics" substituted for "intelligent design". If you think it's POV, I suggest that you go and tell the many editors of Intelligent design - I'm sure they'll be surprised to hear that... -- ChrisO 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to understand that you deny all responsibility for the template. Now will you work with the rest of us toward a common consensus about how to introduce the subject matter of "Dianetics" to the reader? Terryeo 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I am very surprised to hear that a notice to apply NPOV, NOR, and be sure to CITE is somehow POV per Terryo. Dumbfounded might be more accurate, leaning in fact towards completely disbelieving. Did you read the notice? Serious question, not being sarcastic. KillerChihuahua 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious answers to serious questions. I read the template. It does state the things you mention. The reason I am all for those policies is because it is my belief that if we simply follow Misplaced Pages Policy and Guidelines, we can arrive at a good, useful - to - the - reader article. The template exactly matched all of the things which ChrisO views as important and germane to this article. What that template does not include which I think is critically important to this article is WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. Further, Dianetics has been around for 55 years, sold millions of books, has been printed in many languages, is owned and practiced and disseminated by a large, successful business and therefore shouldn't be treated as the article for which that template was created.

It reveals a lot about his approach to editing, doesn't it? -- ChrisO 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the "his" to whom you speak, ChrisO. Read just above, I have stated my position several times. When the meaning of the article is present in the article I shall be satisfied. So far, ChrisO, you prevent that from happening. At present I am attempting to have us arrive at some means to which commonly edit. You have stated, "it has been debunked many times". You have stated, "it is as best a conjecture". Nonetheless, whether it is 20,000 or 50,000 clears, many people's lives have improved with Dianetics. The Church of Scientology has purchased millions of dollars worth of real property with the proceeds. What evidence would cause you to understand it is an action that at least some people find useful? Terryeo 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrologers and televangelists have got rich on the proceeds of their work, too, but I've never seen that cited as proof of their social or scientific value. It's a novel viewpoint at least... -- ChrisO 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, hey, at least we are still talking. heh. Terryeo 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As you probably glean from the above discussion, it would be helpful if we could agree of how to treat the subject matter which is Dianetics. You have suggested Dianetics be treated as Talk:Intelligent design. I understand perfectly that you feel it should be treated in that manner. Unfortunately you are not talking with the rest of us about it. You made that decision. I did not. You pasted the template, I disagree that this topic should be treated as that topic is treated. This topic is a topic people spend money on, people have spent money on for years. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision by which copyrights are protected on the internet are the direct result of Dianetics and its parent, the Church of Scientology. To equate the driving force for one of the laws of the land today, to equate it to Talk:Intelligent design does not make sense to me. Does it really make sense to you? Terryeo 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible content approaches

• One: Theory WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. Dianetics has some theory about how to think of the mind. It has a jargon, "mental image pictures, engram, reactive mind" and these things together comprise a theory.
• Two: Pseudoscience WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Hubbard presented Dianetics as along "scientific" lines when he introduced Dianetics in the 1950s and the "pseudoscience" counter-arguement has some basis.

What basis? I have presented here citations for the evaluations of what tests to use, what tests may be used, what test results might be exptected and what before and after test results look like. There are 50,000 Clears that have used these methods. I have shown a development history from 1930 to present day. The Fox article presented by ChrisO presents a possibility of falsifiability. More modern developements show the danger to man of heavy drugs, but they are are handled by the science. Again, What basis? Spirit of Man 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, there is no basis because no scientific disipline has undertaken a study (except for the positive results in Science of Survival introduction.) However, ChrisO has hugely stated the information should be addressed in that manner. Because there is no "pro" and "con" I don't see how it can be presented as pseudoscientific. Terryeo 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Three: Religion WP:NPOV#Religion. Today Dianetics information is owned and operated by a church. Religion therefore fits as a discussion area.
• Four: Neologism (common usages) A new word, expression, or usage. Dianetics has a vocabularly unique to it. The vocabulary was created by Hubbard about 50 or 55 years ago and has been widely published. The arguement exists that those words are neologisms. But whether a memory is called a "mental image picture" or not, a person's memory is what it is. I like BTfromLA's idea of presenting Dianetics vocabulary as neologisms, defining each as we go along, treating the whole of them as a theory. (I hope I got BT's idea right)
• Five: Neologism (Theology) A new doctrine or a new interpretation of scripture. I have seen people posting about this in regards to how Miscaviage (new Church of Scientology head) has had new patter drills created.

Any others? Feel free to insert comments behind any bulleted item.Terryeo 17:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: One and Two hang together. If you use the word Theory then the word pseudoscience will be hard on its heels, because the use of "theory" in this context most assuredly indicates the precise meaning of the word as used by Science. Question: Does anyone mind if I shorten the subjectheader above from "Ways we can deal with the information comprising Dianetics" to "Possible content approaches" or something else short and sweet? KillerChihuahua 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea ! and if one begats the other, okay, well and goodTerryeo 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If and only if Theory

(If theory is an approach) Could we present the idea of a memory "mental image picture" because this is really the basic idea which all of Dianetics is built on. Other things are needed but until a person can consider it might at least be possible that their memories are in the form, Mental Image Picture, the rest of it can not make sense. The real problem with this idea lies in how individual everyone is. One person hears the term, looks at a memory, recalls the watermelon on the table, its color, where he is standing and how hot the sun was that day. He goes, "Oh yeah, mental image picture, no problem." But the next person sees the term, thinks of a memory and gets nothing but a negative emotion from the memory. And therefore doesn't understand the term, "mental image picture." Terryeo 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC) I would propose the article treats each of these as theories and we introduce them that way:

• list of Dianetics definitions, words particular to Dianetics

mental

having to do with thoughts or the mind, especially as seperate from the body.

mental image picture

A memory of a single moment which appears to an individual, when recalled, as a picture.

In Dianetics it is necessary to be precise or you don't get results. A mental image picture is a copy of the physical universe as it goes by. This recording contains the perceptions of the physical universe and the exact time the picture was made. It is very, very precise in terms of when it was created. When we think of the memory of a normal person that is not a clear, we are bringing something to mind. We are making a picture created right now, about a mental image picture of a very exact time in the past. A clear can easily just look at the actual original record, often in full detail. This is called "returning" and actually everyone has this potential, but clears can do it easily without someone helping them. Very few normal people can do this at all, but some can. A normal memory is just a partial copy of the original. If we are talking about a mental image picture containing pain, and the person wants to get rid of this pain. I will do no good to talk about the normal memory. You can go to psychotherapy for 10 years and talk about that memory and nothing happens. In Dianetics you help the person confront and actually view the exact original record of the pain. When he confronts the pain at that point it is easily handled because he created the picture and there is nothing more basic. He goes over it a few times and it vanishes. The pain in his life vanishes too. That might take an hour or 10 hours, not 10 years and nothing happens. Spirit of Man 04:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

engram

a mental image picture which contains physical or emotional pain, or unconciousness.

reactive mind

the collection of engrams which an individual accumulates over time.

analytical mind

conciousness, any thinking or thought a person can be concious of.Terryeo 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This illustrates perfectly how "a simple explanation" from a Scientology POV has absolutely nothing in common with what the average reader would consider such. What you call "presenting the idea of a memory "mental image picture" because this is really the basic idea which all of Dianetics is built on", I call a colloidal suspension of words in sheer applesauce. Perhaps we can have two versions of the article: one in Hubbardese, one in plain English? Seriously. wikipediatrix 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have said something. I think you have said, "No one will ever understand what is meant by the term, 'mental image picture?'" Terryeo 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. What I said is stated plainly above. wikipediatrix 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. So you are quite certain then, no occurence of "mental image picture" may appear in this Dianetics article without the inclusion of "sheer applesauce?" While I would hope at least the meaning of the term be included, though not the term itself (i.e. why include dispersive to the subject terms when uneeded). Terryeo 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipediatrix, if you don't wish to see Dianetics treated as theory, why don't you just say so? The discussion page is all full of "how do we treat it" Terryeo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the Concepts section: I suggest modelling this on the Intelligent Design page, where we have
Concept
Link to main article
brief description of concept.
criticism of concept.

Currently the Dianetics concepts which have their own articles are Clear, Engram, and Auditing. Reactive Mind currently redirects to Dianetics, but this could be changed. Would anyone object to this method of organization? Tenebrous 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to any organizational method as long as it communicates what Dianetics is about. I am not even certain we want to include Dianetics or Scientology's vocabulary at all. A memory is a memory whether called a memory or called a mental image picture. A painful memory is a painful memory whether called that, or called an engram. I would minimize the vocabularly and delete the articles except for Dianetics, Scientology and their orgainzations. I would include a small piece in this Dianetics article about the vocabulary which it uses. Maybe, "Dianetics has created and uses a specialized vocabularly about the mind" or something like that. Terryeo 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I think we're just going round in circles on this discussion. We're not going to be able to move forward until we have some agreement on the basic ground rules that apply, and some agreement on how to implement them in the article. Terryeo has some fundamental misunderstandings about Misplaced Pages's policies, standards and basic rules of conduct, and we are wasting our time trying to engage with him while that situation persists.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem very likely that he'll listen to anyone previously involved in editing the article (I see he's written me off as a "Dianetics Hater" - sic). I'll request an intervention by the Mediation Committee to try to resolve the disputes on this article by bringing a neutral viewpoint to the table. I hope that Terryeo will cooperate with this. -- ChrisO 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't dismiss you ChrisO. You are mistaken about that. I speak with you in a manner similar to how I speak with other editors. I am rarely abusive, though I have been a little at times. I consider that you know nothing of the subject which comprises Dianetics, but know that you have information about Dianetics available to you. With the single exception that the article does not present the subject which is Dianetics, I have no objection to the article. Were you willing to communicate about how to get the information of the subject into the article, I would happily work with you about that.Terryeo 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I would expect. About the time people have begin to understand various editors are editing based on a completely different treatment of the material, you would submit it to mediation. Fine, good. Whatever will work. I think I understand the policies well enough. Several editors are in agreement about some things, there is the possiblity we might arrive at a common basis for editing. Now you quit and submit it to arbitration. Ok. Terryeo 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing though, ChrisO. Why don't you post up the link that you submit to, so we can all see what wording you use? I don't believe I've ever classified anyone as a "Dianetics Hater" and further, don't believe it would matter a jot to the article if I did or didn't.

From User talk:Tenebrous: "On the other hand are what I would classify as "Dianetic Haters", like ChrisO there who has strongly insisted that the articles should contain anything which hurts the subject."

I do keep an eye on your edits, you know... -- ChrisO 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I did say that. I said it in a context too. Feel free to post the rest of that if you like :) Terryeo 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the context that that comment is in does not lessen, mitigate, or change its meaning significantly. However, since he gave a link to the source, the point is moot: anyone who wants to check the context can. Tenebrous 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Our work is to present good articles. You find I rarely use the smarmy attitude some editors do. Whether you like, dislike, hate or disregard Dianetics, we can work toward a reader-useful article but it does require discussion and it does require that we follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please post the relevant link on this discussion page.Terryeo 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation#Dianetics. And it's not just me "versus" you: Antaeus Feldspar, Modemac and Wikipediatrix are all acting as co-sponsors. I hope we can get some kind of agreement here, as this dispute is just dragging on without any sign of a resolution. -- ChrisO 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, got it. And yes, I did say that though not on this page and not to you. :) It is actually the opinion I have formed, based on your citing unpublished, confidential, Church of Scientology documents in Misplaced Pages articles when you are aware of the legal difficulties the Church of Scientology has caused various individuals and various groups about their unpublished, confidential documents. I don't feel that would ever be okay, but especially not okay on Misplaced Pages. Terryeo 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the mediator is likely to read this section, I'll put my side of the story here and User:BTfromLA and User:Spirit of Man can do what they choose to. I object to the template for the reasons I stated above. BTfromLA (and I think Spirit of Man) and myself have reached an (only tentative) agreement that we could treat the information which comprises Dianetics as a theory, per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. That is, as editors we arrive at a consensus of opinion about what element of Dianetics be presented in the article and how to present it in the article. And then I guess, go on to the next element of it. That ChrisO, Feldspar, Modemac and Wikipediatrx don't view it that way sparked (my opinion) ChrisO to resort to mediation. The discussion of how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics has been going on for a week or more. If the persons who together applied to mediation would talk with the rest of us, we might get enough agreement so we could create a useful-to-the-reader article. Myself, I am convinced we can follow wiki policies and guidelines and create a useful article. As it stands the article says things about Dianetics without communicating the subject of Dianetics. A reader can read the whole article and not have a clue what the subject of Dianetics is, except it is controversial. I want it to communicate what the subject of Dianetics is. So does Spirit of May, I believe. BTfromLA is neutral, he/she has worked toward any sort of agreement. ChrisO has some followers, but he does large edits without real discussion or agreement.Terryeo 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh! now that it is in mediation I see my historical book list is not being deleted. heh ! Terryeo 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe mediation will see the sequence of events at they happened. Several of us were working toward an agreement of how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics. You entered and saw the discussion and stated it should be presented pseudoscience. You then posted the template that presents your POV which is, "nothing but pseudoscience." No Theory, no religion, nothing but your POV. That being the case, when I persisted (as per earlier agreements) with "theory" and the possibility of "religion" you submitted to mediation.Terryeo 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

contributing to the template

Well, I've added my two cents to the template. There is some concensus that the information which comprises Dianetics might be treated per the wiki policy Theory, so I've included that link in the template. Also, because Dianetics is owned and disseminated by the Church of Scientology, I've included that in the template also. And maybe one or two other things should be included in the template also. Anyway, I've contributed and no longer object to the template being there. My objection to it was that it attempted to constrain the chat on this page to talking about Dianetics in one and only one way, as a pseudoscience. I don't believe that is the intention of Misplaced Pages. Many editors, many opinions, arrive at concensus, create good articles. Let's do it ! Terryeo 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you've chosen {{sofixit}} instead of deletion. KillerChihuahua 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

well hell, Killer, I'm willing to flex. What I'm not willing to do is swollow an editor's point of view whole who excludes any discussion but his own POV (ChrisO insists, "dianetics is pseudoscience"). Feel free, heh ! Hey, you're not from the Ft. Huahuacha ?? spelling, a fort in New Mexico, from that area are you? Noticing a similarity in spelling ?Terryeo 11:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, its after the Chihuahua, a small, annoying yappy dog from the Chihuahua state in Mexico. The Killer part any Chihuahua owner would recognize - they can barely reach your ankles, but they think they are Big and Bad and have no fear. I also have been described as unimpressed by intimidation or stature. Its a bit of a joke. KillerChihuahua 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a reply. As a small point of information, I have read they were developed to be the lapdogs or watchdogs of royalty. Being a small dog they are out of the way, being verbally umm, active, they are hard to ignore when roused. heh ! Terryeo 14:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The emergence of Dianetics

Has anyone else read the article from that point onward? It reads like a soap opera ! lol, its quite amusing and would make excellent newsprint ! :) Terryeo 11:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) However, a good deal of the article is not about Dianetics. Instead, a good deal of the article deals with the now deceased author of Dianetics. While an interesting historical sort of narrative, it nonetheless belongs in, perhaps, L. Ron Hubbard instead of this article, Dianetics. Myself, I don't mind too much that it is included, but I would like to get that information which comprises Dianetics included, somehow. Even treating Dianetics as "pseudoscience" would be talking about Dianetics. Instead, the last half of the article rambles on and on about Hubbard. Terryeo 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Baby steps... I agree, there is too much Hubbard stuff, and it needs to be summarized and a link given to Hubbard. IMHO the section titled Dianetics in Kansas would be better named Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation as well. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, heh, still trying to work out the pronounciation of "chihuahua"Terryeo 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhere between "chi-wa-wa" and "chi-hwa-hwa". I cannot help that to English speakers it appears to be "chi-hoo-wa-hoo-wa." I'm going ahead and making the change on section title. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, me and my flat gringo "a". lolTerryeo 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)I believe I've duplicated the pronounciation now. I talked with a person who speaks some spanish. Thanks. Terryeo 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the previous section is about the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation also, so I've reverted the title change - it looks very odd otherwise.

However, I think you have a point in that there's a good deal of information in the article about the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, rather than Dianetics per se. If nobody has any objections, I think I'll decant the HDRF stuff into a separate article on the HDRF, with a summary remaining in this article. That should give us a fairly clean split between the ideology and the organisation, similar to the division between Scientology and Church of Scientology. -- ChrisO 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You be sure and use clean citations and none of that unpublished stuff you keep dredging up, ChrisO. Terryeo 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support that, it is a clear contedner for a content daughter article. And thanks for the help in finding this - there was this tornado, see, and I couldn't find where I was. KillerChihuahua 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This title is "dianetics" and should present what dianetics is. It does not. The main reason it does not is that on every occassion of anyone putting the least jot of understandable information of what Dianetics actually is, into the article. It immediately gets delted and reverted to an earlier version. ChrisO, Wikipediatrix, Feldspar, Potmac (Raymond something) or modemac immediately take any jot of "what dianetics actually is" right out of it. I don't actualy believe a person who does not understand Dianetics can present Dianetics. Obviously my opinion is not shared by editors who insist any presentation of Dianetics is "POV" as Feldspar, ChrisO, Wikipediatrx, etc, etc continually use as their reason for reversions. Terryeo 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience ?

I seek to understand the point of view ChrisO, apparently Povmec, Feldspar and Modemac are using because none of them will state it outright. Is it that you view Dianetics to be pseudoscience? Are you attempting to present "mainstream" science as the main view and juxtaposing Dianetics against it as the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) point if view as per WP:NPOV#pseudoscience spells out? Is that your intent which has got us at editing each other ? If it is, well hey, speak up! Say SO ! Running off to mediation isn't much of a solution when edits don't go your way. Everyone else is willing to talk about it. I've tried for 2 weeks. I've presented treat it as theory, etc, etc and yet you guys won't even discuss your presentations. If it is pseudoscience we finally settle on then at least that is some basis to build from. Terryeo 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, we've already discussed this at length and you've been told many times over that Dianetics fits the criteria for pseudoscience. Why are you acting like you've just had this revelation?? wikipediatrix 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible I am a little guilty of that. But on the other hand no one was talking and no one was saying, "its pseudoscience and has to follow WP:NPOV#pseudoscience" Mostly no one was replying at all. So that's why I opened this section, hoping you all could at least say "yes". Terryeo 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't listed, but my position is that WP:NPOV#pseudoscience is applicable to a large portion of Dianetics. It was presented as science: it is still somewhat presented as science, regardless of the religious wrappers. It is the methodology espoused by the Church of Scientology. The word Science is inherent in the name. KillerChihuahua 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying ! What science will you place against Dianetics to compare it to, to demonstrate Dianetics is not a science, and disproven by mainstream science? Terryeo 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says we need to compare it to some other science to demonstrate? It's simple, so stop making it needlessly complicated: a set of ideas that is presented as scientific (theory or not) is pseudoscience if it is non-scientitic. And who decides whether something is non-scientific? Well, the scientific community, of course. I don't make those rules, the scientific community does. Take it up with them if you like. And read this. wikipediatrix 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope it is simple. WP:NPOV#pseudoscience states: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view. That seems simple enough, doesn't it? The majority of scientific opinion should be available in many scientific articles, books, lectures, etc. So, which Scientific disipline (biology, physics, chemistry?) makes statements about Dianetics which we can take to our task with? Of course, posed against the Majority view will be the minority view, (as I understand what you have said) the minority view being Dianetics. But from where will the majority view come? I think you probably see where this is leading, right? Terryeo 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, BTW, the skeptic's dictionary which your link points to has a far lesser quality of information than Wiki Standards demand. There, the editor has presented what he has understood the subject to say while here on Misplaced Pages we are required to veryify our informations, per WP:V without introducing our opinion into our reported informations. Terryeo 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that what this is leading to is, "I don't want Dianetics classified as a pseudoscience, so there fore I am going to talk and talk and talk and smother you with ramblings and vague statements in the hope that this proves Dianetics is not a pseudoscience." --Modemac 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As editors we deal with the written word. What scientific disipline will be considered "mainstream" and have its statements placed to prove that Dianetics is pseudoscience? Simple task, isn't it? That's what policy says, isn't it? Terryeo 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I answered this very question a week ago, up above on this very page. And what I wrote then was, "You can ask -how do we treat this' over and over until LRH returns in his next life, but that does not change the fact that his writings are unverified claims that cannot be accepted as scientific fact. --Modemac 16:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)" Your repetitions and attempts to dismiss third-party reviews of Dianetics does not negate them, and your claim that the Skeptics Dictionary entry does not meet "Wiki standards" (at least what you call Wiki standards) does not negate its criticism either: namely that Dianetics is, and continues to be, pseudoscience. The actual Skeptics' Dictionary article on Dianetics makes many arguments that Dianetics is a "classic example of a pseudoscience," and anyone can read the article itself to see the case it makes. Your dismissal of the article does not negate its arguments, which have yet to be disproved by your vague questions of "how do we treat this?" --Modemac 17:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages standards are far, far better than the Skeptics Dictionary. I am not saying you, or anyone, should present Dianetics as a pseudoscience. However, should you, or anyone, choose to present Dianetics as a pseudoscience your procedure of presentation is spelled out at WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and states: "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view." Then, against that the minority (or pseudoscience) view can be presented. Thus the reader can easily see how pseudoscience-like a subject is. The idea with this presentation exactly follows the common, everday Wiki Guidelines. Widely recognized, widely published points of view should be easy to present. Narrowly held, poorly published points of view will be more difficult to cite. At this point I will aquaint you with what I know. I know Dianetics is widely published and wonderfully circulated. I know further that no scientific dicipline on the planet today has commented (offically) about it and that means Psychiatry too. Here and there a lone individual (who holds some degree in some disicipline) has commented on Dianetics. If you do choose to treat Dianetics as a pseudoscience, I am convinced your pathway of presentation will not be broad and easy, but narrow and fallow. Terryeo 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point: You don't want Dianetics presented as a pseudoscience, and you are going to do what you can to prevent it from being presented on Misplaced Pages as a pseudoscience. Even if that means dismissing all other points of view except Hubbard's. --Modemac 18:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly all right with me if Dianetics gets presented as a pseudoscience. How many times do I have to say this. In this section, 3 times so far. However, if you present Dianetics as a pseudoscience the task is laid out for you as above. What mainstream science shows that Dianetics is a pseudoscience? It is your choice, go right ahead. I have stated many places that I do not oppose having the article call Dianetics a pseudoscience as long as some other points of view are included also. This is exactly per WP:NPOV and not original with me, Modemac.Terryeo 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)No alternate science, or opposing science, is necessary for Dianetics to be pseudoscience.

On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements."

The "single source" Hubbard asserts exists is an a priori assumption, which is definitively pseudoscience. If I were to claim there is a single source for all medical ills, or a single cause for all natural disasters, that would be psuedoscience, without comparison with anything. Further, Dianetics is not falsifiable. There is no scientific test for falsifiablity of Dianetics.

He goes on to say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry." He then tells us that dianetics is "...an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences" (Hubbard, 6).

He is placing Dianetics as the alternative to Psychiatry, a medical field. However, he also is in opposition to other causes of mental issues and what he terms "social derangements." KillerChihuahua 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true enough. Hubbard presented Dianetics for about 5 years, more or less, from 1950 to 1955, more or less as a sort of "based on scientific principles" and even the main book is titled, "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" so there will always be the question of "science" or "???". Terryeo

The key here is "Dianetics is not falsifiable." Anything that presents as science and yet isn't falsifiable is pseudoscience because it can't fit within the scientific method. Mainstream science doesn't need to do anything active to prove a non-falsifiable theory is pseudoscience. Unless Terryeo presents testable, falsifiable claims made by Dianetics, then any further debate is rather moot. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

At least Laurascudder (nice screen name) is deliniating and spelling out the falsehood that I was sure would bring the matter out of mediation and back where it belongs, into our laps. Dianetics isn't falsifiable on several fronts (my opinion). However, if it is to be treated as pseudoscience then there is a procedure to follow. I have spent 2 weeks attempting to get a concenus of opinion. How shall we treat the information which comprises Dianetics. If pseudoscience then okay. let us proceed. If theory, then okay, let us proceed. If religion, then okay, let us proceed. Wikipolicies and guidelines lay our pathway, we have but to choose a path and tred on it. Terryeo 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of Pseudoscience is: "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible". WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and I just don't think that can apply to Dianetics because as Laurascudder and Killer have pointed out (nicely), Dianetics is not falseafiable (by most methods, anyway) and so, hey. It hasn't been falseified. So there is no "majority of scientific opinion" which makes its claims non-credible. It is talking hyperdrive and no one else is talking hyperdrive, something. So it has to be addressed in some other manner. May I respectfully poke "theory" into the pot and stir the spoon? Terryeo 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because there isn't a body of falsifying literature doesn't mean that there isn't a body of contradictory scientific theories explaining the same phenomenon (like, say, all of psychology). This would represent the "majority of scientific opinion" on this subject. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

May I be perfectly sure to understand what you mean. You are stating that Psychology contradicts Dianetics and that Dianetics in turn contradicts Psychology? I did get it that you point out that Psychology is "Mainstream Science" and represents the "majority of scientific opinion" but I don't get it in what area the two contradict each other. Could you explain that, or do you want me to explain what I do understand regarding the two? Terryeo 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I already postd it, first sentence after my indent reduction above. What's not to get? KillerChihuahua 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

When Hubbard begin with Dianetics in the 50s he even had a person lay on a couch which was vogue for the times re:psychology / psychiatry. He presented Dianetics as a sort of "alternative therapy". Potmec / Raymond Hill has presented this very good link from the American Psychological's position at the time. . It did not oppose, it did not disprove, it did not dispute. I don't think it ever has opposed or disproven Dianetics. It has never stated its "mainstream views" and "proven" that Dianetics is pseudoscience. There is a reason why not. This reason is that Dianetics does not address the area the psychology addresses. The difference is subtle enough that people often don't get it. Psychology addresses the body and nervous system, and in so doing, attempts to cause changes (sometimes) in the mind. Dianetics addresses the mind, that changes might happen in the body are secondary or tertiary and are not in the province of Dianetics. Dianetics says so, "not a medical practice" and "for medical conditions see a doctor" and so on. I think they even have practictioners sign a disclaimer to protect themselves so a person doesn't come to Dianetics to cure a physical condition. Terryeo 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That policy was current as of '01, and there's no reason not to believe that it's not current today. They said that there was no evidence that it was true or false. There still isn't. Should we accept as science something without evidence? It is not necessary to "prove" that Dianetics is pseudoscience. The "subtle difference" that you propose is not recognized outside of Dianetics; there's a lot of valid science which suggests that the separation you impose between the brain and the mind is at best very misleading. You know nothing of this, but insist that your view is correct, essentially, "because Hubbard said so." There's nothing wrong with this by itself, but now you try and argue that because of it, Dianetics is not pseudoscience? I don't think so. Tenebrous 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't suggest anything be blindly accepted, skepticism is healthy ! Its just that there is no "mainstream" science when it comes to thoughts, to memories. Psychology refuses to dip it toe into the waters, heh ! Medicine is about the body, not about what a person thinks. So I suspect "pseudoscience" is going to be argued unless Scientology takes great effort to do many studies. But I'm pretty sure it won't. I am uncertain if the article should present this difference, you know? Dianetics addresss the mind, medicine addresses the body. Psychology address (who knows). Psychiatry is medicine + psychology, it can't yet monitor brain chemicals to tell what is going on either. Anyway there's just no parallel body of information (I think). Terryeo 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Hi User:Terryeo. I think it is encouraging that you seem willing to accept that there are mainstream scientists that consider Dianetics to be pseudoscience. In particular, it is clear from the article that the psychiatrists and the medical scientists that have independently evaluated auditing have found its claims to not be backed up by the scientific evidence. You seem to be concerned that alternative points of view are not well explained. I wonder at this. In fact, such points of view are already included in the article: to wit that the promoters of dianetics believe that it is an alternative to these mainstream science works. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Science guy, why don't you post your informational sources? That, if you follow, is the task before a presentation of Dianetics as pseudoscience. So hey, post up links, publications, whatever sources of information you know about which evaluate what you have typed as being factual. Terryeo 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be more to the point. I don't believe Psychiatry has ever commented on Dianetics except to say they choose to ignore it. Dianetics takes great pains to be completely clear the subject of Dianetics does not in any way address any of the things which the medical community addresses. To compare medical knowledge to Dianetics is to compare apples and ferns. So post up your purported information. Myself, I am convinced you have convinced yourself of a fallacy. But why don't you post your information, we can all look at it and make decisions of our own, hey? Terryeo 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider your point that Dianetics deals with "something different" from medical science (or psychiatry too if I understand you correctly). The question is, does Dianetics claim to be scientific? If it claims to be only faith based then you are correct, it is not pseudoscience. However, if any of its claims are in contradiction with science or meant to be in competition with science then it is correctly described. The intro claims that Hubbard described Dianetics as an alternative to medicine. Is this the same way in which homeopathy is an "alternative"? If so, then it is clear that Dianetics is correctly described as a pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You introduce yourself and claim to have information. Post it or suck your .............thumb. It is your claim and not mine. My POV is all over this discussion page. I have posted what I think. You are free to read it, free to edit as anyone else is, free to fulfill your claims or free to suck your .......... thumb. It is up to you. Terryeo 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo, you are in violation of no personal attacks. Not only are you allegations about my claims of having "information" not true (I referred only to the article and the material presented there, not to any "information") your invectives are inappropriate. Please remove them and apologize. --ScienceApologist 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yer a tickle. Giggle. Terryeo 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious, User:Terryeo. Remove the attacks, please. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pasting here, cut from the article

In the article was a citation. it was ""The Integrity of Source", Scientology Policy Directive 19 of July 7, 1982". That is not an accurate method to state a Scientology Policy Letter. Correct format would be 19 July 82, The Integrity of Source. or similar. In any event, in scanning through extant policy letters, there is one of 7 July 82 and it is about Public Relations and is not titled nor does it mention anything about "Source". Nor is there any HCOPL of 19 July 82. Nor is there any HOCPL titled "The Integrity of Source." Therefore, the line which that fairy tale talked about is equally invalid and I post it here for discussion.
"The mere disproving of his ideas is not regarded as valid grounds for making a change: "the only occasion for any revision of an LRH issue is if a typographical error was found in the original." <ref>"The Integrity of Source", Scientology Policy Directive 19 of July 7, 1982</ref>" Terryeo 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't an HCOPL. It's a Scientology Policy Directive - a rarely-used format which the Watchdog Committee (i.e. Miscavige et al) used in the early 1980s. It also isn't an unpublished or uncirculated document - it was given very wide circulation at the time. You can find plenty of copies on the web (see e.g. ). -- ChrisO 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(i.e. Miscaviage et al) was not the Watchdog Committee of the 1980s, the Guardian's Office was the parent body, Hubbard was the founder, Miscaviage wasn't present in management at that time. The G.O. was disbanded, their "Watchdog Committee" is not today extant. Another organization has formed, another organization has been named "Watchdog Committee" and it has different powers within Scientology than the 1980s one did. Besides, the document was not published to the public. That's the threshold for inclusion. Terryeo 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't published. It was never published. It was designed to be an internal-to-scientology document. It was not published to the public. This one, like the last one you attempted to modify a Wikiguideline for, is unpublished and unciteable on Misplaced Pages. This is not 'expose' reporting, this is encyclopdic writing. It is not a valid citiation. But you must have been aware of that before I brought it up. Are you so unethical that every time you put your fingers in the mud someone has to slap your hand before you pull your fingers out of the mud again? Terryeo 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is definitely interesting. Whether or not it was published in any physical form is pretty irrelevant, I think. Take a look at Reliable Sources. I note with dismay that the source being cited here appears to be a newsgroup post. If this information is widely available online, we need to find a reliable source for it. I've no doubt that it is true---Terryeo hasn't been arguing that point---but Misplaced Pages isn't in the "truth" business. I would prefer to find a site which gives some kind of evidence that this came from the Watchdog Committee. Has this document been involved in any of the legal cases against the CoS? Has any news agency mentioned it? I believe this information is highly relevant, but without a reliable source, we shouldn't include it. Tenebrous 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You find it interesting that an organization which owns millions of dollars of property publishes internal documents? People like ChrisO spend a good deal of time seeking out every bit of what appears to be dirt that they can. Not ChrisO, particularly, but he has contributed to the problem because he has stated on other talk pages that he has the right to read and cite confidential, legally protected, copyrighted documents on wikipedia. This creates an editor problem to the degree that ChrisO refused to comply with wikipedia Policies. Perhaps you begin to see the problem here. ChrisO (and a couple of his followers) point to me as being the guy who is insisting on Wiki policy being followed. ChrisO's ethics should disallow him to bring Misplaced Pages into any legal battle. As editors, our policies are clear. We are to use unimpeachable, published to the public sources of information. But that isn't ChrisO's way. Instead he attempts to pull others into his, "let's expose the Church of Scientology for what it really is" and wants to cite legally disputed documentation in citations and unpublished documentation, etc. etc. It is plain wrong. Then, to make himself seem innocent, he denys he has done anything wrong because there are copies of it online. Perhaps you begin to get a glimmer of why these articles are so hotly contested. ChrisO does what is plainly illegal. At least it is plain and clear to me. And this is not a personal attack to ChrisO, this is simply a statement of how ChrisO behaves in his edits. He removed the whole article and placed his own. Then when we edit his article he claims, "you are only presenting your POV !" Then when people talk toward arriving at how to present the information which comprises Dianetics, when we begin to get close to a consensus, he runs to mediation instead of continuing to talk. Now he wants to fork the article. ChrisO is difficult to deal with, but if you are utterly convinced that nothing useful could ever come from Dianties, ChrisO might be your leader, for that is always his direction and intent. Terryeo 06:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually he is wrong - he has a bizarre notion that if a document is published (no matter how widely) within the organisation rather than to the general public, it's somehow "unpublished". But anyway. The document is quoted in "The Ultimate Spin Doctor: L. Ron Hubbard - The Man and His Myth", Watchman Expositor Vol. 13, No. 5, 1996; I've added that reference to the article and restored the citation that Terryeo deleted (which I agree is highly relevant). It's also cited in rather more detail in this document, an affidavit by a Canadian professor of sociology who's one of the leading academic experts on Scientology (search for the term "integrity of source"). -- ChrisO 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I read some of that link. The guy is mistaken, though in my opinion his misunderstanding of what Hubbard did is not germane to writing a Dianetics article. Its also worth noting that his testimony comes long after Dianetics was fully developed and working. Terryeo 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am actually right and you are actually wrong. Published means "to the public". WP:V is your source of information or Publish which states: "Publishing is the industry of the production of literature or information - the activity of putting information for public view. " Terryeo 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Terryeo's "reasoning" usually tends to escape me, but those are much better sources. Were they previously part of the article, and deleted by Terryeo? Tenebrous 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted practically nothing from the article. ChrisO ends practically every post with some kind of slanderous implication. I'm sure you'll get the idea soon. Terryeo 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Tenebrous and ChrisO are wrong about what is citable. WP:V is the policy we all work from. "Published" means published and made available to the public. An inter-office memo, executive directive or other inter-department or inter-agency communication is not published to the public. You are both just plain wrong to misunderstand what consitutes a citable source of information. If you wish to do expose' type work, a newspaper or perhaps Xenu.net is your springboard. For Misplaced Pages work, sources shall be "unimpeachable". ChrisO has cited in another article, the very documents the Church of Scientology has won court judgements on. His justification is, "they appear on Xenu.net AND 'I' have a copy of them. Neither justification constitutes the requirements for a wikipedia verification. "Published" (to the public) is the threshold for citation on Misplaced Pages. There can be arguement about how available such a document is, but there is no arguement (that I've found or others have presented) about a document being made available to the public. The one we were talking about was never made available to the public. That ChrisO has found copies of it in forums, in his closet or elsewhere does not meet the threshold for verification by Misplaced Pages standards. How clear can it be, get your damn nose out of the dirt and let's make a user - friendly article ! Terryeo 05:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No - I felt it was better to quote the primary source, though admittedly you have a valid point about quoting from Usenet. However, I think it's fair to say that Terryeo hasn't exactly been rigorous about providing his own citations (if I'm not mistaken, I don't think he's contributed any of the 87 footnotes currently in the article). There is a certain - shall we say - disparity between the rigor that he demands of others and the rigor that he applies to his own contributions. Unfortunately this is one of the main reasons why we've been having so many problems with this article. -- ChrisO 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You, ChrisO, delteted the quantity of hard work which created an article. You inserted wholesale what is there now. You did that with a complex footnote list. Now you attempt to remove yourself from the situation? I created the historical book list. I insereted it a number of times. Until mediation begin, you or one of your 'followers' deleted the whole of my book list every time I inserted it. Now ChrisO, you attempt to wriggle out of the responsibility of having created a convoluted, article with a lot of footnotes? You claim you are the only one who made any of those footnotes? Yep! Exactly. You created the whole damn thing, and you did it against the will of a number of editors. When you asked for comments, you were told. The article communicates nothing of Dianetics. I remember spirit of man used the words, "of no worth at all". I was probably less polite.Terryeo 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention the many footnotes that you worked into and throughout your article that you created, ChrisO, and in creating and posting it, removed ALL of the other editor's work:

• footnote 4 reads:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health page 79 and Glossary
• footnote 5 reads: Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 125. New Era Publications, Copenhagen (1988)

So why, exactly, should a reader be expected to have 2 copies of DMSMH from two different continents?

• footnote 6 reads:"Dianetics and Religion", Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin vol. 1 no. 4, October 1950.

Who publishes or published that and where is it available today?

• footnote 7 reads: Dianetics". Astounding Science Fiction, May 1950. :Where is that available and why can't you refernce to the online version of Terra Incognito?
• footnote 8 reads: Letter from John W. Campbell, cited in Winter, p. 3 - "His approach is, actually, based on some very early work of Freud"

The fabled "winter" publication. But where is that publication available? The footnote list does not say a thing about Winter's publication before footnote 8.

• footnote 9 reads:Joseph Breuer and Sigmund Freud, "Studies in Hysteria", Vol II of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Hogarth Press, London (1955).

Surely you don't mean the entire works of Sigmund Freud should be read to understand the line you reference with that which is: "with an accompanying expression of emotion?" Surely not !

• footnote 10 mis-states the title of the Lee Report. It is titled, The Lee Report on Dianetics and Scientology.You ask me to contribute footnotes. But it was you who deleted everyone's work but your own, ChrisO. And those are your footnotes which could really use a little work, you know? If I were to in addition to the confusion you have created, insert yet more confusion, that wouldn't be good, would it? Why don't you straighten out your work a little bit and we can get on with creating a good article :) Terryeo 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well happy Ho Ho's ChrisO ! You notice that I am actually speaking to you and haven't "dismissed you as a dianetics-hater?" Perhaps you notice that. It would have saved mediation if you had only spoken to me. The issues which took it to mediation could have been talked about. One and most importantly, that we all follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, and two, that we all follow WP:CITE (without a dagger). And third that we talk. In the aforementioned Policy directive, it would be incumbant on you to provide an accurately stated citation and its attendant weblink. Some of the other cites which you placed are also somewhat suspect. But more to the Forth point. If you wish to treat Dianetics as pseudoscience, and follow ] then you should spell out WHY you are placing the entire qualification routine for a scientific theory. That isn't what the guideline tells you to do. It makes the article excessive, long and useless. Who cares? You prove it or you don't prove. There is no gain in attempting to overwhelm the reader with how rigorously you present your information. That's silly. That is like holding up a placard and pedantically going through the steps on the placard one by one. Let's get that "here is how to prove something is science" out of there. Terryeo 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting ChrisO. I suppose you do understand that neither the "Watchdog Commitee" nor their "policy directives" are any longer in force? The document you quote (from 1982) was created for a specific purpose which I could deliniate (but won't for brevity), but in any event it was neither published to the public (and is therefore unciteable) nor was intended to remain in force for more than a handful of years. It isn't a valid citation. Where do you get these beanbrained ideas, anyway? Terryeo 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can provide a source that says that the directive was cancelled. As for the Watchdog Committee no longer existing, the Scientology website says otherwise . I'm beginning to think you really don't know much about Scientology. ;-) -- ChrisO 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your citation is wrong. get it? Terryeo 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It has never been published and it is not a valid citation. Will several more repititions of this datum get through? Do you wish to take this one too to mediation? If it isn't published, it isn't true for Misplaced Pages purposes. You just admitted it wasn't published. It is therefore not a valid citation. Terryeo 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's Game

Terryeo's fallacy (of which I suspect he is fully aware) says: "What mainstream science shows that Dianetics is a pseudoscience?", as if the burden of proof is on science itself, or some branch of it. As usual, Terryeo has it backwards: it is Dianetics that must back up its own claims, and serious claims require serious proof. As long as there are no articles in legitimate scientific journals expressly vindicating Hubbard's half-a-century-old bizarre medical claims, the case is closed. You can't say "I propose that the Earth was created in 1976 by a giant mutant stargoat named Bob" and then demand benefit of the doubt if there's no specific science journal that bothered to assess such a vague and wild claim. So far, mainstream science has found no more reason to recognize Dianetics than it has the giant mutant stargoat. wikipediatrix 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, I am sure you remember reverting others of ChrisO's unpublished citations. Please discontinue reverting the current example of an unpublished citation that ChrisO and I are going around about. His source is a directed, internal to the Church of Scientology which was never published (to the public) document. He is wrong to have cited it, I have removed it and it is inappropriate to revert it. If he wishes it reverted then he should be taking the responsibility for his wrong actions and doing it himself. Terryeo 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish and choose to present Dianetics as a pseudoscience then it is incumbant upon you to present how mainstream science shows it to be pseudoscience. As I have stated many times I would present it as per Wiki policies on "theory" or, conceivable, as religion. Have fun, the choice is yours :) Wheeeee... Terryeo 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Skeptic link I already gave you did just that, and with references. I can get more scientific anti-Dianetics sources if you want, though, there's certainly no shortage of 'em. And it's not an "either/or" as you always try to frame things: even a theory can still be pseudoscientific. So can a religion if it, as in the case of Scientology/Dianetics, it combines the two in a very convenient way. The Heaven's Gate religious cult is based on pseudoscientific concepts, for example. Lastly, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth AGAIN by changing my title to my post from "Terryeo's Game" to "Appropriate Editing". That's a new low even for you. wikipediatrix 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to treat Dianetics as a pseudoscience, then we follow that policy. If you wish to do otherwise, just say so. Yes, I did change that heading. Nor would I put your screen name up in blaring lights. Terryeo 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious by now, it should be. The article does not treat Dianetics as a pseudoscience, do you get it? What the article does, it presents Dianetics in a bad light, but it does not treat Dianetics as a pseudoscience as per Wikipolicy about that. IF the article did treat Dianetics per Wiki Policy, pseudoscience, Diantics would appear to be in too good a light, too fine a thing for those editors who are slandering it to tolerate. I was sure you all would't treat Dianetics as per Wikipolicy about Pseudoscience. However, I really do not know, exactly, how it should be treated to arrive at a NPOV. I would say, if we don't present at least some of the information which comprises the subject, present it in an understandable way, we are not doing a good job. Terryeo 08:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific when you state that the article presents 'Dianetics in a bad light'? Please point at specific sentences which you disagree, since vague characterization of the article is not going to help others to comment whether or not they agree with you. Currently this article is very well referenced, so I'm doubtful the article get it all wrong. This is why you need to be specific. This talk page has become very difficult to read, so it would be useful that you state point by point, while being very specific, where you disagree. Also, please, refrain to demean others as being 'ChrisO followers', most of us simply aspire at being reasonable, and if that means that we support the article in its current form, that doesn't make us 'followers'. Raymond Hill 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Povmec/Raymond. You're right in the sense that I say "ChrisO followers" because he chose to be clear to me that he was not alone in his mediation request which he stated pretty clearly to be in reaction to me. I understand everyone is individual :) I am saying the article does not introduce the subject matter which comprises Dianetics.

• The first sentence of Dianetics#Basic_concepts_of_Dianetics could have introduced something about Dianetics, but instead includes the dispersive german language reference, making it more difficult to understand what Dianetics is about, rather than making it easier to understand the term.I see, my posting has been chopped up, I have to sign each bit of it. Terryeo 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• διανοητικ-ός is German? You've made this mistake repeatedly - do you really not know the difference between German and Greek? (They're very different, I can assure you...) -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good, assure me by getting that dispersive, non-sequiter string of non-contributory alapha hash out of the article and put it into an article where it contributes something. It contributes confusion in the article as I stated above. Do you get it yet how your inclusion of that does not lead to a reader understand the subject which is Dianetics?Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• In going on with "Basic Concepts", at no point in it has any editor who knows Dianetics been allowed to post what Dianetics is all about, Spirit of Man and my edits are constantly reverted, people post up excuses like "POV!", reverting. etc. Very very little discussion is done about those sorts of edits, but they prevent the subject from being introduced in an understandable way.Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Under "Scientific Evaluations, the first line presents that Hubbard's idea had some connection to Freud (Hubbard has credited Freud, but been specific about his credit). The article's credit to Freud cites an entire chapter of Freud's work and makes no mention of what specific area Hubbard found Freud's work to be helpful about.

Hmm, somehow my signature was removed from my discussion, I sign again. Terryeo 18:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure this can be clarified in the article. -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Again you ignore the point I am stating. Choose any 6 word phrase, as you did in the article. That was, "with an accompanying expression of emotion." and then quote an enormous book (Freud's complete works) and the reader is to find that phrase in that book? That isn't right, that isn't good editing, that is wrong, that is not per WP:CITE. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Under "Scientific Evaluations" a lot of non-information is presented in a complex way. It states "very few scientific evaluations" and then uses half a page to describe them when they don't apply anyway. Spirit of Man has spelled all this out. The two evaluations in the article did not use Dianetics techniques to evaluate Dianetics. The entire section is a no - information - about - Dianetics section, but it presents that it has information about Dianetics. One of the evaluations used drugs on the person evaluated. That will never work with Dianetics and is completely against Dianetics technology. The other used insufficient auditing, they did something but they didn't do Dianetics.Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is covered by the line "The validity of these studies has been questioned by Dianetics advocates, who have criticized the qualifications and methodology of the authors." -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• You again ignore the point I make. You include a good deal of non-information. You then say it doesn't apply. That is no way to write an article here on Misplaced Pages. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Later, (the only real attempt at a study ever done) footnote 14 states, "one was clearly Hubbard himself". I have read that study (as presented in Science of Survival) and see no mention whatsoever that one was Hubbard himself.Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong study. The one that the article describes is Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results, which says the following:

"Case 1080A. R. L. According to service records, this case, as verified by physicians and X-rays, was suffering from a duodenal ulcer and myopic astigmatism. In 1948 his condition was reaffirmed by further medical examination and X-rays. Later that year he was processed by dianetic techniques until he had achieved a release, many engrams being contacted which accounted for his physical condition. Late in 1949 a medical examination showed him to be free from all duodenal scar tissue and that his vision had returned to normal (20/20, 20/20). In December of 1950 a medical examination demonstrated that he had continued in this good health despite the fact that many elements had entered his environment which would have been expected to cause severe nervous strain."

This matches exactly Hubbard's own medical record and circumstances (and note that the subject is referred to as "R. L." - "L. Ron" reversed). His medical status was recorded by the US Navy (in "service records") which found that he was suffering from a duodenal ulcer and myopic astigmatism. He was given a medical examination and X-rays in 1948 by the Veterans' Administration which reconfirmed the diagnosis. He supposedly received Dianetic processing in 1948, two years before Dianetics was even published. The reference to "many elements ... expected to cause severe nervous strain" also matches Hubbard's career - in December 1950 he was fighting a divorce suit with his wife and Dianetics was in the middle of a financial meltdown. Every detail of the example matches Hubbard, so it would be an amazingly unlikely if it was not him. -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see that what you are saying about case number 1080A probably applies to Hubbard. Will you then make the study clear in the article? Perhaps it is only that you introduce so much dispersion that I drew the conclusion that study was from Science of Survival. Perhaps if you removed the non-studies from the article, those few bits of information that are realistic could be understood. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article has by this time presented 2, what it calls scientific studies" (which were not as I have stated for the reasons I have stated), and one study of 88 persons done per Dianetics standards. So is that enough? No, instead the article goes on for 2 more paragraphs in a critical tone of the one study done. That just isn't balanced at all.

• So we should ignore the methodological flaws of the "study"? How is that balanced? -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• We should pare the information available to present to the reader that information which is most helpful to him, toward understanding Dianetics. That is why a reader comes to the article, to understand Dianetics. Not so that he can be dispersed, but so that he can understand Dianetics. Perhaps too, so he can find linking articles about Dianetics subjects, reading material online and other places where he might buy Dianetics books, etc. We do it for the reader and we do it with the reader's intent in mind. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The American Psychological Association chose to ignore Dianetics. Fine, good. But the article presents this information as if were important information to the information which is Dianetics.Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it's important. If professional scientists and medical professionals rejected it on specific grounds of lack of evidence, that is very very relevant. -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• At this point I don't agree that the American Psychological Association has either "professional scientists" nor "medical professionals" within it. However, be that as it may be, their choosing to ignore Dianetics and their stating their reasons for ignoring Dianetics is perfectly good information to include, in a context. The way to do it would be with a citation which includes their statement (hopefully with their reason) and possibliy an internet link to their webpage which states their reason. In that manner, a person could understand how, when and why the American Psychological Association chose to ignore it, get more information, possibly E-mail those guys and even compare America's stance in about that to say, Psychological Associations in Germany, etc. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not a single word of what it is like to be a Clear, of how it might be an improvement is in the article. No one can learn a thing about whether Clear is a realistic thing or not. one statement about Clear says, "clears" -- who strangely enough are never available for public appearance". Well, John Travolta says otherwise. Other celebrities say otherwise.Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The quote comes from a 1951 article and describes the case as the author saw it then. John Travolta wasn't even born in 1951. -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Again, you ignore the point I make which is, The article does not give a balanced view of what "Clear" is. It presents only slander and belittlement of every possible "release", "improvement" or "clear." Additionally, let me point out, anyone who has done any OT level became Clear before they did an OT level. True always, true for celebrities, etc. Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article lays out a template for proving Dianetics is a pseudoscience. Our guildeline, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience does not tell us to lay out the template. It tells how to deal with pseudoscience and it is not by laying out a template and plugging into it in a long, torterous step by step layout in an article. That beginning section, Dianetics#Dianetics_and_pseudoscience which is nothing but a cut and paste off of WP:NPOV should come right out of there. Well, I'm only getting started and have used up too much discussion page, I'll quit here. Terryeo 19:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, the start of Dianetics#Dianetics_and_pseudoscience (and, indeed, the whole section) is modelled on Intelligent design#ID as science. You haven't come up with any good reason why we should treat Dianetics any differently to ID. -- ChrisO 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• You miss my point entirely. To include a big chunk of bolded text which is the source of what you are going to do is not how the guideline says to go about doing it. The policy which we operate by is not to become a part of the article. You read the policy, you apply the policy, you create the article. You Don't cut and paste the policy into the article and then follow it in the article. Get it? Terryeo 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Footnote 3 states: "Hubbard borrowed the idea of an "engram"...." But it gives no citation whatsoever for Hubbard having borrowed anything. Further, I know myself because I have read a good deal about Hubbard's use of that word, that word perfectly fits what Hubbard wished to communicate. He "borrowed" it from the english language. The english language (choose your dictionary) says "a posited change in the nervous system caused by ..." and Hubbard did not deny there might be a change in the nervous system. On the other hand, he didn't inisist there be a change. He used to word in speaking about a memory. Footnote three is not cited, is POV wherein the author draws a conclusion (Hubbard borrowed the term from...) without stating a source of information for his conclusion. That's just bad editing. However, as obvious as it is to me, when I remove that very, very bad footnote, people revert my edit with no discussion. heh ! Does it amuse you too, this game we play?Terryeo 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto

Well I'm seeing talk, as stated in the edit summary - what I'm not seeing is anything about the section header title. Requesting it now. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this talk page seems to be getting a bit hard to navigate... see under #The emergence of Dianetics. -- ChrisO 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That whole "kansas" section is plainly not about Dianetics at all. Instead it is a tortured attempt to make small of Hubbard. Just preceeding it too, it implies without stating that Hubbard is having economic problems, etc. This is an article about Dianetics and not about Hubbard. Many of ChrisO's citations are not direct, either. For example, whole books are cited to support some points. A citation should be a quote, or nearly a quote and the cited material easily available, ideally with a mouse click where a person could read the context of the quotation. In this manner a person could explore the knowledge which is Dianetics to their satisfaction. Terryeo 07:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing publishing company

As part of the issue is the relevancy of who publishes what, removing publishing company names under the pretense that they are already dealt with by the ISBN is unreasonable. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant to what? That list is not of reference sources used to create the article, it is a list of texts relating to the subject. Think of it as a "Further Reading" section---perhaps it should be labelled as such. It is relevant for us, here, to know who publishes what, so that a judgement can be made on the reliability of the source. The casual reader should not need this information, especially in a list that is not referenced by the article---that's a separate list, which does include the publisher. Also, please note that Terryeo's changes were prompted by discussion on this talk page: I will assume that your rather uncivil behaviour is due to your ignorance of this, relating no doubt to the difficulty in navigating this talk page. The changes were, in my opinion, purely stylistic, but I am willing to listen if you can argue otherwise. Tenebrous 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, publisher is expected per WP:CITE, along with year, author, and title. For footnotes page number is often desirable. And there is a handy-dandy example page here. KillerChihuahua 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, note that this list was introduced by Terryeo on Feb. 6, with the argument that it was to counterbalance the fact that Dianetics was shown 'in a bad light', as a pseudoscience. At first it was placed quite in the middle of the article. It is my opinion that such a list is not needed since Terryeo's argument that the list is a proof that makes Dianetics less pseudoscientific is not reasonable (we don't judge the scientific nature of a topic by the amount of published books by the corporation that owns the copyrights) We already have L. Ron Hubbard bibliography, do we really need that list here? Raymond Hill 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Its okay, go ahead and talk about Dianetics as a pseudoscience, that's okay with me. My objection was that not enough information was available about what Dianetics publications there have been and are today. I felt there was nothing but "pseudoscience" presentations without anything but slander, as if Dianetics happened 50 years ago and was no longer published. If there is some good and realistic information in the article about Dianetics, then I'm okay with other editiors sounding off about it being pseudoscience. heh. Terryeo 18:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a stretch to assume that the reasons given for citing sources used in the article are also valid for references that are not used in the article. But I will concede the argument: it makes sense to keep a consistent style through the article. As to the necessity of this list, I don't think it's unreasonable to include a list of further reading on Dianetics and various criticisms of Dianetics that are not used as sources by the article. His argument for the inclusion of a list of further reading is obviously invalid, but it does not automatically follow that such a list does not belong in this article. Tenebrous 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did introduce the book list, maybe 2 months ago. I did introduce it because at that time the article implied hardly anything had ever been published about dianetics. All Dianetics books published today have Hubbard as the author. The whole list is about a dozen books. As a "further reading" list it isn't too long. Since he is deceased, it isn't going to grow longer. 2 books about Dianetics were published with the permission of the author. Neither of them was repuplished. One of those was Ruth Michells (spelling might be wrong) How to Choose Your People. it was an easier, more readable version of Science of Survival. I am not really sure whether to include the publisher or not. I use ] to be sure the current ISBNs are used.Terryeo 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I first introduced the whole list of publications that comprises Dianetics on Jan 16.

Please tone it down

I hereby request that User:Terryeo tone down his advocacy and engage in discussions. In particular, he has ignored fundamental points of Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks, and Misplaced Pages:Consensus. I suggest if User:Terryeo persists that a User RfC be brought against him. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

you have a nice day Mr. Apologist. Terryeo 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics as an applied philosophy

I would say our best way to present the subject is as an applied philosophy because it is a body of knowledge (a philosophy) which purports to educate a person how to do something. It contains a theory about the mind (philosophy about what a mind is composed of, how it goes wrong, etc) and the subsequent use of its theory in action (auditing). I don't think we are going to make headway by treating it as a pseudoscience because there is no "science of the mind" although you might get an arguement from a psychologist about that. So if you just turn around and ask that psychologist, "what is a mind composed of" he/she won't be able to answer you. Instead he/she will start talking about the brain. Well, Dianetics doesn't include the brain in its theory. Dianetics is a body of knowledge (or purported knowledge) about the mind (thoughts, thinking).Terryeo 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that it isn't Dianetics: The Modern Philosophy of Mental Health, it is Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. And it isn't promoted by the Church of Philosogy, its promoted by the Church of Scientology. KillerChihuahua 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of those statements are certainly true, no arguement about either of them. The reason I suggest it is because it is an application, something designed to be done in the manner of cooking a meal or roofing a building. While Intelligent Design might be called a pseudoscience (by opponents) or a philosophy (by adherents), it doesn't suggest doing anything. Dianetics on the other hand is toward action, toward application, toward doing something, auditing. Scientology is presented as "an applied religous philosphy". Dianetics, if presented as "an applied philosphy" would align the two with each other. Then too: Philosophy: n 1: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school" from a dictionary.

But it is not presented as "an applied religous philosphy" so the whole point is moot. This is specious at best. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, intelligent design's adherents didn't start describing it as a "philosophy" until the Dover verdict stated plainly that ID was not science. -- 192.250.34.162 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as you like. Terryeo 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is simply repeating here an error of his that's already been debunked: namely, that if "science" makes no claims on a particular subject, then nothing which does can be described as a "pseudoscience". However, "pseudoscience" is not defined in relation to the body of knowledge sometimes called (by synecdoche) "science", it is defined in relation to what "science" actually is, which is the system of acquiring knowledge. It doesn't matter if "science" declines to make any pronouncements on, say, the afterlife; a belief system which asserts a scientific nature (for instance, calling itself "the modern science of mental health"?) and yet fails to meet the requirements to be actual science is pseudoscience. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included a section above substantiating Dianetics meets the "8 precepts" asked of science. Please withdraw your "error" "already debunked" statement. Or dispute my arguements. It is easy be superficial and criticize, it harder to back up what you say. To me it is shallow to quote from Carroll about how he can't see how tests could be, when most of the libraries, of the day, in the country contain the graphs and evaluations that led to tests that demonstrate what he is trying to assert can't exist. Same with Hayakawa. If Hayakawa represents pscychology then that subject can not possibly meet your 8 precepts, can it? What other mainstream mental study meets your criteria for "science"? If you can not cite one trustworthy example, you are not on firm ground to make the assertions you do. Spirit of Man 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You came late into the discussion Antaeus. We have been talking about pseudoscience within the context and definition of WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. More exactly, we have been talking about Dianetics as a pseudoscience toward treating it as a pseudoscience within the article. WP:NPOV tells us how to do this action. Most of this discussion has been about how to produce an article. There are two thoughts here, one of them centers around your statement. That is, "what the hell is Dianetics?" The other thought centers around how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics to produced a balanced, useful - for - the -reader article. I don't mind if you all call Dianetics "pseudoscience" heh. But Dianetics is (whatever you call it) about the mind. The mind, independant from the human body. Just plain thought and thoughts. That's its whole interest. Well, the problem there is, there IS NO other disipline that addresses itself to thought and thoughts. So there is no "mainstream" science in the area. So how can mainstream science be used as per WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience to show Dianetics is a pseudoscience? heh ! Terryeo 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Immaterial, absolutely unnecessary. A pseudoscience does not have to conflict with any body of recognized science in order to be pseudoscience; it merely has to be presented as science, without following the scientific method. In this case, however, you are also wrong. Psychiatry is the science of the mind. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Could you please provide a link by which I might educate myself that Psychiatry is a science of the mind (as compared to, opposed to, or included by) a science of the brain? Terryeo 19:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why, are you planning to expand to editing Psychiatry also? KillerChihuahua 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Neurobiology? Or Psychology? KillerChihuahua 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Terryeo has tried to redefine Psychosomatic illness in a Scientology context - does that count? -- ChrisO 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget the soon-to-be-deleted Philosophy of Life travesty. wikipediatrix 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is why we talk here, Wikidiatrix, though I see ChrisO's attempt at dispersion has sucked you into non-sequitarity, heh ! Terryeo 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My reason for requesting a citation from User:KillerChihuahua about his statement, "Psychiatry is the science of the mind" is explained below.Terryeo 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I may (or may not) have "come in late" but I think the fact that I'm not repeating claims that were debunked in the very post to which I'm replying gives me a certain edge. If you're trying to argue that we cannot describe Dianetics as a pseudoscience because there is no "majority (scientific) view" to describe, you are wrong on two counts: when a belief system asserts certain claims, and those claims fail to meet the criteria necessary to be considered scientifically sound, the scientific view consists at the very least of the observation that that belief system is not science and its claims are not correctly regarded as such. Secondly, even if you could find some particular pseudoscience for which there was no "majority (scientific) view" to describe (probably impossible, for reasons just outlined) the idea that Misplaced Pages would thereby be forced to describe it as something other than pseudoscience is, I'm afraid, nothing more than a figment of your imagination, the same imagination that caused you to misread the five words "term and topic and context" as 'always term, always topic, always context, always in that order and no other' and caused you to fail to realize that the very page you cited as support for that claimed interpretation contained examples clearly contradicting it. You prove for us on a regular basis, I'm afraid, the truth of the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not telling you how you might edit :) I am not arguing how you may describe :)Terryeo 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Killer you stated that "Psychiatry is the science of the mind" in my response to stating the Dianetics presents itself as a science of the mind, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health and then I asked you to paste a link which supports what you said, isn't that what happened? And rather than support what you said you are asking me what my motivations are for asking you for a link which supports what you said? Have I got it so far? Okay, the reason I ask for a link which supports what you said is because what I understand psychiatry to be is different than what you have stated Psychiatry is. So, I hoped to understand what you meant because I expected that you would post at least one link, maybe even an official psychiatry site or such, which states that "Psychiatry is a Science of the Mind." I hope my logic makes sense to you. What is ChrisO dispersing this simple request for? You say "A", I ask about "A" and you ask me why I want "A" and ChrisO comments that "terryeo failed at "R". I am telling you why I want "A", okay? What is with the dispersion? All the time with you ChrisO, you can't allow a communication to take place but that you disperse it. You do it in the Article, you do it in the talk pages, you do it by citing unpublished documents, you do it all the time. What is with you?Terryeo 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was unclear when I stated: "A pseudoscience does not have to conflict with any body of recognized science in order to be pseudoscience; it merely has to be presented as science, without following the scientific method." I then gave Psychiatry as an example (which I think was where I wasn't verbose enough) of a science of the mind. But it doesn't matter, because there does not have to be any science of the mind for Dianetics to be pseudoscience. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Even psychology, generally considered one of the 'softer' sciences, can show scientific results that Dianetics cannot match. An example is the question of "false memories": it was debated whether people could be induced to believe they were remembering things they had seen, heard or otherwise experienced when those things had never actually occurred. Experimental tests were set up in which people were presented with a carefully controlled set of stimuli (a movie depicting a car accident), and then asked questions about the contents of the movie, leading questions which implied things in the movie that weren't actually there ("How long after the accident did the ambulance arrive?", for instance, when no ambulance had appeared in the movie.) A significant number of the subjects did in fact 'remember' the ambulance arriving, after having it implied to them by the question that it had. This verified that false memories can be induced by suggestive questioning. Now, let's compare this to Dianetics. Those who had reached the state of "Clear" through Dianetics, Hubbard stated, would have "nearly perfect memory". If true, that could be proven experientally. Instead, Hubbard presented "the first Clear" in a 1951 lecture and when asked to demonstrate her "nearly perfect memory" she couldn't remember a common chemical formula (chemistry being the subject she was studying!) and she couldn't, when Hubbard turned away from her, remember the color of Hubbard's tie. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychology is neither a study, nor is it about the "psyche". Dianetics has technology about the subject you bring up. It has methods of handeling such things. It is, however, not directed as psychology has often been directed, toward controlling people, but toward freeing people. When a "false memory" is encountered in a Dianetics situation, an education on that has probably been achieved before the situation arises and there are methods for handeling it when it does arise. Terryeo 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a tickle that in a single public demonstration, the 1951 "clear" couldn't produce, isn't it? Does that mean all of Dianetics is pseudoscience because one of Hubbard's claims was not met by one of Hubbard's products? heh ! Terryeo 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you have said and thank you for replying, Killer. I do understand there would be at least 2 possible arguments which could argue "it is a pseudoscience". One would be that a new body of information conflicts with established, known information. That situation would be easily delt with by wiki's pseudoscience procedure. The second would be what we apparently have here. A body of information which has been developed. The arguement is mostly, "it was not developed by scientific procedure". Again, thank you for replying Terryeo 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Books

Question about this entry:

• 1938 Excalibur (The Church of Scientology says this was written at this point, though never published whole, ). From Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter 26 April 1970R revised 15 March 1975, which appears in The Management Series Volume 1, page 3 (Bridge Publications, Inc. ISBN 0884046729)

What the heck? Would someone explain this to me? KillerChihuahua 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hubbard wrote Excalibur in 1938. The way I've heard it, it was lost overboard on a ship. The information within the typewritten pages has been published in various other publications according to the Church of Scientology. Their statement of that is to be found in the 26 April Policy Letter which is sold to the public as a single Policy Letter or sold to the public within a book whose ISBN you see. Terryeo 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here is the Library of Congress data link: KillerChihuahua 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As a small piece of information, that link will never again be good. It was good when you got it, but the Library of Congress is arranged so a link (kind of quickly) times out. Terryeo 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated link to Library of Congress Search page, wasn't thinking, thanks. However, the ISBN 0884046729 goes to The management series, v. 1. The data series published in 1991. KillerChihuahua 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The policy letter which has that statement is the first policy letter in the book, The Management Series (volume 1) which is itself the first book of a series of books which together comprise The Organization Executive Course and Management Series, the Index of that series of books (itself a 600 page volume) is ISBN 088404667X Terryeo 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A little more about that. the title, The Organization Executive Course by L. Ron Hubbard should bring up a group of books. The Management Series is 3 books. There is then the Index to 3 Management Series (volumes) + 7 Mangement Series (volumes).Terryeo 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job in the article User:KillerChihuahua, the list is crisp and sufficient. Terryeo 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I tidied it a little and put it in order. KillerChihuahua 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason there was a missing single ' thing like that just was and I linked the terra incognita article to its online source. The guidelines says we might link book titles to articles within wikipedia, link authors in such lists and so on. It looks incredibly better Killer, heh !Terryeo 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Now, if only the rest of the article were so easy to tidy... But we'll get there. KillerChihuahua 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

POV intro

The introduction to this article is POV - critical POV without any clear indication of sources. --JimmyT 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

at last! a breath of sanity ! Terryeo 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha! :) While the first paragraph may contain tricky innacuracies, it is apparently a middle-of-the-road report. The second paragraph is clearly critical of Dianetics with absolutely no obvious reference given at all. I changed "most" to "some" but I think the entire introduction should be re-composed. Evaluation should be presented with specific references to individuals from the scientific community or linked to the part of the article which gives the reference, and those evaluations should be presented from an unbiased NPOV rather than a critical POV. --JimmyT 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. KillerChihuahua 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding, where in the article is there a specific instance of unsourced assertions? Because we should definately knock those out, one at a time. KillerChihuahua 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The most recent reversion by you shows that you might possibly already know what I'm talking about. Second paragraph of the introduction to the article, second sentence: It has been criticized as pseudoscientific quackery by most professional scientists and members of the medical community. Please cite all relevant references. And, is quackery the best scholarly and scientific term Misplaced Pages editors can come up with? --JimmyT 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I feel I should point out that as a self-identified "scientologist in good standing with the church" you're not exactly a neutral observer in this discussion... -- ChrisO 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of obtaining a balanced, neutral article, ChrisO, and because you frequently cite unpublished, what you say is, Church of Scientology documentation and additionally have the tendancy to say things along the lines of (you don't know much about Scientology), I am going to reference you to WP:NOR#The_role_of_expert_editors which states explicitly: "On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes experts". Your statements, ChrisO, lean more toward defining sides of an arguement than toward our objective. I seem to remind you of this, in one manner or another manner, more frequently than should be necessary. Terryeo 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not our term. Is this what needs the cite? Here are some to look at to get us started:

• Razor magazine - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Scientology/ReleaseForms/archive/razor-article-* 2003.html
• Clinical Medicine - http://www.lermanet.com/dianetics-quackery.htm
• Scientology Audited - a source for sources - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/

I will add more as I find them, please also if anyone else finds a cite worth considering add to this bulleted list above. Check the links, discussion here about which cite(s) are the best for this. KillerChihuahua 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many references to Dianetics as "quackery". Check this Google search query: . It was described as such by medical professionals at the time (see e.g. this 1951 article from "Clinical Medicine"), and the article reflects that. -- ChrisO 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Razor link is to the same 1950's article. Link a ref, I have no preference. KillerChihuahua 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If Dianetics is to presented as "quackery" then a good cite should be made. Apparently Psychology (at least officially) does not state that Dianetics is "quackery", instead it chooses to ignore it. How about Medicine, has any offical medical organization issued an offical statement defining Dianetics to be "quackery" or "pseudoscience?" If Dianetics is to be characterized by those terms the best possible citation should be made, it would have the most weight. Terryeo 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most, Virtually all, or overwhelmingly?

time to discuss this one. KillerChihuahua 01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have saved us 2 days of edits and counter-edits if whomever insisted "science views Dianetics as pseudoscience" had instead made clear it is medical science they were talking about. "Science" is a lot of disiplines. Terryeo 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the near-total absence of any discussion of Dianetics in medical journals (cf. PubMed) is pretty strong evidence that it plays no part whatsoever in medical science. You would think that if someone was interested in it using as a scientific hypothesis it would have been mentioned by now (it's been over 50 years, after all). I noticed that astrology, intelligent design and phrenology have all received considerably more discussion than Dianetics. As far as science is concerned, it's not just on the fringe, it's on the fringes of the fringe. -- ChrisO 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nods, they have a few medical doctors who have signed on, but a statistically insignificant number. However, the wording " It has been overwhelmingly rejected as pseudoscientific quackery by the medical and scientific communities" might be better phrasing. KillerChihuahua 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any attempts made by Dianeticists in the last 50 years to publish in such journals. As I said above your 8 precepts of Science do not require this of a science. Why are you making such an issue of it, if is not even required?

That being said, the current situation in Scientology is quite different than in the 1950's. I see no prohibition or conflict with doing such a study, even with 1950 materials. I think you mentioned somewhere, why don't Dianetics people do this? This seems so simple to me that it would almost be a no brainer to do such a study again with 88 people. To me that would require one supervisor to train the 88 students and arrange about 40 hours of Book One auditing. That is about 600 man-hours of effort. That could be done by one person or Gund Ho Group for 10 to 20 thousand dollars. I think it could be self-supporting. I'll be we could get 10,000 of those done in the next two years if we got an IAS grant and church sponsorship. What do you think? Spirit of Man 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Church would have to be willing to risk the result being negative. Do you think it's likely to accept that risk? -- ChrisO 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Church will <never> (my estimation) bother, ChrisO. They are busy doing what they do best and have found they do it successful and grow and prosper by doing what they do. They ain't gunna satisfy you about that. And, too, Spirit of Man's estimations sound about right to me, based on what I've seen, heard, etc.Terryeo 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have no data to base your "negativity" on. Let me outline the data that is available to the church. There are 50,000 clears out there with before and after test data. They can not test below 135. I estimate the average IQ of clears at 150. I estimate the before test averages would be between 100 and 120. I would estimate 40 to 60 hours of 1950 style Book One Auditing given intensively, to give at least 10 points of gain on new people. With study technology, training drills, supervisor technology, checksheeted courses and other factors. I wouldn't be suprised if that average was doubled, or met even before they got to the auditing part. I have recomended to a local paper that public school teachers be tested by a demonstration they can teach. We could do the same, by including only supervisors that have shown they can get this level of results before they are included in a study. So I'm saying experienced supervisors, raw public to start. No, I don't think the Church would have any worry about "the average result being negative". I would estimate one percent would go Clear on this level of program. Spirit of Man 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, by the way, I don't see that your eight precepts for a science or theory require the scientific communities review or acceptance. Do you? I think the whole point of this section is extraneaus to the eight precepts you are talking about. I think the pseudoscience section in the article should be removed. Spirit of Man 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Virtually all" seems more accurate than "most" in my opinion. "Most" gives the impression that there are still a minority out there that consider Dianetics scientifically sound, while it is certainly not the case (absence from scientific papers.) We could maybe rework the sentence that this conclusion is inferred from the absence of scientific papers on the subject, rather than an actual survey of scientifics. Raymond Hill 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It might seem accurate to you. I say that you can not substantiate that. "most" will be more than 50%. "many" will be more than say, 10 or 100. "Virtually all" will be like, 90 percent. If you are utterly convinced that "virtually all" appies, it is incumbant upon you to substantiate that. I say that "many" is accurate and "most" is not accurate. "Many" is an easy way to say, you ,know, quite a few. But I am convinced you can not substantiate "most" (what study points to such a thing?) and I am convinced you can not substantiate "virtually all" because again, no study points to that. You might find many by seeking through many opinions but there are probably millions of such professionals around the world, probably "most" of them have not heard of Dianetics and therefore have not offered an opinion. Even Psychiatry refuses to recognize Dianetics rather than to actually take the effort to analyze, record, make studies, etc. So "Many" would be acceptable, "virtually all" is just nonesense and "most" is unsubstantiatable. Terryeo 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda says: "many" is misleading and creates imbalance; please supply a citation that supports "many" over "most". The word "many" is any subgroup which is more than one, in the whole. "most" commonly means, "more than 1/2 of a selected group". Thus, "many" is a much weaker and inclusive word than "most". "Virtually all" is even more inclusive. The statment is about "professional scientists", this would include Biologists, (conceivably) Psychiatrists, Astrobiologists, Physicists, Scientists who study Climate change, Chemists, Bio-Chemists, Nuclear Engineers, etc, etc. Many such people might have heard of Dianetics. To say "most of those people in these many disicplines of science consider Dianetics to be quackery" is silly. It is likely MOST of them have no opinion at all about Dianetics because Dianetics doesn't touch their area of interest. "Many" ?? well, maybe but "Most?" well no. And "Virtually all?", that is just silly. "Virtually all" might apply to "Psychiatrists", that might be a valid arguement. "Virtually all Scientists consider Dianetics to be quackery" is an obviously silly statement. "Most scientists consider Dianetics to be quackery" is an unprovable statement. "Many.... now there is a statement that makes sense. Terryeo 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many" suggests to most people a smaller proportion than "most". To say "many people think..." creates a different meaning from "most people think..." The former suggests substantial dissent. Thus, it is misleading. "The vast majority of scientist who have expressed an opinion on dianetics have expressed the opinion that it is quackery..." would probably be the most accurate way of saying it, but the truth is that "many" is misleading, even if it is not strictly accurate. So "many" falls under the whole "undue weight" idea. Not inaccurate, just misleading. Guettarda 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative: "...is considered quackery by the scientific community". Simple, accurate, verifiable and to the point. Just get rid of all the equivocation. Guettarda 18:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How about: «It considered pseudoscientific quackery by the scientific community.»? Raymond Hill 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you might be able to say something like, "Virtually all psychiatrists view Dianetics as pseudo-scientific quackery". However, if you try to include "all scientists of all disiplines (climatologists, micro-biologists, phsyicists, etc)" into the "Many, Most, Virtually all" arguement then you get into trouble. Even amongst psychiatrists, a few consider Dianetics to have some value. It is incumbant on the editor to supply a verification for his statement. WP:V, therefore if you all want "most" then you are going to have to suppy a verifcation of "most". "Many" is another story. The internet might have "many" scientists (most will be psychiatrists) whom state dianetics is quackery. In general, scientists who work in electronics, math, satellite technology, etc, well, those things don't touch on Dianetics. BTW, here is a synonym study about many, most . Terryeo 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have entered the wrong link - this link leads to a list of dicdefs. Guettarda 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

He's telling you that you don't understand the meaning of "most", I think. ;-) -- ChrisO 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not telling anyone what they understand or don't understand. Both of those words have several meanings. I believe "most" is being used in the sense, "of a number of individuals, (say 100), those who have opinions about Dianetics number (say 20), "most" consider Dianetics to be quackery." I think that is how the word is being used. There are other meanings to the word. A very common meaning of the word "most" is "most, more tha 1/2". I submit that is the meaning most commonly applied by a reader in this context. More than half. I think a reader understands the sentence to mean, "of all of Earth's scientists, 51 per cent or more consider Dianetics to be pseudoscience." Where actually, 51 Percent of all scientists might never have any opinion of Dianetics. I did not say and did not imply some one did not understand the meaning. Nonetheless, the term has several meanings. It seems to me different editors are understanding the word in different ways. Terryeo 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's considered quackery by the medical profession. It's also considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community in general (not just psychiatrists, despite Dianetics/Scientology's apparent belief that it's been persecuted by them). I think we need to note both.

ChrisO wrote that paragraph but it is very very obvious his use of the term "scientific community in general" is very, very limited. Science mainly concerns itself with the physical universe, with electrons and space and with materials and making steel harder and more durable. Very very little of science has anything at all to do with the mind.

Ummm. Try Cognitive science: "Cognitive science is usually defined as the scientific study either of mind or of intelligence (e.g. Luger 1994). Practically every introduction to cognitive science also stresses that it is highly interdisciplinary; the primary components of cognitive science include psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, and computer science, while other components include robotics, anthropology and biology." That's a big chunk of science. -- ChrisO 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Subsections of Psychiatry and Psychology may have an opinion about Dianetics, or their parent body, Psychiatry. In addition, Medicine might have an opinion about Dianetics. That leaves 97.5 % of the scientists who just don't care about Dianetics because Dianetics doesn't touch on their sphere of expertise.Terryeo 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics does not even address the physical body. Science addresses the physical stuff. For example, None of the organizations about Physics, astrophysics or astronomy have EVER made any comment about Dianetics. It is out of their sphere. ChrisO, you are talking about a small slice of science. You are talking about a very very few organizations that comment about Dianetics. The word is "many" if the object of the adjective is "all scientists." The word might be "most" if the object of the adjective is "psychiatrists". You are making BIG STATEMENTS ChrisO, but you are not supporting them with citations. Terryeo 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So, in your view, even though medical science regards Dianetics as pseudoscience, another branch of science might take a different view? -- ChrisO 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Medical Science is a pretty big deal. I am not slighting it. On the other hand, Medical Science did not create the rockets and robots that let us explore Mars. Steels today are vastly superior to yesteryear. Airplane and radar technology were developed by people who had no expertise in medicine. Microprocessors and communication technologies weren't developed by the medical community either. Science covers a lot of ground, the sciences which comment on Dianetics are few. Terryeo 03:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As for whether it's "many", "most" or "virtually all", I think we have to find a form of words that indicates that Dianetics is out on the very far fringes with a level of recognition that's somewhere between minimal and non-existent. I don't think we actually need to quantify the number of scientists who believe in it, but can instead say that it's not recognised by science as a science. We can certainly infer the truth of that statement from the near-total lack of discussion of Dianetics in the scientific and medical literature. -- ChrisO 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics takes great pains to be very sure it does not touch on medicine. The two disiplines are in different worlds. Diantics even states outright that people with medical problems should seek medical help. Why do you keep hammering the two into one ball ?Terryeo 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, so that's why Hubbard says in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health that "Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, &c., form a very small section of the psychosomatic catalogue. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psychosomatic. Migraine headaches are psychosomatic and, with the others, are uniformly cured by dianetic therapy. (And the word cured is used in its fullest sense.)"

So you're saying that Hubbard actually didn't say this? In other news, black is white and Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania. -- ChrisO 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking me to verify what Hubbard did and didn't say? I want to produce an article here, not keep looking up what happened years ago. heh! That sure sounds like something Hubbard would say, though I realize it might be a shock to a lot of people that those conditions have anything to do with what they think. Heh. Are we getting into "why did Hubbard state that migraine headaches are psychosomatic?"Terryeo 03:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that kind of presentation is the implication that "fringes" means "every thinking person but those wierdo-nuts". Scientists are respected people who work hard to become educated and work hard at their professions. Almost none of the scientific disiplines have the least interest in mind and thought. The statement is much too broad. Especially your edits ChrisO, continually attempt to saw off pieces of Dianetics. Today, Dianetics is owned, administered and disseminated by a religious organization, the Church of Scientology. You just modified the top-of-page template to deny any discussion whatsoever of religion here. Actually our discussion here is bound by exactly the same policies, guidelines and conventions as discussion in every discussion page, and the article likewise. The word is "many" scientists if you are going to use scientists as the object of the adjective. Until you prove otherwise with a verification. If you want to use "psychiatry" then "most" might apply, but again, a citation is in order. Terryeo 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I eagerly await your evidence that Dianetics has been accepted into the bosom of science (not just psychiatry - its claims touch on many fields, particularly neuroscience, cognitive science, biology and medicine). -- ChrisO 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand this simplicity. The Church of Scientology is not going to establish, now or ever, Dianetics as "mainstream science." It is not even a question at all. Beat it to death as "pseudoscience" and verify the hell out of it. Dianetics is today presented as a workable theory of how the human mind records and stores memory. The reason it is presented that way is because that position is unassailable. They get results. It was always based on results, but it didn't have a results base in the early 50s, so Hubbard presented as a "science". That didn't work, you see? There is no mainstream science that talks about the subject which Dianetics addressses. To reply to you directly ChrisO. Dianetics is doing something. It is not going to pause in what it is doing to satisfy your great urgancy for proof nor for acceptence. This article is about what Dianetics is doing, not about how you feel about Dianetics. Do you see a difference? Terryeo 03:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, why would you add Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion to the notice at the top of this talk page while trying to convince us that Dianetics is not pseudoscientific? Also, considering your statement that Dianetics takes great pain that it doesn't touch medicine, you could certainly read Jeff Jacobsen's well referenced Medical Claims Within Scientology's Secret Teachings before you put forward the same argument in the future. Raymond Hill 02:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Povmec, I added it because Dianetics information is owned, practiced and disseminated by the Church of Scientology. If ChrisO insists all discussion be constrained to only those topic policys he states in the template, then I must expand the template because there are other possible Wikipolicys which information on this page might fall under. As for your Jeff Jacobsen's reference, I again point out how Dianetics in the early 50's presented itself as "along scientific lines" while Dianetics today takes great pains to insure it is not treading on the toes of the medical community.Terryeo 03:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why NPL and nero-linguistic programming

Why that stuff in this dispersed, difficult to arrive at a consensus article? Why stick in further dispersive, off topic, unagreed topics? This sucker is plenty tough enough, we have hardly introduced the subject, we haven't really defined what a dang "engram" is within the context of Dianetics, we certainly haven't developed "reactive" and "analytical mind" yet and Povmec (Raymond Hill) is sticking additional, disruptive and dispersive maybe this NPL and maybe that nerolinguistic programming into the article. WHY? how does that contribute to this article? Terryeo 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I didn't add this to the article. I merely wikified to bypass disambiguation, as noted in the edit summary. I actually share your opinion that this is not helping the article (especially that I couldn't find any "engram" occurrence in the EST article.) A few days ago you said that I stated "alphabetize everything" while I never said such a thing , so please, be careful with your comments. Raymond Hill 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Povmec or Raymond Hill. on 14:31, 2 February 2006 Povmec (→References - reordered properly references alphabetically after Terryeo's changes...) at this edit: which in the context of a convoluted sequence of references which is a complex mix of online, offline, books and even sometimes unpublished and rarely confidential information, makes a difficulty. Alphabetizing in this instance creates more difficulty than it solves (my opinion) and that isn't the only time you have alaphbetized things. Usually I will agree, alaphabetizing minimizes randomity, providing a reader with access to information. But in this area where we are dealing with a vast amount of footnotes and our references to a mix of sources I can't think alphabetizing is helpful. Terryeo 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychosomatic and why it is not

Dianetics cures psychosomatic, but the problem is, what the hell does "psychsomatic" mean? Well, in the 1950s it meant ulcers, migranes, etc. etc. Medicine has advanced, today the meaning is a little different. In the 1950s (Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health) Dianetics purported to address psychosomatic, today it presents itself a little differently. Does it still "cure" psychosomatics"? Well, it just presents itself differently, it didn't change anything but how it sells itself.Terryeo 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics doesn't use that term anymore . It is a medical term. A person receives a physical pain, like receiving a sprained elbow. The incident that contains the actual impact only lasts for one second. He makes a mental record of the pain. The only way he can feel pain in the elbow after that one second of time is for the one second memory of the pain to remain fixed at the elbow chronically instead of just back in time. This chronic pain can then persist or come back again later. In Dianetics this is called a "chronic somatic". In medicine it is called psychosomatic if the pain is believed to be caused by the mind. In medicine you take a drug to cover up the pain in a way you can't feel it. In Dianetics you simply get rid of all the recordings of pains similar to that. In the 70s we would ask, "Do you have any pains?" The person might say, "Yes, I have a pain in the elbow." So then you might say, "Locate a time another caused you to have a pain in the arm", or "Locate a time you caused another to have a pain in the arm." Then you would handle any engrams that came up. Today you might just do a simple assist till the pain goes away. Either way the pain is no longer chronic. Today it is emphasized in Dianetics it is to be used for spiritual gain only. In 1950 attention was paid to more specific problems. Spirit of Man 05:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

heh! you say it better than I do.Terryeo 06:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"The reactive mind is also the source of psychosomatic ills — which means illnesses which are caused by the mind." Dianetics.org Raymond Hill 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So why is the Church of Scientology still selling a book that says it can cure "70%" of ailments, including many which aren't psychosomatic but which Hubbard arbitrarily redefined as being so? Why hasn't Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health been updated to reflect this "different presentation"? We can't get away from the fact that Hubbard's original pseudomedical claims are still being made and endorsed. -- ChrisO 09:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, that is a tough question to answer. Maybe Hubbard was correct about "psychosomatic" and people who try it find that to be true? More exactly because: A. no court case has ever proven different and B. the public buys it. Oh, and as a personal opinion, my guess would be that Hubbard probably errors on the safe side when he says 70%. Terryeo 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a totally bogus argument. Since when have courts been in the business of ruling whether a particular ailment is psychosomatic or not? And since when has that decision been a matter of public opinion? Medicine and science are not democracies. A large chunk of the public believes in astrology. Does this mean that astrology is "proved" to be correct?

Oh, and as you're not a doctor and haven't done any medical research, your opinion of psychosomatic illnesses is worthless. The only evidence that matters is what real research by real researchers has found. -- ChrisO 12:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Povmec's question was not whether my opinion was of any value, but why the Church of Scientology sells a book. I don't appreciate your stating that my opinion about a book being sold has no value because I haven't done medical research. Further, to state my opinion is "worthless" only underlines your consistant refusal to work with editors and continual insistance that your POV (Dianetics is pseudoscience). In addition your smarmy attitude as experessed by insistence that Wiki Guidelines be modified so you can cite unpublished sources at will doesn't help the editing here, ChrisO. Terryeo 18:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's latest POV deletions

Let's take this point by point:

• Hubbard's primary responsibility for Dianetics. It's clear from Winter's book and the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation's journal, the Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin, that Hubbard was one of several people developing Dianetics - John W. Campbell and Winter were among the others. However, Hubbard was clearly the leading figure and the originator of the Dianetics concept, so I've used "primarily" to recognise that. Omitting "primarily" implies that it was all Hubbard's work, which the contemporary sources don't support. It's purely a Scientologist (specifically Hubbard's later) POV that it was all his work. -- ChrisO 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, Hubbard was not "one of several people developing Dianetics". That is the mis-statement which is false, untrue and misleading. It implies other persons at about that time were themselves developing a body of informaiton similar to Dianetics. Wrong. Just plain, simple, wrong. No one else does, no one else did. ChrisO, you and others get so wrapped around producing pseudoscience proof that you are ignoring what Dianetics is about. It is about an activity. The article should include the theory the activity of Dianetics is based on. But to present the theory is impossible because editors keep filling it in with proof of how this element of that element of Dianetic theory is "pseudoscience" and we never get to the activity. ] presents Dianetics as an activity. It is a pretty simple activity, really and has only one direction and only one goal. Can we please have a theory section that doesn't get chopped up with thousands of pesudoscience proofs, but presents the theory and action of Dianetics? This would let a read judge for themselves rather than stuffing "pseudoscience" down the reader's throat! Terryeo 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  It is clear to me that Hubbard was the sole and only developer of Dianetics and no one else contributed to Dianetics except in very very small quantity in any way. And even then, it went through Hubbard and was tested and refined by Hubbard before it became part of Dianetics. What exact 'quote' are you talking about that says someone else contributed to what is Dianetics? Terryeo 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, your last sentence is POV which, of course, is allowed in discussion. --JimmyT 10:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By stating "primary responsibility" very early in the article it is incumbant on the editor to supply a source of information and especially contested information. All of the Dianetics Books and lectures were created by Hubbard. There is no other Dianetics publication but Hubbard's. Without a verification, an information isn't true per WP:V. This brings us to the situation that ChrisO states that Winter's book (which he has read?) contains a piece of information which says that Hubbard didn't create Dianetics. Hubbard wasn't bashful about giving credit to other people, so if Hubbard credited Winter or Campbell, why don't you tell us about that? Terryeo 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, ChrisO, why don't you be a bit more specific. What exact quotation from the Dianetic Auditor's Bulletins leads you to the conclusion you state? I have copies of them here. Which Bulletin, which paragraph, what sentence leads you to the conclusion that Hubbard was not the person who developed Dianetics? Terryeo 16:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I investigate your Winter and Campbell citations, it looks like Winter wrote a book (which of course is his point of view) and in his book he included what he calls a letter from Campbell. Is that the whole body of information which leads you to conclude that Hubbard didn't develop Dianetics, ChrisO? Don't you have a direct quote of some kind? Terryeo 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your comment above: "what sentence leads you to the conclusion that Hubbard was not the person who developed Dianetics". You are misreading again, "developed primarily" doesn't mean "didn't develop". So you are actually arguing with yourself here, since ChrisO did not state that Hubbard didn't develop Dianetics. Raymond Hill 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am actually requesting ChrisO to supply a citation for his statement, "developed primarily by Hubbard". Hubbard cited a number of people whom contributed to Dianetics (by his own words) but at no point have I read any of Hubbard's words that stated he was not the sole developer of Dianetics in this area of "primarily by Hubbard" and so, you see, I am requesting that ChrisO support his continually reverted statement, "primarily by Hubbard" with a citation. Terryeo 01:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you seem to be treating Hubbard as an unchallengable authority. Just because he says something, that doesn't mean to say that it's true.

As for citations, where do you want to start? "Dianetics: A Doctor's Report" is an entire book about how Dianetics was developed. The Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin - the original Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation journal from 1950 - carries numerous articles from people other than Hubbard about how Dianetics is being developed. Independent journals such as the Bristol Dianetics Review describe how other people were developing Dianetics. It wasn't a monolithic setup like Scientology is now. It's not possible to say how much of Dianetics is owed to the contributions of other people, because nobody was keeping a record of that, but there's no doubt that it was developed as a collaborative activity. Hubbard was the leading figure (hence the "primarily") but he wasn't the sole contributor.

When you say "it is clear to me that Hubbard was the sole and only developer of Dianetics and no one else contributed to Dianetics except in very very small quantity in any way" this is purely your own POV - and I notice that you haven't even bothered to provide a source for that, even while you hypocritically demand a source from me. -- 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Scientific acceptance. Medical science is mainstream science. If the science in the field that Dianetics affects regards it as a pseudoscience, it's accurate to say that it's regarded by mainstream science as a pseudoscience. The situation is no different to e.g. biologists denouncing intelligent design as pseudoscience - they can make this decision on behalf of science, as it's their area of professional expertise, and they don't need to enlist the support of all the other fields in doing so. -- ChrisO 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, that contention is POV and I think borderline OR. I never knew Dianetics "affected" medical science. --JimmyT 10:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now ChrisO. You are saying "medical science states that Dianetics is pseudoscience". Well, that is a far more specific sentence than "All science views Dianetics as 'pseudoscience' and so, to be helpful, I've modified the article to reflect what you have stated here. That medical science says that. Do you know of an official statement that any country's medical science has issued? Terryeo 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you state "Do you know of an official statement that any country's medical science has issued?": is this your argument to state that Dianetics is not pseudoscientific? The absence of support in the scientific literature after more than 50 years is what makes Dianetics pseudoscientific. There is no scientific support for it, and if you want to argue this point, you have to come up with reputable sources that Dianetics has been covered in scientific literature, with a demonstration that results of experiments actually support Dianetics' claims. Raymond Hill 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! why do people keep asking me to argue with them that Dianetics is not pseudoscience? That's what you are inviting, right Povmec or Raymond Hill? That I argue that Dianetics is not pseudoscience? For 2 weeks I have been attempting to communicate about that. Feel free to present Dianetics as anything you wish to. My intention is to get presented that information which comprises Dianetics in a manner which is readable and understandable by the reader. That is to say, I would entirely leave it up to the reader to judge whether he thinks Dianetics is pseudoscience, philosophy, sensible, silly or otherwise. I'll put an information in and make sure its source is cited. I'll take information out which is not cited or is poorly cited. I am not making an arguement with you about your position and I don't care if you understand my position or not, I'll just keep trucking along doing what I think is right. Terryeo 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I cetainly don't "keep asking you to argue", I was answering to your point, which I consider flawed. Please, take the time to read the Pseudoscience#Classifying_pseudoscience article on wikipedia, and see how well the basic characteristics of pseudoscience match well Dianetics' characteristics. Therefore, stating that Dianetics is pseudoscience has nothing to do with the contributors' opinion, it has to do the poor (and almost absent) track record of Dianetics with the scientific community. And this is the purpose of wikipedia to report this fact. Raymond Hill 02:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that you consider it flawed of me to request a citation. Yes, perfectly. So here it is again. What citation by what offical group points to Dianetics as a pseudoscince? There, is that clear and straight, understandable by everyone? Myself, This is not an area I'm interested it, but the "pseudoscience" question seems to catch and hold several editors attention. Perhaps if we can deal with it, get the article appropriately cited about it, perhaps we can move on to including in the article, that information which actually comprises Dianetics. After you all finish your hot controversy of course. whew ! <wipes brow> Terryeo 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to cite an official group to define Dianetics as a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is defined by what it is and what it does, not just what someone else says about it. Bunce's criteria, which you keep deleting, provide an objective means of assessing whether a subject is a pseudoscience or not. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• The criteria you deleted have existed for over 20 years and are widely accepted as a way of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. They're a definition of what science regards as the criteria for being scientific. The way that they're presented here comes directly from Intelligent design#Defining intelligent design as science. -- ChrisO 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is Plain foolish to include the criteria which wikipedia states is the basis of judgement for pseudoscience. Tell the reader what the situation is, let the reader judge for themsleves. Include a link but don't clog the article up with bolded formal logic. Terryeo 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  If we say that scientists consider Dianetics to be pseudoscience, it's surely logical to say why they consider it pseudoscientific. As we've seen from this discussion, some people don't understand what distinguishes science from pseudoscience. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of criteria for qualifying a science is de trop in the Dianetics article. Only a statement and/or link is needed. This article is about Dianetics, NOT Scientific qualification criteria. --JimmyT 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See my point immediately above. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You would be right if it wasn't for this talk page, which clearly shows that there are strong opinions (by avowed Scientologists) against characterizing Dianetics as pseudoscientific. Thus, given the controversy, it is certainly appropriate to remind the reader of what are the qualities of genuine scientific theories. Raymond Hill 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your evaluation Povmec or Raymond Hill. Misplaced Pages urges and encourages you and everyone to present good citations which characterize Dianetics in any way you wish to. I believe you are misunderstanding what people are saying here. As an example, maybe 1/4 of this page has been spent in arriving at a consensus "it is the medical sciences which characterize Dianetics as pseudoscience" because the earlier insistence was, "All of science characterizes Dianetics as pseudoscience". So hey, now we are down to finding good citations from the medical community. Hopefully you have a good, official statement from the AMA or something, perhaps from several countrys professional medical organizations which support the pseudoscience idea. Terryeo 01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I am right: only a citation is needed. You and anyone else supporting the extra added are creating an article which employs OR to support the POV. And an applied religious philosophy does not need the endorsement of any scientific community. --JimmyT 09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

JimmyT, it seems you agree with the pseudoscientific character of Dianetics, since with your statement "an applied religious philosophy does not need the endorsement of any scientific community", you actually confirm that Dianetics is not science. And since the book introducing Dianetics is titled "The Modern Science of Mental Health", and since the book contains many medical claims, it is thus certainly appropriate to tag it as pseudoscientific. Raymond Hill 15:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Povmec, hey man, I really get it. You are going to characterize Dianetics as pseudoscience, 24/7/365. Okay man, go for it, have fun. There are other points of view, but why should you listen to other points of view? heh ! Terryeo 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The statement of "typical objections to defining Dianetics as a science" is a straightforward summary of, well, typical objections to defining Dianetics as a science. Our role here is to describe how Dianetics is characterised, not make POV judgments as to whether we agree with that characterisation. Again, the way this section is presented is taken from Intelligent design#Defining intelligent design as science.

If emphasis on a POV that contends that "a particular subject is not a science" is necessary to compose the article and suits Misplaced Pages's purposes... --JimmyT 10:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your censorship of Robert Carroll's quote for POV reasons is completely unacceptable. WP:NPOV does not mean that quoted statements have to be NPOV. In fact, it would be impossible to fulfil that. We have to represent the position of various sides in a controversy and one of the essential ways of doing that is to cite what they are saying. By definition, their statements are likely to be POV. We're not in the job of endorsing their POVs but we do have to report them, whether you like it or not. -- ChrisO 08:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is plenty difficult to follow your convoluated quoting ChrisO, we can but try. Are you saying that Carroll's quote is from a letter which is included in a book? Have you got a good citation we can all read? Terryeo 01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just Google for the quote and stop wasting everyone's time? You can do your own legwork for a change. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you agree we should not include false things? "...Dianetics does not appear to be correctable and dynamic. The original text of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health has not been updated since Hubbard wrote it in 1950 (although Hubbard did develop Dianetics further in later years). Moreover, it is very unlikely that Dianetics will ever be modified as new data is discovered, even if that data definitively proves aspects of Dianetics to be incorrect." It is not possible to update "original text". Spirit of Man 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it possible? Charles Darwin published multiple editions of The Origin of Species during his lifetime, changing it to reflect new knowledge. Hubbard had 35 years between the publication of Dianetics and his death, but as far as I can work out, he didn't change anything in the parts of the book that he wrote.

As for "it still sells millions of copies", this is meaningless except in the context of the book being commercially successful - and even here we have to note the persistent allegations that the CoS inflates the sales figures by buying back its own stock. -- ChrisO 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why include this statement? It still sells millions of copies because it communicates to certain publics. The subject has been updated regularly, as you said. Hubbard felt Science of Survial was better choice for "Book One", but yielded to the public consesus of reserving that title to DMSMH. But then you illogically say it will never be modified. New data has been discovered by the ton, like the Scientology dynamic principle of existence from 1959, CREATE!. These new discoveries have merely reinforced the value of Dianetics and running engrams. This has been proven, time and time again, over the 55 years since that original book. When other workable discoveries were emphisized over Dianetics as the primary clearing method, like "creative processes", it was found that the best long term approach always drops back to engram running. I expect it is possible there is a better way, possibly in the subject of "Self Determinism", but all such research would have to be evaluated what is known, it is known that Dianetics works best. Spirit of Man 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The introduction states: "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind developed primarily ..." And I've requested a citation for "primarily by Hubbard" because there probably isn't any attribution of anyone else having contibuted to Dianetics but Hubbard. "Newton's laws were developed primarily by Newton", "Dianetics was developed primarily by Hubbard". Do you follow? If Newton was not the only developer then a citation would resolve that. If Hubbard were not the only developer, then a citation would resolve that. At present it is not cited. So, hey, per WP:CITE, I remove it. What happens? Well, one of several editors see that I have *gasp* removed an uncited word and immediately revert the change, putting the uncited (and I think unciteable) word back into the article which misrepresents who created Dianetics. I'm following policy here and you are not following policy, those of you whom revert without discussion.Terryeo 04:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Newton's laws were indeed developed primarily by Newton. It's possible that without the support of Edmond Halley, the Principia Mathematica would never have been published. Is he listed as a co-author? Does Newton take a chapter to detail all the people who helped him? No. Is there any published work of that time that states "These people helped Newton"? Probably not. Does that mean that it is inaccurate to say that "Newton's laws were developed primarily by Newton"? Of course not. Saying that other people were significant contributors would probably have to be sourced, and might be inaccurate. Saying that Hubbard developed his ideas solely by himself without any other influences is absurd--the man didn't live in a vacuum. There is nothing inaccurate or misleading about saying that he was the primary developer. 137.229.152.246 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and seems valid. Terryeo 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary source

The primary source: Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should be included in the References section and is reinstated after Antaeus Feldspar's "rv". --JimmyT 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What a curious way you chose that phrasing, JimmyT. "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health should be included in the References section and is reinstated after Antaeus Feldspar's "rv"." Why, it almost sounds as if you are falsely trying to create the impression that I performed a revert which removed that book from the list. Tell me, what reason would you have for saying you "reinstated" something which was never missing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Antaeus, that was my mistake. I overlooked the listing of Dianetics at the bottom of the list. I wasn't falsely trying anything, I was simply doing what I thought was best and made a mistake. Cheers! --JimmyT 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

clears

This:

The current estimate of Clears in 2006 is about 50,000. (REF)Auditor Magizine, published as an ongoing tally by the American Saint Hill Organisation. (END REF)

IMHO needs tweaking. The ref is hidden, of course, unless the reader chooses to follow it. Here is where I feel it is a little unclear (no pun intended): The sentence itself doesn't attribute whose estimate it is. The footnote doesn't make it clear who the American Saint Hill Org is - they're a CoS outfit in LA. So can we say this is an official CoS estimate? We cannot leave this unattributed. KillerChihuahua 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is an official estimate or "tally" actually. It is assembled from around the world. I said "estimate" because the total number is ungoing. A person can be removed if he feels he is not clear. Normally such a person would handle what is needed and request to be recertified. I couldn't find a recent Auditor with the most current official number. But practically this number is even posted on many anti-scientology sites and so can be considered neutral and proven, I think. Spirit of Man 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what specifically is it "hidden" about this? And why are you applying such scrutiny to this citation when the previous one was covertly devious in a major way by quoting a number from before DMSMH was even released in 1950? The order of magnitude for Clears is now 50,000. In DMSMH in May of 1950 it was 273. The current number of people released from specific neuroses, psychoses and self-generated illnesses is far, far higher than 50,000. I just don't have a ref. for that. A specific minor illness or pain, may be handled in the timeframe of an office visit. A local Chiropracter uses Dianetics in his practice. Spirit of Man 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a number of internet sites which kept track of the number of clears. But all of the ones I could find reference back to the source document, Auditor Magazine. For years it published every month. Some webistes have the number of Clears month by month. Then, a few years ago it quit publishing that information. That is how I put it together. Which leaves no source of information of how many Clears exist today, except that the quantity was "about 50,000" not too many years ago. Terryeo 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be attributed, since "Clear" is meaningful only to practioners of Scientology, and left without attribution could give the impression that the term is meaningful outside Scientology. Some sites critical of Scientology seems to agree with this estimate, but they base their numbers on the Church of Scientology's own publications, and thus the estimate really comes from the Church. Raymond Hill 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The simplicity is, no one but the Church of Scientology has defined what a Clear is nor has produced a Clear. There is one and only one source of information about Clears. It is one of those "primary source", no "secondary source" informations as per and WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources.Terryeo 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, it just was not attributed in the article. Now it is. I am a happy puppy. KillerChihuahua 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

slander

Please stop accusing others of slander on this page. I did a quick Ctrl+f search on this talk page and found like 5 or 6 different times the word was used against people. Unless you're prepared to launch a legal complaint (which I'll tell you right now wouldn't meet the grounds for slander), do not make the accusation here. It comes dangerously close to WP:NLT and no less, is a personal pet peeve of mine. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

PS...it was even worse on the Request for mediation page.⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well Jester, may I ask you then, how would a person characterize an editor who cited a military secret to a wikipedia article. Then, when that editor was politely confronted with how that citation and quote was against Misplaced Pages policy and guideline, insisted that he was right and modified guidelines so as to be able to include his citation? How, exactly should such an editor be characterized when he continues to edit in that vein? The reason I ask is because ChrisO does that. And, oddly enough, he tends to lead a few other editors to support his stance in the area of unpublished, confidential Church of Scientology Documents. Terryeo 01:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about those same documents that have been in two court cases? KillerChihuahua 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Xenu Document which the Xenu website is built around is a public document. It became public a few years ago. I don't know what other document you are mentioning about. Scientology is a large organization. It has internal orders and directives which it doesn't publish to the public (like any large organization does). It has a small quantity of confidential documents about the OT (Operating Thetan) levels. Those don't comprise much. I don't know how much, but you know, I've talked with people who have done the levels and stuff and it is not a large amount of information, especially compared to the whole of Scientology's technical information (many linear feet of shelf space). If you have a specific question, I'll try to answer it Killer Terryeo 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, are you comparing the "Assists" lecture from Hubbard to a military secret? Quite a stretch... In any case, I heard that the "secret" document you are referring to can be easily found on internet, example: . If this is the case, that doesn't sound very secret to me. Raymond Hill 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I point out a document is not published. That is simple, direct and obvious. Then ChrisO refuses to recognize he has made a citation which is not in keeping with WP:V and so I state the situation more strongly, and more strongly and more strongly and end up using that word. What happens? Finally, after using that word the citation stays off the page. Why is it necessary to use words like that in order to catch an editor's attention that what they are doing is wrong? Wiki policy is plenty good for what we do here. Even now, editors are replying to the emotion of the word, rather than replying to the obvious off-policy statements, which when ignored, led to my use of that word. May I direct your attention back to producing a Wiki article ?

I am asking Jester what an appropriate characterization of such an individual editor would be if not the word that I'm not going to use. I am in fact comparing the citation in question to a military secret because they carry a similar legal status. From a legally protected organization's point of view, the information within the document is a similarly important, critically important information. In addition, ChrisO has cited other documents (toward putting dianetics and scientology in a bad light) which have never been and are very very unlikley to be published by the Church of Scientology but were created by the Church of Scientology. Is my question now clear to you, Povmec or Raymond Hill ? Terryeo 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry, claiming that the two share a similar legal status is wildly inaccurate. Compare and . Any works by the US government are in the public domain. Classified documents are an entirely different subject. Also, I'm pretty sure there's no legal distinction made between normal copyrighted material and "critically important" copyrighted material, but someone with a deeper understanding of copyright law might be able to correct me on that. In any case, there is no legal argument against including that material here, as it clearly falls under Fair use. I'm pretty sure this was also explained on the mediation page. Tenebrous 10:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, slander is not the issue. A major dispute over this article is verifiability of some of the references cited. Please don't confuse the issue. And if you insist on focusing on Terry, then take it to his talk page instead of spamming this articles talk space. --JimmyT 11:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When did I mention slander? Sure as hell wasn't on wikipedia. I did mention reliable sources, though--right here. You are correct in that the issue is not copyright infringement (which is what I did refer to), but I have not been the one confusing the issue. "Take it to his talk page" Well, guess what, I did that too. Thank you for your constructive remarks. Tenebrous 12:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my mistake again. I better log off before I make more. :) --JimmyT 12:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How would I characterize an editor who cited a military secret? I would report them to the Department of Defense's Criminal Investigation Division, and have them arrested. There's no reasonable action for me to take on wikipedia, and slander has nothing to do with it....the claim doesn't reach the grounds for slander. Slander is a clearly definable legal term, the criteria for which have not been met here. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 02:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a direct and useful reply. Terryeo 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But one which is completely non-analagous to the situation you're discussing. Classified government documents and unpublished corporate documents are two very different things. What's more, de minimis quotes from unpublished documents are not only fair use, they've been explicitly ruled to be such in Scientology litigation. The Church of Scientology sued the Los Angeles Times after the newspaper printed 70 or so words from the very same Assists lecture in an article which discussed the Xenu story. The CoS lost. If I'd posted the entire lecture, or even a large part of it, you might have a valid argument, but citing a single sentence is well within what's allowed.

In any case, you are not a lawyer and your continued complaints on this issue are getting very close to legal threats, which as you know is grounds for an instant block of your editing privileges. -- ChrisO 12:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jester, a faithful Misplaced Pages editor would ensure the citation is removed as unverifiable, are you a Misplaced Pages editor or a turncoat? --JimmyT 09:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jester, a faithful Misplaced Pages editor would ensure the citation is removed as unverifiable, are you a Misplaced Pages editor or a turncoat? --JimmyT 09:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is uncalled for and unacceptable conduct. Please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and remove or take back the comment above. -- ChrisO 12:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please look up turncoat in the dictionary. Jester's statement is exactly what comprises a turncoat. --JimmyT 19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are asking a hypothetical question, and suggest you drop the subject and concentrate on the article. If you want to ask hypothetical questions and debate, I can suggest a number of forums for you. KillerChihuahua 01:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree: Terry has brought up a verifiability issue and some of the editors here are playing games and distracting from that issue. The level of professionalism does not impress me. --JimmyT 09:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo brought up a verifiability issue which, although borderline, I've accepted for now in the interests of moving this article on; I found an alternative source to say the same thing. But he's also brought up a lot of pseudo-legal drivel bordering on threats, which is definitely "playing games. -- ChrisO 12:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The "acceptance" is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. --JimmyT 19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The game ChrisO ignores and attempts to draw attention away from is his game of preventing any information which comprises Dianetics from reaching the article. ChrisO's personal POV is, "Dianetics is original research" therefore WP:NOR applies. If ChrisO would read on just a little bit futher and find WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is and read it, perhaps ChrisO would quit inserting unpublished verifications in a wild attempt to present his personal POV as the only possible POV. That policy, NOR and that guideline spell out how to establish and treat information which is contested as being original research. Terryeo 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Carroll statement

Spirit of Man, do you have a ref for this addition? Which "Dianetics advocates" or advocate said this? - thanks!

My ref is Science of Survival and I wrote it just as ChrisO wrote the Carroll statement. Please state why you removed the edit? You seem to be saying the article must be presented unfairly. Please see "fairness" in NPOV. Should I now remove ChrisO's edit because he wrote it and provided the Carroll citation? Spirit of Man 14:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The editing of this Carroll statement is malicious, harmful and demonstrates a callous disregard for the truth: The empirical testing of claims was presented. The Carroll statement is totally false. The Dianetics study in Science of Survival was presented to fairly balance the false statements in the Carroll statement. The choice of tests, the names of the tests, the number of test participants, graphical representations of before and after tests were given, the test "data" that demonstrates four key claims of the subject is presented. This was all available to Carroll for 20 years at any bookstore in the world. Spirit of Man 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is how the statement reads; "What Hubbard touts as a science of mind lacks one key element that is expected of a science: empirical testing of claims. The key elements of Hubbard's so-called science don't seem testable, yet he repeatedly claims that he is asserting only scientific facts and data from many experiments. It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like. Most of his data is in the form of anecdotes and speculations ... Such speculation is appropriate in fiction, but not in science. "

Is there anyone that will honestly defend the idea that the Carroll edits are not slanderous? Spirit of Man 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Science of Survival is not a respected, peer-reviewed source. I can write any damn thing I want and get it published, but unless there's at least one group of respected scientists who say that what I've written isn't total bunk, whatever I write carries no weight in a scientific discussion. Whether or not the statment is false is also irrelevant--what matters is that it is verifiable. It is highly unlikely that anything on Misplaced Pages could properly be said to be slanderous, as the opinions of the editors are not being represented, only the published opinions of others. Furthermore, you are not the one being slandered. Additionally, any charges of slander would have to be brought against Mr. Carroll. Please do not bring up the subject of slander again; it does not apply. Also, I suggest that you read WP:NLT: you haven't violated it yet, but it's something you need to be aware of. Tenebrous 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard is a respected author with over 120 million in book sales. Do you agree? That book was available in bookstores as I said. I have provided a valid citation per Wiki policy with valid information from Dianetics that answers the point of Carroll's statement. Do you agree? He is talking about "empirical testing" IN Dianetics, NOT a "peer-reviewed" study. That is extraneous and added by YOU. I remind you of WP:NOR. The Introduction to the book provides the exact knowledge Carroll says is lacking FROM Dianetics. It had been available for 20 years. It provides the exact answer to what Carroll is saying, in the context of Dianetics as he asked it. Dianetics did do verifiable "empirical testing" as explained there. Do you agree this is true? To your next defense, "what matters is that it is verifiable." Yes, and from the source that is being addressed. Carroll is specifically addressing Dianetics as the source, not the scientific community or "peer-reviewed" Journals. The context of your statement as it applies to Carrolls statement is that it can ONLY be verified by Dianetics. I have no intention of making a legal threat or going that way in any way. I'm pointing to the injustice here and asking you defend "the callous disregard for the truth". You have not succeeded, you have only confirmed.You said, "It is highly unlikely... as the opinions of the editors are not being represented, only the published opinions of others." No, I don't agree. The opinion of the editor was that Carroll's statement was true and the EDITOR deleted the truthful material. Carroll had no chance to reply to the truthful material, but the editor did, thus my claim. The editor's view is the one I'm talking about, not Carroll's. Do you agree, the EDITING of the Carroll statement has been shown to be malicious, harmful and a callus disregard for truth? Spirit of Man 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with that. The point of including the Carroll quote is that Carroll himself is a well-known expert on pseudoscience - he's the editor of the Skeptic's Dictionary. His views are certainly not novel; it's nothing more than scientific critics of Dianetics have been saying since 1950 (see e.g. Scientific American's original review: "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page than has any publication since the invention of printing." ). If scientists criticise Dianetics, it's worth including a quote from a reputable expert to illustrate this criticism. -- ChrisO 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you delibrately being obtuse? I'm NOT objecting to the Carroll statement being here, but the editing of balanced presentations here that deletes the citation where Dianetics has already answered it 20 years before and was available in all bookstores. Science of Survival clearly presents the information and emirical testing Carroll says is missing from Dianetics. Either the SoS data should be present to balance the lie, or the Carroll statement should be removed and all effort to treat Dianetics as pseudoscience based on it should ended off. Should I make an analogy of your "SA article" and say your rewrite has more false information and more editor deletions of empirical results, than any article since the invention of the Internet? Spirit of Man 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that he is respected within the scientific community. You provided not a valid source which said that that data proved Carroll wrong, you provided the source for the data and said that it proved Carroll wrong. WP:NOR is exactly the issue: it would be acceptable to quote the data or summarize it, but it is not acceptable as the basis for your own rebuttal of his statement. You are also misreading WP:V in a way that is difficult to understand. Carroll's statement is verifiable in that you can look it up and check that that is what he said. "it can ONLY be verified by Dianetics." This is nonsense. Read the policy. As for "empirical testing", we have only Hubbard's word that that is what has been done. He is not a reliable source for scientific information. Peer review is not something that I have made up on my own. Your own ignorance of how science is conducted is the only basis for your argument on that subject. "The opinion of the editor was that Carroll's statement was true..." Hmm. You know, I'm having a hard time seeing where this is stated in the article. Maybe it's taking a short vacation? Your claim that not saying something can constitute defamation of character is laughable. The opinions of the editors get deleted--as you've found out. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that a case for slander could be made against Misplaced Pages or one of the editors. The chance of that happening in this case is precisely zero. If you feel that the CoS has been slandered by Carroll, let them know. Otherwise, drop the subject. Tenebrous 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of what I said are you responding to with this answer? "No, I don't agree that he is respected within the scientific community." You said, "You provided not a valid source which said that that data proved Carroll wrong, you provided the source for the data and said that it proved Carroll wrong." I provided the citation and quotes and a summary. The graphical data from Science of Survival was easily available to Carroll in his day. Carroll says, "It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like." When you compare the two citations side by side, of what part of what Carroll said is true? I think you are demonstrating here "a callous disregard", Tenebrous. "we have only Hubbard's word that that is what has been done." The Introduction to Science of Survival is from the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation, not Hubbard. ChrisO cites their separate "survey" and has confirmed the Chart of IQ test results. "As for "empirical testing", we have only Hubbard's word..." Carroll was speaking of him in making his accusations that things were missing, why would you criticize here him supplying this info in the Introduction to his book? That is illogical. "The opinions of the editors get deleted--as you've found out." It is not clear to me there was any person opinion of mine there, but what WAS deleted was the exact information Carroll says was missing. That is the basis for "a callous disregard" by the Wiki editors, not Carroll. As I told ChrisO, I am not making an issue of what Carroll said 35 years ago, unless the "empirical results" he misses are deleted. They were available to him then, he deleted them and that means nothing to Misplaced Pages. But if this is the basis for a "pseudoscience" treatment for this article it is relevant that the "emprical results" are deleted repeatedly when placed in context with the false information. It is "a callous disregard for the truth". Do you agree? Spirit of Man 01:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

reduce You said that he is a respected author. There is evidence to support that he is a respected author of science fiction. There is no evidence to support that he is a respected contributor to the scientific community. You say "Dianetics advocate" but you really mean yourself. I did read your edit. Science of Survival is not a valid source for scientific information and cannot be presented as fact. Science of Survival is not a valid source for scientific information and cannot be presented as fact. Carroll's opinion is presented as exactly that. You have not been slandered, and your "callous disregard for truth" is absolutely meaningless--nothing is being incorrectly represented as fact. The removal of information is not the publishing of information, and as such can never be claimed as defamation of character. If you persist in trying to claim grounds for legal action, then it is probable that you will be in violation of WP:NLT. Tenebrous 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone that will defend the charge of "pseudoscience" against Dianetics with this laughable, if not criminal basis of this statement besides ChrisO? Spirit of Man 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is not accepted by the scientific community as valid science. There is only anecdotal evidence to support any of Hubbard's claims. You are also shifting the burden of proof--Dianetics is not valid science until it is proved to be such. Tenebrous 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, per the discussion above Carroll is saying, "It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like." I have provided an answering citation for that from Dianetics that was placed in the article. You, I believe and Carroll agree, he cites "Most of his data is... only anecdotal evidence to support any of Hubbard's claims" but Science of Survival presents a study of 88 persons with resulting data, conducted by licensed psychologists acting in concert with the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation. Additionally, I have provided citations elsewhere of 50,000 Clears produced by Dianetics. This number is accepted by conflict sites on the web. This is the goal of Dianetic processing and is its most fundamental claim. The demonstaration of this fact and the resulting statistics cited, proves the subject works. This meets the criteria set out by you and others on this page and the article for a science. Your have added personal research that says "peer-reviewed", which is not a requisite and this is specifically mentioned in the legal discussions of a science on both pages. Do you agree? If "Peer-review" is not required, please stop saying this is why you are saying "not a valid science", or provide a citation per Wiki policy that says it is required. Spirit of Man 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason that that was deleted was that it was your own analysis. You are not allowed to refute his statement yourself, it's against WP:NOR. The "study" in Science of Survival was not published by any reputable scientific journal, as per WP:RS. Also, isn't "50,000 Clears" your own estimate? I think you mentioned elsewhere that they stopped publishing that data. Correct me on that. What two pages are you referring to? Tenebrous 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my edit; "The validity of Mr. Carroll's statement has been questioned by Dianetics advocates. They cite the empirical testing and results addressed to four claims presented in the Introduction to the book Science of Survival which was available at the time of Mr. Carroll's assertion and would have been available from any bookstore and most libraries of the day. Carroll claims the key elements …don't seem testable. The methods and tests and results of 88 test cases are presented. Carroll says "It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like." A comparison test graph comparing before and after test data on the 88 students using the Wechsler IQ test are clearly presented and were available for the 20 year period before Mr. Carroll's statement. Also, at the time of his article there are estimated to be about 3000 Scientology Clears demonstrating the results of claims of the science since 1966." I understand this as pointing out existing reference information, Science of Survival citations that answers each of Carroll's missing information. It was all available to him. Do you agree his statement is not a basis for a pseudoscience treatment of Dianetics? You ask about a journal and ref WP:RS, why? Carroll addresses Dianetics and Hubbard, not a journal. The issue of 50,000 Clears is in the article. I quoted Auditor Magazine tallies and The American Saint Hill Organisation, and conflict sites that present tallies of such things and someone rewrote that to "Scientology" something. Spirit of Man 02:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

reduce "Dianetics advocates" is not valid. If there is some other source that makes this claim, cite it. Until then, it will be considered your own opinion and deleted as soon as it appears. You may present this "study" in the form of an unverified claim, which is what it is. You do not appear to understand the guideline, so I'll explain it: if you are presenting information as fact, you must have a valid source for it. These are scientific claims, so we look at WP:RS, and it says "Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals and check community consensus." Gee. Peer review. What a concept. Community consensus in this case means the specific scientific community (e.g. medicine or psychology or a more specific field), their response to a particular study or concept. Auditor Magazine, not reliable. ASHO, not reliable. These sources may not be presented as fact, only as unverified claims. Your opinion, your application of these studies to counter these claims, is against WP:NOR. Also, Carroll's statment does not make Dianetics a pseudoscience. Dianetics claims to be a science but there is no proof to support it (there are also other reasons). "It works!" is not proof! Phrenology got results, too. Tenebrous 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy use of the word criminal there. Even if it were slanderous, it wouldn't be criminal in most countries. AndroidCat 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello AndroidCat. Just a question in context of Misplaced Pages, not the real world. What is your view of deleting key vital information repeatedly and allowing only false and misleading key information to stand? Spirit of Man 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely your POV that it's "false and misleading". Whether you agree with it or not is not the issue. Read WP:NPOV: "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false." Our task here is to describe the views of others, not impose our own views on the article. -- ChrisO 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Carroll says the data is missing. Science of Survival presented the data 20 years before and made it available to all bookstores. You aren't representing the total of knowledge as you imply, you are presenting the case for pseudoscience when that is not true. Your clip says "we will be describing views". That is what I did. That is not what you did. Here is my edit; "The validity of Mr. Carroll's statement has been questioned by Dianetics advocates. They cite the empirical testing and results addressed to four claims presented in the Introduction to the book Science of Survival which was available at the time of Mr. Carroll's assertion and would have been available from any bookstore and most libraries of the day. Carroll claims the key elements …don't seem testable. The methods and tests and results of 88 test cases are presented. Carroll says "It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like." A comparison test graph comparing before and after test data on the 88 students using the Wechsler IQ test are clearly presented and were available for the 20 year period before Mr. Carroll's statement. Also, at the time of his article there are estimated to be about 3000 Scientology Clears demonstrating the results of claims of the science since 1966." Spirit of Man 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Whomever posted this request should have signed their addition to the talk page. Terryeo 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation for the information of that study is found in the introduction area of about 20 printings of Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behaviour, ISBN 0884040011 Local libraries might have a copy. The Science of Survival published today does not have that study in its introductionTerryeo 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another thing that I think should be pulled from the Intelligent Design article:

The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms. Counter-arguments against such criticisms are often proffered by intelligent design proponents, as are counter-counter-arguments by critics, etc.

I think it makes sense to limit ourselves to the arguments for a particular concept and the arguments against a particular concept, and not get bogged down in criticisms of criticisms of criticisms. IMO, it's the best way to keep NPOV, but I'd like to hear comments on this. Tenebrous 14:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a successful article of a parallel subject might help us. But I don't believe intelligent design is a parallel because the Dianetics website presents it as an activity and does not present it as a theory or a science. In addition, while intelligent design purports to describe something that exists by a manner of looking at it, Dianetics porports to do an activity with the goal in mind of removing an individual's "reactive mind" and that's the only goal it has. One is a theory being used to describe something observed. Dianetics is an activity with a goal in mind. The two don't have enough in common to be treated in a parallel manner. (my opinion). Terryeo 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Setting where it came from aside, do you agree with the concept? Of not criticizing criticisms? e.g. "Adherents say that is good because , whereas critics say that it is bad because ." I'd rather have the fight over whether the criticisms are valid be carried out here rather than in the article. Tenebrous 09:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Like: Dianetics says the moon is made of green cheese (Science of Green Cheese, 1952) and medical science says the moon is made of yellow cheese (Dr. J.Smith, 1951)? Like that? Rather than several back and forth's about the worth of one source of information and the worth of the other source of information? Terryeo 10:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. I don't want to get involved with any criticism of J. Smith's conclusions, and his defense of them, and the counter-counter-argument, and the counter-counter-counter-argument, etc. Just Concept; Arguments for; Arguments against. That should be enough. Tenebrous 11:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a real good point to bring up, I don't think the policies say how many counter-counter arguements we can go through. HEH. Offhand I agree with you. An argument. One counter arguement. and move on. (possible exception might apply somewhere). Terryeo 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be a workable approach, if we all have a consistent understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; I'm not sure that everyone here does. However, let's give it a go and see where we get. -- ChrisO 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you say "Dianetics is not presented as a theory or a science"... Let's see these excerpts from [[Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health:

• «Dianetics ... is the science of mind.»
• «Dianetics is actually a family of sciences embracing ...»
• «Dianetics is an exact science ...»
• «That is now an established scientific fact, not an opinion.»
• «We are dealing here with an exact science, precision axioms ...»

And by no mean a complete list. According to Jeff Jacobsen's essay on Dianetics, "Hubbard is Bare - Science and Dianetics", Dianetics is presented as a "scientific fact" no less than 35 times. Raymond Hill 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true and more example along that same line could be found. If you visit the Dianeitcs webiste you find dianetics presented as a self-help activity, an activity with only one goal. In the 1950s Hubbard presented Dianetics as a science, exactly as everyone has been saying. The same information is presented differently today without the science argument.

Toronto org window 2002 and the slogan is still used AndroidCat 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Terryeo, above you state "Dianetics website www.dianetics.org presents it as an activity and does not present it as a theory or a science", as an argument that Dianetics can't be compared to Intelligent design. Remember the current mediation process at RfM: Dianetics is because you insisted repeatedly to present Dianetics as a theory, as seen from the many edits you made prior to the mediation process: , , , , , , etc. Did you change your opinion about this? Raymond Hill 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I made many mentions theory but I don't think that is why ChirsO initiated mediation. The question of pseudoscience is a valid one (my opinion) and I haven't tried to stifle it. The question of religion too comes up. The questions of "how is Bridge Publications (large, well established but special interest)" to be treated too needs to be discussed. I am not going to swollow the whole thing be pseudoscience, pseudoscience and nothing but pseudoscience. Besides, ChrisO has used unpublished citations more than once and that confuses the issue.Terryeo 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wowzie Raymond, may I invite you to post to the mediation page what you have just posted here? I don't understand the dispute to have happened for the reason you state, but for other reasons which I state on the mediation page. However, if you will post your opinions (reasons) for ChrisO initiating meditaion (if ChrisO will invite you to) then your opinion might be helpful to resolution. I'm working to an article Raymond and hope everyone is doing the same. Dianetics is not a real easy set of ideas to present in the best of times, let's work together.Terryeo 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Will the real Dianetics please stand up

The editors here are presenting Dianetics as a pseudoscience. The Dianetics website , does not present Dianetics as a science. It says, "Dianetics is an activity". Would the editors here please be professional enough to recognize there is a body of information which is Dianetics. If you wish to present the information which talks about its pseudoscientific view, then okay. But it is wrong to not present the information which is Dianetics. I mean, how can you possibly present "pseudoscience" until you have presented the information which the judgement "pseudoscience" applies to? Let us follow the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and present the information which comprises Dianetics. Then when the information has been presented, present the pseudoscience arguement. This allows the reader to see what is being talked about first.Terryeo 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The information is included in the page. It is clearly stated for people to see what the proponents of dianetics claim it does. What you seem to want is such a presentation to be made without reference to criticism. This is unacceptable as dianetics is subject to criticism and so to exclude that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

HI there, Science Apologist, I see you have joined us at ChrisO's request found ] and stating, "Would it be possible for you to lend a hand in Talk:Dianetics? ChrisO 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)". I have replied to you re:your expertise in editing Dianetics on your talk page. To fill you in more fully, User:scienceApologist, ChrisO has taken the stance that Dianetics is pseudoscience. There's just nothing at all wrong with that. That he say so in the article is perfectly acceptable as long as he doesn't continually break WP:V as he has done several times already. The problem is not that at all. The problem is, he is insisting that his POV be the only POV presented. Toward that end he disperses any actual information which comprises Dianetics, calls in favors from friends, posted a template at the top of this discussion page toward preventing any discussion which did not include pseudoscience and submitted to mediation about the time several of us editors had arrived at some concensus of how to present the information which comprises Dianetics to the reader. We will simply follow WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. The reader will have to judge for himself whether the information which comprises Dianetics is science, pseudoscience or little green apples. Of course the Dianetics website does not mention pseudoscience and does not mention science, but for ChrisO it is a big deal to present it here as pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure he expects you to follow his lead in this area :) Terryeo 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, is it your contention that if Dianetics was a pseudoscience, the Dianetics website would surely say so? If not, is it your contention that nothing can ever be said to be anything that the official website for it does not claim it to be? I really am curious what you'll answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That the article present Dianetics as pseudoscience (properly referenced) is okay with me. I believe the article should include Dianetics as the official website presents it. ChrisO and some other editors are following WP:NOR and disallow any information which comprises Dianetics to appear in the article. I hold that ] applies. That the pseudoscience presentation by secondary sources should be in the article. However, in addition to secondary sources, I would present orginal sources as per the above stated policy. This would include a link to the Dianetics website. This would include a brief quote from the Dianetics site, perhaps, "Dianetics is an activity" or "The whole purpose of Dianetics is to handle the reactive mind". Because Dianetics is widely published and has been for years, there are many books and lectures available. According to wikipolicy about how established a subject is, we can probably get along with each other. Is this an answer that makes sense to you, Feldspar? I do not mean to exclude sources of information. Terryeo 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Importance of a Philosophy of Survival

I would like to try the philosophy section again. Please discuss here: Spirit of Man 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't think that this needs to be a separate section, as it appears to be just more concepts of Dianetics. I have some reservations about the content of this section, but I'll set them aside for the present.

Hello, Tenebrous. I thought you had given up? Anyway, thanks for contributing. I have proposed the Introduction reflect "philosophy, science and therapy" rather than "ideas". I don't think the general concept of "ideas" is as comprehensive as those three broad subject areas as they apply to Dianetics.

• "Being "the basic" purpose of life, it was considered the most important purpose in life" Opinion, needs a cite. If that's covered by D:EoaS, then you need to represent it as Hubbard's opinion.

  It is covered by that ref.

• Use <ref> </ref> tags when you cite things.

  That was begun a little while ago by ChrisO. Has he written it into Wiki policy already? I can do this, but other sections cite books by their Wiki calls.

  No, it wasn't. And no, but the rest of the article is written that way: if you've got a better solution, I'm all ears.

• Principles and hypothesi are not the same thing, even in common use.

  I don't agree. Principle is from philosophy. Hypothesis is from science. Some points of view here argue that specific axioms, may not be called "definite" axioms. What is your distinction for this context?

  Simply, a principle is something that is presupposed. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for observation. Saying that what you're referring to falls into both categories is one thing. Saying the two terms are interchangeable is quite another.

  To be presupposed to do something with, one has to acquire such a principlein the first place. I describe in summary form what Hubbard described in Evolution of Science. With this priciple in place then other principles like the evaluation of importances, gradient scales, etc, but this one has to be in place first. I use hypothesis to describe its use before it was used for other things. I think we are aguing symantics and losing the forest for the trees. Hubbard called it a principle after he discovered it. In the way an hypothesis becomes a theory, his principle became an Axiom in Original Thesis.

  The way a hypothesis becomes a theory is by repeated testing and experimentation. The word "empirical evidence" also usually comes into play. Hubbard may use them interchangeably, in which case we need to quote him.

  You can review this progression in Evolution of a Science. I understand he uses; proposition, principle, postulate, and so on intending to represent a scope of knowledge much larger than previous studies and does not settle on specific terminology for all that at the time. Spirit of Man 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• "In 1938 it was SURVIVE!" what was? poor writing, needs source.

  alright, it is from the previous sentence/paragraph. Dianetics Evolution of Science, Dianetics Original Thesis, Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health and specific dates noted in Dianetics Today.

• "and in Dianetics this philosophical principle, understood to be a statement of natural law, is still used today." Again, philisophical principles and natural law refer to entirely different subjects. "Laws" are used primarily in the context of mathematics.

  Newtons Laws. The Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Flight, I don't agree.

  Wonderful. However, you're wrong. "Laws of Flight" appears to be your own invention, for one. Now, we could play a game, where you named a physical law and I name a mathematical one, and this could go on for several days and waste everyone's time. If you do want to play this game, we can do it on your talk page. If not, concede the point.

Also: understood by whom? Certainly not understood universally. That part needs to be removed.

• For "Laws of Flight" see Cayley 1799 and 1809; lift, drag, propulsion, control. He calls them "elements". Are think we are aguing semantics here. Hubbard ment to encompass all of existence and possibly all knowledge. It seems to me to argue for the terminology of one subject to be used or not used is trivial in this context. Spirit of Man 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  The axioms of Dianetics and Scientology can be easily verified as primary sources and should be considered in discussing these laws. --JimmyT 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree this is just English useage. We seem to disagree. I understand a philosophical principle is a human statement of what is thought to be a underlying natural law.

  Saying something is a natural law does not mean that it is. Find me another source that says that it is, though, and I'll be happy.

• "It is an important discovery." Again, this is opinion. Cite a source, e.g. "Bob McBob considers it to be an important discovery."

  there are too many to site, Arthur C. Clark, Walter Winschell, J. Winter, President Truman, 50,000 clears, the Church of Scientology, the author. How about if I go down through ChrisO's words and apply this same standard? I'll think of way to attribute it.

  If Arthur C. Clarke has expressed an opinion on the matter, I'll have to revise my opinion of him. But I don't care who you quote, as long it's verifiable.

• "The individual is considered to be responsible for his or her own condition and creates his own mind." same as above. Also, what book did "the author" (which should be rewritten as "L. Ron Hubbard" or "Hubbard") publish this principle in? And while we're at it, the details of what is meant by the phrase "creates his own mind" is not explained. Don't define it, quote a definition and cite it.

  I will comply, but this article tends to chop the content of Dianetics into citations and wax on enthusiastically with discreditable assertions. See the Wiki definion of clear, "In The State Of Clear, Hubbard defines clear as: A THETAN WHO CAN BE AT CAUSE KNOWINGLY AND AT WILL OVER MENTAL MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME. In Clearing you move the being up to where he is at Cause over mental MEST. A clear has erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. It is a negative gain. Clear occurs when one stops mocking up bank, or realizes he is doing it. I get back later in the day with more. Spirit of Man 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  Other wikipedia pages are not valid sources, but I will be pleased to see you bring me some. Thanks. Tenebrous 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  Dianetics 55! pp17-18. What is your ref for that "not valid sources"? That is used all over Wiki from my experience.

  WP:CITE "Misplaced Pages articles should not use other Misplaced Pages articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources." bolded, first thing after the introduction. Do you read the policies? Tenebrous 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Spirit of Man, you state "discreditable assertions": please, if they are discreditable, simply point to others where, and why. This is the way to improve this article, specific assertion that you think are easily discredited, and why. Be specific, broadly painting the article as plagued by "discreditable assertions" is not helping. Again, be specific. Raymond Hill 20:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Carroll citation by ChrisO. It states test methods, results, and presentation are not only missing but can not be envisioned, while the information was available in any bookstore and most libraries of the time as Science of Survival. This citation is a discreditable assertion by ChrisO in support of a POV that wishes to delete the subject of Dianetics from this article. According to one of the anti-scientology sites Carroll even had the Fischer study available and quoted from it there. His statements are discreted and the citation should be removed from Misplaced Pages. Spirit of Man 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• "When he no longer compulsively creates the stimulus-response portion of his own mind, he is said to be clear." Clear as mud. Let me demonstrate what that sentance looks like to anyone not familiar with Dianetics. "When he no longer spontaneously subtracts the cooling-heating portion of his own image, he is said to be orange-flavored."

• You have not understood the plain english of the sentence. It defines the last word.

  I have indeed understood the sentance. My argument is that it is not plain english. You admit that Dianetics defines terms differently---Look, if you can't distinguish clear writing from non, I'm not going to be able to explain. Do you have any objections to changing it?

  I will.

• ...Yes, the words are all there. You can understand them individually. Do they mean anything? Not the way they're being used. Why? Because the author has different definitions for these terms than the rest of us do. You can't talk about people compulsively creating stuff without talking about what that means first.

  That is all just plain english explaining the last word.

• "The therapy envisioned in 1938" Don't write like this. Tell who envisioned it. And you probably shouldn't use the word "therapy."

  The citation is Hubbard's Evolution of a Science. Hubbard envisioned that a therapy was needed. I think your being argumentative.

  You're welcome to your opinion, but you should always assume good faith. Always.

• "When the Book Self Analysis is used..." No. "In Hubbard wrote a book called Self Analysis which described how a person might..."

  The context is processing, not how Hubbard wrote a book...I will take a look at your construct in context.

• Cite a source that describes the normal auditing process.

  I have presented an example of therapy in a companion section with citations.

• "Thus they are considered to be more fundamental, more complete, more precise, and more consistent one to the other, than ordinary dictionary definitions, or definitions from other subjects that have an empirical basis only, rather than a philosophic and practical basis." For one, this sentance does not logically follow from the previous. More importantly, however, is that it is pure opinion, highly biased, and possibly untrue. This need to be directly quoted if it is to appear in this article at all. It's very worrying to me that you would write something like this---do you not understand wikipedia policies regarding NPOV and Verifiability? Please answer.

  the previous material lays out the progression of ideas from most basic principle, to a principle that describes how to define terms based on the first principle, showing how definitions can be merely descriptive. How the most basic useful defintion is one that includes description, distinguishes differences, points out simularities and the purpose of the term. It is not an opinion as I understand that term, it is a summary of pages of axioms. It would not be comprehensible as a general idea if sliced into quotes written for a different pupose. It may be that I do not understand all of what NPOV and Verifiability mean on Wiki, but I do know that means articles should present both sides fairly and that is not being done on this page. Do you agree? Let me step you through this idea so you know it is true. Axiom 1: survive. Logic 5, Science of Survival: A definition of terms is necessary...Descriptive definition: one which classifies by characteristics...Differentiative definition: one which compares unlikeness...Associative Definition: one which declares likeness to existing states of being...Action Definition: one which deliniates cause...

  If this is your own analysis, that's OR. If it's not comprehensible sliced into quotes, too bad.

  Please review the rest of ChrisO's article from this the viewpoint of this criteria you have proposed. Spirit of Man 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now, you suggest that Dianetics defines definitions differently? You're going to have to rewrite that section if you want it to do anything but confuse people.

  I don't want it to confuse people. Yes, it does define its own basic terms differently.

• You're free to redefine zero, but saying that the act of redefining zero affects math and physics is untrue. It certainly would affect anyone who chose to do so, but the fields of mathematics and physics don't generally change their definitions of concepts based on philosophy.

  Before 1800 those subjects were collectively called Natural Philosophy. I have no idea where you got your idea.

  Physics was indeed referred to as Natural Philosophy. What is your point? The concept of zero has existed for at least 1300 years. The concept of pi has existed even longer. Certain states' attempts at legislation aside, these concepts have not been revised since their introduction.

  The earliest archeological dig documenting "zero" is 17,000 BC, Sri Lanka. But the Greeks and Romans did not have the idea. Vedic math from 8000 BC has an algorithm, sutra to calculate Pi to any number of decimals. Bramhagupta 500 AD, only had about 5 decimal places for Pi. The term pi was not used until the 16th centrury. I think your view of math is "scientific" and not "philosophical".

• "It is the definition of zero; something which has no mass, something which has no wavelength, which has no location in space, which has no position or relationship in time" You're not defining zero. The terms "mass" "wavelength" "position" etc. do not apply. Numbers have no physical properties. Further, this is a definite scientific claim, which happens to be false, but it's also not from a reputable publisher of mathematical research.

  you are free to have your point of view, but zero is used in many subjects other than math. The basic factors of the International Standards Organization that define the SI standards do use mass, wavelength, position and such things. Even in math it sometimes does apply to real things. And even in the most abstract, dividing by zero is not allowed because the result is not defined. An equation that does this is not allowed.

  The SI standards do not define zero. Numbers have no physical properties. They can describe things that have physical properties. "Not allowed" is incorrect. There are many equations that could be constructed where zero is undefined. This is totally irrelevant. The original point stands.

  I suggest the ISO defines the SI number system which uses basic quantities to define other quantities. Who in your opinion defines zero? Spirit of Man 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• the term "life static" is unique to Dianetics and is therefore meaningless to someone who knows nothing of Dianetics.

  the purpose of this article on Dianetics should include introducing the new material in Dianetics. "Life static" has to do with the human soul or spirit. The purpose of the article should not be to exclude all the new things in Dianetics. Do you agree?

• "This is believed to be the first technical description of soul" opinion, cite source

  Dianetics 55!

• "L. Ron Hubbard pointed out that the Dianetic discovery..." cite source
• "The cause of insanity was found to be recordings of pain and unconsiousness." This is a scientific claim, it needs to be backed up by a reliable source or rewritten as an unverified claim.

  This section is not the science section. It describes the philosophical basis of these ideas.

  That is irrelevant.

• "When these were handled with Dianetics the person was no longer insane. So a person could be tested and found to be ill, or insane or have a certain intelligence. He could then handle his engrams with Dianetics and then be tested and found to have no neuroses, psychoses, self induced illness and to have a high intellegence." see above. This claim is also mentioned earlier in the article, unless you can give me a valid reason for repeating it, I will treat it as a variation on the POV fork.

  this is a philosophical context. I understand a POV fork applies to pages not text or sections relating to philosophy or science.

  "pages not text" You are correct, hence the "variation". What you are doing is moving this claim to a section discussing philosophy, and using that as an excuse to not substantiate it. It needs proof or rewriting, and you also need to tell me why it's being repeated.

  The citation is DMSMH. This paragraph refers to the philosophical principle of induction and how engrams were found. I think it should be rewritten using the sequence. I didn't mean to repeat. Spirit of Man 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• "The state of Clear is an important discovery." opinion, quote a source. Winter, Introduction to DMSMH.

  So quote him. "Winter says that the state of Clear is an important discovery."

• "In 1938 the optimum individual was considered to be the Normal." same thing.
• Hubbard, the author of the citation, Evolution of a Science.
• "The end goal at that time was to return people to a state considered "normal" when they became ill." and again.

  same

• "After the nature of the mind was understood well enough it was realized that the optimum individual was not the Normal, but the Clear." and again.

  same

• "A person that has released enough engrams to become a well and happy, high IQ human being is called a Release." cite a source.

  Dianetics Today. DMSMH.

• Cite a source for every other sentance in this section. Other wikipedia pages are not valid sources.
  This section is biased, cites none of its sources, and is very poorly written. Anyone who deleted it was probably right in doing so. For the rest of you, I apologize for this lengthy passage. Tenebrous 17:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  the refs are the basic books of Dianetics, from Evolution of Science, through Diantics 55! to Dianetics Today. Spirit of Man 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, While I completely agree the article should have "Survive!" and some philosophy in it, I don't believe it would be possible until the issue resolves of whether Dianetics is original research and to be treated by the policy WP:NOR or is an actual subject, which would be treated by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The article is in mediation, I have placed my analysis of this basic confrontational issue there. But in the long run I would like to see the philosophy of Survival in the article. Terryeo 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the article is in mediation. That doesn't start until the requirements to start are met, and it is started as outlined by the chair of the mediation. Spirit of Man 18:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments (white boxes=excerpts from your edits):

Sorry about the time delay. I'll have to just ref Tenebrous above if a comment seems to be addressed in accordance with your view.

The title states that a philosophy of survival is important. Says who? Did you mean "The importance of a philosophy of survival according to Hubbard"?

No, I ment this is the title of a section that describes the importance. See the article for details.

Frankly, what does that mean? I can't make sense of this. According to Dianetics.org: "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." This is what this article is about, Dianetics.

In Dianetics Evolution of a Science as cited in the section, this is described in detail. He apparently felt challenged to explain what was thought to be unknowable, as in Imanuel Kant and not possible of being articulated in writing circles.

I am attempting to outline the evolution of the philosphy of the subject as in an encyclopedia article.

You really know how he felt? Or did you read it somewhere from his own writing? With a precise reference and a cite. And even if you can provide that, your sentence is first-person style (you), not suitable for an encyclopedia.

I understand first person terms are; I, me, mine, we, us, our or ours. Did you mean to use a different term for something? Spirit of Man 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of this section is summarized from Dianetics Evolution of a Science. "felt, "considered" "intended" "wanted" "it was used" are synonyms for "he wrote".

"He wrote in 1938 he had discovered this first principle, or hypothesis...": In 1938? Can I find this piece of writing somewhere?

Yes, Introduction, Dianetics Today. It is a summary not a quotation. Spirit of Man 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is an important discovery.": Says who? I heard about many important discoveries, but not this one. Could it be that you are expressing you own opinion, first-person style on top of that?

This is the foundation for nearly 200 Dianetic Axioms, 27 Dianetic Logics, the science of Dianetics, 50,000 Clears and the applied religious philosophy of Scientology and over 3000 recorded lectures in Scientology. I can find a citation, but I'm curious why you haven't heard of this. Have you heard this? Spirit of Man 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note how some of the above is covered in the Dianetics#Basic_concepts_of_Dianetics, and in the proper encyclopedic style: With Dianetics, Hubbard claimed to have discovered the fundamental "dynamic principal of existence," which he expressed with the exclamation "SURVIVE!"

Principle is misspelled, the editor apparently didn't understand that SURVIVE! was expressed as a command, not an exclamation. Oh, and as you said above, did this editor really hear him exclaim or feel, or is that a personal view? What do you suppose the editor had in mind when they said, "the fundamental...". Please answer, what does that mean to you? It is too concise. It may work as an Introduction, but without further clarification it will confuse rather than answer a new readers question of "What is Dianetics?" The syntax of the sentence is complex. I have been criticised above for just this. Couldn't the idea be expressed smoothly? I understand you are pointing out, "Hubbard claimed..."

"The individual is considered to be responsible for his or her own condition and creates his own mind.": You mean "according to Hubbard..." But then... how does this sentence apply to Dianetics' claims in particular? A lot of people are of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that individuals are responsible for their own condition, this is not so specifically Dianetics I would think.

Creates his own mind is from Dianetics 55!

First-person style. Anyways, this part is redundant to what already appears in Dianetics#Basic_concepts_of_Dianetics, and presented in the appropriate encyclopedia style: "With the use of Dianetics techniques, Hubbard claimed, the reactive mind could be reached at will and all stored engrams could be purged. The central technique was "auditing," a two-person question-and-answer therapy designed to isolate and dissipate engrams (or "mental masses"). A counselor called an auditor addresses a series of questions to a subject, observes and records the subject's responses, ..."

I think you mean "passive" or "reflexive" instead of personal? There are some good things in your description, and if both are to complement each other then we might consider accomodations to each rather than deletion of good points in one. Spirit of Man 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the timeline connection with what was envisioned in 1938? "Techniques" is about 1950 terminology, processes and processing is more appropriate, I think. "Subject" has definitely not been used since 1950, preclear is the term of choice. The key thing of that paragraph is that the "preclear" and his actions which are most important are ignored. The auditor conducts the activity in a formal session. That is ignored. I wrote a section on Therapy that concisely outlines an example of a modern Book One session. I have to go for tonight, I'll be back. Spirit of Man 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Thus they are considered to be more fundamental, more complete, more precise, and more consistent one... blah blah": Who exactly considers the terms used in "basic principle of SURVIVE!" more important than ordinary dictionary definitions, or "definitions from other subjects that have an empirical basis only"? Could it be Dianetics advocates?

"So, someone that is very intelligent can solve problems faster, can anticipate them quicker and see such things more easily.": Whose conclusion is that? On what ground? Any studies in the scientific literature supporting that claim? Is it broadly accepted outside Dianetics? It looks like a claim. Is it this Dianetics definition of intelligence an accepted definition in the scientific community?

This article is not about enumerating Dianetics' definitions that have nothing to do with the content of the article. How am I suppose to understand better the subject of Dianetics with the above sentence?

I have no idea what the above means, it just sounds as esoteric mumblings understandable only by followers of Scientology. I don't doubt Hubbard wrote this, but this doesn't mean much outside Scientology's bubble.

He certainly wrote all that, and it's already covered in Dianetics#Basic_concepts_of_Dianetics, in a nice encyclopedic style. "The state of Clear is an important discovery.": not outside the Dianetics' bubble. First-person opinion, not encyclopedic.

First-person style, no references, original research. Who considered the "optimum individual" to be "Normal" (capital N?)

"After the nature of the mind was understood well enough it was realized that the optimum individual was not the Normal, but the Clear.": It was realized by who? And who agreed that there is a distinction between "Normal" and "Clear", a concept exclusive to Dianetics?

"no such thing as "masses" of people'": This means nothing if you are not a Dianetics' advocate. Masses of people? Here again, the whole paragraph is presented as a first-person opinion.

"A basic discovery of Dianetics is ...": this is considered discovery only by Dianetics' advocates. I never heard of any Dianetics' discoveries cited in the scientific community.

Hubbard wrote that, and I would agree to include this particular statement in the article, but of course in an encyclopedic style. I think it was an important statement that shows he wished the whole planet would be "cleared" using his "discoveries." This sheds light on many behaviors of Church of Scientology.

Because of all of the above, I revert your edits. Raymond Hill 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Here again we come up against, "how widely published" is a source of information as per WP:NOR. However, WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is spells out for us, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Dianetics is widely published. It must, therefore, be included as per WP:NOR. Terryeo 18:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, explain how "viewpoint is in the majority" equates "widely published". Dianetics is not recognized as valid therapy outside Dianetics' bubble. Raymond Hill 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Povmec is absolutely correct. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain how he is absolutely correct, as I could just as easily say he is absolutely incorrect. (POV) --JimmyT 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please describe "Dianetics' bubble." Last time I checked, many people from all aspects of life were using it, regardless of any endorsement of any authoritative scientific or medical entities. --JimmyT 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics' bubble": all the people that believe Dianetics actually "works". Now, I'm still waiting an explanation of how "viewpoint is in the majority" equates "widely published". Raymond Hill 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Per adherents.com:

• Christianity: 2.1 billion
• Islam: 1.3 billion
• Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
• Hinduism: 900 million
• Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
• Buddhism: 376 million
• primal-indigenous: 300 million
• African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
• Sikhism: 23 million
• Juche: 19 million
• Spiritism: 15 million
• Judaism: 14 million
• Baha'i: 7 million
• Jainism: 4.2 million
• Shinto: 4 million
• Cao Dai: 4 million
• Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
• Tenrikyo: 2 million
• Neo-Paganism: 1 million
• Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
• Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
• Scientology: 500 thousand

The "Scientology bubble" is 500 thousand, or less than 1/2 of 1% of world population. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thats a lot for a new religion. Wasn't Christianity (now top of the list) only like a couple dozen for hundreds of years? :) --JimmyT 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the adherents.com statistics are based on the Church of Scientology's own figures, which aren't supported by national census figures. The CoS has routinely claimed around 15,000 members in the UK, but the 2001 national census found only 1,781. In New Zealand, the national census found more Satanists than Scientologists. Independent writers have generally put the true figures at somewhere between 50,000-100,000. Still quite a few people, but nowhere near comparable to the other faiths mentioned above. -- ChrisO 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Otherwise the whole throwing-christians-to-the-lions thing would have been real short-lived ^_^ But who cares? The question is still how "widely published" can be the same thing as "majority viewpoint". Those statistics are somewhat useful, your comments are amusing but off-topic. Tenebrous 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can get back to the topic. Shall we discuss the notability of Dianetics. Or should the article be deleted due to not being notable? :) You get my point I think. And as notable, the primary source and it's publisher are likewise notable: Hence the publisher actually has it's own article here in Misplaced Pages. The OR argument presented by Chris is because some of the Scientology critics out there are trying to get back at it for clearly presenting psychiatry as a pseudoscience. Today, I have no reference to site to back up my claim, but in a few years after more books have been written and more research has been published, I will be able to cite sources which will eventually make the current state of this article obsolete and psychiatry itself absolete. I can cite quotes by medical professionals but not cite any material published by a "notable publisher". --JimmyT 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, explain how "viewpoint is in the majority" equates "widely published" (and as for your comment about psychiatry, no need to fantasize about what motivates other editors to hold specific opinions.) Just explain how "viewpoint is in the majority" equates "widely published." and while at it, I need convincing arguments to support that Dianetics is a "commonly accepted reference texts". Raymond Hill 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to explain that because that is not my point. But I am trying to learn Misplaced Pages's rules and I think I need to point out that WP:V has problems: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." That makes no sense. A reliable source would only publish the truth. And we know that many "reputable" sources do not publish the truth. Magazines and newspapers are broadly accepted as sources in Misplaced Pages but are they truthful? Since they often prove to not be truthful, that would make them automatically unreliable. Where does that take Misplaced Pages? --JimmyT 20:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Counterintuitive it may be, senseless it is not. Please read the actual article and find out why the policy is there. If you still have questions about it, check that article's talk page. If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to ask it there. Tenebrous 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"viewpoint is in the majority" does not equate "widely published." But as Terry has already pointed out, Dianetics is widely published. --JimmyT 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand you were trying to defend Terryeo's argument, although you didn't really have an opinion on his comment. Here is a helping hand: WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is, and Terryeo's argument of "widely published" is nowhere to be found. Raymond Hill 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you mention that section of WP:NOR because I believe that is exactly 1/2 of the arguement we are having here, though no one actually says it outright. It states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" and I can easily tell you that millions of sold copies of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health might not make a commonly accepted reference text, but it is not something to ignore either. Dianetics has been widely published for 55 years in more than a dozen languages. If it were a single wealthy individual who wealth created it, that would be another matter but it is because many people purchase and use the information of it that makes it a viewpoint of more than a tiny minority. WP:NPOVUW says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Raymond Hill's question regards, "How is "prominence" determined?". In general, Wiki's point of view seems to me to be: "Widely published information is majority point of view". This is exactly 1/2 of the arguement here. Dianetics is widely published but that information is being squeezed out of the article by the many many references to opposing points of view. Let me put it like this. The information which makes up Dianetics is taller than your head high. How high does those opinions against it stack up? And, additionally, Dianetics is published in many languages and many books and flyers. To completely ignore that POV because a few medical people have declared it to be pseudoscience does not make a balanced article. Terryeo 17:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To sum up and just to be sure that I understand your current position— According to you, the following observations confirm that Dianetics ideas are actually "viewpoints that are in the majority" (as per WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is):

• because millions of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health books have been sold worldwide (in different languages) since its first publication;
• the size and wealth of Bridge_Publications_(Scientology)

Correct me if I am mistaken about my understanding of your position. Raymond Hill 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, wouldn't we have to defer to Erich von Daniken by those criteria? After all, he sold a lot of books in a lot of languages and made a lot of money... -- ChrisO 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We should follow Misplaced Pages Policy. Bridge Publications is obviously not in the majority and to streach what I have said to that extent would be silly. On the other hand, Bridge Publications is not a tiny backroom printshop, printing a rag newspaper for weekly publication. Exactly the same policies which apply to every publication should be applied to Bridge Publications and its products should be treated exactly as wikipolicy and guidelines indicate a publisher should be treated. I would treat Bridge Publications as a "refutable but special interest publisher". Does this position make sense to you?Terryeo 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

original research template.

Do you have ref for this template in the context of this article? Who wrote it and placed it there? Spirit of Man 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ref for this template? What are you talking about? Please clarify your question. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! You have asked me above for my ref for the comments at the Carroll data. Why did you ask for that "ref"? It is a simple question, "Who wrote it and placed it there?" Spirit of Man 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. An OR template is not content. KillerChihuahua 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The template is complete nonesense. ChrisO placed it there at this revision. and it was his attempt to prevent any discussion which does not support his personal POV. Which is, "Dianetics is original research, no portion of it shall ever appear in any wikipedia article". Therefore he (and his group) insist WP:NOR applies.Terryeo 17:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is completely appropriate, as "both sides" have complained about OR being inserted. It is one of your most common complaints, Terryeo. KillerChihuahua 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Presentation of uncited opinions and criteria that "prove that Dianetics is a pseudoscience" is OR by Misplaced Pages contributors. That is unacceptable and against Misplaced Pages policies. Only citations to writers/scientists should be presented. --JimmyT 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR refers to original research by Misplaced Pages contributors. WP:NOR does not refer to citing sources which may be orginal research in themselves. --JimmyT 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Anything that is not published by a reputable source is OR. Tenebrous 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If you want to start an article on a book called Bibblygoops, then citing the book Bibblygoops itself should not qualify as OR. I think you are confused by some editors here who are bent on discrediting Dianetics rather than presenting it as a subject of the article. --JimmyT 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous is correct, and this is the approach which has been taken on Misplaced Pages for a long time. The policy says: "Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source... Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Bridge Publications - as a de facto vanity imprint for L. Ron Hubbard's works - does not count as a "reputable publisher" for the purpose of WP:NOR. -- ChrisO 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. WP:NOR prevents an editor from placing his original research into an article by stating: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." but WP:NOR goes on to state: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." ChrisO's argument seems to be that Dianetics is original research, original by Hubbard and therefore not includeable into this Dianetics article. ChrisO seems to hold the POV that because Dianetics is published by a "vanity house" that it can not be included because a "vanity house" is not a refutable publisher. So yeah, we are arguing the applicability of WP:NOR. Yet Hubbard's original research was not published by a "vanity publisher". Hubbard was not so wealthy that he could create a publishing company to publish his work. Eventually, over time, his work was successful and created profits which brought a dedicated publisher (today, Bridge Publications) forth. Is Bridge Publications a "vanity publisher?" Looking carefully through the Wikipolicies I don't see any mention of a "vanity publisher". Maybe ChrisO can specify what he means by using that term. Wikipolicy has spelled out for us what sources of publication are useful to us as editors. Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F states: "When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition." Therefore, if Bridge Publications is in question, we should be discussing so as editors. I've been there, I have some clue of how they operate. They're a pretty big business but yeah, they are dedicated in one area of publication. Terryeo 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Please see WP:V, one of the three primary policies. KillerChihuahua 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NOR is also a primary policy---what are you saying? Tenebrous 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If your question was to me, my mention of WP:V was to JimmyT, who is seems confused about what constitutes OR and what does not. Verifiable sources are by definition not OR, hence, I pointed him to the page which would clarify things for him. What that what you were asking? Your question was a little argumentative and vague. KillerChihuahua 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If it came across as being argumentative, I apologize. It was merely a request for clarification, your comment was not explanatory. Us iggerent people need to be led directly to the water before we know what we're supposed to be drinking :) Tenebrous 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I appreciate the humor, and apologis if I seemed to detailed or didactic - being unsure of what was being asked, I was trying to be thorough. No offense was meant. KillerChihuahua 19:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused about what Misplaced Pages means by OR, but I think some of the editors here do. Or perhaps Misplaced Pages is confused itself, that might explain it's tabloid-ey tendency. --JimmyT 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the portion of WP:NOR which applies is WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is which states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" and so on down to barely published by irrefutable publishers. There might be a question of what constitutes a refutable publishers. Dianetics is published by a special interest group, but published by Bridge Publications. According to Wiki guidelines Bridge Publications is a refutable publisher because it is large, has several layers of editors and staff, doesn't publish mistakes in print, publishes a great many books, has been established for some while, lists in the Library of Congress, etc. Terryeo 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right, Dianetics is published by a notable and respectable publisher. So I guess Tenebrous' statement about "respectable publisher" is his POV and OR. --JimmyT 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Dianetics is self-published. See WP:V. KillerChihuahua 19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is not self-published. --JimmyT 19:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So sorry, yes it is. See Bridge Publications (Scientology). KillerChihuahua 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was originally published by Heritage House, a psychiatric publishing house. Spirit of Man 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the subject is notable, and it's publisher is likewise notable. I dare you to argue this one... :) --JimmyT 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All right. What do you base that on? Surely not wikipedia alone. At least, I hope not, in light of this and your own comments. Either way, they're not a reliable source, so notability is beside the point. Tenebrous 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be biased (extreme POV) to thoroughly disclude a subject itself as one of the references used to compose an article. --JimmyT 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The first edition of Dianetics was published by Heritage House (in 1950), but every single edition since then - at least 60 - has been published by Scientology publishers, i.e. Bridge Publications and its predecessors. It's worth noting that Hubbard's works comprise virtually the entire Bridge range; in effect, it's a vanity publishing outfit. -- ChrisO 01:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a disagreement with some basic Misplaced Pages philosophy which is wrong. What do I do now? --JimmyT 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quit. If you don't want to follow fundamental, basic Misplaced Pages policy, you have no place here. Simple as that. -- ChrisO 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. ChrisO's attitude should to be taken into consideration by the mediation process. --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• 2. Why did ChrisO violate WP:V by presenting a reference which is unverifiable? --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• 3. Why would someone violate the rules and then intimidate a new user? --JimmyT 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• 3. The "intimidation" is because you are making a lot of newbie mistakes, being generally accusatory and uncivil, not assuming good faith, and indicating rather vocally your dislike of wikipedia and the policies it follows, which could be construed as unwillingness to comply with those policies. Also, it's generally advised to read the policies before you start posting, especially on a controversial issue. Personally, I think it's very hypocritical to criticize WP:V because you don't understand it and it doesn't support your argument, and then cite it in support of a different argument. Your complaints regarding ChrisO's cite are not valid for several reasons, but the important one is that he's not citing the paper document, but the online one. Tenebrous 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry can you please explain again what Chris did when policy did not match his action regarding verifiability. Also please paste the link to his edit here. --JimmyT 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Here is ChrisO's edit of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health that cites an unpublished, CONFIDENTIAL Church of Scientology document. . The difference his edit made from the previous version is here.

It led to a nearly constant edit war in which several editors assumed ChrisO was right to cite the document.

• And it led to ChrisO modifying WP:CITE (a Misplaced Pages style guideline) to justify his edit. At WP:CITE ChrisO added a note to the page in the form of a dagger which, he apparently felt, justified his citing unpublished, CONFIDENTIAL Church of Scientology documents. Those edits took the form:
• 13:20, 23 January 2006 ChrisO (added a clarification re ease of checking)
• 14:32, 23 January 2006 Terryeo (removed the poorly stated dagger)
• 15:02, 23 January 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (restore clarification deleted without discussion by Terryeo)
• 14:15, 24 January 2006 Terryeo (removed the dagger. Citations should generally follow these procedures because readers read to learn the subject, not how esoteric the subject is.)
• 16:00, 24 January 2006 Antaeus Feldspar (restore clarification deleted by Terryeo)
• 20:54, 24 January 2006 JesseW (rv; Terryo has given more explanation so far - we all should take this to the talk page)
• 14:35, 25 January 2006 ChrisO (restored deleted dagger; see Talk page comments)
• 14:55, 25 January 2006 Terryeo (There is a conflict of ChrisO's dagger and WP:V)
• 03:11, 28 January 2006 JesseW (rm dagger; see old comment by Jimbo, and talk page)
• 03:12, 28 January 2006 JesseW (typo; still rm'ing dagger; see old comment by Jimbo, and talk page)

The discussion of that editing is here: Terryeo 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the reason we are not working together

Is that ChrisO and 'his gang' consider that no information which comprises Dianetics shall appear within the Dianetics article. Period. All of it is original research and he, and his followers are exactly following WP:NOR which states how they shall treat the subject. Others of us consider the subject, Dianetics, to be comprised of information (some of which is theory) and which information comprises actions to do. We are attempting to treat Dianetics as any subject would be, citing original sources, secondary and tertiary sources. ChrisO states his opinion of why WP:NOR applies to this subject, he and his followers faithfully fulfill that policy. I have stated my analysis at the mediation page, Terryeo 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you stating it here? The mediation page is where it belongs. You've mentioned this point of view of yours in many places. The mediation will eventually prove conclusive or not, but there's no reason to fight about it here as well. Tenebrous 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, please address what Terry is discussing rather than attacking him personally. --JimmyT 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's good of you to defend Terry, but I wasn't attacking him. This just isn't the place for that discussion. Also, I don't have anything to add to the discussion, which is why I haven't been active on the mediation thread, and I think it's pretty clear that arguing here isn't going to solve anything. Tenebrous 18:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly Tenebrous, I've worked on this article for some time and have been fustrated most of that time by an issue that no one was able to state in words. Having discovered what I think it is, I felt moved to spell it's outlines here. heh, have a good one. Terryeo 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I have no objection. Thanks for answering the question. Tenebrous 18:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry can you please explain what ChrisO did when presenting a reference which you considered unverifiable (I also agree it is unverifiable, which is supported by the recent discussion about verifiability on another page elsewhere within Misplaced Pages) --JimmyT 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just posted it a minute ago in the tail end of the section just above. Terryeo 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris would rather intimidate other Misplaced Pages editors instead of working with them and here is where he does it to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ADianetics&diff=39388969&oldid=39387898 --JimmyT 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How can we get along when ChrisO edits the article as if he owns it? See my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FDianetics&diff=39395458&oldid=39391737 on the mediation page --JimmyT 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. He edits like he owns it, places template like he owns it, and has a small group which support his every edit whether it follows Wiki Policy or doesn't. He is going to work toward no information about Dianetics ever appearing in any article (my opinion). Terryeo 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The real problem here is that the two of you are consistently refusing to abide by WP:NPOV and constantly making uncited claims in violation of WP:CITE, as well as trying to read things into WP:V and WP:NOR that simply aren't there (cf. Terryeo's wholly bogus "widely published" criterion). If you don't want to play by Misplaced Pages's rules, go somewhere else, like Wikinfo. -- ChrisO 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh ChrisO, it is you who violated and modified WP:CITE in an attempt to cover up your citing of unpublished documents. And you have further cited unpublished documents even after that incident. Wiki tells us generally that widely published information is going to be easy to find and cite. This is based on an assumption, really the assumption is that people want to know what is going on. If something does well and prospers, then it will be published and Wiki would like that status presented to the reader. Dianetics has been widely published for 55 years and has prospered. People would like to know what it is about. The information which has made it prosper should be in the article. Right along side of it should be the controversy which it has sparked, too. That it is owned and disseminated by a religion almost has to be included. There is an obvious link of Dianetics to religion which might not be clear to people, but which drove Hubbard to establish a religion and which has driven courts to addmitting that these about about the human mind belong as part of a religion. Pseudoscience is fine, there's nothing wrong with presenting many points of view but we would be remiss to ignore the most broadly published and used point of view. That being, Dianetics works and propsers. 65.147.84.67 15:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One of ChrisO's problems is that he tries to intimidate those who don't share his POV and enforces policy upon them when it suits his position, but a major problem is that a ChrisO (Misplaced Pages Administrator) violates those same policies and modifies those policies to support his citing of unreliable sources which are apparently stolen documents in his "closet". This has been documented on the mediation page. --JimmyT 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, people, not continuous complaints about other editors. This has gone on long enough. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about that Killer! And the problem seems to focus around only one or two subportions of wikipolicy. Why can't we talk about the problem and get a concensus and move on!Terryeo 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

KC, see Scientology controversy#"Dead agenting". 'Nuff said. -- ChrisO 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed most here were willing to ignore that problem over verifiability and instead "Dead Agent" Terry when he addressed the issues. I am guessing we should move past everyone's problems and simply address any valid article issues and points of disagreement over the content of the article. --JimmyT 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am so LOL. You guys are just 'way to serious. "dead agenting", LOL. go out and sniff the free air guys, take a break, loosen up the juices of creativity and then come back and let's make a good article. Terryeo 06:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That redundant template

Every Misplaced Pages artile falls under the same Misplaced Pages Policies. Why do we all need to scroll through the template every time we want to discuss ? It was originally posted by ChrisO and attempted to declare that no discussion would happen on this page unless it was about Dianetics being a pseudoscience. That's a prefectly good topic to discuss, but the Dianetics website presents Dianetics as an activity while a pseudoscience is a theory. Dianetics is doing things which is quite different than the article the template came from. In addition, Dianetics is owned and disseminated by a Church and the element of religion is likely to be discussed on this page also. When you say something in the policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V and then say the same thing again it is redundant. The template is redundant and does no one any good because the policies which we operate under apply whether we are reminded of them by a template or not. Addintionally, discussion pages are designed to discuss so we can present articles. ChrisO attempted to limit our discussions with the template. Of what possible use is it? 65.147.84.67 15:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(Terryeo?), please explains how this template limits discussion. Specifically, quote the part of it that says you aren't allowed to state your opinion here. Raymond Hill 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. Yes, I am User:65.147.84.65 and had trouble signing on, Wiki was really really slow. The template ChrisO posted said: "The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter." which is false because it says there is no editor discussion outside of those narrow limits. Any casual viewing of the discussion shows lots of discussion outside of those limits. Any mention of religion or of theory is outside of those limits. Any mention of "refutable publisher" or WP:V is outside of those limits. Any mention of "engram" as a valid concept is outside of those limits, it implies "engram" can only be discussed if it is discussed as a pseudosciece. Terryeo 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You also seem to be overlooking the fact that you should not be removing content on a talk page that you haven't personally posted. See Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. -- ChrisO 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did remove the template, and removed it a number of times. It is completely redundant and appears to me to be ChrisO's personal attempt to limit all discussion on this page to his personal POV. We will talk about everything we think applies whether ChrisO likes it or not. This should appropriately include theories about "engram", religion and other elements which together are all convered under the policies and guidelines which govern every wikipedia article. #note. I have since added to the template since its inclusion seems so important to other editorsTerryeo 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition of "Example"

An Example of Dianetic Therapy was added by Spirit of Man. It is overly long, and violates WP:NOT. Please discuss whether a description of an auditing session should be included in the article. KillerChihuahua 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If an example is necessary to let the reader know what the subject is then yes, else no. It is a fallback position, presenting a line by line description of an activity when earlier, bettter descriptions of the activity have failed. Darn it, we can present what Dianetics is and does (starting to understand your style, Killer, heh!)17:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with presenting an example of the subject of the article. Misplaced Pages is full of articles which present examples of what the article is discussing. --JimmyT 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would you strongly oppose this but not oppose such presentations in other articles? Man, I can see why this article needs mediation. --JimmyT 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a false analogy and may well constitue a tu quoque argument as well. You are also begging the question - how do you know I never objected to such content in other articles? KillerChihuahua 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a tu quoque argument, as I am not defending anything (especially not my self). I am supporting the addition of an example of the subject of the article. --JimmyT 19:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tu quoque may also be applied in the negative. KillerChihuahua 19:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that your opinion? --JimmyT 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please present the exact part of WP:NOT that such an example violates. --JimmyT 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1.4 Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and moreso, 1.7 Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically the subsection 8. Instruction manuals, usually referred to as WP:NOT a how-to manual. "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals." KillerChihuahua 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. As I said I am no expert on Misplaced Pages policies so I appreciate your pointing this out to me. --JimmyT 19:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, happy to do it. If you ever have a question on policy, feel free to ask, and I will answer if I possibly can. Not sure if you knew it, but I am an Admin with considerable experience here, so I do know a wee tad about policy and guidelines.

Back to the question: Should we include a brief description of a session? If so, where should it go? KillerChihuahua 19:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One would have to be a super-computer himself to follow everything one is interested in here in Misplaced Pages, but I did not look at Spirit of Man's contribution. I am only saying that I think that a brief sample of a subject should be acceptable in an encylopedia. Maybe I am wrong again, but then again I am not an expert on Misplaced Pages but compared to you I am an expert on Critics of Scientology, which is another subject. I'm sure the Critics now have me targetted now! :) --JimmyT 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would an admin spend his time with such controversy, don't you have better things to do? --JimmyT 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Also, most editors here don't much care what your POV is, so long as you don't edit your POV - use NPOV, V, and NOR and what you personally believe doesn't matter. KillerChihuahua 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to your question: Should we include a brief description of a session? You can get a sample from the Dianetics book and other Scientology materials. That is the best source and the primary source and published by the only source which can be considered reliable in clearly presenting the subject unadulterated, all other sources would be interpretation and opinion without a thorough unbiased study of the subject. --JimmyT 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a desciption of one auditing session. The major text for the Dianetics book that I have, ISBN 0-88404-000-3 says "A handbook of Dianetic Procedure" on the cover. The Title Page says this as well. More than half the book describes Therapy. There are a number of processes used in the book. This is an example of one process, that may result in Clear, intended to show how simple the procedure is. The other three processes would be identical except for one or two steps. ChrisO has included a comment by Carroll to the effect that he can't imagine how the subject could be tested. I imagine the same question exists for many, how could it be implemented? Spirit of Man 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as though we can get this figured out without much trouble. What we need, to meet encyclopedic style and WP guidelines and policies, is a brief description of a session, which begins with "As described in..." or "As outlined in A handbook of Dianetic Procedure, a typical auditing session begins with..." and try really really hard to be concise. Care to give it a try here on the talk page, Spirit of Man? It was your idea to include an auditing session, you have the book - please paste a first draft below. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

KC, with minor revisions, the article might read like this:

As described in Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, pp 224 or the Hubbard Dianetics Seminar work-book, a typical auditing session begins with:

Any two people wanting to help each other reach a better life with Dianetics, sit down in chairs across from each other. They should have a copy of the Hubbard Dianetics Seminar work-book.

Each person should carefully read through the work-book and have it handy for reference. Get any questions you have answered.

One person conducts the activity. He asks a question, gets the answer and acknowledges that answer. This is called the auditor. The other person looks at his memory pictures, does the action and answers the questions. This person is called the preclear. Step three is included to absolutely cancel any form of positive suggestion that could accidently occur.

There are 10 steps.

Step One: Assure the preclear he will know everything that happens.

Step Two: Have the preclear close his eyes.

Step Thee: Install the canceller. "In the future, when I utter the word 'cancelled,' everything I have said to you while you are in a therapy session will be cancelled and will have no force with you. Any suggestion I have made to you will be without force when I say the word 'cancelled.' Do you understand?"

Step Four: Return the preclear to a period in the past. "Locate an incident that you feel you can comfortably face."

Step Five: Work with the file clerk to get data. "All right. Go through the incident and say what is happening as you go along."

Step Six A: Reduce the incident. Get the preclear to confront all the details of the incident. Go over it several times.

Step Six B: Locate the next incident to run. "Let's find another incident that you feel you can comfortably face."

Step Seven: Bring the preclear to present time.

Step Eight: Be sure the preclear is in present time.

Step Nine: Give the preclear the canceller word. "Very good. Cancelled."

Step Ten: Restore full awareness of the preclear's surroundings. Have him look around.

Sessions are usually about 2 or 2 1/2 hours long.

Spirit of Man 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Auditing_(Scientology) article is best suited for a detailed example of a Dianetics session (and maybe there is already such an example there.) Raymond Hill 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It might also be worth explaining the differences (if any) between auditing in Scientology and Dianetics. -- ChrisO 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology currently offers courses in Book One auditing. The procedure described at Povmec's link is incorrect in several ways. The earliest Dianetic auditing has to do with confront and was not released with or mentioned in DMSMH. It was re-released in the Fourth London Advanced Clinical Course where it produced clears. The person on a couch part is not used. Any counting and finger snapping is not used. Many current Dianetics groups use the above process and nothing else. That link cites past-lives as the factor that brought about Scientology. That is not true. Dianetics processing is a clearing procedure that reduces engrams and improves the ability to confront. The auditor is not allowed to prohibit engrams from any timeframe. Scientology handles engrams in a different way. For an engram to influence a person it has to have a connection to present time. This is called a Key-In and basically means the first time the person was reminded of an engram and it stuck or continued forward in time. A Scientology process merely puts the person's attention on such times in a specific way and breaks the connection. This is called Keying Out. This is much faster and millions of engrams can be Keyed-Out quickly. When the person is near the level of Clear, Dianetics is again used and engrams are run the rest of the way to clear. Spirit of Man 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope my entry now will lighten things and that someone won't use this statement against me. *gosh* But my idea is that POVMEC and ChrisO try the steps on eachother then maybe they too will decide "Hey!! This stuff hurts! It is NO pseudoscience!" :) --JimmyT 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither your, nor mine, nor Raymond's, nor ChrisO's opinion have anything to do with Dianetics being pseudoscience. Tenebrous 05:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is not a pseudoscience. The eight factors that qualify a science do not require confirmation by other sciences. The results of Dianetics are 50,000 clears. No other mental study has produced anything comparable. I don't know of one that even meets the eight criteria you folks have presented here. Can you show one? That being said, the books of the early 50's made the claim for science in the interests of getting some help doing a big job. Not one of the "sciences" stood forward. The job of creating a civilization without insanity, without criminality and without war is a worthy goal. If you do not wish to help, please step to the rear. Spirit of Man 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those eight factors may play a factor in helping other scientists to determine the value of Dianetics. 50,000 clears is anecdotal evidence unless substantiated by a study. "No other mental study..." you have proof of this? "I don't know of one that even meets the eight criteria you folks have presented here." Argument from ignorance. "If you do not wish to help, please step to the rear." Begging the question---someone can agree to your goals but dispute your methods. Dianetics *is* a pseudoscience, until it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Tenebrous 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*Study in this case means an independent scientific study. One which does not presuppose the existence of a "Clear". The words I want to hear are "peer-reviewed". 137.229.152.246 07:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And as I've said over and over again, the eight criteria are not something that I've made up and arbitrarily put in the article - they are well-recognised, long-standing criteria for assessing the degree to which a concept can be said to be scientific. If our resident Scientologists argue that it's wrong to cite them, they must also explain why it's wrong to use them on Intelligent design and Anti-psychiatry. As I've also said several times, if we make the assertion that scientists consider Dianetics pseudoscientific, we have to say why they think this. -- ChrisO 08:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

-- ChrisO 08:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To create a formal document, cutting and pasting the criteria your document was going to meet would be appropriate. To create a user-friendly, readable article shouldn't include the same fomality. It takes up article space in an article that is too long already. That you want to rely on it only undermines the weakness of your position, that being something like, "no word shall appear but that it tells the reader, 'Dianetics is peseudoscience'," and that's a silly position to try to hold againt millions of copies of DMSMH, against a church who use Dianetics daily and own millions of dollars of property around the world. Terryeo 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)Auditing_(Scientology) is indeed where any detailed description should go, if on WP at all. I'm not sure I was clear. Summary style is what we're after here. I'm going to put in a draft, discuss below please, especially pointing out any factual errors (as I said, I dont' have the book):

As outlined in A handbook of Dianetic Procedure, a typical auditing session consists of one auditor and one subject. The auditor guides the subject through past incidents to enable the subject to identify and release engrams.

That is a summary. KillerChihuahua 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also discuss, what you mean by "It is overly long, and violates WP:NOT." WP:NOT talks about length in terms of this is not a written encyclopedia so the length can be longer. What exactly was your meaning? I didn't see anything that excluded such an example as I provided. I didn't intend to write a summary like this. This looks like it should be in the Introduction to introduce a therapy section below, instead of a section of its own. Auditing has progressed since that book was written. The term "Preclear" is used for the last 50 years, not "subject". Do you intend to "date" your introduction to that period only? Did you intend to delete what the process is the preclear does? This example presents something a person can comfortably face. You present "engrams" which means "pain". Did you intend to delete "the example" of how these things fit together simply? I think the example is appropriate and I thank you for your initial suggestions. This one is not so good for me. In the sixties there was a parady of Hubbard's Excaliber, that talked about reducing all knowledge to one word, IRTNOG. It had no meaning for anyone and lost all knowledge. Spirit of Man 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is not notable for its ideas. It is notable as a social phenomenon. We are not trying to provide a complete summary of all the concepts in Dianetics. Personally, I think it would be a bad idea to include enough information for people to actually try it--I wouldn't want to confuse anyone into thinking that this is actually a valid therapy. And on the terminology: it does not make sense to use the words unique to Dianetics to describe concepts of Dianetics. See Circular definition. "A circular definition is one that assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined." Tenebrous 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realized, the idea, "not notable for its ideas" but "noteable for its social phenomenon" may be a focus for our editing. I read it and was immediately attracted to its ideas, they were the only ideas about the mind that made any sense (I studied psychology in college). Yet what Tenebrous has just stated is probably the mainstream view. Terryeo 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We are going to have to be careful about introducing specialized vocabularly. I think with a little care we can use plain english for the ideas and mostly keep specialized terms out of it. I also agree we should not try to give the user so much information that he feels like he could sit down and do it based on our article. But we do want to introduce him to the idea of it. With some links to pro sites and to con sites. Terryeo 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Dianetics is known for its ideas and definitions and special pains taken to define logics and word formats to present information. Tenebrous's statement is preditory. Here is the definition of "subject" from OneLook.com "A person or organism that is the object of research, treatment, experimentation, or dissection." There is no dissection, experimentation or research in this auditing process. Preclear is defined and used in context above, and is substantially the same in DMSMH a handbook of Dianetic Procedure, pp 230. It has been used since that time in Dianetics and Scientology and "subject" has not been. Preclear is the customary and appropriate term. "subject" in this context is disinformtion, inserted to confuse and disinterest the reader. Preclear is defined in context in my example above and is not circular. Tenebrous admits his intention is to not provide understandable information, prevent people from using Misplaced Pages information on this article fully, misdefines the context of Dianetics, and boldly attempts to invalidate the value of the subject here to editors. Spirit of Man 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right you are Spirit of Man but I think the problem doesn't yet have a base in the article. I don't think Dianetics is presented to be what it is yet. And so we run into this difficulty. The Dianetics website presents it as an activity. Instead of a theory which which would parallel ChrisO's Intelligent Design example, the Dianetics website ] presents Dianetics as an activity. The theory idea is bypassed because there is some vocabulary but there isn't a 'theory' which is being argued exists. Instead there is an action and the ideas of how to do the action and the ideas which the action involves. Hubbard called this a "workable theory" which differs from proving or disproving a theory is real. You know, the idea of how to throw a baseball, "an action" differs from Newton's laws because you don't learn math to throw a baseball. In the same way, Dianetics is presented as an action, how to do something. This method of presenting the subject would make the article easier to understand, I think. Terryeo 06:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Opposition to Dianetics" section

Concerning the position of the American Psychological Association on Dianetics, we could add a footnote containing the following link: Council Policy Manual: M. Scientific Affairs - IV. DIANETICS. Raymond Hill 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a good citation and verification to me, Raymond. Terryeo 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, its great. It pops right up, it is an official site, it states its position cleanly without predjudice, the link goes right to the pertinent material, its a good cite ! You probably prefer "Raymond" as a means of address, right? Terryeo 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice find! But why the "opposition to Scientology" heading? -- ChrisO 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I must have been absent-minded, somehow I wrote "Opposition to scientology" instead of "Opposition to Dianetics" (where the paragraph is.) Raymond Hill 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think in psychology they call that a Freudian Slip. :) Spirit of Man 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be a plesure to see clean citations like above instead of the convoluted verifications from single individuals on websites that are themselves confusing to navigate. Also, the APA is a well recognized organization and not an impossible to find publication from 1952 which isn't available. Maybe we can clean the article up some and present both sides appropriately? And not revert each other's shoes off when those of us who know the subject write an introduction or a small piece? Terryeo 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

unpublished "proof of pseudoscience"

Is "^ "The Integrity of Source", Scientology Policy Directive 19 of July 7, 1982; cited in "The Ultimate Spin Doctor: L. Ron Hubbard - The Man and His Myth", Watchman Expositor Vol. 13, No. 5, 1996 ". As ChrisO spelled out earlier, that (internal to Scientology) policy directive was not published to the public. It was created by an agency which itself is no longer in existence, its parent body, the Guardian's Office is no longer in existence, its created documents have long since lost their force and besides which, it was never published to the public. To use it as "proof" that Dianetics is a pseudoscience is too big a streach. It should come out. Terryeo 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite your source that this specific document has "lost its force". -- ChrisO 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary. It is actually incumbant on you as an editor to provide a clean verification but I will spell out how that internally created and internally used (Internal the the Church of Scientology) document has lost its force. It was created by a group which was formed under the Guardian's Office. The Guardian's Office no longer exists. The documents which they generated no longer have force within the Church of Scientology. The group(s) which were spawned and worked under their direction are no longer extant. That a group within the Church of Scientology has the same name as one of the groups under the Guardian's Office had does not make a document created by the group under the Guardian's Office to be valid. That document was created by the Guardian's Office. Quoting it is using it completely out of context to prove a point which is intuitive. Hubbard is dead. Dianetics (as practiced by the Church of Scientology) is not going to produce more Dianetics. There might be some very small and minor things, but nothing much, per Church policy. It is my understanding the document was created because there was a time when an individual high in the Church, modified and created policy and technical information which Hubbard was not aware of and which other, equally high persons, were not aware were harmful to the delivery of Church technology. That was stopped. That document stopped it. It seems to me to be a silly, frivolous citation in a weak attempt to prove a point which is already intuitive. Why use such a long dead document from a subgroup which was disbanded? Why go to all this trouble? Terryeo 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian's Office doesn't exist anymore but an office with the same name does. Hmm. I'll accept the possibility, but you're going to have to prove that they're not the same organization. Also, this story about this high-level saboteur---where did you hear it? Can we see this source? 137.229.152.246 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo states "It shouldn't be necessary. It is actually incumbant on you as an editor to provide a clean verification". Aren't you yourself an editor? Don't you also want to contribute and provide good sources for what you state, rather than merely pointing at what you consider a lack of good sources from others? (you removed sentences along with their referenced sources from other articles a few hours ago, as in , ) Is it your view we should add the following to the article "Some Dianetics advocates are of the opinion that this unpublished and confidential document has lost its force", with no further references? Raymond Hill 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, how many times must you be told that you are to edit under WP:V? The source you cite is not published. I tell you so. You have been told so. Anyone can get it, it is unpublished. You are refusing to responsively edit and you are refusing to accept responsibility when your mistakes are pointed out to you. You should never have used that verification. You should never use unpublished sources when you edit on Misplaced Pages. Period. Terryeo 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Show me where it says that you can't use online sources. 137.229.152.246 11:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, then I guess you don't want us to quote from the two dozen or so Web sites listed in this Google search. --Modemac 13:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh Modemac, please understand. I know there is a good deal of Scientology critism and it is perfectly okay with me that you do nothing with your whole life BUT criticize Scientology, okay? Now, can we get back to wiki policy and creating a Dianetics article? BTW, you get a lot of sites with a simple search word like "Scientology" too. heh. Terryeo 09:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Flunk, that's a poor attempt to change the subject. You yourself claimed that the HCOPL "The Integrity of Source" is unpublished, and I showed you (and everyone here) that it is indeed published and available on any number of Web sites via a simple Google search. Your claim that it is an "unpublished" document is unverified, and we have little reason to accept your claim as such...in the same way that nearly everything in Dianetics claimed by Hubbard has been shown to be unverified. BTW, when you do a simple word search like "Scientology," the #2 site listed there is www.xenu.net. That suggests that xenu.net is indeed a popular and reliable source of information that can be cited on Misplaced Pages, in this article and others. In fact, it already is. --Modemac 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:V tells you so, tells me so too. It says: "Information on Misplaced Pages must be reliable. (informations) may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Then it is incumbant on an editor to understand what "published by reliable and reputable sources" means. It means, "published to the public" and this is a different meaning than "personal letters" and a different meaning than "post-it notes to fellow workers" and a different meaning than "internal-to-an- organization emails" and a different meaning than "executive directives issued by a department to the organization". Published means, "published to the public" and that is the standard we work by. I believe you are pointing out the situation where, say, the Clambake site procures a dead document from an indivdual who has stolen it from the Church of Scientology and then Clambake posts that stolen document on their website. That, you reason, is published. In some cases the Church of Scientology has take those situations to court. Clearly those situations are not as good of sources of information as, say any published book. The minium threshold for inclusion for us editors is "Verifiability" and a link to a legally contested document would be verifiable, even if it was unpublished. If that is the level article everyone insists on, then that is the level of refutability that Misplaced Pages will have. I think we can do better. I don't think we need legally contested, long dead, unpublished documents cited to present what Dianetics is. Terryeo 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If a document was never meant to be published, but some investigative reporter turns it up and publishes it as part of a story, the document is now published, regardless of the original intent. Friday (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, does that mean that Xenu.net (which publishes on their website certain documents which are confidential and stolen from the Church of Scientology) is a refutable source and may be quoted and linked to? In particular, there is a Church of Scientology confidential Class VIII lecture which ChrisO cites which was on a website not long ago, but which is legally contested (I'm pretty sure it is presently contested). And there are many other such documentations on Xenu and Clambake. Some are legally contested, some are old copies of what were copyrighted Church policy when they were created, but which have been cancelled, modified, revoked, and so on by the Church. The Fair game article is full of such older, cancelled references. Could you comment please, User:Friday because this is one of the beanpoles we are beating each other with. Terryeo 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So far we've only your word to say that these articles were stolen. And the word is "reputable" not "refutable". You haven't shown any evidence that these articles have been cancelled. The "copyright" card is also void: this is fair use. All of this has been mentioned before; you have ignored it, and kept repeating your same argument, and misreading policy to support whatever you want it to say. The personal attacks are also getting old. Tenebrous 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous. I am not opposing good information in articles. I am not opposing good citations. In the Fair Game article I stated a good deal about policy and how a person could view policy and church documents and so on. 99 percent of it is widely published and listed with an ISBN, these citations to early inter-agency documents are real hard to find. I'm perfectly willing to talk about any part of any of them and I surely don't know all there is to know. But why must these esoteric documents be used as verifications at all? What kind of convoluted points are being supported by long gone, inter-agency documentations? This isn't a rag newspaper but an encyclopedia. For example, Povmec's cite of what the American Psychiatric organization says about Dianetics is a reputable source of information. I support my points with widely published books, good sources. What need is there for others to support their points with secret communications, hidden documents, sources from legally contested sources,etc, etc, ad nauseam? Terryeo 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are also using your own definition of a "good citation". If we were citing the paper document you would have a point. We aren't, you don't. Simple. WP:RS says that neither online nor print sources are inherently more reliable. At this point, the document in question is neither secret, hidden, or legally contested. It's widely available online. Now, you are free to disagree on this point, but the rest of us think that this information is highly relevant and should be included in the article. One of the reasons is that internal memos tell you a lot about the organization they come from (as opposed to PR statements). Refer to any of the famous memos from Microsoft, FEMA, Enron, or even the Downing Street Memo. 137.229.152.246 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The internal memos are great sources. Friday (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Friday, that's very true. The Pentagon Papers are a classic example - they were never meant to be published, they're still unpublished by the US Government, but they were published by the NY Times and others following their leakage. Having pointed this out, I'm confident that Terryeo will make his way to Talk:Pentagon Papers and argue for the deletion or redaction of most of that article - after all, "how would a person characterize an editor who cited a military secret to a wikipedia article", as he puts it in #Slander. The Pentagon Papers article is a prima facie example of such a situation. Go get 'em, Terryeo! ;-) -- ChrisO 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, allow me to make 4 points here. First, Friday has administrative powers. Secondly, I asked him a question which pertains to information we are having difficulty with in this article, your stance in this area is widely known and does not contribute to his answer nor to resolution of the difficulties. Third, Friday has reminded us below, at how the sort of baiting comment you just made isn't appropriate. And Forth, you have not yet stated that you will accept mediation at the mediation page, . Yep, that's 4. Terryeo 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First, so have I. What's the relevance of that? Second, my point is obvious - as the example of the Pentagon Papers shows, we've already dealt with issues of unpublished, indeed secret material in ways other than your bizarre, novel and logic-defying interpretations of WP:V. Third, I certainly hope that you'll desist from personal attacks - you still owe ScienceApologist an apology. Fouth, be patient! -- ChrisO 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

For the first time in a very long time you have replied to something I have stated. Unfortunately you are unable to prevent yourself from using "bizarre, novel, and logic-defying" and simply reply. Would you kindly refrain from such emotionally weighted words in the future? But that's a real big improvement. Could we move on to actualy discussing things now? For example. Do you still hold the position that nothing published by Bridge publications can be quoted on in the article? Terryeo 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What Dianetics is

There's a couple of points which have come up above which I'd like to break out, as I think they're fairly important. Terryeo talks above about Dianetics being an "activity" rather than a "theory". It's more accurate to say that it's both a "theory" and an activity. Hubbard himself makes this distinction, and the introduction to the book talks about "a new theory and technique" (two distinct things). The "theory" underpins the activity. Hubbard certainly could have said "do this and it will make you feel better", without providing any explanation for why it supposedly makes you feel better. The whole concept of engrams, aberration, the reactive mind, clearing etc. is the "theory" behind the activity, which Hubbard repeatedly insists is "scientific fact" . I think we need to make this distinction clear in the article. We also need to be clear about what Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health actually is and how it's managed to sell so many copies (allegedly!). It's not just a self-help book, and it certainly isn't a reputable source in terms of WP:NOR (i.e. we can't simply take what it says as proven fact). The book is, in effect, the founding document of a belief system, heavily promoted by a religious organisation as a means of proselytizing (my local Church of Scientology, for instance, has a window entirely filled with copies of Dianetics). We need to bear that in mind. I think we're in an analagous situation to Biblical literalism, where some people have an a priori belief in the literal factuality of the book, citing it as an unassailable source because "it works" or "it's God's word" or whatever. This belief is, of course, their prerogative. But WP:NPOV compels us to put aside literalism and assess the book neutrally - we don't assert it's true, and we don't assert that it's false. We simply report what is said about it. In so doing, we also need to be aware of what WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience requires - "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view", or in this context, don't mislead the reader into thinking that Dianetics is the majority view. I think even our Scientologist editors would have to agree that Dianetics isn't a majority view in the medical or scientific professions. -- ChrisO 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is in mediation because you refused to discuss on the discussion page here. That you got 3 other editors who edit to agree with you doesn't make you more right or more wrong or make the simplicity less. You refused to discuss the issues on the page here and took it to mediation. I was discusssing. Others were discussing. You gave one attempt at discusssing. You posted the template. That did not make things happen. You felt that mediation was the solution. The solution is to communicate. We are in a position which I am an expert editor. I am not attempting to control the article. I have two concerns. One is that the article communicate what Dianetics is. That might take 5 paragraphs and it might take less. If you wish to understand what I mean by "Communicate what Dianetics is" you could look at any of these articles which communicate thier subject. Apple. MEST_(Scientology). Clear_(Scientology). Thetan. Meahwhile I see ChrisO eidts produce articles which are based on false premises. ChrisO's "Scientology and Space Opera" is such an article. This article, Dianetics uses similar of ChrisO's technqiues. He inserts obfuscating remarks which deny the reader an understanding of the subject and disperses his attention. Then he slyly inserts a false datum or two. That, combined with an excessive long article that touches on the character of Hubbard and his alleged "economic problems" combines together, with convoluted and poor citations and the reader comes away not understanding Dianetics. Inflamed of the subject, yes. Certain the subject is of no value, yes. But understand Dianetics? No. A reader could not understand what Dianetics is about by reading this article (my opinion and shared by other persons who know the subject of Dianetics). But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that ChrisO refuses to effectively communicate on the discussion page.Terryeo 09:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly talk about things. I certainly do. The article you wrote is useless with one exception. It gets you attention. You're putting it into mediation is useless. With one exception. It gets you attention. The rest of us are discussing common ground. You are off hanging onto your unpublished verifications, telling everyone that it is okay if ChrisO uses unpublished citations because ChrisO is an experienced editor whose judgement is unimpeachable. The issues here are not about belief. The main issues are working with other editors. You could begin to work with other editors by admitting the responsibility that you are wrong to cite unpublished sources and that you would quit dispersing the editing effort by insisting they continue to be included. You could recognize people have opinions and work together, that I am not your opponent, that the product would be an article. BTW, ChrisO, you have not yet agreed to accept mediation. At no point have you worked with editors on this page. You have done nothing but disperse and prevent collusion. That's not productive is what I think. We are, after all, having most of this trouble because you refused to work with the rest of us in the first place.Terryeo 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to have misstated some basic truths here. ChrisO has done an excellent job working with other editors to produce an NPOV article, not just here but at many other Misplaced Pages articles as well. The main issue here is your attempt (with SpiritofMan) to re-write this article from a Hubbard point of view, one in which there is no criticism of Dianetics, the only scientific views of Dianetics are ones approved by Scientology, and Dianetics is assumed to be a "workable" science despite the fact that there is still no proof of this...and your many, many quips and comments here still have not proven any. --Modemac 11:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, it has been a persistant struggle with you to bring your attenion back to the article. You are mistaken of what I am trying to do. I have said this before to you. Spirit of Man and I have both used Dianetics and know what it is. You have your areas of expertise, I'm sure. Perhaps you can fell trees or perhaps you are expert in areas of law. I have no idea. Whatever your area of expertise, I would listen to you about it. I'll say again, it is perfectly okay with me whatever the article says about Dianetics within limits of Misplaced Pages's policies. The single thing which we do not agree about and for which there is no particular policy line in Misplaced Pages's policies is this: This article shall contain somewhere within it, that information which comprises Dianetics. That's all. I am not saying "dont criticize" and I am not saying "no pseudoscience" and I am not saying you should not have an opinion. I am saying the article will contain, as long as I edit, will contain information so the reader can read it and understand what Dianetics is about. Terryeo 08:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO sent this article for mediation on 19:22, 6 February 2006 (ET), because of the following changes you repeatedly made, and which were reverted by many different users (not just ChrisO): , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. These changes were your attempt to change the article to your views that Dianetics is actually a theory, and not pseudoscientific, despite all the references provided in the article. Your comment above "The article you wrote is useless with one exception. It gets you attention ..." is in violation of personal attack im my opinion, and not your first time, you have been asked before to abstain from engaging in such behavior. Discuss on the merit of others' arguments, not their character. Raymond Hill 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your analysis of why ChrisO engaged others and "sent" the situation to mediation is your analysis. It is not ChrisO's, nor are you a party to the mediation. I appriciate your generous willingness to explain the situation, but it was not your reasoning, but ChrisO's which took the article to mediation. Not only has ChrisO not invited you to the medition, but he has not even agreed to accept the mediation, should it happen.His reasons for sending to mediation were stated when he first sent it to mediation. That ChrisO continually cites unpublished documents in a weak attempt to "prove" Dianetics to be pseudoscience is, from my point of view, admission that he has little to contribute.Terryeo 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminder about the purpose of talk pages

Wow, there's a lot of stuff in here, some of it is not very useful. This is already explained in the big box at the top, but I just wanted to remind everyone again that talk pages are for discussing the article. That's all they're meant for. Talking about Dianetics itself isn't very useful here, except as it pertains to the article. Talking about other editors only causes friction. If everyone remembers to only talk about the article, I think we'll make better progress here. Friday (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Right you are and thank you for the reminder. Terryeo 16:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your user page, I'm glad to see you here.Terryeo 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanity publications and sources

(starting a new section because I think it's preferable to have one topic per section instead of all over the place) There's been some discussion of whether Bridge Publications is a "vanity press". I think it'd be preferable to have one topic per section instead of all over the place, hence I'm not replying in-line. The reason we normally care about vanity presses are that some folks pay to have their book "published" and then go and try to create a biographical article on themselves on a famous author. Also, books from vanity publishers are frequently considered less reliable than those from a legit publisher.

In this case, Bridge is a Scientology publisher. As such, these works can IMO be considered reliable sources, as far as Scientology talking about Scientology. We wouldn't use a Hubbard book as a source on medicine or nuclear physics, because despite his claims of expertise, he's not recognized as knowledgable in those fields and has no relevant credentials. But, we can certainly use a Hubbard book as a source on Hubbard or dianetics. Of course, we won't present the things Hubbard wrote about himself or dianetics as being true, we'll present them as being what he wrote. Anyway, it's possible everyone here already agrees with all this, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to start a new section and try to make it clear. Friday (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dianetics article itself is using Hubbard's books as a reference quite a lot (see the footnotes and references), so it seems something already agreed upon. Raymond Hill 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review