Misplaced Pages

Talk:E-meter

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grorp (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 28 January 2024 (→Capitalization: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:47, 28 January 2024 by Grorp (talk | contribs) (→Capitalization: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-meter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconScientology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

To add to article

To add to this article: at least a brief mention of the "floating needle" (F/N) phenomenon. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Why? What is the connection to the E-meter and which reliable source makes that connection? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph

(Moved here from my user talk page)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Bit confused by this edit.

"Rigorous testing of the polygraph has yielded mixed results" is incorrect; testing has consistently shown that polygraph testing is a junk science.

"some critics classify polygraph operation as a pseudoscience" is a weird way to put it. It would be more reasonable to say that scientists and experts in all relevant fields agree that it is nonsense.

Maybe this was different in 1983 but we live in 2024 now. Polygnotus (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I didn't add that content. My edit was just to add some citations that were already in use in the article to replace the "citation needed" tags. It looks like the content itself was added in 2015 by this edit. I don't know anything in particular about polygraphs, but it sounds like you do. You're welcome to edit the article. It could use an update.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Confusing

With what seems like earlier editors' attempts to ridicule the topic of the e-meter, this article has become more "what it is not", and fails to clearly describe "what it is". The article was (and should be) intended to describe the Scientology device (WP:DUE)—keep its title in mind. Though it could still mention "other similar devices" or "non-Scientology uses", one must keep in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT.

I made some changes (rearranged sections) with the goal of an outline like this:

  • Lead (need rewriting)
  • Overview (keeping it brief, cover what is it, who uses it, how is it used, why it was invented)
  • History
    • Mathison (cover Mathison's invention)
    • Hubbard (cover Hubbard's association/participation with the invention or ongoing modifications)
    • Earlier use of potentially similar devices (as an aside, because none were part of the e-meter's invention)
  • Use in Scientology (put a little more detail than the overview of how it is used)
  • Technical description (put all the electronics/geeky stuff here)
  • Legal issues

That last section titled "Scientology beliefs and theories" is mostly uncited, heavy on the quotes, and I'm not really sure what the purpose of it was. Other things of note: The constant use of "EDA" is odd, since all the sources called it a "galvanometer"; I suspect EDA is coming from the "what it is not" category of sources. The article is also heavy on quotes.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

The trademarked term is spelled "E-Meter". I thought that "e-meter" would be the general term as written, but no. Every Hubbard or Church of Scientology source, from very early to recent, seems to have capitalized it as "E-Meter". There are 104 instances of "e-meter" in the article, with varying capitalization. Perhaps we should standardize it to "E-Meter", unless it is used in a quote which capitalizes it differently.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: