Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottperry (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 8 June 2015 (→Ad hominem stew: tus far). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scientology High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Keith McDuffee (April 18, 2008). "MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader". TV Squad.

Controversial paragraphs pasted here for discussion

I removed these two paragraphs from the article. I am posting them here. According to Wiki policy these statements require reference or substantiation if they are to be part of the article:

The church has claimed on the one hand that Scientology is religion, not science, and therefore does not seek scientific support — and on the other, that the E-Meter's scientific validity may be inferred by the similarities between the polygraph, which uses the electrical conductivity of the skin to indicate whether the subject is comfortable with questions and answers, and the E-Meter, which measures similarly.

--the above paragraph states the COS asks people to infer something about the E-meter. A reference will be required before that can be posted as a fact within the article. This is per Wiki policy.

In late 2005 Hungarian intelligence agencies warned the Hungarian government that Scientologists have smuggled dozens of E-meters into the country, which threatens national security since lie detectors are controlled equipment under law, which cannot be imported or posessed by private entities. This led to a public investigation by the citizen's rights ombudsman and the personal data protection ombudsman against the Magyar branch of Scientology over privacy violations.

--The above paragraph implies the E-meter is a lie detector. That should be referenced because the COS says it is something quite other than a lie detector. The statement appears to be a controversy about the stupidity of the Hungarian intelligence agency and should appear in an appropriate article rather than in this article. Does the author of the paragraph have a reference proving the E-meter is a lie detector? If so, that reference should appear. The Wiki policy for such statements is at: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Terryeo 08:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Terryeo 23:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

--The above paragraph should probably be reworded so that it does not imply that an e-meter is a lie detector but rather, that the Hungarian government considers them to be controlled under the same law that controls lie detector equipment. Equating the e-meter with a lie detector is not "stupidity" on the part of the Hungarian government. The e-meter measures Galvanic skin response which IS a component of polygraph tests. And this paragraph bears inclusion anyway, regardless of whether or not the e-meter is a lie detector, because it is pertinent to the history of the e-meter. Pahool (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird units of information content

"Over 1024 levels of sensitivity" is mentioned several times on this page

• If analog, why choose such a particular number
• If digital, why say "over" 1024, rather than giving the actual resolution
• Why not just say "10-bit resolution" if that's what it is

I appreciate we're probably just repeating an inaccurate claim by whoever makes the device, but it sounds weird. Ojw 18:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It is analog and obviously has an infinite number of potential scale divisions. This isn't an entirely accurate nor readable article. And Scientology doesn't claim it to be anything more than it is, a device which measure the electrical skin resistance of a human body. The reason it is used at all is because a human body's skin resistance varies slightly with how a person is feeling. Thus a gloomy person measures slightly differently than the same person when he is cheerful. 65.147.75.58 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

About those changes of resistance

An E-meter mainly works because it indicates changes in resistance. However, a person will not be able to manifest changes which the E-meter can reliably indicate unless they are in good physical health. In this beginning of session action, the actual magnitude of the person's body resistence is measured and is critical to whether an auditing session happens or doesn't happen. Therefore it seems necessary to state in the article, Changes are mainly what are used but are not the whole story about how an E-meter is used. Terryeo 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

removed from my user page

Regarding your recent reversals of my edits on the E-Meter page, I feel it is inappropriate to imply the Church of Scientology has created a lie detector. The information about the Hungarian agency is not cited (how do we know it happened) and the information about their viewing it as a lie detector is not cited (its not a lie detector unless documented) and what is the "Magyar branch of Scientology?" But when I pointed these reasons out on the Discussion page of the E-Meter article and pointed to the appropriate Wiki policy which is Misplaced Pages:Citing sources you reverted the paragraph without discussion. Additionally, if this issue is to be discussed it should be noted what the currect status of the Church of Scientology is, in Hungary and how the Hungarian government and the Church of Scientology delt with each other. The paragraph in question follows:

In late 2005 Hungarian intelligence agencies warned the Hungarian government that Scientologists have already smuggled dozens of E-meters into the country, which threatens national security since lie detectors are controlled equipment under law, which cannot be imported or posessed by private entities. This led to a public investigation by the citizen's rights ombudsman and the personal data protection ombudsman against the Magyar branch of Scientology over privacy violations. Terryeo 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You fail to mention that you also inserted into the article "Oddly enough, Mr. Hubbard had quit attempting to convince the science community of his findings about 1950 and accusations of this type didn't change his work." You fail to mention that you also changed other usages of Hubbard's name so that they began with "Mr.", a curious change that you will find is not supported by the Manual of Style. You fail to mention that you added an unreferenced claim "(An E-meter's current is less than a flashlight battery)" which, since it was apparently intended to mean something about the theory which preceded it, would absolutely need to be referenced to not qualify as original research. You fail to mention that for no apparent reason, you converted every single {{web reference}} template into a featureless external link. Quite frankly, you should not be citing Misplaced Pages policies that you are in the process of violating. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Antaeus. Would you prefer to disscuss changes to this E-Meter article here rather than on your page, because by refusing to discuss here other venues become necessary.

While I appricate what you did say, I can not help but notice it does not respond to the issue which instigated our discussion, the paragraph in question. Instead of responding about the wiki policy violation per wikipedia:citing_sources, all of your comment is a critique of my changes. I am willing to say, it is a good critique and I appriceate your specificity toward uniform editing, but none of it replies the paragraph which is in violation of policy. It is important because it implies the E-meter might be a lie detector. It states the Hungarian government thinks so. If you will read about lie detectors and how impossible it is to create a transportable, reliable lie detector I'm sure you would appriciate situation. Law enforcement has tried for years. If the COS could make and market such a meter they would do quite well ! People are going to read it and want to know where it came from, want to know if there is any substance to an E-Meter being a lie detector. Let's satisfy them ! Let's cite that paragraph !

Thank you for mentioning about Mr. Hubbard's name ! Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29]] says a person's name should appear fully at first mention and thereafter the surname should be used. The problem as the Article now stands is that Mr. Hubbard's full name is never used at all. Let's make that right !

I state the current received by the person who is connecting themselves to the E-meter is "less than a flashlight battery." The reason I am stating this bold simplicity is this: The first line of the Article defines the E-meter as a battery powered device. The electronics of the device use some electricity and the meter's dial uses some electricity and this leaves less than a full battery use for the person who has connected themselves. It is not a big device, it has a small sort of battery. Some flashlights are larger than an E-Meter and the E-Meter obviously has electronics in it. . Do you see it takes no actual contact with an E-Meter to observe that the user receives less than full battery?

I did change the web reference links to standard external links and I see you have reverted them. My feeling for that use of those links is this: It supplies information which is excessive and detracts from the article because it oddly includes the last date of access to the URL. How is that information helpful to the reader?

You have a nice, gold star beside your name. Will you maintain a good reputation by appropriate reply to this violation of Wiki policy or will you continue to refuse to discuss it and substitue these other issues? Terryeo 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a "lie detector and privacy" incident happened, at least in some way... with the import of a "lie detector" for an unknown (?) church being stopped, and the lie detector classified as a form of military equipment, with the press attributing the import attempt to scientology. Some hungarian sites (and quite a few english ones, as well) do characterize the E-meter as a basic lie detector (which it technically can somewhat work as, but only in a somewhat-limited, unreliable, fashion... LRH once noted this himself back in 1971), so I guess those Hungarian sites assume that a more advanced E-meter/lie detector (in their eyes) import would be related to Scientology... I'm guessing that this is the origin of the whole "lie detectors in hungary" meme. It looks like the Hungarin CoS is, indeed, also being investigated about privacy of their members, and whether information on members is being stored, as well. I haven't found out anything about "Intelligence sources" in the story, but like most things, there's a grain of truth in the original WP text, even if it's a tad distorted and inflammatory. Sources so far: Oh, and here's a simple google , which points out how many sites consider the E-meter as a primitive lie detector, as advanced lie detector technology uses some of the same tools to get measurements.

Exactly why I keep trying to spell out the difference in the E-Meter article, an E-meter measures resistence. That's it. A lie detector has a dozen graphs or something, it is a machine you push around with all kinds of hookups about resperation rate, heartbeat, god knows what else. Even your post, last line, "some of the same tools" and it is one, singular, only, skinny tool, resistence. A human body has resistence, measureable 24/7. lol. Why confuse people with technobabble when it isn't fruitful? The guy who can reliably test lies will become wealthy no matter how many tools he uses. Terryeo 15:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody feel like taking on the re-write, to include the things that we've sourced, and altering the text to reflect what actually happened? Ronabop 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, Terryeo, Ronabop if someone re-writes the article can we please change the refs to "current" and "skin-response"? The e-meter is based on measuring resistance and the Wheatstone bridge not skin conductances, sweating and un-sweating. The needle does not indicate current level. Spirit of Man 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically one *can* alter the amount of resistance to a current with sweating, tightly gripping the cans, loosely gripping the cans, etc... but yes, the article was kind of vague in that the measurement being used in auditing is not the actual amount of current, but the *resistance* to that current (which itself it determined by measuring two different currents). I altered the text for that clarification, I'll go back and see if the "hungarian lie detector" story needs more work (I haven't looked in months).Ronabop 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As you may know the use of the e-meter is to detect mental reactions by detecting the change in electrical resistance in the body. Auditors are trained to see, detect and eliminate indications from sweating, gripping tightly and loosening grip on the cans. The use of the e-meter is to detect resistance, and changes in resistance. Its use is not to detect currents or changes in currents. It is not used as a galvanometer to actually detect small currents in the skin. I would like to eliminate text like this that are incorrect for the e-meter. "galvanometer", "Such changes are caused by corresponding small changes the person has to electrical energy." "This phenomenon is known as galvanic skin response". It is true the skin has a resistance, but so do the muscles, bones, blood and so forth, but it is the combined effect that is wanted. To say it is only a skin response or galvanic response is not true and is misleading in a certain direction. The resistance measured is between the hands and the circuit is along the wrists, arms, shoulders, chest, lungs, muscles, etc. To say such resistance or current changes are "caused" by the electrical energy is incorrect. Such words would seem to invalidate what is being measured by the device in auditing. Spirit of Man 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what the CoS can claim an E-meter detects, I know what what a basics electronics amateur can claim an E-meter detects, I also know what the FDA has said to the CoS about what they can claim an E-meter can, and cannot, do. Between all of these POV's, finding good wording is a challenge, without getting into a 'x says a, y says b, z says c" for each and every statement about an e-meter. So, I noted that it was passing through a "person" (not just skin), and that GSR was "similar". As far as validating, or invalidating a faith-based precept with scientific method, I'm trying to tread lightly, hence the wording "the person has to electrical energy"... Hm. With CoS separation of the body from the thetan, is using the word "person" not inclusive enough of the thetan? Is there some word we can use that will express both skeptics's POV that it's measuring changes in the human body, and non-skeptics? Maybe "...the subject has on..."? Anyways, I did note the difference between *to* the energy, and *on* the energy. 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeek! Resistance to that voltage, please. Current (I) = Voltage (V) / Resistance (R). A Wheatstone bridge works by comparing the current flow through a known resistance against the current flow through an unknown resistance. (This has the advantage that the voltage of the battery in the meter, as it varies over time, doesn't matter since voltage cancels out from both sides of the equation.) I'd be interested to disassemble a dump of the 8051 code from one of those fancy Quantums to see why they need a processor and why Golden Era Productions needs to Silver Certify them every two years. However, at the price of even used models on eBay, I can wait a while! AndroidCat 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, fixed, sent myself back to 7th-grade science for gross silliness. :-) 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph here for citing

After exploring the citations and links, I can't find any verification for this paragraph which was in the article:

before being temporarily dropped in 1954. Hubbard explained why he abandoned its use: :Yesterday, we used an instrument called an E-Meter to register whether or not the process was still getting results so that the auditor would know how long to continue it. While the E-Meter is an interesting investigation instrument and has played its part in research, it is not today used by the auditor... As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadget between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to depersonalize the session...

Does anyone have a verification for that? It isn't obvious if there is one. Terryeo 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? by Bent Corydon & L. Ron Hubbard Jr., p.313 --AndroidCat 16:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

AHA, ty. BTW Wikipediatrix, good job on creating the Thetan article. Terryeo 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

ERRRR..... that is a long webpage. It is a whole book. Reading the table of contents, it does not mention E-Meter at all. In addition, perhaps because of the way my browser displays it, the text of the chapters isn't exactly sequential. It would be a difficult thing to read through the whole text to find the small quote about the E-meter. Can you supply at least a chapter number? As it stands now it does not conform to WikiPolicy: WP:CITE and if you don't understand why it doesn't, I'll supply the exact quote from the page. The idea being, a reader should be able to go to a source of information and without vast effort, find the portions of information that applies. In a hardbound book this would be page number or chapter number at least. Terryeo 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, they have the whole book there so a page number would be appropriate. But, they also have the copyright notice which says: "All rights reserved. No part of this book

may be reproduced in any form, except by a newspaper or magazine reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review." and if there is a notification from the author that clambake has rights to publish then it is not on that page. Seems pretty questionable to quote a paragraph from a whole book whose copyright is questionable, and require a reader to read the whole book to find a single paragraph which isn't mentioned in the Table Of Contents anyway. Terryeo 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I've worked thought 1/5 of that book full of mysticism, drugs, allegations etc and haven't found the slightest mention of E-Meter. Its gotta be a better cite than that or it should not appear in the article. Surely even the most convinced person, utterly certain that there is nothing to the E-Meter at all can understand the need for a good citation for such a paragraph. Terryeo 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the internet often allows for quick access to the direct part of a reference one is seeking, it isn't guaranteed. There's no difference between this and a "real" encyclopedia giving a citation to pg.313 of that book. Just because this is a Wiki doesn't mean the article has to do all the work for the reader who wants to research the citations further. wikipediatrix 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay then. What page number is it on? What chapter is it in? WP:CITE says to yeah, put it there, "If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you." but WP:CITE also says: "the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease." Reading a whole book to find a single paragraph isn't easy. Further, WP:CITE suggest, with a book, to indicate a page number. Therefore, I'm going to mark that passage and link as a questionable citation. Terryeo 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, what part of "pg.313" are you having trouble understanding? wikipediatrix 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! I finally got it, thank you for your patience. I added one additional sentence from the citation. Now could we talk about your earlier statement Wikipediatrix, "Dianetics Kills?" Where does that come from? Terryeo 16:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Get a clue. I said no such thing, and have told you so on three other pages already, including my talk page. wikipediatrix 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not the fuller quote? I think it is important for people to understand that Hubbard wanted use of a meter beyond Mathison's commitment for the meter. The full quote, page number, etc. lets a person understand Hubbard's point of view. Why chop off the quote, why refuse to let people understand what motivated Hubbard? Terryeo 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article is good enough, but...

...this little bit is totally obscure.

Changes of resistance rather than absolute magnitude of resistance are the main use of an E-meter. An auditor directs a person's attention to an experience. The movement of the needle, combined with what the person says, gives the auditor information. The auditor uses this information to understand if the person has attention stuck in the area asked about. In this manner the E-meter aids an auditor, an auditor uses this information as he aids a person.

Looks like another one of Terryeo's gems. Here's what it used to say:

An auditor asks the subject questions and the movement of the needle is used as a check of the emotional reaction to the questions. This is used to diagnose the mental and spiritual condition of the subject according to a complex set of rules, procedures and doctrines set out in Scientology manuals.

That sounds a lot better to me. What does everyone else think? Tenebrous 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is no one else. Reinstating the old version. Tenebrous 03:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy is Controversial

I am proposing to remove the controversy section of this article. It is full of opinion and based on the Misplaced Pages rule regarding “Facts vs Opinion,” it doesn’t belong here. California guy 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I disagree. (Just so that when you do one of your periodic deletion sweeps, you can't say that no one said anything against it.) AndroidCat 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree. California guy really needs to work on his understanding of the rules before he enacts sweeping changes based on his incorrect understanding of them. For instance, his currently proposed change would remove all references to the fact that the Church of Scientology was raided by the FDA over these devices, and would remove all reference to the ensuing trial and appeal. He seems to believe that if he just describes something as "opinion", whether that is a correct description or not, it enables his removal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating that contorversy is controversial is in itself controversial. Because if something is controversial then it is controversial to say that it is not controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.201.131 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject intervention

Yes, phrases like "It is well known that" are especially weasely and need supporting references. There are Tech Bulletins on false TA and false reads that could be cited here, I'll try to look them out. In particular, there's a HCOB 'Instant Reads' that defines an instant read as occurring immediately an item is called during an assessment; no-one could deliberately react fast enough to fake this. DavidCooke 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently the section "Subject intervention" was removed entirely with the edit summary "It is "well known" that the e-meter's fundamental principle is completely bogus. This is just a detail, and weasel-worded."

It seems to me that this is really two objections in one: a) since "the fundamental principle is completely bogus", anything more about the doubfulness of the meter's functionality is redundant, and b) the section (as it existed) is poorly written and poorly referenced. I can agree with b), but a) seems to be in error. While it may be the dominant scientific opinion that the fundamental principle is completely bogus, that's certainly not accepted by everyone. Therefore, I think it's legitimate to look at those factors which might affect the results obtained from the meter apart from the functionality of the fundamental principle. Even if an exact relationship between the electrical resistance of a person's body and the thoughts in the person's mind was absolutely assured -- an instrument which "measured" not only the electrical resistance but also sizable "noise" due to small changes in the way the cans were held would mean the meter was not producing very reliable readings.

One part that we wouldn't dream of leaving out of the history of N rays is the demonstration by Robert Wood where he removed a key element of the apparatus which should have radically affected the result, and yet those who expected to see the effect of N rays saw them anyways. Similarly, I think any well-referenced information (I believe it's covered in at least one of the major government reports) about how intentional or even unintentional motion can alter the results on the basis of which the organization has been known to make very serious results is quite relevant and should be included. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section because of David Cooke's objection above, and this objection which was recently posted in the article. Church materials do indicate that auditors are trained to notice "body actions" that affect the reading. I don't mind if someone wants to add a section about manipulation of the e-meter that makes verifiable statements, but that wasn't it. Gazpacho 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Multimeter

The E-Meter appears to be nothing more than a simplified and stylised multimeter passed off as a medical device--80.6.85.54 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Close, but it's more akin to a Wheatstone bridge - the operating principle is basically the same. -- ChrisO 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I myself and having trouble understanding the difference between the e-meter and a simple ohmmeter. Care to explain it? 68.230.161.164 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's basically an ohmmeter - the only significant difference is that it has continuously variable range and sensitivity settings. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is about 7000$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.55.39 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock slam definition is wrong

From this article:

• rock slam (violent swinging back and forth): In Scientology's Sea Org, a rock slam in response to questions about basic doctrine indicates that the preclear has an "evil purpose" and must be assigned to the Rehabilitation Project Force.

This is completely wrong. A "rock slam" (usually abbreviated to R/S) means "a consideration of making overts" (quote from memory from the SHSBC, if I recall correctly), which is not at all the same as "evil purpose". Overts are destructive or aggressive acts, which would sound like the same thing, except the overt-motivator cycle is just a standard thing that is considered to occur regularly in Scientology methodology. If I recall, also, Hubbard once referred to a rock-slam as indicating that the preclear (i.e. the thetan) was oscillating in and out of their body, but I can't remember which source that was from.

And furthermore - perhaps more importantly - the noting of a rock-slam in session with a Sea Org preclear does not get them assigned to the RPF. What will get them assigned to the RPF is generally one of three things: 1) a comm-ev; 2) failure of a sec-check; or 3) assignment of a low ethics condition by the MAA.

I don't really want to change this myself lest I be accused of "original research", but this section could not be more incorrect. Would someone be so kind as to change it? Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Nicholas!

Hmmmm, interesting issue you've pointed out... I think the biggest problem with the material in question is that the part you've quoted isn't actually a definition of a rock-slam, it's an assertion about what happens if you have a rock-slam (and not even what happens if you have a rock-slam in general, but rather what happens if you have one in particular circumstances, starting with "in the Sea Org"...) So I think that we definitely need to put an actual definition in there, whatever else we do.

... However, a little preliminary research leads me to believe that a person could read official Scientology materials and come away from them with the impression that the scenario described is in fact just what would happen in that situation. See, for instance, these definitions given for rock slam and rock slammer which are apparently taken from the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (1983 New Era edition). While most of the entry for "rock slam" is simply characterizing the needle movement and distinguishing it from other similar needle movements (the "Theta Bop" mentioned sounds like it might be the oscillation of the thetan in and out of the body that you mentioned, Nick) the final sentence is "A rockslam means a hidden evil intention on the subject or question under discussion or auditing." While I find it plausible that "hidden evil intention" might itself be some form of jargon I'm not familiar with that is not as harsh as "hidden evil intention" sounds, the entry for "rock slammer" reinforces the impression that it really is "hidden evil intention" that is meant, by saying "those who R/S on subjects connected to Scn ... it is of great importance to us that they be located and moved off lines when they are part of staffs as their intent is solely to destroy us whatever else they say: their intent is solely to destroy us whatever else they say: their long run actions will prove it."

So while the part about "would be sent to the RPF" seems unjustifiable extrapolation, and the part about "in the Sea Org" seems needless qualification... the rest does seem to be supported by sources, even if those sources aren't currently cited. Let's remove those extrapolations and qualifiers, and talk about the rest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there Antaeus! I am inclined to agree with you. I think it is worth noting that there is a whole plethora of various reasons given in the OEC Admin Volumes (and the subset, the Management Series) specifying why particular attribute X of a person means they absolutely must be taken off lines immediately, where X is whatever Scientological malady that Hubbard was thinking of at the time. These don't necessarily mean, however, sending to the RPF; and indeed, an RPF assignment rarely equates to being booted out of the Sea Org - usually it is quite the contrary, as a mechanism for "rehabilitating" staff that haven't been "offloaded" but have committed some sort of serious infraction (read: force them to do as they're told from now on). It's worth noting the early Technical Dictionaries are more restrained on this particular point (e.g. the 1972 one) most probably as they were published before the advent of "hard ethics".

I suppose the best way of rewording this would be, actually, to quote Hubbard directly instead, including both the definition of the meaning of a rock-slam and Hubbard's opinion that these people should be taken "off lines". I will do some research this evening and see if I can come up with something. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm getting sloppy on my tech knowledge. Good grief!

Of course, a theta bop and an R/S are separate reads all together on the meter. I have just looked in my electronic copy of the Tech Vols, and been reminded of my stupidity in this regard. *groan* I need to do some word-clearing, evidently, as I must have MUs on the subject. :) And after poking around on some tapes, of course, yes, the R/S does indeed mean a "hidden evil intention" (SHSBC-268) which means exactly what it sounds like. Apologies for errors in this regard. It shows how out of practice I'm getting with all this! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations added. The only thing I can't find a citation for is whether list one R/S is still used to assign people to the RPF. Gazpacho 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quantum?

Can there be a description as to how quantum physics relates to this meter? Is there some other more obvious definition of quantum that I am not aware of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.221.187.19 (talk) 22:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Editorial slant

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of Scientology and I don't personally "like it", to say the least, but I think this article could use an objectivity overhaul. I mean do we really need "Quackery" listed under "See also" (which I'm now removing)?

Fuller

Hello, I am new to the english wikipedia. I wonder how much credibility a source normally has to have here to be compliant to WP:RS. In the case at hand, how significant is this opinion paper of an otherwise insignificant student called Laura Fuller? Derflipper (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it depends who, if anyone, published it or otherwise backs it. Foobaz·o< 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wheatstone bridge

This device is simply a Wheatstone bridge, is that correct? It's just 3 resistors, one of which is adjustable? Can this be made clearer in the article? For example, by saying that a Wheatstone bridge is simply 3 resistors connected in a way so that an object completing the circuit - in this case, a human - will have a resistance ${\displaystyle R_{human}=(R_{2}/R_{1})\cdot R_{3}}$. Such a device could be made from 10 cents in parts from Radio Shack. How much do they normally cost? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-19 20:24Z

The E-meter also has a case, knobs, indicators, etc. I'm guessing it also contains a power supply, an active circuit that varies the resistance in the wheatstone bridge using transistors instead of resistors, a circuit to convert this resistance to something useful to display, etc. They're not worth what the Church charges for them, but they have a lot more than $0.10 of electronics in them. Foobaz·o< 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've never gone to a yard sale. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-20 14:13Z

or bought anything from china. 76.10.173.92 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term Cult

It looks like this article is referring to Scientology as the "Cult of Scientology" While I would agree they are a cult using the name violates neutral POV. The Scientology article redirects from "Cults of.." to "Church of.." so it looks like Church is preferred. Regardless of what they might be the organization's name is "The Church of Scientology", used as a proper noun. Due to my status as a new member and the controversially nature of the subject I'll leave this to someone else to actually edit if they agree with me. Damn, I think i just defended Scientology Mwbbrown (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You caught the article after someone vandalized it. This happens pretty often to this article. It's been fixed, at least for now. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:36, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Scientology minister Lyndon LaRouche

The article states that the e-meter was first used by "Scientology minister Lyndon LaRouche". I don't see anything in Lyndon LaRouche's Misplaced Pages article that connects him with Scientology. Is it a different Lyndon LaRouche? Proxy User (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That was added in the last day or so, with no source. There's no known connection between the LaRouche of the CEC and Scientology. I've removed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference, please?

This sounds like comic hyperbole: "Ultra Mega Mark XXI Super Stellar Quantum E-meter v7". Please provide a reference indicating this is true. Embeddedcynic (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they're only up to the Mark VII Super Quantum so far. AndroidCat (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it work?

This article should describe how the "E-meter" is supposed to work. Exactly and precisely how does it work? Whats inside? What does it measure and most importantly, how. 75.1.251.58 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Do you want the real world electronics explanation, or the Scientology one? AndroidCat (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It measures electrical resistance in accordance with Ohm's Law. Otherwise it doesn't do anything.Cillmore (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader

McDuffee, Keith (April 18, 2008). "MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader". TV Squad. www.tvsquad.com. Retrieved 2008-04-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This Misplaced Pages article (and its accompanying image) are cited. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

E-meter image

I'm looking at the upload history for File:Scientology e meter blue.jpg, and I think the original revision (an unedited photograph) would make a better illustration for this article. The cropping/rotation in the edited version just looks unnatural, the cord looks like an antenna, and you can't get any sense of how large the object is. Thoughts? ~ Booya 06:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the original photo looks better. Shutterbug (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Laura Kay Fuller "book" Cite 13

This source is a self-published thesis of a student and might fall under WP:SPS ("Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Misplaced Pages"). Any thoughts? Shutterbug (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo is probably bogus

Uhm, This e-meter looks nothing like any e-meter I've ever seen. It should probably be removed. Slightlyright (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole religion is bogus, vandalism can hardly hurt this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.14.69 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the FDA release a report?

This page seems to be oddly devoid of any real information. If hundreds of these things were seized, one would assume that at least one was cracked open and someone figured out how it worked and what it actually was measuring. Anyone have leads on finding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.92.147 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The information is on the page. It's an ohmmeter. It measures the electrical resistance of whatever you put between the elctrodes. All the rest of the stuff, about thetans and mental mass, is just $cientology crap. FergusM1970 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

source for 'lie-detector'

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1960 - "An E-Meter is better known as a “lie-detector” and is used to ascertain truth of background and conduct." Useable?--Themadhair (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Breeding and Wallis?

The article says:

In 1958 when Scientologists Don Breeding and Joe Wallis developed a modified, smaller battery-operated version, which they presented to Hubbard, he again used it. This was christened the Hubbard electrometer. Hubbard patented it on December 6, 1966, as a "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" (U.S. Patent 3,290,589).

The names Don Breeding and Joe Wallis do not occur on the patent, which is attributed solely to Hubbard. They're found on a number of Web pages by critics of Scientology, however, e.g.:

• http://exscientologykids.com/emeter.html
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/volney.html

But these do not actually cite any published sources for the names. And some pages, such as skepdic.com, cite this article for those names. This feels a bit like a circular chain of references to me.

This other page claims to be from an article in a 1989 issue of Gnosis, although I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source. It mentions those names in a footnote only. At the very least, if it is from 1989 we can be confident it didn't get those names from Misplaced Pages!

Meanwhile, our Scientology article claims Hubbard as the inventor of the E-meter. So, what's the deal? Does anyone have WP:RS for Breeding and Wallis as inventors? —FOo (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of 3 meters

There seems to be some confusion on these three meters on this talk page. I hope this helps clarify.
1. An ohmmeter measures ohms only, has different scale adjustments, and reads the actual resistance in ohms. If the scale adjustment is off the reading will show either an under or over scale error.
2. A Wheatstone bridge is a comparison ohmmeter. It compares the internal resistance setting to the external load and the difference is shown by the needle. They may still be the most accurate ohmmeters available.
3. A multimeter meters ohms as well as other electrical values such as volts, amps, etc.
The original patents seem to be diagrams of a Wheatstone bridge.Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Units

I came to this article hoping to find out what the units were in order to convert readings in ohms (from a multimeter) into thetan levels (as a party trick, I must confess). I think this piece of info would be interesting for the article. --Squidonius (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating to Mark VIII

http://tonyortega.org/2013/12/04/scientologys-shiny-new-ultra-mark-viii-e-meter/

We need to update this article. I think the main picture should be updated to the latest mode(and the Mark VII picture be retained but shifted down the page), a write up of the launch events(it was also the "Super Power" launch) be included, as well as a section on the "upgrades" made to the E-Meter. If there's no copyright issues I think Ortega's picture of the new Meter looks pretty good for use here. Colliric (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They've updated their official website to include it as well now: http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-practice-of-scientology/the-e-meter.html Here's their own pic of it: http://f.edgesuite.net/data/www.scientology.org/files/e-meter_0.jpg Colliric (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

History of Hubbard's patent

Page currently reads:

In 1958 when Scientologists Don Breeding and Joe Wallis developed a modified, smaller battery-operated version, which they presented to Hubbard, he again used it. This was dubbed the Hubbard electrometer. Hubbard patented it on December 6, 1966, as a "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" (U.S. patent 3,290,589). The patent is now expired and in the public domain. The church continues to make, sell, and teach its use in auditing.

If Breeding and Wallis developed the meter, Hubbard could not patent it without naming them. Conversely, since that patent names "L. R. Hubbard" as the inventor and does not mention Breeding or Wallis, why does this page disagree? US Patent 3290589 No source is named for this statement, so we must presume it is spurious. It will be removed if source is not provided.

Also, there is no source on the statement that the Church is still making, selling, and teaching the 1966 meter. The assertion is countermanded by the article above which shows at least 3 later models. On information and belief, the current E-meter is based on digital circuitry rather than analog. This sentence should also be scrapped. Slade Farney (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Year 2000 patent for emeter describes use of amplifiers and digital components in the modern meter. I am now removing the statement that the 1966 meter is still in use. Slade Farney (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see the faith you hold in the honesty of the patent process employed by Hubbard. The cited source for Wallis and Breeding developing the e-meter is the Corydon, so I returned that part.

I agree that there is no sense in telling the reader that the analog e-meter is still being used. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The official patent record is the official patent record. The US government runs that, not Hubbard. Croydon is professional critic -- why take his word unquestioning? He has no credentials, his books are not journals, not peer reviewed, etc. WP:source He might be just a crank. We don't quote McCoy on Hatfield, and we don't quote Hatfield on McCoy. Slade Farney (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the reliability of the Corydon source, L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, then you should take it to WP:RSN. To me, it looks like the book is a good source, republished several times and finally hosted online in Norway. This indicates a persistent call for its contents. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the concern. We are weighing one fact directly against the other, with Croydon directly contradicting the official government patent record. Certainly it is a truth that Croydon alleged those things, but is it a truth because Croydon alleged those things? That the allegations appear in a book with several reprintings may be a notable fact, but as with the Trilogy of the Ring, the popularity and number of reprintings does not make a fact that Misplaced Pages can reprint as an unquestioned truth when the official government record says otherwise. The Croydon statement satisfied Croydon alone. There was no review, no fact checking by the editors on that point, certainly none in evidence, and certainly not now a half-century later. Can we even say for certain that people named Don Breeding and Joe Wallis existed or that they were involved? It is not in evidence. Croydon's allegations may satisfy a certain confirmation bias, but the patent process normally includes a series of reviews and legal attestations, much more rigorous than an author simply putting his words in print. Slade Farney (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The patent document is a WP:PRIMARY source. Misplaced Pages greatly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources which take into account the primary sources. In this situation, with your wish to counter the Madman book, you would need another secondary source to do so. Until then, there's nothing to support your doubt about the existence or involvement of Wallis and Breeding. Even if you find such a secondary source, we would tell the reader what was said in the two contradicting sources, rather than replacing one with the other. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your last line is what I am suggesting. I will look around for the other. The Madman book is neither primary nor secondary because it contradicts the primary. How does the text say Croydon came by the information? Slade Farney (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, please reconsider what you wrote. Croydon does not "take into account the primary source," (actually contradicts the primary source) so his book is not the preferred Wiki source. Slade Farney (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the Madman book, which is certainly a secondary source. None of your arguments here have any basis in policy. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The 2010 US census tells us there were 25,145,561 people in Texas. I ask you to imagine a hypothetical writer who says the population in Texas was 50,000,000 in 2010. The primary source is the US census. The hypothetical writer is NOT a secondary source because he disagrees with the primary source and does not "take into account" the primary source. Croydon is in the same position as our hypothetical writer. Regardless of anyone's confirmation bias, he disagrees with the primary source. Hence, his statement is not preferable. It is true that Croydon wrote that statement, but we cannot presume it is true simply because Croydon wrote it.

On that other reversion of yours, you state that Hubbard misappropriated Mathison's invention. Again, the Patent Office states otherwise. The Patent Office (which tends to be informed about these things) found Hubbard's meter to be sufficiently unique that it granted Hubbard a patent -- a license to manufacture and market it. That does not meet the definition of "appropriate." Please correct the statement or I will. Slade Farney (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - according to WP policy, we should Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources ... For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." If that policy governs statements about the evil of genocide, it must also govern statements about the actual inventors of Hubbard's gizmo and Mathison's feelings about Hubbard's patent. Slade Farney (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where the Corydon book is contradicting the patent papers. Hubbard filed the patent, and whoever worked for him on the project was subsumed underneath his name. That happens all the time in patents, where a team leader or department head will get credit alone. Instead of being analogous to the census of Texas counting the number of people, it's more like a source naming the Texas governor, and another source naming the people who drafted the governor's executive orders. There's no contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

At best, we have no more Croydon's opinion, which should be stated as such and not asserted as a fact in the WP voice. (WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts.) In legal truth, the patent process requires the naming of the actual inventors of the device. That document is signed over a "duty of candor" -- equivalent to "under penalty of perjury." The duty of candor is described on that form as follows: Everyone who is involved in any substantive way in the preparation or prosecution of an application for a patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "subject application"), including all inventors, all attorneys, all company executives or other agents of the inventors or of any assignee or licensee, and who participates in the application process, by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 owes a duty of candor and good faith to the PTO and to the public. The scope of this duty is set forth in the following paragraphs.

Statements to the contrary, therefore, are tantamount to an accusation of perjury. The fact of the accusation can certainly be mentioned. Adoption of those accusations by WP in WP's own voice is contrary to WP:NPOV.

You have not addressed the Mathison "appropriation" statement, which is also contrary to WP:NPOV. Slade Farney (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Corydon says that two other people designed the e-meter. Nobody else in a WP:SECONDARY source says they did not, so we keep that information. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is ridiculous and illogical. Reductio ad absurdum: This secondary sources says "The pope is a rabbit." No secondary source specifically denies that the pope is rabbit. Therefore, WP should represent that the Pope is in truth a rabbit. Slade Farney (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Corydon book be used to say that Hubbard's patent was based on the work of Breeding and Wallis?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As discussed above, the patent document lists L. Ron Hubbard as the sole inventor of the second version of the e-meter. (The first version was by Mathison; nobody disputes this.) The book by Bent Corydon, L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, names two others, Don Breeding and Joe Wallis, who developed the second version of the e-meter and presented it to Hubbard prior to Hubbard patenting it. Which of the following paths is best?

• 1: State in Misplaced Pages's voice that Breeding and Wallis developed the e-meter, with Hubbard subsequently patenting their work.
• 2: State that Hubbard patented the e-meter, then attribute to Corydon the assertion that Breeding and Wallis developed it.
• 3: Remove any mention of Breeding and Wallis.

Discussion

• 1. The Corydon book is a WP:SECONDARY source, the kind of source that Misplaced Pages greatly prefers. The patent documents are a primary source and cannot be used to contradict the secondary source. There is no source, primary, secondary or otherwise, that says Breeding and Wallis did not develop the e-meter. Nor are there any sources that describe Hubbard carefully testing components and circuitry to develop the second version of the e-meter. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that patents are a mixture of primary source and secondary source. The description of the invention, and the claims that were allowed, were written by or at the direction of the person who claims to be the inventor, and are primary. But only the claims that the patent examiner found to be novel are allowed; usually there were additional claims in the application that were disallowed for lack of novelty. So the patent examiner is examining primary sources and secondary sources and making a determination that certain claims are novel; that aspect of the patent is secondary. Also, patents are supposed to list all the natural persons who substantially contributed to the invention as inventors; a team leader assuming the credit for subordinates is not supposed to happen. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• • From your statement, can we presume that if one person claimed to have invented the work of others and applied for a patent on that claim (as Croydon asserts), that would be perjury? Slade Farney (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Jc3s5h, there have been several cases in which a patent fails to give credit where credit is due. One of the most famous cases removed the ENIAC computer patent from Sperry Rand, giving John V. Atanasoff credit for the invention, despite his not being listed by patent filers John W. Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert, Jr. It's not impossible for Hubbard to have purposely kept out the names of the two men who reworked the e-meter into its not-very-different second version. After all, Hubbard was already side-stepping Mathison's patent. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • What is the legal meaning of "sidestepping" as you have used it, Binksternet? Mathison did not invent the Wheatstone Bridge-- was Mathison "sidestepping" the Wheatstone invention--using the word with your meaning? The legal truth of the US Patent process is that if I find a new application for your invention or develop a significant improvement, I can get my own patent. In this case, Croydon has apparently made contradictory claims: 1. Scientology "appropriated" Mathison's invention, AND 2. Don Breeding and Joe Wallis significantly redesigned Mathison's invention. The Patent office agreed that Scientology was presenting a significant improvement and granted a patent. And we can see why when we compare the electrical circuits. Mathison's uses vacuum tubes with AC high voltage power, while Hubbard's uses transistors with low power rechargeable batteries. That is the legal answer to Mathison's complaint, but it also shows that Croydon is not a reliable authority. I understand that you would prefer to believe the disgruntled Croydon over the legal papers, but we must guard against confirmation bias. For Hubbard to get that 1966 patent without naming the actual inventors, more than a dozen people would have to participate in a conspiracy to defraud the Patent Office. Slade Farney (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding why you cannot get Corydon's name right, ever. Do you have something against him?

Regarding the trivial difference between mains power and battery power, and the trivial difference between tube circuitry and solid state circuitry, it's clear that you are not an electrical engineer.

I can assure you there is hardly any difference. Author Stewart Lamont says that the difference between the Mathison and the Hubbard e-meters is only "minor modifications".(Lamont, Stewart. Religion Inc: the Church of Scientology, Harrap, 1986, p. 26. ISBN 9780245543340.)

The practical difference is that one version may be more dangerous electrically while the other is a bit more portable and somewhat safer electrically. You will note that the Hubbard patent fails to cite the Mathison patent at all, even though the similarity was great between the two devices, so that's a giant blow to Hubbard's honesty in filing.

Mathison himself would have found it a trivial matter to make a solid-state version had he been interested in the matter in the 1960s when transistors became widely available.

However, by 1964 Mathison was fed up with Scientology in general, and Hubbard in particular, calling Hubbard a "faker" who denounced hypnosis (which Mathison believed was useful) but who turned around and incorporated hypnosis into his "phony" system of auditing.(Müller, Tilo (2010). Dianetik und Scientology in ihrem Anspruch als Wissenschaft. GRIN Verlag. p. 32. ISBN 978-3-640-58010-1.)

Hubbard's second version of the e-meter incorporated only minor changes from the Mathison device,(The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion, by Professor Hugh B. Urban, 49–51) used in the late 1950s after he and Mathison severed their connection. In the early 1960s when transistors became widely available, the e-meter was adapted to incorporate them, and Hubbard filed his patent claim in 1965. Mathison could certainly have sued Hubbard for patent violations but he decided against doing so.

Mark Pilkington's article published in The Guardian also says that Hubbard did not design the e-meter, that it was designed by "Scientology-friendly engineers" in 1958.

Hubbard's own son said in 1984 in a sworn affidavit that his father gained the e-meter from Mathison "through fraud and coercion."AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD DeWOLF, 1984 Reporter George-Wayne Shelor wrote about this turn of events for the Clearwater, Florida, newspaper, Clearwater Sun, quoting Hubbard's son saying that the second version of the e-meter was designed by two men who were electronics experts in Washington DC where Scientology was based.("Founder's son says Hubbard did not invent the E-meter", Clearwater Sun.)

So lots of folks are saying that Hubbard did not design his own e-meter, and nobody is describing any kind of process whereby he would have sat down and developed it. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Those people may -- or may not -- have independent sources for their statements. DeWolf's affidavit may be the source for Corydon and all the others, too. What now seems like "lots of folks" may in fact be only one with a half-dozen echoes.

I find your reasoning puzzling. In the above text, you trivialize the difficulty of design for Mathison, but exaggerate the difficulty of design for Hubbard. Both E-Meters are based on the century-old Wheatstone bridge to measure resistance, and both use amplifiers to display the result through a mechanical dial. The US Patent Office certified that Hubbard's device had sufficient degree of unique design to grant a patent. Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Corydon vs Croydon: That is a typing error only. We're not going to make this all personal, are we? WP:PA Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "you are not an electrical engineer": WP:PA Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Lamont saying there were only "minor modifications": The US Patent Office does not agree, and that office is charged with settling any such dispute before it arises. If this matter went to court, the presumption of fact would begin with the original determination of the US Patent Office, not with the opinion of an "author" whose qualifications and motivation is not open to examination. Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Hubbard patent not referencing the Mathison patent: That is an oddity. The source of that oddity may be anywhere in the Patent food chain. Do you have the identity of the attorneys and other people involved in the patent application? Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I realize this discussion is dead. But for the sake of completeness, I found the answer to this oddity is indicated in the patent. Both Patent Citations listed have an asterisk with a footnote, "Cited by examiner." The same holds for the "Referenced by" list. These lists were built by the Patent Office, not by the applicant. And the oddity, if not solved, at least comes to rest. Slade Farney (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mathison finding it trivial to design a solid-state version: That is a speculative statement. If electrical circuit design is "trivial," it should be trivial for anyone to design, including Hubbard. Otherwise, the principles of voltage based amplification in tubes is quite different from current amplification in the transistors of that day. An amateur (such as Mathison) experienced in one did not always find the transition "trivial." Mathison used his vacuum tube E-Meter in his own practice outside Dianetics but he did not build a transistor E-Meter between 1954 and 1965 when Hubbard filed his patent. Either he had discarded his interest in E-Meters, or he was unable to make the transition to transistors. Which was the problem, do you think? Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mathison's allegation that hypnosis was used in auditing: Mathison's opinion of Dianetic auditing does not comport with any finding in a court of law -- at least none that I can find. In 65 years of history, we should expect a flood of professional complaints rather than this trickle of critical accusations. Scientology and hypnosis Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "Mathison could certainly have sued Hubbard for patent violations": Anyone can sue anyone, on valid grounds or otherwise. The real question is, could he win? The assertion is pure speculation and at this point sounds like sour grapes. Once the US Patent Office has granted a patent, as it did to Hubbard, the issue is not a "patent violation." The purpose and function of the Patent Office is to address that very concern in the process of issuing the patent. Extensive patent search is a critical part of that process. Slade Farney (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Say nothing about it in Misplaced Pages's voice. If these are the only two sources we're going to use, reference them both and summarize what each says. Ideally we should find more sources. Andrew 11:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source that asserts Hubbard invented the E-Meter: Twenty years after the Spectrochrome trial, the FDA became involved with Scientology, another group that used a supposed healing device in its rituals. The device, a form of galvanometer, is called the Hubbard Electropsychometer (or "E-Meter"). Its inventor, and the founder of Scientology, was a science fiction writer named Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. -- Stephen Barrett, MD, and William Jarvis, PhD, "The Health Robbers", Prometheus Books, p. 321. Hope that helps. Slade Farney (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That throwaway description is ably countered by more detailed secondary sources which tell us that Hubbard got the patent by fraud. Hubbard's own son said in 1984 in a sworn affidavit that his father gained the e-meter from Mathison "through fraud and coercion."AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD DeWOLF, 1984 Reporter George-Wayne Shelor wrote about this turn of events for the Clearwater, Florida, newspaper, Clearwater Sun, quoting Hubbard's son saying that the second version of the e-meter was designed by two men who were electronics experts in Washington DC where Scientology was based.("Founder's son says Hubbard did not invent the E-meter", Clearwater Sun.) Your Barrett and Jarvis book is not really the end-all authority, it making no observation at all about the stages of development of the e-meter, nor any description of who was involved. Instead, Barrett and Jarvis talk about how the FDA came down hard on Scientology for falsely representing the benefits of the e-meter. So Barrett and Jarvis are not at all friendly to Hubbard, let alone his claim to have invented the e-meter. Their focus is on the misrepresentation of the device after it was integrated into the auditing process. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• State in Misplaced Pages's voice that Breeding and Wallis developed the e-meter, with Hubbard subsequently patenting their work. Corydon's book seems like the most reliable source in this case (especially since it easily explains the patent); I don't feel the offhand reference above is enough to dispute that with. --Aquillion (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• State in Misplaced Pages's voice that Breeding and Wallis developed the e-meter, with Hubbard subsequently patenting their work.

The book by Barrett and Jarvis is certainly not claiming that Hubbard developed the meter by himself; it is not at odds with Corydon. Prometheus Books specializes in skeptical and scientific titles and "The Health Robbers" is no exception. By referring to Hubbard as a science fiction writer, it's made clear that the authors of "The Health Robbers" do not think that Hubbard's meter did what he claimed it does. I'm completely certain that those authors would have included Corydon's claim if they had been aware of it at the time of writing.

Hubbard is credited as the inventor on the patent, so Misplaced Pages should state that the patent was issued to him and provide a link. It should also state that Breeding and Wallis developed the meter and link to Corydon. Misplaced Pages shouldn't say that Breeding and Wallis did absolutely all of the work in the invention process; Hubbard may have been involved, and somebody else yet to be named may have been involved. Misplaced Pages can state what is known about the contributions of specific people, as well.

This is not really about the intricacies of patent law. The patent was issued to the inventor named on the application. There is no need to demonstrate that everyone who worked on the invention is named on the patent. (Think of how many patents Thomas Edison got for work done by members of his laboratory.) Collaborators may consent to not being credited, and even if they don't consent, their decision not to take the matter to court doesn't change whether or not they contributed. The conclusion is that there is reliable evidence that Hubbard did not invent the e-meter all by himself, and that's what Misplaced Pages should say.

Roches (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Haven't looked into the secondary sources, so uncertain of whether "1" or "2" is most appropriate (if only a single secondary source, I suspect it's "2") but ignore patent as fact source. Anyone who knows anything about patents (and -- trust me -- I do) knows they are absolutely primary documents, reliable only for their own content and the bare fact that the Patent Office did issue the patent. Except for the list of approved claims, an issued patent says pretty much whatever the applicant wants it to say, and they routinely contain absurd nonsense -- it's just not part of the Patent Office's job to police that, and everyone in the business knows that. As far as Patent Office being "charged with settling any such dispute before it arises. If this matter went to court, the presumption of fact would begin with the original determination of the US Patent Office" -- the Patent Office is charged with doing its best, but it's an almost impossible job, largely because patent examination isn't an adversary process. No potential "competing inventors" are involved -- just the inventor asserting his claims and a very overworked civil servant doing his best. Yes, an issued patent raises a presumption of validity, but that presumption is a rebuttable one. Only once Patentee P uses his patent to hit Manufacturer M over the head does M get to come to court with evidence that he (or some third party) actually anticipated P's claims, and issued patents are routinely invalidated in court. We shouldn't cite patents to support statements of who invented what for the same reason we don't cite land deeds for statements of who owned what -- they purport to represent the truth of the situation, but there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. Good secondary sources will take account of all the surrounding facts and events (before and after the formal patent process) for a fully informed view.

Even taking the validity of the patent's claims on face value, the truth of "who invented it" is also well-known to be a bit slippery in patents. While in principle this isn't supposed to happen (and, in principle, constitutes perjury and so on) everyone knows that colleagues and associates sometimes cede credit properly due them for any of many reasons. EEng (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• 2: State that Hubbard patented the e-meter, then attribute to Corydon the assertion that Breeding and Wallis developed it. That seems to be in every way innocuous and factual. This said, the whole thing looks rather storm-in-teacup to me, so don't get too paralytic about it. JonRichfield (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• 2: State that Hubbard patented the e-meter, then attribute to Corydon the assertion that Breeding and Wallis developed it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• 2. Just stick to verifiable facts: Hubbard was granted a patent, Corydon says that Breeding and Wallis developed it. Avoid any mention of who "invented" it. The device is bogus, a "religious artifact", as the article says. Maproom (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• 2: This seems the least contentious option. We have a reliable secondary source about Breeding and Wallis' involvement, so option 3 is right out, but with only such source doing so, I think 2 is more appropriate than 1. Anaxial (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this further, we find that Corydon's source on e-meter history was Ron DeWolf, ne L. Ron Hubbard Jr. DeWolf is named as co-author on the book, but DeWolf sued to stop publication of the book and signed an affidavit saying the whole thing was a pack of lies. DeWolf told Penthouse a few years earlier that the essence of Scientology was Satanism and black magic, and that Hubbard made his money selling secrets to the KGB. How could that book be called a reliable source? Even Walter Winchell had more interest in truth. Slade Farney (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in E-meter

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of E-meter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cooper":

• From Training routines (Scientology): Cooper, Paulette (1971). The Scandal of Scientology.
• From Volney Mathison: Cooper, Paulette (1971). The Scandal of Scientology. New York: Tower Publications. pp. 145–146. OCLC 921001.
• From The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power: Staff, CNN; Anderson Cooper (April 14, 2007). "Massive Manhunt Continues For Three Missing U.S. Soldiers in Iraq; Inside Scientology". Anderson Cooper 360°. Retrieved 2007-10-25. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
• From List of Scientology security checks: Cooper, Paulette (1971). The Scandal of Scientology. New York: Tower Publications. pp. 85–92. OCLC 921001.

Reference named "atack":

• From Science of Survival: Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky, p. 122 (Lyle Stuart, 1990)
• From Volney Mathison: Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky. New York: Carol Publishing Group. pp. 128–129. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
• From Scientology and abortion: Atack, Jon (1999). A Piece of Blue Sky. Lyle Stuart. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-8184-0499-3.
• From Clear (Scientology): Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
• From Revolt in the Stars: Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. New York: Carol Publishing Group. pp. 248, 261, 286, 382. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
• From The Scandal of Scientology: A Piece of Blue Sky, Jon Atack, Bibliography, References Summary , Chapter One.
• From Training routines (Scientology): Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics & L. Ron Hubbard Exposed.
• From Jesus in Scientology: Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky. New York: Carol Publishing Group. pp. 376, 383. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.
• From A Doctor's Report on Dianetics: Atack, Jon (August 19, 1990). A Piece of Blue Sky. Carol Publishing Group. pp. Chapter 2. ISBN 0-8184-0499-X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"POV wording, original research, the attempt to hide the banal nature of this device, to make it appear religious"

Binksternet (talk · contribs) What "original research"? Wasn't everything sourced? The E-meter is religious device, and that is the legal truth established in 1974 after years of litigation. I can understand that you might disagree with that fact (your wording, "banal device") but a personal POV is not sufficient to override the legal truth. Jacob Neusner calls it a "religious ritual."

And you have reintroduced rather ignorant language, too. The Wheatstone bridge is not a "measuring instrument" -- it is not an instrument at all. The E-meter was not invented by Mathison -- E-meters have been used since 1889 and popularized by Carl Jung while Mathison was still a tadpole. What is your specific objection to my edits on these points? Slade Farney (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The original research is your bit about the Creed, which does not mention the e-meter. It was removed by me and you reverted. It was removed by an IP editor and you put it back again. You are edit-warring to restore this stuff which is a violation of WP:NOR.

POV wording certainly includes "religious ritual" which is not what the great majority of observers call the auditing process. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My source on the Creed is in the footnote: "Neusner, Jacob (2003). World Religions in America: An Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 223. ISBN 9780664224752." Nothing original research about that. Please read the footnotes. Since "only the spirit" can heal the body, obviously the E-meter does not heal the body. The US Court of Appeals decided the same.

Concerning the "great majority" of observers: You mean all the ex-Scientologists who have no credentials other than their antipathy to Scientology? Sorry, fella, but those people not the best source of information. They are not just observers, they are ex-Scientologists. Like ex-Catholics, ex-Mormons, ex-Buddhists, ex-Americans, ex-Yankee fans, and ex-wives -- they all got an axe to grind. If Scientology is so bad, those people got two strikes against them for getting into it in the first place, and leaving Scientology wouldn't suddenly turn them into geniuses. Jacob Neusner has a PhD with more than 900 books to his credit, a seat at a university, and -- hey, he's a professional scholar, not just a grouch. And the US Court of Appeals, after years of litigation, agrees with Neusner. Now please explain why you insist on calling a Wheatstone bridge an "instrument" and saying that Mathison invented the E-meter. Slade Farney (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Malarkey. We are not going to prefer supportive observers over unfriendly observers. Nor are we going to use original research to "explain" the Creed to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you insist on calling a Wheatstone bridge an "instrument" and saying that Mathison invented the E-meter. Slade Farney (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

None of our sources deny that Mathison invented the e-meter, so I don't believe it would be productive for me to defend that position. It's simply not challenged.Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The e-meter compares two electrodes, displaying the delta by way of needle deflection. It's a lot of things – a measurement instrument, an invention, a device, a thing, etc. Britannica says the e-meter is "an instrument that measures the strength of a small electrical current..." Hubbard himself said, "Yesterday, we used an instrument called an E-Meter..." All I want to do here is prevent the effort expended toward making it mysterious and religious when it is not. It's a fairly simple electronic device. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

O, for billy-o blue nuts, man, let's not be morons. Like, "None of our sources deny that balloons are crustaceans, therefore they must be crustaceans." Mathison's claim to invent the E-meter is challenged by ordinary history. Carl Jung documented his work with E-meters 40 years earlier, and I gave you the link to Jung's book in the footnote. Then you can check here, , telling us:

By 1906 "Jung" was using GSR and breath measurement to note changes in respiration and skin resistance to emotionally charged worlds. Found that indicators cluster around stimulus words which indicate the nature of the subject's complexes. Young man displayed complex indicators around words woman. home. fight. Complex associated with conflict in marriage. Much later L. Ron Hubbard used this approach in Scientology's "auditing," using the "e-meter" (a galvanic skin response indicator) to discern the presence of complexes. The scientific study of GSR began in the early 1900s. One of the first references to the use of GSR instruments in psychoanalysis is the book by C. G. Jung entitled Studies in Word Analysis, published in 1906. The controversial Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich also studied GSR in his experiments at the Psychological Institute at the University of Oslo in 1935 and 1936 to confirm the existence of a bio-electrical charge behind his concept of vegetative, pleasurable 'streamings.' GSR was used for a variety of types of research in the 1960s through the late 1970s, with a decline as more sophisticated techniques (such as EEG and MRI) replaced it in many areas of psychological research. As of 2010, some skin conductance monitoring devices, such as galvanometers, are still in use because they are inexpensive.

If the E-meter is only detecting the galvanic skin response, then it was really invented in 1889 by Ivane Tarkhnishvili, who observed variations in skin electrical potentials in the absence of any external stimuli. Read the Skin conductance page.

"Compares two electrodes"?? Wha-? No, it does not. The electrodes come with the instrument. And yes, the text you restored states, "The E-meter has undergone many changes since it was invented by Volney Mathison ..." It was not invented by Mathison, even though Mathison thought it was. But Mathison was heavy into self-hypnosis, so we shouldn't be surprised.

Let's start again. Of all the material you reverted, you object only to the mention of the Creed, is that correct? Slade Farney (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of devices have been invented, based on electrodes touching human skin. They are all somewhat different from each other, and they have different names. The one named the e-meter was invented by Mathison, and there is nothing to the contrary in our sources. Your discussion here of previous devices appears to be original research, and while interesting, cannot be used in the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You understand that an invention might be more than a name, right? Inventions are patented, but names are trade marked. Apparently, Mathison did not trade mark the name "E-meter" so it was public domain. The name was certainly not patented.

My discussion of previous devices is not "original research" -- it is called scholarly research of published materials. That is the work that all competent Wikipedians do. We find the published materials, summarize them, and publish them for more comprehensive understanding. We don't just parrot whatever drivel one or two sources provide. Misplaced Pages is not addicted to the grouch bench where every subject must be discredited by the nastiest words we can find. The history of GSR measurement is nicely addressed in the Galvanic Skin Response Misplaced Pages page. If you want to know what Mathison thought he invented, read the patent.

The generic combination of elements comprising my electropsychometer are: (a) one or more resilient and compressible skin-contacting electrodes; (1)) a fairly simple type of balanced vacuum tube bridge; a sensitive moving-coil type of direct current microammeter which has its winding connected into the output circuit of the amplifying vacuum tube bridge in series with a current-rectifying element, so that only rectified unidirectional current flows, through the indicating instrument.

The improvements on earlier designs are not to be denied. But then when the Patent Office examiner was compiling the references for the Hubbard E-meter, the examiner did not list Mathison's patent. Why? Apparently, he did not consider that Mathison's work was significant. Hubbard's transistors replace the most significant part of Mathison's invention: the vacuum tube amplifier. Of course the grouches want to accuse Hubbard of stealing the E-meter from Mathison, but they are not experts on anything beyond their miserable experiences in Scientology. And of course Bent Corydon, who published all of one book and has no other qualifications. But the Wiki standard is THE BEST SOURCES AVAILABLE, like with 41 years at the Sonoma State University. See bio here. Daniels' omission of Mathison's name tells us that Jung made all the outstanding achievements, not Mathison. The Mathison E-meter was just a marching drummer behind other drummers in the parade, and not the baton swinging band-master that Mathison (and Corydon) considered it to be. Slade Farney (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading this response from you I cannot help but notice that very little was said. You pointed to a Daniels URL which is not a timeline or chronology of the e-meter, which is the kind of importance you couched it in, making it appear larger than it is. Daniels does not attempt to list every significant step in the development of the e-meter; instead, the e-meter is mentioned offhand as one interesting use of galvanic skin response technology. I don't see any place in this article for Daniels. Nor do I see any place for conjecture from Misplaced Pages users about why the Hubbard patent failed to list Mathison. Our sources which discuss Mathison recount the exact story that Misplaced Pages must tell the reader. The patent is a flawed source in that its omissions are not listed, described or explained. The Corydon book gives this explanation. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Sorry if I cover this stuff in baby steps, but we don't want to miss anything. First, the E-meter is JUST a Wheatstone bridge. But Wheatstone bridge was invented in 1833, so Mathison didn't invent anything. But he got a patent. Well, OK, he got a patent for measuring the Galvanic Skin Response of human beings. Well, no he didn't, and the history on that goes back to 1889 when Ivane Tarkhnishvili was measuring GSR. Maybe Mathison invented the GSR/Wheatstone bridge for therapy? No, in actual fact, as told by Carl Jung's book, psychoanalysts were using the GSR response for therapy way back in 1904. But Jung's own book is an original source so Misplaced Pages can't use it? Well, ok, so here is Dr. Victor Daniels telling about Jung using the GSR for therapy, obviously with a meter. And every place you see "E-meter" on Misplaced Pages, you are told it is ONLY a meter for measuring Galvanic Skin Response. Jung even called it an "electropsychometer," so Mathison did not invent even the name. OK, so what did Mathison get a patent for? Well, as told in his patent, Mathison added handy electrodes, vacuum tube amplification (within the Wheatstone bridge), and a milliameter movement.

Recall, please, this is a page on the E-meter, not on Mathison. He has his own page elsewhere. This section is on the history of the E-meter. Can you think of any legitimate reason the history of the E-meter should omit the first 50 years of E-meter existence and begin with Mathison? I can't either, unless we are trying to cover for Corydon, who was writing his first book (and his last book took, apparently), who had no qualifications as a researcher, and no particular expertise on this subject. He was, like, from nowhere, and this part of his book shows it. And Corydon states right up front, on the cover of the book actually, that he intends to skewer Hubbard. Corydon has a flaw or two as an objective observer. He portrays Hubbard as a thief who rips off the nice Dr. Mathison's wonderful invention that had actually been kicking around since before Mathison was born.

OK, let's move on. What did Hubbard's patent cover? The Hubbard E-meter has the original configuration of the Wheatstone bridge (without the amplifiers) with the amplification outside the bridge. Next, it is redesigned with transistors in place of the vacuum tubes. It runs on batteries, not line voltage, and it is rechargeable. The US Patent examiner looked at it and (as we can see from the patent) decided that Mathison's patent had not contributed significantly to the Hubbard E-meter. Please note that the Hubbard E-meter also does not reference the patent for transistors, potentiometers, or large moving-coil milliameters.

Corydon also wants us to know that even though the Hubbard E-meter is "just" a Wheatstone bridge (i.e., nothing to see here folks, move along), it was stolen from Mathison, not from Wheatstone. And even though there was nothing special in the Hubbard E-meter that was not already in the Mathison meter, all the nothing-specialness was done by two other guys, Breeding and Wallis, whom Hubbard then ripped off. And then you charge that the Hubbard patent was "flawed" because it omits to mention the other two guys, who after all didn't do anything significant that Mathison hadn't already done, even though Mathison hadn't done anything that Wheatstone hadn't done. It's a problem, no?

Let's just tell the story as it is, with all the dates and details. Let's leave off Mathison's pissing and moaning, and Corydon's speculation that Mathison could have sued for patent violation but he was too nice. It's a fairy tale. Slade Farney (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, we are not going to favor friendly observers over unfriendly. Corydon is a perfectly suitable source. Both friendly and unfriendly voices have something to say about the topic. You'll notice that Corydon says something about Breeding, Wallis and Mathison, while Scientology-friendly observers tend to favor Hubbard over any other names. In the absence of something solid from the friendly observers, we go with the unfriendly ones, the ones that provide this detail.

Regarding the chronology of the e-meter, I'm all for telling the reader what are the precedents, but they must be cited to sources discussing the e-meter, and our summary text should continue to say that Hubbard patented the work of others, per Corydon. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Or vice versa. Slade Farney (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Article no longer compliant with WP:Due/ Undue

The current majority opinion of the academic community on the ability of the e-meter to assist with medical or psychological practice is clearly strongly negative, yet nowhere does this article reflect that. This article is therefore no longer compliant with WP:Due or WP:Undue policy. I easily found evidence of the article's extreme pro-Scientology weighting in the article's lead, which claimed that the e-meter had been around for over 100 years (nowhere supported by the cite), and implied that non-Scientology related therapists (i.e. typical psychologists and psychiatrists) were using it as a therapeutic tool, again, nowhere supported by the cites. Freezone thereapists are Scientology related, and that was not made clear in the wording. There is no longer a section titled, "Controversy". What is left of the old "Controversy" section (Now E-meter and the law) has been reworded to imply that the controversies were all mistakes, and it is now fully legal. All very inaccurate, misleading, and out of compliance with WP:Due/ Undue. I propose reverting this article back to an earlier edition of this article that complied with WP:Due/ Udue, so it can again comply with WP:Due/ Undue. Scott P. (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority opinion on electrodermal activity is mixed, from Martin Gardener (who was not qualified to offer an opinion on the subject) to modern users publishing in peer reviewed journals cited. Please see the sources cited here and in electrodermal activity and its use in both research and therapy. If you still think Gardener's opinion is relevant, you can add it, but it just makes Gardener look a little silly, given the professional heavyweights who found value in the subject. The lede is not required to provide all cites if it truly summarizes the body of the article. WP:LEDE. The body tells the history: "The first EDA meter was developed in Russia 1889 by Ivane Tarkhnishvili. It was popularized for psychotherapy by Carl Gustav Jung in a series of papers published in German in 1906 and in English in 1919." If the E-meter is currently illegal (or less than fully legal) anyplace inside or outside of Scientology, certainly that should be mentioned. What other controversies would you like to see brought forward? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give precise snippets to demonstrate your assertions. For example, your statement that the article claims the emeter is "fully legal" when it is not. I'm not sure what you're trying to assert, because the emeter in itself was never illegal to begin with, unless you have information that says otherwise. What is illegal is the use of the Scientology emeter for the purpose of diagnosing medical conditions and illness, or at least that's what appears to be the agreement made between Scientology and the FDA. From what I can tell, the article is pretty clear about this, so I'm not sure what you're getting at or I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Keep in mind the emeter is just one of out many biofeedback devices like the polygraph, all or at least most considered by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience. As I suggested on the CCHR talk page, the best thing for you to do would be to open up a "request for comment" and let other editors chime in with their view and see if there is any consensus regarding your assertions and proposed changes. Laval (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's material to your statement, but I don't think the polygraph or the e-meter, as currently used, are really biofeedback devices. Certainly the polygraph does not have the "goal of being able to manipulate them at will," like the lede says in the biofeedback article. ;-) Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the polygraph, when used as a lie detector, is not a biofeedback device according to the definition used in that article, but the Scientology meter, as used by Scientologists, is. The whole point of using the E-meter in so-called "auditing" is to "guide" the preclear (patient, client, etc) through their mind in locating and/or triggering memories, emotional states, physical sensations and so on, supposedly through the measurement of electrical resistance (or "charge" in Scientology jargon) - actually, the last section of this page explains it pretty well, and psychological/physiological conditioning is the most important factor in using biofeedback devices in the first place. Scientology takes it a step further by claiming the e-meter can help guide you toward spiritual freedom and immortality, in addition to the standard claim of helping locate the mental or spiritual sources of physical pain and illnesses, which of course is forbidden by the FDA but I guess the disclaimers are enough to shield them from prosecution. There are 3 or 4 articles in psychology/psychiatry journals from years ago which study the biofeedback and conditioning aspect of the e-meter which may be of interest for this article, but I'm allergic to all this pseudoscience and woo. Laval (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be jiggered. I thought the auditor used it more like a nurse uses a stethoscope. E-meter#Use_in_Scientology says:

According to Hubbard, the E-meter is used by the operator for three vital functions:

To determine what process to run and what to run it on.

To observe how well the process is running.

To know when the process should be stopped.

Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The e-meter has been a controversial device since the earliest days of the Scientology movement when they were confiscated by the government, to this day when Scientology continues to make the rather controversial claim that its e-meters make good measurements of the "psyche, the human soul, spirit...."

This article nowhere reflects the ongoing and consistent highly controversial nature of this device. Even the "Law" sections each conclude on a positive statement summarizing how the law eventually submitted to the e-meter. Outside of Scientology, the medical, psychiatric, and therapeutic communities remain effectively uniformly opposed to the ongoing use of this device, legal failures to stop its use notwithstanding. The page appears to be roughly 80% pro and maybe at most 20% con. RS is approximately the reverse. I still see no reason why this article should be allowed to remain so flagrantly in violation of WP:Due/ Undue policy, or why such nonsensical claims as its supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims should remain. Unless anyone can explain to me how a device that is uniformly contested by the therapeutic community outside of Scientology is the same device allegedly being suitably explained here, I will repair this page as needed. Scott P. (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In 1970, there were 1500 professional journal articles concerning electrodermal activity (EDA) and its use as an indicator in therapy and research. According to the journals cited on the EDA page, the use of EDA is still on the increase in those fields. I have asked you to consult the journals that are cited here and in the EDA page. You may find there, for example:

EDA is used widely in psychological research due to its low cost and high utility. Hugo D. Critchley, Chair of Psychiatry at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School states, "EDA is a sensitive psychophysiological index of changes in autonomic sympathetic arousal that are integrated with emotional and cognitive states." Many biofeedback therapy devices utilize EDA as an indicator of the user's stress response with the goal of helping the user to control anxiety.

This article is fully supported with references. If you find statements not supported, flag them. If you find references that are not WP:RS, flag them. Where are the sources that say otherwise? Add them to the article.

Multiple RS support the use of EDA meters before 1915, including Jung's own published papers in German. I asked you to consult those sources, but you do not comment on them directly. That should be your first task before further discussion. The fact is, Mathison did not invent the E-meter -- that was the claim of some writers who were plainly not familiar with the field and did not do their homework. But the translation of Jung's own book from 1904 is published on Google books.

As for the legal sections, each story is chronological beginning with the earliest events and ending with the most recent events. Do you know of any secular uses where the E-meter hit legal problems? Was the premises of Mathison Electorpsychometers ever raided? Were lie detectors ever banned from use or manufacture because of the EDA component? Are biofeedback devices contraband and confiscated on import anywhere in the world? If you know of any nations where Scientology or other E-meters are forbidden, those stories belong on the page. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://wendyberrymendes.com/cms/uploads/Mendes%20-%20Autonomic%20nervous%20sys.pdf
2. Critchley, Hugo D. (April 2002). "Book Review: Electrodermal Responses: What Happens in the Brain". Neuroscientist. 8 (2): 132–142. doi:10.1177/107385840200800209. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

I would just like to point out that Sfarney (Grammar's Little Helper) has been the primary editor of this page for the last half a year, and this is what the article looked like before he began making his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=E-meter&oldid=639347143 A lot of information critical of the E-Meter has been removed: it should be restored to bring back WP:DUE. Kage Acheron (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can a device be criticized? The FDA arrested it, prosecuted it, and tried to "condemn" it to destruction, so I guess we can "criticize" it. Will the court have to appoint counsel?

I have used the best sources available. For example, in place of Corydon/DeWolf's vague statement that Mathison invented the E-meter "in the 1940s," I have used Mathison's own statement that he got his original idea while listening to a lecture by a "controversial" speaker in 1950. Other sources have identified that speaker. Moreover, with the full back-history of the instrument, the reader can competently evaluate the magnitude of Mathison's invention (it did not spring into being from nothing like Athena from the head of Zeus), and Corydon/DeWolf's allegation that Hubbard misappropriated the E-meter from Mathison. I have tried to present the simple facts that were missing in the original page. If you think it necessary to add a layer of opinion and disapprobation, well, what can I say? I don't think opinions are the proper commerce for an Encyclopedia. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious problem, Scottperry. And thank you to Kage Acheron for suggesting a fix: rollback to before Sfarney started shifting the article to a positive bent. I agree with Laval that more could be said about the psychology of the e-meter as a Scientology tool, but we should certainly restore the paramount evaluation of the thing as unreliable nonsense, per mainstream sources. This article should not become a voice for Scientologists or their apologists. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I say thank you for reading the non-Scientology references provided in the article? No, I should wait until you read them, then you tell me which of them are pro-scientology, and which are just plain professional journal references. And you should read them too, before offering an opinion on the subject. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is ultimately User:Scottperry using language and making statements that are not helpful or taking into account WP:Consensus. It is totally inappropriate for an editor to go around stating that they are going to single-handedly of their own accord without any prior discussion whatsoever with other editors revert to an earlier version of an article going back a few years. May I remind everyone that this and other Scientology-related articles are subject to discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, which means that any radical or "militant" changes or canvassing to make such changes are explicitly prohibited? User:Scottperry has already been canvassing on anti-Scientology forums here and here.

Regardless of whatever problems this article or other Scientology-related articles have, I cannot agree with taking any militant action against them to the extent of threatening to take action against consensus or to refuse to open an RFC where warranted (as User:Scottperry has explicitly stated) prior to taking such radical action or to explicitly and directly canvass on an external forum in direct violation of Arbitration Committee sanctions. Laval (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment At the time of Laval's posting, the second extra-Wiki thread had been in existance for only a day. Perhaps a very precice Google search would have found it, but that more likely suggests active monitoring of critical sites. No one who isn't an involved party does that. Could editor Laval declare his/her involvement on the issue? 209.171.88.121 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, masked man, that participation in off-site discussions is not forbidden. Anyone here could partake regularly in those forums without breaking the rules. However, it is not OK to recruit editors to weigh in en mass from one of those forums, and in this case, ScottPerry has done just that at least twice over. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to clear violations of ArbCom sanctions and User:Scottperry's canvassing on external anti-Scientology forums, I suggest notifying the appropriate administrators and everyone taking a step back from editing this and other articles like the CCHR until everything has been sorted out. Laval (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: The best way to keep this article in compliance with WP:Due/Undue

I have recently performed a major overhaul of this article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors here have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-compliance with WP policy, no other editor there has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. In order to acheive what I believe to be WP Policy compliance within this article, I have now essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article. The question here is whether to keep the major overhaul edition of the article, which I am calling the "restored" article, or to merely try to make gradual edits to the "pre-restored" version to bring about WP Policy compliance.

"Do you support or oppose the most recent "roll-back" edit by myself in my effort to get this article into compliance with WP:Due/ Undue?"

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(revised) RFC: The best way to keep this article in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Religion and philosophy Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I apologize for all of the struck-out-text above. As the supporters of what I view as a pro-Scientology edition of this article have now refused to agree to the initial request of this RFC to leave the article as what I believed was a WP:Due/ Undue compliant edition of the article, at least until this RFC could be completed, and as they have again reverted the article back to what I will now refer to as the "Conserved edition", I must now rewrite this RFC as best I am able in light of their recent refusal. So without further adue, here is the now revised RFC:

I have recently performed a major overhaul of this article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors here have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-compliance with WP policy, no other editor here has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. In order to acheive what I believe to be WP Policy compliance within this article, before its most recent rollback to what I am calling the "Conserved edition", I had essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article.

• My proposed "Policy-compliant" article page can be seen at:

Proposed "Policy compliant" article edition by Scott Perry.

• The diffs between what I am calling the "Baseline" edition from 2007 and the proposed "Policy compliant" edition can be seen at:

"Baseline" to "Policy compliant" diffs.

• The diffs between my proposed "Policy compliant" edition, and the current "Conserved edition" can be seen at:

"Policy compliant" to "Conserved edition" diffs.

Again, my apologies for the strikeout. So now, the revised RFC question becomes:

Do you support or oppose the restoration of the article to what Scott Perry calls his "Policy compliant" edition, which he has created due to his belief that the current edition is no longer compliant with WP:Due and WP:Undue?

Thanks

Scott P. (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Oppose" -- This RFC is not correctly posed per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. (1) It should be posted BEFORE doing a massive revert, not afterwards. (2) It fails to provide a neutral statement of the issue. Instead, it speculates on a conspiracy and asserts the RfC poster's reversion is the "neutral one." Argue your case only in the discussion portion of the RfC, not in the header. (3) It misrepresents the history of the discussion. You have not demonstrated that the journal references that you have deleted did not support the page text, or did not reflect the best sources available. Instead, you have ignored my requests to address those references, characterizing them as "implied consensus" with the reversion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

1. There is now no revert in place, (per your party's actions) so your party has now rendered that point rather moot.
2. I think the primary question above was phrased neutrally. Perhaps you were referring to my earlier question, which I must agree was not phrased as neutrally?
3. It does not address minor recent changes to the article because the supposition I made was that fairly major changes, as the changes I have now proposed, need to be made. And no I never said that your party was in consensus about my proposed revision. I merely said that you were in "implied consensus" that there were WP:Due/ Undue issues with the page. As I understand it, there is the widespread supposition that when a specific claim is made, and the other party chooses to remain silent about the specific claim, there is usually a certain sort of an "implied consent" being made by the silent party, at least that's what they did in court once on Hill Street Blues, but who am I to know for sure?

Scott P. (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who has been actively involved in developing the RFC pages over the years, I would like to say that objection #1 is spurious. There are no rules that require RFCs to be opened before, after, or during any particular edit or reversion. There are also no rules that prevent ongoing editing of the page during the discussion. RFCs are meant to be normal talk page discussions plus an advertising mechanism, not a work-stopping bureaucratic maneuver. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• comment - can you please a diff showing the results of your changes? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Jyt, I just put up the two diff links and the one proposed revision link, which I hope is what you were suggesting. Scott P. (talk)

You do realize you are accusing several of us here as being "pro-Scientology"? That is totally out of line and you had better show some evidence to back up this alleged bias. You have also not responded to evidence I presented indicating that you have been canvassing on anti-Scientology forums. and

Laval (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reasons for supporting the "Conserved edition" are your own. I merely said that the "Conserved edition" appeared to me to be pro-Scientology. For all I know you are merely into the properties of E-meters because you have some interest in them based on your love of electronics. I don't really care. Scott P. (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your nearly "supernatural" awareness of my off-Wiki activities, not a single person from that board has posted on this talk page, so further ad-hominem attacks on irrelevant grounds would seem to me to be a bit of an attempt to derail this RFC by any means you can dream up. Yes I asked for help there, and no, none was received here. I have since asked that nobody from there post here, at least for the time being. We have no reason to believe that any number of editors in here have ever been canvassed by the Church of Scientology to post here, do we? Scott P. (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is very relevant, per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. Your behavior and statements reflect a distinctly anti-Scientology bias — a bias against a particular subject is, obviously, not in and of itself an issue and should not be, within the constraints of WP:NPOV. The problem is when someone with an anti-Scientology bias goes to an external forum and basically claims that the Church of Scientology is covertly taking over Misplaced Pages articles on Scientology — here is an exact quote: Right now there seems to be some kind of a systematic infiltration of Misplaced Pages going on by the CoS... I'm an old hand editor for the last 11 years at Misplaced Pages and some of us are trying to stop this CoS operation over there. This is clearly a problem. Do you deny making this absurd claim? Laval (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Who invented the E-meter and how long has it been in use?

It is also apparent that you (User:Scottperry) are unaware that L Ron Hubbard did not invent the so-called "E-meter" and that this device had been invented and in use long before Hubbard's adoption of it for Dianetics and Scientology? It was Volney Mathison, by the way, who invented the device that was later patented by Hubbard as the "Hubbard Electrometer." Mathison's meter, as is stated in this article and in Mathison's bio, is basically a repackaged Wheatstone bridge, which had been in use since the early 1900s by psychiatrists and/or psychoanalysts. I am not sure why you dispute these clearly documented facts. In other words, why do you dispute the fact that L Ron Hubbard did not invent the E-meter and its variants and why do you dispute that it had been in use as a Wheatstone bridge (which Hubbard himself admits) long before the advent of Dianetics and Scientology? Laval (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The e-meter as we know it today was certainly originally invented under a different name, the Mathison Psychrometer I believe it was, back in the late 40's. Later Hubbard clearly modified it and renamed it, then used it only for his own purposes, which was for "auditing". And so it is exclusively used for this to this day. In order for Hubbard to have gotten his own patent, he would have had to have significantly modified it. So, the name "e-meter" as it applies to a galvanic skin response meter, has never been associated with any other device besides the Scientology e-meter, that is until someone here started claiming it had, with no documentation to prove that earlier supposed association or use of that name. E-meters in the 1800's? E-meters built and used specifically for auditing are no longer the same devices cops use to detect lies. Come on. Your thinking on this does truly amaze me. Scott P. (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your amazement aside, do you have sources that dispute the sources currently used in this article? In other words, what exactly in this current version of the article are you disputing and what sources are you using to make such disputes? Laval (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for finally getting down to brass tacks here. I just read through refs 1,2, & 3, which you placed as supporting references to your statement that the e-meter had been around for over a century. Please forgive me, but I could find no wording to that effect in any of those three supporting references. Did I miss something? What specific wording in which place in which specific text did you find something, stating that e-meter was over 100 years old? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't place any refs in the article about the history of the device. Versions of the article going back at least to 2013 use a source stating "The device is a variation of a Wheatstone bridge, which dates to 1833 and measures electrical resistance and skin conductance." The citation there specifically stated: "The Genesis of the Wheatstone Bridge" by Stig Ekelof discusses Christie's and Wheatstone's contributions, and why the bridge carries Wheatstone's name. Published in "Engineering Science and Education Journal", volume 10, no 1, February 2001, pages 37–40. This is essentially what the current version states. Are you disputing this and is this why you attempted a wholesale reversion to one prior to 2013? Laval (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You see, this article is not about the Wheatstone Bridge, which is over 100 years old. This article is about the e-meter, which term and device only came into existence as we now know them in the 50's. What you are doing is like saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica has been in existence since the first century CE. No, encyclopedias came into existence then, but Britannica did not come into existence until 1768. It is these types of very odd interpretations of the facts that are sprinkled throughout the article, that have caused the need for a major article overhaul. I hope you can see the difference here. Scott P. (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wheatstone Bridge is not a "device." It is a circuit configuration for measuring small differences between impedance components, and those components may be resistance (as in this case), inductance, or capacitance. The Wheatstone Bridge is not even essential to the E-meter, no more than a gasoline engine is essential to an automobile. As it happened, that was a fundamental component for a very long time, but not essential. The true grandfather of automobiles is not the first internal combustion engine, but the human carriage, which may be drawn by gas engine, electric engine, steam engine, horse, dog, or coolie. In the case of the E-meter, Here is the ancestor:

The first EDA meter was developed in Russia 1889 by Ivane Tarkhnishvili. It was popularized for psychotherapy by Carl Gustav Jung in a series of papers published in German in 1906 and in English in 1919. Jung and his colleagues used meters to evaluate the emotional sensitivities of patients during word association. Jung was so impressed with the instrument, he allegedly cried, "Aha, a looking glass into the unconscious!" Jung described his use of the device in counseling in his book, Studies in Word Association, and such use has continued with various practitioners.

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just located another source: "Bob Thomas, senior executive of the Church of Scientology in the United States, described the E-meter ... 'Some very early work on this was done by Jung, who used a list of words. I think he combined it with the psycho-galvanometer. By this word association, he was attempting to increase the effectiveness of the free association techniques, which he was not sure about.'" Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Daniels, Victor. "Notes on Carl Gustav Jung". Sonoma State University. Sonoma State University. Retrieved 4 April 2015. By 1906 was using GSR and breath measurement to note changes in respiration and skin resistance to emotionally charged worlds. Found that indicators cluster around stimulus words which indicate the nature of the subject's complexes...Much later L. Ron Hubbard used this approach in Scientology's "auditing", using the "e-meter" (a galvanic skin response indicator) to discern the presence of complexes.
2. Binswanger, L. (1919). "XII". In Jung, Carl (ed.). Studies in Word-Association. New York, NY: Moffat, Yard & company. pp. 446 et seq. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
3. Anderson, Kevin. "Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology" (PDF). ApologeticsIndex. Apologetics Index (TM). p. 128. Retrieved 2 April 2015. The E-meter is not a new type of instrument. It is one which is well known to science and has been in use in one form or another for many years. As early as the 1920's, experiments were conducted in psychological research with what was then called an electro-galvanometer or psychogalvanometer.
4. Atack, Jon. "Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology". Scientology 101. Retrieved 2 April 2015. Some form of 'E-meter' has actually been in use since before WWI
5. "You can learn control of how your skin talks". San Bernardino, California: The San Bernardino County Sun. The San Bernardino County Sun. October 11, 1977. p. 12. Retrieved 8 April 2015. Current research using the skin's electrical activity as a communications medium between patient and therapist looks promising in such stress problems as drug abuse, alcoholism, neuroses and other tension states.
6. Brown, Barbara (November 9, 1977). "Skin Talks -- And It May Not Be Saying What You Want To". Pocatello, Idaho: Field Enterprises, Inc. Idaho State Journal. p. 32. Retrieved 8 April 2015. Carl Jung, possibly the most creative psychologist who ever lived, experimented with skin talk in 1900. Using a primitive instrument to record changes in skin electrical activity, he conducted psychological interviews with patients and found that the skin responded to hidden emotions. It is said he was so astounded by this phenomenon that he exclaimed, 'Aha, a looking glass into the unconscious!'
7. Mitchell, Gregory. "Carl Jung & Jungian Analytical Psychology". Mind Development Courses. Retrieved 9 April 2015.
8. Garrison, Omar V. (1974). The Hidden Story of Scientology. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, a division of Lyle Stuart, Inc. pp. 62–64. ISBN 0-8065-0440-4.

And by the way, there is obviously no consensus for your wholesale reversion of the article to an earlier version from several years previous (in this case, apparently from 2007) and I can guarantee you that you will not find any editors who would support such an action, as was clearly demonstrated on Talk:Psychiatry in regards to that article. Laval (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the RFC over at the Psychiatry article, I was totally satisfied with the outcome of that article. I don't care how it's accomplished, but somehow these non-compliant articles need to be redone to acheive compliance. In the case of the e-meter article, it has gone far more out of compliance than the Psychiatry article ever did. Thus I feel more strongly here that a full revert will be required here. You still haven't told me if you feel the article is in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue. What is your opinion on that, if you don't mind me asking? Scott P. (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All that happened at Psychiatry was a chunk of the criticism section was taken out and made into a new article. No other changes were made there and there was no consensus that there was any undue weight being given to critical sources. In this case, you are claiming that undue weight is being given to what you are referring to as "pro-Scientology" sources, and no, I do not agree with that as it is clear that this is not the case. The Church of Scientology claims Hubbard as the sole inventor of the E-meter, makes no mention of Volney Mathison, and makes all sorts of claims regarding the function of the device that are at best pseudoscience. Scientology also denies that the E-meter is a simple galvanic skin response or electrodermal activity device, and that such devices (including the polygraph machine, all variously known as "biofeedback" devices) are measuring what Hubbard refers to as "mental mass." I do not see this article giving any sort of undue weight to the Scientology or Hubbardian view, and I do not understand why you would view it as being guilty of such. Laval (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge waste of time. Why do you think it proper to delete all reference to Carl Jung using an Electrodermal activity meter for assessing lists of emotionally disturbed subjects? Why do you use the wrong date for Mathison's E-meter invention? I could start at the top of the article and list 50 things you have omitted or reverted to false statements. Why do you have the wrong name on the 1954 patent, and the wrong date for Hubbard's patent? You have not read the source articles that you trashed, and it is not my job to spoon-feed them to you. Dubois-Reymond (1849 in Germany), Vigouroux (France, 1879), Ivane Tarkhnishvili (1889 in Russia), Carl Jung (1904), Mathison 1950 ... Misplaced Pages is not a coloring book. Moreover, the "sweat" hypothesis is at least a half-century out of date and does not cover all the EDA phenomena. The term "galvanic skin response" that was outdated among the professionals 40 years ago. Reverting the page was inexcusable vandalism. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed. For the record, I am uninvolved in editing this or any other Scientology-related articles, having nothing to do with that organization, and was drawn here by a discussion on one of the noticeboards. I admit to being confused by the terminology used in this RFC and am inclined to oppose per Grammar'sLittleHelper. Perhaps it would be better to start anew with an RFC that shows what you want to change and why- the RFC should also have a neutral title, and should not include more language that criticizes other editors. No offense, but I had a very hard time figuring out this RFC. I applaud your desire to have a policy-compliant article. I suggest starting with a policy-compliant discussion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Scott, did you not read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief? Read the entire page and follow the guidelines about neutrality and simplicity (a simple question is best). It also looks like this off-wiki message board appeals constitute canvassing. Liz 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz:, would you mind posting that canvassing link to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#E-Meter Administrators Noticeboard? I will if you prefer not to. The issue issue of Scott's conduct is currently under discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here are the links: , . JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I had originally posted the links there to ANI. Had they been removed? Laval (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

One was there in your post, I just now added the second. Thanks, JoeSperrazza. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I had also added that there is an apparent pattern of behavior on Scottperry's part, considering his attempts at Psychiatry and Citizens Commission on Human Rights to revert those articles wholesale back to versions from a few years previous that he considered to have not been slanted toward a pro-Scientology bias. And this is only the most recent issue — especially considering the violation of WP:3RR (which does not, as he believed, actually require 3 reversions to be in violation), not to mention the reversion of an article to a 2007 version (!), why he was not blocked or at the very least temporarily topic banned is perplexing. Laval (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The admin will do what the admin will do. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem stew

It's beginning to sound a bit like an echo chamber in here, with 3 or 4 voices deciding how best to boil the victim and serve him up. I hear that a few pages of a badly compromised article add quite the spicy accent to ad-hominem stew as well. They say a baked apple in the mouth is quite enchanting. Oh, and don't forget the onions!! Scott P. (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only editor in this whole friggin place who cares enough about Misplaced Pages to have the nerve to stand up to these poor misguided takeover artists? Is this what Misplaced Pages is to be, a charade of who can attack who the best, with total disregard for the articles themselves? Does no other unbiased editor care? If so, then you are welcome to whatever mess this is place is fast becoming. If not, then now is your time to speak. I ask... now, or perhaps never. Scott P. (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Of Note: When will you to read the material you are trying to trash? You have still not addressed a single point that needs improving in the existing text, an RS omitted, an RS mischaracterized, or a source that is not an RS. Developed articles are improved one point at a time. If the article were as bad as you say, addressing a single point would be like shooting apples in a barrel. That may be why you smell the BBQ: Your integrity as a Misplaced Pages editor is at stake, and with every avoidance of your real job as a cooperative editor, you are helping to grill it. So, as I have requested repeatedly, start naming the individual points that need improvement and why. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Poor misguided takeover artists"? Who are you directing these various ad hominem attacks against exactly? You do realize that you've been making ad hominem attacks from the very start, and that it is these very attacks against other editors that has been driving your campaign? Laval (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As posted on ANI, editors here should be made aware of recent more bizarre behavior on Scottperry's part in his (apparent) attempted involvement of the police and allegation that " I am dealing with some rather unpleasant folks here". What exactly is that all about? Laval (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with two brain cells could easily ask themselves, "How do these editors here seem to have all of this personal info about Scott?" Do they have some kind of a PI on his tail, or what?" This morning when I got up, I had to shoo-away the PI parked in front of my apartment. When our eyes locked, he burnt rubber to get out of there before I photographed his plate. My cell phone calls being intercepted strategically. Voicemails getting strategically erased. My calls getting interrupted in mid-call and recordings of earlier calls getting played back to me. I guess not too many folks have two brain cells these days. **sigh** Scott P. (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot the cherry on the top. Now we're getting calls from someone who was known to us to have been in illegal possession of a gun, but who is also known to us to be off her rocker. Fun fun fun! Scott P. (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And where is the FBI in all of this so far. So far eating fucking doughnuts!!! (At least so far as they have let me know thus far.) Scott P. (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Scientology articles
• High-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment