Talk:Dianetics

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (to mid-December 2005):
• Archive 2 (to Jan 2006 rewrite):

Peer Review

The current rewrite and previous versions does not represent the WP:NPOV concept of presenting both sides of the issue fairly. One view or side might be the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics written by the author of Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard with citations for any claims and including a section for any Controversial citations seen by editors. The second point of view and the only one allowed for some time has been to steadfastly confuse any understanding of the first view and fill the article with opinion, or tabloid citations only, disputing a subject that has never been Introduced or presented. Here is the prime example: The test result citations from Science of Survival proving Dianetics, were removed and reverted, then rewritten as if from a different report that had published criticisms that don't apply to the SoS reference. (the SoS citation presents Wechsler-Bellevue, Form B, IQ tests and data that were selected by named licensed psychometrists who conducted a study and the tests of 88 students new to Dianetics. It was used in WWII to select adults for military service, not children. The author of the latest rewrite presents finally the SoS data but surrounded by the criticism from a Sci Fi fan magazine called RHODOMAGNETIC DIGEST: BEING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELVES', GNOMES' AND LITTLE MEN'S SCIENCE-FICTION CHOWDER AND MARCHING SOCIETY, that is critical of the Wechsler NOT being used and the tests selected by the HDRF, NOT the licensed psychometrists and then says the test had been normed for children NOT adults. It is presented to "refute" the validity of the test results presented in SoS. Then the article is filled with tabloid citations what say there are no "test results".) I would like to see the NPOV concept of presenting both sides fairly, actually used on this Article. See the discussion below and the history of the article. I think you will find it confusing as well. Spirit of Man 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article doesn't present Dianetics. The manner in which it doesn't present Dianetics is spelled out by Spirit of Man. Dianetics begin with some idea of proving itself. But the only proof we can find seems to be the Science of Survival published proof. Since psychiatry and other groups haven't done a study we seem to be stuck with the only published data, done as Dianetics says it has to be done to prove its worth. Let's at least put that one study into the article. Terryeo 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten article

I've now posted the rewritten article - please add any comments below...

ChrisO, You have not accurately described the philosophy, science nor therapy of Dianetics. Spirit of Man 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

After careful review I must revise the comment above. Your article is valueless. A person reading your introduction would not recognize Dianetics anywhere in life. Your section on "theoretical basis" has no theoretical basis in it. Everything after that looks like random comments pushed together in meaningless mismash, no importance assigned to anything, a student paper disputed and unqualified in the previous version is even cited with honor, but all carefully footnoted and cited. The meaning and importance is the subject of Dianetics and that is missing everywhere. Spirit of Man 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, What little of those topics you may have touched upon are unrecognizable. What is recognizable is the total alteration of facts established in the previous edition and this Discussion over the last vew months. Example: one study was done by a student and you represent him as a scientist, and beyond that uou represent this student paper as if it represents the view of New York University. In fact it did not even comply with Dianetic Therapy, "intensive procedure" at all. That would be like administering 1/10 of an antibotic doseage and then proclaiming to the world it didn't work. That would deny that antibotic to mankind for use. In fact it wasn't tested. Beyond that you deleted the edits that show the truth of these facts. Is there any reason I should revise my view that you are irresponsible with your writing?

I'd like to point out that the place for editorial comments is on the talk page, not in the article itself. Please don't add such comments to the article. -- ChrisO 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have received no responses from you on comments here. Spirit of Man 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The place for discussion is the talk page, where is yours? Spirit of Man 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The NYU study is one of only two studies on Dianetics cited in MEDLINE. That makes it rather obviously relevant. -- ChrisO 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox was from UCLA in 1950, not NYU. It was not an NYU study. It may have been included in something by NYU in 1959, I won't dispute that. It is a study of 1 person. The auditing was done when the pc was still under the chemical effects of the drug. That is not a valid test of Dianetics. Dianetics uses no drugs, and there would be a six week drying out period. Why do you say "obviously relevant". I made no move to remove it, only clarify its importance and factuality. I happen to think it is the only public admission that I know of, that the medical and psychiatric community at UCLA was engaged in pain-drug-hypnosis (PDH). I find it hilarious that you even included it. Fischer was a student. He didn't use "intensive procedue" and got the results expected from doing that. If you know it is not a valid study, why do you delete the facts and importance it does have? Spirit of Man 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've put the section on D:MSMH into a separate article as Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (which was previously a circular reference to Dianetics). -- ChrisO 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, Your certainly holding true to form. I created the article Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health days ago. I changed the circular reference and noted it. It was not a circular reference as you said, when you changed it.Spirit of Man 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO,Now I see you and Anteaus Feldspar have scheduled my Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health piece for speedy deletion. Maybe Modemac can give you another NPOV rave for that. Spirit of Man 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer this one belatedly: Your POV fork article was nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It was not "scheduled" for speedy deletion, which is an entirely different process. As far as I know, ChrisO had exactly nothing to do with the process, except for separately having written a good article that wasn't a POV fork under the correct capitalization of the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, if you really are an Administrator could you help me with my dispute with Anteaus. He wants to delete my original DMSMH page and use your new one instead. Can you resolve this and use mine? Spirit of Man 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. When I edited the DMSMH page it was a redirect to Dianetics, rather than a separate article - I wasn't aware that it had a history. I'll look into that. -- ChrisO 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point I can only commend you for an impeccably researched job. You certainly know how to demonstrate the use of the rule often quoted here: Wikipedia:Cite Sources. --Modemac 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What you have done is Wrong and completely counter to Wiki Policy. You have voliated Wiki Policy in at least two areas. Wikipedia is built on a foundation that many people, by their collective viewpoints and careful validation of information, arrive at a concensus of information. By removing large portions of cited, verified text you have violated NPOV. By editing the Dianetics article many times to produce a brand, spanking new article that only reflects your OWN viewpoint you have violated NPOV. What you have done is Wrong. Even if the article were perfect as you created it, it would still be wrong of you to have done so. The article itself is obviously written by a person who doesn't understand nor use Dianetics, doesn't understand nor use Dianetics as a tool of Scientology and that blares through in many, many large and small ways. The article is useless (my opinion) as it sits if its goal is to communicate something about Dianetics to a reader. You have violated Wiki Policy and you are wrong to have done so ChrisO, administrator or not. Terryeo 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO kept large portions of the original text of this article, and he added far more citations, references, and pointers to original material than there were ever before. What's more, those citations are from original LRH writings, backed up by magazine articles and even government documents. This article is about as NPOV as it can get, and ChrisO is to be commended for putting a lot of effort into making this article not only legible and easily read, but a thorough look at both the techniques and "theory" of Dianetics but into its very history as well. This article is obviously written by a person who is interested in unearthing the actual truth behind the history of Dianetics, and it is an excellent piece of work (my opinion) as it sits as if its goal is to communicate something about Dianetics to a reader. ChrisO has proven his worth as a Wikipedia administrator many times, and this is another feather in his cap. --Modemac 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, First line: "Dianetics is a method of mental therapy devised by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s" this is an alteration of the more general truth that "Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard conceived in 1930 and continuing until his death in 1986, but continuing even now as all of the workable technology is archived, validated and released in its original workable forms and updated as integrated new forms with the Golded Age of Knowledge materials. Spirit of Man 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction of an article is supposed to be a concise, simple statement that gives a basic definition of its subject. Your statement attempts to cram many different pieces of information (some of which are disputed) into one single sentence that a reader new to this subject would have difficulty comprehending. Chris' first sentence does not try to cram the entire article into one sentence; it is expanded upon and further defined by the rest of the article. His presentation does not have to do with Hubbard's policies; rather, it is good writing -- which is appropriate for an encyclopedia article that is NPOV. --Modemac 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, I was not proposing it as an edit. I was pointing out the alteration. "Devised" suggests something quite different than the truth. Does anyone have any objection to this line? "Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard." Spirit of Man 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically I suppose we should say that it was researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard, John W. Campbell and J. A. Winter, given that they seem to have been co-developers of it... -- ChrisO 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been saying the subject was developed by LRH between 1930 and the present, with citations. I don't feel Winter's or Cambell's contributions classify as "co-developers" given the scope of the subject. Do you feel their contributions were substantial enough to defend that view? If you do, just present their actual contributions here. Spirit of Man 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO says, in the article; "no independently corroborated empirical evidence to support Hubbard's claims has ever emerged." This is a negative viewpoint from the truth. Links to the study outlined in Science of Survival have been removed byChrisO and now ignored. The truth is the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation used named and licensed independent psychologists to supervise, establish protocols, conduct tests on 88 new students and assemble results that support four of their claims; easy to teach and use on new people, raises IQ, improves psychiatric profiles and psychosomatic ills go into remission.The whole article reflects the authors negative view that no such tests were presented and the subject thus may be claimed to be psuedoscience. That is false. Spirit of Man 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume ChrisO not only has no clue in the world what Dianetics is about but has never considered that any should ever learn anything about Dianetics. He has consistantly sabatoged the article, carefully removing any actual meaning from it until at last he had to replace the whole article with his sabatoge. You did wrong ChrisO. You are not following Wiki Policy when you vastly cut everyone's contribution but your own from the article and you are not following Wiki Policy when you remove large portions of cited text. Would you like to see the same happen to your little golden egg, "Scientology and Space Opera?" Administrator or not, You have have not done the right thing. Terryeo 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, says "Fundamental to the system is the concept of the engram," This link to the medical engram is nonsensical and only adds confusion. "...which is defined in Dianetics (as opposed to how it was defined by Karl S. Lashley, the inventor of the term)" Medical researchers conclude "His failure to find a single biological locus of memory (or "engram", as he called it) suggested to him that memories were not localized to one part of the brain, but were widely distributed throughout the cortex." They suggest this, but the Dianetics definition and results are the proof of this thin suggestion. "...as "a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions." This is not the definition from Dianetics. The distinction is, an engram is a mental image picture which is a recording of time, it is NOT physcal universe time. Also, see Dianetics 55 Chapters 2 and 3 for how a mental image is recorded. Spirit of Man 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, regarding the entire section on "Theoretical basis". I don't know where you got that, but it is not the theoretical basis of Dianetics. That would be the discovered natural laws. In 1948, the primary axioms of Dianetics: there were six. 1. Survive. 2. The purpose of the mind... 3. The Mind directs... 4. The Mind as the central direction system... 5. The persistency of the individual in life is... 6. Intelligence is... In 1950, in DMSMH this was expanded to the Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics. There are 33, but unnumbered; The dynamic principle of existence - SURVIVE!, and so on. In early 1951, the Logics [SOS]. There are 24 of those; Logic 1. Knowledge is whole group...Logic 5 A definition of terms is necessary.... Later in 1951 [APL] The Axioms of Dianetics. There are 194 of those; Axiom 1. The source of life is a static... Axiom 3. That portion of the static...has for its dynamic goal, survival and only survival. Later the prinicple of Havingness would be added. The communications formula would be added. Spirit of Man 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, this paragraph makes no sense in the light of the HDRF tests on 88 students and the test data including charts presented. You have deleted the citation, but the facts of the tests, test data and test results remain. It makes no sense for a claim of pseudoscience: "Philosophy professor Robert Carroll has criticized Dianetics as a classic pseudoscience exhibiting a lack of scientific rigor and evidence: "What Hubbard touts as a science of mind lacks one key element that is expected of a science: empirical testing of claims. The key elements of Hubbard's so-called science don't seem testable, yet he repeatedly claims that he is asserting only scientific facts and data from many experiments. It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like. Most of his data is in the form of anecdotes and speculations ... Such speculation is appropriate in fiction, but not in science." [11] Please remove the paragraph. Spirit of Man 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We are exactly back to where we once were. ChrisO has created a mass of information which does not do the first step. Introduction. The subject is not introduced. ChrisO defied Wikipolicy to post his POV, destroying a lot of hard work and hard worked agreements by many people. He did it all in a sweep and then holds it up, hoping to be admired for destroying good work which has some value and some meaning. I am afraid we are back to not having an introduction at all. Terryeo 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO worked hard to restore NPOV to this article, and the only ones who are upset about this are Terryeo and Spirit Of Man. He is admired and worthy of admiration for his efforts, and the introduction to this article is accurate, descriptive, succinct, easy to comprehend, and appropriate. --Modemac 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, here is ChrisO's first line: "Dianetics is a method of mental therapy devised by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s and, since the mid-1950s, promoted by his Church of Scientology." He reduces the scope to "mental therapy". He uses a sceptical term "devised" suggestive of the idea of deception developed later in the article. He reduces the time scope of the conceptualization of the philosophy, the research of the science and the refinement of therapy to "the late 1940s". The he caps it with "his" church. This is not the article on the biography of LRH. The church belongs to all the membership. They did not research, refine, and extend the fundamental basic of Dianetics up to his death. The line essentially acts to reduce the scope of the actual subject to zero and introduce the unimportances and confusion of the rest of the article. You say Terryeo and I now, but you have to dismiss all the editors from the past that said, "the article is unrecognizable" and turned away. Terryeo and I now yes, but aren't you the only one here that came to his defense and admiration? [besides Anteaus working behind the lines deleting the original DMSMH page.] and one more guards the changes to the article, hidden and without discussion here. Isn't my suggested first line in fact more "accurate, descriptive, succinct, easy to comprehend, and appropriate." Yet retains the actual scope, meaning and importance of the subject as a lead in definition of the subject? "Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard." Spirit of Man 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All the editors from the past who said "the article is unrecognizable" did so only very recently, after Terryeo and you re-wrote it into a jumbled mass of unconnected and largely unverified, uncited statements. My objections to the article stem primarily from the fact that the changes were poorly written -- not that they were blatantly biased in favor of Scientology (which they were), but because the writing style used is simply not very good. ChrisO's changes have resulted in an article that is far more accurate, more easy to read, and more NPOV. We can certainly modify the introduction per your suggestion, but I feel that re-writing it the way Terryeo has tried to force upon the article with repeated reverts is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Modemac 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree. The article is highly readable and well-referenced, far better than what it replaces. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. The article does not communicate the least thing of any help at all to a person who hopes to understand Dianetics. It gives convoluted information. It does not bring understanding of what Dianetics is. To illistrate, I'll use the parallel of constructing a house. ChrisO's article tells of logs which were cut into boards, that water is used in the paint on the house. But it gives you not the least clue of what fastens the boards together, nor how the fasteners are enplaced. His article disperses your attention almost immediately to other subjects than Dianetics. Then, after your attention is suitably dispersed he tells you about the Greek roots, further dispersing your attention instead of creating an understanding of the subject. I am working toward articles which, when a person reads them, they can understand what the article is about. It is my idea this is what any encylopedia or dictionary should do. Terryeo 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been travelling (still am) and unable to join in the fun here for a few days. But I would like to stop in briefly to add my own agreement with Modemac's comments. While it is rarely appropriate to drop in a wholesale rewrite of an article that had been the subject of much negotiation, in this case, ChrisO did the right thing--Terryeo's extreme and POV-selective use of the WP:V policy effectively gutted the work that had been done on these articles over many months, and left the articles much the worse. I want to underline that what I'm agreeing with here is Modemac's emphasis on the fact that the resulting articles had become very badly written and entirely un-encyclopedic. (Last time I looked, for example, the article contained bizarre instances where clear citations were labelled "citation needed" and there was a long section that had been written in a sort of call-and-response format, totally inappropriate to an encyclopedia, containing sentences along the lines of "I disagree with the above.") There's certainly still room for improvement, but overall I think ChrisO did a fine job of restoring this to the status of a credible article, one that is much more rich with citations than prior versions. I hope that Terryeo and Spirit of Man will try to bring their knowledge of Dianetics to bear on those areas that can be improved--what, that is verifiably factual and truly important to an encyclopedic description of the subject, is omitted here? (I'd say that auditing could be better explained, for one thing.) I agree that the chronological list of Hubbard's writings doesn't belong in the article (certainly not in the middle of it), but some of that information might contribute to L. Ron Hubbard bibliography page. And I do think that ChrisO (or someone) should describe IQ-related study published in "Science of Survival" that Spirit of Man has mentioned. BTfromLA 06:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What you completely ignore are these two points, BTFromLA. First, by doing as he did ChrisO completely removed the many, careful agreements we made to create a NPOV article. Secondly, the article as he wrote is does not communicate any part of Dianetics. It could as well be about pebbles, it communicates nothing about Dianetics. Terryeo 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"What you completely ignore..." I think you perhaps have misspelled "completely disagree with", Terryeo -- as foreign and hard-to-grasp as you might find this concept, people might have different opinions than you without it meaning that they're "completely ignoring" anything or part of some secret conspiracy to surpress Dianetics. "ChrisO completely removed the many, careful agreements we made to create a NPOV article..." Really. Can you provide pointers to these agreements? Because I have this sneaking suspicion that what you are calling an agreement is what someone else would call "Terryeo announces 'This-is-the-way-it-should-be'; Spirit of Man says 'Oh-yes-I-agree-completely-that-is-the-only-way-that-makes-sense'; everyone else says 'There are all sorts of reasons why that would violate policy'; Terryeo rejoinders with 'You-are-all-wrong-therefore-I-am-right' and walks off thinking an "agreement" was just reached. As far as the current article "does not communicate any part of Dianetics", well, again, the only ones who seem to think it doesn't, or that your preferred version does, are you and Spirit of Man, and judging from the comments you've made, what you seem to think is "missing" is stuff that actually has no place in there, like the "success stories" both of you refer to repeatedly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. My omission of the list of writings was purely accidental - I simply forgot about it - but in hindsight, I agree that it would be better placed in a proper bibliographic article. On the subject of auditing, given the complexity of the topic and its centrality in both Scientology and Dianetics, might it be worth giving it its own article, Auditing (Scientology) or something like that?

I've held off on the Science of Survival study because I've found an original 1951 copy of "Dianetics Processing: A brief survey of research projects and preliminary results", a pamphlet issued by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation which appears to cover very similar ground. I'm trying to work out if the two are, in fact, the same. -- ChrisO 08:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if there's a seperate "auditing" article, auditing was (correct me if I'm wrong) first presented as an aspect of Dianetics, so I think it should be fleshed out a bit here. Isn't that Science of Survival study online somewhere? BTfromLA 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO has presented a re-written article, written from the context of "The Controversy of Dianetics". This is one point of view. I'm not denying he did a substantial job of research and probably does deserve an award for the sheer number of citations to support his context. He simply failed to present the actual subject. Spirit of Man 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should chop up his diligent work by introducing the facts of the subject piecemeal in the wrong context. Neither do I think we should revert to the previous version which was just a chopped up of version from the same viewpoint. I think we need an article that includes the context and substance of Dianetics, as any reader has the right to expect when they come to Wikipedia. Spirit of Man 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, can you be specific about what needs to be added to cover "the context and substance of Dianetics"? Are there particular facts that you have in mind? BTfromLA 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, yes I can. I would like a discussion here before changing things. Hopefully we can work things out here first, before major changes. I would like to replace the first two paragraphs of the Introduction with the following proposed Introduction that introduces four major sections to follow. I would like everyone that has an interest to comment on this, so that we might possibly reach a consenses:

Introduction

Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard.

Is there a Basic Idea that is common to all things in existence? Could such a Principle help solve the problem of the Human mind? Could the Humanities ever be as exact as the Sciences? This is the discovery at the Heart of the Philosophy of Dianetics.

Once known, could such a Basic Idea, then challenge modern science to unravel the mysteries of existence? Is it possible there is also a Singular Idea in the subject of the human mind that explains all insanity and all illnesses of the mind of man? This Singular Idea, and how it might be used to produce the optimum individual is the Science of Dianetics.

Could such a Science provide a Therapy for the problems of the human mind? What is the nature of man's true potential? Could intelligence be increased? If insanity can be explained scientifically, could it be resolved? If illness caused by the mind can be understood, couldn't man be made well, when he is sick? If these things were true, wouldn't it be possible for a person to be well, have a high IQ and be free from insanity, criminality and war? This is the goal of the Therapy of Dianetics.

What would be the stimulus-response reaction of the world, the governments, the media, the professions, and ordinary men and women, if such a philosophy, science, therapy and goal were introduced to the world? This is the Controversy of Dianetics. Spirit of Man 20:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Spirit of Man, and a tip of my hat for wanting to hash this out here rather than by contentious editing that leaves the article "chopped up," as you say. My reaction to your proposed intro is that the format of your writing seems un-encylopedic. Encyclopedia articles attempt clear, disinterested accounts of the histories of various concepts, places, people, social phenomena, etc. They don't attempt to arouse interest in a subject by asking hypothetical questions--that approach is more suited to advertising copy or perhaps a personal essay. I suggest that you take a look at some Wikipedia articles (or other encyclopedia articles) about non-scientology related subjects and see whether there is some way to include significant content that is lacking in the existing Dianetics article while writing in the sort of disinterested style (i.e., NPOV)these articles demand. If there's some genuinely relevant information that's missing or that can be more accurately represented, I for one would fully support accomodating that. But it won't do to turn the article from an encyclopedic report into something designed to entice and persude the reader that dianetics is wonderful and deserves further exploration (or, conversely, that it is terrible and should be avoided): that sort of persuasion isn't the roll of an encyclopedia. Make sense? (PS, I'm still travelling away from home--please excuse me if there are long delays between my responses here.) BTfromLA 06:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

BtfromLA, It seems to me the current article does in fact, only seek to persuade the reader in the direction of unimportance and confusion of the actual subject, "that it is terrible and should be avoided". Editors here have admired the writing that produced just that quality. That being said, I'll move on to a compromise new article. Spirit of Man 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To review contexts, I see five now with your comments: "Controversy only", "the subject of Dianetics, books, articles, courses and the like and its use with the Controversy those things have created within a Wiki format", "Dianetics and its use within the Church of Scientology only as sold by a salesman for that cause" "Dianetics and its suppression from the view of the AMA, APAs, and other political, military and special interest groups and their causes", "the Wikipedia project group WP:SCN and their special intrests." I ask folks to agree to the second and reject the others for the writing and editing of this article. Spirit of Man 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So, the context should be: "The subject of Dianetics, books, articles, courses and the like and its use with the Controversy those things have created in the world within a Wiki encyclopedic format."

I am not a writer by trade, I am a Professional Engineer. I'm familiar with Dianetics and hate to see it misrepresented.

The first of my four proposed sections is philosophy. All through man's history there have been the questions, basically of the form, can the nature of existence be articulated? The Basic Idea that would explain all existence is known as, "The Dynamic Principle of Existence." This question is not new with Dianetics. It is historical. Aristotle thought the answer might be "Happiness". Buddha thought it might be the state of enlightenment known as "Boddhi". So maybe you can help me, how do I hope to articulate this question and the answer proposed by Dianetics simply, in a comprehensible way, a seven year-old could understand, without repeating the historical question that you take as a pitch for context three? First of all, the question, the issue and its importance is not likely to be known to the Wiki reader, or editors, and there never has been an answer in all History for the reader to compare it to until 1959. It was something entirely new in 1938.

A scan of the current article found only one mention, "Hubbard extended Freud's proposals with the idea that physical or mental traumas caused "aberrations" in the mind, which produced adverse physical and emotional effects. He postulated that since pain was a threat to survival, which he regarded as the basic principle of existence…" See not much importance, just an offhand comment within a paragraph on how it was all actually Freud's idea.

I once was reading in the lobby of this beautiful old building on Brickle Ave in Miami that was the home of Dianetics in the area. This lady walked in and demanded to know, "What did Hubbard write about the Dynamic Principle of Existence?" This was all that she was interested in, and all she wanted to know. It simply struck me dumb at that time, what sort of person in this world would be thinking on THAT level? It is known to some people and they recognize the potential importance of it to mankind.

So, how about this for my shot at a Wiki Introduction second paragraph, introducing the philosophy section:

"At the heart of all philosophy is a single principle known as "The Dynamic Principle of Existence". The possibility of and the need for this principle had escaped the attention of few of the great philosophers in history. Aristotle offered, "Happiness". Gautama Siddartha, "Buddha", offered the state of "Boddhi". The idea is that all of existence might finally be explained if this "idea common to all things", this "idea that explains all things" were known and its meaning used to benefit mankind. After a long search of ancient and modern philosophy L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have discovered this very thing in 1938. This is the Heart of Dianetics the Philosophy." Spirit of Man 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even come close to being encyclopedic. Every sentence in your paragraph is opinionated and unprovable at best, and reads exactly like a promotional brochure for Dianetics. wikipediatrix 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The article and context includes Dianetic books, the paragraph is citable. The citation is Dianetics Today. [In 1938 after he had completed a long research into ancient and modern philosophy he was able to proclaim, "I discovered that the common denominator to all existence was SURVIVE!"] You may read the actual LRH quote in the Introduction to the book. Do like the article we are discussing as it is? Have you read the discussion above? Spirit of Man 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's citable isn't the point. You cannot make proclamations such as how "The Dynamic Principle of Existence" is "at the heart of all philosophy" because this is completely subjective and a matter of opinion. Every statement in your paragraph is a matter of philosophy, and thus simply a matter of opinion. I am familiar with Dianetics myself and don't see how the current article "misrepresents" it. In fact, I think it explains Dianetics far more lucidly than even the official Dianetics website's FAQ. wikipediatrix 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Another important point is that just because it's citable doesn't mean that it's true. I could cite any number of Creationist websites that claim that the world is 6,000 years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. But if they cite no evidence for it, or if the evidence they do cite is provable inaccurate or wrongly interpreted, that needs to be made clear to the reader. If you look at Flood geology as an example, you'll see how these issues are dealt with in a discussion of a branch of Creationist pseudoscience.

There's a paragraph at WP:NPOV which I'd like to bring to your attention, as I think it addresses your concerns directly - I've highlighted the most significant points:

"We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

I think a lot of the controversy on this talk page is down to a misunderstanding of what NPOV requires - Spirit, I suggest that you have a look at some of the pages in the Category:Creation Science to see how similarly controversial issues have been dealt with. -- ChrisO 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your point on citability. That may not be important to you personally, but it is important to Wiki and editors here. It is actually the primary point of the current article. The purpose of my proposed rewrite is that editors of the article have different contexts for "Dianetics". One, I have called the Controversy of Dianetics and the second; includes the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics as well as the Controversy. I'm trying to emphasize this second context here because the two contexts have not been compatible and results in editors "chopping up" the work of editors that have the opposite context. If one's intention is to spread confusion only or Controversy, then one would choose the current article that is so devoid of the actual material in the books, lectures, courses and works of the Dianetics written by L. Ron Hubbard, that it is not recognizeable to those who practice the use of the subject in the world or are knowledgeable of its use. I have listed quite a few of these issues above. Have you read the Discussion above of ChrisOs rewritten article? Spirit of Man 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, to address your comments on philosophy in general. I take your comments to mean you feel your personal view of philosophy as "simply opinion" is senior to a citation from the works of an author of more than 100 million published words. It is not my intention to add anything of my personal opinion in this paragraph on the philosophy of Dianetics, only to report the author's intention and importances. I think we have again returned to the two contexts I have outlined in this review of ChrisO's rewritten article. If your view is from the Context of Controversy only, then you will see no need to include the Philosophy of Dianetics or any of the author's intention for the subject at all. This is an article on the Dianetics he has written we should include what he has written. Do you see these two contexts? Spirit of Man 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should cite what Hubbard has written but we shouldn't - we musn't - assert it as fact, as that wouldn't be consistent with the WP:NPOV policy. You also need to be a lot more cautious about uncritically accepting Hubbard's claims. In your article at Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health you said: "The first person to remove all of the known negative influences in his own Reactive Mind with Dianetics was called a Clear in 1947. By May 9th, 1950 when the book was published there were about 260 Clears." How do you know this? Purely because Hubbard says so. It's a fact that he made those claims. It's not necessarily a fact that the claims are actually true. You need to ask yourself questions such as: "When and where did Hubbard claim this? Is it consistent with what he said elsewhere and at other times? Is there any independent corroboration of his claims?"

Let me give you a few examples. When I rewrote the article, I was very conservative about relying on Hubbard's assertions about the creation of Dianetics. For instance, he claims that it existed as early as 1947, but the first independent corroboration that I had of Dianetics' existence was the letter and magazine article of January 1949 cited at the top of "The emergence of Dianetics" section, and the first recorded usage of the name that I have is a letter from Hubbard of July 1949. "Dianetics: The Original Thesis" is claimed to have been written and published in 1947 or 1948, but I've not found any independent evidence that it existed then (and Hubbard himself says that he published it in 1949).

I'm aware that Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". However, the rider is that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources." To put it bluntly, Hubbard has significant credibility problems. In the course of my research into the origins of Dianetics, I came across several statements that he made which were contradicted by other evidence. For instance, he claimed to have been in Oak Knoll Naval Hospital for a year (his naval record says three months) recovering from "an overdose of lead" (he was hospitalised for treatment for a duodenal ulcer and never sustained combat injuries, according to his medical record).

We don't necessarily have to decide what claims are true. We do, however, have to say whether a claim can be corroborated and if there is any counter-evidence. I've been very careful in the rewritten article to attribute claims to their sources, contrasting them with attributed counter-claims and counter-evidence where necessary. -- ChrisO 08:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, take a moment and understand this. It is not the manner which you wrote the article, you wrote it per most of Wiki Policies. You didn't assert a POV was valid, you cited. So, your work is not being criticized for your manner of following Wiki Policy in that area, okay? The problem with the article you wrote is in another area. I would say a more basic area, but you might disagree. The problem is, the subject is not introduced and it is not presented. That is to say, The subject is not communicated to the reader. Yes, you did a lot of citing and there is nothing really wrong with any particular sentence. But the whole of it does not communicate the subject. A parallel might be a bicycle rider telling a reading public all about how to drive a car. From the bicycle rider's point of view, a car is a large, dangerous object. How can he tell anyone how to drive a car? He can say many things about cars but he doesn't communicate how to drive a car. So too, here. You have not communicated the subject. Terryeo 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

... senior to a citation from the works of an author of more than 100 million published words ... Hmmm, I wonder how many words Henry Darger churned out in total... Even if Hubbard was the author of 100 trillion published words, it wouldn't make him right if he claimed that black was white, the moon was made of green cheese, or that all his opinions are "technical facts" which people who have written fewer words cannot question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris and Antaeus, I don't have time just now to write much, I will have to get back this weekend. The previous article had said there was no test results with no citation, I provided a valid citation that shows the letterhead of the HDRF an independent foundation, the names of three independent psychologists that with witnesses certified the results from 88 new-to-Dianetics students you both still refuse to permit in the article. You say I should be careful of claims that you believe are not true, but you steadfastly defend without citation the contrary. Chis claims to present the information fairly but removed the evaluation of each scientific study I where I cited documents that showed each was not fair or scientific, then repeats that there are no results. I have taken a man that had taken too much LSD and was in very bad shape. His mind was scrambled beyond belief by drug abuse. I helped him for 50 hours and he succeeded in life after that. I don't have to take Hubbard's word on anything, so stop insisting I do when you don't even suggest a citation to cover your assertions. The Fox study is a citation. The definition of "Intensive Auditing" was used in the study I presented, 40 to 60 hours along with initial training all in one month. The Fox study is not scientific and it was done by a student not a professional. Now if someone were to take the context of Controversy, viewpoint I describe they could remove cited valid information and replace it with "no information" to make it more controversial. If one does that only, the article is only from the viewpoint of controversy. Where is the subject? You say in your theory section Hubbard does present his claims of natural laws, but you don't say them. You put in a context of Freud's inspiration but you don't cite the correct context of how Hubbard considered Freud inspirational. [What he got from Freud was this, "something can be done about the mind." It is in one of the Congresses, I think the Spirit of Man.] He says it took Breur 10 years to convince Freud of that idea. He does not credit Freud as you claim to my knowledge. The basis of Dianetics is the principle of "Survival" which undercut all other sciences, not something else. Spirit of Man 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, Anteaus, wikipediatrix; the issue is rumor in the Context of Controversy only, vs citation in a Context that includes the books and subject described by L. Ron Hubbard. Spirit of Man 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:10, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Restoring, series are not only chronological, they can also be navigational. Ronabop 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are right, Ronabop. I belive this tempalate might be called a "Subject Navigational Template" Terryeo 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Redux

Quote:

"Normally, the first paragraph clearly explains the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail to follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject.

The first paragraph also normally establishes the context of the term or topic of the article.

Note that it states term *or* topic, as well as establishing context... it's not always 1.2.3. It can be 2,1,3, 3,1,2, etc. Can we please hash this out without getting into slow revert wars?

We have:

Dianetics is a word which is formed from two greek words and mean, "through soul." It was introduced by author L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s and described by him as "a philosophy, method and therapy following scientific principles. It was first presented to the general public in his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. He claimed it made people feel better in various ways.

and:

Dianetics is a method of mental therapy codified by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s and first presented to the general public in his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Hubbard described Dianetics as "a philosophy, science and therapy," dubbed it "The Modern Science of Mental Health," and characterized it as a revolutionary alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry. He claimed that it could alleviate unwanted emotions, irrational fears and illnesses that he regarded as being psychosomatic.

These aren't that far apart. How about:

Dianetics (dia = through + nous=soul) is a method of mental therapy introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s and first presented to the general public in his 1950 book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Hubbard described Dianetics as "a philosophy, science and therapy," and characterized it as a revolutionary alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry. He claimed that it could alleviate unwanted emotions, irrational fears and illnesses that he regarded as being psychosomatic.

Or something similar? Ronabop 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For at least a month we have worked the introduction. We kind of had an introduction and ChrisO deleted the whole and we begin to hammer away again. There are 2 sorts of groups here. One who know Dianetics by person experience and hope to introduce the subject. The second group of people Know very well well that Dianetics is to be introduced in a degrading way. 2 sorts of groups. I would add, Ronabop and a few others comprise a third group that want an introduction everyone can get along with. Any thinking person would understand that without an introduction, there really is not going to be an article. I maintain this difficult can be entirely resolved by following Wikipedia Policy. I have said it at least 10 times. Wikipedia:Introductions spells out exactly how to introduce a subject. Yes, I know Dianetics, yes, I am a "pro-dianetics" guy. Nonetheless. WHY must Wikipedia:Introductions be ignored for the pleasure of people who have not the SLIGHTEST clue what dianetics is or does? If you want to introduce construction, get a carpenter to introduce it. If you want to introduce dishwashing, get someone who has washed dishes to introduce it. If you want to introduce Dianetics, get someone who knows the subject to introduce it. You people who INSIST (bad manners, it irks me) who insist on an introduction that goes contrary to Wikipedia Policy, goes contrary to what every person who knows Dianetics, knows very well does not introduce the subject really irk me. Get your fingers out of the introduction until it is introduced. Then, you have your hot opportunity. What part of Wikipedia:Introductions is beyond your understanding? Allow the subject to be introduced. THEN state your wonderful fears, horror stories, witchcraft, pseudoscience and similar doublebabble. An subject must be introduced to the reader before the reader knows what is being talked about. Not to mention any names, HA! It is entirely clear and obvious to anyone who has done any Dianetics the introduction does not introduce Dianetics. We have tramped through this ground many times. The results are the same. Every time. People who don't know and do Dianetics can't introduce Dianetics. Period. The first thing they just have to say is something like, "Dianetics the pseudoscience, the psychothreapy quackry created by L.Ron Hubbard doesn't work" That is a perfectly wonderful piece of information to put somewhere in the article, appropriately cited. But it is not an introduction. A word is used. "Dianetics" It is to be defined (what is the meaning of the sound?) The term, having been defined is to then be defined as a topic. That is, the subject matter, "Dianetics" is introduced after the word "Dianetics" is introduced and defined. This all gets done in the first couple of senteneces, or first paragraph. What is so difficult to understand about this? Every good Wiki article does exactly this procedure, it is spelled out explicity at Wikipedia:Intorductions, We waste hours days and weeks reverting and re-reverting each other's edits of the first paragraph and never get the subject introduced. No matter how much you are convinced Dianetics is an evil spawn of saten or something, allow the subject to be introduced by someone who knows the subject. You wouldn't ask a fisherman to introduce the subject of submarines and it is not appropriate to ask a person who doesn't have a clue about Dianetics (Except they know they hate any mention of Dianetics) it isn't appropriate they introduce Dianetics. So, hey, if you know Dianetics, then introduce Dianetics. If you don't know Dianetics but know it is some horrible, secret spawn of saten or something, well, get your fingers out of the introduction and tell all about how horrible it is (with quotes and cites and verifications) later. The article is making no headway. The reason it is making no headways is because the article has not been introduced. The reason the article has not been introduced is because people who are CONVINCED they know how to introduced Dianetics are fouling up the introduction. Please read Wikipedia:Introductions it says, Term. Topic, Context in that order and no other order. The reason why is because until you pick up a hammer you can not use a hammer, untill you shake hands with the word you can not understand the word. Until the word is defined you can not have a subject. Until a subject is defined you can not have controversy. A. B. C. it is very very simple, it is spelled out in policy, it is present in every GOOD Wikipedia article you care to read. Do NOT remove the meaning the word. It is contrary to Wiki policy to do so. Do NOT remove the meaning of the subject (about the mind, thought, knowing more about thoughts) Do not remove it from the introduction. Why are people fighting this very very obvious element? First, introduce the term. Then, introduce the subject. Then, introduce the context. (Here you haters who are convinced that dientics is harmful to mankind begin to have your opportunity). I mean it is clear, if you know a subject you introduce the subject. If you don't know a subject, you don't introduce a subject. Isn't it odd that the very people who keep messing up the introduction simply refuse to talk about it? instead they just keep their nose on that self destructive, mess up the wikipedia artle, grindstone. Let's get productive. Let's leave an introduction to the article there. You want "psychobabble, pseudoscience, kills people, brings the end of earth closer" in there? Fine, Good ! Put it in there after the subject has been introduced. What is the problem? Terryeo 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

GAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! Blarglefinches. fnord! (look it up!)

Terryeo, can you provide us with an alternate paragraph which can incorporate both versions? Ronabop 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes: here:

Define term: Dianetics is a word which is formed from two greek words and means, "through soul."

Define Topic: It is method of action, defined in a body of information called "Dianetics." It was introduced about 1950 by author L. Ron Hubbard.

Define Context: The actions of Dianetics address thought, the two person technique has one person help another person become more aware of what they think by communicating what they think.

Prepare the reader for what follows: Dianetics is methods for people to become more aware of their thoughts, but there is a central concept that is widely dispusted. Hubbard held the idea that thought is senior to and over and causes effects with the physical body and the physical universe. For example, a man with bad knees undergoes Dianetics and he can walk again. Controversy erupts on this point. How can thought have any effect on the man's ability to walk? And this introduction exactly follows Wikipedia:IntroductionsTerryeo 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, will you please stop making false representations of what Wikipedia:Introductions says? I've already explained to you at User talk:Modemac that what the page actually says contradicts the rigid interpretation you are claiming as policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because any careful reading of Wikipedia:Introductions disproves the misconception that that page dictates a rigid "first term, then topic, then context" ordering (and because even if it did dictate that ordering, a look at the history of the page shows the line which gives rise that misinterpretation to be one editor's creation, not the result of a consensus process) and because a sensible reading of that page disputes the idea that one must treat every article as having a new "term" that must be defined in addition to any topic that the article exists to discuss -- for these reasons, I am restoring the text which Terryeo keeps removing from "Theoretical basis", explaining how Hubbard coined the word and what it was intended by Hubbard to mean, and I am removing from the introduction the quite suspect claim that Dianetics literally does mean "through the soul". Terryeo is correct on one point, that to have explanation of how Hubbard coined the term in two places is redundant; however, his claim that Wikipedia:Introductions makes the latter instance the only one that can be removed is, as already stated, incorrect. (Not to mention, it is puzzingly inconsistent with Terryeo's arguments and edits at Mary Sue Hubbard, where he argued that because MSH's Federal conviction was mentioned in two places, in the introduction and at the end of the article, the supposed redundancy should clearly be resolved by eliminating any mention of the conviction from the introduction...) The way to resolve the redundancy on the current page is not to follow Terryeo's rigid misinterpretation of Wikipedia:Introductions and remove the instance that does not occur in the introduction; it is to remove the instance that is less factually correct, and that is the claim that Dianetics "mean[s] literally 'through the soul'". I can put together the Greek word for "roast" and the Greek word for "duck" but that doesn't mean the result literally means "roast duck"; unless we get a cited statement from a relevant authority on Greek stating that the construction is valid, let's stick with what we actually have sufficient facts for, which is what Hubbard claimed it literally meant and what he made it mean by devising a body of lore under that name. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics" is a neologism, not a real and valid scientific term. Terryeo, if you can find a legitimate medical source (Scientology pages don't count) that verifies that Dianetics was specifically responsible for making a crippled person able to walk again, I'd love to see it. On a more serious note regarding Terryeo's behavior: this is not the first time I have seen Terryeo pretending not to understand something that he has already been set straight on. Therefore, I am increasingly regarding his posts as trolling, and caution others not to waste precious brain cells getting in protracted arguments with him, explaining things to him that he already knows. He will continue to edit articles the way he sees fit, but so will we. Regardless of anyone's views on Hubbardism, good edits will ultimately prevail over bad ones. wikipediatrix 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've come across something rather interesting - the CoS definition is wrong. It's not what Hubbard originally used, and its translation is wrong. Editions of D:MSMH printed before 1967 define it as "through the mind"; it's only in the last 30 years or so that it's been defined by the CoS as "through the soul". This is a mistranslation, as "nous" means "mind" - the Greek word for soul or spirit is "psyche" (hence psychology, psychiatry etc). This is definitely worth mentioning in the article... -- ChrisO 10:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is a neologism? "A is a word which has been recently created to apply to new concepts?" Well, if Dianetics (50 years old) is newer than "Megabits per second" and "transistor density" I'll happily eat my attestation ! heh. Wikipediatrix, I don't expect you will ever see the evidence you claim would be the only evidence you would accept. Please feel free to completely ignore any personal attestation to the contrary. BTW ChrisO, you will find if you research that word closely this: At the time Hubbard begin using the word, "mind" was in vogue as its translation while today, "soul" is in vogue. This is because more information has come to light, more scholars have translated and studied the Greek roots of our modern english. Dianetics is addresses thought. It is a 2 person technique (mostly) whereby one person helps another person to become more aware of their past and present thoughts. Terryeo 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Megabits per second" is a not a word, it is a phrase. "Transistor Density" is not a word, it is a term. Bits and Megabits are scientifically accepted units of measurement. Transistor is a product name that has passed into general use as a scientific name. Dianetics is not recognized as a scientific term and thus is still just a neologism. I know you are capable of figuring this out yourself and wonder why you persist in wasting everyone's time with such nonsense. wikipediatrix 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making regards Dianetics and neologisms was, as you probably have gleaned, in regards to the newness of the word. While according to ChirsO, the sucker is ages old and Hubbard just re-used an older term, your point of view involves Hubbard coining a brand, shiny new word, a word neologistic even 50 years later. I find it amusing, myself. Less amusing is that any person who does not understand a subject, (ChrisO, Povmec, BTfromLA, Antaeus and yourself) would amuse themselves attempting to introduce the subject. Why not place your controversy appropriately where it could be stated clearly, where a good case could be spelled out, where the things you know very well could be presented to the readers? Instead you all attempt to skew the introduction of the subject. Terryeo 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needed

Unfortunately ChrisO has no clue what Dianetics is about. He writes an article full of buzz words which communicates no part of the meaning of Dianetics. Even more unfortunately ChrisO refuses to communicate about his POV. I say unfortunate because some of us want to have this article communicate to the reading public, the meaning of Dianetics. Let me illistrate with a parallel topic, Carpentry. If you asked a person to write an article about the use of a hammer they might write, "Pick the hammer up and hit a nail with it." A carpenter would instead write: "Grasp your hammer comfortably by the handle and using its weight, swing it to impact the nail's head." Do you see a difference? Any carpenter would read the first statement and KNOW the person didn't understand the subject, that it wasn't communicating. ChrisO, you do not know this subject. This subject needs an introduction. First. Before anything else. Wikipedia:Introductions says how to do it.Terryeo 13:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Povmec too, feels he knows how to introduce an article which he knows nothing about and has edited out and reverted the earlier introduction which all of who know the subject say does not introduce the subject. Yet Neither ChrisO nor Povmec talk here, so self assured are they ! Terryeo 15:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs an introduction. I keep writing one, people keep reverting it. It also needs a section label, Engram. After all, it is all about becoming able to view those painful moments in the same manner as viewing any memory, without the attendent misemotion or pain. Terryeo 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The first line is currently "Dianetics is a self-described "philosophy, science and therapy""--I suspect this is a compromise with all the back-and-forth on the talk page rather than an accuarate description. For one thing, who is speaking this self-description? If it is Hubbard, did he actualy say that in so many words--it is represented as a quote. I think some of the earlier versions that characterized Dianetics as a mental therapy, perhaps adding a line about the body of ideas associated with it, were better. BTfromLA 19:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article should include the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics, not just refer obliquely to such things and only address Controversy. This material should be included in a general Article on Dianetics for the reading public. The philosophy of Dianetics should be from all books and materials and cover the full scope of the subject. In preparation for that, as an Introduction, I proposed this first line: "Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy researched and written by L. Ron Hubbard." It has gotten chopped up from that with about 10 changes. As Chris said, DMSMH is now a Wiki article as well. In the paperback edition of that book p5, it is says, "Almost all the philosophy...were excluded here...to stay under half a million words." Here we are covering the more general subject and the philosophy of the subject is by definition the heart of the subject. It should not have been left out of earlier editions of the Article. The Introduction should not be limited to therapy only, with oblique reference to "ideas". The Theoretical Background should include the science, not just oblique references to it. I am preparing sections that can be placed there, but the Introduction should introduce that material. Spirit of Man 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, please note that the first paragraph as now constituted makes no mention of criticisms or controversy (although it does, appropriately in my view, bracket Hubbard's assertions as "claims" rather than uncontroversial facts). As to the "science," the intro mentions that it was labelled a "modern science," so I think the reader will be alert to descriptions of it's scientific nature in the body of the text. As to "philosophy": do you have a reliable third-party source (i.e. not scientology affiliated) that describes Diantetics as a philosophy, or better yet, that summarizes the philosophical claims of Dianetics? BTfromLA 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In thinking about what Dianetics is, it occurs to me that it isn't a Science, it isn't a Religion, it isn't a philosophy and while Hubbard called it, "a kind of therapy" that doesn't exactly put it in a corner to look at, either. Hubbard said its development was long the lines of science, but didn't actually say "It is a science" and there is plenty of controversy about taht. It was never presented as a religion. A philosophy, maybe but philosophy is a broad open area with few markers. Can't we compromise on defining the term and stating the topic as "the subject matter of Dianetics is thought?" Because Hubbard did state that. Terryeo 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, Hubbard's book is titled Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health, and this would show that he considered his ideas as "scientific", even though they didn't qualify as such with the scientific community afterward. Povmec 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes indeed. But let's take a parallel example of something considered "scientific" which is not quite "science." Today a common dictionary defines "surprise word here" as being a "Posited change of the nervous system" and this suggests science. The surprise word is "engram" which has no proof today. Science today has not proved that a change happens in the body, that an engram has a physical manifestation. Yet the idea "engram" is scientific because it follows the scientific method. So too, Hubbard spelled out how his developments followed the scientific method. However, to actually say, "Dianetics is science" is not quite right because Dianetics addresses thought. When a person's thought changes then you can't repeat your experiment because that thought is no longer like it was before. Demonstrable Science doesn't work in the area.

Terryeo, I don't follow your ideas here. Hubdard did say it is a science and it is, one ref is p13 DMSMH. "Dianetics does and is these things: It is an organized science of thought...gives a complete insight into the full potenitalities of the mind...the basic nature of man is discovered...to be good...the single source of mental derangement and mental disability is discovered and demonstrated...the non-germ theory of disease... " Hubbard did say it is a philosophy and it is, one ref is p12 of Evolution of a Science, "the project was not begun to trace funtion and restore optimum operation, but...", "...to know the key to human behavior and the code law which would reduce all knowledge." This is the very definition of philosophy, the definition that applies to Dianetics and Scientology, an applied religious philosophy. I believe the Wikipedia definition of philosophy includes "all existence" or "knowledge". I scanned www.onelook.com for philosphy and found 40 dictionaries with the term. They are nebulous but do embrace this concept of philosophy. The address to thought in the traditional sense is etheric, but in Dianetics it is weighed and measured and found to be an exact one-for-one record of physical events. When you test flash bulbs you don't test the same one twice either. That has nothing to do with it. The inevitability that a flash bulb will flash with certainty is demonstrated by those familiar with the art. The inevitability that irrationality, lameness, all chronic somatics, aka psychosomatic illness are each removed when the basic or basic-basic engrams are resolved by the individual has also been demonstrated by those who know Dianetics. Spirit of Man 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you are right Spirit of Man and I'm not right to say that Dianetics is not a science. I was hoping to introduce the idea that whether it is a science or not, that the introduction need not insist on it being presented as a science. The article is going to have controversy on the point. But couldn't we introduce the subject as a body of knowledge and methods of application of the knowledge? As soon as either "science" or "religion" come up then controversy begins to rage. But if we neutrally introduce the subject without either science or religion, then we might be able to get through an introduction. Dianetics addresses thought. That's the whole point. Whether thought is addressed scientifically or less than scientifically is a point we get all wrapped up in. Why do we need to explain that in the first few sentences. Can't we just say it addresses thought and introduce the idea of science, axioms and so on later? But you're right. Hubbard directly called it a science. Terryeo 19:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

cut from article, pasting here for discussion a sentence

Under "Theoretical basis" was this sentence. This sentence is used to define the word "engram" (which, in the best of situations is not an easy idea to grasp); "(as opposed to how it was defined by Karl S. Lashley, the inventor of the term)" And I would say, What possible contribution can that sentence make to the understanding of the reader? If it is appropriate to introduce a word's history then good. But sticking such a word history into the definition of a newly introduced idea does not contribute to a reader's understanding of the word. And this is particularly true of "ENGRAM" because the word, even today, has one use in a common dictionary and another use (according to Povmec) in other fields. To stick its history into a definition is not good practice and disperses a reader's attention. If ChrisO feels it is really necessary to introduce the history of that word then his article should place an endnote which points to a reference or even a section deeper in the article which explains how Mr. Hubbard was not the first person on the planet to have uttered the word, "engram." Terryeo 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I commented to ChrisO above about the engram definition used in your paragraph from the article. I may have been too harsh. It should contain the idea of "mental image" moments, not "physical" moments. That is basically what is missing. In researching further, I was able to find his incomplete quoted definition in the glossaries of DMSMH and Evolution of a Science, but by 1951 the idea of a recording or "mental image" goes forward in glossaries from there. In DMSMH the reference to "a recording" is p79 for the more complete meaning, "An engram is a complete recording." In Evolution of Science the reference is p67, "An engram is an energy picture." A more modern Dianetics definition is from HCOB 23 Apr 69 and includes the above and the idea that "It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content." It may also include the idea that "this is the source of all aberration, insanity and chronic sensations, known as psychosomatic illness". I don't think the history, nor the link to that, is an appropriate meaning for the article. As I pointed out above the author of the original term could not actually prove his structural idea and conjectured that research would lead to essentially what Hubbard provides in the 1969 definition. If the article means to point to a complete definition of "engram" in Dianetics, it should use the one from Dianetics, not another subject. Spirit of Man 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual you're totally correct Spirit of Man and I was incorrect to state anything about an engram being in any way connected to the physical universe. It is a memory recording, a memory almost like any other memory, differing in only one way from every other memory (some degree of unconciousness). It is my thinking that if a good introduction is made then more can be created. Dispersive statements like putting "through soul" deep in the article, or like tossing in word histories aren't going to explain the idea to the reader. Terryeo 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thought on "memory", that may be too purist for some. A memory implies something is being brought to mind. We have two seperate things. An energy recording of actual experience that contains all of the accurate details of the physical universe experience . This is called a "mental image picture". To view the full extent of the details of this image, you have to return to that exact instance in mental time and look. After this recording exists then some details of the recorded experience can be "brought to mind" by thinking of something, say "the taste of honey". A copy is then made of the original that may not contain much more than a tiny concept of the original but satisfies what was needed, a time when there was "a taste of honey." This is what is normally known as "memory", not the actual recording that was created at the instant of the actual experience. This copy is such a shallow reflection of the ultra-detail full three-dimensional detail of the original that it is said to be a thought or "memory". What is brought to mind is a shallow copy of the original image, NOT a new image of the physical experience. You can access the original a thousand times per day and dim it. But if you return to that exact instant and view it with full fidelity with the idea you are resonsible for it or for the creation of it, then it can be removed from the mind. Spirit of Man 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked back at the "through soul" issue, not in terms of where it is, but I think ChrisO has a point on "soul" or "mind". I don't think it makes much difference. LRH simply says it is best described in this way. It is not a translation. I think of it this way. We address the spirit. Only the spirit may heal the body according to the Creed. When the spirit looks at the body, an ill body, he will see a picture as he looks at the body. That picture is part of the mind. He is looking "through the mind". When he handles the pictures causing the illness, he and the body will not be ill. Spirit of Man 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Both "through soul" or "through mind" describe an action, some kind of motion or activity and the action involves thought. Hubbard said, "the subject matter of Dianetics is thought." One point of view would be: "an individual, through their own individuality address thought." And another point of view would be: "through the mind (thought) an individual does Dianetic actions." Thought is what is addressed and manipulated. Examinations of engrams, sometimes mentally doing things with mental energy. Any of it is about thought, thoughts, past and present thought. hmmm. so how much closer are we to an introction. heh ! Terryeo 14:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To me "thought" in popular culture evokes the wrong idea. It lacks the idea of substance. Does "thought" mean you can measure the resistance of a thought or thought change? Does it mean a person's weight can be measured to change due to a thought? Does it mean that it can react on the person in such a way as to make him feel terror or to drop him to his knees with a migraine headache? Does it mean it can have the power to utterly control a persons life? Does it mean it has the power to disfigure a body? Does it mean that by simply removing an engram the disfigurement and pain of arthritis can be relieved entirely? How about leukemia? Who believes the chronic sensation called leukemia is merely a thought containing certain content? To me the simplicity is; there is a spirit, there are mental image pictures, there is the body. What the spirit or soul is doing to the body, he does with energy pictures or with the mind. As far as an Introduction, the Wiki material on NPOV says that both sides of an issue must be fairly presented. One view is that Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy discovered, researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard. We currently only have one side of the issue fairly presented. How do we appeal to the people that presented that side to fairly present the second side in accordance with Wike NPOV? Spirit of Man 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

wildly disputed claim presented as fact

"It is a therapy in the sense that its application, as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications, results in a more able human being."

Terryeo, please read WP:NPOV. And then read it again. And then read it some more. And some more. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read it several times. On one hand (your side of the story) there is no, what you call, scientific, evidence any of it works. That's fine, all anyone would have to do is present that no studies have been done. No problem at all. Since no studies have been done there is no informational base to draw a conclusion from. I don't have a problem with that. Where is your problem with it? If there is no information then there is no citeable information. Wikipedia is presenting Cited information. Cited sources A (mine) and B (yours) are both presented. The reader becomes informed. Dianetics has 10 books. Those are published and citeable. Now your task, Antaeus, should you choose to accept it, is to find 10 OTHER publications which study the techniques of Dianetics and present your side of the story. Until you do, my side (10 books and many transcribed lectures, newspaper articles, opinions and other cited sources) will be used to present this side of the story. Happy Hunting Antaeus. Terryeo 13:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more evidence. In your edit summary you pretend to misunderstand; you pretend to think that the wildly disputed claim is the description of Dianetics as a "therapy", and here you show that you understand very well that the wildly disputed claim is that it "results in a more able human being". I believe you know quite well that merely adding "as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications" does not make it acceptable to repeat this claim by Hubbard as if that claim was not (to understate wildly) widely disputed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if you are stating that I have made a misleading edit summary of if you are stating that Hubbard's statement; "Dianetics is a therapy" is a "claim by Hubbard." I would say if a man originates a subject, his is the word on the subject until proven differently. Are you saying, "Dianetics is a threapy" is a wildly disputed claim? If that is the case, the solution is quote and attribute a source making the statement. Terryeo 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not go past your misunderstoods. It has already been clearly stated for you that the wildly disputed claim is that Dianetics "results in a more able human being". I believe you know quite well that merely adding "as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications" does not make it acceptable to repeat this claim by Hubbard as if that claim was not (to understate wildly) widely disputed. As for whether "Dianetics is a therapy", that depends on whether we are calling anything intended as a therapy, no matter what actual results it gets, as a therapy. If we decide instead that the description of something as a therapy must be reserved for methods that actually show verifiable results then Hubbard's word is most definitely not the word on the subject, for obvious reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't replied to what you attempted to state, Antaeus. NPOV means that various sides of a controversial subject be presented. But it does not mean they should be presented in a manner which does not allow them to be understood by the reader. You should present your side in the best possible light, in a manner so a reasoning person can understand your POV. Note this is quite different than attempting to demonstrate to the reader how his powers of reasoning can never grasp any part of either side of the subject. You present your side in a reasoned manner. The reader then can understand your objections and apply his understanding to the reasoning of the other side. Terryeo 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I don't see that both sides are being fairly presented per NPOV. Anteaus weights his argument here with terms like "wildly" and "widely" without citation. If the APA has done no tests and have not presented any. What tests does Anteaus cite to dispute the HDRF tests done with three licensed psychologists and 88 students tested in accordance with their protocols? If he cites only untested personal opinions or, if a digest says something about the protocols, what was said exactly that is so incisive? Such data has not been presented. The Fox and Fischer studies have been demolished here. I understand there are over 50,000 clears out there and each has to have before and after tests, and test out at above 135 IQ. Does he present any tests that dispute this widely promoted value of 50,000 plus Clears? Does he cite any studies that reflect the weight of the test data the CoS has accumulated in 50 years of before and after tests on most of the auditing that has been done? Or does he just huff and puff and make "wild" and "wide" empty claims and pretend indignation? Spirit of Man 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anteaus doesn't present his side of things well, I agree with that. Hubbard built something which today has many adherents and as it manifests in the Church of Scientology, owns millions of dollars of property across the planet. He didn't do it by "proving it" and the Church of Scientology has specific policy about "proving it" in that sense. Prove it! has long been a cry which attracts attention. Henry Ford built cars on the idea that the common person might own a car. Today his techniques have been proven. But it wasn't done by his complying with poeple around him, he just went ahead and did it. So too with Dianetics. The medical, science and psychiatry communities simply ignored it. They cry "prove it" and call it pseudoscience untill it is proven to them. It won't be proven to them. No Church of Scientology or Dianetics organization will put out the years of effort, will put out the controlled studies to satisfy those organized groups. It isn't going to happen. The reason it isn't going to happen is, it simply isn't needed. It would be a waste of time, money, energy and it would result in nothing different (or very little different) than is already present. Hubbard made specific policy about this matter within the Church of Scientology. You'll never find the Church attempting to satisfy "Prove it" in this area. Terryeo 09:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like what you two are saying back and forth to each other is that you don't think Scientology should have to prove its claims, the claims that you want inserted into the article as if they were undisputed facts, to anyone's satisfaction but its own. Needless to say, this will not happen. Neither will the claims of Scientology which you say that the Church will not put forth the effort to prove be inserted into the article as if they were facts simply because no study has specifically disputed them; if someone inserted "the moon is made of green cheese" into an article, it would not be considered "undisputed" or treated as such until such time as a NASA study formally debunking the idea that the moon is made of green cheese was added to the page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying what Dianetics should do, or should not do. Nor the Church of Scientology either. I have stated what I expect they will not do, they will not "prove it." I have stated why I am pretty sure they won't. Terryeo 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

this section begin because I stated: "It is a therapy in the sense that its application, as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications, results in a more able human being." The subject is Dianetics. Dianetics presented itself for some years as a therapy. Let me give you an example, you tell me what to call it. If a person who could not bend his knees and walk normally undergoes Dianetics and then walks normally, what would you call it? I understand, your reaction is, "There is no proof that happened" but allow me to ask, anyway. If that did happen, then what would you call it? How about if a person felt just miserable and then talked with a friend about how his wife cheated him. And suddenly he felt better. What would you call that? Would you call that a therapy? You know, what do you call it when after a person talks to another person then they feel better? Terryeo 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are already stipulating that it need not ever have actually happened I'd call it the existential fallacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the footnotes and references is very very poor

Its not like there isn't Wikipedia direction for ChrisO's footnotes, there is. There is plenty of clearness but ChrisO's notes don't follow it. Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like: "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context. In the case of these footnotes ChrisO refused to include many needed details. For example, "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" is mentioned with a page number in footnote. But That year not only was that book published in a number of languages, it was published in more than one format. There was a hardbound version and there was a softbound version. There might have additionally been some leatherbound collector's versions. Which is exactly why our beloved wikipedia says to include an ISBN if possible, or if not possible then to include enough information so a person could find that book, newspaper article, pamphlet, report, etc if a person wanted to. So, the atual quality of the notes doesn't stand up to inspection. This is after everyone who knows the subject told ChrisO how his convoluted writing has hidden the meaning of the subject. Further, besides the convoluted introduction of the meaning of the word well after the introduction, besides the poorly done notes which are themselves poorly done, the actual USE of the notes is very poor also. My nickle is we should remove almost the whole article and start with nothing. It would have slightly more meaning than what we have now. Terryeo 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, when are you going to stop lying? It is definitely lying now; you have been clearly informed more than enough times that the "simple, straightforeward [sic] statement" you are referring to of "Term, Topic, Context" does not exist. It has never existed in the form you claim it does (the form that you claim justifies your rigid interpretation) at the page you claim contains it. You even know quite well by now that the page you claim supports your rigid interpretation in fact contradicts it. What exactly do you hope to gain by constantly repeating claims about Wikipedia policy that you know to be false? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antaeus, I appreciate your concern and efforts in attempting to enlighten me about your point of view. I see the page I had pointed to is now different than it was when I pointed to it. I would still say, generally, the idea of presenting the word, its meaning, what makes is a topic and not merely a word and then a context within which the topic falls; is an appropriate manner of introducing a subject. For example this article pluot does that. Its a reliable method which doesn't attempt to sway the reader to one point of view or another. Terryeo 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"is now different than it was when I pointed to it" -- absolutely irrelevant because as has already been clearly explained to you it never said what you claimed it said. If you still think it does then go into the edit history and pick out any version which states that only an ordering of "Term, Topic, Context" is correct. There isn't one; every version which contains the sentence which you have been misinterpreting as prescribing a rigid "1. Term 2. Topic 3. Context" ordering also clearly contradicts that interpretation by showing the context coming first in the examples demonstrating what is meant by "context". Again, this has been explained to you multiple times. Why is it, precisely, that you are pretending it is new to you and you still don't understand? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your assertion that we should delete the entire article and start over because you don't like the footnotes is bizarre and absurd. As far as I can see, you haven't stated a single substantive objection to anything other than the introduction. Where's the beef? -- ChrisO 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"the beef" has been clearly stated from the first day you removed everyone's hard work and put your own hard work in substitution. People who know Dianetics told you at that time "the beef." As I've said before, the article is uninformative and misleading. Other persons who know the subject said somewhat different things. It has been perhaps a week, a few days anyway and you listened to no one but those who support your ideas and who think you did good. Those of us who know Dianetics, who have used Dianetics have opinions which you ignored. I tried minor editing of the introduction in ways which did not disrupt your note list. Even those were not tolerated. In the help topics which discuss how to make notes, endnotes and so on, it cautions against using them in heavily edited situations. You really expect to stop all other points of view because you have posted a longwinded point of view with a lot of notes? Terryeo 00:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More about "the beef"

Your second note lists "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health and gives a page number. In 1988, the year which apparently, your copy was published, the Library of Congress says 3 publications of that book were being printed. Their ISBNs are; ISBN 0884042197, ISBN 0884042588, and ISBN 0884042693. Which specific publication are you talking about with that footnote? To describe your footnotes as unprofessional is an understatement. Practically none of them are helpful to a reader. Further, why exactly do you point a reader to a webpage titled about a lost job? First you poorly document a book so a person can not pick up your particular copy of the book and find page 11 and read the quote which you say it quotes. Then you further mislead the reader by pointing him to quite another copy (no published or sold in 1988, page 11) with yet another information for him about losing a job. I believe ChrisO, what you mainly do is present Dianetics as a controversy. At no time do you admit Dianetics might be a subject. At no time, either in discussion nor in the article do you mention the millions of copies of Dianetics which have been sold. At no time do you conceed there is information about the mind which can be delt with and people's lives improved from understanding their thoughts better. You present "Dianetics is a controversy." That would be okay if you allowed that there are other points of view. Dianetics is a subject, an extant body of information. Some of us know Dianetics can be known and communicated, some of us view it as a subject worth knowing.Terryeo 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the footnotes

Terry, your latest "contribution" was seriously not a good idea - you broke the entire list of footnotes.

Let me make something clear here.

If you have a query about something in an article, the first and best thing to do is to raise the concern here on the talk page. You should not simply "cut the worst to post to the discussion page so they can be filled out." List what you think are "the worst" and then we can work it out.

I did spell it out, I spelled it out the day before I broke your footnotes and I spelled it out the day you edited the page.Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the other contributors here, but frankly I'm getting very tired of your conduct in editing this article... -- ChrisO 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for letting me know how you feel.Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good-o, Chris O, let's do be clear with each other. You utterly obliterated the carefully discussed and collaberated work of many people for a long period of time to post your idea of what this article should be. You posted many notes and did a lot of work to present Your Point Of View. However, there are a few holes in what you did. The most obvious hole in what you did can be found on the Wikipedia page about how to make footnotes. It even suggests, one has to be careful about such a list of notes in a controversial setting. Dianetics is such a controversial setting. You can not get away with cites such as "winter, 1968" which would be impossible for any person to find and expect everyone to swollow it. Further, When you first posted the whole thing and asked for people's reactions, people told you. Those of us who know the subject told you the article was without value (spirit of man said that) I was probably more blunt, I view the article as being worthless and misleading. Then, after a period of minor attempts to correct the article you stood firm on your own point of view (the article as you created it). If the article and all of its notes were 100 % perfect you would still be wrong because it represents only one point of view. YOURS. Therefore, be as clear as you wish :) Terryeo 00:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, where shall I begin here?

The article as it stood before you edited was a collaberation of many people, many compromises over a period of time. You weren't satisfied? Oh good gosh ! Neither was everyone else. On the other hand it was a pretty fair attempt and everyone was more or less equally dissatisfied and working toward a common solution.Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article was inconsistent, patchy and full of blatant POV statements. There was nothing "pretty fair" about it. I'm certainly not belittling people's sincerity in contributing to the article, but the fact remains that the collaborative process hadn't produced a very good article. I'm certainly not saying that the revised version is perfect, but an objective assessment of it (which is where you seem to be having trouble) would surely say that it's a damn sight better.

But, you know, why take my word for it? Let's get the Wikipedia community's views. I'll submit it to Wikipedia:Peer review and then make it a featured article candidate. If it meets the required standards it'll sail through. If not, we'll get useful feedback that we can use to make changes where required. Win-win, right? -- ChrisO 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1) The original article was deeply unsatisfactory, as I said in my comments above at #This article needs a lot of revising. The last version before the rewrite ([1]) was in no way consistent with acceptable Wikipedia standards - it was poorly written, left out great swathes of relevant subject matter and had blatant POV personal commentary shoved into it by Spirit of Man. Any editor who knew what he was doing would agree (and believe me, I've written enough Wikipedia articles to know what I'm talking about here).

2) Abbreviated citations are good standard practice (see ibid). Having said that, there are a few instances where I don't seem to have abbreviated them properly; I'll fix that.

It certainly needs a good deal of attention. references of one word and page number would not allow the most dedicated seeker to find such a reference if he were in the library of congress with pages at his disposal.Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. I suggest you read the Chicago Manual of Style. There's a useful summary of its guidelines on footnotes here: [2]. I quote:

The first time you cite a source, the note should include publication information for that work as well as the page number on which the passage being cited may be found.

1. Peter Burchard, One Gallant Rush: Robert Gould Shaw and His Brave Black Regiment (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965), 85.

For subsequent references to a source you have already cited, give only the author's last name, a short form of the title, and the page or pages cited. A short form of the title of a book is italicized; a short form of the title of an article is put in quotation marks.

8. Burchard, One Gallant Rush, 31.

When you have two consecutive notes from the same source, you may use "Ibid." and the page number for the second note. Use "Ibid." alone if the page number is the same.

9. Ibid., 61.

I think that's pretty clear, wouldn't you say? -- ChrisO 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3) "It even suggests, one has to be careful about such a list of notes in a controversial setting." What on earth are you on about? Wikipedia:Footnotes says no such thing. Wikipedia:References does say that "Citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia for several reasons", all of which are technical. What policy page are you looking at?

Specifically: Wikipedia:Footnotes states: "Using footnotes is not mandatory or even specifically preferred" and "It is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page before changing the citation style already used" You did not do that. Instead you preempted everyone by placing your own citation style which is specifically cautioned against by that line. Further, that same page says: "Remember that it is far more important that you accurately cite the source of your content then whether you use a specific format for that citation. If an article already has an established style of citation, you should always at least strongly consider following its style rather than adding a citation in your own preferred style." You did not do that, you are not doing that. Your citations which take the form footnotes are not accurate. I have spelled more of that out and you have in fact admitted to a small quantity of the inaccuracies. You did not comply with WP:V but instead you use a footnoted text to carefully stop future edits. This is contrary to WP:NPOV (non-negotiatable) which encourages bold editing.

Citing WP:NPOV in favour of that argument is... odd. You miss the rather fundamental point that the policy you cite clearly refers to keeping the footnote style consistent between incremental versions of an article. A complete rewrite of an article is a rather different situation. -- ChrisO 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

4) Frankly, you've been dumping a lot of vague whining onto this talk page. You've raised some specific complaints about the introduction which several people have replied to, and Spirit has raised some points on the scientific evaluations which I hope I've answered, but that is the only thing that either of you have been specific about. Do you have any specific objections to any specific points in the history section? Vague claims that it's "misleading" (what's misleading? why? what's the correct version in that case?) won't wash. You need to start paying attention to the detail, otherwise people will just dismiss your complaints as sour grapes - if they haven't already. -- ChrisO 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I view my posts here as being other than "vague whining" though I did feel like whining when you removed what we had all worked toward for some time. I did rather admire your method. By citing footnotes all through the text you prevented bold edits for almost a week. Your weak foonote citations, had they been more substantial, might have held your text in place for a while longer. But the real basic reason why your article is not good is just that, it does not communicate the meaning of Dianetics. I understand you have a POV. What Wiki insists on, and it is non-negotiable, is that other persons besides yourself have a POV. Here is mine. Dianetics is a subject. It is not a controversy. The subject should be presented. Yes, you get to present your controversy. But you can not disallow the subject of Dianetics to be presented. Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so let me see, you've answered my challenge to get specific with... more vague whining! What exactly do you object to? Is this sentence wrong? "The manuscript was said to have been written in 1938 but was never published." Is this sentence wrong? "In a letter to one of Astounding's contributors, Jack Williamson, he wrote: "I know dianetics is one of, if not the greatest, discovery of all Man's written and unwritten history. It produces the sort of stability and sanity men have dreamed about for centuries." Is this sentence wrong? "Dianetics was launched in the May 1950 issue of Astounding (published in April 1950), and the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published on 9 May 1950."?

There must be something, some sort of factual error, that you're objecting to, surely? Show me a specific sentence, a specific paragraph, anything, that you think is wrong. Other than the two paragraphs of the introduction - which comprises maybe 5% of the entire article - you haven't cited any specific factual errors. Let me know when you have something specific to cite, as you're just wasting people's time otherwise. -- ChrisO 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're understanding of my comments as constituting "dumping a lot of vague whining" is probably a little less that accurate ChrisO, though it does tell me why you consistanty refuse to be respond to discussion. I will be specific. "Winter pp 101-102" does not make a good footnote. Do you get it? You must supply enough information so a reasonable person, give access to a reasonable library, online access, etc. To look up and find your reference. Your note list uses "Winter" 4 times and likewise similar sorts of names. But ChrisO, if you don't understand that my deliberate delisting of such footnotes is a deliberate act, with specific intention to improve the article, then you are missing the point. Those are not suitable footnotes. Fix it or lose it. Terryeo 08:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is very difficult to believe you are sincere in your objections. As I suspect you know perfectly well, it is common practice in scholarly works to use abbreviated citations, that is, short form references to something that has been listed in a bibligraphy or near the top of a list of citations. Curious as to what you were objecting to, I looked at the notes and found note #3. " Winter, J.A. Dianetics: A Doctor's Report, p. 18 (Hermitage House, 1951)." The later notes such as "Winter, p. 18" obviously refer to the J.A. Winter text listed above. Why do you insist on manufacturing bogus controversies? BTfromLA 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand BTfromLA, that you might not believe I have any objection at all. The WP:V (verifiability) clearly spell out that the entire purpose of a citation is so that a person can go to that citation and read that quote or that bit of information and expand on that quote or that bit of information. Thus, here, where the quantity of words entered does not have to be pared to a minimum, Wiki insists that a cited source be at least understandable. I mean, c'mon, what possible good can "last name, page number" do? You can't look it up. And his use of "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" cites a page number but there were 3 publications of that book at that time. He should include enough information so a person can pick up the book, turn to page 11 and see the quoute he used. And expand on it if they want to. That's the point of citations. But my main objection is that ChrisO has artfully (I got to admit he did it artfully) stopped any bold editing by placing footnotes all through it. That might be okay if the article communicated what dianetics is. The article has no value, it does not present Dianetics. What it does present is ChrisO's view of Dianetics which appears to me to be: "Dianetics is a controversy with no value whatsoever." Well,hey, okay. Your point of view has the same right of expression as mine. But mine has a right of expression too, footnotes (however poor) or no footnotes ! Terryeo 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I do not understand why you would remove the footnotes. [3] It is my view that if you had genuine concerns about the use of abbreviated footnotes, you would not have removed them, but rather add what you perceive are the missing parts. Povmec 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you've (willfully?) missed the point about those abbreviated citations. As I demonstrated in my previous post, any competent reader can easily "look up" the source of "last name, page number" citations that refer to a work that has been cited in detail above. Those abbreviations aren't just a space-saving convention, they make it easier to see each time a new source is being introduced. If there are genuine omissions in the notes--if there really is some important difference in content or pagination between the hardcover and paperback versions of the 1988 ed of Dianetics, for example--then ask for clarification or, as Povmec suggests, add the missing information. I do agree on one point--I think the fixed numbering of the notes in the current version of the article does inhibit editing and reordering of the article--is it possible to place the notes in a more flexible, auto-numbering, format? BTfromLA 18:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Terry's conspiracy theory about the footnotes is laughable. First he complains that the article isn't sufficiently referenced, then when 80 (count 'em!) footnotes are added he complains that it's all an "artful" plot to stop people editing the article. You can't win, can you?

Having said that, I do agree with the comment about the awkwardness of working with them. There may be a better way of doing it. I'll ask around. -- ChrisO 23:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

An update: I've been advised on #wikipedia that there's a new and better way of rendering footnotes than the syntax that I used. I'll try to implement it tomorrow - er, make that later today now! ;-) -- ChrisO 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Dianetics

I've restored the line on the etymology of the word "Dianetics", previously deleted by Terryeo. Just so that we can be clear why I've done this and why it is where it is, let me explain:

1) The article as it stood didn't include an explanation of where the word "Dianetics" actually comes from. This is a rather fundamental omission. I think even Terry might agree with that.

2) I put the etymology (note to Terryeo: it's an etymology, not a definition) in the "Theoretical basis" section for a specific reason. The word is a neologism designed by Hubbard to encapsulate the theoretical basis of Dianetics, i.e. that it operates "through the mind". Compare for instance Fascism, which describes where the word comes from and its connection with Fascist ideology. The origins of the word are fundamentally linked with its theoretical basis - the word actually expresses that basis - so, given this, I decided that the etymology best belonged in that section. -- ChrisO 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There's actually a perfectly good Greek word διανοητικός (neuter plural form διανοητικά) which is defined in my ancient Greek dictionary as "intellectual", and in my modern Greek dictionary as "mental". Eliminating the "o" doesn't make too much sense in terms of Greek morphology, but I bet it was done to make Dianetics rhyme with Cybernetics (which was a trendy fashionable paradigm of the 1950's). AnonMoos 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, and one that I'd missed. A bit of Googling suggests that Hubbard had that in mind, too: "While Dianetics does not consider the brain as an electronic computing machine except for purposes of analogy, it is nevertheless a member of that class of sciences to which belong General Semantics and Cybernetics and, as a matter of fact, forms a bridge between the two." (from his 1949 article "Terra Incognita" [4]). -- ChrisO 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics never addressed the brain. That is the whole point. No connection between "mind" or "spirit" and the physical body was ever a part of any of it. It is the most obvious thing about Dianetics. It is about thought. That is the whole subject, there is no other part of it except technique about how to communicate. Even today, American Dictionarys say things like; "mind, something found connected with the brain" while English dictionarys usually say things about the mind and don't necessariy connect "mind" with "brain." That's the difference. Mind and not brain, that's what Dianetics is about. Which is why Hubbard used "nous" and not "psyche." That's what it has been about for 50 years.08:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Terry, are you objecting to what Hubbard said?

I'm confused by your question. Hubbard's beginnings of Dianetics simply went right past all of what was current at that time and mostly, still is current, for concern. Most scientific people immediate go "brain" when you say "mind?" Brain=mind and that's the whole story. Even American dictionarys define it that way, you look for mind and you won't find a definition that doesn't include "brain" in its definition of "mind". However, English (the country) dictionarys will include a definition or two of "mind" without including the term "brain". The possibility the physical object might not be hardwired to the mind, you see? And that is what Hubbard did with Dianetics. "Let's explore the mind" or something along that line without confronting whether the brain was involved or not. Later then, Hubbard did confront the issue. He didn't exclude completely that a nervous system (brain) isn't involved with what a person thinks, but he didn't wrap himself up in the physical body either. Terryeo 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's another interesting point here - Hubbard did consider the mind was separate from the brain. There's a great deal of scientific evidence to contradict that belief, though this doesn't seem to have had any impact on adherents of Dianetics. -- ChrisO 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, I disagree. In Evolution of Science Hubbard makes a point about structure and function. He says, where did this idea of "Mind and Body" come from. Meaning thinking of them separately. He developed the idea of establishing what causes function to be the most important, rather than structure. What this means is that function, or engrams cause structure...the brain. So, with this theory if all the engrams in a body were processed, from the cellular level on up, then the body would disappear just as an individual picture and chronic sensation like arthritis disappears. See A History of Man for more discussion of genetic line incidents that form the body, including the brain. With a selection of importances, the direct path to free the spiritual being was taken to Clear. Auditing the body or entities or the brain is a detour away from Clear. He deferred further research along those lines to others. It is outside the scope of Dianetics. Spirit of Man 13:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what is said here. Please see my comment to Terryeo above for more about what is ment in the Context of later Dianetic studies that include the spirit, mind and body. Spirit of Man 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Since it looks like the footnotes are going rather large and difficult to adjust with each new edit, it might be smart to implement this method using <ref> and </ref> (from Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_inline_citation_style_available) in order to easily organize all of the footnotes. It automatically numbers all of the references, so that you don't have to use {{ref|1}} and {{ref|80}} continuously. The difference in an article I was working on, History of New Jersey, was large. Just a suggestion :) AndyZ 21:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I've just done exactly that. :-) It should be much simpler to maintain the article in future.

Note for everyone else: here's how it works. You simply add your footnote in the body of the text, surrounded by <ref> </ref> tags. You don't need to add a number, just put the citation between the two tags. The footnotes are all "flushed out" under the Notes heading by the tag <references/>, which produces a dynamically numbered list. If you want to add a new footnote, simply put it between a set of <ref></ref> tags. Some more detailed instructions are at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php . -- ChrisO 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey good ! Terryeo 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat isn't it? It was only introduced three weeks ago, but it's a massive improvement on what went before. -- ChrisO 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review: Why the entire Philosophical content of the article was removed by Antaeus.

ChrisO, do you have any objections to having my Philosophy of Dianetics added to the article? Spirit of Man 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, do you have any objections to having my Philosophy of Dianetics added to the article? Spirit of Man 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, I've just looked over your contribution quickly. I don't think that long section belongs in the article as written, but I do think that some of your material will enhance the article if incorporated in a more concise, encyclopedic form. For example, a short description of the concepts of "Survive!" "Confront" and "Create!", and the importance Hubbard assigns them seems useful. My suggestion would be to drop the whole "Dianetics as philosophy" premise: attempting to describe the relationships between multiple Dianetic claims and pre-existing philosophical thought on these matters seems way beyond the scope of the article and is likely to complicate matters further. Rather, I'd try to extract a few central Dianetic concepts and incorporate them into a narrative account of "concepts and practices" or some such. I'd also try to make it clear how the ideas of Dianetics changed over time: there was nothing about the "whole track" in the early days, for example. I hope that some experienced editor will take on the task of incorporating some of your info into the existing article. I may have time to give it a crack next week, if somebody else doesn't jump in first. BTfromLA 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Maybe we could extract some of the less important controversy items to allow a little room to provide a balance with the most important issues of the actual subject? In fact the subject is far more important than the entirety of the controversy, in my humble opinion. To me the philosophical basis in early Dianetics blends smoothly into the applied religious philosophy of Scientology. In terms of the whole track, the clearing techique of 1947 and the four techiques used in 1950 did not need to address the whole track to produce clears. The 1947 technique only addressed one picture, like the time one entered the room. That one picture was then erased. As it says in the philosophy I presented. If you improve the quality of one picture you improve the quality of all pictures in the mind. Likewise with ability, if you improve the ability to erase one picture, you improve the ability to erase ALL pictures. One lock, then a few engrams were addressed and that was it in 1947. In 1950 while training others, it was found prudent to include ones entire physical lifetime from conception foreward. By 1951 it was very obvious that the entire time track of this universe needed to be addressed. By 1952, the nature of universes was developed and well, a clear must be able to operate in any universe he or she wishes. Spirit of Man 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BT. I'll give it a go, if I get the time this weekend. Thanks for taking the time to write that section, Spirit - your efforts are appreciated (honestly!) :-) -- ChrisO 10:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you are a good writer. But the article lacks balance and you have not, at least initially, represented both views fairly. Do you agree both sides of the issue should be presented fairly as NPOV requires? This section on philosophy is actually the only section that represents the subject as opposed to the controversy engendered by the subject and that tends to represent an intention to make nothing of an important subject. Do you care to convince me that you understand enough of Dianetics philosophy to represent the subject fairly, or will you only alter the material presented to make less of its scope and importance? Spirit of Man 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add, by the way, that it would have been better for Antaeus to explain why he deleted that section. There seems to be a lot of unexplained reverting going on on this article - that's never a good thing. -- ChrisO 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, do you have any objection to restoring the Philosophy of Dianetics material to this article so it may be Peer Reviewed, discussed, and finalized in a way that fairly represents both sides of the issue? Spirit of Man 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, do you have any objection to my adding a section on Dianetics therapy?Spirit of Man 15:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the Philosophy section revised per BTfromLA's comments was removed a second time by Antaeus without discussion.

Antaeus has not responded to why he removed it the first time. BTfromLA made comments that were incorporated in new edit. Antaeus then removed the edit with the comment per BTfromLAs comments.

I think Antaeus is being malicious and taking a POV that is destruction to the article. He is not discussing and not proceeding with with fairness here. He claims elsewhere that his problem is no citations. This section has always had citations. His second problem is presented as "statements from the subject" not distiguished as citations but presented as FACT without presenting both sides. This last revision includes criticisms. Antaeus, why all the vague deletions that tend to invite confusion and misunderstandings? Spirit of Man 02:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. I view your and Terryeo's edits as fostering the confusion and misunderstandings, because you are both writing them from within your own Scientologist mindset and can't see the forest for the trees. Given where you are coming from, I understand why you might see the edits of Antaeus (and many others including myself) as taking an anti-Scientology point of view, but believe me, there's a LOT of Hubbard-hater stuff we keep off the articles in favor of neutrality! I can't begin to tell you how many times I've removed biased attacks of Scientology from these pages, and reverted edits by people who want to load every page up with excessive negative comments. wikipediatrix 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. And thank you for your efforts that have reduced confusion and attacks and excessive negative comments. Do you agree I have presented something of value from Dianetics? You present the view that there are two side to the issue. I present the view they both should be presented fairly with discussion. I have presented the Philosophy of Dianetics fairly, in the last edit I presented both sides fairly in the Philosophy section. I have updated the writing three times with considerations for the discussion here. Antaeus has simply deleted a viewpoint twice without regard to the discussion and without presenting any of his own. So he represents no viewpoint other than suppression of Wiki policy that emphisizes fairness. When you say "I disagree, of course." Just what do you mean regarding what I said? Spirit of Man 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because there are two sides to any issue doesn't mean these two sides get equal time. To use an extreme example, we don't give serial killers like Charles Ng benefit of the doubt and devote many paragraphs to the notion that maybe Ng had good reason to torture and kill all those women. Scientology and Dianetics are similarly EXTREMELY controversial matters and the long string of veriafiable and proven misdeeds by the Church (who are we supposed to believe, Time Magazine or Spirit of Man?) means that like it or not, it is NOT being unfair to weigh an article towards these FACTS and against the philosophical opinions of the subject, or the subject's adherents. This isn't picking on Scientologists - the same goes for Moonies, Heaven's Gate disciples, Jim Jones followers, Charles Manson devotees, Anton LaVey Satanists, Branch Davidians, and any other group that attracts pathologically contentious fans. wikipediatrix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, I think I need to understand the viewpoint you use to weigh things better. You have compared me to: "a serial killer", "having good reason to torture and kill...". Then you slant a view of "big and powerful Time Publishing" to little ol' me, and say who should "we" believe, Time Magazine or me. Then you claim in bold capitals these are "FACTS". Then you go on to compare me to Heaven's Gate disciples, Jim Jones followers, Charles Manson devotees, Satatonists...and any other "pathologically contentious fans." Well, let's start with these "FACTS" of yours, just about me to start. You have presented your POV publically here as if all of these facts were emphatically TRUE, but you in fact do not know me at all. So prove any of your "facts" about me to start. I think you have nothing and can produce absolutely nothing.... So we are left with simply "your POV". And "nothing else". A person that accuses others publically and falsely of "serial killing", and all those other mean and false things you said has a name Wikipediatrix. What is it? What is your POV? If you don't know, ask your parents or Calton or Antaeus. So when it comes to weighing facts who should we have confidence in, Wikipediatrix or the IRS's pile of "misdeeds of the Church of Scientology" that was thrown out in 1994 after one million pages of investigation. They "got rid of" all their false information and so did INTERPOL. Then the IRS published 11,000 names on their illegal Enemies List and 600 names on President Nixons's illegal Enemies list. I'm not saying everyone at the IRS is a happy camper, but I am saying, your "...long string of veriafiable and proven misdeeds..." would be a lot smaller if you and I sorted them out, one-by-one, the way the IRS did. As for me, I have confidence in Dianetics and Scientology and not you Wikipediatrix. And I don't not have confidence in the sources you cite on Wikipedia. Spirit of Man 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious who those critics doing all the arguing are. They seem like strawmen, so cites would be nice. AndroidCat 05:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"His second problem is presented as "statements from the subject" not distiguished as citations but presented as FACT without presenting both sides. This last revision includes criticisms." I'm sorry, was there supposed to be some logical connection between those two sentences?

You did not discuss here before you made your edits. You simply deleted all of it. You left the impression you were being vindictive. The comment on your deletion is ambiguous because the edit was responsive to BTfromLA's comments. You now have an explaination, but she didn't say to delete it, so your explaination is not timely, and weak. Now finally to your discussion here. The paragraph hopes to devine the reason for your pre-emptory deletion. The two sentences discuss the possibility you might have expected more things to distinguish FACT from merely making a citation.

...Putting in the article "Dianetics makes a happier, healthier human being" instead of "Hubbard claimed Dianetics makes a happier, healthier human being" is unacceptable. It does not solve the problem to say "Dianetics makes a happier, healthier human being. Critics disagree". It is simply not a concept that should be giving you this much trouble.

I assume you are talking about and taking examples from Dianetics Today and not this section on Philosophy you deleted? Spirit of Man 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I am having difficulty defining what your problem is. Partly because you didn't discuss first, partly because you deleted and referred to something that was done, now you give examples from another page, in hopes of clarifying what you mean. I think you are talking about something here that is not included in BTfromLA's comments. It seems to me if I cite from the book and give a quote and citation, that is enough. It seems to me if I say "Hubbard claimed..." that is enough. If I present an idea in a paragraph then these representations are enough. It doesn't seem right to fill the text with he or she saids, and then delete everything without discussion anyways. Why don't you just admit as Wikipedia does that her POV is that it is a FACT that I am "a criminal" and do not deserve to say anything here so she is fully justified in deleting it [and proud of it]. Spirit of Man 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And while it is important to discuss this important principle which is apparently very hard for you to grasp, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you have dragged not one, but two red herrings into this discussion. You mention critique that I have made of your editing "elsewhere" but fail to mention that I never said that these were the problems with the various versions of your "Philosophy of Dianetics" section. What BTfromLA said was "Hubbard's ideas belong in the article, but the "philosophy" section as written is not close to a coherent, encyclopedic presentation of them." I consider that true of your first version[5], to which he applied that comment, and I consider that true of your second version[6] as well, which is why I reverted it with the statement "rv to last by BTfromLA, for reasons stated by BTfromLA".

You haven't said how I entered a "Red Herring" into this. You are discussing now, not then. BTfromLA said the ideas belong. Why did you delete? Since I was trying for an acceptable level of "encyclopedic presentation" why didn't you comment something on that? Spirit of Man 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo then restored your second version again, with the only change being that he removed the "primarily" from "developed primarily by L. Ron Hubbard" in the introduction, and I reverted it, once again stating that my reasons were the same as those stated by BTfromLA: Hubbard's ideas should be in the article, but in coherent, encyclopedic form, and neither version presented was coherent, encyclopedic form.

Isn't there a rule about "Three Reversions"? Why would you go to this level of effort, in this way, just to correct a "presentation" issue? Spirit of Man 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's even before getting into the factual inaccuracies, such as "One school of critics [Freudian school] argue that man lives for sex alone," which is a pretty profound misunderstanding of the concept of libido,

What is your view of libido? Doesn't Freud say sex is the basic Drive of living things?

...not to mention how misleading it is to call Freudianism a "school of critics [of Dianetics]" when Freudianism existed not only before Dianetics but before Hubbard himself was born in 1911. Even before that, even just as a clear, lucid explanation of Hubbard's ideas -- it fails, because it is neither clear nor lucid. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring sarcastically to ChrisO's critical Freudian presentation surrounding the "Dynamic Principle of Existence" as if Freud had created the entire subject, in an article on Dianetics. I didn't intend you to think I was referring to the more general study of Freud's works known as "Freudianism".

I believe it is the most "clear and lucid" description of the philosophy of Dianetics on the web. Simply because it is the only one. [to my knowledge] If it needs some help lets do it and stop all this compulsive deletion of everything. Alright? Spirit of Man 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

original research or a primary source of information

Can we confront the issue of how to classify Dianetics? If it "Original Research" (such as the "cold fusion" guys did) then we should cite it in one manner. But if it is a body of information, the primary source of that information. Then we should cite it in another manner, per WP:NPOV. For example an archeologist's findings are his original research. When he publishes them then they are "original research" and don't qualify as for being a body of information. Newton, when he published his laws of motion, they were his research untill others duplicated and published thier results based on similar experiements. So which way do we treat Dianetics? One man's original research or "body of information, Hubbard's books are the primary source?" Terryeo 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It really does have to be one way or the other way. When editors remove direct quotations with a cited source, that says they consider Dianetics to be unverified "original research" (by Hubbard who is quoted). That's per NPOV, V, and "No original research". On the other hand, when editors directly quote from Xenu.net, quotes which are themselves direct quotes of Hubbard, then that qualifies Hubbard's work as "Primary Source" and in that case, Xenu.net is the secondary source who is quoting the primary source. One way. Or the other way. Which shall it be? And then let's stick with it. "Primary Source", or "Original research?" which shall it be? Terryeo 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's original research when it's talking about something else: in other words, just because Hubbard made a statement about bananas doesn't mean his word can be treated as fact on the bananas article. When it's referring to itself, however, it's OFTEN a primary source, but not necessarily, because many other factors come into play. It is not, and will never be, a simplistic "either/or" choice. wikipediatrix 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We are at no time to treat any person's statement as true, our interest is in verifiability. We are interested in presenting verifiable informations to the reader. WP:V published information. Whether it is true or the pipe dream of a heroin addict, if it is published we can quote it and build an article with it. What you believe to be true, or I do, doesn't matter for Wikipedia purposes. per WP:V.

Now we are confronting the issue our contradictory edits revolve around. Wikipediatrix you are saying that if Hubbard said, "bananas are good for you" then we can't quote that passage, (example: Hubbard said; "bananas are good for you" in "purification rundown") because Hubbard wasn't a recognized Doctorate of bananas? I yield, he didn't hold degrees in any field that I know of. By the measure, "A person must be accredited by institutions to be credible" Hubbard loses. However, history has shown us many examples of persons who were not accredited by institutions, which persons are recognized. Einstein is one example, Newton and the laws of motions another. I do not believe it is a fair measure to ignore a person's published word because the person was not accredited by educational institutions. If we held to that standard we wouldn't have many modern conveniences we enjoy today. Its not that I am saying your arguement is wrong, Wikipediatrix, but that as an arguement it fails when held to the light of history. Henry Ford is another example of a person whose efforts to produce something were scorned by his peers, but because he developed assembly lines, today we enjoy many benifits. Even the two men who first created a flyable airplane were nothing but bicycle mechanics. So I don't believe we can refuse to quote Hubbard and cite his words simply because he wasn't accredited by educational instutitions. Terryeo 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are citing Hubbard to describe what he said about Dianetics (e.g., "According to Hubbard's 1950 book, Dianetics is "an exact science."), Hubbard's writings are being used as a primary source, and appropriately so. In the context of Wikipedia articles, Hubbard's writings about Dianetics and Scientology should only be used as a primary source of what Hubbard wrote, not as a "reliable source" about the history or effectiveness of Dianetics or Scientology. Hubbard (and CoS publications) are unreliable sources in this context, because they are heavily partisan. (For the same reason, one would treat pronoucements of the Pope about the meaning and importance of the Catholic church as unreliable unless supported by third party views. This is spelled out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.). In the case of Hubbard, there is an additional credibility problem, as his claims are not merely agenda-driven, but he and the CoS have been repeatedly shown to engage in fabrication (about Hubbard's war record, for example). I'm not sure where original research comes in here... if you are baldly stating Hubbard's views as fact (e.g., "Dianetics is an exact science.") you are violating NPOV by presenting a widely disputed opinion as fact. I wouldn't call that "original research," though, unless you then proceeded to demonstrate how, through data you've collected, the statement is true.

Terryeo, I think your question betrays some confusion on your part about the fundamentals of encyclopedic writing. "Original Research or Primary Source" does not get at the crux of your continuous conflicts with other editors here. Assuming that you genuinely want to contribute to better, more accurate and informative articles, it seems to me that your problems with just about everybody else who edits here stem from two related causes:

• 1. Inexperience as a writer of clear expository prose
• 2. An unsure grasp of the principals of Wikipedia and the culture of editing Wikipedia.

Should you seriously wish to improve matters, I suggest the following:

• 1. Don't edit any Scientology-related articles for sixty days. Don't even read them.
• 2. During this hiatus, get involved editing wikipedia articles on other subjects that interest you but about which you are not intensely partisan.
• 3. Reread the Wikipedia policies and style guides, and try to isolate underlying principals. My sense is that you have been approaching those with the question "how can I use this to get what I want?" rather than "what is the writer's intended meaning?"
• 4. Consciously work on making your writing more concise and communicative. "The Elements of Style" by Strunk & White is a great short book packed with principals of good writing.
• 5. Then come back to the Scientology articles. --BTfromLA 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi BTfromLA. I disagree. For my nickle, most of you don't understand the least word of dianetics or even understand what subject dianetics addresses. I disagree, but understand what you just wrote. I understand dianetics. I don't believe most of the editors here do. I am also pretty sure the edits which Scientologists make and the edits which non-scientologists make contradict each other in this one and singular area. That is; is Hubbard's writing is his unaccredited original research, unsubstantiated by any other dicipline. Or, alternatively, Hubbard's writing is "primary source" and Xenu.net, Clambake, and all others are "secondary sources." I believe it is this issue alone which is the conflict. If we agree on it, we can align our efforts instaed of bumping heads. Say for example we all agree that Hubbard's writing (excluding his fiction) is "original, unsubstantiated research" okay? Well then, that defines how we present his datums and other's datums.Terryeo 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)<minor edit> Terryeo

Actually, Wikipediatrix, I'd like to make a slight correction, if I might: while WP:NOR might be misread to give the impression that everything which isn't from a reputable primary source or secondary source is "original research", the term refers more specifically to research that originates with the editor(s)* who added it. If not for this, we could never report on most incorrect or mistaken ideas, no matter how notable they might be; since the ideas would never receive validation from reputable sources, if that alone made them "original research", we couldn't report what the originators of the mistaken ideas themselves had said, only what reputable others had said about them.

(* Common sense applies here. Obviously if Joe Schmoakes tries to publish his own theory on Wikipedia that the moon is made of green cheese, it's original research. This doesn't mean that if he forms the Institute for Lunar Viridian Pressed Curds Research and it's another ILVPCR member who tries to add Joe's theory to Wikipedia, it's okay.)

By this standard, most of the examples Terryeo has been giving are not at all "original research". Fleischmann and Pons didn't post their claim to have discovered room-temperature cold fusion to Wikipedia, so it is not "original research". However, as the example chosen should indicate, simply not being original research is not enough to make something a reputable, unimpeachable source.

With respect to Terryeo's real area of concern, whether Hubbard is to be considered a reputable source and/or a primary source depends upon what matter we are considering Hubbard as a source on. As mentioned earlier, one reason that the rule is "no original research" and not "no material that comes from anything other than reputable sources about whom there is not even the littlest bit of doubt whatsoever on any subject" is that the latter would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to write about ideas that are wrong but notable in or despite their wrongness. If we are talking about what ideas are part of the body of ideas called 'Dianetics', Hubbard is clearly a primary source.

Hubbard, however, never possessed any sort of legitimate degree; he dropped out of George Washington University instead of graduating as a nuclear physicist as he later claimed, and the Sequoia University which supposedly granted him the Ph.D he later "resigned in protest" was a mail-order diploma mill, not an accredited insitution with the right to grant such a degree. In particular, he never had any legitimate degree in any of the health professions and so he is most definitely not an acceptable and reputable source on the medical effects of Dianetics. His writings show some fundamental and bizarre misunderstandings of scientific matters (he claimed that radiation was something you could simply hose off of a building surface or a road) and so he is not an acceptable source for the claim that Dianetics is "an exact science". A source for the claim that he claimed Dianetics to be an exact science, yes; a source for the claim that it was an exact science, an emphatic no.

Nor is Hubbard even an unimpeachable source for everything in the domain of "what is Dianetics". Every anthropologist knows that the gap between "real culture" and "ideal culture" can be vast indeed; people are quite capable of espousing certain ideals, and actually truly believing that they hold those ideals dear, and yet regularly engaging in behavior contrary to those ideals. So, you could treat Hubbard as a source for the claim that Dianetics claims to be founded upon certain ideals, but not for the claim that Dianetics in practice actually manifests those ideals.

So, it is not as simple as "It really does have to be one way or the other way." Hubbard's writings on Dianetics are not "original research" as Wikipedia defines the term but that definitely does not make them all "primary sources" for all purposes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You Miss my point entirely. The term "original research" is used by wikipedia to reference two different sorts of possibilities. One is a Wikipedia editor who has drawn a conclusion and is presenting that conclusion in an article he edits. WP:NOR addresses that. But there is another situation too. [[WP:V] states "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories and claims in articles must only be included if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." And this is the area around which we continually edit back and forth. We are pretty clearly editing back and forth because we have different opinions about how reliable Hubbard's information is. Do you people consider Hubbard's 20 million published words (or whatever quantity) to be his "original research" (and therefor unreliable) ? There, that's the single basic question. I ask you because I am treating those 20 million words (ha!) as "primary source" and treating xenu.net, etc. etc. as "secondary source" And I do think that is the source of almost all of the back and forth editing happens here. One further question follows if you consider Hubbard's work to be unsubstantiated "original research" and that would be, what do you consider Xenu.net, Clambake, etc to be? Terryeo 09:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you people consider Hubbard's 20 million published words (or whatever quantity) to be his "original research" (and therefor unreliable) ? Well, there you have it; there's the proof. Terryeo is not even trying to understand what other editors are spending large amounts of time trying to explain to him. He is merely looking for an adequate pretext to pretend that he believes other editors are violating Wikipedia policy; for those purposes it is to his advantage to resist acquiring an actual understanding of the actual policies and guidelines. It has already been clearly explained why Hubbard's published work is not "original research", but is not a reliable source, either, except on a very small, narrowly-defined range of topics (in fact, about the only topic on which Hubbard is a reliable source is "What Hubbard said at some point or another". For anything else -- even "Things Hubbard never said", for instance -- Hubbard is not a reliable source.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I will do. I will quit editing with one, single exception for a while, until we resolve this issue of how to treat Hubbard's direct, published words. The exception is, I will remove any citation which is not published. Particularly I mean ChrisO and Wikipediatrix's citation of a confidential, unpublished Class VIII document. That's just wrong. It is unpublished. It is stolen. Whether it is criminal or not criminal isn't a matter I am qualified to comment on, really. But I am qualified to remove those citations which I know to be unpublished. Wikipedia is not a rag newspaper to be used as an expose' of unpublished Scientology materials. I'll quit editing until this issue of "original research" or "primary source" is resolved if people will cooperate and we work toward that goal for a few days. Terryeo 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And okay, Antaeus Feldspar, I'll reply to your statements with the single exception that I don't believe your interpretation of what is a "real" concern of mine is entirely accurate. I have posted my "real" concerns a number of times. I am "really" concerned that Wikipedia presents accurate information in the areas which I have knowledge of, presents information as defined by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. I initiated this discussion because I believe we (meaning myself and some other scientology editors, with yourself and some other academic editors) are holding, treating and considering Hubbard's work differently. And I have stated above, except for removing unpublished citations, I'll lay off editing for a while. But to your above stated points....I agree that WP:NOR is primarly intended to make clear that an editor can not post his conclusions as part of an edit. I don't do that but instead the conflicts seem to center around whether Hubbard can be directly quoted, i.e. "Hubbard said that Dianetics cures psychosomatic conditions" or can not be directly quoted. Which in turn (I think) revolves around whether Hubbard's published works can be considered "primary sources" or not. If we are examining the publication source, then most of Hubbard's works are today published by one organization in the USA, and another in Europe. Are those sources of publication, "reputable publications?" I say they are because Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F states; "(b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable". I doubt if you can find an error in a book from Bridge Publications, they are a large building, have a professional front, high quality publications and have been recognized by the Library of Congress for years. However, I am willing to understand that no matter how large or how prosperous a corperation is, there are more factors than just prosperity and quality to consider.  :) You several times deliniate what Hubbard is not an expert about and can not be considered "primary source" of. Well, in the matter of nuclear physics, I would agree, he isn't source. But when nuclear physics meets Dianetics, then he is source because there is no other source of information about Diantics. If Hubbard says, "the purification rundown's vitamin B3 runs out radiation exposures" then that is a source of information. Feel free to argue its effectiveness. Feel free to argue that no vitamin can ever be helpful about radiation exposures. But it is not a claim, it is a statement. Treating Hubbard's statement as a primary source of information then treating Xenu.net, Clambake, etc a secondary sources of information will give us realistic articles, I believe. This is a quote: "Hubbard stated in HCO Bulletin 3 Jan 80 RA, Purification Rundown and Atomic War; 'The discover I made with this vitamin in the 50s began with its apparent effect on radiation exposure.'" Such a quote should be allowed, I believe. Bridge Publications is a refutable publisher, is it not? Hubbard is a past expert on Dianetics, is he not? Sure, you can argue the accuracy of his statements, but they are his statements and they are widely published. Xenu.net even quotes them in big blocks. Can't we quote Hubbard and then put the controversy right butt up against that? In this case of niacin and radiation there are lots of statements that say otherwise. "Hubbard says this" and The medical community, Dr. John Doe, says "this." The way I view it, The whole point of NPOV is to present Hubbard's statements and to present the conflicting information. To present them both, as they are published and available to the public. "Hubbard says ..." and "Dr. John Doe says.." just like that. Not, "Hubbard is claimed to have said .." and "Dr. John Doe says ..." Just the straight published data, as it is presented to the public in books, newspapers, etc. It is not our duty to interpret what is published to the public. It is our duty to present selected published data in a manner which, when read together, makes sense to the reading public. Terryeo 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Terryeo wants us to take Hubbard's word as the truth, and not question the truth of Source at any time at all. Essentially, it means "Hubbard is Source, and Source is NPOV. If it doesn't come from Source then it isn't NPOV." Newspaper articles, court judgements, and statements from anyone other than Source are all false data, which is why Terryeo refuses to accept them as "properly cited" information. On the other hand, if it appears in a statement by Source, then it is true and therefore it is NPOV. Despite your best efforts to push this, Terryeo, it is not going to be accepted at Wikipedia because that is not NPOV. Hubbard's POV is not Neutral point of view. --Modemac 12:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I don't want you to take either my word, Hubbard's word or anyone else's word as truth. "Truth" in that sense isn't what Wikipedia is about. What I want is to arrive at a concensus of opinion about how to present what Hubbard said. I believe we should quote Hubbard directly such as; "On Jan 3, Hubbard said, "the sky is blue." Whether the sky was blue that day or not, irrelevant. Whether Hubbard said it or not, that's the important point. "Verifiability" is what Wikipedia is based on. WP:V and not whether what was said tickles your fantesy or not, or my fantesy. I don't expect anyone to take Hubbard's word as truth. I expect everyone to edit Wikipedia per Wikipedia Policy and guidelines. Secondary sources (Xenu.net, newspapers and so on) are then to likewise be quoted per Wikipedia policy and guidlelines. Honestly Modemac, I have repeated this message 50 times that. I don't expect anyone to swollow it, I expect everyone to simply follow Wikipedia guidelines, that's all. I haven't made any effort to push my POV. Well, I did publish my POV on my user page, heh. But Hubbard's POV is his alone, and as long as we keep that clearly in mind then we can work together. I understand that you view me as something like a born again christian, sprouting POV and threatening everyone with eternal fire. lol. That's simply not the case, modemac. You see me working all the time toward following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That's what this area of discussion is for. How exactly can we all work together to present good information for the reader. Terryeo 13:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If Hubbard says, "the purification rundown's vitamin B3 runs out radiation exposures" then that is a source of information. Let me see if I can point out the central absurdity you are trying to get us to accept. If someone who never had any medical qualifications whatsoever says "Hey, listening to Celine Dion music makes teeth whiter, cures radiation sickness and raises IQ 50 points!" it would be absurd to take that as a primary source for the claims that any of these effects actually happen. However, suppose this person who never had any medical qualifications whatsoever formed a "body of knowledge" consisting of the above-listed claims and others; let's call that body of knowledge "Dionetics". Do we now say "Well, Bubbard is the primary source on what Dionetics is, and Dionetics claims that Celine Dion music cures radiation sickness; that means Bubbard is a primary source for the claim that Celine Dion music cures radiation sickness!"? No. Bubbard is a primary source for the claim that Dionetics claimed that -- NOT for any claim that there is any truth whatsoever to the claim. Anyone who talks about "well, let's just list both sides of the story: let's list Bubbard's claim that it does cure radiation sickness, and the claim of actual doctors that it doesn't!" is clearly confused: there is no story to which these are "both sides". On the story of "what is Dionetics" these are two parts of the story: there is the part where someone with no qualifications to make this extravagant claim made it anyways, and there is the part where the people with actual qualifications confirmed that the claim was nonsense. On the story of "what actual effects can Dianetics produce" there is no justification for treating an absolutely unqualified source as if he was a reliable source on the matter, even if (especially if) he is the originator of the methods under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to get you to accept a datum. I am not attempting to get you to accept the B3 datum. I am not attempting to cause you or editor to accept what Hubbard said. What I am attempting to do (by using the example of B3) is to open an area to discussion. The area I am attempting to open is: How do we treat Hubbard's statements? Thousands of pages of them exist. Is he to be treated as a "primary source" and others as "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources?" The discussion which I used the example "B3" about is not about "B3" nor about whether you or I or the man on the moon believes "B3" acts with a human body but about how to treat Hubbard's thousands of pages of published material. The two possible treatments (which I think of) are, Hubbard is to be treated as "primary source" or, alternatively, Hubbard's published work is to be treated as "original research." I don't know how I can make the question more plain. If I illistrate with another example, I'm going to rouse you into "disbelieving" another example. In what manner can we all agree to treat Hubbard's work? Is it original research or is his written word a primary source of information? Terryeo 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We treat Hubbard's statements as claims, because that is exactly what they are. As has been noted, time and again -- and as it is stated in the article right now -- There has never been any verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence to prove Hubbard's claims to be anything more than claims. Hubbard made many, many bold statements delcaring his work to be absolute proof. He declared that his writings were the result of thousands of hours of research. And he declared that he had been "attacked" by psychiatry since the debut of Dianetics in 1950. However, Hubbard's grand statements have never been more than unproven claims. And that's all they are, claims. They are not a "primary source," not a "secondary source," they are not a "tertiary source." They are claims. Hubbard claimed that Dianetics and Scientology could cure radiation sickness, mental diseases, physical injuries, drug addiction, and a host of other maladies. But even after over fifty years, these claims have never been proven. And this is what is stated right now in the article. It is what the article will continue to state, because that is NPOV. Hubbard's writings are claims, not scientific proof -- and they are not a "source" of anything except for the fact that they are rules of how the Church of Scientology operates and what Hubbard's opinions were. --Modemac 13:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, thank you for replying Modemac. On the basis of an agreement of how to write articles we might then write articles and not argue with edits. Please understand, it is okay with me however you view these things. I am not arguing that you should view any of it in any manner other than you view it. You state Hubbard's written words can not be considered "primary source?" That is your position? How would you characterize the millions of published words which make up Dianetics, Scientology "technology" and the organizational published words (again, lots of it) by which the Church of Scientology operates? Is that all to be considered scribbles in a researcher's notebook? Such as we would treated an unpublished diary about "cold fusion?" Or how, exactly do we treat those words? Can we make a quote from one of those books, substitute Hubbards words, "I would say that bananas are good for you?" with "Hubbard claims bananas are good for you?" How, exactly do we present this information? You say we can not treat published books as "primary source" (of the subject it is published in). So, how then ? BTW, I do understand you dispute every word of it, okay? Fine, good, continue. But how do we treat the published word, how can that be done? Terryeo 15:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your attempt to paint this as my opinion is a M/U that you need to handle. My "position" on Hubbard's writings has nothing to do with this. I am merely stating the fact that Hubbard made a great number of unproven, uncited, unsubstantiated claims in his "millions of published words." That's what he did -- he made a lot of claims. Therefore, NPOV dictates that his statements be described as what they are: unverified claims. You can ask "how do we treat this" over and over until LRH returns in his next life, but that does not change the fact that his writings are unverified claims that cannot be accepted as scientific fact. --Modemac 16:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you reply Modemac. I am asking in that area. I understand that your opinion is: Anything Hubbard ever said, i.e. "On thursday Hubbard said 'the sky is blue today,'" whether he published that or not, is a claim. All right? Is that is your position? Terryeo 16:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I bring this point up for discussion is because not all the editors view it the same way and there is room for disagreement. For example, is Bridge Publications which produces most of the books, etc. a refutable publisher? Might it be that they scramble up the information within the books? No one has raised that point yet. Modemac seems to feel it isn't approrpriate to even allow Hubbard to be primary source of information for things he said. Antaeus makes sure to state those things Hubbard is not to be considered a source of information for. Wikipediatrix and Antaeus both state that Hubbard can be considered "primary source" for some kinds of Dianetics information. I had hoped ChrisO might comment too. BTfromLA, says: "In the context of Wikipedia articles, Hubbard's writings about Dianetics and Scientology should only be used as a primary source of what Hubbard wrote." That really makes sense to me, personally and I can't find any room to wriggle around that when she adds, "... are unreliable sources in this context, because they are heavily partisan." Reading through Antaeus' rather more example strewn post, I think he and BTfromLA have both stated the same position. Is this a fair summation of how you all feel? Terryeo 16:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think there are a number of issues involved here. Rather than debate the definition of "original research" or whatever, it might help if we look at the underlying issues.

1) Should we be sceptical about everything Hubbard says? I think we need to be sensible on this. Clearly there are some things he says - Terryeo gives an example of "the sky is blue today" - which are not controversial. However, there are other things he says - e.g. that he sunk Japanese submarines, or that there was a nuclear holocaust 75 million years ago - which are controversial. So how do we define what is controversial? I think the rule of thumb has to be: does it contradict generally accepted knowledge from non-Scientology sources? For instance, Hubbard's claims about radiation are contradicted by mainstream science. That's why those claims are controversial in the first place. If there is a conflict between a Hubbard claim and mainstream knowledge, we should note that.

2) Should we take literally everything Hubbard says? Clearly not - as I've said, he makes claims which are way outside the mainstream. Just because he says something, and because (most of) what he says is published, we shouldn't take it that what he says is correct. Hubbard isn't automatically wrong, but he's not automatically right either.

3) Are Scientology publications unbiased sources? Again, clearly not - they have a financial and ideological interest in promoting Hubbard's ideas, and come to them with an a priori assumption of Hubbard being automatically right about everything. Would we regard a fundamentalist Christian work as being an authoritative statement on the validity of evolution, for example?

4) Is Hubbard's work a primary source? Yes, obviously - it's the man himself speaking, not what someone is saying about him or his ideas. But a primary source is not automatically right or wrong - you have to consider what it says in the light of other knowledge. Primary sources of any kind need to be examined in a critical light. For instance, Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic Wars") is our main contemporary source of information about that conflict. However, you have to bear in mind that Caesar wrote it to make himself look good and to deflect criticism from his enemies in Rome. You can't simply take it literally, given that Caesar had an obvious agenda and bias which prompted him to write it in a certain way (suppressing awkward facts; exaggerating his achievements; making claims which can't be reconciled with historical knowledge). Hubbard's writings need to be examined critically in just the same way. -- ChrisO 19:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, My point of view is: "If Hubbard's word is published about Dianetics, then that publication is "Primary Source" as per WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources because it satisfies WP:V which states: "articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I of course recognize that because it is verifiable does not make it valid, real, accepted, etc. But everyone except User:modemac seems to agree that within the subject Dianetics and about the theory and how to do it, Hubbard's word as it is published is "Primary Source." Is that how everyone is viewing it? Notice I am not including Hubbard's expertise on anything beyond the subject Dianetics, not medicine, not radiation, not anything beyond Dianetics, ok? Terryeo 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, your comments lead me to suspect you have a different idea of what "primary source" means than the other editors here do: for one thing, it's "a primary source," not "Primary Source"; your capitalized phrase looks very close to "Source" as used in Scientology. To say that Hubbard's writing can be employed as a primary source for an encyclopedia article on Scientology is not the same as saying that Hubbard is the authoritative "Source" of all things Scientological. The fact that Hubbard can be cited as a primary source of information in an article about Dianetics does not mean that his words must come first, or that they take precedence over the words of others, or that they can simply be presented as factual statements, or that they are the only relevant source, or that primary sources are more relevant to the article than secondary sources. Nor does it mean that Hubbard's words are the only primary source: writings from the early 1950s by J A Winter. M.D., or John W Campbell could equally be primary sources in the context of this article. Agreed? BTfromLA 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply to you just got messed up here. So here it is. BTfromLA, I think we are close to the area of conflict. If you can present sources of information which say the J A Winter. M.D. and/or John W Campbell contributed to the Dianetics we know today, I would not mind reading them. Else no, I won't agree.Terryeo 23:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Terryeo, your reply confirms my suspicion that you have a non-standard notion of what "primary source" means. Please look at the short article Primary source. Anything which is an artifact of the actual events under discussion can be considered a primary source. So even if Winter and Campbell didn't influence a word of the dianetics texts, their writings could become primary sources for this article, because they were first-hand participants in the initial dissemination of Dianetics. The article is there to provide an overview of dianetics, which includes a history of Dianetics. Any first-hand participants or witnesses to that history can be primary sources. Make sense? BTfromLA 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Those two are excellent primary sources in only one area. Dissemination. But when it comes to theory, to printed books then no. Unless it can be shown that Hubbard assimilated their inputs. But about dissemination, yes. BTW, I'll read Primary source anyway and its associated pages. But my main effort here is that we have not presented the theory of Dianetics. History, well maybe. Dissemination and the controversy about that, maybe. But the core of the article, the meaning of the key concepts which Dianetics was fabricated from, we haven't presented that. I know people are going to argue that we have, but both Spirit of Man and I have agreed, variously. The meaning of the thing has not been presented.Terryeo 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rereading through various Wiki Policies with an eye toward how to present information where the "Primary Source" is widely published but "Secondary Sources" which comment on the "Primary Source" are lacking, I come up with:WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is and I think this is our area of difficulty. "us" Scientologists have one opinion of how established Dianetics is, having personal experience with it. And neutral people (probably most readers) who have no experience with it don't have a yardstick to measure it by. And really hostile editors (psychologists, people who also edit on Xenu.net) are convinced it is their duty to be sure it never appears to anyone to be established at all. Would you all say this is the primary area of difficulty? Terryeo 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, surely you don't mean to say that there is a lack of secondary sources that comment on Dianetics, Hubbard or Scientology! All of those subjects have been extensively commented upon from the time Dianetics first appeared. Perhaps what you meant is that there is little or no secondary literature from reputable sources that validates Dianetics and Scientology. That does seem to be the case, and you are correct that testimonials about your personal positive experiences with the subject are not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, no matter how true or powerful they may be. Such stories are unverifiable anecdotes, and they will always, and correctly, be deleted from Wikipedia articles. I do think that is one of the reasons that some contributions by you and Spirit of Man have been deleted by other editors (who are not, so far as I can tell, a bunch of "really hostile" psychologists). BTfromLA 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying :WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is is what we are revolving around, it seems to me. My use of the term "Secondary Source" is misleading just above your entry. I meant to type "tertiary sources", there are hardly any tertiary sources. Terryeo 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to say "there are few secondary sources" because the internet and news is full of secondary sources. But there are few tertiary sources which give a view reconciling the two views of primary and secondary sources. Which means we have a situation where the body of information, Dianetics, is viewed by most people as a "theory" and the practice of it, well, we never get to that because there is so much difficulty with the theory. WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories gives us this guideline (again, my opinion on this) and if there is some consensus (necessary by that guideline) we can quit editing each other. Terryeo 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is commenting on how to handle these ideas but BTfromLA who is pretty busy, anyway. Can we agree on how to handle informations like "mind, engram, mental image picture, reactive mind, etc" and get on with it instead of back and forth edit wars? This question has stood here about a week and no one is replying. If we can simply get an agreement on how to treat these informations we can produce stable articles, what do you all say? Terryeo 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"No one is replying" because you ignore what they say anyways. If you'd like to prove us wrong, explain why Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion experiments do not constitute "original research". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, you won't reply to the issue of Hubbard's work being "original research" or "primary source" because you have already replied, just above, right? And I have understood and stated my agreement. Which is, yeah, Hubbard's work is primary source only about his work. In matters of bananas and "the moon is made of green cheese" he isn't primary source. Some of us editors have moved on from there. Specifically the section following this one brings at least 2 of us (BTfromLA and myself) into alignment that we might treat Hubbards ideas (such as "engram", "Clear", "dianetics theory" etc,) might treat it as theory per wiki policy and be able to get somewhere. I used the cold fusion example as a means to communicate an idea. From the responses it was a useful communication. Now you are taking exception or making arguement about my example, this after a good deal of discussion has gone on. My intent was to cause discussion and, eventually reach an agreement of "How do we present this information" because the edit wars lead us nowhere. Because agreement has already been reached (I thought your words somewhat helpful toward that) I don't understand why you question the example I used. However, to attempt some smoothing of ruffled feathers here, I used that because obviously the persons who conducted the first experiments and published about their experiments did so about a theory. And further, with regards to their experiment, they were "primary source" of information. I also used the example with the idea in mind that it was debunked and I chose a debunked example of theory and original source becuase I felt it would spark symathy and because it implied my POV about scientology is not the ruling POV here, that people who are utterly convinced that scientology has not produced a jot of difference in the world would comment. I felt if I took a proven theory (Einstein's theory has almost been proven) as an example, people would not reply. So I chose a debunked theory, hoping to get some agreement about how to treat Dianetics and Scientology informations. Terryeo 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone insists on believing that "left" means "towards the nearest object shaped like a banana" and "right" means "towards the nearest object shaped like a donut" then giving that person road directions is nothing but a waste of time. Despite our best efforts to explain your mistakes to you, you are still insisting on some very fundamental misunderstandings of terms such as "primary source", "secondary source", and "original research". Proof of this is shown in this edit which you made just today. Your edit summary claims "redid the reference section. The primary sources of information should come first, secondary second." The actual edit, however, separated the references into "References" (occupied solely by L. Ron Hubbard) and "Hostile References" (all other references). If you think that the changes you made to the article and the changes you claimed in your edit summary are the same thing, it shows that you still don't understand the terms you're using, and it's fruitless for us to try to explain anything to you in terms you can't or won't grasp. Of course, if you actually do understand the terms, you need to explain why your edit summary was untruthful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

CUTE! First you disperse my question and thereby refuse to either recognize or respond to it. Then, additionally you call into question my understanding of the terms. Were you willing to respond to my question (Which BTfromLA has responded to) you would state whether we can present Dianetics as a theory. That would provide a platfrom from which we could communicate about the subject. Based on that we might present the information which is Dianetics. So far we got lots of information but don't present the information which Dianetics uses. Perhaps this is your intent, Feldspar. Perhaps you will forever refuse to confront whether there is a theory, "Dianetics". I have replied to a lot of your comments to me, but do you reply to my question, "How do we handle the concpets which make up Dianetics?" Well, not really. You're going to see continued edit wars, back and forth variously untill we have a common ground to work from. I'll continue to organize links into "primary source" and "secondary source" though I might not name them that. If you want it otherwise, you'll have to say so. Accusing me of misunderstanding some vauge statement, requiring me to justify an edit to you simply won't work. I have replied to you a lot. You don't reply to me. Hence we have edit wars. The resolution is up to you at this point. I've made a considerable effort, I've narrowed the main problem causing the edit wars to an area, "primary and secondary sources" and further to "is dianetics and scientology and its associated things like Clear, theory?" Terryeo 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've replied to me -- with personal insults such as "Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot."[7] You can claim that your edit-warring is justified by the fact that we refuse to explain concepts you don't want to hear a tenth time when we've tried nine times already, but it won't wash. You can't abuse people and slander them and then pretend that you get carte blanche over the article because they're 'unwilling to work with you'. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Steps toward alignment of effort, conflict resolution

So, Hubbard is to be treated as primary source as outlined at WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources within the very confined boundries of "theory of Dianetics", "practice of Dianetics", "theory of Scientology", "practice of Scientology" and "Scientology, organization" (I hope). If anyone has comments, please say so. I feel we are isolating the area(s) of disagreement.Terryeo 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment; I second Modemac's doubts that you truly understand even now, even though you claim to, what it means for something to be a primary source (note: "a primary source", not "primary source" or "Primary Source"). If you are under the illusion, for instance, that Hubbard being a "primary source" would mean that nothing he claimed on those subjects would ever again be phrased as "Hubbard claimed X", then I'm afraid you're still substituting what you wish to be true for actual understanding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you, Antaeus Feldspar doubt that I understand what "primary source" as spelled out at WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources means. I'll reply to this and then, because your second comment requires some looking and referencing, I'll reply to that later. "Primary Source" means a source of raw, unfiltered information which has not been interpreted nor modified but is presented as the individual who first presents it, wished to publish it. To reply to you about quoting Hubbard, I'll give an example of what I think would be an acceptable quote under the standards of "primary source".Terryeo 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard said, "most people go around thinking that a misunderstood is just something they obviously don't know --a 'not-understood.'" in a bulletin. Hubbard continued, "A 'not-understood' is a misunderstood, but there are additional ways a person can misunderstand a word. In the bulletin, Hubbard went on to list 10 ways in which a word can be misunderstood.(signing for clarity)

Terryeo 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There you go, that's an example of my understanding, how to quote a primary source. Maybe my example is a poor choice but that's the situation as I understand it to be. I also understand we don't quote Hubbard on any issues which is not utterly, totally obvious (like "they sky is blue") except that we first discuss his statement as a theory and resolve the discussion of his theory as per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theoriesTerryeo

WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories tells us what we can do in this sort of situation. Hubbard makes statements which he is the source of, but those statements are "claims" because they are far-fetched, inconceivable, etc? So our manner of dealing with his theories is spelled out there. Which means we are going to have to talk about "the key concepts" because our various ideas of what is "key" and what is not is going to vary. In fact, that's what a whole lot of the editing has been about. Spirit of Man puts in a big theory section and people look and go "oh hell, that doesn't have much to do with the subject", etc. So okay, let's attempt some consensus ! :) Terryeo 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I can't remember a single instance of anyone saying "the philosophy of Dianetics doesn't have much to do with the subject of Dianetics". I just remember people saying things like "this particular attempt to describe the philosophy of Dianetics is rambling and disorganized, and states as facts both unverifiable personal opinions and factual inaccuracies". Perhaps you'd be kind enough to actually show us some diffs that actually support your claim that people said anything of what you're claiming here that they said? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As I re-read your question more carefully, I see you are addressing the same question I am posing. That is, How do we deal with a primary source of information, the source is publishing theories which are not apparent. I have to agree, one editor creating a relatively large amount of "theory" without the consensus of other editors isn't going to work. I believe we would have to work over and come to agreement about each "key point" of Hubbard's theory or theories. In fact, when it comes to Dianetics I don't believe I have ever read a basic statement of the foundations in good, clean english. Hubbard states his axioms but I don't think I've read "key points" of his theories anywhere and we might be able to come up with information which has not be presented in quite the way we might come up with. Terryeo 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So that would be a "no," then? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply is not meant to be a "no" but an agreement. I agree that raising more than one point in a "theory" section is contrary to WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories which says to arrive at a consensus of editors. Each key point of a theory should be discussed, a concensus reached whether it is a point which can be presented as an obvious datum or not. For example, "A memory can be considered a mental image picture" Well, that is Dianetics theory but because a lot of people don't consider that a memory can be a viewable mental picture, there is disagreement, at least it is not intuitive to everyone, right? Therefore we should arrive at a consensus about how to present that key element of Dianetics theory, per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. But it is wrong to create a wholesale theory section without concensus of us editors. Does this make more sense? Terryeo 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So that would be "no, I can't support my claims about what other users have given as their reasons for particular edits that I disagree with," then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand you now. My statement which prompted your request for verification was about User:Spirit of Man theory section. I stated that people thought: "oh hell, that doesn't have much to do with the subject" as editor's motivation for deleting his theory section. My claim is that people deleted his theory section. My proposal is that editors deleted Spirit of Man's theory section because they thought what I stated. No, I can not support that editors thought that. I can support that editors deleted his work. Editors thoughts? no, I can't support that. The statement I made was an over-simplification, I stated it to propose that a group of key points was presented by one editor, all in a block and without concensus from other editors. I use that as a point to present that we follow [[WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. To follow that we would arrive at a concensus of one "key" issue of Dianetics theory at a time, present it into the article as we have concensus in this discussion page. Thanks for asking Antaeus Feldspar. Terryeo 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If some of us are agreed the pole we seem to dance around has to do with Dianetics being an unproven theory, then we should discuss its key elements, arrive at a concensus, and include them in the article. May I propose the first "key element" of Dianetics theory is what, exactly is meant by this term: "MIND", because it is on this flagpole that Hubbard separated his "research" and his "therapy" and even "science" which Psychiatry so strongly disagreed with that it refused to respond to Hubbard. Terryeo 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

May I propose the article is quite good the way it is. Terryeo has made a valiant effort attempting to cast himself as the only one following Wikipedia policy (or rather, the way he wants to define it), while the other contributors to this article are engaged in egregious violations of Wiki policy because they disagree with him. However, his attempts to change and re-write the article are not being accepted by the Wikipedia community at large, as noted by the many different users making efforts to keep this article legible, accurate, and NPOV. --Modemac 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While I appriciate that you distancing yourself from me and aligning yourself with others by declaring me to be "over there, spouting Wikipedia Policy incessently" and you "over here with many other like-minded people who should all pat themselves on the back about the wonderful article, I completely disagree. The article as it stands right now does not communicate anything about the meaning of Dianetics. No meaning of Dianetics, no glimmer of the good sense of Dianetics transmits itself through the article in the mind of the reader. (my opinion). The article says things. Those things are not really false, but they don't communicate what Dianetics is, How Dianetics has been used, is used or manifests within the Church of Scientology. It is talking about the yeast bubbles and not the bread, the steam and not the tea. Terryeo 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, can you offer a concise sentence that describes Hubbard's concept of "mind"? BTfromLA 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll sure try. Hubbard departs from other disipliens because he considered "mind" seperately and independently from "body and brain." His approach to the subject differed. Rather than look at the physical and figure out the mind from that. He looked at the mind and characterized the mind. The sentence: Hubbard considered it a workable theory to consider the mind to be made of pictures of experiences. There, is that enough or too little? Terryeo 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that response. "Considered it a workable theory to consider" doesn't really add anything, but "Hubbard considered the mind to be made of pictures of experiences" seem reasonable, and the concept of "mental image pictures" which have actual mass (right?) seems like a legit one to include when describing Dianetics, and a good lead-in to "engram" and "reactive mind." Are there other crucial concepts that aren't mentioned in the current draft? BTfromLA 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

<surge of joy> Yes, that is the sequence. A mind is can be thought to be made of mental image pictures. Some mental image pictures contain pain. Those are not so easily looked at and are called engrams. The collection of engrams together are called the reactive mind because they react to stimulii without a person being aware that they are in restimulation and causing feelings and reactions. That's the sequence. Last I read the article, none of that meaning was present. I state a definition and it gets deleted right away. Terryeo 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What you've written above strikes me as much more concise and informative than most of the other things I've read by you: maybe we're actually making progress! If you want to add to it, I suggest you do so here on the talk page first, and we can work out difficulties here without the usual exasperating reverts. BTfromLA 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All right then, I'll create a "theory" subdivision on this page for discussing what key elements are theory and how to state them for deployment on in the article page. Have a cheeful BT ! Terryeo 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Dianetics pretty much has to have a theory section. The theories of engram, mind, reactive mind and so on need some discussion don't they? I'm pretty sure several editors are going to find lots of controversy with each element of the theory section. Unless someone posts here otherwise I will begin with including what "mind" means within Dianetics and how its use of the idea differes from mainstream use of the term. The difference is not vast and I'll support it with dictionary definitions. Terryeo 15:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some ideas for a theory section. Hubbard discovered certain basic things, but he went through the process alone or with close associates and conducted a great many tests. So the scientific process of limiting the subject to what science can observe, was done philosophically. Other so-called mental sciences have not done this. To them the mind is not visible, except possibly as the brain with tomography viewing the activity of radioactive indicator materials. In Dianetics the mind consists of mental image pictures only, and these are visible to the owner and viewer. They are also visible electronically with an ohm meter or a household scale for measuring one's weight. The pictures have mass. They have resistance that can be measured when the picture impinges on the body. All of these things are scientific developements that other mental studies have not gotten to yet. So mental image pictures can be viewed, sensed, measured, weighed, counted and tabulated. When one exists it can be experienced and when it is gone this can be measured as well. All mental image pictures together are call the Time Track. The basic element of the mind is the mental image picture. So from 1938 with the discovery of the dynamic priciple of existence and the need to know what it ment and to develope a workable therapy, to 1948 or so, that basic principle evolved to an "axiom" or a simple statement understood to be more or less a natural law. Dianetics currently has about 200 such axioms that can be read and understood to learn what the subject consists of. In 1948 there were just six. By 1950 there were about 30, but unnumbered. There are about 29 Logics as well, but I think I would include those in Philosophy rather than scientific theory. By the early 50s the scope of the philosophy underlying these axioms had become so vast that the main organization carried forth as an applied philosophy. The individual techniques evolved very rapidly. For those that were at this level of perception of the subject, the subject seemed to change continuously. By 1952 the value of the individual, the person going clear became the focus. This was most important. Even more important than the entire mind. So by 1952 the first axioms of Dianetics describe the individual himself, the spirit, the static or thetan. At that time it was known that one had to address the thetan as an individual. By 1959 this became so evident that even the dynamic principle of existence had to be expanded to reflect the actual capabilities of the thetan. In Scientology the dynamic principle of existence is "CREATE!" So the current theoretical basis of Dianetics should reflect this. Thetan, mind, and body. Dianetics can increase the abilities of the thetan to a level where he no longer needs the mind or the body to experience the fullness of existence. Of course he can retain the body and mind, and do all of the things bodies and minds can do as well. Spirit of Man 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre excuses

I noticed that Terryeo has been deleting chunks of the introduction again with the odd excuse "removed some editor's personal opinion of what the book contains". The bizarre thing is that it's substantively very similar to an earlier version with which he was apparently fine (see [8]). So are we to assume that he disagrees with himself? In any case, deletionism isn't a good thing... -- ChrisO 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you friendly, Mr. Cite-unpublished-confidential-documents and modify-wikipedia-guidelines-to-justify-it and then in the talk page, keep your fingers crossed that I don't get called into the discussion and explain that your editing of the guideline happened because you "just felt right" about editing a guideline to justify including an unpublished, confidential document. HA ! bizarre! HA! BTW, I believe most of our back and forth edits have to do with treating Hubbard's statements as primary source as per WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources, but not recognizing and discussing Dianetics as "theory" as per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories and if you and I and others here too, can align our efforts I think we can produce stable, useful articles. What do you say, are you willing to "work well with others, ChrisO ?"Terryeo 02:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

a proposal of how to introduce Dianetics as a theory

Dianetics is a theory and resultant practice which is about thoughts and mind. It was first introduced to the broad public in 1950 with, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health. Prior to publication, Hubbard had written two previous shorter treatments of his ideas of Dianetics, one is available on the internet. In practice, Dianetics centers around a two person communication technique called auditing. Today the Church of Scientology uses his ideas and calls them "a workable technology of the mind".

There, that's my suggestion for the first paragraph. I assume controversy will be inserted copiously after the first, introductary paragraph.Terryeo 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be worth going through this line by line to explain why it's not very satisfactory. It has three main problems: it isn't NPOV, it has some accuracy issues and it doesn't provide an adequate summary (it's considerably less detailed than the alternative):

• Dianetics certainly isn't a theory by any conventional definition of that term - it probably isn't even a hypothesis, and at best it amounts to a conjecture.

• Your version of the paragraph doesn't mention Dianetics' supposed therapeutic benefits (which I thought was, after all, Hubbard's main point - if it doesn't do anything what use is it?), nor Hubbard's claims about what issues it could resolve.

• It also doesn't mention Hubbard's positioning of Dianetics in opposition to conventinal psychotherapy, which is surely also a key point.

• Saying that it was "developed by L. Ron Hubbard" is partial and therefore POV - there's incontrovertible evidence that others were involved as well. Hubbard certainly claimed in later years that it was all his own work, but that simply isn't supported by the historical evidence, or even by what Hubbard said at the time. That's why I added "developed primarily" by LRH.

• It's also surely a bit of an omission to leave out the point about Dianetics still being promoted and used by the CoS - the article is about a topic of ongoing relevance, not just an historical issue.

I'm sure that the other editors will be able to add to this list if there are any other points that I've overlooked... -- ChrisO 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you have missed the whole point here. You have completely missed the whole point of this "theory" discussion. I am not talking about Dianetics being a "theory" I am talking about how to handle the subject of Dianetics. If you will be so good as to read the section above, a good deal of effort has gone into how to deal with information about this subject, Dianetics. At this point the concensus was reached by a number of editors (which you did not contribute to whatsoever) that the infomation of the subject, Dianetics is to be treated as spelled out at: WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories. Now the reason for this treatment is this. There is a body of information. It is spelled out in 10 books and many lectures. The information is collectively called, "Dianetics" and the question is, how do we present that information? Well, it is research and publication by Hubbard. So it is his original research. But Hubbard died and left it to the Church of Scientology. That leaves us in the position of presenting his information per Wikipedia policies. How do we do that? From the ongoing discussion above (which you could have contributed to but didn't) we are going to treat it as Wikipedia treats theories. Now do you get it?Terryeo 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, here is one definition from your theory reference:

"Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen…"

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified." Spirit of Man 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are quoting that as a proof that Dianetics is a scientific theory, then I suggest you read further. A much more clear example is given in the article on Intelligent Design Intelligent_design#ID_as_science Tenebrous 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, also, I believe I have asked this before, but who provided what important successful developements in Dianetics, other than L. Ron Hubbard and the people he has specifically credited in writing? I know of no instance where he takes total credit as you claim ["...it was all his own work."] In fact every major course in Scientology has "Keeping Scientology Working", KSW-1 HCO PL 7 Feb 1965 page 3, in it and this specifically refutes your claim. Spirit of Man 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "Dianetics is a theory..." It embraces all existence. It defines "Zero" for the physical sciences, like Physics. It defines and proves the nature of the spirit for religions and philosophies. It provides a more basic definition of logic and clarifies the nature of logic as reason. It elevates the concept of the "optimum individual" from the "normal" of psychology to a "clear", a person with no neuroses, psychoses, aberrations or self induced illnesses. So a "clear" can be rational, and this level of rationality is the nature of logic. When hidden information is included in a "logical argument" it is no longer rational. When an individual fails to face the reality of his environment, he resists and makes mental image pictures. The individual is what is important, not the images or "thought". When the individual fails to confront pain and unconsciousness and makes a mental image picture of that, then fails to confront that. He becomes illogical. He becomes "normal". If you feel I have not understood your idea please discuss it, and let's sort it out. Spirit of Man 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this part to; "In practice, Dianetics centers around a two person communication technique called auditing." In Dianetics we find the person becomes more rational by just understanding the mind and this is theraputic. There is something in Dianetics known as the "Doctrine of the true datum" that basically says, that when the mind becomes aware of an irrationality it will correct itself instantly. This says, that one could have a course a person could take and then no longer have self induced illness. One could have a course that could teach communications and the person would not be irrational while communicating, or communicate like a clear. There is a code for counselling that when learned well produces a counsellor that is rational like a clear. What would happen if this Doctrine were applied to all that Dianetics embraces, existence? This is all just using Dianetics in Education. There is another major factor used in Dianetics and that is Preventive Dianetics. One just eliminates Engrams from happening in the first place. Like the "silent operations" you see on TV with Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Another major factor is Necessity Level from Dianetics Evolution of a Science. The entire "reactive mind" can be nullified by the individual under certain conditions he perceives as necessary for survival. In life one sees this often as "adrenaline rush" or "second wind". One can also go to a new locality without any reminders that bring irrationality into affect. So I think it is a great over-simplification to simply say, "two person technique", or "auditing" only. Spirit of Man 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's very true, Spirit. So how can we introduce it? Terryeo 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I searched the web for things on Dianetics as a philosophy and didn't find much. Everything I found on Dianetics in encyclopedias was trivial. So if we as a group could pull this off I think it would be an achievement for the world wide web. I think it is now a very large subject integrated with an applied philosophy. But we could present just the theory part that is testable within the scope of what man knows and respects as science.

We could start with the definition of theory I gave ChrisO above from his Wikipedia link. Can we reach a consensus on using that as the context for a theoretical section?

I think we should look to the current theory and minimize any lengthy history lesson.

Then we could possibly agree on what is most important to include. I think the idea of the individual as a spiritual being having a mind that can be described in terms of a current scientific theory meeting the criteria of the above definition is most important. To my knowledge there is no other science out there that can do even this much. I don't think there is any encyclopedia that has done it either, let alone the testing of such a theory. I don't think we need to get hung up on the testing issue. There are about 50,000 clears out there. They exist. They have been tested. That information could be consolidated. It is not that the theory has not been tested. We just need to write it down in a framework acceptable to Wikipedia.

The derivation of each of the key ideas from the basic principle of survive is probably beyond the scope of the article.

The state of Clear as the optimum individual or most basic personality, is a major key concept. The idea of a static as more basic than the personality is probably out of scope. The idea of the mental image picture as the element of the Mind might be next. The idea of the Time Track, all the mental image pictures possible, is essential to the concept of the Mind. The two or three parts of the Mind are next, I think. The basic element of aberration, the Engram is next. Then the Reactive Mind. Some Clears don't use or have mental image pictures. How they use knowlege and what they do for memory might be interesting if there is space for that. Emotional Level [and the triangle of affinity, reality and communication] is the best predictor of human behavior might be included in a more extended article. What makes auditing work should be described. Educational Dianetics with the Doctrine of the true datum and how that works might be mentioned. Preventive Dianetics and how that works could be mentioned. The four basic principles of how to define scientific concepts could be touched on. The Logics and how to evaluate information is too philosophical I think for such an article.

The above ideas might be articulated in terms of the statements of natural law used in Dianetics to describe them. Spirit of Man 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried trimming the philosophical section down to two or three ideas only and still got "too long" as a comment. So you have your work cutout for you trying to reduce the list to something anyone could actually do. ChrisO had some good ideas too. Spirit of Man 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you argue that Dianetics is not a theory, but that we should treat it as if it were anway. Yes, Dianetics is LRH's original research. However, until it has been published by a reputable source and undergone peer review, it is still original research no matter who presents it. The appropriate Policy associated with Dianetics is found under Pseudoscience, not Theory. WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience I would support an expanded section on the concepts of Dianetics, but only if the concepts are presented in a concise form, using as few of LRH's neologisms as possible, and also give the mainstream scientific consensus, and clearly represent that Dianetics is a minority view. Furthermore, the rest of the article is well-written and NPOV, but lengthy. I'm not going to remove sourced material without discussion, but I would like to bring the subject up for discussion. Tenebrous 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, why you didn't join the above discussion is beyond me. We talked for a week about how to treat this information. We hammered extensively whether to treat the subject as "original, unsubstantiated research" or to treat it as "theory" or how. We settled on "theory" because there is so much secondary source material available. When there is primary source, secondary source and tertiary source, then the material is no longer, "original research" because it has had review. You are late on the discussion, but if you continue to contribute, please read the earlier discussion which are on this page, above. Terryeo 04:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I better say it again. This discussion is about how to treat the information in the Dianetics article. This discussion is about how to treat the information which is called, "Dianetics". If you think it is pseudoscience, fine, if theory, fine, if conjecture, fine. We are talking about how to treat the information, and not how to classify and present the information. First things first, which wikipedia guideline and policy do we use to present the ideas which are known as Dianetics? Terryeo 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics has not been described in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, in fact, it has been refused from them because it lacks substantial proof. Yes, there is secondary source material. Is it reliable? No. Therefore the information should be presented as per the guidelines here: WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience Tenebrous 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. It was a bad call to get involved in an argument with True Believers. Have fun Tenebrous 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)