Talk:Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine

Sorry, solitary trees is two individuals with a specific agenda. They say so, they are dedicated to pushing their particular POV and have no fact checking, no validity and don't attempt to do anything but convince their readers that their particular POV is correct. They are a personal website and fall under WP:RS which states: "a personal website may not be used as a secondary source" Terryeo 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your misguided "personal websites" crusade is not going to work. Stop Gaming the Rules and Wikilawyering. wikipediatrix 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the link to the Board of Health Report was certainly misguided, as that's just a source stored on that site. But referencing an essay written by ChrisO as the only source supporting that ashtray thing and the remote viewing claims..... That's somewhat questionable to me. WP:RS was obviously intended specifically to discourage people from referencing personal essays and rants by people on the web. If ChrisO has independent sources to back up his claims, we should reference those instead.--KSevcik 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that ChrisO, the Wikipedia editor, is the author of that essay? If that's the case, I was unaware of that... but a source is still a source. Why say "the only source", as if it needs more than one? Anyway, other sources for the Ashtray TR are obtainable, and I will obtain them. wikipediatrix 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

At this difference, [1] ChrisO states that he contributes to Xenu.net, he may well have created that article which he cites. "Many people have contributed to it, including myself", he says: Terryeo 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Heck, at this point I'm tempted to allow any editor's reference as "created by chriso, see Xenu.net and Clambake.org", to let such a verification stand, unchalleneged. ChrisO's personal opinion contributes to Xenu.et, then his personal opinion is cited as a verification in almost all of these Scientology articles. Heh Terryeo 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at the bottom of the webpage it says "by Chris Owen." It seemed a logical conclusion to me that it's the same ChrisO. As for "the only source," if the article only links to one source and it happens to be an off-wiki essay by a wiki user editing these articles, it just looks funny. Glad to hear there's other sources for the info out there. Thanks for clearing it up--KSevcik 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

TR 9

Training Routine 9. If the article is to spell out this training routine, it should do so accurately. Its present representation of it comes from a secondary source of information which does not accurately present the routine. This is yet another example of how personal websites should not be used as secondary sources because they tend to state an individual's own opinion of the situation. Normally we could rely on an individual's opinion but for Wikipedic standards we should attribute a person's opinion to him and present it alongside other people's opinions and more widely known, more scholarly opinions. Terryeo 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing about TR 9 in the article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Websites

solitarytrees is a personal website. The guy has a personal opinion and a personal agenda and his information may or may not be accurate. He may even, like Xenu.net, allow wikipedia editors (such as ChrisO says he does here) to contribute to him and then come here to Wikipedia and quote the previously contributed, created, personal article and cite the website as the source of the "published" article. Nothing would stop that, this is one of the reasons personal websites are not to be used as secondary sources per WP:RS Terryeo 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "personal websites" generally refers to a website in which the owner's content is about themselves. People who do websites investigating or researching specific subjects are not doing "personal websites". By your desperate definition, virtually all non-business sites out there would be "personal websites". wikipediatrix 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, Wikipediatrix. I have often stated that it seems appropriate to me to have some controversy in these articles. My concern is mainly that the subject of the article becomes introduced. The undiscussed difficulty is how to communicate both aspects of a subject to the reader. The Church of Scientology presents good information and juxtaposed against it, editors attempt to present, again, good information. But Xenu.net presents all of its information as "this is opinion", while presenting documents, lectures, and other information which appears (at least at first glance) to be bonafide documents with good spelling and so forth. The editors here are not treating Xenu.net and other websites as editors treat opinions from personal websites. Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit. If this is the standard by which we edit, then why don't we state that as a guideline? Terryeo 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit. That's almost correct, which is a lot better than your average. The actual issue which causes most people to believe that your argument is being put forth in wholly bad faith is your claim that the website's disclaimer must be applied with robotic, absolutist literality to everything hosted on the website, such that if the disclaimer states 'The contents of this website are solely my opinions' and a particular page very clearly identifies the contents as having originated in the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner, that the disclaimer for the whole website must take precedence over what the page clearly states as the origin of the page contents, and the material must be removed as being 'opinions' from a 'personal website' despite the fact that ... well, frankly, the fact that such an interpretation is totally stupid. If you are going to put such absolute unswerving faith that the website maintainer's disclaimer is absolutely 100% true even in the most mindlessly literal sense for every single iota of text on the whole of his website, then you might as well trust that everything he says is true enough to be used on Wikipedia; if one sentence of his disclaimer is worthy of such perfect faith and absolutely literal interpretation then surely all the rest of what he says should be similarly elevated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V tells us our standard. People get hot under the collar about WP:RS and get worked up about other elements, but the policy really reverts back to WP:V. The most widely published, well known sources of good information are what we should use as much as possible. That seems pretty simple. Terryeo 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"bullshit"?

Terryeo's latest uncivil edit summary says, and I quote:

"I removed uncited bullshit. The link points to a page which talks about NARCONON, not "psychokinesis" whatever that is."

Ignoring the obvious rudeness, I will remind him that the citation link points to a page that clearly gives the information expressed and if he doesn't see it, he isn't looking hard enough. Also, if he really doesn't know what "psychokinesis/telekinesis" is (hint: it's defined in the article!), then how can he be qualified to state whether it's discussed in the link or not? (another hint: you can do a ctrl-F and search that page for "kinesis") wikipediatrix 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As you have stated the situation, Wikipediatrix, it appears a very refined, well known, widely published about phononema. However, a search of google using the search terms, "psychokinesis and bullshit" turns up 618 hits [2] and so I can not think that to refer to psychokinesis by that term is unknown in the civilized world. Were you able to verify that psychokinesis were an actual goal of the Church I would be inclined to use a less emotionally impactive term. "Bullshit" is emotionally expressive but it hardly explains how a person who has talked with many OT completions, who has read all of the published end phenonoma of the OT levels, how such a person would react to the article's presentation. Would "LOL" be more exact? How about, "what a silly idea?" Understand, I'm not amused by the presentation in the article, but by the attempt to use Scientology terms to describe psychokinesis as a goal of the Church. The moon is made of green cheese? Its just completely way out of any ball park the Church plays in.Terryeo 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How does the amount of Google hits for a euphemism provide an excuse for poor editing and poor talk-page conduct? As if. wikipediatrix 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The quantity of google hits displays how the term, through common usage, may be used within an edit summary to communicate to other editors the commonly viewed, popular opinion of the object of the adjetive. Normally, editors can read that edit summary, then come to this discussion which expands that edit summary and thereby come to learn exactly how common the view of "psychokinesis" is when used with the discriptive adjective, "bullshit". In this manner, then, the subject itself is more easily understood in its most common, basic terms. Terryeo 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, a google seach for "scientology + bullshit" yields "about 204,000" hits. BTfromLA 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go. Whether you use "bullshit" or don't use "bullshit" in your daily speech, its a commonly recognized and descriptive term, suitable for describing "Scientology and Psychokenisis", particularly when said link doesn't contain the information its previous statement implies it contains. Terryeo 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Solitarytrees, a personal website

Solitarytrees Is a personal website it states it is created by Ted Mayett and Keshet. "© 1998-2006 Ted Mayett and Keshet" The website presents the personal story of Ted Mayett and includes "Why we created these pages". Its information attacks Scientology, the NAACP and so on. It therefore falls within the parameters of "personal website" and should not be used as a secondary source of information within Wikipedia articles. This is per WP:RS which states that Personal Websites should not be used as secondary sources. Terryeo 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Narconon Image

That image, as it appears right now has a subtitle on it which states: "Narconon's Communication & Perception course 4a instructs recovering drug addicts to scream levitation commands at ashtrays." Obviously Narconon does not at any point in their programs, instruct any individual to ever "scream levitation commands at ashtrays." That is not verifiable. What might be verifiable would be "command in the loudest possible voice". May I point out, without tromping on toes, the first subtitle would be better placed in an expose' newspaper article than on our Wikipedia where WP:NOR is the standard we apply? Terryeo 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly verifiable, and I have the book right here. Would you like to see scans from it? wikipediatrix 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the title, author and ISBN of the book that you have right there please? Terryeo 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Narconon Communication & Perception Course, L. Ron Hubbard, 2004 edition. It has no ISBN number. Published by ABLE. wikipediatrix 13:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. Is it hardbound or softbound? A book or a booklet, if you will? Terryeo 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Softbound. At several hundred pages, however, it's certainly no booklet. wikipediatrix 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding, Wikipediatrix. I was surprised a Narconon publication would use the word "scream" to describe a training routine, as the original routine is carefully worded otherwise. Terryeo 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The booklet actually says "levitation commands" and not simply, "commands?" The article doesn't add in some original research which is not present int he 300 page book? The reason I ask, I've looked at the Bulletin which spells out TR-8, it uses the word 'commands' and states its purpose, none of which is toward levitation. Terryeo 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix has not replied about "leviation commands", which pretty obviously is not the term used in the book, but instead, seems likely is a term which was Original Research and created of whole cloth from a term actually used in the book and mis-quoted. Some less emotionally slanted term, likely. Terryeo 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful article on Super Power Rundown and purported effects

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/06/Tampabay/Scientology_nearly_re.shtml -- includes personal claims by the one "public" who's gone through the Super Power program. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the article's paragraphs reads, "Matt Feshbach believes he has super powers. He senses danger faster than most people. He appreciates beauty more deeply than he used to. He says he outperforms his peers in the money management industry." Those words by Feshbach might be called "statements" or they might be called "attestations". He is the only person who knows what he used to percieve, so he is the only living authority who can compare what he perceives today, to what he perceived yesterday. Therefore there is no opponent to his statement, therefore he is not "claiming" but he is "attesting". [3] Terryeo 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While you're using the dictionary, look up "quotation" and see if the definition is "something that looks pretty similar to what someone said." -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume that was directed to me. Comments which reference other comments on other user pages might best be contained on those other user pages or, alternatively, on one personal discussion page. Placed here, that discussion is dispersive rather than contribuatory, but feel free to talk to me on my discussion page. Terryeo 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret vs Confidential

Presently the article reads: "higher-level secret Operating Thetan information". The Church presents it as "confidential Operating Thetan information". The difference between "secret" and "confidential" is not a great amount, both mean undisclosed. However, confidential is documentatable, people who read the links which point to Church sites will run across the term confidential but will never run into the term "secret" as a description. Actually the Church is not keeping a secret, but keeping a confidence. The article would be more neutral to use the word "Confidential" than to use the word, "secret". Terryeo 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A Vandalism by anon user 68.12.62.131

anon user 68.12.62.131 in his edit of (17:54, 18 June 2006) edited without understanding Wikipedia's standards of citation. He inserted a statement at the end of the subsection MEST, The Church of Scientology has been extremely controversial throughout its history for promising the things it does. and cited a personal website (lisatrust) to substantiate his edit. However, WP:RS states, personal websites can not be used as secondary sources and his edit should be deleted. lisatrust.bogie.nl could be used in exterior links, but not within an article as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see AndroidCat has removed the vandalism without removing the personal website which is being quoted and cited to within the article. lisatrust, Appears to be a personal website. Does anyone contest? Terryeo 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The link was already there as the source of the quotation. My reasons for removing the addition to the quotation block had nothing to do with Terryeo's familiar line of argument. (When did every change that someone else disagrees with become vandalism? Will "edit terrorism" be next?) AndroidCat 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't agree with the edit which I referred to as "Vandalism" because you removed it. You disagree with my description of it, but likewise disagree that it was a good edit. Okay, fine. If you view my statement as inaccurate, why not give your own reasoning for removing the edit? If you find my statement of "vandalism" to be familar, why don't you point to my several uses of the word? If it is a familar arguement which you often see and disagree with, why not present the information. Terryeo 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) My comment when I reverted the edit was quite clear. (2) Your argument for removing the link as part of 68.12.62.131's edit was in error. (3) Your comments on vandalism are irrelevant. AndroidCat 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a vandalism to find a quotation which cites a website and then, after the quotation and before the link to the website, insert one's own, created sentence, leaving the rest of the information as it was. That's a vandalism. I said so. Terryeo 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I'm a little unclear. What was your reason for concluding that it could not possibly have been a mistake? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I spelled out the editor and the date and time. The difference makes his edit viewable. I classified it a "vandalism" rather than a "mistaken edit" because that is how it appeared to me. Terryeo 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a little unclear. What led you to conclude that the anon could not possibly have been acting in good faith? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concluded it was a vandalism because of the placement of the inserted text. The insertion of a sentence of unattributed text, by itself, might not be a vanadalism. Often such an insertion is not a vandalism. But its placement, cleverly placing it into a position that could be construted to be cited (though it was not cited by the citation) and its content (somewhat akin to other statements the citation says) led me to conclude it was a deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of <ref>,</ref>Terryeo 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but each time you explain, your reasoning seems to get more and more inexplicable. Exactly how do you conclude that the edit you protested was "deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of <ref>,</ref>" when ... the edit in question did not involve Cite.php tags at all? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is keep you typing and wasting your time, trying to explain things to him that he already knows full well. Since Terryeo no longer edits these articles, I see no point in arguing with him any more. So many of these discussion pages are now clogged like cholesterol-filled arteries, filled with pointless arguments with Terryeo over hair-splitting nothingness. wikipediatrix 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A citation is needed and I point to it. Editors don't go, "oh, okay". Instead it is a week of pointless arguement, challenging that a citation is needed, calling me a "strawman" and other derogatory terms. In the long run it works out that a citation is needed. On this page I classified the anon edit as a valdalism. It was immediately changed. And then what? Editors challenge my classification of it as a vandalism? Why? What possible good does it cause the article. I would be enormously curious why Wikipediatrix is unwilling to notice the actuality and state it in simple terms, why Feldspar and Android Cat could say, "oh, well, yeah, it was vandalism" or "oh, well, I wouldn't classify it that way". But not, its gotta be a yard long talk about cholesterol, pointless prattle etc. etc. If I say small, you all gotta say big? And if I say big, you all gotta say small or your day doesn't have sunshine? <Signing at a later time, now> Terryeo 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear Tangent is lovely this time of year, but I've never really had the urge to go there. AndroidCat 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, if you say small, you should be able to defend the premise "small". If you say big, you should be able to defend the premise "big". And if you say "vandalism", which has a very specific meaning which excludes good-faith edits (even mistaken ones), and you reiterate over and over your claim that yes, you mean vandalism (and therefore do mean to make accusations of knowing bad faith), and you go on to amplify your accusations by directly stating that you think it was an experienced Wikipedia editor editing as an anon, you had better be able to back up those accusations. You really like to skirt so close to the edge of your personal attack parole, but guess what? That kind of gamesmanship doesn't go over well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Never ever

Shouldn't it say somewhere in the article (or did I miss it) that there is no evidence at all that anybody has ever been able to do this stuff ? Or is that too obvious ? Unmitigated Success 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly should ! The article opens:

• In Church of Scientology doctrine, the subjects of supernatural or superhuman powers and abilities are ones that recur often. This applies to all Scientology and Dianetics materials from the most basic introductory texts to the higher-level secret Operating Thetan information.

Well, I for one know that to be a pile of horse doo-doo, Original Research by Some Wikipedia Editors who misunderstands some statements. For example, Cause over MEST, duh. A perfect example of a misunderstood, mispresented piece of information that is purported by Wikipedic to mean, psychic cause over MEST. The whole subject is a pile of nonesense, the lede mispresent the subject, the subject is presented falsely and then an innocent editor comes along and asks the article to add a bit of how unproven it all is. It doesn't exist, guys. The article is Original Research and horse dung, and then mispresented as if it were an actual subject, and recurs often. What a pile of bunk. Terryeo 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying touch assists don't actually exist in CoS? That there is no belief in scientology that medical treatment can by supernaturally bypassed for mental conditions? I'm soooo confused. With that being said, I agree that this article's very premise is unfair, unless we also single out, uhm... "horse doo-doo" that states that christians believe that prayer can change the universe, cures disease, raises people from the dead, that long-dead people can create miracles, etc. Anybody wanna create the "supernatural abilities in christianity" article? No? Why not? Ronabop 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Horse doo-doo is a little stretched (and very cheesy, you can write bullshit if you like), since there are undeniable references and quotes in this article (how is Advance! (#130, pgs.22-23) original research ?!). But I don't agree with Ronabop about the whole Christianity analogy, because just read Laying on of hands or Miracles at Lourdes, it's basically the same approach without the corny phrase "supernatural abilities", and I find it reasonable in both instances to either document the occurrences of these "vacuum tube activators" and "I can see, I can see !" or plainly say that it's complete bullshit. Unmitigated Success 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Subjects of superhuman powers recur often simply lights me off. You show me a haunting and I'll show you the ghosts whom are creating the haunting, leaving. "Witch Doctors" have done "miricle Cures" for longer than western civilization has exsited (according to some sources). I won't argue the exitence of such, I won't argue that it happens every day and I won't argue it is beyond normally communicatable English. But I will argue that superhuman powers recur often in Scientology. It is too general a statement to be useful in an article. Terryeo 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's simply the "recur often" that's a problem, it can be fixed, especially since the often isn't justified (there are many examples in the articles, but apparently Scientology literature is so ridiculously large that it doesn't necessarily mean anything). We can change it to "recurring concept", or something else you can come up with. However, I stand by the fact that this article is legitimate, and that it should say in the introduction that these particular claims made by scientology are baseless. Unmitigated Success 14:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. Unmitigated Success 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Terryeo 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Reseach, Touch Assist

The article has a section on Touch Assist. Any Scientologist reading it would laugh out loud. But that's not the point. The point is WP:NOR because not a single reference is presented for what is so obviously false information. I won't spell out why laying on of hands has no relationship to a touch assist unless asked and I won't spell out why Hubbard's written statements which can be quoted are not "pseudoscientific claims". However, should an editor find a previously published by reliable sources, source of information which states that Hubbard's statements are pseudoscientific claims, then, that source could be quoted and cited. But I will say, as the article stands now, that paragraph is Original Research until some source of information for it is presented to the reader. Terryeo 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you like, I'll present a reference, quote sections which apply. Then an editor could use if. At present the touch assist piece is so far from the actual situation that is certainly belongs in supernatural abilities. Terryeo 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, what's wrong with the reference? It's all quoted from Hubbard's "Touch Assists - Correct Ones", Board Technical Bulletin of 7 April 1972, revised 23 June 1974, and it smells and tastes a hell of a lot like pseudoscience. Unmitigated Success 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article to BTB 7 Apr 72. Board Technical Bulletins were never created by Hubbard, nor was he an executive of the Church when they were created. They are not part of the Church's technology, though they were at one time. They were created by an individual, David Mayo. Mayo held a high position in the technical delivery of the Church and created Board Technical Bulletins. Those were in force for a few years until Mayo's mistakes became obvious enough that correction was necessary. Correction was applied, part of Mayo's list of things he was to do included looking up and understanding the word "Clear". He refused to do so and blew, he was therefore expelled from the church and declared by the Church to be a suppressive person. BTBs are not part of the Church's technology and has not been a part of the Church for more than 20 years. I won't spell out any of the other bad technology Mayo created. Removing his work was a pretty big deal, but it is all gone from Church operating technology and procedures. A personal website, [4] quotes a piece of that BTB. That personal website surrounds that presentation with personal opinion. None, and do mean exactly none of the information which appears on that link has the least thing to do with the Church's touch assists. So, I ask again, would you like a valid reference to a touch assist and some valid quotations from it? Terryeo 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You could have just made that argument before, and replaced the passage with the proper content. Any Scientologist reading it would laugh out loud. There's no point in being so smug, it's hard to tell the difference between the official bullshit and the apocryphal bullshit: why wouldn't you laugh out loud at "Clears do not get colds", or at the vacuum tube electricity generating church members? Unmitigated Success 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, you're right it telling me that my first communication was ineffective. I won't make excuses, but obviously my saying what I did was not effective. If I supply published documentation and quotes, would you consider (not promise to, but consider) putting it into the article? Terryeo 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Unmitigated Success 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Volunteer Minister's Handbook (665 pages) ISBN 0884040399 has a section on Touch Assist. It says some things which are taken from Scientology Technology. The referenced technology is Hubbard Communications Office Technical Bulletins (HCOBs).Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

HCOB 7 Apr 72RA is titled Touch Assists Correct Ones and states: "Touch Assist HCOBs are right enough as to the data in them. In the past, many had been written by others than myself".

HCOB 25 Aug 87 Issue II, Touch Assists, More About states: "A Touch Assist may be done by anyone, on anyone." "The purpose of a Touch Assist is to reestablish communication with injured or ill body parts. It brings the person's attention to the injured or affected body areas. This is done by repetitively touching the ill or injured person's body and putting him into communication with the injury. His communication with it brings about recovery. The technique is based on the principle that the way to heal anything or remedy anything is to put somebody into communication with it." "Every single physical illness stems from a failure to communicate with the thing or area that is ill." "When attention is withdrawn from an injured or ill body areas, so are circulation, nerve flows and energy. This limits nutrition to the area and prevents the drain of waste products. Some ancient healers attributed remarkable flows and qualities to the 'laying on of hands.' Probably the workable element in this was simply heightening awareness of the affected area and restoring the physical communication factors." "Tell the (person) that you are going to be doing a Touch Assist and explain briefly the procedure. Tell the (person) the command you will be using and ensure he understands it. Give the command, then touch a point, using moderate finger pressure. Do NOT touch and then give the command; that would be backwards. Touch with only one finger. If you used two fingers the (person) could be confused about which he was supposed to look at or feel. (when the person tells you he has done your command) Acknowledge the person." "No matter what part of the body is being helped, the areas touched should include the extremites (hands and feet) and the spine." "Continue the assist until the (person) has very good indicators and a cognition." "Tell the (person), "End of assist." Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) These information are available in The Volunteer Minsister's Handbook, in the Assists Processing Handbook, as individual 2 or 3 page HCOBs which can be purchased from any Church (cheapest) and as HCOBs, part of the complete set of HCOBs, a 17 volume set, the Index is ISBN 0884044750.Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes according to your references (please tell me you didn't go through 17 volumes to find this), take a look and make changes if needed, I didn't quite get everything (what's a command?). And thanks for the laughs, this is priceless. Unmitigated Success 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A command sometimes used is "Feel my finger?", immediately followed by a touch with moderate pressure. The person replies, the volunteer minister (or other person) acknowledges that the person has. Then repeats, touching another place on the person's body. The 17 volumes include an index by subject. Terryeo 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why add Terryeo's information at the expense of removing the existing text, which was also sourced? Why not include both? wikipediatrix 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is more balanced than it was, presenting information from the source of information rather than exclusively presenting critical information. The reference which was being used included personal opinion on personal website and can never be included in any wikipedia article. Terryeo

Unreferenced Statement

Touch Assists begins with an unreferenced statement: Scientologists (especially Volunteer Ministers) are taught to administer what Hubbard called the "touch assist", a pseudo-scientific procedure .. No reference is presented for the puseudo-scientific procedure. Terryeo 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Scientology doesn't perform any kind of research. Where's the peer review for the HCOBs? Where's the experimental data to back it up? If the Lancet had published something about this, I have a hunch it would have caused a bit of a commotion. Unmitigated Success 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are saying, "unless a procedure has peer review and experimental data, Wikipedia should introduce the procedure as 'pseudo-scientific'?" While I am saying, "Unless an information is published which states a procedure is pseudo-scientific, the the procedure should simply be stated and not introduced as pseudo-scientific". Does that summate our differences? Terryeo 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The only addition I would make to those criteria is "and portrays itself as scientific." But yes, it is the lack of acceptance by the scientific community that makes something otherwise "scientific" pseudoscience. --Davidstrauss 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes, if something falls under the definition of pseudoscience, it should be described as such. Unmitigated Success 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To be thought of as "pseudoscientific" requires first, some attempt to be thought of as "scientific". For example, would you classify a piece of art, painted on a canvas, as "pseudoscientific"? Most people would not because there is no effort by the artist to present art as science. A touch assist is helpful to a person toward becoming in good communication with their body. Where's the science ? There's gotta be some science, first. The documentation I have quoted talks about communication. But all of this is mundane, anyway, unless a reliable source publishes and then that source can be cited and quoted. Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a community of people who are dedicated scientists. Which of those persons has commented on the Catholic Confessional, declaring it to be "pseudo-scientific?" Well, none of them. The Church of Scientology (a religious and not a scientific body), created what is called a "touch assist". In what manner does such a religious procedure appeal to the "scientfic community"? How is a reader of a wikipedia article to make a connection between his common knowledge and an editor's Original Research (WP:NOR), that a religious procedure should satisfy, appeal to, be ascribed to or fulfill a scientific procedure? This is why we have WP:V and its threshold of inclusion is verifiability. Until a piece of information is published and verifiable, it can not be included in Wikipedia. If an editor insists that a touch assist is "pseudo-scientific" then the burden of evidence is on him. Let him stand forth and CITE HIS SOURCE. Where's the difficulty with doing things the Wikipedic way? Terryeo 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Confessional doesn't make claims regarded as "scientific" in nature. Hence, it fails the first criterion for pseudoscientific classification. Touch Assists, however, make claims of a scientific nature that aren't actually scientific. Hence, pseudoscience. --Davidstrauss 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where? Where does the Church of Scientology claim that a touch assist is scientific? That, you should cite that in the article.Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Truely, Mr. Strauss, your statement rests on a statement which says the Church of Scientology presents that auditing is scientific in nature. :) An truely interesting place for such a statement to rest. Very interesting, if unattributeable. A fairy tale, really. The Church of Scientology has never made such a statement, has it? And to use the statement which has never appeared except in the imagination of a few editors as a foundation for refusing a citation, this is Wikipedic? Terryeo 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Church of Scientology would never claim any connection with science [5], or make medical claims [6] AndroidCat 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither science nor medicine is referenced to by the Church in that news release. Terryeo 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this one: Scientology flyer, distributed in Tampa, Florida in summer 2005, «Scientology is a precision science.» Since the Church of Scientology still promote Scientology as a science, and Hubbard as an expert in science, pointing out that Scientology practices are pseudo-scientific is certainly appropriate. --Raymond Hill 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Touch assists. Surely you don't mean to say that because Hubbard baked an Apple Pie that his apple pie was "pseudoscientific"? That would require a reader to think, "Because Hubbard has been accused of pseudoscience, then everything Hubbard ever did or touched is likewise, pseudoscience". Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hubbard first attracted public attention with Dianetics, which he himself dubbed a "Modern Science of Mental Health". In 1956, Hubbard claimed that Scientology "improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people. It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact science" (Hubbard, 1956/1983, p. 8).

"Later, Hubbard claimed that Scientology "is today the only validated psychotherapy in the world... Scientology is a precision science...the first precision science in the field of the humanities... The first science to put the cost of psychotherapy within the range of any person's pocketbook... The first science to contain the exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illness with predictable success" (The Hubbard Information Letter of April 14, 1962)." [7] (emphasis added) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget that news release, the quotes you gave me yourself are (or at least try to look that way) medical in nature (hence scientific as well), since they claim to explain the nature of disease (a lack of "communication"), and how it can be cured with the touch assist. And since it's a million light years away from the usual medical description, it's pseudoscientific. Unmitigated Success 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. There is the potential to refuse to understand the idea which Hubbard presented. After all, it is not criticizing medicine. It is not attacking a profession. It is a different point of view than the point of view that is taught in western medicine. It is so different that it might be a little difficult to do anything but quote, which is what Wikipedia suggests we do. This enables a reader to read the information which Hubbard states. As a curiosity, the idea is so strange that the several editors who have commented in this section can not understand it, and that is why the idea is being criticized? The reason I ask is because some people have personally attested it is a helpful-to-them method. It makes me curious why editors would be so critical about a process which at least some people say is quite helpful to them. What we, personally think of a touch assist should have little bearing on the presentation of a touch assist, huh? Terryeo 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The last thing we need is for Wikipedians to think, truly. That people you know find it helpful is anecdotal evidence and original research, so it doesn't come into consideration. And, for my part at least, I think it's complete baloney, which is different from not understanding it. There's nothing to understand: a lack of "communication", you touch the guy, and voilà, there's not much more. Hubbard even says that anybody can do it. What we do agree on is that these are medical claims at odds with the consensus and based on no experimental data, which makes it pseudo-scientific. Unmitigated Success 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't come into consideration, except on discussion pages. Agreed. However, when a newspaper publishes information about touch assists, then that information comes into Wikipedia's sphere of presentation. I have spelled out the theory of the action at request and provided quoted documentation at request. Those are not medical claims, I don't know how to present the situation any more clearly, there is no medical claim made in the quoted documentation nor in my discussion. Furthermore, since there is no attempt by in my discussion to state any medical claim and there is no attempt in the documentation which I cited and quoted about any medical claim, pseudo-scientific doesn't apply. It is a different point of view, that's all. Unmitigated Success is talking about an action falling into the medical sphere, but it doesn't fall into the medical sphere. It doesn't fall into the psychological sphere. I have tried to spell out why the action of a touch assist does not fall into either of those spheres. When you give a touch assist you are assisting a person to become aware of and use their body. For example, the guy has had his foot in a machine for hours and can no longer use his foot. Well, in 2 or 3 days he would recover. But with a touch assist he is soon (in a few minutes) aware of and using his foot again. Terryeo 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're saying his foot would heal much faster with a touch assist. How is that not medical? Unmitigated Success 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, as I have stated before, your inability to write anything that does not blatantly defy the conventions of logic means it is impossible to follow your argumentation. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in supposing that you actually wanted to make a point in this post, as opposed to simply wasting the time of your peers. Ignoring for a moment your somewhat shaky grasp of the english language, as well as the rather dubious claims you make, one can only marvel at the way you manage to contradict yourself in the space of a short paragraph. You state that the "touch assist" doesn't "fall into the medical sphere", and then make an outrageous claim that shows you believe the contrary: "For example, the guy has had his foot in a machine for hours and can no longer use his foot. Well, in 2 or 3 days he would recover. But with a touch assist he is soon (in a few minutes) aware of and using his foot again. ". I agree with you in that if you limit the action of a "touch assist" to a vague "awareness" of the body (such as that claimed by buddhists), you are making no medical claim. However, here you undeniably make a factual statement, and as this statement is most evidently codswallop, one is justified in deeming your organisation's claims as quackery. Yandman 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)