Talk:Dianetics/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's just take it right out of there

Let's just throw it away ! Untill a subject is introduced, a second datum can not be comprehended. Dianetics will have to be introduced, it is not easy but it will have to be introduced, defined, its uses spelled out. Then, after that, probably in latter part of the article, if it still makes sense to do so, its connection to Scientology can be made clear. Until Dianetics is introduced as a subject (lotta books, lotta years on it) this article will not make sense. Terryeo 02:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the most basic historical facts about Dianetics is that it became the foundation for Scientology. I'm at a loss as to why you find a brief mention of that in the intro objectionable.
I think a simple description of the idea is needed. Critics of the subject here add things to confuse that simplicity. Adding a second major issue or button, like the word "Scientology" will not add to the simplest idea of what Dianetics is. Dianetics simply tells you what the mind is and gives an easy way to fix the few things that are really wrong. Spirit of Man 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Critics of the subject here add things to confuse that simplicity
Please abide by Wikipedia:Assume good faith and stop making accusations of this nature.
Dianetics simply tells you what the mind is and gives an easy way to fix the few things that are really wrong.
Dianetics claims to tell you what the mind is and claims to give an easy way to fix its troubles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, this is a discussion area, not an Article. These two specific comments are mine, not the claims of Dianetics. Just to clarify things, could you please expand on what YOU mean to add here? Spirit of Man 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Spirit of Man, since your contribution history is short and you're already making some newbie mistakes such as accusing a whole class of editors of editing in bad faith, other editors naturally want to alert you to other frequent newbie mistakes.
Antaeus, thank you for your alert on behalf of "a whole class of editors". But in fact I am not accusing you of bad faith, so much as stating an observation of what has been happening. I state my opinion, you take that as "a claim of Dianetics" in a way I had not intended and come in ready for a fight. Why don't we return to the point of this thread. Can you and I, and other editors create a simple to understand introduction to Dianetics that will stand inspection? Do you have any objection to that? Spirit of Man 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you state your POV on disputed claims of Dianetics on a talk page as if they were agreed-upon facts, we have no way of knowing if you think it's also okay to add them to the articles themselves in the same fashion.
By the way, talk pages are exactly for stating one's views. Exactly. I say "Dianetics States" (which is the published situation) and you say "Dianetics Claims" (which is your POV). Talk pages should have talk like this. But shouldn't have talk attempting to belittle, bemoan or bechuckle. LOL.
The situation is that I posted, you revised and I stated my objections here with citations. (missing empirical tests - tests by the Dianetics Foundation and publically available in Science of Survival) You have ignored the test results. Can you accept these tests results as being publically available and modify your comments about there never having been any? Spirit of Man 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify things, how do you think it will "clarify things" to inquire as to my future contributions? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not inquiring about your future contributions, only the specific comments you highlighted in this thread. I believe there are three of them above. Spirit of Man 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It does make sense, though, to briefly indicate in the body of the article a bit more detail about the connection (and the distinction) between the two. BTfromLA 03:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Too much is being done at once. Dianetics is not introduced in a clean manner, in a way a person who knows Dianetics can read one or two paragrahs and say, "yep, that's Dianetics all right" and a person new to the idea can't read it and go "hmm, that's interesting" because it is never clearly defined in this article. That is exactly what I am trying to accomplish. Later in the body would be the place of Dianetics and its relationship and history as part of the CoS would work ! Wiki easily links and with an article about commonly known, physical universe things an intro full of links works nicely. But to present an idea that is not easily defined with a sentence is another matter. Too many links spoil the definition I think. Anyway do you think the introduction is clean? I don't. Terryeo 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what you mean by "clean." I think it is readable, more so that the rest of the article. You seem to be saying that Dianetics needs to be fully explained in Hubbard's own terms before it can be placed in any larger context. I disgree. The purpose of the intro is to briefly outline the subject, which in this case includes the fact that Dianetics is connected to the better-known subject of Scientology, and that despite being labelled a "modern science," it is not in any accepted sense scientific.
By "clean" I mean an introduction as per wiki policy. I mean the word is to be introduced and defined for whence it came, when it was introduced into the english language and then, the meaning of the body of knowledge, published knowledge which is dianetics. To do less would be a disservice to Wiki readers. This too is per Wiki policy: Wikipedia:Introductions which states what I have said here.
No, that's not the policy. Here's the policy: "The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and

The introduction prepares the reader for further detail." Please note that it is important to introduce the context: how has this topic been socially recieved? BTfromLA 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

, You are free to call it pseudoscience, psychobabble or any other thing after it is introduced and even as part of the introduction if you are able to cite that information by source. So says Wiki at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Wikipedia:Verifiability and my editing will follow that policy. See below for the 3 (actually less than 3 full) sentences I removed from the article to this page for discussion. Terryeo 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept it as a science. It is a science. I can understand trade unions (AMA, APAs, Author League of America, etc) not wanting to say it is scientific. But I also see they have never used science to disprove any portion of it. Spirit of Man 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the short intoductory overview in any way inhibits a fuller explanation of the history of Dianetics, the techniques and theory of Dianetics, the social reception of Dianetics, the relationship between Dianetics and Scientology, etc. Indeed, the brief intro raises questions inthe mind of the reader that should be answered in the body of the article (what are Hubbard's claims about the human mind? What is auditing? etc.) I'd suggest working on organizing and "cleaning up" the body of the article... if in the course of this it becomes clear that more specifics should be included in the intro, they can be added at that time. I would suggest that the list of Dianetic-related books is not a good place to begin the main article: that is probably the place to summarize of the central concepts in Dianetics ("Engram," "Reactive Mind," Auditing," what else?). BTfromLA 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
one more small point, BTfromLA, the line which I think you inserted into the article: " Dianetics is widely regarded as pseudoscientific quackery by professional scientists and members of the psychiatric community." Should be done in a slightly different way. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources Terryeo 04:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I was the original author of that sentence, but I see where the note that was attached got lost when I restored it. I'll see if I can recover that. BTfromLA 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that was from Anteaus, see my comments to him on this page that remain unanswered. I put a note in the Article that it is in dispute. (I didn't want to use the POV flag someone used on one of my articles.) I think the best solution is a simple introduction without added confusion. If someone insists on adding false things we may need an Administrator to arbitrate this. Spirit of Man 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A response to a few of Spirit of Man's posts above: 1. I assume I'm among those editors whom you are accusing of willfully confusing matters. I assure you that my goal is clarity and accuracy--I have no interest in confusing the article or undermining a readers understanding of Dianetics.
BTfromLA, I didn't find anything confusing in what you wrote. I didn't intend to include you in that statement. I didn't use the word "editors" that was Antaeus. I have noticed some confusions comming up. Have you? Spirit of Man 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry if I misread you. The confusions I've noticed mostly have to do with badly organized writing. BTfromLA 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I'm not clear what you mean above about editors insisting on "adding false things": where, specifically, do you see this problem? Which false things keep appearing?
BTfromLA, last summer I read the then current article and I brought up one example of actual test data. My article and citations were instantly removed. I spent several days clarifying with that person and received his approval to replace it. The test data has been ignored since then, or its value diminished and recently the false comment was placed in the Dianetics article again by Antaeus, saying effectively, no test data has every been presented. I addressed him specifically here, with valid test results. He didn't address these at all but simply ignored them and kept the false information in the article. Spirit of Man 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Spirit of Man, I did not recently place any 'false comment' in the article. What I did was revert the article to a previous state because unacceptable changes had been made to it, namely presenting quotes representing one side's disputed POV claims without clearly marking them as quotes or clearly identifying their source. It is, needless to say, misleading to hold an editor who reverts a bad change to an article, and thereby returns it to its previous state, responsible for the fact that the previous state was not perfect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, I apologize if I overestimated your part in it. I understand you object to the information about Clear without a written citation connecting it to Chapter 2 in DSMH. It is a summary of that article intended to accurately relay the actual description there that covers several pages. That book is referenced extensively elsewhere in the article but if that citation is provided, is there any problem with including that information in the article now? Spirit of Man 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, I have a second point, do you have any objection at this point to me correcting the uncited statement on testing and replacing it with a new statement with a citation. I agree my citation relates to the defense of the referenced claims with testing conducted by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation (HDRF) with tests, protocols and test results defined with the three named professional psychometrists as presented in Science of Survival. For our purposes I think we can assume the tests refered to in ref 1, New York Times, 9 Sept 1950 effectively call for and demand action by the HDRF and does not call for testing by another source. It is not my intention to represent these as third-party tests conducted completely independently of the HDRF. I understand these tests were conducted well before Scientology existed and legally they were conducted by a different entity from Scientology so they would have no reason to continue to publish such material. Spirit of Man 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
3. The "test results" in Science in Survival are, as represented, not persuasive as evidence of a scientific study: they were printed only by Scientology (as opposed to in a refereed journal), for some reason Scientology has withdrawn them from circulation, and you have provided the barest outline of the protocol and nature of the study.
BTfromLA, I provided a citation that connects one to the correct study and its protocols. If you would like more information from my copy of that citation, I can provide on the overview in the Wiki article on Science of Survival. The study was conducted by the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation with the professional psychologist's referenced. A Chart in that citation is on their letterhead. They were responsible for "Dianetic Claims" at the time. They are the correct source for tests in defense of those claims in 1950. Tests by others, that validate or invalidate those claims would be done or not done, by others. I'm sure you must know that psychology has provided no tests that say Dianetics does not work. No tests that invalidate the tests results moderated by these three leading psychometrists. The outline of the tests, protocols and results in that issue of Science of Survival is available to the public and I can show you my copy if you wish. The 88 students are real. The results are real. The tests did use "intensive" procedure and they did include reading the Dianetics book and formal training on how to use Dianetics to produce the results claimed. The students, protocols, tests and results have been legally verified by independent professionals and witnessed. They have been published. I do not understand your reluctance in accepting these test results. Spirit of Man 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
4. RE: "A simple to understand introduction to Dianetics that will stand inspection"--sounds good. See my suggestions above for what might make sense at the beginning of the body of the article. Does that approach make sense to you? BTfromLA 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
BTfromLA, Yes it does make sense to me. I like the idea of introducing briefly the ideas in the article and moving the list of books down. I would like to see a more friendly introduction. One that is more simple, possibly written so a seven year old could read it and understand it. When I got started in Dianetics in 1970 I read the book, then my wife and I read the book out loud, then we did about 10 hours of auditing before looking for more. We never knew about Scientology. To me it stands alone as a workable and provable science that I could prove and use easily. It is valuable. Obviously others have not had that experience. I believe much of their experience is tied to Scientology. So as soon as that word is tied into the Introduction, I expect them to have a reaction on that. I don't think that is needed or desireable. Spirit of Man 04:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We just gots to come agree on an introduction that makes sense. The subject has been producing results for years, surely it can be described, somehow. When it comes to the Science of Survival study, since it is a POV it should be summarized and cited. That's WikiPolicy. It should be removed entirely because it is not recognized as valid by every organization in the world. That isn't WikiPolicy. WikiPolicy is state and cite, state and cite. I'm sure you all know this. Wikipedia:NPOV which is accomplished by not allowing any original research and by verifying informations: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm probably just boring you, you guys seem to have it going on. Terryeo 04:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How does it look now

Okay, I reorganized some of it and included a much more complete publication / reference list of books (omitting the lectures which would be very much too much). What do you all think? Terryeo 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Under ==History== I have now placed all of the Dianetic book titles with a very sketchy history, modern versions' ISBN number and the references from which the information for the list came. I did this per wiki policy of how to list books, newspaper articles and such references and footnotes. wikipedia:citing_sources. Terryeo 11:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias Question

This article is totally biased. It does not present the subject of Dianetics in a form that any practioner or student of the subject could agree with.

I agree, but have to look at how this happens. Looking at the last several edits you see people editing because a Neutral Point of View is not presented (NPOV). That would be appropriate after discussing things here, but this is not the case. Those of us who are creating an informative article are being sabatoged by people who edit and then announce their edits made to comply with NPOV. Yet they do not discuss here. This is wrong and this is not Wiki Policy. Terryeo 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Terryeo 11:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
One example in point is the last paragraph of the ==History== section which makes a statement. Apparently some wise, learned person knows very well what the CoS has said, but is unwilling to state where and when or under what conditions the Cos made such a statement. This may or may not be NPOV, but it is uncited. It makes a bald statement without the slightest bit of substantion and this is clearly anti-Wiki policy. find Wiki policy about such statements at wikipedia:Citing_sources. This is exactly the sort of "almost NPOV" that is ruining this article. If it is true, okay, let's have a source of information and state what was said, else it is rumor, per Wiki policy. Terryeo 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, the first sentence of your additions is not correct. LLH

[Dianetics was first conceived in 1930. A long research in ancient and modern philosophy culminated in 1938 when I discovered that the common denominator of all existence was "SURVIVE!"] From the Introduction to ''Dianetics Today'', 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ISBN 0-88404-036-4 LLH

His developments with the Koenig Photometer to determine the exact wavelengths of emotions present in the human mind are from 1937. LLH

One public source of the test results you say are missing is ''Science of Survival''. This definitive study of Dianetics demonstrating three major claims was published by The Dianetic Research Foundation in 1951. I have written up a link to the ''Science of Survival'' book where these test results can be verified. Reference 1, Sept 9, 1950, of the main article on Dianetics contains the American Psychological Associates "public condemnation" of Dianetics for lack of test data. Ref 1, in the last paragraph also presents the New York Times report where Hubbard confirms that test data had been available to the APA for over a year before that article, but it had been refused. The issue is whether you can confirm you have seen these test results exist and can withdraw your claim of no test data. Spirit of Man 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference on the information on Clear is from Chapter 2 of the Dianetics book (DSMH) based on 260 clears as of that writing. LLH --16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo, your edits completely removed the critical point of view from the intro altogether and inserted completely unreferenced and positively POV claims about the results experienced by Clears with no mention of the fact that no empirical evidence supports those claims. You might think that you are "creating an informative article" but Wikipedia does not want you to make your own decision that only one side's "information" deserves to be heard -- and that any problem with the factuality of that information should be omitted entirely. Until you start showing an effort to comply with NPOV, you're not going to find anyone willing to exert an effort to salvage your edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipolicy on introductions, Wikipedia:Introductions states: 1. The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and
2. The introduction prepares the reader for further detail. In order for these things to happen in the sequence called for the subject must be defined (what does the word dianetics mean?) and then beyond the meaning of the word itself, the field that dianetics addresses and how it addresses it and what its purpose in addressing it, things of that nature would need to be clearly stated. Finally, the introduction should prepare the reader (in the case of Dianetics) for the controversy which the subject has roused. Presently the introduction does not accomplish this Wiki Policy because people keep putting controvery into #1 and then #2 can't be done because the introduction has not adequetely defined term, topic and context. The Neutral Point of view MUST come after #1 has been done, else the subject's controversy cannot be understood. Controversy yes but after the subject has been introduced per wiki policy and not during that introduction (but in the later part of the introductory portion). This is exactly the point most of the discussion on this page has been about. It requires a clean introduction, an introduction which defines the term (word), defines the topic (what is dianetics anyway) and this has to be not from rumor, but from statements of what it is intended to be, and then, after the reader understands that a point of view exists, then and only then can a reader observe there is controversy. WIthout this Wiki policy implemented the reader comes away with a confusion. You simply cannot sabotage an article by denying the existence of the point of view which has created the subject the article is about. Present controversy as valid, cited items after the introduction. Per Wikipedia policy and per just plain, obvious good sense. Then the reader is prepared for controversy and can educate himself. And please quit attempting the sort of judgement your last sentence implies, Antaeus. Terryeo 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The argument "A proper introduction to the subject covers it only from the 'pro' point of view; this justifies us moving any mention of the considerable dispute over the subject to halfway down the article" has been tried before. It does not work.
An introduction of 2 paragraphs is appropriate for this length of article per Wikipedia:Introductions. This is wiki policy. Please note 2 paragraphs is appropriate because of the length of the article. Again I point out to you, an subject must be introduced before controversy can begin. Wikipolicy in this case would be: first, state "Dianetics", second "define the word" (through soul), third "topic" (how is dianetics a topic and not a dictionary word), and "context" (how does Dianetics appear in our society). This completes the first element of Wiki's policy. Then the second element of Wiki's introduction, "Prepare the reader for further detail." All of this is to take place in 2, perhaps 3 paragraphs. This is wiki policy, not your policy, not my policy and not some alien policy. You will find it present in all of the well written Wiki articles which is the goal we strive for as we edit the Dianetics article.Terryeo 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Back to the bottom line: If your edits very cogently explain exactly what Scientologists would like to believe are the facts about Dianetics, but misdescribe them as uncontested facts and marginalize other POVs and the evidence behind those other POVs, no one will be expected to waste their time trying to salvage the useful nuggets out of those edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
An on policy, Wikipedia introduction is talking about an introduction. You can not have controversy about a rock unless a rock exists in the first place. I am telling you, controversy is impossible unless something exists to talk about. The portion of every article in Wiki which introduces it is called the "introduction" The wikipolicy about that is to be found at Wikipedia:Introductions. The past introductions which you have reverted have supplied verifiable information. As early as 1952 the word was defined in Dictionarys, today you can find it at [] and other sites. Yet your reverts remove even the word's definition. Additionally your reverts remove cited information and substitute uncited information. Your bottom line hammers at Scientology, while this article is not about Scientology. This article is about Dianetics, my opinion is there should be little mention of Scientology except as a link, possibly a line or two. Terryeo 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Terryeo 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the major problem with this article is too visible to be seen. It DOES NOT talk much about Dianetics. Instead, after a brief introduction of the subject it immediately goes into a convoluted, intermixed history of Scientology, entwined with Dianetics so that a person can not understand what Dianetics is, nor what Scientology is, but can only come away with a vast significance with no good sense to any of it. Let us clean this article up and make it about Dianetics. Let us be bold. Let us remove Scientology books and references except for perhaps a reference and link to Scientology. In this way we can talk about Dianetics ! Terryeo 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Terryeo, I like your idea. Where do we go from here? LLH ---- 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, we need an introduction to the article which is accurate, which can be unquestionably documented, and finally, which prepares the reader for further reading. My own feeling is, If a good clean introduction is made then people will want to read futher. We can't put some huge significance later (The huge picture of DMSMH diffuses the significance of the introduction). After the intro, some some success stories (initialed would be good) and then the controversy which always seems to creep in. The article wants to give people a clue. It wants to indicate there is a window to look through. It wants to indicate something about harmony and brightness without that huge DMSMH picture which is too big and too bright and overwhelms the senses without informing anyone of anything. Dianetics .. definition of the word and then of the concept, enough introduction so a person has a clue. And then some statements about how to do it. From Book 1 to Class XII auditors, everyone uses some kind of communication cycle and dianetics simply won't work witout good communication. After some positive points are made, then controversy is going to creep in, no need to supply it. The challenge comes from arranging the information so there is good sense and then controversy that meets the same standards of quality. Controversy can't be heresay. But this article's problem is it is being edited toward not being able to understand Dianetics.(my opinion) Terryeo 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Terryeo, I think we should take this to your Wikipedia name/page and construct a draft there. Then bring it to this discussion page for peer review and then post to the lead article then defend it there. Space is short here. LLH ---- 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
That might work. But we need to keep in mind Wiki's policy about articles. First and foremost. Define the word or idea. Introduce the idea with its definition. I don't think the article does that yet, but it is closer that it was. heh ! LLH, that is a fine history in this talk section (either I'm confused or I'm complimenting the right guy, I'm not sure which). The article defines the word Dianetics well but it does not (my opinion) introduce what Dianetics is yet. Instead there is talk of success. there is talk about controversy. Wiki says to introduce the subject. Let's do that much. First. Terryeo 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Good job on the History. I will try to find my reference from the Dianetics Research Foundation on the scientific study of 88 new to Dianetics students with before and after a one month course and 40 hours of intensive auditing tests by three top psychologists in 1950. This is the definitive test of three main Dianetic claims and proves all of them with the most critical of pschological protocols. Psychology never ever had to pass such a test. LLH -- 15:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's settle the "axioms" bit

Hubbard in Dianetics states: "[Dianetics is] ... an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences". Critics argue that the phrase 'definite axiom' is redundant, and regardless, a science cannot depend on axioms, only on hypotheses based on experimental evidence.

Let's break that into three parts. The first part is uncontroversial, because Hubbard said it.

Let's break that into 2 parts. The part which Mr. Hubbard stated and the part which some other, third person is evaluating, interpreting, and then presenting you a point of view. That is 2 parts. The problem is though, You can not understand the first part because that is one part of one sentence. It is not even the whole sentence ! To understand his use of "definite axiom" you must have a little more of that sentence and the sentences around that sentence. Then the use of "definite" becomes an easily understood idea because he has surrounded that fragment of the sentence which you are swollowing someone else's judgement of with information which gives it a context. My Opinion now - He says there that he is constrained and he must call the statements axioms, definite axiom and not any other sort of statement (such as comment, theorem, corallary, etc) and therefore he says "definite axiom." Now that is my idea, you should read the whole passage to understand. And I do hope you understand what I mean here. Read for yourself, it is wrong to take a sentence fragment, combine it with some "expert's opinion" and hammer it for meaning. Terryeo 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The second part is more controversial, because different editors have said that it's "redundant" and on the other hand that it's an oxymoron. It can't be both (or can it? Axiom has different meanings in epistemology and in mathematics; depending on which sense is being used, it could in fact be both...)

The third part is whether science can depend on axioms. I think this would have to be classified as correct, if we are considering the meaning of "axiom" in science to be closer to its mathematical meaning; the axioms of science are the truly basic propositions such as "there can be relationships between cause and effect." Beyond those axioms which make any science possible, no science can be said to be based on axioms, because that defeats the purpose. You can't say "I took it as an axiom that rats run mazes because they're bored; then I saw the rat run the maze; this proves the rat was bored." You can hypothesize such a thing, but if you take it as an axiom, whatever you're doing isn't science. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting POV changes

"Clears were found to have intelligence high above the current norm and to pursue life with vigor and satisfaction. His emotions could be seen to be fluid, no longer fixed. He was his basic self or basic personality and very unique. He had all the information of his experience available to him fully."

Does that sound like a description of the results of Dianetic auditing that both adherents and critics would agree upon as factual and accurate? Not even remotely close, which is why the edits that introduced this highly POV material, and removed well-referenced information on the critical point of view have been reverted. Please read WP:NPOV if you don't understand why the edits were unacceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That point of view is not a neutral point of view. That is a quote from the now deceased Mr. Hubbard. It should be presented as the point of view of the creator of Dianetics. Then, afterwards, qualified people who are capable of finding whether a person has high intelligence or not should state their opinion, or even better, their study's results. If "clears" have fixed emotions, then those studies should be cited and presented. If "clears" have a lack of uniqueness, then those informations should be presented and cited. First one POV, then another POV, if you follow. Terryeo 21:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
If you examine the History section now, you will find a POV stated, a fully documented, verifiable POV. Those pages are publically available for anyone to read, or to read further. This addition to the very sketchy History section exactly complies with Wiki's NPOV, which Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, states is "absolute and non-negotiable". The reason that list is NPOV is because it presents a POV in a verifiable, cited way which does not make other points of view wrong. Now if only Antaeus will state another POV, to bring the article more toward neutral instead of deleting perfectly good, cited POV. Terryeo 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If the information you posted in the Dianetics article is verified and cited, then please verify and cite it. Provide an external source that backs up your claim that "tens of thousands of copies" were distributed worldwide. Quoting from Scientology public relations and marketing materials is not verification, because it is unquestionably biased in favor of LRH and thus is not NPOV. Have a nice day.  :) --Modemac 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You are totally, utterly right about that, the quote came from a Scientology book, but I posted that it was from the beginning. I truely doubt it could be found anywhere else, nor does the CoS normally (to my knowledge) substantiate such statements. No, I'll never be able to find an outside source about that. I guess I misunderstood your pointing to an external source, I was defending a POV as being citeable rather than attempting to include both sides of one story. Terryeo 03:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I did post as verified. On page 3 of the first volume (1950 - 1952) of the Hubbard Communication Office Technical Bulletins volumes, ISBN 0-88404-472-6, copyright 1991 this line appears. "However, it was accepted broadly by the public at large. Tens of thousands of copies were circulated all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons. In December, 1951 the thesis was published as a hardbound book titled, Dianetics, the Original Thesis, Bridge Publications, ISBN 088404002X". (I added the ISBN for clarity and it provides an exteral link.) The reason I expanded this particular book's history is because of the manner it is treated at this time in the article. The article presently does not cite and makes it sound like the thesis which the book sprang from was never circulated, the book never printed, the information bogus. I have twice posted the full history of the published Dianetics books, with ISBN, date of publication and all the rest. The same person has deleted this enriching history as quickly as he saw it, claiming it presents a Point Of View. Well, it does present a point of view, a verifiable point of view that Antaeus Feldspar immediately reacts to. Terryeo 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I repeat: an external source that backs up your claim. Hubbard is not an external source. Hubbard claimed to be a nuclear physicist. He claimed to be a World War II hero. He claimed to be a good friend of Robert Heinlein (see the introduction to Battlefield Earth). He claimed that a conspiracy of twelve psychiatrists were the masterminds behind the worldwide conspiracy to destroy Scientology. And he claimed that "Tens of thousands of copies were circulated all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating and even retyping it with carbons." An external source for this claim is necessary for proof. --Modemac 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not made a claim. If you read my cited data as a claim you would have to overlook that it is what Wikipedia:NPOV calls a Fact, section "A simple formulation" and "A vital component: good research." Yes, it is a claim made by the CoS, but a fact in the sense "a piece of documented information available to the public." Terryeo 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As you state, this is a claim made by the CoS. Claims by the CoS are not Facts, because the CoS's claims regarding LRH have been controversial and often proven to be outright falsehoods (as with his war record, and with the claimed origins of Dianetics). This is why we need to say, again, that an external source (one not related to Scientology) is necessary to prove that "tens of thousands of copies" were circulated before the actual publication of Dianetics. --Modemac 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Claims are statements presented by someone. For Wiki's purpose "facts" are documented claims (or other statements). If the Cos makes a claim it is a claim. If that claim is cited and put in a Wiki article then it is a "fact" in the Wiki parlance. I understand very well that I do not know all the dianetics / scientology there is to know, including web pages. (BTfromLA just educated me, dianetics touts itself as "self-help" on a webpage). And I further understand CoS claims can only be presented in wiki as cited statements, sourced to CoS (but I seek that be done per Wiki Policy), and I further know both Dianetics and Scn are widely publicized against. Good, Fine. Can we please cite such statements, counter-statements, etc? In general I want to see articles that define the area and present both pro and con. The validity of my particular point of view notwithstanding, but it is on my user page.Terryeo 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See, Terryeo, the problem here is that a reasonably intelligent person could not be doing this in good faith. So to assume your good faith is by implication to also accuse you of, at the very least, overlooking the blindingly obvious in a very, very persistent matter. To wit: what part of "describe POVs as POVs, not as objective facts" do you not grasp? You did not add the material about how Clears were found to have higher intelligence, fluider emotions, shinier coats etc. and identify it as the claims of L. Ron Hubbard; you added it to the article as if it were factual information agreed upon by all sides, which it is manifestly not. Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you thought the intent of NPOV was to describe what some people believe on a subject but not identify that this is a disputed belief held by only some participants?
Apparently some confusion exists here. Any statement by the CoS or quote of Hubbard's should be cited, per Wikipedia:NPOV I certainly don't want to enpaint anyone to a corner or cause difficulty. Just earlier in this talk I posted in reply to that quote about clears, saying it should be cited and not stated as what the two of are accussing me of calling fact :) Terryeo 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, you have forced us into a corner; you have given us no choice, or more precisely, only the choice between assuming good faith and assuming common sense. You claim you added only "verified" information about the popularity of "Abnormal Dianetics" but what you actually did was add a direct quote that comes from a materially interested party whose claims are known to be widely disputed (last I checked, the CoS was still claiming that Hubbard was awarded the British Victory Medal and the Dutch Victory Medal -- medals that do not exist.) Not only did you not identify the source of the quote, you failed to even properly identify it as a quote, which is a rather serious breach of ethics. Again, are you expecting us to believe that you honestly thought you were adhering to Wikipedia:Cite sources by telling us only what those sources claim and not which sources they are?
I stated the source of the quote about "Abnormal Dianetics" The Book it was quoted from, I stated, and the page number. And in an article about the Church of Scientology, to state a quote from Hubbard Communication Office Technical Bulletins pretty obviously qualifies as "The POV of the party the article is about" What confusion could there possible be about where the quote came from, or its intent to be a single POV? I intended to present a sequential, historical publication list of Dianetics material, following Wiki's citing policy and syntax. I understand some of the quotes are themselves inflammatory to to NPOV and I expect another POV to post similar as I post. That is, accurate, cited information which disputes particular datums in the article. Feel Free ! Dispute away ! If the common community feels it inappropriate to have such a list in the article then here is where we should discuss it. Some of the quotes which explain how the books came about might be taken out too. Or anything else. But accurate, citeable information I won't budge about. Terryeo 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if you did believe that, that doesn't explain your actions; you've been removing information that doesn't suit your viewpoint from articles left and right, claiming it's "unreferenced". Well, those edits were exactly up to the standard of referencing that you've been practicing. You've been quick enough to accuse me of partisan editing, claiming (quite falsely) that I stated my reasons for reverting your bad edits as "it presents a Point Of View" (rather than because it presents a point of view as if it were fact, which is something quite different.) Well, what's your reason for deleting information that for all you knew, was exactly as well-cited as your own? Why did you not delete a single uncited pro-Hubbard claim? You could possibly claim you were acting in good faith if all you had to explain was your misdescription of your edits as "verified", but your double standards cannot be explained that way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope I do not present a double standard Antaeus. I could be mistaken. I have attempted to follow Wiki policy about verifiability. Those three core Wiki policies define what I have been attempting to do. Statements such as "critics claim .." should not be used much, but when those are stated in a newspaper or other source: i.e. "the New York Times, in an article of 24 June, 1978 stated: "Critics claim ...". Well, as I'm much newer than you, Antaeus, on Wiki and editing, I may have made mistakes but have kept my nose in those 3 core policies. Thank you for communicating with me. Terryeo 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at upgrading the intro: I think there are a lot of problems with the article as it exists, not only the POV-as-fact issues discussed above, but there are also many awkwardly written passages. I don't think, for example, that the long list of thinkers Hubbard cites needs to be included unless it is put in some context--an actual discussion of Hubbard's influences, or the nature of his salesmanship, say. Also, I'd vote for leaving ISBN numbers in the bibliographies at the bottom of articles--the long number in the middle of the sentence interferes with readability, in my view. I don't know whther that question has been addressed as a matter of policy. BTfromLA 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

cut and pasting here, 3 unciteable, false sentences

Dianetics is a method of therapy and an accompanying set of claims

about the nature of the human mind created by L. Ron Hubbard. Beginning in the late 1940s, Hubbard promoted Dianetics as "The Modern Science of Mental Health,"

Nope, dianetics is not a set of claims. You are free, completely free to find references which state diantics claims .... and post those cited sources as facts in an article. While dianetics may be, to you, nothing BUT claims it is not a set of claims. I hope you can understand a body of knowledge may or may not be believed but when you say "set of claims" you judge the quality and validity of that body of knowledge. Thus, you must cite a source for the assertion that dianetics is a set of claims or you have just done original research which is not allowed in Wiki articles. see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth

Next point. Hubbard did not use the phrase in the late 1940s, but if I am wrong and you can cite a source that he did, feel free to do so. He did promote dianetics as 'the modern science of mental health' from May 1951 on, that is citeable information.

Next point. Re: "claims about the nature of the human mind" it is easy to become overwhelmed by the amount of information but there is less claimed in this area than you might expect. Whereas psychiatry claims the mind is manifested in the brain, Hubbard did not. His claims about a human mind were less substantial. His claims did not exactly deny a mind's location and did not deny there might be some physical change in the brain. His claims were along the lines, "you can conceive of a mind as thoughts (no physical aspect but if you want to trace out physical aspect then go right ahead, I'll call mine dianetics and you call yours something else). Hubbard defined ways in which one thought is different from the next thought (analytical vs reactive mind) and methods of causing effects with thoughts.

"one of the first successful "self-help" books"

Nope, that is just not accurate. If you can find any source which states that Dianetics is "self-help" then you might have some argument. It is not exactly self-help because it relies on a 2 person action. But, if you can state it as a Wiki fact, a verified fact, then you have a reason to state it. Untill then it is original research and belongs in no Wiki Article.Terryeo 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo, it is increasingly difficult to assume that you are operating in good faith. These changes are clearly in support of a pro-Hubbard, pro-Dianetics POV, and your arguments in support of them are bizarre. Here, by the way, is the headline on the page "DIANETICS — The all-time self-help bestseller." Your changes are obscuring, rather than clarifying, an understanding of the subject. BTfromLA 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
hello BTfromLA and thank you for saying so. May we talk about good faith? I mean to contribute to an article that can be read and understood, which lets a person understand what Diantics is, how it manifests historically and today, and the controversial points of view about the subject. That is my intent. I see that you have cited an excellent source for the "self-help" statement and so the self help statement can be in the article but it should really be cited. And this is not some newbie beanbrain idea, but the policy of Wiki NPOV. As I get your communication, you are fustrated that such a simple and obvious statement should not be questioned. About that I am willing to talk because I do see how the editing done has been vastly under-cited. And I am baffled because wiki pollicy clearly lays out that "Facts are cited statements" and "articles are built of facts." I have agreed that is an excellent citation for that statement and should probably appear in the article. What part of "good faith" am I missing here? What part of my edit obscures understanding instead of contributing to a cited, understandable article ? Terryeo 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Terryeo, you seem to be creating controversies where none exist as a pretext to load the article (and most of the other scientology-related articles) with blatant advocacy for Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology. Yes, facts should be cited, but one chooses what needs citing: not every word in an article needs a citation. It is preposterous to say that Dianetics does not include claims about the human mind. Of course it does--you start talking about Hubbard's claims about the mind in your next paragraph! The existence of "the reactive mind" is a claim made by Hubbard, as is the role of "engrams." To call these claims is not to imply they aren't true--one could as well write that Copernicus claimed the earth rotates around the sun. (In the case of Hubbard, it would be accurate to add that his claims are unsupported by empirical evidence, as opposed to, say, the claims of Copernicus.) I also think that some of your additions are confusingly written, and that sentences like "Dianetics is about thought, it addresses thought" add nothing useful. Sorry if I seem harsh: I think that sympathetic practioners of Diantetics and Scientology should definitely have a hand in these articles, and help us to get the facts right. But it seems to me that your efforts are aiming more toward creating Scientology recruitment literature that disinteterested encyclopedia articles. BTfromLA 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thank you for saying so, BTfromLA and I was certainly wrong about that "self-help" issue, thanks for enlightening me. But don't you think it a better article for it being cited within the article? Hubbard defined some things including engram and reactive mind. His definitions make statements. After a person can understand what he ment by, say, engram, then a person can say he claimed its existence. In the wiki engram article I posted, briefly, its definition. When dianetics defines "mind" only in terms of thought and with no pointing finger or reference whatsoever to the brain, nervous system or other body part, then I try to make that clear in the definition. Perhaps you are right, perhaps my definition confuses rather than clarifies. Mainly I am trying to make clear easy to understand definitions. and cite information instead of so many uncited controversial things which descends into into newsgroup chatter areas. If 2/3 of an introduction were spent introducing diantics from one cited source and the last 1/3 from another pretty good source (controversy) that would work I think. At this present time the source of the controversy in the introduction is a long dead New York Times article which is not readily available (a 1950 NYT article, not available online). No, I don't expect Wiki articles to sound like recruitment, yes I do expect Wiki articles to let a person understand the word's root, concept and the rest as specified at Wiki introductions. But that's it, not more than that in either direction. Terryeo 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

moved the published books' list to the bottom

It probably belongs there. Its chronological, it presents information can person can explore and gives a scope of publications. The earlier posted list was still in the article. I removed it, here it is.

In 1951 other books by Hubbard followed, addressing the subject of Dianetics: Self Analysis, Science of Survival, Notes on the Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard, Advanced Procedure and Axioms and Child Dianetics, then in 1954, Dianetics 55! and in 1955 Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science was published.

any reason to keep it? Don't think so, myself. I also removed this and place it here for anyone to cite a reference for, that we may replace it in the article:

After initially promoting the techniques as a system for curing some forms of mental and psychosomatic illness, Dianetics, later disclaimed any therapeutic benefits in order to avoid regulation.
I think that paragraph should be removed, as uncitable. I understand the context is this. Califonia law prohits saying certain things about 25 illnesses. I haven't looked them up to find a citaion and details. But offering to help a person get well that has those illnesses could be interpreted by a court to mean a violation of a law. I know of no requirement to "disclaim" such benefits happen when one is seeking spiritual gain. The statement is not true and not neutral. Spirit of Man 16:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say the article isn't polished but is getting closer to being readable, understandable, useful to the common reader.Terryeo 14:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say the article was quite readable beforehand, and it is currently far less legible and understandable "to the common reader" than it was before. The previous version had a proper introduction, history, description of the techniques, and citations of criticism. --Modemac 20:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Modemac's comments above. BTfromLA 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Terryeo, I think the article needs work on readability and needs more on some of the new ideas Dianetics introduced to science and the culture. But it is more factual now. Criticism is best when it is accurate and factual. Citing a study that was poorly conducted "as scientific" seems a bit dull to me. Ignoring a definitive study is definitely not expressing a neutral point of view. Let's make it right.

= Rebuttals to criticism

Modemac, you opened the discussion of this section, why don't we discuss it here before you start reverting cited material to uncited false information? Spirit of Man 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The excuse "Because Hubbard said so" isn't sufficient. I already said so to Terryeo and it still stands here. --Modemac 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, thanks for returning to the discussion area. You have deleted my citations? Why? You have replaced citations with personal opinions. Why? I have not said or implied, ""Because Hubbard said so". Why do you accuse me of it? You have assigned my edits to "scientology". Why? I am an individual person with some knowledge of Dianetics, not "scientology". You opened this discussion area, saying you can't comprehend something, then deleted the material in question in its entirety without discussion here or giving time for discussion or simplification. Do you intend to continue to violate Wiki editorial policies in a general way with this a high-handed self-centered uncomprehending manner? Spirit of Man 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, "Because Hubbard said so" is a source of information. Because you say so is original research. When you begin to cite your sources and post them appropriate to Wiki Policy then you become a force in editing an article. Untill you do your actions are counterproductive, dispersive and disruptive. Do you get the idea? Your sources of information must be cited with your statement which then gives your statement (whatever it is) credibility. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Terryeo 07:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you assign my Dianetics edits to "Scientology"? Spirit of Man 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This section of the article is rambling and difficult to comprehend -- not because I have "misunderstoods," but because it is poorly written. I'm attempting to figure out the point of this paragraph.

Modemec, the paragraph states the nature of the controversy. It is complex. I hope we can make it more simple. Can you help do this? Spirit of Man 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The previous uncited text said no proof of Dianetic claims had ever emerged. I present a citation for a Dianetic Research Foundation study that does provide sound proof. It is from the correct source on their letterhead. It is certified by three prominent psychologists and legally witnessed. An overview of it was published by a third-party. [The Dianetic foundation was owned by others and is not Bridge Pubs.] In my opinion this is the definitive study on the subject.
The origin of the controversy of "no test results" is the APA refusal to accept valid test results. I provide a citation to the governing APA resolution. This resolution marks the time in history when the APA stopped using Dianetics. And since no APA studies every emerged after that time, to show tests results positive or negative, it also points to a false statement that seems to govern the controversy. The APA said they had not received test results, when in fact they had refused and would continue refusing it.
I highlight the key citation for the New York Times that exposes the APA plan of refusing all Dianetic test results [by saying they never received any when they had.]
The key point of the controversy is the APA refusal of all test results. Not that no test results exist or "have emerged". Spirit of Man 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph shows one example of how some of the wide criticism of Dianetics was purposely originated with one simple trick. Just don't admit you ever got the test results, so you can proclaim "it is not scientific". Spirit of Man 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The controversy of no test data has been carried through to the present, the just previous version, of this Dianetics article. I am not referring to "initial criticisms". Spirit of Man 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a simple statement that defines the use of the scientific method to prove scientific claims, or allegedly "scientific" claims. That statement is this: The burden of proof is upon the party making the claims.

Modemac, in 1950 the party, the legal entity, making the Dianetic claims was the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. This was their responsibility as owners of the copywrites and I think you already know this based on your discussion elsewhere in discussions of the financial troubles of this organization. I cited this organization, the HDRF, and its study proving their claims. There published statements of it. You deleted it. Why? I say the issue is that you are not comprehending what the citation means. It means the people responsible for Dianetic claims conducted a responsible study with professional third-party psychometrists and you without comprending simply have not come to accept it yet. Then you can say, no test results or proof ever emerged. This is simply your denial of the facts. I provided a citation that shows this method of approach is the exact method the APA used in their resolution of 8 Sept 1950. Congratulations, you learned your lesson from the best. Spirit of Man 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to us to prove that Dianetics "has never been proven not to work." It is up to Dianetics -- and to its practicitioner, the Church of Scientology -- to prove that it does work...if it does work. In the past fifty years, as the article currently states, there has never been a single independent, unbiased, third-party scientific study to prove that Dianetics works.

Modemac, you said, The burden of proof is upon the party making the claims., here you say, "independent, unbiased, third-party scientific study". My citation for the HDRF, is from an independent, unbiased, third-party scientific study. It is not from L. Ron Hubbard, and it is not from Scientology. Now, certainly you could argue that the HDRF provided the training for the students when they did the auditing. But isn't this also true for the two "scientific" studies cited elsewhere in this Dianetics article? You could argue, "but it was ultimately published by Scientology". It so happens that Scientology is a third-party and many years in the future, from the HDRF. You may argue that we are not here to "prove" Dianetics. I have to ask, are you here to delete valid citations of test results and insert your personal opinion in its place. The only answer has to be, NO.

Instead, Scientology only engages in its typical tactics: attack its critics rather than defend itself. (As LRH said: "Never defend, only attack."

Modemac, I have provided a valid citation for the HDRF proof of claims. What are you doing?

More important than this, however, is the fact that this is Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, and we are not a place to "prove" that Dianetics works. We are also not a place to "prove" that Dianetics does not work. We are here to state the facts, and the facts are that fifty years have passed without any scientific verification whatsoever of Dianetics working.

Modemac, that is a false statement. See my citation.

Therefore, we state the fact that Dianetics is considered to be psuedoscience and quackery in the world of science -- not only in the field of psychotherapy, but in other fields as well. --Modemac 04:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, you have submitted citations. Now, please provide your citations for the scientific communities independent tests that support your thesis. I believe there none to be had. Spirit of Man 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Modemac, In viewing the history of changes to this article, it appears it is you who keeps substituting "Dianetics is a psychotherapy .." Please understand my position. My position is defined by WikiPolicy, specifically in this case Wikipedia:No original research. When you can provide a verification from any Dianetics material which states "Dianetics is a psychotherapy" then we can talk about including it or not including that line. Untill then that line is Orignial Research. It may be your opinion. You may have heard it from a perfectly good Psychiatrist or a newspaper but it is not Dianetics statement and therefore should be introduced after Dianetics introduces itself as a subject, per what Dianetics presentes itself to be. If you do not follow this line of reasoning which is exactly per Wiki policy then we might need to get into a dispute and follow settlement of controversial issues, dispute procedures. I am only following standard, stated, Wiki policy here but I'm going to insist it be followed in those areas which I have knowledge about. I hope you too follow Wiki policy because it will result in good, understandable articles that make sense to a reader, yet provide a balance of popular viewpoints about a subject. One more thing, Wiki Policy futher states that to remove verified material should not be done in any wholesale sort of way. The History of Dianetics publications is a case in point. Thousands or millions of those books have been sold, they are mostly in print today, listed with the Library of Congress and should not easily be removed, though it is possible. At the very least they should be discussed before removal. I'm particularly irked at their being removed and replaced with a much, much shorter list which is not cited (verified), no ISBN numbers, nothing. That is counter to Wiki Policy and just not good sense anyway. Terryeo 07:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I presume it is meant to offer a rebuttal to the initial criticms of Dianetics cited in 1950, but it is very poorly stated:

"From the time of its first broad publication on May 9, 1950, claims for Dianetics have been widely criticized by journalists and the psychological community. See Sept 9, 1950 New York Times article by Lucy Freedman [1] citing the Sept. 8, 1950 resolution by the American Psychological Association. This resolution calls for its 8000 members to not use Dianetics, and "the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims." The association called attention to THE FACT that these claims had not been supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. Ms. Freedman goes on to highlight a telephone interview with L. Ron Hubbard, confirming that the APA had been refusing test results for a year, "He said that as long as a year ago, he made such an offer to the association but received no reply." The APA has never published a study confirming or denying any Dianetic claims in the last 55 years. The Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation did publish the results of their study in 1950, certified by three prominent psychologists. 88 students studying Dianetics and applying the techniques intensively, 40 to 60 hours in one month, received the results expected and did confirm the three major claims. An overview of that study is available to the public in the Introduction to the early editions of Science of Survival. Practitioners of Dianetics and Scientology have continued to testify to the effectiveness of Dianetic techniques over the last 55 years. The psychology and psychiatric communities have continued to regard Dianetics as pseudoscientific quackery over the last 55 years. The psychology and psychiatric communities did not accept L. Ron Hubbard's challenge in Science of Survival, 1951 to conduct similar tests of their claims and have never submitted test results acceptable to their critics."

I am so laughing out loud. Psudoscientific quackery is a redundent term and if you wish to have that exact syntax in the article, well good !
It isn't redundant, Terryeo. Some pseudoscience has nothing to do with medicine--think of Vellikovsky--and some quackery (e.g., much faith healing) doesn't claim to be scientific. And, like it or not, the mainstream scientific conclusion regarding dianetics is that it merits both of those adjectives. BTfromLA 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA. The arguement here is not whether it is or is not Pseudoscience or quackery. There is no arguement whatsoever about that at all. The point here is only about presenting the information to the reader of the article. To present such information it is required that any statement be verified. The arguement is about verification, do you see? So, follow Wiki Policy. Make the statement and cite the statement, which then verifies the statement. That is Wiki Policy and unless that it done your statement "most of the scientific community's view is ..." Is original research, your own conclusion. Find a newspaper article or weblink or anything which makes that statement and then say something like: "The New York Times, July 31, 1991 in Scientific Community abhors Dianetics that ......." Do you see? The arguement here is about statements from sources of information. okay? Terryeo 07:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow Wiki policy, Post the statement and cite a verification in one of the WikiPolicy accepted ways. An inline citation is good, an external link is okay, a footnote reference is okay, any indication of the source of the statement. I don't believe anyone is opposing that statement's inclusion, I at least, am trying to get it placed appropriately with appropriate verification per WikiPolicy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability if necessary. Then, in addition to "pseudoscientific quackery" may we please include some other points of view too, thus we can arrive at a NPOV, per Wikipedia:NPOV which is our maypole of immuntable meyham. and BTW, its perfectly okay with me if you forever believe it to be that, but I'm going to work to make this article presentable, readable, informative and per Wiki Policy. Terryeo 04:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to intro/ about NPOV

Citations for the restored claim that Dianetics is widely seen as psuedoscience will be added when I can find time to pull the quotes and citations: you can check yourself for comments from such sources as Martin Gardner and Scientific American. As to Terryeo's comments to Modemac at the top of this page (fyi, the usual etiquette is to add new posts at the bottom of the talk page): I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV concept if you think that a subject can only be characterized the way its creators or supporters prefer to characterize it. In other words, it is perfectly possible to describe Dianetics as a form of psychotherapy, or as an alternative to traditional psychotherapy, if that is a reasonable description from the perspective of a disinterested third party. It doesn't matter whether or not Hubbard or the CoS approve of that characterization. (By the way, I dropped the term in my edit of the intro). Happy new year! BTfromLA 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations for the claims that Dianetics is seen as pseudoscience are already included in the References section of the article itself. If you don't feel that is sufficient, you may try this:

Have a nice day. :) --Modemac 15:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy and productive new year ! It will never be acceptable to describe dianetics as psychotherapy. That is your own, person original research which is not allowed here. To describe it as an alternative therapy to psychotherapy might be possible. Do you have a source to cite for that? And thank you for opening the floor for discussion. I will generally post to the bottom of the discussion page as you have suggested, BTfromLA. I do think that a subject can only be characterized the way its creator(s) meant it to be characterized. And for this very good reason. Untill a subject is introduced, it can not be understood. Therefore, a subject is (per wiki policy) first defined (the word) and then as a subject. and so on. To do any less is to do a disservice to the reader who wants to know what the subject is. As a gross example. Should the holocaust be introduced as the current Iranian president wishes to present it? duh. no. He says it didn't happen at all. To present a subject in a paragraph or two (like dianetics) which took a whole book to introduce is a very difficult task. Let it be, let the subject become a subject. Then, after that you can have your pot shots. And if you don't continue to talk here I will consider you understand you were wrong and I am right. Terryeo 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I'm sure that if you reflect a moment, you'll agree with me that your last sentence is beneath you. As to your idea about explaining something only from the POV of the creator of the concept, I think your own example makes the point: by your logic, the Holocaust should be strictly and thoroughly presented from Hitler's or the Nazi party's POV before any contrary perceptions are introduced. Can't you see the problem with this approach? Whether or not you agree with it, what you are proposing is neither the philosophy of wikipedia nor of any responsible publication of which I am aware. BTfromLA 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I see you have butched the article again.
Terryeo, I have tried to remain civil even though we disagree. Again, please reconsider whether you really think it is helpful to accuse me of butchering the article. I've tried to make a readable and well-balanced intro that takes your concerns and objections into account. Do you really think insults are helpful? BTfromLA 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We had better talk about what a Neutral Point of view means, exactly. It is clear to me that you haven't a clue, while it is clear to you that I don't have a clue. At the same time, I recognize that you are not trying to present a hositle point of view. And of course you are busy attempting to negate any point of view I bring to the table. Can we talk about it here, on your page or on my discussion page please, BTfromLA ? Terryeo 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Dianetics and what you are saying is of no point of view at all. My own opinion is that by doing as you are doing, you deny the reader any understanding of what the subject is. By not introducing the subject you do introduce the idea that Dianetics has a lot of controversy to it. That is the sum of what the article reads after you finish. Controversy. But does the reader understand what Dianetics is or if it is an action or how it is done or what results it produces? NO. Does a reader come away with an idea he might learn more about it, somewhere? NO, he comes away with the idea that wherever he turns he is going to confront a huge amount of controversy. Do you get the idea? It does not present Dianetics. When and after Dianetics is presented, when a person has an idea what Dianetics is, then he can understand controversy and not before. Do you get it? NPOV means, "presenting conflicting views" but it does not mean presenting them all at once. No one can understand that ! Terryeo 08:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to present Dianetics as a relatively unproblematic and well-accepted body of knowledge, like, say, the theory of gravity. It simply isn't true that it has a comparable status: not close. Dianetics is widely viewed with skepticism and a large proportion of educated observers judge it to be quackery. Readers should know as much. But that doesn't mean that an accurate account of the details of Dianetics and the best case in favor of Dianetics can't be described in the article--you just can't expect the criticism and skepticism to wait until a lengthy description (including claims that many critics see as false) is presented. Does this make sense to you? BTfromLA 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: To be clearer about this--if you feel that details about the key terms, concepts, or techniques of dianetics are missing from the article, I suggest you add that material to the body (as opposed to the intro) of the article. If it is well written and encyclopedic, I'd welcome it. BTfromLA 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I am really not talking about "key terms" I am really not talking about "key concepts" and I am really not talking about "techniques." The article doesn't allow that to be because the article does not introduce Dianetics. No one can know what is being talked about because the subject of which the article is going to state all of the criticism about and all of the skepticism about is never introduced ! Please feel COMPLETELY FREE to criticize, to present skepticism from any citeable source. But please do it after the subject is introduced. You simply cannot criticize without a target, the subject must be introduced. Because there is so much discussion on the very first paragraph about "What!? no criticism in the first paragraph, because of this reason I am going to insist the article be introduced per Wiki Policy. Term, Topic, Context. And Context is where criticsm and skepticsm happen. But not until then. It is not that I am trying to state this to you strongly. Nor heavily. It is simply that if any person is to have an opportunity to understand what is going on with Dianetics then that person wants to first have some clue of what the subject is about. Heck, if you have a good definition for the first and second lines, we might use it. But we got to have a definition of the word, and then the topic. Terryeo 08:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, your lastes edit of the Diantics introduction is completely wrong and off Wiki policy. Your edition sports several uncited statements. I have spoken to you about this matter several times and you continue to repost the same, uncited statements. I have tried to get into communication with you about them. You reply to maybe one post, reply and then you quit communicating about it. You don't allow the topic's word to be defined, the topic defined nor any of the other things required by Wiki's Introduction guideline. I have followed the first step of guidelines to resolving disputes. I have tried to talk with you. If you refuse to communicate about this matter for another 24 hours it will have to go somewhere beyond our just talking. The article does not present diantics in a manner anyone who knows dianetics could agree with. It does not present diantics so it can be understood. It does present the idea that dianetics is controversial, apparently that is your wish. But the subject can not be understood. It is off policy, you are not following NPOV policy because the subject is never introduced. Do you get it? Terryeo 09:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was composing responses to you as you wrote this. Please realize that some of us have other demands on our time than editing Wikipedia! BTfromLA 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for staying in communication, I've replied to you on my user page. I'm glad to understand you mean well. Happy New Year! Terryeo 10:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Introductions and order

The exchange below began between user:Terryeo and user:BTfromLA on personal talk pages. With Terreyo's permision, I have pasted the discussion here, as I think it is relevant to the editing of the page, and may be of interest to other editors. BTfromLA 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I agree this discussion page is the place for the talking. However, you did not ask my permission. Terryeo 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, as is recorded below, I suggested that the discussion be moved to the article's talk page, and you said " If you wish to take this to the discussions page, then good." I interpreted that as your permission to move the conversation over here. Sorry if I misunderstood. BTfromLA 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically about NPOV as it manifests in the Dianetics article. Untill a subject is introduced it can not be argued. The latest and greatest "One more try" intertwines two points of view, I'll grant that. But don't you see all the discussion on the page from everyone who has done some Dianetics saying, "This article makes no sense, it isn't something that can be followed even by a person knowledgeable in Dianetics" Don't you see that happening? The problem is real, real simple. You seem to be creating an article that says, "Dianetics is a controversial subject ! ! !" Well, that is all right, as far as it goes. But it does not make clear what Dianetics is, do you see the problem? I believe the reason why is simply that Dianetics is never allowed to be introduced because you have to make the article have controversy in every damn line of it ! Terryeo 08:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Terryeo, I don't think controversy and criticism belong in every line, and I think if you look closely at what I've written, you'll see that isn't the case. I know you wish it were otherwise, but the social consensus about Dianetics is at odds with the way Hubbard and Scientologists view it. Readers should be informed of this from the outset--it is the social context in which Dianetics exists. That doesn't mean that Hubbard's ideas can't be fairly represented, and I think they should be. BTfromLA 09:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought we had worked out that all introducions in all Wiki articles are to follow (with some exceptions and not literally) the Wikipedia:Introductions policy. It certainly seems like the most reliable, to the point guideline available to us. Terryeo 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I did look closely at what you wrote, the very first line of it had a lie in it, an unverifiable statement. I am very glad you used the word "context" because that is exactly my point. If you will look at this wiki link about introductions it tells you where "context" should appear in an introduction and it is an important thing to know. However, it is not to appear in the first line of an introduction. I am simply following wiki policy here and please get off the "I know you think it should be otherwise" because i am going to continue to insist on wiki policy being followed. Here is the link which tells when in an introduction, context should be stated:


First the term is introduced. In the case of Dianetics the introduction of the term should probably include its origins because it is a word created from Greek roots unfamilar to many people. Then, after the term itself is introduced the topic needs be introduced. This is the policy, read it right there. Then, after the topic is introduced (so readers can know what is being talked about) then, at that point context. It is not that you are doing things wrong, but slightly out of sequence for a reader to be able to understand, okay? Happy New Year ! Terryeo 10:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I'd suggest that this sort of discussion take place on the article's talk page in the future, since it is likley to be seen as relevant by other editors. As to the policy about introductions, I find it hard to believe you mean this seriously. The guideline says that the introduction "defines the term and topic and context": it says nothing about the order in which those things are presented. And introducing a term rarely involves spelling out the etymology of the term. Again, it doesn't all need to happen in the short intro. Look at line #2 of that intro guideline. BTfromLA 10:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
this is the talk page. I couldn't get in communication with you any other way, though I tried this talk page first.Terryeo 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, what part of "term, topic, context is unclear to you? Term, this means the word itself. Topic, this means the topic itself. The Wiki Policy makes this clear, it spells it out A, B, C. What is your argument? It does not say, "Context and controversy first! and then, when people understand the whole subject is nothing but a controversy and should be left alone and never understood, then introduces the definition of the term. No, it does not say, Stuff these things in the intro any way you want to. It says, Term. Topic. Context. A and then B and then C. okay? It says everything about the order of presentation. First is says Term. How simple can it be, you got to tell your student the meaning of the word you use. Then it says topic. How simple can it be, you have to tell the student what you are going to be talking about. Then, after that, after people know what the topic is, then, then is the time for context. okay? You read any good ariticle on Wiki and you will find this procedure followed. This IS wiki policy. This IS the source of the argument that you have been spawning in the dicussion page for a long time. This IS the reason every person who knows dianetics has said: "This page doesn't make sense even to a person who has practiced Dianetics for years." Please. It ALL has to happen in a short introduction, exactly as spelled out at Wikipedia:Introductions If you wish to take this to the discussions page, then good. The message is Follow Wiki Policy. In that sequence. In that manner, just as it says. Terryeo 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
1. The style guidelines are just suggested guidelines, not strict matters of policy. Guidelines need to be adapted to the needs of each particular article. See WP:POL for the distinction between a policy and a guideline.
2. The guideline you cite says NOTHING about the order in which "term and topic and context" should be presented. "And" does not mean the same as "then." (By the way, the given examples of providing context both place the contextual clause as the first words in the intro.) BTfromLA 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The guideline which I have cited states EXACTLY the order in which term topic and context are to be introduced. It does not say, context, topic, term. It says term, topic, context. If you will think for a moment about any new thing you want to read about. First you want to word for it, what the meaning of the word is. Then you want to know what relevence that word has to the subject at hand. And finally you want to know the context of the topic. If this execution of logic is beyond you, simply follow the Wikipedia policy, suggest, for topic introduction laid out there. What's the problem? Terryeo 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... I just don't have time to keep up this comedy routine, Terryeo. Perhaps others can do a better job than I of explaining the problem(s) with your reasoning and editing. BTfromLA 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, If you will read an artile about some neutral subject, say apples or pleuots then you find this idea of Term, Topic, Context holds true. It is reasonable, logical method for a person to become familar with a new subject. Which explains why Wiki Policy suggests that sequence rather than some other sequence. Terryeo 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of revising

No matter how anyone feels, the thing to do is to follow Wiki Policy. You have an information when you have a published information. Simply put it into the article with an indication where it came from. No single one of us is going to control the whole article. Follow policy. Terryeo 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not happy about this article. I'll do what I can to revise it in the next few days, but in the meantime I'll post a few pointers here:

Hi Chriso, I'm Leon and last summer I didn't yet have an account and posted as LLH. I don't think we've met. It seems about six people have taken an interest in this article recently and I'm sure they will have viewpoints just you do. I want to thank you for beginning here in the Discussion area and not just crassly deleting all we have been thinking about in our discussions here. As you can see from the discussions above, one's envisioned point of view for the article is important to readers and editors too. Let's get started: Spirit of Man 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1) POV: I think there have been significant POV problems with previous versions of the article, parts of which frankly read like press releases ("Mr Hubbard" etc). This aspect has been improved recently but still needs work. In particular, the article regurgitates claims from Hubbard without making any effort to assess their veracity or put them into context. Contributors need to bear in mind that a claim isn't necessarily reliable just because it can be sourced. There are any number of creationist publications which claim that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, but that isn't automatically true either.

If we are addressing a "claim" of Dianetics, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Mr. Hubbard's, or yours, it seems appropriate to me, to say the name of the person responsible for the "claim", state the claim without bias, then a statement or evaluation about that pro or con, is appropriate. But I'm not sure what you mean by "regurgitate". Are you accusing us editors of "spewing vomit"? That sounds pretty negative. Maybe when you get to specifics your POV will be more "standard english"? You caution us editors, that a claim may be "unreliable" as if we have not appreciated that, the same way you do. I trust that you believe, your point of view can be questioned as well. Is this true? Spirit of Man 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2) History: The history section is totally unsatisfactory. A series of bullet points is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and there is no narrative to link together a series of currently disconnected facts. A lot of important detail simply isn't mentioned - for instance, the role and eventual collapse of the Dianetics Foundation(s).

I agree so far. Spirit of Man 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

3) Theory and practice of Dianetics: There is insufficient detail on the theoretical basis of Dianetics (Freud etc) and I'm really surprised that nobody has added a detailed description of how Dianetic auditing works in practice. We also need to have a description of how Dianetics has changed over time, e.g. what is the difference between 1950 Dianetics and New Era Dianetics?

I understand the subject is original enough and gives credit where it is due. It begins with "Survival" as an hypothesis in 1938 and that continues today as axiom 1. Are suggesting Freud had something to do with that? LRH was certainly trained and practised with Freud's work and could get results with it. LRH credits Freud with results using it. LRH also points up huge errors in Freud's theories. Do you know of others that got beneficial results with it? It seems to me credit is given in the subject where credit is due. If you are knowledgeable of such things I'm sure we would enjoy such an overview. I would be glad to help write about how Dianetics works in practice. How many hours have you audited Dianetics? In terms of changes and difference in auditing over time, my thought is that might be difficult to convey to this audience. Auditing Book One is one thing. Auditing Standard Dianetics or NED is something a lot more precise. Are you up to honestly communicating that difference? Spirit of Man 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

4) Dianetics in Scientology: Is there anything we can say about NOTS (New Era Dianetics for OTs, if I remember rightly)?

5) Scientific views: This section needs to include comments from the original 1950-52 reviews of Dianetics. I suggest also that we should work on an assessment of whether Dianetics is compatible with modern theories of the mind's workings. If it isn't (which wouldn't be surprising, considering how much has been learned by medical science since 1950), we need to say so.

I have recently reviewed the APA 8 Sept 1950, Resolution on Dianetics and the 9 Sept 1950 New York Times article on Dianetics here in the Discussion area. But I believe all that in the article has been deleted by Modemac. I could write something. I would have to research a little to find the story and citations for the "Author League of America's" causitive relationship to those reviews, but I expect it could be found without too much trouble. I'm not sure what you mean by the "modern theories of the mind"? Wundt said in 1879 the mind was based on the brain, genes and that man was an animal. He said it was all based on physiology. That has been the basis of "formal funding" since that time to my knowledge. Outside of Dianetics, what are you referring to that has changed? What has changed and what benefits are realized for man? Spirit of Man 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article will require a complete rewrite from scratch. I'll attempt something along those lines in the near future, reusing material that has already been contributed, but in the meantime can I suggest that people think about the points above? -- ChrisO 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, The current introduction was the product of quite a bit of contentious negotiation and, in my opinion, is the only sound part of the article. I suggest that the intro be allowed to stand unmolested while the rest of the article--which is a mess--gets rewritten. Then the intro can be revisited if it seems to have problems. Otherwise, I'm largely in agreement with your comments, and you raise an excellent point about "New Era" Dianetics and changes in Dianetics over the years. A couple of additional thoughts are below--I hope other editors will respond:
There is a lot more to Dianetics that could ever be put into this article. The tech for it is a stack of books, audio tapes, visual tapes, CDs, bullitans and more that will never be able to be covered here. No matter how vast a subject, it needs to be introduced. That first. When we can agree it has been introduced we can build an article.
1. The "History" section either needs to be adapted into the bibliography at the end, or rewritten as a narrative as ChrisO suggested. If the latter, the history shouldn't just chronicle Hubbard's writings, but a larger picture of how Dianetics was socially recieved. Perhaps "history" can also include the "Scientific views"--see below.
I understand perfectly well that those of you who believe Dianetics is a hostile, alien entitiy come to earth to control your minds do not wish to see any part of History or of the many books printed and sold. Get used to it, it has already happened. Our task here is to present what it is today, a little of how it got there, and various points of view about it so people can explore the area as they wish to, not as you wish them to. Terryeo 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The article still lacks a concise description of some of the basic concepts of Dianetics: "engrams," "auditing," and "clear," for example. It may be possible to base these on descriptions from an existing wikipedia article: no use reinventing the wheel, if someone else has done a good job (especially given the POV minefield that this subject inhabits).
This article hardly introduces the idea of Dianetics. It is still being disputed that the word should be defined, that the topic should be introduced, that the context is anything but biased. And you are babbeling about introducing a vast number of specialized words which can't help the situation a jot. If an introduction is ever there, and stable, then at that future time would be a time to consider expanding it. Without a foundtion, further words can only confuse. Terryeo 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
3. The bit about the volcano on the bookcover certainly doesn't merit the chapter heading "controversy." At this point, I'd vote for cutting that whole section--the topic seems pretty secondary to Dianetics, and what is written is so wishy-washy that it doesn't really say anything useful.
You might rewrite (with suitable citations) the Controversy section but no matter how you attempt to deceive the reader, Dianetics is a working force in our planet's society that is not going to be ignored by making a biased point of view here. The real deal is published information and those are the only informations allowed here on Wikipedia. So put your controversy in there in some way. I don't believe you are trying to present a balanced article, Chris O. I believe you are attempting to present a biased article that belittles a workable technology that has been helpful to people for 50 years. It has a lot of sold books, people walk who couldn't before. Just because you are convinced it is nothing does not make it nothing. This article is to present information so people can think for themselves. Terryeo 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I also think that Hubbard's list of acknowledgements should be cut. If someone has a strong argument for retaining that, then the quote needs to be placed in a meaningful context, such as a discussion of the origins of his ideas or the nature of his salesmanship. Even then, it's hard to justify including the whole list.
I have a problem with that. It is not okay to delete good, referenced material and substitute a sketch, breif, biased list without any citations. The Whole Point of verifications is it allows the reader to judge for himself. When you remove good, cited material you steal that opportunity, which Wikipedia is based on, from the reader. It would be capital Wrong ! Terryeo 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
5. The section labelled "scientific views" is a total disaster, partly the residue of the haggling over the intro. I think a rewrite from scratch is in order (perhaps an adequate sample of that material could be folded into the narrative history). BTfromLA 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The actual arguement is: Is Dianetics Scientific or not? The salient point is this. Science means knowing about something, but it means "Demonstrable Knowledge" Well, with Dianetics that simply doesn't happen for this reason. When a person modifies a decision that is holding a thought in place, then that thought is gone forever and can never be demonstrated. It is an area of etheriality. To get lost in whether it can be scientifically demonstrated to the scientific community or not is to go down the pathway Hubbard trod when he introduced it to the Medical and Psychiatric communites and was rejected and spurnned. He gave up trying to prove, or even to introduce it to science and he went right ahead an presented it to the public. Do you follow it actually parallels his activity to present it to the public on Wikipedia? heh ! Terryeo 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, I agree the "scientific views" part is a disaster. Terryeo, I disagree with your premise. The New York Times article clearly highlights "the issue" that has prevailed since that day. Hubbard had offered formal results to the APA since 1949. [He had provided the original thesis the year before.] The APA refused the thesis and all of the formal results. It ordered all its members not use Dianetics and to use it for testing only. No tests pro or con were ever published about Dianetics by this organization. Then the media and critics could slam Dianetics for 55 years saying "no test results have ever emerged..." It never mattered what tests Dianetics had done or what results were submitted, the APA had its eyes covered, its ears covered and its mouth covered. So did the media. That is the issue, not whether Dianetics is a science or not from the view of those who participated in the fraud. That is what the section on "scientific views" should address. It should address the truth. I have provided the citation for the Times article, the APA Resolution and one example of formal testing by a third-party, the Dianetics Research Foundation. I'll wager anything departing from that will be departing from the truth. Spirit of Man 06:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting way to pile those peas, thanks :) Terryeo 07:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposal about the intro

I have reverted Terryeo's most recent change, switching the order of and slightly rewording the first two sentences. Two reasons for my revert: 1. From the standpoint of clear writing, the change was definitely for the worse, adding confusion while offering nothing as a benefit (at least not that I can comprehend). Nobody will miss the word root if it's in the second sentence, and in any case the etymology of the word is not the definition of the word. 2. After much difficult wrangling, we seem to have, just before that change, arrived at an introduction that the various involved editors find acceptible, even if none find it ideal.

Does everyone agree that the rest of the article has big problems? I'm assuming as much. While we work on those, I would like to propose that the intro (as of the version of 15:34, January 1, 2006 by Spirit of Man) remain in it's current state until considerable progress has been made on drafting the body of the article. I think this temporary "freeze" will allow the editorial back-and-forth to shift from the intro to the body of the article, without the constant distraction of reworking the intro at the same time. Make sense? Is this agreeable? BTfromLA 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has a HUGE problem. You people are refusing to follow the clearly stated directions in front of your nose. Term, Topic, Context. What part of that don't you understand? Terryeo 05:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Terreyeo, again, you are making it difficult for me to continue to assume that you are operating in good faith. To repeat: 1. The "clearly stated directions" are a "rule of thumb" gudeline, not a set of inviolate rules (i.e., they are not wikipedia policy). 2. As it stands, those guidelines say nothing whatsoever about the order in which "term, topic and context" should be presented (in fact, the examples provided with the guidelines place "context" first). 3. The etymology of a word is not the definition of the term. 4. The aim here (at least as I understand it) is to write accurate descriptions in a clear, communicative way. I'm comfortable in predicting that 100 out of 100 professional editors would agree that the version beginning "Dianetics is a therapeutic method and a set of ideas..." is clearer and more communicative than your revision, which begins "Dianetics was coined by Hubbard, based on the Greek roots..." Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I am increasingly forced to conclude that you are not interested in communicating clearly and accurately about the subjects of these articles, nor in collaborating in good faith with those whose perspective differs from your own. BTfromLA 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA and Terryeo, this issue has become heated and prolonged, I would like to offer my services as arbitrator. It makes sense to me that a term should be understood by a reader before he has to use it, to understand something else. So, "define the term" first, then use it. But, I see no real distinction between which of these definitions is THE definition, they both contribute to the idea of Dianetics. Either one could be placed first. The standard sequence in dictionaries is to place entymologies last. In the Introduction to "Dianetics Today", Terryeo's version is used. I think either could be used. Also, I think Terryeo's training is that it is not just important to define a term before requiring someone to think with it, it would be criminal to confuse them by doing anything else. So, BTfromLA, please understand this view. The order is important to Terryeo. Terryeo you must understand this is not a discline BTfromLA has been exposed to or trained in and take a look at both definitions. She may not even understand the distinction. I hope she does now. Peace. Spirit of Man 07:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making an attempt to cool it off Spirit. I do understand BTfromLA has a point of view and we are working toward a common cause. I do expect I will in general stick with Wiki Policy about introductions. Not that I won't budge at all, nothing that extreme, but as a general guide I have to think Wiki Policy is usually the way to go. Terryeo 07:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bits cut from the main page

Per my comments to ChrisO above, I've removed the following from the article BTfromLA 04:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC):

L. Ron Hubbard stated:

Acknowledgment is made to fifty thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:
Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.
BTfromLA, ChrisO wants to expand Freud [and Thompson's influence, I presume] and others, and you are deleting his and their credits? Aren't you two just stirring the pot? Isn't there a point we have no Dianetic citations or scientific background, and arrive at 100% original research of whatever chararacter the author chooses? I'm fine with removing the original research below. Spirit of Man 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, I agree it is cumbersome now. As long as the contributors to the subject are adaquately placed and credited in the article, I have no objection. As long as their absence is not used to redicule the subject for not giving credit where credit is due, your selection is the best choice. Spirit of Man 15:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Spirit of Man, I'm not trying to suppress any information; the reason for cutting this is that it's a long list (rarely appropriate in an encyclopedia article in any case), and there was no context in which it fit in the article. It was just a long quote from Hubbard's acknowledgement page. You will be hard pressed to find similar lengthy quotes dropped into other articles, at least not articles that are well written. I can't see how that's "stirring the pot." As I said, if there's a good reason for including all or part of it, fine. But "LRH said it" isn't a sufficient reason. BTfromLA
How clear can it be? There is a great deal of information about Dianetics. Ten books is a lot of information. Yet we can't get enough information on the page to argue about. At times we are close to making sense, soon it is gone. But it has been around and working for 50 years. What's the basic problem here? Myself, I have a clue what Dianetics is and have used it. I want to see an introduction that makes sense. Not everyone might like it, but I want it per Wiki policy. What is the Huge, Significant deal that we have to know why there is a damn volcano on some one of 10 books? Who cares? Its trival. More important is a readable article. Terryeo 07:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


There are various schools of thought regarding the volcano on post-1968 editions of Dianetics. One conjecture is that it is a reference to the story of Xenu and another being that this image was used as volcanos are referenced in Hubbard's book "Scientology: A History of Man" written in 1952. Yet another is that it was used, as according to Hubbard, "Man responds to an exploding volcano." ("Assists", lecture of 3 October 1968)

Excuse me, who cares about the volcano? The book has been on sale for 50 years. The book has sold some large number of copies. It is a sales gimmik, get it ? It sells books, you follow this reasoning? If you are running a company and your sales are failing then you might consider the significance of emplacing a volcano on your forehead or something. Have a nice day. Terryeo 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


I want an introduction per Wikipedia:Introductions. I want to follow Wikipedia guidelines on this because skepticism has nothing to be skeptical about untill it has some introduced subject. Once the subject is introduced then the arguement can begin ! The Skepticsm, the Dis, the link and counter link. Per Wiki Policy the word is to be stated, and this is called a "term" Dianetics is a term (as used in this case). "Pumpkin" in another term and it introduces another Wiki Article. But this article is about Diantics. After the term is used then comes some words about the topic. The topic of this article is, duh, Dianetics. Okay, So that is exactly how far this article has gone and no farther. There is no agreement of "What is Dianetics" and until there is an agreement of "what is dianetics" we can not make an article. So that is exactly where we are. But, should we be able to make a definition that tells us our topic, then we can post all the criticism, all the skepticism, all the support, all the raves we want. Because we have a topic to talk about. Wiki Policy. Term, Topic (opps, we haven't done this one so we can't get to context and controversy). Terryeo 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


  • I noticed this article has a Category:Pseudoscience tag. Surely there is an argument that Dianetics could be classed as protoscience as well/instead? As long as dianetics can accommodate criticism and scientific evolution (and in saying that i dont mean whether L Ron Hubbard can accommodate criticism of dianetics, i mean is the theory itself evolutionary in the light of further research), is there not scope for it to improve over time into a proper science? Which is my understanding of protoscience. I am the first to admit my lack of in depth knowledge of Dianetics (which is why i came to this page) but that just struck me. Jdcooper 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Jdcooper, the article has that tag because an editor like you or I placed it there. I feel Dianetics is a valid science in the traditional sense of the word. It is not "pseudoscience" or "protoscience". There are editors here that feel more critical of the subject. I would not place that tag on the article, but I'm reluctant to remove it out of respect for the viewpoints of others, right or wrong. Dianetics was conceived in 1930 and L. Ron Hubbard wrote the basic idea that is makes the subject unique in 1938. This could be called his "hypothesis". It was not a science at that time. He felt that it was important to find one idea that was common to all existence, all knowledge and all philosophy. At that time it was called "the dynamic principle of existence" and it was kind of a "Holy Grail" or "Fountain of Youth" sort of quest for philosophy people. He felt that all of Life, all of existence was surviving. You could have one tribe fighting another tribe, and what they had in common was they were trying to survive. He felt man was striving towards ultimate survival or immortality and ultimate happiness. When man or a life form failed then he "succumbed", the opposite or lowest level of surviving. So his simple statement of this principle, which he understood to be a newly discovered natural law, was SURVIVE!. But he felt this was just an hypothesis or "his" theory, what he really wanted was to start from this point and find a therapy that could elevate man from near succumb towards ultimate survival, immortality and greater happiness. By 1947 he had evolved such a therapy and applied it and was able to produce what is called "a clear". The idea was that there were negative influences in the mind that led to succumb and when these were removed by communications, simply having the person look at the images, his mind makes in detail, then the person was able to survive much better. A clear had none of these negative things left in his mind to control his actions, he was in control and acted sane on all subjects. Others could test his clears and find no neuroses, phychoses, no abberations, much higher intelligence and no psychosomatic illnesses. He wrote up all that he knew at that time in what is called, "The Original Thesis" in 1948. The subject was now technically a science. This "thesis" was given to the medical and psychiatric communities and they essentially tried to ignore it. They acted as if this new subject was competitive to them and they should oppose it strenuously. They did. But Hubbard continued to research, by funding the research himself. But by 1950 there was so much interest and he was answering so many questions he decided to write a book and explain all he knew for the broad public, the intelligent layman. This book was not for the scientific community like his thesis. It became a best seller and you can read the rest in the history books. Over 50,000 people have used Dianetics to become clear. 20 to 30 million people have bought that book. And Mr. Hubbard has written and lectured over 100 million words and sold over a 100 million books. Spirit of Man 06:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If I understand protoscience correctly, it is usually applied to ideas or conclusions that are testable and in fundamental accord with existing scientific knowledge, but have not emerged from nor been subjected to scientific methodology. Ancient medicinal claims--a particular tree root that is said to be an antidote to snakebite, say, or the whole system of acupuncture--would be examples. Right? As far as I know, Dianetics isn't likely to accomodate criticism, testing, revision, retesting, etc. I suppose that a scientist could abstract some aspect of Dianetics and submit it to scientific testing and controls, but that strikes me as a pretty weak version of protoscience, and not enough to lump Dianetics in that category.
Pseudoscience is something which claims to be scientifically valid, but lacks the hallmarks of science: empirical tests, peer review, control mechanisms, falsifiability, etc. As Robert Carroll puts it, "Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience." His article does a pretty good job of explaning why this is the case. Martin Gardner, well known for his books on pseudoscience, described Dianetics:The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1951 as among the "masterpieces of pseudoscience."
It is the nature of pseudoscience that adherants will declare that their beliefs are not pseudoscience at all, but true science. I would be surprised to learn of any significant number of people who are well educated in science who would agree with Spirit of Man's remark above that "the subject was now [as of 1948] technically a science." All the evidence I've seen points to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of science writers, science historians and professional scientists would concur that Dianetics is pseudoscience. BTfromLA 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Jdcooper, I understand "protoscience" is a fairly new word. I looked it up on and found only two references in about 1000 dictionaries accessed by the site. One reference was Wikipedia. Both references include this idea in the more general concept: a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science, Etymology: 2000-2004, and Wiki's "In philosophy of science, a protoscience is any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established." Spirit of Man 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This concept would apply to "Dianetics" in 1938. It was not established as a subject and not published and had no therapy to apply it or test it. By 1947 the first therapy to produce Clears was established and producing results. By 1948 the basic thesis was written up, the therapy and results were at hand, and it was submitted to the medical and psychiatric communities. Dianetics has come a long way since that time, but take a look at the previous edits here, someone did put in a copy of the Original Thesis last summer. It does describe the basics of the science. A therapy was ready for testing by others. The test results and many clears were available to be examined by the scientific community. I don't know how many clears there were in 1948, but by May 1950 there were at least 260. So I don't know that anyone else thinks that Dianetics as established in the Original Thesis was a science in 1948, but I do. I'm willing to defend that, if anyone wishes to honestly discuss it. Spirit of Man 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, could you answer a question or two for me? Why are we even discussing the "scientific" nature of Dianetics?
Hi, Spirit of Man. The reason I'm discussing it is because Jdcooper asked a question about that topic, above. BTfromLA 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask that question for no reason. He asked about "protoscience". Any science or non-science would go through such a period. I didn't see that you discussed anything of the science of Dianetics, you only argued that it doesn't exist. You didn't even include the operative part of the definition of protoscience. You argued that Dianetics did not even qualify for "protoscience." How can you argue for pseudoscience if the actual subject does not even exist for you? How can we discuss "science" if you have so little reality of the actual subject that you are totally dependent on the fixed ideas of others you have heard second-hand? Spirit of Man 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics has evolved a long way since becoming a science in 1948 [My opinion]. The whole address currently is that a person is basically a spiritual being. This spiritual being is the person and always has been. He creates his mind. His abilities are what is important. When he increases his ability to handle the mind up to a certain level he can create or not, any negative things in the mind. "He no longer has his own reactive mind." He is in control of things. This is the meaning of the explanation of Dianetics that says, "What the soul is doing to the body." To my knowledge and according to Wiki, "science" or so-called modern science, really does not extend to spiritual matters. Dianetics was able to demonstrate the existence of the soul scientifically, in 1954. 50 years ago. The book Dianetics 55 pretty much documents all of that. How does a spiritual being create pictures? See Chapter 2 and 3.... Modern science is totally material. They live in a material world. That world has no God, no spiritutal beings, no ethics, no aesthetics and no universes beyond this one. They could really care less about Dianetics today. Why do you? It meets all the criteria for a science, but it surpasses science in its scope. It's more philosophical. Up until Dalton, all of "science" was philosophy and people interested in such things were known as natural philosophers. Does anyone really care that someone calls it pseudo something or other? I don't thing so. Spirit of Man 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds as if Dianetics has been thoroughly absorbed into Scientology, and if that is the case, I think that the article should include an account of how it changed over the years--
BTfromLA, I think our views of what "Dianetics" means is sufficiently different that I would like to clearly distinguish a few ideas here. I reviewed the current article and only found 5 sentences that I consider actually represent the subject of Dianetics. I think you and "a whole class of editors" here are only interested in controversy. You address only that portion of the controversy issue in your minds that you connect to "Dianetics" or "Scientology" or "L. Ron Hubbard." Is this correct? I understand the copyright for DMSMH was owned by Hermitage House or others, when Hermitage published the book in May, 1950. It was not returned to Hubbard's control till about 1955. The Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, HDRF, had Hubbard's name but quickly estranged itself from any contribution he might have provided over time. With the copyright and research direction of this organization beyond his control, he returned to his own research and new books to forward the subject. He physically left the USA in 1951 and went international. Since that time Dianetics has been an international subject. With the incorporation of the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, DC there was again an organization, other than LRH personally, that could contain the subject. I say Dianetics stood as a science in 1948 as it was offered to the medical and psychiatric communities. They refused the subject for their own reasons. I believe those reasons were self interested and not scientific in nature. That is no black spot on Dianetics. The black spot is on them. That being said, I believe 1950, or Book One style Dianetics stands on its own now just as it did then. You or anyone can get results with it, that are superior to anything in psychiatry, psychology, sociology, any spin off group and anything outside the subject that has been developed since then. Period! Any intelligent person with a short study of the subject can produce those results. There is a course [2006] called the Hubbard Dianetics Seminar course, based on DMSMH that does exactly this. Spirit of Man 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
clearly, in Dianetics, The Modern Science..., which was and remains far and away the most widely-distributed statement of Dianetic principals (right?),
Yes. My wife and I read it and began auditing per that book with no knowledge of Scientology whatsoever. Just the one book. It works as it stands. Spirit of Man 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hubbard was emphasising mind, not soul; body, not spirit (he talks about how engrams are physically imprinted on protoplasm), and science, not religion (one of the reviewers tallied 35 times that he declared Dianetics to be a science in that book).
DMSMH introduces the concepts of "the awareness of awareness unit" and "the basic personality." The first is the same idea we understand as "spirit". The second is the same idea we understand as a "clear", "a person that no longer has his own reactive mind." This is to say, the spirit and analytical mind with a body operating in an environment with all the other influences of Life. You are exactly right to say he was "emphasizing" mind, not soul. That does not mean that he didn't include these things in the subject and that he didn't use these thing to produce the results he was able to achieve personally . The importance of these issues was identified later. In 1957 he was able articulate how a clear would communicate with a preclear. This effort resulted in what are called Training Routines, or TRs that are used to teach communications. He was able to vastly increase (3X) his own effectiveness using these TRs exactly and precisely as published. The skills achieved by these TRs, effectively made "a synthetic clear" while a person was using them precisely. These spiritual skills combined with Book One auditing greatly increases its effectiveness. In terms of science, this is good science. At the time DMSMH was written, LRH was still appealing to the scientific community to listen. They didn't, but the public did. He traces the choices science would make, to compartmentalize all knowledge, down to only those things science addresses. Dianetics produced effective results within that constraint. After 1950 it was improved.

In the modern sense, "protoplasm" is a living cell. This unit of Life, has it's own engrams. These engrams, recorded by cellular Life, form the current physical structure and provide all the functioning of the individual cell. Things that modify engrams, modify the structure and function of the cell. For example, radiation like a gamma ray, can influence the cell and produce cancer. The energy of the radiation makes an engram, and that engram can become connected to earlier similar experiences by continued radiation. When these experiences are resolved, the cell can live or operate normally just like it did before the damage. This is the basic for the effects radiation has bodies and on societies. Spirit of Man 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So--back to your question--you shouldn't be surprised that questions about the scientific validity of Dianetics, which Hubbard described as "an exact science," come up.
I support the view that Dianetics is an exact precision science. Spirit of Man 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Science has a great deal of prestige as a way of evaluating claims about the natural world.
I think there are many Nobel scientists and imminent scientists that would argue the validity of this prestige and the effectiveness of such evaluations in a greedy world. Here are a few: Linus Pauling 2X Nobel Prize [importance of Vitamin C, but was ignored], Albert Schatz (sp) [discovered streptomycin but was ignored and shunned], Robert C. Atkins, the Atkins Diet] the list goes on. But your point is well taken.
Thus, many people do care whether something has withstood scientific scrutiny or not.
I have shown the APA Resolution where they said they will test Dianetics and did not, I have shown they refused the Original Thesis, I have shown they have refused valid test results and refused to publish these results from their own membership. Are you saying you and I should hold our collective breath waiting for this organization to "scrutinize", (your word, my pun) the subject of Dianetics? Let's not be silly. Spirit of Man 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And many are concerned when they see products being sold to the public with false claims about their scientifically demonstrated validity. BTfromLA 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Rightfully so. Please present any claims of Dianetics you feel meets this definition of "false claim". I have already supported the claims of increased IQ, effectiveness with reducing psychosomatic illness and effectiveness in reducing all aberrations included in the tests used by professional licensed psychometrists of the day. One of the critical reviews of Dianetics presented in the article is by Hayakawa. He said he had never witnessed Dianetic auditing, but yet he felt competent to analyse Hubbard. In his review he said he had observed the administration of metrazol. This is a shock treatment drug that induces extreme convulsions and a coma. To my knowledge this man, and the APA has never presented the tests that demonstrated the validity of shock treatment. Since you and others have supported this man and this group in your "controversy" with Dianetics, please submit the "body of science" that shows these barbarous and cruel treatments have any validity what so ever. One Almanac I checked in the early 70s showed 550,000 persons in psychiatric hospitals in the USA. 50,000 per year died. Please also submit whatever you wish to support this level of killing in the name of science by the APA. 6 to 10 million children are being prescribed psychiatric drugs right now. See the Federal Register for the tonnage currently being given children. The last time I checked it was 23 metric tonnes a year, increasing at 18.9% for just one, methylphenidate. Please submit to a candid world the test results that show these drugs are non-addictive. I refuse to accept the disclaimer, "when used as directed." This does not mean the person has not been addicted by this therapy, it only means the doctor or psychiatrist is the beneficiary not an unauthorized drug pusher. For your information, the NIMH has proven this drug is more addictive that cocain [Volkow]. Where are the studies that show methylphenidate "used as directed" is less addictive than the same dosage of cocain? If I were designing a test of these children with Dianetics, I would ask this question, "What are the symptoms a child acquires after he or she has decided not to be in the classroom and is forced to remain there?" I think I could have you hold any calm child for a few seconds, then have you hold them too tightly for a few seconds. I think you would see most of the symptoms of ADHD explode in your face in about 5 seconds. The child does NOT want to be there. So why give them 20 tonnes a year of something more addictive than cocain to calm him down while you are "holding" them? Spirit of Man 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi BTfromLA, I don't know if you will even read my comment after the earlier misunderstanding. To reply to Dianetics in Scientology the answer is yes. Dianetics materials, 100%, lock stock and symbols are under the Church of Scientology and have been since Hubbard signed them over, or whatever legal process happened. But I believe the tale is too complicated to be included in this ever growing Dianetics article, can't fit in either the Scientology article nor the Church of Scientology article, but needs a dedicated article. Because sure as god made little green apples it is going to pick up loads of controversy, lots of external links and so on. Terryeo 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, from Spirit of man's description, it sounds as if Dianetics itself has changed over time, from a practice that emphasizes it's connection to science, physical bodies and memories dating back to the womb to an emphasis, like Scientology, on immaterial spirit (and memories of past lives?). To the extent that's true, I think it is well worth pointing out in the article. BTfromLA 07:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, as you would suspect, there is a line of continuity tracing from Dianetics first actions all the way through, becoming the foundation of Scientology and all through the Development of Scientology and has caused some minor changes (golden age of technology) in the Church of Scientology today. It is just undeniable that a common thread links all of Hubbard's progression. My opinion is, this line is, a person can know. I spell this out on my user page, its my opinion and I don't find my expressed line of reason in any of the information I've read. Not exactly, anyway. But specifically, knowledge about things not physical. Not of the physical universe. Dianetics treats a memory, no physical universe manifestation or effect paid any attention to. A person knows a memory better. Then eventually a person knows their mind so well they just don't need it any more. But this probably sounds too simplistic to be helpful. Then Scientology, it too is about knowing things, things not of the physical universe. Terryeo 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In 1947 clears were made with no address to past lives whatsoever. By 1951, 260 clears had been made with zero address to past lives. That is not the key factor. A spiritual being's ability to confront making and controlling any mental image picture is and always has been. It was true before he made his first picture of a moment of unconsciousness he couldn't control and it is true now. Spirit of Man 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well stated, Spirit ! The question of "this is science" or "not" isn't brought up by people who actually DO Dianetics.
I think I disagree, but we may be into semantics here. In the study materials for Dianetics one is taught to answer this question for each new idea one encounters. These study materials just don't use those exact words. One is expected to understand the new idea [Hypothesis] and understand its use and what it applies to [Theory]. Then one is expected to acquire the ability to use it and get the expected result. [It is demonstrated to work as a scientific principle.] He tests it. One is invited to attain a level of judgement with the idea within the subject. To me this is just an extension of and a modern application of the Buddhist doctrine, "What is true for you, is true." If it is true in a science, then it should be demonstrable within the context of that science. I understand this is standard in all official Dianetics courses. Spirit of Man 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And, it isn't actually brought up by people who want to do science and make measurements. It isn't brought up by the medical community. It seems only to be brought to a boil and a froth by people who have no interest at all in measuring results. By people who want to point a finger and call the unknown something that distances them from it. Cult, witchcraft, magic, pseudoscience, psychobabble. lol. To look on the web and find someone who wants to make a study of Dianetics results, or someone or some group who has approached the Church of Scientology and asked, "Can we make a before and after study" seems impossible to me. I can't find any group who has ever tried. So why attempt to catagorize a question that no one is exploring anyway? Terryeo 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, ummm, could it possibly be relevant that Hubbard called Dianetics "the modern science of mental health"? In the book he says, over and over, that it's a "science". People described Dianetics a pseudoscience right from the start precisely because Hubbard made such strong claims that it was scientific in the first place. I don't think it's our job to determine whether Dianetics is or isn't a science or pseudoscience; however, we need to properly report the arguments on both sides. -- ChrisO 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The term, the topic, the context. And prepare the reader for what follows. While I would say there is pretty good argument for Dianetics being a science, I would say that situation isn't, you know, being cast into concrete blocks by the Church of Scientology today. It doesn't work very hard to present either Dianetics nor Scientology as a Science, thought both have a lot of commonalities of Science. Maybe the problem lies in demonstration. Newton could demonstrate the rate of falling bodies. But once you chage your idea (decision, postulate) about something, well, it is gone and no longer demonstrable. Terryeo 07:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph Cut, Pasted here. Modemac's paragraph

This paragraph does not appear to be cited. The first statement is obviously false, else we wouldn't be making an article about this subject. Later in the paragraph is a link (It won't come up for me) and even later an unaccessible study. Don't you think better sources need to be included for something of this nature?

The nationwide popularity of Dianetics proved to be short-lived, and Hubbard started to encounter criticism as well as legal action from the established mental health community, whom he had publicly attacked in his book. Coincident to this controversy followed and the validity of Dianetics was challenged. Unofficial biographies of Hubbard (which have been opposed by the Church of Scientology) portray him at this time as being convinced that the organisational and financial problems besetting the Dianetic Foundations were the result of Soviet Communist infiltration. Scientology critics have made FBI files from the first half of the 1950s public, revealing letters from him denouncing his colleagues, and even his wife Sara, as "vermin Communists or ex-Communists". [2] This occurring at the height of the Red Scare, an agent was despatched on 7 March 1951 to interview Hubbard, who claimed that he had been approached by Russian agents interested in Dianetics:

The paragraph above. The nationwide popularity of Dianetics is, today, vastly larger than when it begin. The situation is obviously different than the first sentence states. Obvously. But more to the point, the popularity of Dianetics is pretty much known around the world today. Some exceptions perhaps. But published and sold in a number of languages. What Modemac might not know, (one example) several dianetics groups will feed a Mission and several missions might feed a Class IV Church of Scientology and several Class IV organizations, a Saint Hill and then there are Advanced Organizations and so on. The number of Dianetic Auditing groups is pretty large today. Really quite opposite "short-lived popularity." But let's discuss the paragraph. The last line states "an agent was despatched" well, what sort of agent? Was he of the IRS? the FDA? The CIA? What? The whole paragraph doesn't hold together well, the only link in it doesn't come up for me (maybe the 'net is busy) and it needs some work. Terryeo 07:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought this was an article about Dianetics. There is currently nothing in this article about the actual history of the Dianetics foundations, Hubbard's financial problems, the battle over the origins of the E-meter, his subsequent decision to go religious and form Scientology, the Church of Scientology's claim that Hubbard was attacked by the psychiatric establishment "only twenty-eight days" after the introduction of Dianetics, or even Hubbard's own claim that he was blinded in World War II and miraculosuly healed himself through the power of Dianetics. A "History of Dianetics" section is needed, and I'm trying to add the proper facts. Incidentally, you forgot to delete the actual quote from the FBI document; this makes the article even more confusing. (Also, here's the link you were looking for regarding the quoted document.) A lot more work is needed here, and I'm sure you'll be more than happy to assist us in adding the proper facts. Have a nice day. :) --Modemac 10:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
<having a nice day> I see the google search results of that link which lists many pages. You're right, the FBI quote removal makes the article flow better. I guess everyone is aware the Clambake site might have facts within it somewhere, but can't be taken as literally true as encylopedic information. There was once in the Church of Scientology, an individual in a position that he wrote Policy and Technical Bulletins, had them published and distributed as offical church policy, who was later removed. His policies and bulletins caused a great deal of trouble. As a result, those publications were removed from Church Doctrine. As I look at some of the "documentation" on the clambake site, I see some of those long dead, long defunct, long removed policies there, quoted as being literally true today. The site is not to be literally believed, though it a careful examination might be of some historical interest. Take care of yourself, Terryeo 19:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
So you are claiming that someone else wrote these "long dead" Policy and Technical Bulletins, not LRH? What was this person's name? Surely this person's name would have been exposed on the Internet by now due to the long research into Scientology's history that has been performed over the years. Please provide this person's name, thank you. --Modemac 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's true. What's not generally appreciated by many Scientologists nowadays - due to the emphasis on the whole "Golden Age of Tech" thing - is that for its first 10-15 years, Scientology was quite a collegiate effort. A significant number of early HCOPLs and HCOBs were indeed written by other people and published either under their own names or under Hubbard's with acknowledgements. I've seen a large number of these early documents in archives, so I can confirm that they do exist. I presume that many of them have since been purged in the effort to whittle down the policy and technical corpus to only things that Hubbard himself wrote, or claimed to have written.
Terryeo should note, though, that a lot of early policy and technical documents that were definitely by Hubbard were withdrawn from circulation in the 1960s for a number of reasons. Some related to "security" and became limited-circulation Guardian's Office (and now OSA) policies. Others related to the OT materials and were subsumed into those limited-circulation document sets. Just because they don't now exist in the green or red volumes doesn't mean that they aren't still in use in Scientology. There is a lot more policy and technical material in Scientology than is publicly admitted. -- ChrisO 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
By green or red volumes I'm pretty sure ChrisO means the 11 volume set which comprises all of Church Policy (HCOPLs). Those are green ink on white paper and bound into volumes. By red on white he means the 18 volume set which comprises all of the HCOBs (Technical Bulletins). The Church grew and such growth requires policy, as an organization grows larger it needs to spell out explicity the actions of all the jobs within it. There were a number of difficulties, as any growing organization will experience. ChrisO's paragraph is valid and real until he gets to the last sentence. There is no more policy than published as policy. A person needs to understand the CoS is not simply one big body. It is composed of many organizations which work together. The green on white (green volumes, Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters) are policy. This is the highest level of written guidence and is followed by everyone in the organization. I mean to include Miscaviage too, he too is bounded and must follow policy. There are additional written orders. The Sea Org has written orders. Such an order might be: "Laundry shall be washed once a week." (an example out of the thin air). While policy is broad general guidence which is to be followed with good sense in everyday situations, orders are literal orders to be exactly fulfilled. Policy is a high level and applies to all organizations within the Church of Scientology. The only higher thing than Policy is the goal of the Curch of Sceintology. There is a policy letter on this, Goals (highest) Policy (next) and below policy and answering to it, orders and so on. ChrisO implies there are actions and attitude by staff persons within the Church which do hidden, secret things by following unwritten, unpublished policy. It simply isn't so. All of the CoS policy is published. It has an ISBN, It is management technique with a proven track record (the CoS has grown). Today W.I.S.E. aids its use (exact same green volumes, exact same policy) into public business. It works. Its not hidden. Below policy and serving policy are written orders (Executive Directives, Sea Org Orders, informational orders and so on). Any large orgnaization has such internal publications which let the people working know what is going on. But Policy is green on white, published 100%. I'll make up an example. If I were a staff member in an organization and Miscaviage himself gave me a written order that I saw was counter to policy then I should not fulfill his order. The resulting justice committee would uphold my action because policy is above and over any communication or action. Terryeo 16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I feel I better add this additional, clear denial of ChrisO's statement: "There is a lot more policy and technical material in Scientology than is publicly admitted." That was my intent as I begin ths communication. There is policy. All of it is published. There is no more policy than is published in the Green Volumes. Period. In addition to policy and below policy are orders and other communicaitons, all of which fulfill policy and do not counter policy. There are 18 Red volumes of Technical Bullitans and additionally, published books. ChrisO states there is a "lot more" but while there is more, because the OT levels are confidential information, there is not "A lot more." There is more. The more deals with particular events. The theory of why the CoS technology works was probably made public first by G.S. Buddha who became enlightened (Scientology calls this state Clear). Dianetics achieved the same. Scientology further refined it into smaller, easier to achieve steps which any person can do. While G.S. Buddha almost died becoming enlightened today's CoS provides a gradient ramp up. But the reasons why it works have been known without being clearly know, probably by everyone. Man (in the broad general sense including females and children) is basically good and trying to survive. Hence, when he becomes cause over his past, seemingly trivial errors, he becomes more himself. Terryeo 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A Context for an Article on Dianetics.

It seems to me the intention of the current article and the intentions of the current Editors have been defined by the Discussion above.

I see four main contexts that make sense for an article named "Dianetics":

1) Dianetics, The Controversy.

2) Dianetics, The Philosophy

3) Dianetics, The Science

4) Dianetics, The Therapy

I don't think the best interests of all Readers and all Editors is met, when only one of the above contexts is tolerated. The nature of that context then defines for an Editor what is neutral when an Editor views the intention of Wiki NPOV for the Article.

Can everyone agree that the context for the current article is, "Dianetics, The Controversy" only?

Is it desirable to have all four contexts being represented or just the one? If just one, shouldn't the name of the Article be changed to represent what is being done in fact? Spirit of Man 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the best way to do it. It would be more satisfactory to either cover all of these topics in a single article, or have an overview article linking to more detailed articles on subtopics. -- ChrisO 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't both of those ideas exactly what we have now? Any suggestions on how to improve things from there? Spirit of Man 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on just that! -- ChrisO 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why we need critical analysis, and delving into the memory hole

I'm still beavering away on a rewrite of this article. However, I thought I'd take some time out to raise a couple of points that other contributors might find helpful, to explain where I'm coming from with the rewrite. There are some issues that I'd like to highlight, as they may be controversial later on.

I said earlier that the article "regurgitates claims from Hubbard without making any effort to assess their veracity or put them into context". That was admittedly a poor choice of words - I should have said "repeated uncritically". I've noticed that several contributors have fallen into this trap on this talk page.

For instance, Spirit of Man says above that "by May 1950 there were at least 260 [clears]". How does s/he know this? Hubbard merely asserts it in D:MSMH, but nowhere does he give any hard evidence. As far as I know, he never published his case-by-case results, his methodology, or in fact any data of any sort - he simply asserts it as a matter of fact, without providing any corroboration.

ChrisO, in my case it is "he" and you may call me "Spirit of Man". Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, regarding "Why we need critical analysis", "memory hole", regurgitating, "repeated uncritically", "fallen into this trap", at least 260 clears, "nowhere does he [LRH] give any hard evidence", "never published case-by-case results", "his methodology", "in fact any data of any sort", "he" [Spirit of Man] simply asserts it as a matter of fact, without providing corroboration." Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, I think you are beating a dead horse. I think all of your concerns are covered by this one idea. LRH published a policy called "The Hidden Data Line". This covers the idea you suggest here for readers to ponder. You suggest that you personally have information or that there is hidden information that denies the value of Dianetics, or gives you an understanding that others do not or can not have. I say this is not the case. Nevertheless, let me indulge you here. See the book "The Original Thesis for Case Studies". I'm not saying this is comprehensive, I'm saying they are published Case Studies and they are representative, where you assert there are none. I live near a Clear that has known LRH since 1946. I have known her for years and talked to her in the last week. She has told me how she went Clear, when and what processes were used. LRH tells about his clearing methods of 1947 in the London Clearing Congress and the Freedom Congress, as I recall. He says this was basically increasing a person's ability to confront mental image pictures. It took great skill that was not easy to grasp. Auditor training did not match the communications skill level needed for this technique until 1957. [See the Freedom Congress Lectures] During the accompanying Advanced Clinical Course auditors learned these methods and applied them. The methods published in DMSMH and accompanying lectures are easier. The 1947 method was to have the person recall the memory of "coming into the room." Then you have the person go through the picture many times in great detail addressing many perceptions until the picture vanishes. [The person can confront this picture.] Then a lock is taken up, until it vanishes. Then a painful emotion engram, until it vanishes. Then a picture of pain and unconsciousness is taken up the same way, until the person goes Clear. Nothing of past lives were taken up in any of the 260 clears. This was a later development. Repeat, this requires the greatest skill, I am absolutely not recommending anyone test this technique. Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, you have accused me personally and publicly of "repeating uncritically", I ask that you withdraw your accusation publically as well. Long ago Archimedes proclaimed to the city of Syracuse [and the Scientific Comminity of the day] the principle we know as "the Lever", "Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the world." The King insisted he prove this absurd claim or withdraw it. Archimedes took the King's largest ship in the harbor, that only his army could handle, and moved it across the harbor single-handedly. The King recanted and proclaimed "Everything Archimedes says shall be taken as true." [Harvard Classics] Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

...He was heavily criticised for this by many of the commentators on Dianetics back in 1950/51. There are a lot of problems with his statements on clears, which Jeff Jacobsen does a good job of documenting in "The Murky State of Clear". [3]

To give another example, Spirit of Man also says that Dianetics "was offered to the medical and psychiatric communities. They refused the subject for their own reasons." I imagine that s/he is quoting the Church of Scientology line on this, which goes as follows: "Hoping to make his discoveries available to the broad public, and at the insistence of those working with him at the time, he offered his findings to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. The response was most enlightening. Not only did the healthcare establishment claim no interest in his work, they declined to even examine his results." [4] But this raises a key question - what is meant by "offered his findings to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association?"

I can answer that one ChrisO because I have a full set of Administration and Tech bulletins, current ones, here. The Technical Bulletins are contained in 18 large volumes. In the first volume of the set on page 3 it states: Dianetics: The Original Thesis was written by Ron in 1947, fifteen years after he began his studies of the mind. The book was written as the first formal record of his research and extraordinary discoveries on the function of the human mind. Originally titled Scientology: A New Scince, the book was retitled Abnormal Dianetics when it was offered to the medical and psychiatric professions in early 1948. The work was not utilized by these professions; it was, however, accepted broadly by the public at large. Tens of thousands of copies of it were circulated all over the world, mostly by the public themselves duplicating it, mimeographing it, even typing it with many carbons. -- Then the dianetics article has the publication dates and ISBNs of that title.
Actually, that raises more questions than it answers! "Fifteen years after he began his studies of the mind" would put the start date as 1933; what evidence is there that Hubbard did any research then? Who was "Abnormal Dianetics/Dianetics: The Original Thesis" offered to and why did they not accept it? Was anyone else involved in this? Was it distributed to the public at large and did they really accept it - where's the evidence?
Don't worry about answering these questions now, as my revised version will cover them and we can discuss them then. I've raised them to illustrate how we need to get into the fine detail here; we need to probe the implications and evidence for the claims made in works such as the Technical Bulletins. Incidentally, you might be interested to know that my 1973 copy has a completely diffeent introduction which doesn't include many of the statements you summarised above - this just goes to show how the Church of Scientology's interpretation of historical events has changed over the years. -- ChrisO 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But the real rub has always been (as I perceive it) Psychiatry address the body. Dianetics doesn't address the body. Dianetics addresses the mind by communicating with the individual who is, after all, responsible for both. :) Terryeo 07:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, and that distinction needs to be made clear in the article. I certainly don't have a problem with it. My concern is a much historical narrower one - peeling away 50 years of reinterpretation and selective remembering to find out what actually happened at the time. -- ChrisO 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, Dr. J.A. Winter - one of Hubbard's early associates - describes how he and Hubbard submitted a paper giving a "resume of the principles and methodology of dianetic therapy" to the Journal of the American Medical Association, but it was rejected for publication on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence of Dianetics' effectiveness. A revised version including case histories supplied by Hubbard was submitted to the American Journal of Psychiatry, but was again rejected on the grounds of insufficient substantiation.

This puts a totally different light on why Dianetics was rejected for publication. It was not "offered to the AMA and APA" at all. A paper based on Hubbard's findings was offered to the journals of both associations, not to the associations' leaderships. Both journals have strict editorial policies for submissions, which result in the rejection of a great many papers, many of which are no doubt deserving but don't meet the editorial rules. The journals also have strict policies of editorial independence, so claiming that the AMA and APA "rejected" them would require us to assert that both associations violated their editorial policies. There's no evidence that they did; asserting that they did would constitute unverifiable speculation, which is specifically ruled out by Wikipedia's policy (WP:NOR). It's fair enough to mention what the Church of Scientology believes happened, but we need to make clear that it's a partisan assertion rather than a statement of known fact.

The moral here is that we need to be careful about accepting claims without subjecting them to critical analysis.

ChrisO, see above. Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This brings me onto the other point that I wanted to make. The history of Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard has been more than usually subject to the memory hole effect. For instance, Hubbard had a habit of editing out people with whom he had had disagreements. Dianetics:MSMH originally had an introduction by Dr. J.A. Winter, who had co-developed it with Hubbard. This is no longer present in the book. Lectures have been edited to remove positive references to people such as Don Purcell and Art Ceppos, who played important roles in Dianetics but who fell out with Hubbard. And as I've shown with the AMA/APA example above, past events are now presented in a significantly misleading and inaccurate way. It's quite possible that the authors of the CoS web page that I cited aren't even aware of this.

The only way we can retrieve stuff effectively from the memory hole is to go back to the primary sources. What did Hubbard and the people around him do and say at the time? This means looking at contemporary news articles, original editions of contemporary books, eye-witness accounts, original unedited versions of lectures, contemporary Dianetics publications etc. We also need to recognise that neither Hubbard and the CoS is an unbiased source of historical record, as they have both had their own reasons to present events in a particular way. We shouldn't simply take their claims for granted - they need to be checked against contemporary records, and we need to be willing to say where the claims don't match the record. -- ChrisO 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, what is needed is an article that truthfully presents "Dianetics: the Philosophy", "Dianetics: the Science" and "Dianetics: the Therapy" with a section at the end with links to whatever "Controversy" you care to invest the time to link to. Spirit of Man 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see three possible sources of controversy, and corralling them all into a "Controversy" section won't work; what you mean by "controversy" is, I would guess, "anything that contradicts the official version".
Your candor is amusing. Where do you get these cliches? lol Spirit of Man 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What do I consider "Controversy" to be? Well, if we had a pure, beautiful musical note that everyone enjoyed and someone added a dissonance like a firecracker going off. I think that would be the idea of adding "Controversy". Spirit of Man 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But let's be more to the point to distinguish my idea further from your cliché. I like to compare things to understand the differences. So let's start with understanding. I teach my Engineers and students when I teach, that understanding means, "to have a clear and true idea or notion of something, or full and exact knowledge of something." When you understand something well, you can apply it right now. When you understand a skill or an ability, you can acquire it easily, just by deciding. You and I can observe students doing this and acquiring useful skills like this. Here is an example: Second grade class, local elementary school, boy student can't add and hasn't started his addition workbook assignment in class, half-way through the class. I try to motivate him and he doesn't motivate. I realize he doesn't have the skill, he doesn't understand. So I take the first problem, 9 + 4. I hand him a basket of 1-inch tiles and have him count out 9 on one side of his desk and 4 on the other side. He understands that, I say, "Now push them all together, how many do you have? Count them up!" He totally got it. He had 20 problems on that page and he starts scanning down the page like a speedreader. At first he mumbles an answer, but then he is moving too fast for talking, he finishes all 20 in about 2 seconds. Literallly. You see, he now understands and can act instantly. He can do his assignment in seconds. This is a beautiful thing like the beautiful musical note. So adding something to that, like his teacher had been doing all year, is "controversy". It did not add to his ability to add, in fact it all but prevented it. Spirit of Man 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So adding things that are not needed; adding fear of something, adding false information, adding confusion, adding misunderstandings, adding distrust, adding anything to the basic understanding that results in the ability to use the information, would be adding "Controversy" in my opinion. Spirit of Man 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The three sources are historical (did things happen the way the CoS says they did?), scientific (is it a science or not?) and effectiveness (does Dianetics really do what it says it does?). The NPOV policy requires us to synthesize knowledge, so that both sides of an issue are represented fairly and accurately. See also what's said on how one should deal with issues of pseudoscience - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience. -- ChrisO 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, it seems to me you have outlined your three main sources of Controversy and these could fit nicely into a section on "Dianetics: the Controversy", with those subsections, you could write, or you could make three sections. Why don't you do this? I don't think you have treated me "fairly and accurately" in this Discussion, I can't wait to see you how present your Controversy, as I have defined it above. Spirit of Man 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, one of the goals of Dianetics in 1950,[pages 31-33] in terms of survival was "personal immortality". Can you tell us what this means in your world, and what it means for Mankind? Spirit of Man 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO. Wikipedia Policy covers boldy all of the issues you have raised above. It spells out how to deal with the situation. Wikipedia:Verifiability says a piece of information may be put into an article if it is published and if the source of the published information is cited. Well. The Church of Scientology publishes. That publication gets quoted here. By Wiki Policy, that is a fact.
Not at all - you miss out the crucial requirement to cite credible sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources goes into great detail on this subject. The fact that it's published doesn't mean that it's automatically true. The Institute of Creation Research publishes material that claims that humans coexisted with dinosaurs - is this automatically true just because it's published? See the points under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating sources.
Now obviously ChrisO, you choose to disregard anything and everything the Church of Scientology publishes. That is your right. But, it is not your right to oppose the citing of Church of Scientoloy in Wikipedia articles. Your alternative is spelled out at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your rights are the same as any other editors rights. You go and find a source of information that you like and you bring that information into the Wikipedia article and you post it, citing your source of information. Do you follow about this? Then, the reading public can read the article and compare the information. They can compare the source of information. A large, successful organization will normally be considered to have more reputation than a small, unsuccessful organization, do you follow? It is just Wiki Policy and it really has nothing to do with you, or with me, or with anyone else. It is the set of guidelines we all agree to abide by when we edit. Terryeo 07:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not disregarding anything the CoS says - its publications are one of my most important sources - nor am I opposing citing what it says. What I do oppose is citing uncritically what it says. We need to bear in mind that the CoS has a strong bias towards Hubbard's point of view, and that Hubbard himself had a strong personal POV. We have to allow for that bias in assessing what they have to say. -- ChrisO 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Then we agree to just follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and may the best source of information win in the mind of the reader? :) Terryeo 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

removed this paragraph here for discussion and citing

Here is the removed text:

Hubbard claimed that the state of Clear was desireable. He attempted to demonstrate in August of 1950 when he introduced the "world's first Clear," a college student named Sonya Bianca, to an audience on stage with a demonstration of her abilities. Unfortunately, Bianca was unable to exhibit any of the abilities claimed by Hubbard, and further demonstrations of Dianetics by Hubbard were considerably scaled back. (Scientology -- The Now Religion pg. 57) [5][citation needed]

The paragraph talks of Sonya Bianca. Then the link points to a page of links. Exploring the links leads to George Malko which is there stated to be the "world's first clear." This isn't appropriate use of links because 1. it links to information which conflicts with the article's statement. and because 2. The link goes to a page of nothing but links which is confusing in itself. Terryeo 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, this is my opinion for this Discussion. I understand the stage presentation pointed out other things beyond the scope of Clear in 1950. At that time there was no attention paid to things earlier than this life in accordance with the compartmentation of all philosophic knowledge down to the then current scope of science of the day. An audience member directed Sonya's attention to things that happened in 1066 [the Battle of Hastings]. I understand the stage presentation up until that point in Sonya's demonstration performed as expected. I don't think Sonya expected to be able to recreate the sensations that happened at that time at the Battle of Hastings and she was overwhelmed with the stage pressure and no previous familiarity with such things. No doubt the content was painful enough one way or the other. I think if she had been familiar with such things, she would not have allowed an audience member to direct her attention, she would have accepted his question and used her own good judgement. I don't think it is appropriate to include it here on Wiki, any more that it was to include something beyond the scope of the demonstration back then. If a person has not beem familiarized with something, it make no sense to jump into it publically then or as a reader now. People that look to Controversy may be interested in the public embarassment for Hubbard and Dianetics and the state of Clear, but it was not a scientific demonstration of the state of clear to begin with. It was a public demonstration intended to be within the scope of the scientific knowledge of the day, not a test of all things beyond that scope. It didn't demonstrate her actual capabilities. It may have been important to research, if it led to including "all time" in the scope of Dianetics, instead of just this "lifetime". Spirit of Man 14:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you said so, I didn't know that. I did know, in those days, any past life memory was a woo-woo, methods to continue the session and the communication were not so well hammered out, drilled, clean, easily handled. Thanks :) Terryeo 14:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes galore

I seem to be going for a Wikipedia record in footnoting the revised version that I'm working on - I've reached 50 footnotes already and there's no end in sight. Hopefully it'll keep Terryeo happy about the sourcing. ;-) -- ChrisO 17:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This article does not introduce Dianetics. Many things can be said about Dianetics, and against Dianetics with a lot of footnotes. With 10 books, many printings, lectures, newspaper articles, counter-books, counter-newspaper articles and so on, much can be cited and stated. But until the subject is introduced is there a point it in? More basic than verification is communication. Cites are a method to insure a communication's validity. If the article held information about how modern varieties of corn were developed, it would not help a reader understand Dianetics. Neither does your array of footnotes help a reader understand Dianetics. I hesitate to call it poor writing, but how can it help a reader understand the source of the word "Dianetics" to put it under "Theory" (which should be about what axioms or theories it is based on) and to put "through soul" right up against another datum of equal magnitude (so and so originated it years ago)? For a reader to use Wiki, we want them to understand Dianetics and understand what points of view exist counterwise. But instead, you baffle them with intertwined barrage of information. How about we get a good, clean introduction to this topic and THEN everyone jump on their respective POVs ? Terryeo 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)