Talk:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health/Archive 1

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

Developement of Dianetics has been continuous, not stopped in 1950.

This statement is not true and should be revised, "He then developed counseling (auditing) techniques for getting rid of engrams. This is still the technique used by Dianetics-trained counselors today." Auditing techiques have developed continuously since 1947 when the first clears were made. Their development was not halted in 1950 as this statement implies. People who use this book may use the book exactly as is and get the results published. The modern course to do this is the Dianetics Seminar Course. The modern course that updates all auditor training is the Hubbard Dianetic Auditor course. The course that includes the E-Meter is the New Era Dianetics Course. Spirit of Man 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, you have removed the edits related to this discussion without discussion. The clarifying material should be in the article, otherwise the article misrepresents the facts of the situation. Please restore this material. Spirit of Man 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The statements here about Xenu are false and malicious. This information is not in Dianetics or Scientology published materials and is uncitable within the context presented. It should be removed. It was not added with discussion here. Spirit of Man 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well someone could cite the fishman document as a source for volcanoes and Hubbard, but I'm not sure there's a source for stating that the dianetics volcano cover has much to do with Xenu... Ronabop 06:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a source for this statement, I read it just yesterday. Hang on, and I'll find it. wikipediatrix 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's fixed. There are three sources for the Xenu-Dianetics cover connection listed on the article and I can get more if you like. As an added bonus, I added two sources for the statement that critics have noted that many of the volcanoes specifically named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago. wikipediatrix 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you people oppose simplicites? The book itself has been widely sold, reprinted many many times in hardback and softback. People come here and what do they read about it? Some beanbrain vast controversy about the significance of the only picture the book has, its cover. That's one page people, one picture. There is no statement why a volcano is used on its cover. But you people are so willing to provide the reasons the publisher uses. Meanwhile, any information within the book is ignored in favor of a vast controversy, all of it suppositioned, about its cover. Does it not occur to the thinking mind the article doesn't serve Wikipedia when drivel about Xenu is artfully inserted into a DMSMH article because the editors are restimulated by a picture? Does it not occur to you at all that Xenu didn't exist for many years after DMSMH was written, published, sold, re-published, re-copyrighted, etc? A + B = beanbrain, I mean c'mon, really. Terryeo 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, any argument with the word "beanbrain" in it is automatically at a high, erudite level of discourse, but I'll try to explain it to you anyways. The reason we went for so very long without any article called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is because that article would have had to be one of two things: either it would be about the book (rather than about the contents, which are already described at Dianetics) or it would be an unallowable POV fork of Dianetics. Spirit of Man already tried the latter, and only succeeded in producing a POV fork. ChrisO did the former, and produced an article about the book. It's .... rather strange, to say the least, for you to have spent so much time at Dianetics trying to insert factually dubious claims about the book and then to come here, to the now-extant article about the book, and complain that it's about the book. But hey, if calling your fellow editors "beanbrains" is what you need to do to get to sleep at night, it won't be hurting us none. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I begin to understand your point of view Antaeus. "About the book (and not about the contents). hmm. That means this article can only be about the cover of the book (according to your explanation) and can not have any information within it about that which is between the covers of the book, according to your statement. Hmmm. So let me ask you this. According to you all of the copies sold have been sold to people who don't read the book? Over a time period of 55 years, many reprintings, millions of copies, all of that. People don't read the book? I don't believe it. HEH ! People read the book, people talk to their neighbors. People come to Wikipedia and are a little curious about the book. Let's provide them with a little information about what is inside, shall we Antaeus?  :) Terryeo 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"That means this article can only be about the cover of the book (according to your explanation) and can not have any information within it about that which is between the covers of the book, according to your statement." Well, Terryeo, thank you for sinking to a new low. That's a truly pathetic straw man, "this article can only be about the cover of the book". No. It can be about the publishing history of the book (assuming that the only information is coming from reliable sources, which at this point it's clear that you wouldn't know if they bit you in the ass-thetan.) It can be about the covers of the book. It can even be about where this book fell in the sequence of books about Dianetics. What it can't be about is the subject of Dianetics, because that already has its article; is this something you will ever comprehend? Will you ever even try to grasp the concept? If you don't like what's written at L. Ron Hubbard you can't just say "well, I'll write my own version at LRH." And if you don't like what's written at Dianetics you can't just say "Well, I'll start articles for every book written about Dianetics and I'll make each one my own version of what I think Wikipedia should tell people about Dianetics." Is it somewhat ludicrous that when a book's subject is already covered in another article, an article about the book would have to be about the book rather than about the contents? Yes; can your superhuman mind entertain the possibility that this is why no one bothered to write an article on the book? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, tell us more about why an article on a book should not discuss the contents of the book? Spirit of Man 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find no contents of the book at Dianetics. The article Dianetics should encompass the subject of Dianetics which includes many, many books, articles, lectures and videos by L. Ron Hubbar over a period of 70 years. It should include any resulting controversy. Dianetics is not the same topic as this one book. You have a POV and you seem to have a problem with me. You did not discuss it at the talk page for the article you redirected to this one and recommended for deletion. Are you willing to talk it out? Spirit of Man 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because that would be a POV fork, and indeed in the AfD for your article you yourself spelled out that it was a POV fork, that because you did not like the existing Dianetics article you set out to create a new article to cover the same subject, but in the way you wanted it covered. That's called a POV fork. Wikinfo allows those. Wikipedia doesn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It was not what you call a "POV fork", it was a separate one book only article with nothing outside the scope of that book, not even my own POV. I did express the author's intentions in that book without quoting his exact words which could have violatee a copyright as Wiki mentions below each edit window, but I do believe I followed the context expressed within the book. I believe the idea of each paragraph I wrote is citable by page number within that book. I mentioned the context of the Dianetics article on your deletion page, only in reference to your deletion, not my creating of the book article. Since you accept ChrisO's book article's existence and the need for its existence, which is in fact the same book. How can you justify your recommendation to delete the earlier version without discussion there? It might be that you can not distinguish this one book article from the Dianetics article that should encompass 70 years of development, at least 10 books and lots more. I have not seen you allow much development there beyond the scope of this book.
nothing outside the scope of that book, not even my own POV... Ahem. "Fascist Germany had its propaganda machines, Communist Russia had its propaganda machines and one could assume any tyranny invented by man would defend itself by any of the means it uses. Dianetics has attracted its share Controversy [sic] from 1938 onward... this book ... sent a message to all that might attempt to enslave mankind." If you are going to try to argue that that text represented NPOV discussion of the book rather than your own POV, it only serves to indicate that you don't even understand the difference between the two. And if you are going to argue that that is the book's claim and that Wikipedia should be perfectly okay with repeating a book's own claims (as if they were universally agreed facts) about how important and wonderful the book is, then you need to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia is not for advertising. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, you have argued that a book's own claims (and you have added your own emphasis, "as...universally agreed facts".") may not be used. I think this is an error. NPOV says that both "sides" should be presented fairly. Do you agree this is true and we should use this Wiki policy? I think ChrisO has provided ample examples of the side I call "Controversy" the second side is not mine and you will not permit a CoS view, is not the view from the book the "second side". I merely present the "facts" of the book or state what the intention of the author certainly is. I make no claims of universal facts and you should not insist on always placing me on the defensive only. Both sides have the right to fair presentation. You and CrisO have presented "one side" by why the venomous super-criticism of the second side that is required by NPOV to be fairly represented? Spirit of Man 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To address Terryeo's concerns: I don't oppose simplicities, but if I made the article even simpler and clearer than it already is, you would not like the way I would go about it, believe me. I think the article in its present form already gives a more-than-fair explanation of what Dianetics is/was/has been in the past, without turning into an advertisement for the Church of Scientology. And I think it's interesting that you say Xenu didn't exist until after Dianetics was written: Hubbard said Xenu existed billions of years ago. Who's right, you or Hubbard? wikipediatrix 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't spell out the sequece clearly enough. 1950, Dianetics. Book. Many copies sold, reprinted, many more copies sold. Then maybe in 1965, I don't know when, A company which publishes the book decides to put a volcano on its cover. Why? Gosh, maybe they think it will sell books, you think? But they don't tell the reading public, "we put a volcano on there to spark your interest," they just publish the book. If there is a reason for that choice of pictures, then it would be up to you to find it and post it. As it is, you are doing original research, stating your own opinions without any verification and then stating a lot of information about volcanoes that Scientology has mentioned. None of which says, "We put the volcano on there because of this reason ..." Terryeo 16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, you have citations, but they do not place the heated issue of "Xenu" in the context of this 1950 book article or even Dianetics the more general article on Dianetics. Your comments relating to Xenu should be removed as extraneous and confusing. I believe you are violating the rights of the copyright holder that are a condition of editing here and could subject Wiki to actions copyright holders can take. Also, your comments here are heated. They only represent a personal POV. I dispute that you personally have the right to represent the point of view of higher level people in Scientology in this context. It is a personal point of view. Please remove it. Spirit of Man 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're hinting at legal threats? If this is the substance of your argument, I can no longer waste further time trying to cooperate with you on this article. I will follow Scientology's advice and Disconnect with down-stat Suppressive Persons such as yourself who seek to Enturbulate. wikipediatrix 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The substance is you should remove the extraneous material you added, that have nothing to do with this book. You have represented your personal point of view as the beliefs of people you do not represent. This book only represents the time period for an individual from conception to the present. Please review the line just below this Wiki edit window; it says "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL." Your xenu comments do not meet this criteria for submission. Remove it. Spirit of Man 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, I'm not seeing any copyrighted material added here (unless you can point me out to a web page that had been clearly plagarized)... so is this a NPOV dispute over linking Xenu and the volcano, or WP:V or WP:NOR or what? As far as the current "Xenu-Volcano-Dianetics Cover" links go, the first one uses wikipedia for it's source (so, no good), the second I couldn't find the connection in the text. The third link explicitly states a connection.
The material is extraneous to the article. In the terms Anteaus uses it has to be a POV fork. Wikipediatrix, has not defended her POV about how she can speak for high level Scientoligists and place these highly inflamatory words into a context where they would never authorize anything of such nature on a review of a book on Wiki. It is a personal opinion about beliefs she could not possibly defend. Her citation three looks like an altered glossary written in an email. It is not a credible citation. It also mentions Hubbard's intentions for the volocano representation which could not possbibly be true and they represent only personal opinion. I have a set of books from the time period of the original volcano book cover. They say, "Cover Design Copyright 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Right Reserved." Wikipediatrix does not own the "right" to represent this cover in any way, let alone in her personal highly inflamatory disinformation compaign. Her citation specifically brings to us to her of idea of "the intention to restimulate". What other intention than harm, could she have for going into the details and citations she uses without consent of the owners and misrepresentation of the intentions of Hubbard and higher-level Scientologists? More calmness is needed in the world not troubles that are extraneous to the topic. The correct citation is: "Cover Design Copyright 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Right Reserved." or whichever year that picture represents. All of her extraneous notes intended to damage and harm L. Ron Hubbard, the owners of the copyright and reserved rights, and the general public, should be removed. Spirit of Man 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
"In the terms Anteaus uses it has to be a POV fork." Holy moley. OK, I'll bite; how is it a POV fork? I mean, it's not, obviously, but how are you misunderstanding all the terms you're using so badly as to believe it "has to be"? Do you have any clue at all what a POV fork is? Have you taken the elementary steps of reading Wikipedia:POV fork and Wikipedia:Content forking in order to at least sound like you comprehend what you're saying? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No I hadn't read your "POV fork" thingy. I apologize, I should not have used your words. I did not mean to include the context of creating a new article. A person with a non-neutral point of view has edited an existing article to point it in a new direction that is extraneous to the context of the article. It is not about the article and it is not within the context of the article. It tends to fork the readers attention off into left field, a field of hot Controversy. Do you understand this use of words to describe the current situation? Now to your use of the term on my article. I found this at your ref site: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." How did "POV fork" apply to my article to begin with? Spirit of Man 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, thank you for pointing out language that's going to need to be corrected; that sentence doesn't even make sense given the Wikipedian definition of vandalism. To explain it simply: One could argue that Wikipediatrix's edits to an existing article were POV edits, but even if that premise was agreed upon by all, it would still not be a POV fork, because no "forking", no creation of a new article on an already-created subject, took place. Now, it is possible for someone to create a new article on an already-created subject, without that being content forking: a couple of different ways are listed at Wikipedia:Content forking but the most obvious is when it happens by accident, such as ironically happened at Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:POV fork themselves, when two different people independently started articles to describe the same point of established Wikipedia practice without being aware of the other's efforts. However, when someone creates a new article with the reasoning of "There already is an article on the topic that I want to cover, however, my material is not being accepted by consensus there; I will therefore create a new article that lets me talk about the other article's topic and insert all the things I would have said in the other article," well, that is a POV fork, with no question. The forking has occurred and the motivation was clearly POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anteaus, please ignore the new indents for this thread. If you are explaining Wikipediatrix's edits as unacceptable, then I agree, and I think everyone else does to. If you are repeating my statement of those edits relative to the idea of a POV fork. Then I agree. If you are saying my intention for my DMSMH article meets the criteria you have outlined, for "POV fork" I do not agree. I did not say those things you outlined and that was not my intention. I believe the Dianetics article is broad in scope. My or Chris's DMSMH article should have the scope of just that one book from 1950. Now that is a lot, but it is not the huge scope of the subject of Dianetics. I thought it should be separate from Dianetics and so did Chris. We thought of this separately. I just got to it earlier. I understand you did not address the idea of extreme "vandelism". I asserted that is required to use the term the way you did and there was none. I tried to represent the intent of the author with ideas that I believe are citable in DMSMH. If they are not then you have an argument for that citation, not insisting on extreme "POV fork" deletion or redirection to Chris's less complete version. Do we agree? What he has is brief but well written, but he didn't seem to be aware of the earlier work as you did. You should have told him. Spirit of Man 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The other covers in the 1971 series include: A large man standing on mountain tops for The Problems of Work, A Judge with White Hair and Beard for Introduction to Scientology Ethics, A White Picture of a Bearded Man on a Red Background for The Fundamentals of Thought. The face might look like Socrates. Dianetics 55 has a white uniformed man taking control of a serpent in a tree suggesting "The Temptation" from the Bible.Spirit of Man 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here's my opinion on the two articles: This should be a sub-article about one book, which is a part of a larger field, which would be another article. Ronabop 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The significance of the Volcano on the cover

Here is the paragraph someone put in the article. It talks about various volcanic eruptions but it does not say one single word about why the volcano is on the front cover. A picture does not mean "free associate anything about volcanoes you can find." If there is good evidence why the CoS chose the volcano, then cite it. These other citations are not about the cover of Dianetics. The volcano has the significance the reader wishes to put on it. By falsely stating what the volcano "refers" to, you are placing your personal idea into the head of the reader. What you want to do is find some citation, however remote, which the Church of Scientology has published and which says, "The Volcano on the cover of DMSMH is to remind the reading public about the Xenu document which is in the public domain" None of those links even remotely talk about the cover of DMSMH. The topic here is DMSMH. Talk about it, post about it, verify about it. The subject of volcanoes, the subject of Xenu, the subject of peaches, those are other articles. When you cite a source, it must apply to the information. That isn't the case with this paragraph:

The volcano on post-1968 editions of Dianetics refers to upper-level Scientologists' belief in Xenu, [1] [2] [3] an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, allegedly placed billions of his people around Earth's volcanoes and killed them there. Critics, however, have pointed out that many of the volcanoes specifically named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago. [4] [5]

someone is editing this page to make it appear that I support the drivel about the cover. I don't. The cover is a trivial issue with me. The contents of the book is useful information. Frankly it baffles me how we can spend so much effort at so trivial a task. The only source of information which would matter would be the statement of the publisher. The publisher makes no statement of why they chose that picture. I would assume they hope it sells books. Duh. Terryeo 15:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The links I cited as sources do indeed refer to the text in the article. If you didn't see it, you didn't read them thoroughly enough. And please use the discussion page FIRST before you delete an entire third of an article! wikipediatrix 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, it is unfortunate that the dispersion and heated controversy has got you wrapped up in it enough to prevent you from understanding about Xenu. That event, according to the document on the Xenu website happend about 75,000,000,000 (million), 75 million years ago. The diansours went extinct about 65 million years ago. So that happened when diansours were walking earth, according to the document on the Xenu site. But this trival bit of information is just a point which prevents Dianetics from being communicated. Several editors disperse and disrupt any real communication of the subject. Its not your fault, but surely anyone can see the subject is not communicated. What is communicated is, "Dianetics IS a controversy. That's all this article says. Its not your fault. Its not my fault. And you and everyone knows the real score. A few of us are trying to communicate Dianetics to the reader. Too many more are trying to prevent that communication, hiding behind the guise of "It must be NPOV" and "there is controversy on that point" etc. Terryeo 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
My point was that the book and its content has no connection to them or their content or your additions whatsoever. You bring extraneous and extremely heated material that does not belong in the context of this book. You have no right to represent the beliefs of Scientologists. Can you find any mention in this book of anything not in the time frame, from conception to death of an individual? No! I say your intention is not neutral and you intend to add and invite hot controversy with Scientologists you don't represent, and bring it here, where there is enough for this book alone within its own context. You attempt to provoke issues with copyright owners and rights owners and drag Wikipedia with you into your scheme. Remove all of your comments, please! Spirit of Man 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As I expected, Terryeo is having to move from merely suspect claims of "I only know about policy X and I'm following policy X to the letter so even if you are moderating policy X with equally valid policy Y you are in the wrong for violating policy X and therefore I'll threaten you with 'every sentence you create [going] through this lengthy process of reminding you of Wiki Policy, pointing out line by line where and how you have failed and done wrong'[6]" and is now moving into completely ignoring policies that he knows full well to be in effect. Well, it just means that the evidence against him is stacking up higher and higher. Too bad for him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, why must you continually argue? There are other manners of communication, heh ! But hey, if creating a wall about your self is your idea of a good time, who's to stop you? My point is this: We should follow Wiki guidelines. Notice I said that and not policy? WP:CITE says a citation should be able to be accessed by readers and editors. ChrisO's citation of a confidential Scientology document does not fulfill that. It shouldn't be used as a cite, no matter how pleased ChrisO is with himself for having found some secret, hidden thing that he can cite. Terryeo 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a book, Antaeus. Some people actually open a book and read it. Having read it we can use the information therewithin. HEH! I'm pretty sure you could too if you wanted to.Terryeo 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
well, you've said how you see it Antaeus. If you really work at it with ChrisO and a few you, you can prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader. So far it is presented as a controversy. I know it is more than that. Hell, its worked miricles for people for years. That doesn't mean you have to let anyone know it, does it? Instead you can controversialize statements, disperse other statements and generally, prevent the subject from being communicated. That's what you have been doing for weeks. Terryeo 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, what I've been doing for weeks is keeping a couple of POV-pushing editors from forcing their double standards on the articles. "Hubbard claimed that Dianetics makes people more able human beings? Great! We can state that as fact in the article, rather than as the claim of a materially interested party with a long history of false statements! Oh, wait -- Hubbard also claimed something which is now embarrassing to us? We'll find a reason to take it out!" You're full of crap, Terryeo. Why are you full of crap? I'll tell you why you're full of crap. Because if I wanted to "prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader", I would not have asked NicholasTurnbull to create Engram (Dianetics), to communicate this Dianetics concept to readers. And you know full well I did that, too, which means that your nasty insinuation about "If you really work at it ... you can prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader" is a knowing lie on your part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
We should provide Hubbard's POV in the article. If he said Dianetics works miricles, it should appear in the article. Does it? Well, no, at least not at present. Does, say, 1/2 the article present the pro, and the other 1/2 the con? Well no. In fact the idea that the book has sold millions of copies hardly gets mentioned. That it sells today in a number of languages hardly gets mentioned. That its use is, a person can read it and help his neighbor doesn't get mentioned at all. What is important? Well, that which is most popularly done is important. People buy it no matter what anyone said about the picture on the cover. How is it that NicholasTurnbull's link gets put into Antaeus' signed post? Terryeo 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dang, someone is actually editing this talk page, resulting in convoluted signatures and talk. Terryeo 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you are forgetting once again that this is not the article for discussing Dianetics. That article, strangely enough, is Dianetics. This is the article for discussing the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Second of all, in suggesting that the article is not NPOV if it does not present "1/2 ... the pro, 1/2 the con", you are getting NPOV confused with false balance. "That its use is, a person can read it and help his neighbor doesn't get mentioned at all." Yeah, and if you still don't understand why a sentence like "A person can read it and help his neighbor." will never go into the article in that form, you are really whiffing when it comes to comprehending NPOV. As for "How is it that NicholasTurnbull's link gets put into Antaeus' signed post?" I really have no idea what the f--- you're talking about at this point. Am I right that you are now objecting to my defending myself against your absurd and malicious charges of trying to "prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Antaeus Feldspar. I will continue to freely remove those materials which are against NPOV. I would rather talk with you than not. I'll once again explain how it is appropriate to remove items of information (such as "the volcano is on the cover because ...") which are directly and explicity against NPOV. The idea of NPOV is that Wikipedia present information which is attributed to a source. A book. An author in an interview. A publisher who makes a statement about the cover of their book (perhaps). A newspaper article. Wikipedia presents that information. Wikipedia cites that information to accredit it to its source. That is our action as editors. This is a Neutral Point of View because it does not take a point of view. It reports someone else's point of view. The people who publish that book with that cover have not said why they chose that cover picture. ALAS ! no one knows why they chose that picture. Unfortunately every person who views that picture has to figure it out for themselves. You can not be helpful while you edit on Wikipedia. If you want to help those poor souls who don't know why the Church of Scientology chose a volcano for the cover, you will have to publish your opinion in a newspaper or a book or in some method or manner. Then, after that, you can have a friend quote you and cite the publication and then, at last, the TRUTH CAN BE KNOWN. But until it is published and the source cited, it is origninal research by an individual editor and can not appear in Wikipedia articles. Terryeo 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix and your removal of Copyright and reserved Rights notices

You must do what you must do. So must I!

If you do not revert the Copyright notice, the Artwork notice, the All Right Reserved Notice, your extreme POV representations of the beliefs of high-level Scientologists that you are not a part of nor represent, along with the entirety of your Xenu material that is inflamatory and extraneous to this book article from 1950, and notify me of same on my Spirit of Man profile, I will personally write a Knowledge Report on all this and any other relavant material I can find on your activities and WP:SCN as well, to the following:

L. Ron Hubbard copyright and Reserved Rights owner. Arkwork Copyright and Reserved Rights owner. The Director RTC, the Religious Technology Center, responsible for the ethical use of all Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard technical and administrative materials. The publisher of this book, Bridge Publications in care of: Patrick. Your profile on Wiki. The world wide headquarters for high-level Scientologists and their OT Committees. The home page for WP:SCN on Wiki Your auditing folders if any exist on the planet. My profile on Wiki.

I encourage you to consider what you do next very carefully.Spirit of Man 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Some policy to review: WP:NLT and WP:CV and WP:FU. We have policies on legal threats, and handling copyright disputes, including fair use. Ronabop 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree this is a correct Wiki policy from your CV link? "Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!)."Spirit of Man 02:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ronabob, I said or implied no "legal threat". I offered to make the situation known to the principle parties. Wikipediatrix has reverted material after two editors have discussed things here and deleted specific materials for good reasons after discussion. She now claims personal fear after "threats" when there were none. Rationally speaking is it a "threat" to simply make her actions known to those she is acting against? I think not. It simple makes known to all interested parties what she claims is her right. I disagree. I will apologize to her for any misinterpretations where my actions may have been misconstrued by herself or her parents as a "legal issue" by me. That was not intended.

Against my most basic instincts, I have removed all material from the article that offends User:Spirit of Man, not because I think it is the right thing to do, but because my parents have urged me to do so, fearing for my (and their) safety after Spirit of Man's threats. I still don't understand why he blames me about copyrighted use of the Dianetics book cover - I had nothing to do with that image. Someone else can put it back on the page if they want. wikipediatrix 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for removing your material on Xenu and your opinions of higher-level scientologists. I have no issue with the bookcover or its use here if the owners do not. I had already mentioned these issues to others and there is no issue to my knowledge on that. That is not an issue for me and I did not ask you to remove that. Thank you for reverting the copyright and Rights information you deleted. I did not intend for you to remove material you are not personally responsible for placing here. I apologize if you or your parents in any way interpreted anything I said or did from a "legal context" or became fearful of that issue. That was not my intention. I think you must agree that if the owner of property is being damaged someone should let them know about the damage so they can do something if needed, or nothing if nothing is indicated. What they do with the knowledge is not my concern only that they are aware of it. There may be Wiki policies that also cover this issue. I will try to make myself more aware of their policies. I do not believe they could possibly have policy that forbids informing the owners of property that something is happening concerning their property. Thank for reverting the things I requested. Please inform you parents of this discussion and that it is all resolved for me as I have described. As far as I am concerned this issue with you is fully closed and nothing further is expected, required or planned. I will take up any remaining issues with others as I have time for them. Spirit of Man 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the edits. If Spirit of Man has a problem with this, he can come to me -- or the countless other editors and administrators who believe inNPOV and oppose censorship. Intimidation or threats -- no matter how veiled -- are not welcome at Wikipedia. Neither he -- nor the people he is trying to represent -- control the site or this article: he is a guest here, subject to its rules and norms, and while his opinion is always welcome, any attempt at unilateral control isn't. I encourage him to consider what he does next very carefully. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, all you are doing is preventing a reader from understanding Dianetics. Spirit of Man knows Dianetics, he can communicate it. What you are doing is prevent any real communication to any reader, about Dianetics. Who wins? You, for being able to make a threat? Wikipedia, for not having readable articles about Dianetics? who? Terryeo 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not right, that's not even wrong. Mostly, it'sn untethered collection of words vaguely shaped like an argument. What the hell is being prevented here? --Calton | Talk 07:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, how can I help you? Spirit of Man 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, you have failed to represent your one time view. The material should be removed. Spirit of Man 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Wikipedia has procedures to deal with alleged copyright violations, Spirit of Man. They include verifying whether there is in fact any actual copyright violation going on, which is not always the case. They do not include terroristic vigilante threats. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The point of discussion originates as: "Why does the the book have a picture of a *gasp* volcano on its cover." Well, duh, it sells books. Why don't those of you who are so certain the picture chosen for its cover has some significance beyond merely selling books (why would anyone want to sell books?), why don't you find some skinny little opinion published by some big, brave, macho man who says, "Dianetics books have a volcano on the cover because ..." and post that here? I personally know an author who has published several books. He has some control of what goes on the cover. He choses his cover pictures to sell books. Seem like a good idea to you? LOL. Terryeo 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think "terroristic vigilante threats" is a wild exaggeration. Spirit has apologised; let's leave it there, shall we? -- ChrisO 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Except I found his apology -- or at least his disingenuous and passive-aggressive excuse (gee, there's no rule against me telling anyone things, is there?) to be unconvincing. Given the CoS's well-documented track record, there's every reason to be concerned when rhetoric associated with veiled threats is employed. If anyone should be careful about what he's saying, it's the so-called User:Spirit of Man. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, what do you hope to achieve? You seem to hope no reader can understand anything about Dianetics. Terryeo 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, how can I help you? Spirit of Man 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Going back to your masters and reporting your failure is a good start. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, I have no masters as you say. Why do you want that material on this page? The answer to that is your point of view. By saying I have "masters" when I have none, you have expressed your point of view. Why do you believe your POV is neutral? It isn't even true....Spirit of Man 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, you have failed to defend your actions. The material should be removed. Spirit of Man 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
They were defended and settled a long time ago. Your side -- and it is a side -- lost. Not your site, not your rules, NPOV and verifiability wins. Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, again you have expressed your POV. You say it excludes my view. You say it excludes my free access to the rules. You say "verifiability" but have offered none to repeated requests. You honor the banner of NPOV, but disrespect its nature with every sentence, every action. You admire and confirm these very actions in Antaeus and Wikipediatrix. You add your strength when NPOV is violated here repeatedly, but have failed to honor yourself with even the slightest integrity to it in fact. You have articulated the actuality of "NPOV" on Wikipedia in a far more demented manner than I could have hoped for. Since you claim to have "won" I hope you don't mind if I make your assertions well known? I expect you will be "famous" soon. Or as they say in The Three Amegos, even more that famous, "infamous." Seriously, why don't you sit down with a friend, and talk this through a couple of times. Relax, have your favorite beverage and really let them know how you feel about this issue and just let it all out. The mind that wrote your last two paragraphs definitely needs some rest. Spirit of Man 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this another sinister-sounding "Knowledge Report" threat, like the one you directed at me? How exactly do you intend to make Calton "infamous"? I'm curious. wikipediatrix 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

pasting here, discussion of the significance of the volcano

There is a volcano on the cover. Someone sees huge significance in it. They have posted their conclusion of its significance in the article. ALAS ! Wikipedia policy, NO Original Research does not allow that perfectly wonderful, original research to be stated. It is such a shame, but whomever is so convinced in regards to the volcano and the following discussion pasted here, will have to find someone who has the same conclusion they do, someone who has published their opinion and has the courage to publically state their opinion. Then, their opinion can be cited and put as an opionion into the article. An editor's opinion is not allowed. How simple can it be, the Church of Scientology does not state "our volcano on our cover refers to .......all the doublebabble below. The volcano sells books, It is your duty to edit and present opinions of others in a way that makes sense. It is not your duty to conclude what the volcano means and tell the public what your conclusion is. Period. This is about the 19th time or something.

The volcano on post-1968 editions of Dianetics refers to upper-level Scientologists' belief in Xenu, [7] [8] [9] an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, allegedly placed billions of his people around Earth's volcanoes and killed them there. Critics, however, have pointed out that many of the volcanoes specifically named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago. [10] [11] Hubbard's interest in volcanos is also reflected in his announcement of OT III while at Las Palmas, and in his declaration "Man responds to an exploding volcano." ("Assists", lecture of 3 October 1968)

The volcano on the cover is there because the publisher put it on the cover. Why did the publisher put the picture on the cover. That is your duty to find. Then, when you have found that reason, then you can say, "the volcano is on the cover because ..." and give the publisher's reason. What you are doing is what psychology calls "free association" and what Wikipedia calls "Original Research." Having found some datum about volcanoes and the church of scientology you begin to free associate. You spill your guts. However, fortunately, wikipedia has policy which states: No Original Research If you think you know why there is a volcano on the cover, you can talk about it here. We'll listen to you and pat your head and you can feel better. When you find a source of published information that states why there is a volcano on the cover, then we can put in the article along with where it came from. Terryeo 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Found it, and it's from LRH himself. I do agree, though, that the sources cited in the earlier version weren't very satisfactory; you were right to highlight this issue. The bottom line is that primary sources are usually better than second- or third-hand reporting. -- ChrisO 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, does this mean we don't get the patronizing pat on the head that Terryeo promised us? Darn! (P.S. I disagree with the idea that Terryeo was "right to highlight this issue", at least if we mean in the only manner he seems to know how to do it: with plenty of smug prejudice, which turns out to be wrong, about how no one will ever find any of the needed citation for what Terryeo tiresomely insists on falsely calling "original research".) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
On October 3, 1968, L. Ron Hubbard was giving confidential lectures to Class VIII auditors. Today those lectures are confidential and can not be purchased by the public, nor do they exist in an uncopyrighted form. What exactly are you saying, ChrisO ? Terryeo 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You really think that nobody outside the Church of Scientology has read those lectures? You may be bound by religious prohibitions, but that's certainly not true for non-Scientologists. -- ChrisO 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:CITE states: "Citing sources serves several purposes: To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." and no reader can check the information you present ChrisO. Therefore it is not a valid citation. Valid cites would be books, newspaper articles, informational sources from a library, etc. Confidential materials are not valid sources of information to cite. Secret documents (the military has many), FBI internal e-mails (sheesh!) and other confidential informations are not valid cites, that's what WP:CITE says. "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." You might have some wiggle room because it is not WP:NPOV which is non-negotiable, but its really a trivial point anyway. You're talking about a picture on the cover of a book. On earth we have a couple of volcanoes going off, or at least seeping lava, all the time. What's the big deal? A paragraph about the cover, let's move on to the contents of the book. Terryeo 12:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you mention "primary sources". I understand there is nothing of this entire Xenu affair in any Dianetics or Scientology publication.

You understand wrong, then - it's been acknowledged by the CoS in the press and in court. See Xenu#The Church of Scientology's position on Xenu.
amusing ChrisO. On one hand you cite Scientology's confidential documents as if everyone had access to them. On the other hand you Cite [12] as if you were an active editor there. But who can not notice that you at no time cite any official scientology source about your statements. Why would that be? I'll tell you outright, it is against Wiki Guidelines to cite any source which can not be accessed by reading public and editors. Need I mention the ethics of the matter? The ethics of the matter would prevent you from citing sources which could conceiveably lead to wikipedia being at risk. The Church's reactions to the publication of their confidential materials is well known. Understand, I am not making a threat here, but am pointing out the possible difficulties with one, one particular cite you insist belongs in the article about the cover. From my point of view its trivial whether The cover picture reflects Hubbard's point of view or not. The legal responsiblity of the cover is the publisher's not Hubbard's. Terryeo 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
We understand right and you're making misleading comments. The CoS has made no public statement about Xenu. Let it go, let's open the darn book and look at the printed word instead of speding our time discussing the motivation for pictures used to sell books. Terryeo 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What, testifying in court about Xenu isn't making "a public statement"? Reality begs to disagree with you. Perhaps you mean that it's not a statement that the Church wishes it had made (or had had to make), just as your argument against the current citation seems to be that the Church wishes it could claim copyright on everything it had ever produced and use that copyright to surpress any discussion of facts the Church finds inconvenient in the particular circumstances. However, this is not the case; "fair use" exists specifically because the possibility was foreseen that parties would seek to use the copyright system in order to limit free speech. Neither can you win by merely pointing out that obstacles are in the way of a reader or editor who would like to look up a citation; I cannot easily look up a book whose only printing was in 1870 but that does not mean I can gleefully remove all material with such citations that I find inconvenient to my agenda. Not that I would ever imply, of course, that you are motivated less by any sort of wish to see Wikipedia policy fairly applied to both sides than by a desire to apply it inconsistently, only to favor the interests of the organization you represent. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You state, "testifying in court" but you don't say a word of what was testitifed. Why should anyone believe you? You don't provide any citation that it ever happened. It might be worth pointing out again, "fair use" was why the Church of Scientology went to the Supreme Court and established the Landmark Case which is the law of copyrights, hyperlinks and fair use today. Terryeo 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Civil Action No. 95B2143 [Sep 1995]
vs. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., et al., Defendants.
Q Could you take Exhibit 79 [ OT III] and point out to the court by indicating the portions of O.T. III where the secret is?
A [Warren McShane] [...] The discussion of the of the volcanoes, the explosions, the Galactic confederation 75 million years ago, and a gentleman by the name Xemu there. Those are not trade secrets. The officers mentioned there are not. [...]
So much for "I understand there is nothing of this entire Xenu affair in any Dianetics or Scientology publication." If OT III is not a Scientology publication, what is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So you are stating that the court document is actually a Scientology publication in disguise? You cite a court document. To point out that a court document is not a Scientology document umm, well, that is obvious isn't it? Perhaps you don't know the history of the Xenu document. The Church of Scientology included it with other documents in a court case. Then, after the case was settled (I think the church won that one) The copyrighted documents were removed from the public record, this was to protect copyrights. But the Xenu document, the judge looked at it and called it a "fairy tale" and said something along the lines, "You can't serious be saying that this fairy tale is so important to your religion that it should be removed from the public?" lol, hence, we have the Xenu document in the public sector. So where does the Church of Scientology publish information about that? You cite a court case, of course a court case is public record and not a Chruch document. Terryeo 12:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You are citing a non-Scientology Wiki reference that itself is controversial and suspect. You misunderstand or are pretending to misunderstand my point. Is there anything actually in the subject of Scientology as copyrighted that would lead you to believe you are authorized by them or high-level scientologists to represent this view in any way. I concede that sites that seek to be controversial only do present this view. Is this the nature of Wikipedia? If this is the context of your presentation then let's state the facts of that, that your view in no way represents the Scientology view and if fact doesn't even represent Wikipedia. I understand this is true enough. Do you? Spirit of Man 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not it is the official Scientology view does not matter. WP:NPOV requires us to report claims, not state whether they are true or not. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"does not matter?" No ChrisO, that isn't in any way the issue. Wikipedia guarentees many points of view will be present for the reader. You should report claims and you should cite a source when reporting a claim. If we just do Wikipedia per Wikipedia policy and guildelines we can present a Wikipedia article. Your most recent mistake is in quoting from a source which does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. A source of information must be available to editors and readers. Confidential Class VIII (Scientology confidential materials) is not available to editors and readers. This is per WP:CITE. We all have to be a little careful about our sources.Terryeo 14:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reference is "Corydon, Bent. L. Ron Hubbard: Madman or Messiah?, p. 361. Lyle Stuart, Inc. (1987)" I understand this is your "primary source". That is not a primary source for this book or this cover or in any way an authorization to you to author your personal "nuclear genocide" issue here. As Terryeo has said the article should convey an understanding of this 1950 book. What are you intending to communicate? Spirit of Man 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't used Corydon as a primary source for the Xenu story. He does, however, provide an interesting account of the way in which the covers were used. I haven't attempted to verify whether what he says is true ("Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. - WP:V) but I imagine that someone who was there at the time could probably do so. -- ChrisO 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. You have confirmed this information is in fact hearsay from Corydon and in no way represents an official view of Scientology. Spirit of Man 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has said that it does represent an official view of Scientology. We're under no obligation at all to present only the official view - WP:NPOV requires us to present all views. We do, however, have an obligation to present them fairly and impartially, a point that you seem to have great difficulty in accepting. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[13] I submitted ChrisO's insistence on using a citation which is not available to readers and editors to Requests for Comments. This is a step in the mediation process toward keeping Wikipedia out of the Scientology, legal issues area. The cite is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia since no one can read it. It is directly against WP:CITE which I have said before. That ChrisO is willing to edit WP:CITE to try to justify his inclusion of a citation does not make it right to include such a citation. What we are doing here people is presenting various points of view. The idea is toward broadly disseminating knowledge. Quite aside from the potential legal problems of using Wikipedia to pry trade secrets out of the Church of Scientology, the citation is not viewable by readers or editors. Terryeo 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The results of the controversy about ChrisO (and Wikipediatrix) citing a confidential, unpublished (not available to the public) document as the reason for a volcano on the cover of this book is that it is not to be cited. The results are here: [14] and is an action of an administrator whom removed the dagger (note) which ChrisO added to the WP:CITE guideline in order to justify his using the unpublished document as a cite. Let's keep it up on the table, gang.  :) Terryeo 11:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, in the real world, rather than Terryeo's little fantasy world, the discussion is still on-going, and it is premature, not to mention deceptive, to misrepresent them as "the results". The discussion did not terminate when a single user who happens to be an administrator voiced his opinion that he agreed with Terryeo's theory of how policy should be applied (probably because he's failed to investigate how Terryeo's been trying to apply it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar attempts to create the impression that our administrators are incompetent. Specifically that the "single user who happens to be an administrator voiced his opinion because he failed to investigate" my claim. Yet the ChrisO, confidential Class VIII lecture cited was never published by the Church of Scientology. WP:V states, "The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to credible, published sources." What our beloved administrator (who just happens to be a single user) did was to point out the obvious. The citation in question is not published. Feldspar is remiss to miss the administrators point on this issue. Unpublished documents would include: Inter-company emails, secret military documents, words spoken in private from one individual to another, etc. As far as creating a wikipedia is concerned, If it isn't published, it isn't true. This isn't a fad, its a policy. Wikipedia doesn't delete a user because he doesn't understand the base policies Wikipedia operates with, but such misunderstandings are irritating to those with whom such editors work. Terryeo 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are preventing the subject from being understood

By your continual insistence and continual insertions of more and more controversial topics and materials you are preventing the subject from being understood. One example (there are many) would be wikipediatrix stating here on the talk page, "Xenu happened billions of years ago." The manner in which several of you introduce controversy prevents any communication about the subject. A person can be for a subject, a person can be neutral on a subject, a person can be skeptical about a subject. Or, as is happening here, editors are preventing the subject from being communicated to the reader. Xenu happened millions of years ago (according to the Xenu website). Myself, I haven't a clue how anyone can know what was happening when the dianasours were walking earth. The manner in which the controversial material is posted prevented Wikipediatrix from understanding the time frame. But it is not her my post is about. I am saying. You can, if a number of people constantly work at, you can destroy any meaning. You can prevent any communication of the subject. This is exactly what a hositile person would do, a hostile person would work to prevent the subject from being communicated to the reader. That's the way it is. If enough people work at it, the subject can't get communicated. Who wins in that case? Terryeo 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the fourth or fifth time you have attributed a comment to me that I did not make. If your reading comprehension skills are really that low, you have no business editing Wikipedia articles. I didn't say Xenu happened billions of years ago, your precious L.Ron Hubbard said it. If you have a problem with it, go dig him up and ask him why he claimed to know what was happening when the dinosaurs (note correct spelling) were walking earth, and long before it as well. Secondly, stop boo-hooing that the subject isn't being communicated. It isn't being communicated the way YOU want it. No matter how many hours a day every day you work at it (don't you have a job? or IS THIS your job?), you will never succeed in turning these articles into whitewashed advertisements for Scientology and Dianetics. Many of us have wasted much patience trying to compromise with you and have gotten nowhere for our efforts. wikipediatrix 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
An arguement is as good as it gets with you Wikipediatrix? I understand that you believe that Hubbard stated that Xenu happened "billions of years ago." Okay, are you happy with that statement? okay then. Good. Now, would you like to learn the accurate information? Fine, read "millions of years ago." and you've got it. But don't take my word for it, ask ChrisO, ask Feldspar, read the article. Or, hey, stay happy with "billions of years ago" if you prefer. My only objection to your knowledge is not your knowledge, but the tone with which you convolute the exchange of good information. You can know things Wikipediatrix. You can know other people's opinions for what they are. You need not swollow them. I maintain that I can know. But I also maintain that you can know. Feel free, know things. :) Terryeo 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So I misspoke and said "billions" here on the discussion page. However, the article correctly says "millions" so what are you blathering about? wikipediatrix 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about presenting information to the reader in a manner which the reader can digest and learn from. It is a very simple idea, what I am blathering about and it is wikipedia's idea. It is not an original idea with me. It can be found in the fingers of most authors of most textbooks. I want to reader to be able to understand the information presented. Further, I don't insist the reader only understand the information I present. I maintain the reader has an equal right to understand every POV presented in every article. This means citing sources in the manners described by Wikipedia. If you prefer other internet sources for your information, then go to them. Terryeo 22:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review: Why has Anteaus removed the citation of test results that validate the therapy presented in this book?

Since there is no discussion to the contrary, the test results should be reverted. Spirit of Man 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred an explanation too, but I think it's probably right to leave out the test results. We should be describing the book; we have a much longer separate article describing its contents. I suggest having a brief mention of the scientific controversy and then referring the reader to the fuller treatment of scientific evaluations at Dianetics#Scientific evaluations. Otherwise we will just end up duplicating content, which isn't worth doing. -- ChrisO 11:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong This article is about DMSMH, the article is about the contents of the book. This article is the opportunity to introduce the reader to what the book says. Why don't you, ChrisO, make yourself a nice little article about the cover of the book. An article whose title is a book is obviously about the book it names. But if you can only talk about the attention getting cover then you should create an article about the cover. One other point. WP:CITE clearly tells the purpose of any citation in any Wikipedia article. It says, "Citing sources serves several purposes, To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor." Therefore, cites which name confidential sources, such as the unpublished Class VIII lectures are not useful citations. Don't you see? An article is not a citation war, an article's purpose is to present information to the reading public. Information which the reading public can not access is not information and Wiki Guidelines say not to include such information in an article. I have removed that citation several times. You should too because it is not available to the reading public and it is not available to editors. Terryeo 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The Separate article Dianetics should include the entire subject and its developement from 1930 to 2006, and it should not be conceived to be limited to the contents of this single book. Your citations there clearly demonstrate you do not believe that to be the case. It currently does not represent the richness of the subject fairly because of extensive deletions by you and Antaeus and alterations to misrepresent the facts. You have deleted the actual citations used to present the subject. You have included the context of "Dianetics Groups" of the day from the first writing of this article. These test results are within the scope of context of the book and your edits that are not in the book. You have cited scientific deficiencies in this article that are exactly answered by these test results. It is illogical to remove the test results and then falsely claim they are deficient. In the main article you have not accepted the valid results from this study. You have deleted that in that context and altered the importance, by placing the study into a review that you have a negative citation for that does not apply. The sci-fi fanzine citation specifically does not apply to the study and is not a refutation for the study in any way.
In what way does it not "apply to the study"? It's specifically about the study. Or doesn't it "apply" because you don't like what it says? -- ChrisO 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, this article's title should serve as a guideline for the content of the article. Why do you fight against the blue sky above? The contents of the book are going to be discussed in this article. Terryeo 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You imply someone else made this last reversion, but it was you. Do you intend to be viewed as enforcing the NPOV concept that both sides of the issue should be presented fairly or do you intend to be viewed for the above? Spirit of Man 14:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If these nebulous "test results" you guys keep referring to are available in print in any legitimate scientific journal, feel free to cite the reference. And publications generated by Hubbard himself DO NOT COUNT. wikipediatrix 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, let me trace the history, very briefly, for you. About 1950 the book of this article came out. Several Disiplines immediately challenged whether it was scientific or wasn't. Hubbard, in those days, was addressing whether it was scientific or not. As you can well imagine, any science applied to an individual's thoughts is not demonstrable after that person changes their thoughts. Its not like Newton who rolled balls down little ramps and established the laws of motion. Because anyone, anywhere on the planet can demonstrate his experiments again. So, about 1952 Science of Survival included a study. Hubbard was still trying to "prove it" to the scientific community. That was the last published effort to "prove it." Psychology made no real effort to prove or disprove it and has not done so today. There has not been any serious effort to disprove whether Dianetics works or doesn't, not by any science group. In this manner, psychology can call it "pseudoscience" and await Dianetics to prove otherwise. Dianetics is not going to prove otherwise, Dianetics gave it one shot and it was in Science of Survival. Today the Church of Scientology has specific policy about "prove it" and reading the policy makes it clear. The church is going to go right on doing what it does and is not going to attempt to prove its methods work. Possibly the only additional source of whether Dianetics methods work or not, is the attestation of individuals who do it.  :) I know of such a person :)) Terryeo 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia NPOV both sides of an issue are required to be presented fairly. Do you agree this is the way it should be? This article is named "Dianetics" which is a philosophy, science and therapy named, researched, developed and written by L. Ron Hubbard. The test results in Science of Survial are presented in the Introduction by the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation, the owner of the copyrights and the organization doing research in 1950. This organization is the organization responsible for supplying the test results supportive of their claims requested by or at least mentioned by the APA in their 8 Sept 1950 resolution. Do you agree the APA said they were expecting to see proof of claims from the HDRF? Also, in that resolution the APA announced they were advising 8000 members to use Dianetics for test purposes only. They produced no test data that conflicted with the study of 88 students tested by 3 licensed professional psychometrists using the Wechsler IQ test that I cited. ChrisO has described a survey that apparently has nothing to do with this cited study.
Nope, wrong. Let's compare the two:
Why not compare all three? Do you have an problem with comparing differences? Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Science of Survival names Gordon Southon, Peggy Southon and Dalmyra Ibanez. The survey is by the same people plus Peggy Benton.
I agree. Do you agree your fanzine says the authors are un-named? Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It names the authors as "Dalmyra Ibanez, Ph.D., Ed. D.; Gordon Southon, Peggy Southon, and Peggy Benton." -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a link to your fanzine reference? The one I have is from an anti-Scientology site and only presents comments on specific paragraphs. Their comment is about unnamed authors. We should be reading the same page if you have a verifiable ref. Spirit of Man 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Science of Survival says that "Dianetics has built this particular validation programme around 88 persons." The survey says that "the total number of persons [in the survey] is 88."
I agree. Do you agree Science of Survival says the Wechsler, Form B, IQ test was used and the fanzine says it was NOT used. Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the fanzine says that "out of the 12 psychometric tests named in the booklet" - it later names the "Weschler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale for Adolescents and Adults" as one of them - "results from only four are presented", none of which was the Weschler scale. -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I need to see your verifiable ref. I read what you said as the graph in science of survivial is not of Wechsler data. The book says it is, and was chosen because it did apply to adults, and the one that doesn't not apply to adults was NOT used. I need the source. Spirit of Man 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Science of Survival presents a graph purporting to show "Summary of Gain in Intelligence Scores". The survey has the identical graph on page 15.
I'm not seeing a conflict with the HDRF survey, but if it includes that study it wouldn't. Your fanzine review seems to conflict with my ref. Isn't that the point here? Why compare the wrong things?
Do you agree the fanzine article says the Wechsler, IQ test was not used? I couldn't find the entire fanzine article, just a review of it, but it did have sufficient info to answer the above. But the essence of the fanzine theme was that the test criteria is not correct, and yet they say the Wechsler was not used. Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
See above. It says only that Weschler is named but that no results from that test are presented. It makes no comment about whether the test was actually used or not. -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Science of Survival was published several months after the survey, but includes its findings, so clearly the results found in SoS are at the very least derived from those in the survey. The two are very clearly directly related. -- ChrisO 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There may be a relation of the SoS info to the HDRF survey and that would be expected, but there is no correlation to the fanzine criticism which is your source. SoS refers to a single study not the survey you claim. You claim your survey is in fact the SoS data, that has not been shown. The fanzine claims the California test was used, that was for kids. That is not true. The fanzine does not criticise the SoS data. Your survey is not a valid source for the SoS Introduction remarks by the HDRF. Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The fanzine clearly couldn't have discussed Science of Survival, because the book hadn't been published by then. It's worth citing as a contemporary response to the earlier booklet. You'd be hard pressed to find any other responses... -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
In ChrisO's own citations, Hubbard had no legal interest in the HDRF in January of 1951, so this is a third party foundation publishing the test data in their way.
That's wrong too. If Hubbard had no legal interest in the HDRF in January 1951, how come he was writing letters to the FBI on behalf of the HDRF in March 1951? He didn't resign from the HDRF until 1952 (see the text above and below Dianetics#Dianetics in Kansas). -- ChrisO 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand he resigned in Oct of 1950. I guess I should hunt up a citation.
You might be thinking of Dr Winter and Art Ceppos, who resigned that month. I think I'm right in saying that Hubbard was the last member of the original HDRF board to resign. The others either fell out with Hubbard and quit or, in the case of Sara Hubbard, were kicked out. -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I will point out that no other science of mental health has every published even this level of self test showing supportive evidence. ChrisO references a Mr. Carroll that is not even clear what tests and evidence would look like. Professor Hiyakawa says that no test results are even possible. Also, no other mental science has ever even been asked to. I have explained the view of one side of this issue. Could you please explain your side of the issue as NPOV requires? Why have you explicitely refused Dianetics publications on a Dianetics article in violation of fair presentation of both sides? Spirit of Man 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If the Moonies printed their own book that said "we did a scientific study in 1950 that demonstrated the moon is made of cheese but we can't prove it because it wasn't peer-reviewed in any real scientific journals", should we say in their Wikipedia article that the moon IS DEFINITELY made of cheese and cite their own book as a source? wikipediatrix 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting Wiki policy at NPOV regarding both sides should be fairly represented, for nonsense. That policy says both sides should be fairly presented. No one is saying a citation is a "DEFINITELY", even yours. If one side says, the moon is obviously not green cheese, I think that would be enough. But wait, you are saying something even beyond that. I think you are saying, as ChrisO has all through his Dianetics article, all his citation say, that no or few test results have EVER been published. The APA citation says this. So if I merely present one valid citation, suddenly you are comparing that defense with "The moon is green cheese" exaggeration? No, I think you have a fixed idea that you are unwilling to inspect so you must reject any fact no matter how small that represents an honest presentation of the opposite view, that must be presented if you build a solid wall of controversy. Don't you agree both sides should be represented FAIRLY. I think you should look at what is important. Shouldn't that be a part of things? Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now we get to an interesting point. You speak of "one valid citation". What makes it valid in your view? Even if it is valid, do you think there is a problem with there just being one citation for the whole 56-year history of Dianetics? Can we draw any conclusions from a single study? -- ChrisO 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
From my view I have tested Dianetics. I have taken before and after tests when I took the Dianetics course. Actually, before the course I had taken 3 IQ tests. My gain was more than any shown on the chart. I have seen others do this same thing. To my knowledge everyone that recieves Dianetics does this unless they refuse. I sat down with a man with a 200 before IQ and didn't test him. His net worth was $15,000 in debt and two years later he was worth $750,000. He credited it to what we had done and he thanked me profusely. I had just worked with him for a one hour orientation to the subject. He kept reading Science of Survival until it "stopped changing", is the way he said it. I have seen too much to be shaken here. The SoS study represents what I have seen without exaggeration. To me it is a neutral study, but it is just one study. I don't believe it tries to mislead. I believe it is remarkable for such trying times as existed back then. I expect no one to take it as fact, as it is but one data point. But I don't expect everyone to dismiss it entirely for reasons that don't make sense. Let it stand on its own merit. Prof. Hayakawa said that no test of mental science is even conceiveable, in his opinion. I believe this one met the criteria of the day. The proof is whether the subject works, not whether a fanzine editor that gets paid to criticise can confuse a survey and never discusses [or reads] the study. Spirit of Man 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"do you think there is a problem with there just being one" Yes I do. But this "one", is more than all of psychchiatry (pain drive theory), all of psychology (man is an animal), and all of Freud (sex is the basic drive). Where are your test results for Freud? SoS and this study was not a part of my decision process in Dianetics. Reading DMSMH was, which is the primary topic at hand. That book represents a Therapy consisting of four processes. Those were the processes taught and audited in 1950, and the results of this one study relect that state of the art. They are vailid, in my opinion. They do represent just ONE study. But one study more than the rest of world. Please don't misrepresent it, it is important. As I said, to my knowledge every person that receives Dianetics since about that time does before and after IQ tests and profiles. It set a precedent. Maybe someday we will see a similar graph for all those hours of auditing from the church. I don't doubt it could be compiled. Spirit of Man 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, the point is not whether it is valid in anyone's view. The point is that the information should be presented to the reader whom can, himself, judge the validity of the information based on both the information and the source of the information. That is the very base and root of Wikipedia. Whether you, I, or god above believes a source of information to be valid or not is not the point. The reader has that choice. Whether you or anyone draws a conclusion or not matters not in the least, not to wikipedia. You are the only judge of your own information. Please respect the reader enough to allow that he is the only judge of his information. Terryeo 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

::STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established. ::CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.

::STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

::CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

::STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

::CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

--Calton | Talk 07:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Stewart's task is to entertain people. He has said so several times. Myself, I find him entertaining. Myself, I don't read encyclopedias with the same expectation in mind. Terryeo 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Calton, do believe both sides should be fairly represented, as it says in NPOV? Spirit of Man 15:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the quote seems to have been too subtle for you, let's try again: note the use of the word "fairly" in the NPOV policy; not "blindly", not "with undue weight", and not "precisely equal regardless of merits". Is that too subtle, or do you wish to ask further irrelevant rhetorical questions? --Calton | Talk 05:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose a person should not be surprised to find Stewart (mr. entertainer) to be sourced as "valid information" HAHAHA Terryeo 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you should also not be surprised to find yourself steadily more ignored as you steadily resort to more and more pathetic straw men of this nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar
Of course Antaeus Feldsapr, of course. Have a nice day, you hear? Terryeo 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Accessible sources

I've clarified WP:CITE on the issue of whether a source should be easily accessible. Please see Talk:Dianetics Today#The removed citation for my comments on ths issue. Obviously the same reasoning would apply to the citation that Terryeo keeps removing, for reasons which weren't justified by WP:CITE even before the clarification. -- ChrisO 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just wrong ChrisO. Plainly, clearly wrong. Terryeo 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I see we have some talk going on about the issue here. I hope we can all be satisfied :) Terryeo 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, you have quoted text from a Church of Scientology confidential document and presented it here because you were making a point about the cover of the book, DMSMH. Because I know how the Church handles confidential documents, I know that the copy you have was either stolen from the Church, or copied from a stolen copy. This is the reason I keep saying it is wrong. If you had in your possession, military documents which said "SECRET" on the cover, it would be a similar sort of situation. Such a document is clearly disallowed as a citation here at Wikipedia. WP:V clearly spells out what is appropriate. It states "unimpeachable" sources should be used. Further it states "the burden is on the editor" to come up with good verifications. I have one again removed your edits from the article about that. Leave it alone, whether you are aware the document you possess is a stolen document or not, leave it be. I notice you mention my knowledge as stating the document being stolen as a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. This is a statement about the status of the document you keep quoting in the article, about the cover of the book. Terryeo 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"Stolen" or not, you have already acknowledged the document exists, and acknowledged that is possible for persons to possess copies. While it would be a copyright issue to reproduce the entire document verbatim, the law grants "Fair Use" for quoting from it and for citing it. And you have delusions of grandeur if you think Scientology documents have the same National Security protection as military documents. wikipediatrix 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Pleased to see you communicating about it Wikipediatrix and I hope your day is going along pleasently :) The reason I feel ChrisO is wrong to cite the document he does is spelled out at WP:V which states, "citations should be "unimpeachable." While a newspaper might want to run the story ChrisO is hinting at, an enclycopedia would not. The intent of Wikipedia is spelled out in the policies. The idea being that an editor or reader might want to know a little more about, for example, why there is a volcano on the cover instead of a peaceful running brook. But ChrisO's citing a confidential, stolen document doesn't allow an editor or a reader to view the context of "why" (as he presents it). I'm not telling ChrisO what he should do in life, I am applying his edit to the policies which govern our editing here on Wikipedia. There has been quite a bit of disccussion on this one, particular point by administers by ChrisO, myself and others here.
So why do you keep removing the paragraph that is sourced by Hubbard's "Assists" lecture of October 3, 1968? What proof do you offer that it is a "stolen" document, aside from your own say-so? Did you know it was also released as a recording, and is freely available from many sources, including online? wikipediatrix 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, I keep removing that citation because it is not appropriate to an enclyclopedia to use a citation which has the least doubt of athenticity to it. WP:V and WP:CITE both spell out the sorts of citations which are permissable. If you wish to post internet information of the sort which relies on stolen or disputed documents, you should involve yourself with Operation Clambake or Xenu or some other internet site. What we are doing here is simply following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We are attempting to make a broad source of information available to people through in the internet. In the situation like this article, it can be a benifit to people who hear of the book, DMSMH, and wish to learn a little about it before buying it. Or not. When we use refuse to discuss the contents of the book because the cover is so exciting to talk about, we are denying them that opportunity. When we use stolen materials which they can not access to put up reasons why the cover pictures a volcano we are denying them good, reasonable information. Wikipedia Policy and guidelines are easy enough to follow. ChrisO states his citation is "Class VIII, confidential" and as I've said, the Church doesn't allow such documents to be owned by anyone. They keep it under lock and key. No, they can't come and shoot you like the U.S. Military might, but hey, this is an encyclopdia and not a flashy newprint. Terryeo 21:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If "it is not appropriate to an encyclopedia to use a citation which has the least doubt of authenticity to it", then that would disqualify practically every pseudoscience link you've tried to shoehorn into articles. And you still haven't offered any real proof of your claims that the citation is to a stolen document. wikipediatrix 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"the least doubt" is a very small doubt indeed. Under that standard, I could easily remove any material that I don't like from Wikipedia; if I don't want people to know that George Washington was the first President of the United States, all I have to do is remove that information wherever I find it, claiming that it isn't cited. If someone digs up a citation all I have to do is scream "I dispute that!" and that qualifies as "the least doubt", so I get to remove the citation and then remove the information because it isn't cited. Clearly your standard of "the least doubt" is not appropriate for Wikipedia, if it leads to such ludicrous results. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Again you comment without replying. Our standards of citation are give at WP:V and WP:CITE Terryeo 23:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I think your absolute failure to address the fact that the standard you are proposing is demonstrably impractical fits the description of "comment without replying" much better. Hmmmm, could it be that you're accusing me of your own crimes? =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me Antaeus, doesn't surprise me at all that you not only would think others commit the crimes you commit, but that your guilt would be lessened if others did. :)
The only thing about your description that would surprise me was if it was true. However, anyone can read the pattern of our conversation and see how you bring up a point; I answer your point and refute it; you bring up a completely different point; the cycle repeats; then in the face of all evidence you claim that I "comment without replying" because you confuse "replying" with "agreeing". Isn't that so? If you want to claim that it's not, you're going to have to prove it; you need to show how I could have expressed the opinion that I hold (no other) in a way that would meet your standard of "replying" rather than "commenting without replying". Otherwise, you're confessing that your real complaint is that I don't agree with you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
(reverting to fuller line) All right Antaeus Feldspar. The issues has been resolved, thanks to JesseW's including me in the conversation. I am right, ChrisO is wrong. You are wrong to have supported ChrisO and Wikipediatrix is wrong to have included a second source of the same, unpublished citation. This is a reply to the situation which prompted this section of discussion. I honestly don't see myself refusing to confront what you bring up, Antaeus. I believe I reply to you and to the issues you raise. I am willing to talk to you, here or anywhere. To reply means to respond. To agree is another situation. I maintain that no person can "prove" to an unwilling other person, anything whatsoever. It is just fine with me that you don't agree with me. I recognize that you do communicate. I believe that generally, you give it your best effort and are rarely snide, though sometimes brief. (example, you are editing along and saying all you are going to say in your edit summaries, rather than editing and discussing on a talk page).Terryeo 11:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Terryeo loves to make accusations and insinuations, but then when he's challenged, he changes the subject and jabbers about something else. I am still waiting - and I've asked repeatedly - for Terryeo to provide any real proof of his claims that the citation is to a stolen document. Not your opinion, Terryeo, not anecdotes from your own personal experience, not claiming "why, it's obvious because I'm sure it had SECRET stamped on it". Give us some real and tangible proof that this document is stolen, and why you felt the need to say so IN THE ARTICLE when you didn't provide a source for this information. I thought you abhorred statements without sources! wikipediatrix 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I might have not read the specific statement you reference. The citation which ChrisO cites is, by what he himself said, "Confidential." That word has a number of meanings, but it only has one meaning when used by the Church in this manner. The OT levels are "Confidential." Some Educational materials are "Confidential." While I suspect that you understand what is meant the Church's use of the word, I spell it out more specifically how the Church handles informations which it possesses which it classes as "Confidential." Quoting from document on the subject I have here it says, "It is kept by the rule of controlled access." and says it is not released to the public, i.e. not published and released to the public. Class VIII and higher training and processing information is treated in that manner. But of course if you suspect my statement, "it is stolen" is not accurate then of course you will likewise treat anything I say in the same manner and no proof could ever be presented to you via the written word. Why don't you ask ChrisO where he obtained that document? I can tell you this for sure, he did not purchase it from the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In other words, as I expected, you have no real proof of your claims. Okay, thanks for verifying that and have a nice day. wikipediatrix 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, here is the proof of the claim Terryeo describes as "stolen": "Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission of license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee." This is a "High Crime (Suppresive Act)" [Introduction to Scientology Ethics ISBN 1-57318-132-3] 295 Further, "Crimes are punished...Crimes may result in...even dismissal or arrest...] Spirit of Man 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are people still going around about an unpublished document? For our work here it can not be used because it is unpublished. Period. Whether ChrisO has it or not, whether god has it or not, it isn't published, it can't be cited. As for the enfatuation you people seem to have with an unpublished document, well hey. It gets us no closer to a good article when ChrisO cites an unpublished source. It gets us no closer to a good article when Wikipediatrix asks for proof of whether it was stolen or not. Unpublished, it can't be cited. It doesn't help the article that Feldspar babbles on about it or that ChrisO holds the attitude, "you won't read it because you're a scientologist..." hehe! Its a nothing. <eats a piece of frosted cake> Terryeo 03:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, Terryeo. It will be taken with all the seriousness appropriate to the record of legal understanding and factual accuracy you have shown so far. Of course, that record is affected by things like, oh, not knowing the difference between trademark law and copyright law, and claiming that the Church has never made a public statement on the existence of Xenu (and no, it doesn't matter if you try to argue "Well, I was specifically excluding 'testimony in court matters that has entered the public record' from the category of 'public statements' because I define 'public statement' as only something the Church wanted to say"; that just shows that your statements can't be trusted to even mean what a reasonable person would interpret them to mean, much less also be factually accurate.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So in other words, you have proof that the Church of Scientology doesn't like it, nothing more. Hate to tell you this, Spirit ol' buddy, but we were talking about things deemed crimes by the law of the land, not by the imagination of the CoS. You may not know this, but it's not unusual for a copyright holder to claim they have special rights that the law does not give them -- for instance, one publisher was known to claim that no one could quote their copyrighted materials in reviews unless the publisher was given the opportunity to scrutinize the review before it went to print, and to bar publication if they didn't like what the review said. I think you can guess exactly how much legal force that had. =D Lesson for the day: Private parties don't determine what are "crimes" are; the law does that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Its more. People have been sued by the church for possession of such douments and won settlements of quite a lot. It is actually against the laws of most lands. I tell you the document is stolen. You can believe it or not but the document isn't published, that much you can know. You also notice that ChrisO won't tell anyone where he got it from. Terryeo 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
People have been sued by the church and won settlements of quite a lot? Good for those people! "The document isn't published, that much you can know." Because you said so? You, with such an excellent track record of being right about such things? Hahahahahaha! -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Get a clue you beanbrain, ChrisO himself said it was a confidential church document and attempted to demonstrate how he was better than anyone else because he could read it and a church member couldn't. It is an unpublished document. You are wrong to support its dissemination. Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot. Terryeo 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
meanwhile, in the ongoing discussion about that citation which cites that document on the Citing Sources discussion page Wikipedia:Citing_sources a fellow editor posted: "But to get back to the original point of this discussion: all sources cited in Wikipedia must have been published in some manner (i.e. made available to the public)...and...Wikipedia is not the forum for an original exposé." The Church of Scientology does not make Class VIII information available to the public. It is not "published" and therefore not citeable. Whether stolen (as I know myself it is) or not, it is not published. This is the point I begin with and the point I tried to keep it to. It wasn't untill ChrisO insisted that "anyone could read it with a little effort" that these other issues of confidentiality and stolen came up. He has some point in the sense that a common person could begin education in the Church and in perhaps 3 years time, arrive at a level of education that he might read the document he cites. That's a lot of work to read one document, but a person could do it.Terryeo 15:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It was published. It was printed. It was disseminated. It exists. People have it. Deal with it, the cat is out of the bag. wikipediatrix 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It was not published. It has been printed. It was not disseminated by the Source of information. On one hand you ask for proof and on the other hand you argue there is no need for proof. lol. I've posted what I think is possibly the central reason for our constant bickering over at Talk:Clear_(Scientology), perhaps you would care to comment on the situation there. Terryeo 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
As Publishing states: "Publishing is the industry of the production of literature or information - the activity of putting information for public view." ChrisO's source of citational information is not that. It has not been published. Instead he is doing some sort of expose' and that isn't appropriate to Wikipedia. It might be to Xenu, where ChrisO says he edits, but it isn't to Wikipedia. Terryeo 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Regardless of what that article says, of course there's such a thing as something being privately published. It doesn't matter whether the document was disseminated by the Source of Information or not - that makes it no less real. And as you've already been informed, the document was released in audio form, and has made publicly available on The genie is out of the bottle. wikipediatrix 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are deliberately misunderstanding. I did view But whether an information is published (paper, audio, video) or not published isn't a question of whether it appears on the net. It is a question of whether the source of the information published it or didn't. Alternatively, whether the source of information released publication rights or not. Stolen information is stolen whether broadly disseminated or not. I believe you are deliberately misunderstanding. BTW, would you care to comment whether you view the body of information which is Scientology "Original Research" (By Hubbard) or if you view it as "A primary source of information" as I do? Terryeo 17:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Confidential Class VIII citation that Wikipediatrix and ChrisO have chosen to cite and I have stated should not be used, the results of that discussion are here:[15] and the action which removed the dagger which ChrisO edited to add to the Guideline page has been removed. Don't cite information which has not been published (i.e. been made available to the public). Terryeo 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine - in that case, I've cited media sources which make the same claim, properly attributed of course. -- ChrisO 12:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of a smarmy attitude ChrisO. Why don't you tell us how you obtained the document?Terryeo 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

introduce the subject

Would you introduce the atom bomb as "The controversial atom bomb...." No, you wouldn't. You would introduce the subject, telling what it is. Then you would introduce the controversy; whether it should ever be used, should have ever been used, and so on. Whether countries should have them or not. You have to first introduce what you are going to be talking about in an article. Therefore "controversial" could be all right as part of the article, even if the article spent a lot of time with it. But first the subject needs to be introduced. This would be true of "cold fusion," "atom bombs," "missle defence" or any subject. The reader probably doesn't know what the word "Dianetics" means and until he does telling the reader there is controversy doesn't help him understand what is being talked about.Terryeo 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy is so essential to Dianetics that to leave it out of the intro would be remiss. The Atom Bomb is too outdated to be a good comparison, but the Children of God page uses the word "controversy" in the first paragraph, as does Falun Gong. The Charles Manson page refers to his "apocalyptic vision" in the intro paragraph. On the other hand, the articles for Raelians and Heaven's Gate (cult) don't invoke the word "controversial" in the intro but they DO heap on much information about wacky UFO-cult beliefs from the getgo. So.... I suppose if you want, we could load up the Dianetics intro with Xenu and Space Opera information, if that's what you really want  ;) wikipediatrix 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a reply, would you also reply whether you view Scientology information as "original research" or view it as a "primary source" (of information about a controversial subject.) ? I've initiated that discussion at Talk:Clear_(Scientology)#How_can_we_resolve_the_good-guy.2C_bad-guy_editing. I see your point, controversy is innate to Dianetics. If the subject were simple and easy to grasp, I would agree that minorly introducing the subject might be appropriate. But the subject touches on something that people react so strongly too that some introduction of the subject, I think, is needed.Terryeo 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In the article about Children of God "controversy" is used to class that movement in its historical perspective. And all of those are about beliefs a person choose to believe. While Dianetics states that it is about knowledge. Apparently people don't feel they can know the things which Dianetics says they can know, or that they know it all, already. So what harm can it do to introduce the idea and later, show the various contoversies? Terryeo 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have a point here. While it's certainly worth mentioning the controversy, I don't think that calling something "the controversial ..." is really NPOV. I've added a line in the intro to allude to the controversy in context. -- ChrisO 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't think it is appropriate to first introduce the fact that if you eat too many apple seeds you will die, in an article about apples. How difficult is it to first communicate that apples are a fruit, that they grow on trees, etc. And then, later, let people know about the poisons contained in apples? The subject needs to be introduced. To whom is the subject to be introduced? Well, to the reader, to a person who wants to know more about the subject. So let us introduce the Book a published book which has a cover (OMG!) and has information within it and has sold a whole lot of copies over 55 years, in many lanuages. And so on. The introduction first. Then when people know what is being talked about, then controversy. Else you are cheating the reader. BTW ChrisO, where did you get your copy of that Class VIII document that you can't cite on here ? Terryeo 12:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Apples are a fundamental part of nature. Contrived human organizations that have generated worldwide controversy in literally hundreds of different ways are not, and do not receive the same treatment. By your own standards, the article on Ted Bundy would state things like "Ted Bundy was a man, he drove a Volkswagen" and only mention much later in the article, "oh yeah, and some critics say he killed some women". wikipediatrix 14:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
"Apples are a fundamental part of nature?" Oh, that's interesting. It is because man has cultured apples for many years with selective breeding and the many techniques of farming that apples are today what they are. It isn't because they just spontaneously grew naturally. I am making a point which you have refused to notice. Terryeo 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the citations to the cover of the book

ChrisO has entered these two links as citations, explaining why the cover of the book has a volcano on it. [16] and [17]. Perhaps you could spell out what part of those links states why the volcano is on the cover of the book? It seems to me, ChrisO, that you are piling straws here. The volcano is on the cover because it sells books. Who put the volcano on the cover? Well, Bridge Publications put the volcano on the cover. Do you have a source of information from Bridge Publications ? No, what you keep citing is rumors and stuff, implications and slander, information scraped from the alleys and not "unimpeachable sources" of information why the volcano is on the cover. WP:CITE states: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue." You are giving third party opinions of why the volcano is on the cover. But in reading through those links, there is no reason given for the cover of DMSMH to have a volcano. Can you justify your citations please? Because WP:CITE also says: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion." Terryeo 12:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is already on the article: According to Corydon, Hubbard ordered new copies of Scientology and Dianetics books to feature OT III/Xenu related imagery. wikipediatrix 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you have stated, wikipediatrix.
However, your statement about Corydon does not reply to my questions about the two links my earlier, just above, statement asks about. Or if it does, I don't see the connection. Terryeo 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your statement about Corydon. The quotation has a word there that needs explaining. What exactly does the word, "restimulated" mean? Does that mean that the second time you look at the book then you want to buy it? Terryeo 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Restimulation One person's opinion: "I was told while in the CoS that the covers were made to "restimulate" the incident. They believed that this would create a quasi-obsessive interest in Scn." [18] AndroidCat 19:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, here are the volcano references in the articles:
«``It can cost you $360,000 to reach the upper levels of this space opera, said Bunker. ``They teach that 75 million years ago the Earth was known as Teegeeack, part of a 90- planet federation ruled over by the evil overlord Xenu, who solved overpopulation by stuffing us into volcanoes and blowing us up with hydrogen bombs. That's why there's an exploding volcano on the cover of `Dianetics.'» -- Mark Bunker
«Scientology's real dogma is that we are all suffering from the traumatic memories of aliens, called thetans, who were murdered on Earth millions of years ago by the evil overlord Xenu, who trapped them in a volcano and then blew them up with nuclear weapons (hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics ). So what we all need to be cleared of are parasitic alien ghosts haunting us with bad memories.» -- Steven Novella
That with Corydon's book and the more difficult to obtain Hubbard's 'Assists' lecture seem enough to warrant this to be stated in the current article. And to the reader, this won't be out of place since it fits naturally well with the Xenu story from OT3. Raymond Hill 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Povmec, before you go off and get all enthusiastic about the lecture you just cited, "Assists" I want to state. That is an unpublished lecture. It has never been an probably will never be published (made available to the public) it is confidential, in the military it would be classified SECRET or something. To read that document would require a person who was unwilling to read a stolen copy, would require maybe 3 years of education IF the church allowed him to. It isn't automatic, not everyone is allowed that. So don't call it "difficult to obtain" because it is not published. Your reference for that is "published sources" WP:V "if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources."WP:V. However, Corydon's book gives a statement which can of course be cited. However, of the two links above [16] and [17] is how I see them right now, only [16] mentions anything about the cover of the book and [17] doesn't mention it at all. Our task is to weed through vast amounts of information so the reader won't have to. We really should take the superfluous [17] out. If Steven Novella has an opinion germane, then there is not reason not to include his opinion. Terryeo 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You appear to have some reading comprehension problems. That article says, in plain English: "Xenu, who trapped them in a volcano and then blew them up with nuclear weapons (hence the volcano reference on the cover of Dianetics)". Clear enough for you? -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
From Warren McShane's testimony on behalf of Scientology[19] (McShane, as the witness, is the "A"):
Q Under your agreements with your parishioners, it would be perfectly okay for someone who had taken O.T. III to go out and tell persons that are not opposed to Scientology that what they were working with involves Xemu and the volcanoes and something that happened 75 million years ago; is that right?
A If somebody has taken the level and gone out and talked about the great catastrophe that occurred 75 million years ago and talked about Xemu and volcanoes, that wouldn't be off policy or wouldn't be breaching that agreement.
Q Unless it's done with someone who is opposed to Scientology?
A Not even then. The volcanoes on the cover of Dianetics, the tape that he talks about the catastrophe is in a tape that is sold to the public. (emphasis added)
We have Scientology's own witness connecting "Xemu and the volcanoes and something that happened 75 million years ago" with "the volcanoes on the cover of Dianetics"; almost incidentally, he also debunks the idea that "The CoS has made no public statement about Xenu" or that the only way someone could know about Xenu is through stolen documents. -- Antaeus Feldspar 09:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note also that McShane mentions Dianetics without being prompted. -- ChrisO 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The cover of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science (1976 advert) has men in military uniform carrying boxes onto a space plane. I wonder what that strange imagery could be representing? AndroidCat 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lord knows. Now a days theories for science fiction abound. In 1950 was Flash Gorden happening yet? lol. I really don't remember, myself. Terryeo 19:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, we know it's from the R6/Xenu incident if Corydon is to be believed. Perhaps it refers to the frozen beings being carried onto interstellar DC-8s in preparation for their transfer to Earth/Teegeeack? -- ChrisO 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, if you keep talking like that, would it be okay to quote you as a second source? Because you keep lending credibility to those things, as if they were actual history. lol. Terryeo 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And what independent sources are YOU bringing to the table, Terryeo? Aside from your own opinions, and Scientology's own websites? wikipediatrix 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, you support the idea that unpublished sources (confidential Scientology documents) should be cited to support slanderous statements about the Church of Scientology. You support the unciteable, Space Opera statement, "Space opera forms an important part of Scientology". You refuse to recognize wikipedia policy when your nose is rubbed in it. Why should a simple thing like "third party sources" be of interest to you? Isn't your interest in forcing blame, shame, guilt and regret on other people, in the case of these articles, on Dianetics and Scientology? Until the Wikipedia no-nos are followed, very little can be done. You often put information into an article after have you have berated someone and reminded them, "the threshold of inclusion is verifiability" WP:V. But just in case it ever gets beyond people stuffing these articles full of their own opinion and original research and these article begin to make a jot of good sense, here are some neutral sorts of links. You'll not want to use them of course, because the main source of such good information was that the Church of Scientology invited professional opinions, and then published those opinions. Nonetheless, those Doctors of Divinity, recognized scholars and persons of a wide variety of religions have stated and publically published their opinions. [20], and [21]. So I explored some of those individuals. I found they had published opinions in various places and they said the same as that website states they said. (space opera is important isn't one of them). Then there is the U.S. Navy, if there is a neutral party the Navy would be it. For its personnel it provides some education about Scientology.[22] click "About Various Faiths" and click "Scientology". There you go, your question answered and please quit attempting to present the reader with unpublished information (i.e. confidential documents) and please quit inserting information which is uncited and unciteable (i.e. space opera is an important component of Scientology doctrine). Terryeo 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As usual, you spent half of your reply making insulting and completely incorrect - and potentially slanderous - statements about what I think and what I support. Please stop trying to second-guess my motives because you clearly aren't equipped to understand. As for your citations, Irving Hexham is a not-very-well-respected "Cult Apologist" who is known for his lack of critical faculties. [23] And your Navy link that you cling to and attempt to insert into every article you come in contact with really doesn't mean a thing as far as lending credibility to Scientology/Dianetics, because some webmaster just hastily reprinted text from a well-known Scientology shill site, [24] And finally, is an official Scientology site, so I'm not surprised it says nice things about Scientology! wikipediatrix 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that site is funded and run by Scientology. It presents professional's opinions. Those professionals have testified before governments, before committees and before the United Nations. Are you suggesting the Scientology mis-represents what they say? Or are you suggesting that they have been manipuated to produce things Scientology wants published? Or are you saying their opinions should not be read? What exactly are you attempting to communicate? Nothing "nice" about Scientology should be extant? Terryeo 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Revise first sentence to reflect the article

I would like people to discuss a revision to the first line; "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (often abbreviated as DMSMH) is a book by L. Ron Hubbard which sets out self-improvement techniques he had devised, called Dianetics, now part of the wider subject of Scientology."

This line does not reflect the current article. Philosophy is presented as the dynamic principle of existence, science is presented with the discovery of the reactive mind and the engram, therapy is presented with techniques. But no "self-improvement techniques" are discussed. An auditing technique is mentioned in a general way, but this is just a restatement of the first line without details that were implied by including "..sets out.." in the introduction of the article. The article could be introduced with this line;

"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (often abbreviated as DMSMH) is a book by L. Ron Hubbard which sets out a philosophy, science and therapy he called Dianetics, now included as part of the wider subject of Scientology. Spirit of Man 15:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the introduction either because it uses the technique I see used too often in these articles. Which is to stuff into a single line a lot of information so the reader can't really get any of it. The way to present complex information (if Dianetics wasn't complex there wouldn't be so much controversy) is to separate it into several sentences. I think that is what we should do.Terryeo 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So you would suggest the first line be replaced by this:
"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health is a book by L. Ron Hubbard." "The book sets out a philosophy, science and therapy the author called Dianetics." "The subject of Dianetics is now included as a part of the wider subject of Scientology." Spirit of Man 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As has already been explained elsewhere repeatedly, it is certainly not a consensus view that Dianetics constitutes a "science", nor a "therapy" either. And as has already been explained elsewhere repeatedly, you cannot use this article in order to sneak in claims about Dianetics that have failed to meet consensus at Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not expressed a consensus view, you have expressed a point of view that seeks to reduce the scope of the subject of Dianetics expressed by this publisher, this author and this book. I don't agree with you. I don't think Terryeo or Jimmy T. do either. You do not even represent a consensus. What is presented is a book by a reliable publisher, Bridge Publications. See page 5 for philosophy. See the title and Title Page for Science. The hardcover version also adds, a handbook of Dianetic Therapy. Book page 213 of the softcover is the sub-Book on Therapy. The scope expressed by this specific book does not have to agree with the more general scope of the Dianetics article. I point out that WP:RS does not require peer-review and does not require "consensus" by the medical community or other community not representing address to the spiritual being. I refer you to the copyright page where Bridge Publiscations says, "This book is part of the works of L. Ron Hubbard, who developed Dinetics spiritual healing technology and Scientology applied religious philosophy. It is presented to the reader as a record of observations and research into the nature of mind and spirit, and not a statement of claims made by the author...." Please stop representing your personal views as "consensus views". I refer you to WP:CIVILITY for your attitude that has been repeated elsewhere, and WP:V for Wiki policy that says we use reliable citations. What is your citation that says your personal POV "consensus" is senior to Wiki policy? Spirit of Man 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not expressed a consensus view -- excuse me, but you seem to be a little confused here. You seem to think that you can describe your own beliefs in the article as facts unless someone else can prove that the "consensus view" is that they are not facts. This is of course quite confused and incorrect, because it reverses the burden of proof; would it be perfectly all right for Bob Marley to start the article on cannabis with the sentence "The herb is the healing of the nations", as long as no one established a "consensus view" that it was not? No, it would not. As for whether attributing it to L. Ron Hubbard, or Bridge Publications (for which, read "L. Ron Hubbard") is sufficient to make it a factual claim, the answer is No. And, once again, as has been explained to you many times, you cannot use this article in order to sneak in claims about Dianetics that have failed to meet consensus at Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Wiki policy from WP:V,

"The policy 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

I have not presented my personal views as you say, I have provided a reputable source, Bridge Publications, who publishes the book and taken the data from the book. I understand you have provided no citation and your POV presented here and with your latest edit does not represent the publisher or the book. What does it represent? ChrisO, BTfromLA, Jimmy T., Terryeo, KC, Modmec, and Tenebras and myself all have commented on philosophy and therapy at Dianetics. You have deleted my Philosophy edits there twice without prior Discussion. The example of Dianetic therapy or Dianetics in practice is there. Spirit of Man 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It represents the knowledge that Bridge Publications is not a reputable publisher; it is essentially a vanity press for L. Ron Hubbard. It represents the knowledge that even if Bridge Publications was a reliable source, that doesn't override WP:NPOV. A Million Little Pieces was brought out by Random House, which is a hell of a lot more reliable as a publisher than Bridge Publications; are you claiming that everything in that book should be described on Wikipedia as factually true because Random House originally published it as a nonfiction memoir? That's ludicrous, but it's not any more ludicrous than what you're claiming: that no matter how incredibly clear it is that these claims are not generally accepted as fact, you can make the Wikipedia article state them as if they were undisputed facts because that "reputable" publisher, Bridge Publications, said so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, you seem to have an obsession here. Where did I claim, "that no matter how incredibly clear it is that these claims are not generally accepted as fact, you can make the Wikipedia article state them as if they were undisputed facts because that "reputable" publisher, Bridge Publications, said so." I didn't say this, ever. The title of the book says, "Science". Reliable publishers publish it. In 1950 as the article states, it was published by Hermitage A PSYCHIATRIC HOUSE. You have provided NO citation what-so-ever for your view. It has sold over 20,000,000 copies. Someone is buying it and you need to respect that Wiki recognizes volume. Please stop deleting this edit in violation of WP:V. The article is nearly all your point of view. Every paragraph speaks to your POV that it is not fact. [when the facts prove otherwise] Fifty years of practice proves otherwise, but that is not stated in the article. You folks quote voluminiously from citations over 55 years old, but ignore the 55 years of growing development and success since that first firestorm in 1950 that was totally out of control. I have shown here and in the Dianetics article from my POV it is a science and meets the majority of the criteria at Wiki, all of the eight factors presented by ChrisO and the four legal criteria. After all that, I presented the disclaimer above that Bridge puts in modern books, saying it is not presented to the reader as the claims of the author, [Scientific claims] but his personal researches into the mind and spirit of man. Please read what I have actually said. Your fixed ideas and obsession here have nothing to do with what I have said and presented. Spirit of Man 23:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Since most of this is the same old tired nonsense over again, I'll only respond to the new parts.
You still have provided no citation just opinion. Spirit of Man 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The article does not support your edit. No processes or self-imrovement techniques are presented and your like to psychiatric "self-improvement techiques" that do not reflect Dianetics at all, is noted. WHY???? are you making these edits. Each one seems insane. Spirit of Man 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The title of the book says, "Science". Whether it's in the title, the foreword, the text, or the appendix, it doesn't matter. Merely coming from a reputable publisher (as if Bridge Publications was one) does not allow you to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that a whole lot of reputable sources would certainly not agree that Dianetics is a "science".
I agree there are two sides to this discussion. Do you agree? The title of the book and article says, "Science", the article says "Science", you have presented your view with great articulation and a great number of false ideas. One by one I have been cutting them down. Peer-review is not required by Wiki. I have shown the subject meets the eight precepts in the article, I have shown it meets the four legal criteria, I have presented a study and test results signed by licensed psychometrists. I have provided two reputable citations to publishers that publish it. Why do you insist on a POV that does not treat the facts presented and both sides fairly? You have consistently acted to reduce the scope of the subject on Wiki as I presented in mediation. Spirit of Man 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1950 as the article states, it was published by Hermitage A PSYCHIATRIC HOUSE. See above about what would not change if Bridge was, for the sake of argument, a reputable publisher.
You have not provided a citation for your POV claim.
  • You have provided NO citation what-so-ever for your view. You are obviously operating under a major misconception. The purpose of providing citations is to verify things about which there is doubt. You cannot pretend with a straight face that you are unaware of any challenge to the idea that Dianetics is a science.
I have doubts about your challenge and its presentation. I have pointed out the falsity when you and the other calling parties have insisted on "peer-review" by assumption and intimidation just as your present your view here, without citation. I agree you feel your uncited viewpoint is a factual challenge. Do you agree I have met every challenge with facts and citations or explainations as when talking to consistency and other science precepts? A science is consistent when it is based on basic understandings [called axioms in Dianetics], and these understandings are used to predict new knowledge, and theories like the idea the mind is made of mental image pictures, some of which contain pain. When that pain is removed that picture of pain can no longer cause an illness like arthritus. Then the person can be tested and found to be without such pains. A science says what it can do, does it and the proof is evident. The subject produced 50,000 people that attest to it. Spirit of Man 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It has sold over 20,000,000 copies. Someone is buying it and you need to respect that Wiki recognizes volume. ... what? Excuse me, I'm sorry, are you actually suggesting that somewhere, Wikipedia policy states that the number of copies sold of a book affects whether its claims should be described as the claims of the author, or as facts that are not in dispute (even though they are)?
I haven't said you don't dispute them. That is your side of the story. But Wiki says it 20,000,000 people are being represented then that view should be heard here. Do you need a policy or ref on this? Spirit of Man 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • After all that, I presented the disclaimer above that Bridge puts in modern books, saying it is not presented to the reader as the claims of the author, [Scientific claims] but his personal researches into the mind and spirit of man. So, let me get this straight. First you're bringing up that the title includes the word "Science" to justify stating it as fact that 'Dianetics is a science'. Then you're bringing up the fact that they print a disclaimer (into which you seem to be reading much)? Sorry, but your refusal to concede that you have no case does not mean you have one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you arguing symantics here? The book says it. All three publishers say it. The author says it. The article says it. I have no objection to saying, "L. Ron Hubbard, in Dianetics in 1950, says he has discovered basic principles, developed a theory of the mind and researched processes that constitutes a philosophy of existence, a science of the mind and theraputic processes that result in the optimum individual - the Clear." I think you are making much of "is" here like Clinton. I am trying to present the scope of Dianetics as I know it. I believe you are trying to reduce the scope of what you do not understand to an irreducible incomprehensible fearful volcanic clinker, with no citations to boot. How do you defend having no citations per WP:V? Spirit of Man 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's original research

Terryeo inserted the following text into the article:

"Critics, having little else to criticize, have focused on reasons why a volcano appears on the cover. The publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books."

Well, I guess this establishes whether Terryeo actually cares about the policies he keeps citing. This is, after all, Terryeo, who demanded a citation for why the publisher put a volcano on the cover of Dianetics and what it had to do with the Xenu incident, and wasn't even satisfied with Scientology's own witness Warren McShane volunteering unprompted in court "the volcanoes on the cover of Dianetics" in discussion of "the great catastrophe that occurred 75 million years ago". Now, however, he thinks his own original research explanation should be inserted directly into the article without any citation -- along, of course, with his own personal judgement that critics "have little else to criticize". So, thank you, Terryeo, for showing us just how seriously you take your responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for actually presenting the correct level of detail relative what McShane said. He didn't give the level of detail that is presented in this article. I am happy with this level of detail. He didn't say, "Xenu". Spirit of Man 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
14 Q Well, let's say O.T. levels. I think you said as far as
15 you are concerned the story of Xemu is nonconfidential.
16 A Well, I said the name Xemu or the 75 million years ago
17 incident is not confidential. Mr. Hubbard has talked about
18 that.
He said "Xemu" instead of "Xenu". Are you now asserting, Spirit of Man, that there is a figure in Scientology doctrine called "Xemu" who is separate from the figure called "Xenu"? If so, please offer a verifiable source for the assertion. If not, then I am afraid you're incorrect that McShane wasn't talking about Xenu. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about neither. I'm talking about the level of detail I find acceptable. I know how to restimulate anything on the whole track. I know quite a bit about what happens when someone does, even unintentionally. Just talking details about the loss of someone close to a person can reduce them to tears or near death. That is just one person. [You are talking about something 10 orders of magnitude greater.] They often become apathetic or sub-apathetic quickly. So one handles such things gently, very gently. You seem to be totally callus to such things. So I have to accept that. But I can acknowledge you for using the correct level of detail when you do. You didn't put Xemu or Xenu in quotes above. You mentioned volcanos and numbers of years only. To my knowledge that is all Hubbard ever said publically and that is all McShane said to. All the rest is additive by others, that I consider could be harmful to some. Spirit of Man 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's also a rather extreme expression of POV, in express violation of WP:NPOV, concerning which Terryeo also seems to be keener to preach to others rather that practice himself... -- ChrisO 18:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
huh? Terryeo 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Dianetics volcano - Removed "L. Ron Hubbard". He did not authorize any such POV details as they are considered to be very harmful, citation: Ron's Jounal 67." [25] Did he set these details down in writing? Yes. Did he "authorize" them? No. Does it matter? No. We already went through that all at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Dianetics; L. Ron Hubbard is not the authority here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly matters which source of information produces and is quoted as producing information. Terryeo 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, why don't you just quote the newspapers as saying it, rather than "L. Ron Hubbard"? Because he is the authority on this issue. You are showing a disregard for the truth of the matter. If the authority felt it was harmful, and you have no real knowledge of the matter, don't you think it would be prudent to error on the side of caution? How would you know one way or the other if it were harmful? Spirit of Man 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
... Spirit, you break my heart sometimes. Because I think you really are sincere (at least on this matter) and you really don't even see that you're completely conflating "the truth of the matter" with a classic argument from consequences -- 'That must not be the truth of the matter! It would be too shocking for the world to bear if it was true! Therefore it's not true! We have the word of L. Ron Hubbard, the person who purportedly broke through the "Wall of Fire" in the first place and purportedly discovered that all this is true, that it's not true because it would be too harmful for people to realize that it was true!' The fact is that whether you believe L. Ron Hubbard discovered the details of the Xenu story, hallucinated them because of all the "pinks and greys" he was taking at the time, or just made the whole thing up like all the other pulp science fiction he wrote, he was the one who said that all of this had happened. It's ridiculous to say "We should not attribute L. Ron Hubbard's own claims to him because he didn't want them to be as widely known as they've become." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
When Hubbard signs something, attribute it to him. When he doesn't, then don't. If John Smith states that Hubbard said something, then produce that John Smith stated that Hubbard said something. Quote a source, cite the source. Yo, oh, Heave, Ho. Terryeo 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus, do you have a citation from a reliable publisher with fact checking capability, that meets Wiki standards, WP:V that says L. Ron Hubbard in fact did say or publish, "Xenu", "...placed billions of his people around Earth's volcanoes and killed them there by blowing them up with hydrogen bombs." Terryeo and ChrisO have gone round and round with this. You do not have such a citation? I believe everyone other than you agrees there is no such citation. If you say Newspapers and such as ChrisO has said you certainly know they are saying something that will not meet fact checking. The material does not meet Wiki standards. Do you agree? Spirit of Man 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't because that document was not produced and published by the Church of Scientology and Hubbard's signature is not attached to it. Hubbard has never published to the public, I don't think, anything much about that. The sources which talk about that are what the judge of the first case called "fairy tale" and susequent stolen (but rumored to be whole) documents say, in any event, not published documents. Terryeo 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like CoS members didn't have to engage in such an all-hands expensive effort then. [26] AndroidCat 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you ask them why they did, User:AndroidCat? Actually they have frequently explained, and at length, why the Church goes to rather large efforts to protect its copyrights. Terryeo 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"If you say Newspapers and such as ChrisO has said you certainly know they are saying something that will not meet fact checking." See, this is the problem. You claim that you are just trying to see that Wikipedia standards are followed, but what you really want to enforce is your own topsy-turvy system of standards under which major newspapers are not considered reliable sources, major newsmagazines are not considered reliable sources, court testimony is not considered a reliable source, but L. Ron Hubbard's vanity press is considered such a reliable source that whatever it prints as if it were fact is printed as fact even when it is known that those "facts" have been disputed since the time of their first publication, by reputable sources up to and including Nobel Prize winners. Sorry, if you want a wiki where that's the standard which determines what goes in and what doesn't, you'll have to start your own. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As a personal website is a reasonable primary source about that website, so too Scientology publications are a reasonable primary source about Scientology. Call it "vanity press", or call it "partisan publication" or call it "primary source", whatever you call it, in regards to Scientology, it contains the Scientology information. It is published in a manner of reliability, stability and consistancy, it registers with the Library of Congress and its publications have ISBNs, they are of good quality with very few mispellings, printed on good quality paper, bound into books in a good quality manner. Some have leather covers. About Scientology, The Church of Scientology is a reliable and reputable publisher. Not a low quality site which has to remove pieces of text because they are legally challenged but a high quality publisher within their area of interest. Terryeo 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oooooh! Its publications have ISBNs. That's certainly a sign of quality that could never be true of a vanity press. But since you're so up on Bridge, maybe you can answer a question: I know that they're still publishing What is Scientology? with its claims about how Ron's diaries record his encounters with Old Mayo the Beijing magician and nomad bandits in Mongolia -- but are they still publishing "All About Radiation, by a Nuclear Physicist and a Medical Doctor"? The last edition I can find is from February 1990... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
here. And next time, keep a civil tongue in your head when you ask me a question. Terryeo 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"keep a civil tongue in your head"? That's a bit of an attitude, there... -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your question, the link is to "All About Radiation", per your request. You could say thank you if you wish to. Terryeo 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually was going to say thank you, and then when I saw your very rude "next time, keep a civil tongue in your head" I realized that the only reason you replied was so you could be uncivil to me and at the same time try to shift blame for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice dodge, my reason for replying was to fulfill the request. Terryeo 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that part goes without saying. However, since the item you pointed to isn't the item that I asked about, I suspect that the excuse to snipe was what really motivated you to reply. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The quesiton you asked was, "are they still publishing All About Radiation. The link points to its being "still published" at an official site. Specifically the link points to a course (available now) which states it requires that specific book which says (since the course is available) that the Church is publishing the materials for the course. What snipe are you talking about? Terryeo 05:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice dodge. I'm respecting your knowledge and testing your integrity. We both know you know this data better than any of the newspapers ChrisO cited, "reputable" for not. I'm not disputing the use of newspapers as you say. I'm testing your integrity to yourself. You know the truth, make the article right. Spirit of Man 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
An interesting idea. Can we test your integrity to yourself about facts we all know you know concerning the independence of groups like ABLE, FOTUN or CCHR? AndroidCat 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Better to create an article by keeping talk page discussion to the article's content that to "test editors integrity" don't you think, AndroidCat? At least that is what policies dictate we do, and they additionally dictate that we do not "test other editors integrity" :) Terryeo 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that. I don't know what a "FOTUN" is, first of all. I haven't discussed any of these groups. Nor am I knowledgeable of them. I understand they have some level of autonomy for use of L. Ron Hubbard materials in their areas of interest and have some level of supervision to insure its ethical use. I'm sure they have some purposes in common with Scientology. I'm more expert on Dianetics and study technology, that is what I have used in my work as an engineer. What is your test? And since you raise the question out of context here, what is your intention? Perhaps you just wish to embarass someone that doesn't have your specialist knowledge of something. Spirit of Man 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just out of personal curiosity, what "fact" are you saying was seriously disputed since first publication? Maybe I can help. Spirit of Man 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The redundant "disambiguation" notice

The disambiguation notice forces the reader to read the same information twice. The template presents the differences, typing into the search box presents the differences, the article titles present the differences and then, a disambiguation notice additionally? WHY? What need is there, a reader has lots and lots of opportunity to click Dianetics there is simply no reason to say the same thing again, and again, and again. It is going to bore a reader, not encourage a reader to explore Wikipedia. Terryeo 16:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The contents of articles change over time. The contents of a navigation template, not to mention its contents, change over time. Where in Wikipedia:Disambiguation do you find the advice not to use a disambiguation link at the top of the article if the same distinction is also made in an infobox or in the article? Nowhere, that's where. It's obvious at this point that you don't have any good reason for removing it; you just want an excuse to do so. That was proved when, of all things, you tried to argue that the text of {{otheruses4}} itself (This article is about ...) made this instance of the template unacceptable self-reference (yet, somehow, not any of the other usages of it on Wikipedia, apparently?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
First there is information and then there is the organization of information. The intent of organizing information is to present the information for a reader's use. It is my feeling that using disambiguations frequently deter from information rather than contributing to information. There are instances that require a disambiguation, for example Engram, but there are instances that don't actually require a disambiguation. While that is my feeling, of course I recognize that you have a feeling and every other editor, likewise, has a feeling. I've stated my feeling for disambiguations, and my reasoning. Happy Ho HO's. Terryeo 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
A person coming to this article first reads; This article is about the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950. For the general body of ideas and practices known as "Dianetics", see Dianetics. and then reads; Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (often abbreviated as DMSMH) is a book by L. Ron Hubbard. Aren't we streaching the reader's patience to have him read almost exactly the same words twice? Terryeo 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you are once again complaining about the disambiguation notice, Terryeo, thus developing traffic and wasting editors' time, you see? Here is a fact of life: Not everyone out there who writes about subjects related to Dianetics knows that we have separate articles for Dianetics (the self-help system) and Dianetics (the book more accurately known as Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health but frequently called just Dianetics anyways.) As a result, people will sometimes link to one article, when, if they knew about there being two articles, they would link to the other one. Readers will also follow these links. Because of this, it is good, sensible practice to put a clear notice on top of an article in such a situation to notify the reader immediately "this may or may not be the article you actually wanted". There is, in fact, no good, sensible reason to spend lots of time arguing about such notices and expecting other editors to waste their time arguing about such notices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you read my statement of my opinion as a "complaint". Unfortunate. Terryeo 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Why was this event so significant to the history of the world that is made the main page?

It is completely silly. Sane editors have argued it for months, some editors can do nothing but reactively include the significance that a picture of a volcano seems to sell books. Editors are not saying, "a picture of a volcano sells books". But that is how it comes out, no matter what vast significances are presented. Heck, this whole page article has probably sold Dianetics books because of the convoluted reasonings presented for the volcano picture. Heh. Terryeo 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Try to stay focused Terryeo. May 9th was Dianetics Day and it appeared in the "On this day" section of the Wiki main page. AndroidCat 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think it is amusing. Minor controversy, greatly enhanced as the volcano picture has been, I suspect it rouses curiosity and prompts more people to investigate, purchase books, read about and get involved in Scientology than it chase away. HEH ! Terryeo 15:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Imprint" is a misuse of the word

The article states: Current editions are published by Bridge Publications, a Church-owned imprint However, Bridge Publications is not an imprint. There are several potential definitions of the word imprint but none of them describe Bridge Publications. Why not use, "Church-owned publications house?" Terryeo 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to fit to me. By your own link, an imprint is a brand name under which works are published. Clearly (see works are published under the Bridge Publications brand. What, specifically, about Bridge Pub, do you believe makes them ineligible to be an imprint? 18:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (Note: the preceeding remark was added by me - I did not realize I wasn't signed in Vpoko 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
My link points to the Wikipedia article, Imprint. We are probably agreed that Bridge Publications is the Church's publisher which is a Church organization, works within a building and owns various printing presses, binding machines and so on. But it is the only Organization of the Church in the USA, it publishes all of the Church's materials in the USA. There is no other. While an "imprint" (as the term is used in the publishing industry, according to the Wikipedia article) would be One publication House which publishes several names. For example: Marvel Comics Producing, "Marvel Knights", "Marvel Next", "Marvel Ultimate", "MAX", "Icon" and "Epic" which are imprints of Marvel Comics. If Marvel Comics only produced "Marvel Comics" then there would be no imprints. And that is the situation with Bridge Publications. It has no imprints. Therefore the article misuses the word "Imprint" when it describes Bridge Publications as an "Imprint". Terryeo 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at it that way you seem to be correct. Does the CoS release any materials through a publisher other than Bridge Publications? Vpoko 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Not for quite a number of years, no. There is information which is created by other sub-organizations and routed to Bridge Publications who then publishes it under their name, assigned ISBN and so on, their quality control, their binding machines and so forth. Terryeo 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If, as you say, works created by other sub-organizations are routed to be published under the Bridge Publications name, then what you have described is an imprint. Thank you. wikipediatrix 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's backwards. Authors feed to a publication house. the publication house publishes from a number of sources. Now, if that publication house uses imprints, then that publication house publishes with several publication names. Not author names, but publicationnames, see the above illustration or read the Wiki article for enlightenment. What you state is just backward of what the publication industry calls, "imprint". Terryeo 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, Wikipediatrix. By my (layman's) understanding of the term imprint, it would only apply to an organization that publishes under several brand-names. Since all publications (even those from multiple sources) are published under the "Bridge Publications" brand-name, there is no imprint. It's sort of like a DBA (Doing Business As). Though again, I've never heard the term "imprint" before I came to this talk page, so I would weight my opinion accordingly. Vpoko 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's all semantics anyway, but I've definitely heard the primary core of a publishing house still referred to as an "imprint", as far as the placing of their name on a product (which is precisely what Terryeo is talking about). And the Marvel example is a poor choice because while Marvel has imprints, Marvel itself is often referred to as an imprint of the various publishing companies that have owned it in the past, such as Cadence. wikipediatrix 20:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you suggest the definition of "imprint" at the common english dictionary, [] be ignored and the use of the word in publishing, as presented at our Wiki article be ignored in favor of what you have heard, is that what you are telling us? Terryeo 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I can cite sources of a wider, colloquial usage of "imprint". The question is, why are you making such a fuss over this microscopic distinction? wikipediatrix 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Because anyone who reads the article and finds that stated would wonder what other names Bridge Publications, publishes. It doesn't publish any other names. All of its publications which are listed at the Library of Congress, all of the books in public hands, all of it are published under a single name, Bridge Publications. The article presents a dispersive, untrue datum which is false and misleading. If it is no big deal, why insist it remain ? Terryeo 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my (paperback) copy of the book is credited to New Era Publications. Earlier editions were published in the UK by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International and the Publications Dept., Advanced Organization Saint Hill, Denmark. It seems there've been several past imprints. -- ChrisO 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The book has been published by several publishers over the years. New Era Publications was one of those. Today there is a single organization which publishes under a single organizational name. Is this a difficult - to - confront piece of information? It seems incredibly simple to me, what is the difficulty ? Terryeo 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about "was"? New Era still seems to be the publisher on this side of the Atlantic, not Bridge. [27] -- ChrisO 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In the USA, it is Bridge Publications which publishes under no other name. There might be an organization in Denmark which publishes, a Church organization which might be called, New Era Publications. Terryeo 00:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, then there shouldn't be an argument, it's pretty clear... it is an imprint. The CoS is the organization and they are singular (there is only one CoS), and they publish at least under two different names. I'm also a bit disturbed (again) by how your argument changed from They are the only one... to they are the only one right now... to they are the only one right now on this side of the Atlantic.... I will assume good faith, but assumptions only go so far and then I need to see good faith. Vpoko 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Good, because my words are as valid now as when I stated them. In the USA (as I stated), Bridge Publications is the only publisher of Church materials. What disturbs you about that? There are 2 organizations (according to Android Cat's post). Generally they publish in different languages, though, perhaps (I'm not sure) both might publish in English. I don't know how that works. But an imprint is one company publishing with several names. That is not the situation with the Church. Terryeo 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Perhaps both might publish in English." Nah, nobody in the UK or ANZO speaks English... AndroidCat 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The "company" is the CoS, and there's only one - it doesn't matter how many different legal entities they create for their publishing houses or what corporate structure they choose to use, both publishing houses exclusively publish CoS and LRH works are are imprints of the CoS. Vpoko 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm The Church of Scientology has two publication houses which use different names. Are you suggesting they are both "imprints" because they are owned and operated by a parent company? That seems an iffy use of the word. Terryeo 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) FAQ

Does New Era Publications distribute L. Ron Hubbard’s books worldwide?

New Era Publications is the primary publisher and distributor of L. Ron. Hubbard’s books, lectures and other literary works throughout Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia.
The North and South American markets are serviced by Bridge Publications, Inc. for nonfiction works, and Galaxy Press, Inc. for fiction. Both are located in Los Angeles, California.

AndroidCat 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good find, AndroidCat. My final opinion is that the word imprint is appropriate in this context and I recommend keeping it. Vpoko 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

User:Jpierreg really wants these links in, and reverted my removal:

Not really that big a deal to me, but it seems that neither of these of sites have anything specifically to do with the book - they're general sites about Dianetics itself. This isn't the Dianetics article, this is the article for the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. wikipediatrix 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right! I see there is a specific article about Dianetics that is more about the technics than the book. I have put the following instead which talks more about prior theories at the begining and what is essentially said in the book Dianetics.
Jpierreg 18:30, 11 November 2006 (GMT)
"what is essentially said in the book Dianetics" -- i.e., Dianetics, and therefore appropriate for Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's right! I must admit I haven't read the whole discussion page but as far I understand this article deals specifically with the book as it is said in the introductory note: "This article is about the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950. For the general body of ideas and practices known as "Dianetics", see Dianetics." Maybe we need to clarify what to expect and what not to expect on this article. The above link makes a comparison, at the beginning, between before and after the publication of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Jpierreg 13:15, 16 November 2006 (GMT)
Um, but the disambiguation sentence you just quoted already clarifies it in the plainest English possible. wikipediatrix 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The above link mentions the book but any examination beyond the most trivial shows that it is only a mention. What the link actually discusses is the subject contained in the book, which is a different article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense now! the link mainly discusses the subject contained in the book. Thanks, I understand better now. Jpierreg 23:30, 16 November 2006 (GMT)

This article sucks!!!

This article is complete sensationalist crap! Look @ how any other book is described on Wikipedia, and this article breaks every established precedent. There is almost no description of the contents of the book. Every thing in this article is scandle-sheet. There is 0 npov attempt! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talkcontribs) 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Thaddeus, you're completely right that "There is almost no description of the contents of the book." However, you may be unaware of the reasons of why this is so; I hope you'll let me explain the reason the necessity grows directly out of Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia has a policy firmly forbidding what are called POV forks. A POV fork is basically an attempt to exploit the multiple-article nature of Wikipedia to get around Wikipedia's policies of editing collaboratively to produce NPOV. The most obvious example would be if I didn't like the existing coverage of Senator Arthur Bedfellow at the article Arthur Bedfellow, so I started a completely new article titled Senator Arthur Bedfellow, to create my own, more favorable, description of Senator Bedfellow. Either the existing article is NPOV, and the new article exists because someone doesn't like the facts told in an NPOV fashion, or the existing article needs work to make it NPOV, in which case the solution is to improve the existing article, not start a new one. The example described is the most blatant way to create a POV fork, because it's clear to anyone that Arthur Bedfellow and Senator Arthur Bedfellow are articles on the exact same subject -- it's the same person.
But more subtle variants exist, such as when an article on a belief system already exists, and someone creates an article about the book in which that belief system was first described -- but with the real intention of making it a second article about the belief system, and not about the book. And in fact, that's exactly how at least one article on DMSMH (not this one) was started; the author openly stated "I have written this article to correctly outline the concept and philosophy of the book where it was not in the Dianetics article itself." Again, that's an open violation of Wikipedia policy; the "Dianetics article itself" is where disputes about the description of Dianetics the belief system should be resolved. That is why this article has "almost no description of the contents of the book" -- because there already is an article for describing the contents of the book, and it's called Dianetics. That is not to say that the contents of a book are irrelevant to the article on that book -- for instance, the article on The Origin of Species makes note of the fact that the book includes elements of Lamarckism -- because Lamarckism is now excluded from what is known as "Darwinian evolution". But if there is a side to err on, it's definitely the side of leaving the descriptions of the belief system in the article about the belief system, and not creating duplication (and an opportunity for POV forking) in articles about books which describe that belief system. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Am i missing some mass-rework?

I don't mean to sound critical, but wasn't the original book with this name repeatedly called pseudo-science and nonsense by medical experts, then re-named to a more "spiritual" name? Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was repeatedly called pseudo-science and nonsense, but it has never been re-named. wikipediatrix 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to Amazon, there's the 1995 version, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and then the further copies called only "Dianetics". Still, regardless -- it's pseudo-science. Gaim.svg ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically, the full title with subtitle is "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", although frequently the subtitle is dropped for brevity's sake (even on the official website wikipediatrix 17:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PDF files

wikipediatrix, from your edit comments, you seem to feel that there is some problem linking to a PDF file? PDF files are widely readable on many platforms, right down to my Palm IIIe. Unlike Windows executables. AndroidCat 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I noticed that you removed a few PDF files, and didn't notice that what you removed here was the note. AndroidCat
The person responsible for the Never mind has been sacked. I see that you did remove it the first time, and added a redundant note the second time. There's a reason that there's a PDF symbol on the link. AndroidCat 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I follow what you're saying here. What does "The person responsible for the Never mind has been sacked" refer to? And why is it redundant to make a clear courtesy note to the user that a file is a PDF? wikipediatrix 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Comercial Success"

I removed the bit saying that the book is a huge comercial sucess, because in all honesty, it isn't. And you cannot reference that because Scientologists don't give out information such as their book sales.

It was a commercial success. Please stop trying to delete that line. The book sold very well when it was initially released. No one is claiming it is still a commercial success, but it most certainly was. --GoodDamon 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In spite of which, Hubbard managed to plunge a series of Dianetics Foundations into bankruptcy. But that's a topic for the Dianetics article. AndroidCat (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

50 best cult books

Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health by L Ron Hubbard (1950) Do you often feel unhappy? Depressed? Ill at ease with others? You will if you read this. Creepy bit of mind-mechanics by the indifferent sci-fi novelist who founded Scientology.

An interesting perspective on this book, from The Daily Telegraph. To add to this article as new sourced info. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

dianetics not a cult

why is 'cult' under see also?? in SOME PEOPLES BELEIFS SCIENTOLOGY AND DIANETICS IS NOT A CULT SO WHY IS IT THERE? CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartislove (talkcontribs) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is declared a cult in several countries, and it's even banned as a religion in even more countries due to fraudulent practices, and isn't given tax exempt status anywhere else but in America and 1 or 2 other countries. (making it overall not a religion but a cult with cult following)Markthemac (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


I think the reason that this category keeps getting removed from the Dianetics articles is that they are already in that category as sub-categories of Scientology. Personally, I think that Dianetics deserves its own mention since it had attracted debunkers years before Hubbard changed the label over to Scientology. AndroidCat (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't notice that the Scientology category was in the Pseudoscience list, in addition to the Pseudoscience article. My thinking is that since Dianetics is promoted explicitly as the "science" and Scientology as the "religion", Dianetics deserves to be more visible than Scientology on a pseudoscience page.MartinPoulter (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with MartinPoulter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref for this article

The following article:

  • {{cite journal|title=Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind: Science-Fiction Origins of Dianetics |first=Albert I. |last=Berger |journal=Science Fiction Studies |volume=16 |issue=2 |date=July 1989 |pages=123-144 |publisher=SF-TH, DePauw University}}

is available through JSTOR and seems highly relevant to the L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies way too much on primary sources, likely verging on WP:NOR. Especially with regard to this particular book, there is an over abundance of secondary source coverage, and there is simply no need to rely upon primary sources for this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Clear Bias

The Wikipedia rules of use clearly state that “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda” yet much of this article on Dianetics is comprised of half-truths, distorted facts, and disinformation in general. The fact that these viewpoints have been published elsewhere and can be referenced does not make them any less untrue, nor does it make this article any less biased. Rather then spend all day refuting each fact in this article one at a time I will simply give you an example of how they distort facts in general. For example they quote LRH as having said “the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion” an off the cuff remark that most people in this country, including myself, have uttered at one time or another. Yet they ignore the fact that LRH had little to do with the creation of the organization that would eventually become the Church of Scientology, nor was it his idea to call it a religion in the first place. LRH was only interested in research and discovery not empire building or money. The truth is after he developed Dianetics he offered his findings to the medical and psychiatric communities free of charge so they could use it to help all mankind. Unfortunately they refused to examine his research or even look at the hundreds of case studies showing its success. That’s when he decided to go public in the form of a book. After the book came out the people who read it and used it to improve their lives started up groups that eventually became the Church of Scientology. Although at their request he did help run this organization off and on before his death he never had a clue when he wrote the book that it would result in the formation of this massive worldwide organization. Anyway the fact that they start off the article with this out of context and totally irrelevant yet very misleading quote from LRH and then falsely elude to a connection between this quote and Dianetics is the best proof I can think of to illustrate the authors bias. There is absolutely no reason to have this quote in an un-biased strictly informative article and any intelligent rational person can see this as a clear case of bias. Another interesting tidbit of information is that the people who wrote this particular piece of disinformation themselves, as well as all the others who rage against Dianetics, have no doubt that it does exactly what it claims to do. I mean think about it. If I were to go out tomorrow and write the worst self-help book of all time and make grandiose claims about it, it would still not garner even a minute fraction of the bad press that Dianetics gets. So what’s all the controversy about? You just buy the book and it either works or it doesn’t. Are the people who have started this worldwide smear campaign really that concerned that you might waste $5.95 of your hard-earned money on a book that doesn’t work? Of course not. The truth is they are afraid of it because on some level they know that it in fact does work and in doing so makes people harder to manipulate and control. The anti-social personality above all others fears the people around him becoming stronger because then he will be unable to manipulate them and bring about chaos to the environment. People who seek to control others and keep them down would certainly prefer that nobody ever read Dianetics. As someone who has read this particular book I can tell you that it is probably the most effective self-help book ever published. This is because, unlike other self-help books which simply tell you tricks to help cope with or work around your problems, Dianetics actually deals with the root cause of the problems. Diantetics is actually one of the physical sciences, akin to chemistry or physics. The bottom line is we can argue all we want about the author and his motives but the fact is that the therapy just plain works and it works every time. My advice to Wikipedia would be simply to get your facts straight, or at least in the ballpark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slobeachboy (talkcontribs) 22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slobeachboy. Wikipedia cannot make any judgments as to "truth". Its threshold for inclusion of material is verifiability, not truth. Material only needs to be supported by cited sources that are generally considered reliable in their relevant field. So long as that material is accurately referenced, Wikipedia cannot be held responsible if your problem with it is with the source, in which case, you need to either take it up with that sources, or point to sources of commensurate reliability for some type of rebuttal to the assertions in question. On the other hand, if you feel that the material is not accurately related or paraphrased, since point to the specific passages in question, and explain why you feel the wording is not accurately referenced. If, for example, there is a context to Hubbard's quotes about religion that appear in sources that stands in contrast to their presentation in this article, then you can provide that other viewpoint, so long as you can explicitly cite that source. Beyond that, Wikipedia article talk pages are not the place for a general discussion or debate on the article's topic, but are solely for discussing ways to improve the article. If you feel you can improve the article, albeit within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then by all means, be bold! If you have any further question about editing, or the site's policies, just let me know. :-) Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this passage?

There is a passage that reads, "In Dianetics, to explain the abilities of a Clear, Hubbard makes use of cliches and draws the attention away by pointing to old colloquialisms as the "mind's eye"." What does this mean? What is meant by "draws the attention away"? Whose attention? Away from what? Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That entire section ("Content") is confusingly written and arguably detrimental to the article. The article needs a synopsis of the book's content, but the existing one does not make much sense in English. I think someone has tried to achieve neutrality by throwing in a mix of very negative and very positive comments. Sentences like "There is another giant lurking in the background of Hubbard's work," "After faithfully enumerating all kinds of goodies about Clear," or, "It cannot be done, says Hubbard, because every engram contains analytical attenuation." are not encyclopedic in style and are dubiously meaningful. I've been wary of hacking away at that content, because it does cite references. I'd be interested to cut out some of that content if I weren't doing it unilaterally. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this:

In 1948, L. Ron Hubbard told a social gathering of science fiction writers that the best way to make a million is to start a new religion

I think given the seriousness of this, we should name the person(s) who claimed to have directly heard him say this. Given that it wasn't recorded, and is contested, I don't think we should be stating it as an unattributed fact. Since (what I assume is) the source is offline, I'm unable to fix this myself. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If nobody responds to this issue, I plan on removing mention of this. We must either cover this properly, or not cover it. I don't have access to a source that would allow me to fix it. --Rob (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's covered in the L. Ron Hubbard article, which has been through FA review, in which this particular claim was subjected to careful scrutiny. Certainly I dispute Laval's claim that "it has been proven time and time again that hubbard never made that quote". There are multiple sources quoting Hubbard saying something to the appropriate effect. There needs to be a better explanation of how this relates to the topic of this article, though. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact something is an FA doesn't mean it's always correct. Even if we keep it, we need to say exactly where and when it was said, who first claimed publicly it was said. And, we should also cover denials of it (as covered in 3rd party sources). Also, we go way beyond saying he made the statement. We're explicitly stating, as fact, that this is the motive for writing the book, when we say " Hubbard took the first step in that direction with the publication of DMSMH". A person's motivation is inherently more subjective, and we generally shouldn't state it as fact. I can find hundreds of reliable sources explicitly stating George Bush launched wars for the sole purpose of making money, but we wouldn't ever state that as a definitive fact, without attribution (in the body), and without mentioning other views. --Rob (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"The fact something is an FA doesn't mean it's always correct." That wasn't the intended implication. The implication is that the claim has been intensely scrutinised and a consensus has been formed about how to present it. Look at the relevant discussion about half way down the FAC. The claim should not be presented as debunked. I agree that citing it as the motivation for the writing of this book is probably original research. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see this great scrutiny (I read the relevant part, not the whole FA discussion). I see some relevant discussion that you had there. I don't see a clear consensus on that particular point. For some reason in the FA you were more open to expanding on it than you are here. Anyways, I'm not asking to say it was debunked. I'm not even asking to say "alleged" (which is weasely). I'm asking to for us to say when and where did he say it; and also who first publicly stated it.
  • Another issue with this, is how it's actually tied to DMSMH. Do we have a source that mentions the two things together? There are countless serious negative things that we can say about Hubbard, including things in his early (pre-DMSMH) life. How to do we pick which ones to pluck out? If we do include this, we need to show a connection, and we aught to have an attributable source making that connection. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Writer of Pulp Fiction

On the “background” section, it is written that “LRH was a prolific writer for pulp magazines.” Wouldn't it be better to present him as a "prolific writer of pulp fiction" to better describe the genre he wrote in? Such writers are often referred to as "writers of pulp fiction" in the Science Fiction Studies journal. Thoughts?Orangepulp81 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Horribly slanted "content" section

The first paragraph has a few lines about the actual content of the book, then has a much bigger section of fairly rampant debunking. If I wanted that I would have read the reception/criticism section. The "content" bit becomes almost unreadable for it's glaring lack of neutrality, but I suspect if I edited out the debunking portions, I would be labelled as a Scientologist who is making religiously-motivated edits. I checked out the page on Dianetics itself, and that doesn't have this problem at all. A nicely neutral bit of basic concepts, followed by a debunking in the appropriate section. I think the content section in this article should be majorly edited to fit the tone of the basic concepts section in that article. Thoughts? Wikiditm (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree; the Content section is pretty clearly NPOV ("Dianetics, in and of itself, thus presents nothing that was not already known to science in that area, while adding phenomena and functional systems that have no basis in fact"—seriously?) and a thorough rewrite would be quite justified, or at the very least a transfer of all the sourced criticisms to a separate Criticism section, as with the main Dianetics article. Also, for a section that offers a link to a main article for more detail, the Content section is way too long; a paragraph-long summary of the ideas contained in the book would suffice. --Wordshark (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Just read this article & the "Content" section needs to be revamped badly. Consumer Report is not in the book & obviously neither is Theosophist Magazine. The article mentions him moving to Cuba; Seriously? Tempted to get the scissors out; Anybody have a problem with that?? Ka'Jong 01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka'Jong (talkcontribs)

"The book Scientology"

The opening paragraph says:

"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and the book Scientology helped launch the religion in 1950".

Which book published in 1950 was called "Scientology"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the citation for this?

A 2014 note on Clears: the statistics from the Church of Scientology for the 2013 calendar year state that worldwide a 'Clear' is made on average every 5 hours. A validation that engrams exist, and can be erased, and that Clears can be made, is being proven on a daily basis in Scientology organizations around the world. (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Poorly Constructed Paragraph

AntonyAPhillips (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC) . The third paragraph down seems to be badly constructed in that one is led to believe that Scientologists inflated the sales figure of the first edition of the book, which became a bestseller, by buying extra copies of the book. There were no Scientologists in the middle of 1950. The name Scientology was not used until a few years later. At the time the book was issued there were no followers of Dianetics. At that time Hubbard had a following amongst pulp fiction magazine readers, including science-fiction, but I presume was unknown outside of that someone limited circle.
. The practice, referred to by P.Dalton employees/officials, is not disputed (I have copies of the Danish and the English 1979 editions which I bought to sell further to increase the statistics!).
. I think this is important. It seems that the enormous success of the first edition came as a surprise/shock, resulting in both an enormous demand for training, which Hubbard had no organisation prepared to handle (REF. early part) and opposition from established mental health practices. It seems possible, this is conjecture, that this double shock (trauma) may have had a bad influence on Hubbard's mental development.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)