Talk:Dianetics/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Self - Reference

here Feldspar stated, "(restore disambig; replace vague and evasive first sentence; restore accurate description of how Hubbard presented Dianetics; removed POV "based on its successes")" and placed the now self-referencing template. For the reader of the article it states: "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" as the first line of the article. But WP:ASR (avoid self-reference), states: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as: This Wikipedia article discusses ...". Probably any editor can see that "This article is about .." is an exact parallel with "This article discusses ..". It is a self-reference. The term "Dianetics" is used in the english language in a singular way. There are not, for example, 2 or 3 subjects, each independent but one subject. The word is even trademarked or copyrighted or something. And the guidelines tell us to avoid self-reference. So let's do that. Terryeo 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the word "Wikipedia" that makes it an undesirable self-reference, not the word "article". Using the word "article" is sometimes unavoidable when we must clarify what a given article covers. This is done all over the place, see New York or thousands of other articles for an example. Friday (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Terryeo is now trying to claim that he thought that the disambiguation line was unacceptable because it starts "This article is about" and he thought this made it violate the policy on self-reference. However, the text "This article is about" is part of the {{otheruses4}} template itself -- Terryeo knows this because he's removed it so many times and under so many creative edit summaries. If Terryeo had read Wikipedia:Disambiguation (which he damn well should have, if he was going to appoint himself judge and jury of this disambiguation line) he would see that {{otheruses4}}, the template whose text he thinks violates policy, is one of the templates specifically recommended at the relevant policy page.

So let's have a show of hands. Who thinks Terryeo is actually being honest and sincere and actually believes his tale about "oooh, it's a self-reference and we must avoid that!"? ... anyone? No? Didn't think so. All right, now who thinks Terryeo has just decided "The point of citing policy is to discourage and harass?" Yeah, me too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt we need to comment any further on the motivations for Terryeo's edits here. This is best left to another forum. It is clear that Terryeo is not familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia and that he is not able to accurately represent those guidelines and policies on Talk pages or in edit summaries. Perhaps Terryeo is only acting here to confuse and obfuscate, much as his colleagues do by posting hundreds of off-topic anti-psyche spam cut-n-paste articles into ARS, however the best place to discuss his motivations (or anybody's) is not here. Let's move on to how this article can be improved! Vivaldi 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it somewhat hard to believe Terryeo is that naive... so he must have been citing policy to harrass. then again, thinking about it I'm probably wrong (just remembered Xenu...) Glen Stollery ^{C T} 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Stollery, you could state the situation as you view it. Read the article, almost exactly the same information was appearing in two setences almost sequentially with each other. But that's apparently of no interest at all to you? It is more important that you ignore the issue? Why ? Terryeo 06:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, that you and I disagree about the self-reference and the need for disambiguation is one thing. That can be understood. It is the issue I brought forth by beginning this section. But your attempt to pervert the question raised by this section is less easily understood. You use this attempt to arrive at concensus about a particular point, you use it to raise a separate issue. That issue is already raised and has a platform, an Rfc. The issues you raise (quite apart and dispersive to the issue of this section) are "bad faith" and "harrassment" and "sincerity". If you wish to raise those issues then there is the Rfc, or you have other venues you could use. Even if everyone who edits here raised their hand for you, you would still be using one raised point to raise your own point and preventing it from being discussed. As a reader presently reads the article, they read practically the same exact sentence with one sentence in between, the "{[Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health]] sentence". I raise the issue that such a juxtapose of information is not good, encyclopedic editing. Why do you state, "yes it is good, now this only shows that YOU are acting in bad faith, are incincere, naive, are acting as judge and jury, etc. etc. etc. What's the point Feldspar? Its a reasonable issue to raise. Terryeo 04:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because there's an RfC doesn't mean no one else can ever comment on your behavior here. And as the RfC shows, there are a lot of editors who agree with what Antaeus Feldspar is saying, there and here. wikipediatrix 15:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I raise an issue. I state it pretty clearly. It is quickly remarked on by Feldspar. It is ignored by Wikipediatrix. My raised issue is used as a springboard to accost me with terms like, "bad faight, incincerity, naiveness, etc. etc. etc. and then supported by Wikipediatrix (whom again ignores the raised issue). Why? Terryeo 06:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus: I think Terryeo is being honest and sincere. I think there are a lot of good reasons to remove it. That is just one per Wiki policy. Now using policy to "discourage and harass". That is something I have seen, and pointed it out in the Request for Mediation. I said the calling parties do that. They quote policy out one side of their mouth while violating with the other consistently. If it is true of Terryeo then your statement is the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't think it is true for Terryeo. It is simply more discouragement and harrassing, ad nauseum. Spirit of Man 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot needs a greater time lapse

I was just editing this article and for some reason the page came out blank when I hit save. Evidently I forgot to cut and paste the text for the revert I was doing. It would have only taken me five seconds to hit "back", cut and paste the text, and correct my mistake, but already in those five seconds the Tawkerbot had intervened and left a "vandalism from Wikipediatrix" edit summary in the history, which is really, really not cool and not fair. The bot needs to wait at least 60 seconds to see if the blanking-out is intentional, or if the user catches their mistake and quickly corrects it! wikipediatrix 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken Wikipediatrix. It was sudden and a surprise. Would you mind discussing your summary deletions of the Goal section w/o citations somewhere? Spirit of Man 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summary, I thought it sounded like advertising copy. The article already explicitly spells out the purpose of Dianetics, which is essentially the same thing as the goal of Dianetics. Thus your lengthy "Goal of Dianetics" section was, I feel, redundant and not written in a NPOV. wikipediatrix 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Major change: History moved to new article

The Dianetics article was getting very long. Even the edit page warned of its excessive length. While my changes can hardly be called "complete" in quality or length, I've moved the complete history section to History of Dianetics and pared the history section in Dianetics to a much shorter length. I'd eventually like to get the history in the main Dianetics article down to two to three paragraphs. I'm sure there will be some debate about what belongs in the history summary, but I've taken the invitation to "be bold" to heart and made what I believe is major progress. --Davidstrauss 03:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think some things -- especially details on bestseller status and editions of D:MSMH -- on the new History of Dianetics page need to move to the D:MSMH page. I'll put a similar note on Talk:D:MSMH. Thanks. --Davidstrauss 03:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the article at this time, though I certainly agree it has become overlong. I think that much of what remains in the article can and should be cut out, and I'm not convinced that there is a good reason for separate articles on Diantetics, History of Dianetics, and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I think the reason for the gross inflation of this article is temporary: extremely problematic editing by two editors, one of whom is currently the subject of a "Request for Comment." If some resolution--hopefully a mutually agreed upon understanding of consensus and the spirit of wikipedia--can be achieved with those editors, the opportunity will present itself to edit the article appropriately. In my opinion, "history" is a primary aspect of the subject, and there's no reason this article can't be cut down to a reasonable size. At the least, I'd suspend any such article splitting until this controversy about particular editors who consistently violate policy has been resolved. BTfromLA 06:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What policies are consistently violations? Spirit of Man 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I've made the history section far more concise. I would, however, like to keep all the details of the bankruptcies and successes somewhere. I chose to work on the history section largely because it isn't under much controversy. You'll notice that around 95% of the debate is about the introduction and consideration as a "pseudoscience".

Useless, redundant disambiguation

"This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Dianetics is a practice which is based on ideas about the human mind."

The reader reads that. In three sentences the reader is presented with two sentences which are almost exactly the same. It is redundant. It is unnecessary. It is poor writing. I removed the first two sentences which form a "disambiguation". Wikipedia readers come to this article to read this article. The first thing such a reader is presented with should be this article.Terryeo 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else wants to remove the disambiguation. Rewrite it if you want, but the "poor writing" isn't an excuse for removing the link. I've added your latest two disambig removals to your RFC. --Davidstrauss 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I want it removed in both places. It is quadruply redundent and not needed at all. It represents a false importance. What is important? Reading what you came for or being told where to go to find something you didn't come for? Spirit of Man 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The consensus opinion is that the disambiguity notice should remain at the top of the article as long as there exists an article about the book Dianetics that is seperate from the article about the subject of Dianetics. Vivaldi 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're trying to second-guess what the reader is coming to this article for? Didn't you say that you didn't want to do that, earlier? In any case, it's totally ridiculous to assume that people will know exactly what they want when coming to this article, especially when people frequently wikilink this article when they mean to point to the book. The disambig is neccessary and stays. Tenebrous 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Are you and Davidstrauss on the same cheerleading team by any chance? (see next) "totally ridiculous"?? I suggest you take a look at what you wrote in the morning. Spirit of Man 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been fully explained to you and the consensus opinion is against your changes. Further discussion of this same issue will get you a pointer to read the existing talk page. Vivaldi 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For all Wikipedia-related affairs, I don't consider you and Terryeo separate people. You both spend many of your posts just cheerleading each other on. I honestly wonder some days whether you two users are the same person. --Davidstrauss 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Nobody else wants to remove the disambiguation". I said it wasn't true. I just read the article on "ad hominem" error in logic. You might read it if you have a free moment. Spirit of Man 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is dianetics (Dianetics) capitalized?

Why is dianetics (Dianetics) capitalized?

Because proper nouns always are. wikipediatrix 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LRH's definition of "third party"

I've been made a fool by being drawn into an insane debate about "credible thrid party sources" with Spirit of Man, above, but I did turn up a tidbit in the course of that discussion that is chilling, if I'm interpreting it correctly. Third parties, of course, are valued for their relative objectivity in matters that are under dispute. Hubbard, though, doesn't seem to share that view. Check out this definition from the Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary:

third party: one who by false reports creates trouble between two people, a person and a group, or a group and another group.

Sounds like he's saying that "outside observers" are deliberate liars. Hard to imagine a more perverse re-definition of a term. BTfromLA 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, within Scientology tech, "third party" has a specific use as you have quoted above. It has a specialized and specific meaning. But you will find that specific meaning to be "hostile third party" where the "hostile" is implied by the context. Here on Wikipedia we want "third party opinions" (disinterested evaluations by persons separated and able to offer even-handed evaluations). The use of the term you have quoted above is specific to an area of Scientology Technology and has the unstated (hostile) "third party". You find it in the area of "suppressive person technology." And please don't get the idea that no Scientologist ever uses the term "third party" in ordinary english. That use is only within "suppressive person technology" and isn't used broadly, isn't used elsewhere. That's Suppressive Person (hostile) "third party" as you have quoted above. Terryeo 05:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This quote is out of context. It has nothing to do with editing policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia. It has to do with resolving disputes between two parties in life. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As you said third parties are valued for their "relative objectivity" and that is true in Scientology as well as here on Wiki. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the one and only definition of "third party" in the official Scientology and Dianetics glossary. If it is "out of context" and the part about valuing third party objectivity was omitted, the fault is with whomever put that glossary together. BTfromLA 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The one about objectivity is in standard english dictionaries. This policy letter uses this special technical meaning, as it is defined and used in that policy. The glossaries don't include all english words or meanings, just the special ones that relate to specific issues. You should be able to find words to this effect at the beginning of whatever glossary you found the specialized definition in. I understand this to be true of any glossary. Do you agree? Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I find no such disclaimers at the Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary, do you? I agree that it would be a good idea to specify that these definitions are only intended to apply to a narrow set of particular circumstances.BTfromLA 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no disclaimer. The use of "third party law" is within a narrow area of Scientology with its own jargon and applies to Scientology technology. What's the title of the page, "General use english created by Scientology?" no, its something like "Scientology Glossary." Its likely some mention is made in that definition to say what it applies to. No one is tryign to mislead you. Terryeo 03:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find what I was looking for there either, just that it was a Scientology glossary. I have a glossary from the Freedom Congress Lectures, 6 July 1957, it reads as follows: "Words often have several meanings. The definitions used only give the meaning that the word has as it is used in these lectures. This glossary is not meant to take the place of a standard language or Dianetics and Scientology dictionaries, which should be referred to for any words, terms or phrases that do not appear below." Spirit of Man 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In Scientology logic, illogical things are identified and removed. This is the idea that reason doesn't exist in the presence of illogical things. When the illogical things are identified and removed then reason can prevail. The main illogical thing relative to our disucussion is false reports. The relation between the two parties doesn't resolve because false reports are continually added by the "third party" delibrately to cause trouble. If a person conducting a Scientology justice action accepted reports with known false information in it, he would be in deep trouble for doing so. I understand in your view, a credible third party would not allow false things to be published. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If I have claried the issue with the glossary, I ask that you recind your comments about "The Ministry of Truth" and anything else that amounts to a false report of what you understand to be true. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the section title: assuming that this is as you've explained it, it's excessive to attribute this to Big Brother. Still strikes me as a potentially creepy bit of "tech"--blame the outsiders--but I'll leave such conclusions to those who have first-hand experience with the policy. BTfromLA 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your quote comes from a CoS policy on The Third Party Law, HCO PL 26 Dec 68 I. It applies to resolving disputes between two parties that is not resolving over a period of time. A third party that was giving true reports to both parties may resolve the issue quickly. That is a primary tool here on Wiki. But when the dispute is not resolving and both parties are willing to communicate, then you look for the third party that is submitting "false" reports to one or both sides. Example: we have a husband and wife having a continuing dispute. My parents had exactly this same dispute. The mother in-law is not happy that daughter-in-law had to get married and felt her son was trapped. So she told the son how bad the wife was and shunned the wife at all times so she always felt suppressed. So in this case the third party is not objective and truthful, but delibrately false and not objective. This worsens a condition rather than improves it. When the law is made known to both parties and they recognize the source of the conflict it collapses very quickly. The marriage can be revitalized. Spirit of Man 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, from the "creates false report" and "continually causes trouble" the (hostile) portion of "third party" is apparent. Obviously a third party could create good reports, could calm the waters, could work toward resolution. That quote has a specific meaning about a hostile person or group creating trouble. Let me give you an example. Newspapers can act as a (hostile) "third party" when they excerbate a minor squabble between two movie stars (just an example that pops into mind).Terryeo 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man's removal of information

Just so no one complains that I didn't discuss my edit, here: I reinstated the paragraph that Spirit of Man removed because - obviously - I believe the sentences in it were valid and belong in the article, and shouldn't be censored. Thank you and good night :) wikipediatrix 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed my summary said, the citation does not support the POV conclusion in the sentence. Dianetics has very little to do with medicine or MED line. The Fischer study is by a student in an education curriculum, not all of science. Please find a citation that meets Wiki criteria rather than using OR only to support a strong claim. If you do not, I will put a POV-section flag on the section. Spirit of Man 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If Dianetics cures diseases - and Hubbard claimed it did - this falls under the aegis of medicine regardless of what verbal gymnastics you or LRH or anyone else comes up with. Period. wikipediatrix 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics does cure diseases, but this sort of "claim" is the misunderstanding this article revolves around. Dianetics does cure them and other things, but it is a by-product, it is not the intent nor the purpose of Dianetics to cure diseases. Take another example, take the example of a doctor who does liposuction. He might claim that he makes people "run faster" and that would be true because people without so much weight could run faster. If we get wrapped around "cure diseases, cure mental ills" and that kind of thing we are revolving around the central flagpole without mentioning the central flagpole (removal of fat). Well, in the case of Dianetics, "Clear". Terryeo 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, where is the citation that supports the conclusion in the sentence? The sentence doesn't say what you are saying. Where is the citation that says what you are are saying? None. Fischer was not a doctor or even a scientist, he was an education student. The Fox study is a study of one.... You have no credible citation at all for the reversion. See WP:V. Spirit of Man 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is no citation that specifically states "Dianetics cannot transmute eggnog into gold" doesn't mean you're allowed to state that it can! The burden of proof for Dianetics is on Dianeticists, not the rest of the world at large. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. wikipediatrix 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you reverted is; "Dianetics is regarded by mainstream science as a pseudoscience and has achieved no general acceptance as a bona fide scientific theory..." The citation is not for "mainstream" science and does not support your claim. The citation is from a medical database, but a database can express "no regards" of any kind. Spirit of Man 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitur and makes no sense, unless you're actually saying that you have a right to state "Dianetics can transmute Eggnog into Gold". Dianeticists and Scientologists are the ones making the claims here, and hence are the ones who need to produce solid proof of said claims or get off the bidet. wikipediatrix 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"regarded by mainstream science" is what you rv. What does it mean? You have no citation and it may be removed by anyone according to WP:V. Spirit of Man 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Spirit. You're displaying the worst kind of bad faith with double standards. Earlier today you inserted your own original research, claiming (just to give one example) that the purported benefit of touch assists given to Hurricane Katrina victims makes it meet the scientific criterion of "Usefulness". Now let's leave out for now the fact that no scientific evidence has ever established that a touch assist does anything of value -- no one who even actually read the criterion of "Useful" would make the mistake of thinking it means "would it be a useful thing for humanity if this turned out to be true?" I would hope that people would recognize that as a fallacious appeal to consequences anyways, but quite frankly, all it takes is just plain reading comprehension to see that the criterion is described as "describes and explains observed phenomena". So you clearly have no hesitations whatsoever about inserting your own original research for which you would never get a verifiable citation -- because anyone else would have read the damn criterion and would never have misapplied it as you did. But here you are, less than twelve hours later, saying that you feel entitled to remove material from the other side of the argument because "You have no citation and it may be removed by anyone according to WP:V"? For God's sake, Spirit, where is your shame? Where is your shame? Have you really twisted your sense of right and wrong that badly that you think you're entitled to hold other people to the most rigid possible interpretations of policies that you yourself won't follow? Where is your sense of shame? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Spirit. You're displaying the worst kind of bad faith with double standards. Earlier today you inserted your own original research, claiming (just to give one example) that the purported benefit of touch assists given to Hurricane Katrina victims makes it meet the scientific criterion of "Usefulness". Now let's leave out for now the fact that no scientific evidence has ever established that a touch assist does anything of value'

Do you agree an assist that saves a boy's leg from gangrene so he can have a productive life is useful? Do you agree a man that has his attention so fixated on being hit by a wave that he can not function and feed his family when a boat a present and there are fish to eat is inhumane. Isn't the "useful" thing to do, to release his attention so he can go back to work? Or is it not "useful" because you dreamed up "a point of view" that says the criteria is a "scientific" citation by a student from NYU saying it doesn't work? Spirit of Man 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I agree that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever that a touch assist does anything of value? No, I do not. I am quite aware what Scientologists claim a touch assist does, but let's take your example: A tsunami victim gets a "touch assist" from a Scientologist. His leg doesn't get gangrene. Does this prove that the touch assist prevented gangrene? No, it does not. By the same logic, the touch assist also prevented that same tsunami victim from being hit later that afternoon by a New York taxicab -- one thing happened, then the other failed to happen, there must be a connection! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-- no one who even actually read the criterion of "Useful" would make the mistake of thinking it means "would it be a useful thing for humanity if this turned out to be true?" I would hope that people would recognize that as a fallacious appeal to consequences anyways, but quite frankly, all it takes is just plain reading comprehension to see that the criterion is described as "describes and explains observed phenomena".

This was presented below. Spirit of Man 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, an adequate explanation of the fact that you completely misread the criteria was not presented, below or elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So you clearly have no hesitations whatsoever about inserting your own original research for which you would never get a verifiable citation -- because anyone else would have read the damn criterion and would never have misapplied it as you did.

How many citations did I supply? Spirit of Man 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

None, since as mentioned you could not have found a citation to support something that was nothing but your own misreading and your own original research based upon it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

...But here you are, less than twelve hours later, saying that you feel entitled to remove material from the other side of the argument because "You have no citation and it may be removed by anyone according to WP:V"?

The time sequence is removing one line that had no citation. After that was reverted, I added balancing material below in the section. Why didn't you just provide your citation, which I have no doubt you don't actually have, instead of going on a tirade like this? Spirit of Man 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the time sequence is you adding your own original research, based upon your own failure to even fully read the questions before appointing yourself the provider of answers, and then claiming that you have the right to remove a line that merely sums up the evidence that has already been cited, merely because the summation is not itself cited. Even if it were the other way around, it still doesn't justify your attempt to enforce on others a standard that you yourself violate blatantly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, Spirit, where is your shame? Where is your shame? Have you really twisted your sense of right and wrong that badly that you think you're entitled to hold other people to the most rigid possible interpretations of policies that you yourself won't follow? Where is your sense of shame? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I refer you to WP:CIV. You did not read the time sequence. I removed one line with no citation per WP:V. I later added balancing materials with many citations. You objected to one sentence with that showed a "benefit to mankind" as useful, and I corrected that with a cited presentation per the discustion. Why all this later? Spirit of Man 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We are all editing in good faith, Feldspar. We are trying to present our understanding of these subjects as well as we can. We understand the subjects differently, but we are not editing in bad faith. Please stop accusing other editors of editing in bad faith when they understand, use, and even save lives with assists which you don't believe are helpful.Terryeo 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We are all editing in good faith, Feldspar.

Incorrect. We are all supposed to be editing in good faith, and we are all supposed to be assuming good faith of each other when it is possible to reconcile the evidence with good faith editing. It is not possible to reconcile Spirit of Man's insertion of his own poor-quality original research about how Dianetics meets criteria which he clearly hasn't even read, with his declaration that he will remove an accurate summation of the evidence because we only have numerous citations for the evidence itself and not for that particular summation of it.

Please stop accusing other editors of editing in bad faith when they understand, use, and even save lives with assists which you don't believe are helpful.Terryeo 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please point out to me a single instance where you, or Spirit of Man, or any other editor, saved a life with an assist and I responded to that happening with an accusation that you were editing in bad faith. Very simply, you can't, because it never happened; what you do with your own religion on your own time is your own business and it isn't relevant here (something that I wish you understood, for then we might be spared your frequent first-person testimony about how you have personally witnessed the effectiveness of Dianetics, which has nothing to do with writing the article.) No, when you and Spirit of Man face accusations of editing in bad faith, it's not because you "understand the subject differently" or because you "use" the subject and it's certainly not because you "save lives with assists" (honestly, were you under the impression that this was a subtle straw man??) The reason you two face accusations of editing in bad faith is because of all the evidence there is you editing in bad faith, such as all the many times you have requested a citation and then removing when it's provided, or the double standard Spirit of Man demonstrates here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It saddens me that you don't think that we editors are editing in good faith. I think we all do edit in good faith. The person whom I once assisted said "you probably saved my life." I do think we all edit in good faith but understand the subject differently. You present your POV as well as you are able, based on what you understand of the subjects and I present mine in good faith based on what I understand of the subjects. Terryeo 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It saddens me that you actually think anyone will believe you when you now pretend "I think we all do edit in good faith." Do you actually imagine that months and months of your saying things like "If you really work at it with ChrisO and a few you, you can prevent Dianetics from being communicated to a reader" and "Calton, what do you hope to achieve? You seem to hope no reader can understand anything about Dianetics" will just be forgotten because you suddenly start paying lip service to WP:AGF (and of course demanding its benefits for yourself, demanding that good faith be assumed of you despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?) That is not a fantasy you should bet the farm on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by this; "That is a non-sequitur and makes no sense, unless you're actually saying that you have a right to state "Dianetics can transmute Eggnog into Gold" and ""Dianetics cannot transmute eggnog into gold". I don't get it. It just looks like double-talk. Spirit of Man 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's called an "example". wikipediatrix 03:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I don't agree. If you disagree, where is your citation per WP:V?

RfC Redux

Not to literally compare Scientology to Ted Bundy, but sometimes it takes an extreme example to show the fallacy of the "equal time" idea: if there were a highly vocal group of people editing these articles who expressed the viewpoint that being a serial killer is okay and that Bundy was perfectly justified in doing so, would we even consider giving them equal space in the article? Of course not. Are we ready to give Jim Jones' cult equal space for rebuttal that mass suicide is a good thing? The issue here only seems about fairness when you think of it as Scientologists versus Anti-Scientologists, which it is not. I, for one, am only interested in reporting facts. (That there are so many facts unflattering to Scientology is no one's fault but the Church's). wikipediatrix 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to dispute your "logic" in saying you only wish to report facts. You just deleted the balancing facts I presented in the pseudoscience section exactly as Buster recommended. You don't seem to cherish facts, you seem to cherish the sensation of your extreme examples like "serial killer", and "mass suicide". Isn't this true, Wikipediatrix? We have discussed this before in mediation and DMSMH. Do you intend this to be more than an ad hominum logical error? Spirit of Man 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, could you notch up the drama just a little more? I knew you'd blow the comparison out of proportion without actually addressing my point (even though I was careful to preface it with a disclaimer). I think the communication barrier between us is so vast here that if you don't get what I'm trying to say yet (and believe me, you aren't even close), I don't think you ever will. I've already explained all this many times in the simplest English possible, but you and Terryeo insist on talking it to death, and talking in circles. wikipediatrix 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point is you feel Dianetics should not be given "equal time". You haven't shown why this is, nor have you allowed any time. You have merely discussed how it should be eliminated. Spirit of Man 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else is going to have explain it to you, because I give up trying. wikipediatrix 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And more circles and more circles. I really don't think that gap will ever be breached: you can talk to Spirit, and he'll respond, but then you get to talking about something that he doesn't want to believe, and then you're talking to a brick wall. And apparently now he's decided to cry "ad hominum (sic)" anytime anyone criticizes him. What fun! Tenebrous 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, give me an example something I don't want to believe, where I hit a brick wall, if you please? Spirit of Man 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "deconstruct me, I dare you" road goes nowhere, and I hope Tenebrous doesn't take your bait and waste his time typing something that you'll pretend not to understand even if you do. wikipediatrix 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate it; the evidence is pretty clear: here is Spirit once again disputing the characterization of Dianetics as pseudoscience, despite all evidence and despite consensus. I don't have anything to say to him on the matter; it's his own issue. Tenebrous 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The top of page template, though completely unnecessary, at least looks better than it did, concentrating on a neutral point of view. A parallel to the point you guys are missing! Is pitching baseballs a science? People have characterized it in that direction, specifying speed, spin on the ball, where in the strike zone it arrives, etc. You could talk about the "science of pitching baseball" and there is science to it. Certainly there is logical thought to it. On the other hand it is going to be pretty rare to find a scientist who is a great baseball pitcher. It needs atheletic ability to pitch baseball and perhaps some additional attributes also. Well, so too with Dianetics. There is some thought and science to it, it follows logical thought and isn't magic. What abilities does a person need to deliver Dianetics? Well, he needs to have good sense and needs to be willing to help people. He needs to be willing to listen to the other person and grant the other person has experiences unique to them, a unique and other point of view.Terryeo 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition of POV-Section tag to the section on Pseudoscience

That the pseudoscience section is nothing more than an attack on Dianetics without citations was suggested by Swatjester above.

Adding authoritative balancing material with citations was suggested by Buster Hawthorn above.

I added answers to the questions raised by the text from the texts of Dianetic publications published by Bridge Publications with examples of their use in important situations such as with Katrina hurricane victims and Indonesian szunami victims. The section lacks balance as noted by reviewing editors and I supplied some balance. Spirit of Man 15:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus removed the POV tag. Please explain here.

Above Antaeus presents this argument; Useful means: "describes and explains observed phenomena". So you clearly have no hesitations whatsoever about inserting your own original research for which you would never get a verifiable citation." Dianetic tests described in Evolution of a Science demonstrate the amount of information available to the human mind amounts to a consecutive record of energy pictures extending from conception to the present moment. Dianetics describes the observed quantity of information which is not envisioned by then current science, and to my knowledge still is not explained by brain science. There is no explaination for the quantify of information available. The tests are described and may be reproduced by competent hypnotists. Scientology 0-8 presents a chart of 55 human perceptions. Each energy picture contains all 55 perceptions. Spirit of Man 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix removed the text. Please explain here.

Here is the explanation for why your {{NPOV-section}} tag was removed: you have not shown any evidence that the section is POV in its presentation of acceptable evidence for either side. Your edit summary claims that what you added was "Balancing Dianetic citations", however, what it actually was was your own original research, and very bad original research. As already explained, you completely misunderstood what the criteria of "usefulness" even referred to, and your other attempts to match up the unproven claims of Dianetics with criteria whose descriptions you clearly didn't find it necessary to read closely were similarly poor.

Buster Hawthorn's idea of "authoritative balancing material with citations" is indeed a good one -- when there is authoritative material to cite on both sides. You cannot simply appoint yourself as a source authoritative enough to declare "There is no explaination for the quantify of information available."

Antaeus, I cited the basic books of Dianetics and seven citations in particular. Let me add the following more specific citations to clarify the facts:

The citation are Evolution of Science p 57 "In the first place the banks contain a complete color-video record of a person's whole life…." "Every perception observed in a lifetime is to be found in the banks. All the perceptions. In good order." From [[Scientology 0-8", p 95 PERCEPTICS, The Fifty-five Human Perceptions. From Tech Dictionary, p 439 TIME TRACK: The consesecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulates through the preclears life, or lives. It is very exactly dated. Evolution of Science p 48, "Dr. Shannon commented that he had tried every way he could think of to compute the material in the memory bank of the brain, and he had been forced to conclude that brain could not retain more than three months worth of observations if it recorded everything." There is far more information available in the mind than any competing theory then or now can explain. Spirit of Man 21:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"The tests are described and may be reproduced by competent hypnotists."

The citation is, EoS, p 55, this is the experiment that has to be done by a competent hypnotist. "Supposing we set up the whole computer as the demon. A demon that is always and invariably right. Let's install one in a brain so that the computer can project outside the body and give the body orders. Let's make the computer a circuit independent of the individual. Well, hypnotism has some uses. Good tool for research sometimes even if it is a prime villain in aberration…This artificial demon knew EVERYTHING….The banks contained an infinity of data which appalled one in its very completeness."

Antaeus, I am not the source of that idea. I have provided more detailed citations. Are these satisfactory?

...The fact that added your own original research,

Please read at least some of the above list of citations before we continue from here. The statement is not my OR.

…treating yourself as a source authoritative enough to declare "Dianetics also meets the above criteria from a critical source, for what is required of a theory or science in its published materials",

The statement is a summary of citations as they apply to the challenge presented in the article.

and then less than twelve hours later declared that a simple summation of evidence (in a direction you didn't like, naturally) "[has] no citation and it may be removed by anyone according to WP:V", shows that you are unable or unwilling to live by the same standards you would impose on others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The correct sequence in time is, I deleted one sentence, a summarization of many OR comments in the article, that were not cited and the actual citations presented did not support the conclusion. It was not supported anywhere in the section. It was reverted by Wikipediatrix. If this is the accepted view in the article, why should it not also apply to any editors statements in the article? Why are you so intense on this? But, my conclusion is supported by citations, so you are mixing apples and oranges. One with no citations (supporting your point of view) being kept and one with citations (my point of view) being totally deleted . Now someone else has edited the article to remove the uncited material and to reword the material, so we only have one issue at this point. One entire side of the argument is being deleted and that is POV. You are presenting false material and the balancing edits are being deleted. Please restore the balancing material. Spirit of Man 21:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there you have it folks. You have now 3 editors (killer chihuahua, myself, and Spirit of man) that think the article needs an npov tag. Please review WP:NPOVD for the appropriate usage of the tag: The only requirement is that a single editor be concerned about the neutrality of the article. Wikipediatrix you are continously removing the npov tag, and it's now disrupting the thread. I'm reinserting the NPOV tag once again. Continued reverts will be brought up through further dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. So, if we allowed Spirit of Man to insert his original research into the article, declaring that Dianetics meets criteria which he demonstrates he does not understand, would that satisfy your concerns about NPOV? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that any editor expressing concern about the article should read the article. You've flagged the article based on a "pseudoscience" section that does not appear in the current edit. BTfromLA 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, I understand I have addressed your concerns for OR fully above. If you have additional concerns please advise. If you feel I have misunderstood one of the precepts or the explaination provided please discuss. I understand I have provided no OR that meets your allegation above. Spirit of Man 16:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, see, this comes as a surprise to me. Because I didn't know that the intent of the policy was to make it so that one "contributor", no matter what absurdly bad faith or grotesque misconceptions he is operating under, can overrule an infinite number of other editors. In fact, I don't actually see that at WP:NPOVD, though I do spot the following:

... ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy.

But, now that you've explained that the policy should be interpreted that any one such ideologue can, if they choose, incorrectly mark the article as violating NPOV and keep it marked that way forever, everything is much clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well congratulations: Now you've got FOUR editors placing the POV tag back on there. Still convinced there's no dispute? And as for your thinly veiled personal attack about my operating under bad faith Antaeus (which I should remind you to assume good faith), would you like me to cite the page?

"This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards."

"Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) feels that it is."

"Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with."

"By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war."

Now are you going to spend more time attacking me, or are you going to help contribute to the betterment of the article?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor point, I believe that one of your four (KillerChihuahua) believes that the article is currently biased towards CoS's viewpoint. But let's chip in towards the article's betterment. Now .. I forget, what exactly did you say was NPOV about the article? AndroidCat 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Two. I agree with her. I felt that only that one section was biased the other way, the rest of the articles town was biased toward's CoS's viewpoint. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Swatjester, I still stand by what I said, and I think your interpretation of it as a personal attack upon yourself is not only misreading it but entirely missing the point. You seem to think that I am pointing at you and saying "You! You are acting in bad faith! You are under grotesque misconceptions as to the nature of the NPOV policy!" You are missing the actual point that I made, that if what you said was true, then even an editor acting in bad faith, or one who had no conception whatsoever of what NPOV means, would be able to keep a perfectly NPOV article marked as having its NPOV disputed forever. What you claimed is that all it takes is one editor saying he has a concern about the neutrality of the article to mark it disputed.

Let me ask you: what if the legal system worked that way? What if the only thing it took for anyone to be dragged into a courtroom was just that someone, one person, alleged some act -- and it didn't have to be a credible allegation or even necessarily an allegation based on a correct understanding of what was and was not legal? You could tie someone who'd never done a thing wrong in his life up in the courtroom until the day he died -- you could, as long as the only requirement was "one citizen alleges that there was wrongdoing of some kind."

So, let me ask this again, and please try not to jump to conclusions this time that any negative descriptions that occur in my statements are automatically things I'm saying about you: Are you so sure that all it takes to slap the label of "NPOV dispute" on an article is for one editor to say it doesn't look NPOV to them? Or are there additional requirements that help us separate actual NPOV disputes from those brought in ignorance of what NPOV actually means, and those brought frivolously for harassment purposes? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well our legal system DOES work that way: One person needs to have standing, and then they can file a suit. Should the allegation be later deemed incredible, it will be dismissed, however, in our legal system you don't need to have a consensus of everyone involved whether there should be a suite in the first place. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Swat, in my opinion there is probably a POV issue with this page, despite the edit warring (or maybe because of it). You also seem to have some support from other editors. Why don't you be bold and fix it? Tenebrous 01:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fix what? The tag? or the article? Unfortunately it's much harder to do that for technical or scientific topics than it is for subjects under my area of expertise. I'm already also rather stretched thin across wikipedia from my various project-space tasks: afd's, copyvios, csd noms, as well as RC patrol and counter-vandalism, that I barely have enough time to edit the articles that fall within my realm of deep interest (note: dianetics is not one of those). I think I've made my point regarding this article particularly clear, so until my free time shoots up again within the next month or so, I'll be stepping back from this article (unless it happens to cross my path again). To be honest, I get the impression that any editing of this article will just build up my wiki-stress. I had a problem with being stressed out over at Iraq War, and I found that the best thing to do was to just unwatch it, and ignore it. It's not my article, I don't have any obligation to edit it, and I don't owe anybody to edit it. Once I realized that my stress level dropped dramatically. I've just got the feeling that this article is going to be the same, but I hope I can be proven wrong. Finally, the other editors, on both sides of the edit war are infinitely more familiar with the subject matter than I am. I'll tell you what I WILL do though, I'll leave it on my watch list and when I get the chance every now and then I'll try to make some minor edits to help contribute to the better tone of the article. And I'm willing to work with any editors who would like to take say maybe a paragraph at a time, put it up on my talk page, or on my user sandbox, and work out a better version to replace the current one (if needed). That's seeming to work very well for the NLP crowd, though maybe because they have the weight and force of arbcom mentors behind it. We'll see. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say this, the article is obviously POV (my point of view) and has been for a long time. But whether it is or isn't, Swatjester has made it clear (again my opinion) that a number of editors are attempting to control the article, to rigidly control the article, to control the placing of templates, questions, etc. etc. I've worked for months to attempt to get the introduction paragraph to make sense. It STILL doesn't make sense, it is not an appropriate, factual introduction. Not even the first paragraph, much less the first 1/2 the article. It is just slightly better than pure nonesense but it isn't describing dianetics yet. Why do the people whom utter hate and despise the subject, who feel the subject was "a fad in the 50s" and "at best a conjecture" why do they feel compelled to destroy even the first paragraph? If you utterly hate Dianetics and consider its mention to be evil, you would still allow the subject to be introduced. And the top of page template does not belong in the article, it makes no sense. There is not other "dianetics". Terryeo 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Terryeo. Thank you for reminding us all, once again, that you are dishonest and untrustworthy. I'm referring to your deliberately misleading reference to "people whom [sic] utter [sic] hate and despise the subject, who feel the subject was "a fad in the 50s"" -- well, of course, you are referring to me, since I have mentioned that Dianetics was a fad in the 1950s. Of course, the fact is, there was a fad for Dianetics in the 1950s: a brief spurt of very widespread interest, which then dropped off after a comparatively short time. Of course, you would find it easier to mock me and jeer at me if I had said "Dianetics was nothing but a fad in the 1950s," so despite my repeated explanations that I did not say that, you continue to dishonestly act as if I did, and you embroider upon that as well, feeling yourself somehow entitled to declare me among people "whom utter hate and despise" Dianetics. Very well; if in your mind, this somehow counts as CIVILity, then what are you hereby giving others permission to state on your behalf? Are you hereby stating that we can refer to you any time as "utterly hating and despising" whatever it is that you seem to be opposed to? If not, I don't see why not, since you seem to think that you have the right to put such strong words in the mouths of others. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Feldspar. Nice to read something from you, too. I would spend more time with the dishonestly, with the mocking and the jeering, but well, its not a lot of fun for me. But I am willing to understand that it is fun for you, if you like. Terryeo 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again Terryeo seems to have a reading comprehension problem. Just keep adding to his RfC. Tenebrous 22:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Tenebrous, I don't believe I have a reading comprehension problem. If you would be kind enough to keep your comments to the work at hand instead of the sort of comment you just posted, the article could move along a little better. There are actual issues with the article. Actual issues. Whether you discuss them with me or with someone else, Dianetics is not well presented. I understand that neither you, Feldspar, nor many of the editors who edit this article know the least bit about Dianetics but what they have read. That's fine. However, if you would take a look at any area of knowledge which you are very familar with and ask yourself, "would I have someone unfamilar with this area of knowledge, introduce it?" I think you might arrive at my position. I invite discussion rather than inviting your ill will, Tenebrous. Terryeo 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your question "would I have someone unfamilar with this area of knowledge, introduce it?" is a loaded question. It assumes an assertion of a proposition is inherently true. It would be like asking, "would I have a deluded cult junkie that hasn't even reached the level of 'Clear' introduce the topic? Also, in fact Wikipedia editors are preferred if they are not intimately involved with the subjects they are editing. Your inherent bias towards legitimizing Dianetics "technology" is easy to spot and very difficult for you to control, even when a clear consensus of opinion has been shown against your convuluted and biased edits here. So to answer the real question, "would I have someone that is a Scientologist be responsible for making the introduction to all articles regarding Scientology subject?" The answer to that question, is NO! I would prefer it if a completely neutral an unbiased scientist/researcher was available to look at all the evidence and make the introduction based on appropriateness of WP:V and WP:RS. Vivaldi 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)