Talk:Scientology and psychiatry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitrary section header

I think this should be moved to Scientology and psychiatry (which is currently a redirect back here) - more of a discussion article - David Gerard 19:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved! I'll go through and fix the redirect links in, er, a while - David Gerard 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pavlov

I think a section about Scientology's "history" of psychology should be added. They make some claims which don't really seem historically accurate: http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/heritage/pg010.html

"In Russia, former veterinarian Ivan Petrovich Pavlov served the dictator Stalin with experiments to discover how man could be controlled to better serve the state. He reasoned that if dogs could be made to slaver on command, so could human beings. Man had now been reduced to the level of a mindless animal — and thus psychiatry was born, as a tool for tyrannical governments." 71.251.53.169 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the book Scientology -- The Fundamentals of Thought, Mr. Hubbard explains that the subject is actually descended from the roots of psychology, but that we must understand that it is not descended from current psychology, but rather the older psychology as was taught in the religions of the world before the spiritual essence of the study was removed in the last century. Psychology means literally "the study of the spirit." Psychology of today has lost this meaning and no longer studies or recognizes the spirit as a bona fide field of study. In this sense Scientology is very different, as it does study the spirit, as most great religions of the world do. [1] Terryeo 06:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. Much of what Hubbard claimed about psychiatry's history is pure fantasy - it'd be interesting to do a brief critique of the nonsense that he peddled to his followers versus the generally accepted view. As to why he made such claims, I've often wondered if he suffered from a form of iatrophobia (fear of doctors). He clearly had some significant mental health problems (the US Veterans Administration has a letter from him on file in which he requests psychiatric treatment). It could be that he developed a morbid fear of psychiatrists which he attempted to rationalise by, in effect, demonising them. If so, it was rather unfortunate - he clearly needed help but was too afraid to get it. -- ChrisO 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that he peddled anything and I don't agree that he presented nonsense to anyone and I don't agree, especially would not agree that he 'peddled nonsense to his followers'. Since you can only view his words, written and uttered as nonsense, I do understand why you don't reply to the issue the citation talks about, but instead attack his credibility with your flight of wonder. Terryeo 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you agree with. It matter's what is actually true (ie not the history of psychology Hubbard presents) 71.251.53.169 01:37, 30 August 2006

Hubbard's claims are remarkably similar to those made by creationists concerning the supposed moral degeneracy of evolution, which they portray (falsely, of course) as being responsible for eugenics, the Nazis, Communism etc - exactly the same litany of accusations that Hubbard made against psychiatry. See Creation-evolution controversy#Claims of immorality; the parallels are striking, I think. Hubbard himself seems to have been something of a creationist, judging by his denunciations of the "man from mud theory" (sic). -- ChrisO 00:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how does that make it any less appropriate for us to address the fantastic claims and modified history that Hubbard (or at least CoS) says is true? I am sure Wikipedia addresses how some creationists accuse evolutionists of being evil etc. 71.255.232.138 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - it doesn't make it any less appropriate - in fact, Wikipedia has a very extensive article addressing creationist claims about evolutionists (see Creation-evolution controversy#Conflicts inherent to the controversy). I would like to see something similar for the Scientology-psychiatry controversy. -- ChrisO 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard's Fiction is used as substantiation for Scientology

Now that' just silly. Hubbard wrote "Battlefield Earth" which mentions several things, including psychiatry in it. But to cite it as a source of policy, that's silly. Entertainment is one thing, to make entertainment a policy another. That's silly. "This theme also appears in some of Hubbard's literary works. In Hubbard's "dekology" Mission Earth, various characters praise and criticize these methods; and the antagonists in his novel Battlefield Earth are called Psychlos, a similar allusion." Silly and non-sequiter, dispersive and not useful to the article. Terryeo 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the title of the article

It is Scientology and Psychiatry. So why does its content read: "L. Ron Hubbard and Psychiatry?" Mr. Hubbard has been dead for some 20 years, is this going to be a historical novel? Terryeo 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources for quotes

http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/misc/psywar.htm is only an indirect source (is the author trustworthy?); moreover, as it's only a copy of a Usenet post, why don't we link directly to the post in Google Groups? Apokrif 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The author is our own User:ChrisO who has stated his identity in various discussion pages. But no matter whether that particular newsgroup message is stood up for or not, newsgroups messages are simply not useable as either primary or secondary sources. They have no attributability, they have no accountability, they are a dashed off collection of words, originating anywhere on the globe by anyone, saying anything. How would you verifiy it, and if you could, how would you attribute it, and if you could, how could you ask the author of it whether his use of word "xxxx" meant "yyyyy" or "zzzz" ? Newsgroup messages are simply not useable as a source of information. Terryeo 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

not a lot of disccussion

As usual, as in most of these articles, the people who work hard to make a good, readable, understandable article are the same people who discuss. The people who cut an paste large quantities of information into the article don't. "Scientology and Xenu" that is covered over at the operating thetan article, it makes this one too long. "Scientology and Psychiatry" that's another redundant piece. Almost exactly the same information is in both articles. I like the idea of independent, easy to digest pieces so the reader can go here and learn this and go there and learn that, but doing it all twice? Its silly. I removed a good sized chunk that is already in the Operating Thetan article. Terryeo 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pick up a "real" encyclopedia sometime and you will see that relevant information is repeated whenever necessary in multiple articles that are related. We cannot assume that the reader will always "go here and learn this and go there and learn that" in the same order. And as for your neverending plea for constant drawn-out discussion over your latest ill-conceived edit of the minute, some of us manage to say all that needs to be said in our edit summaries. wikipediatrix 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article presently says something about the Church of Scientology's stance regarding Psychiatry. Then, without a word of introduction it states that L. Ron Hubbard's fiction also criticized Psychiatry. Perhaps you see a lack of flow? The datum, "L. Ron Hubbard created the Church of Scientology and wrote most of its policies about psychiatry" is not present in the article. There's no connectivity which presents the relevence of L. Ron Hubbard's fictional stories to psychiatry's criticsm. Sometimes I think some of you simply revert my edits wherever they appear. heh! Terryeo 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a scientologist

I inverted the meaning of a paragraph in the article. I quote the paragraph after my edition:

It must be noted however that Scientology's position is quite different to that of other critics of modern psychiatry, such as Thomas Szasz, in spite of the fact that it is said he co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights with Scientology (see below).

Just take a look at the above-mentioned link critics of modern psychiatry. That Wikipedia article has been almost totally re-written this month.

Szasz is only an emeritus founder of CCHR. He is not a scientologist and never has had any power in CCHR’s policies. More importantly, Szasz never has said in his numerous writings that psychiatrists are behind all evils of the world; or that the World War II, the Bosnia genocide or September 11 are the work of psychiatrists. Szasz’s critique of psychiatry is not a religious critique. He himself is totally agnostic.

I also changed the phrase that “lobotomy [...] is not longer practiced”. Even the Wikipedia psychosurgery article admits it is still practiced, though infrequently. Cesar Tort 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't make them behave, cut out their nervous system, isn't that disgusting? Terryeo 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Extremely disgusting. I hope shrinks won’t exist in the future... —Cesar Tort 22:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

what "silly allegation"?

Terryeo's edit summary says "removed the silly allegation that the Chruch of Scientology's stance against Psychiatry is due to Hubbard's Fictional books", and yet the article made no such allegation. Strange. His comment about the APA making no comment about Scientology is also untrue. They *have* commented on it, and it wasn't pretty. wikipediatrix 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I did remove that silly allegation. By placing some of Hubbard's Fictional characters and their attitudes in fictional books (written for entertainment), by placing that information in the article the arguement is presented that somehow, fact is stranger than fiction, that fiction and fact are somehow mixed up with each other, intertwined with each other. Had Hubbard created a movie like Hitchcock did, scare movies, would you quote his fiction to support his stance on abortion? Its a silly way to support non-fiction acticles unless you are thinking of presenting that Hubbard had compulsions about psychiatry and couldn't eat, breathe, speak or think unless he was criticzing psychiatry. And by the way, let's get that APA statement in there, its a pretty little statement, "we gunna ignore Hubbard, duh." Terryeo 14:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that you said the article contained an "allegation that the Chruch of Scientology's stance against Psychiatry is due to Hubbard's Fictional books", when in fact the article never said any such thing. wikipediatrix 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the title of the article? Is it, "Hubbard and Psychiatry?" Well, no. it is "Scientology and Psychiatry." Hubbard created Scientology, perhaps an article titled, "Hubbard, Scientology and Psychiatry" would be a proper place for Hubbard's fictional depiction of Psychiatry to go. But as part of "Scientology and Psychiatry" Hubbard's fictional works are not an appropriate part. There is an allegation that Hubbard was mainly a fictional writer and that his fictional writing had effect into society which Psychiatry was effected by, or recognizes, or has validity. Terryeo 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep dodging the issue. I repeat (for the third time): you made a statement that the article contained an "allegation that the Chruch of Scientology's stance against Psychiatry is due to Hubbard's Fictional books", which it did not. wikipediatrix 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean to address the issue. The article is about a subject, by including Hubbard's ficitional works as a support or validation for Scientology's stance about Psychiatry, it implies there is something within Hubbard's fictional works that somehow, in some hinted at but undisclosed way, contribute to Scientology's stance against Psychiatry. The "silly allegation" which is not stated in the article is something like, "Hubbard was so obsessed with psychiatry that he couldn't even write fiction, but to include anti-psychiatry" (which says nothing about the Church of Scientology). Or, alternatively, the silly allegation is something like, "The Church of Scientology follows the guidelines set out in Hubbard's fiction, fighting Psychiatry on every planet in the galaxy." heh! Terryeo 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your perception that such an implication exists or existed in the article. And do you deny that the Church looks upon its mission to fight psychiatry as an intergalactic one, and/or one whose Sea Org members swear to a billion year contract? wikipediatrix 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. that is funny. lol. I am talking about the fiction presented in the article. lol. From a fictional paragraph we are jumping to "do you believe Scientology will last for billions of years and fight psychiatry throughout the galaxy" I'm sorry, I am laughing too hard to seriously reply.Terryeo 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you get through laughing, you can answer me. I am not joking. wikipediatrix 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Groovy, since you are not joking, I'll reply seriously. The quoting of an author's fictional creations in a non-fictional setting for purposes of attempting to present the "mindset" of an author reeks of POV. It implies the subject should be fiction in the first place and has no validity in the second place. Your other statement, "the church looks upon its mission" is best replied to by the church's presentation of its goal. "The rehabilitation of the human spirit" That is what it says it is doing and that is its effort. Do you expect me to believe in a "billion year contract?" Present some proof that man lives beyond one lifetime and I'll seriously answer. Is there some proof that other planets have life on them? Present some proof and I'll seriously answer. If there is proof of life on other planets, do they, like this one, have psychiatry? Present some proof of that and I'll have a bucket to throw my answer into, untill then its an amusement to consider. Further, how anyone can be serious about such a question is beyond my ken. Terryeo 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether I believe in aliens and billion-year lives (and I don't) isn't the point. Since you are ridiculing these concepts, I presume you are also ridiculing Hubbard for stating these concepts, and that you are ridiculing the Sea Org for having a billion year contract. Interesting that you're trying to point the tinfoil hat at me when these concepts are Hubbard's, NOT mine. And how is it you defend the idea of "Thetans" when this is also part of the same Space Opera you just ridiculed? wikipediatrix 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you asked a question. My POV is all over my user page, yours is not, instead yours says, "if you get to know me better..." but you refuse to get to be known. You don't state your POV, but ask me questions. The point is, I have responded to your question. I'm glad you find my response interesting, but you completely misunderstand what I state and misinterpret what I state. The point is, when an author writes fiction, he or she does it to sell a book, to make an income. This is the same motivation that Hollywood and the news media have, to sell. Their action is monitored by their result. Hollywood and the news media will produce anything that will sell (that they can legally get away with). That was Hubbard's motivation and that is any author's motivation. The article takes that motivation, quotes it as some part of "Scientology and Psychiatry". The point it, that makes no sense. The point is, I have answered your inquiry. Now, may we get back to the point? Will you confront the point? If you wish to talk of these thing like thetans and space opera, feel free to on my user page (for my personal replies) or in the appropriate article. Terryeo 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This explains something?

Hi there! A Scientologist friend of mine told me Hubbard’s second wife intended to commit him, but when the shrinks tried to get him "he used judo and escaped". Perhaps this explains something? —Cesar Tort 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, sure does explain something. Explains that you are not polite enough to have read how discussion pages are formatted, that you should open a new discussion point in a new sub-heading. It further explains that while, years ago, a spouse, a law officer and a priest could together get any person in the USA committed and committed in such a way they would never again see the light of day, that attitude and law is not longer extant, and believe it or not, in some measure that is due to Hubbard's work. Have a nice day. Terryeo 22:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo hasn't thanked you for not adding that to the main body of the article without raising it here. Although that information is a bit of ad hominem irrelevancy, you shouldn't dismiss it because it goes against your line of thought. You cannot dismiss Hubbard's claims over that information, although you can say that it weakens his argument, and in my opinion it does. Rude people think before you type, and hats off the Cesar Tort. DanielRoseMQ 06:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction quoted as a contribution to non-fiction

Does this actually make sense to anyone: "who rule the alien Psychlo species" This is a contribution to this article? Would someone mind explaining what relevence an author's fictional work has in a Church of Scientology and Psychiatry article? Hubbard isn't even introduced as being connected to Scientology, Scientology is hardly introduced either and psychiatry is just a big word and isn't introduced as a formal body. The article reads like someone's ramblings, memoirs or something. Yet if I take the fiction out of it, what would be left? Terryeo 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What part of "L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was bitterly critical of psychiatry..." did you think wasn't clear enough? And the first paragraph introduces Scientology as a Church, and establishes that they are opposed to psychiatry. And in the context of the article, yes, the Psychlo part makes perfect sense to me. wikipediatrix 21:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now its good, now Hubbard is introduced as the founder of Scientology and therefore there could, conceivably be a reason to mention the founder of Scientology. Even though the article is about Scientology and Psychiatry. So sure, Hubbard's attitude about psychiatry is germane, now. But his fictional works? What about "buckskin brigades?" Is that going to be argued as some kind of opposition to a civilization which spawned psychiatry? Are we going to hold Hubbard up as stoking the egos of the masses with buckskin? Its silly to reference fiction which is obviously written for the purpose of selling books in a non-fiction article. Terryeo 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Buckskin Brigades" was written before the advent of Scientology. "Buckskin Brigades" does not mention psychiatry, either directly or allegorically. "Buckskin Brigades" is not as important to pop culture or to Hubbard's reputation as "Battlefield Earth". Therefore, your hyperbolic comparison of them is irrelevant. Also, the statement about Hubbard being the founder was already in the article when you first made your complaint at 16:48. wikipediatrix 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I don't believe the article accurately states Scientology's reasoning for its stance against Psychiatry, nor the issues it takes it stance on. The article is full of exaggeration, implications stated as claims, claims stated as facts and facts surrounded with emotionally slanted words. It isn't encyclopedically written and even includes published fiction. Surely a more exacting and accurate, and therefore a more devestating presentation can be made ! Terryeo 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me which sentences you specifically consider wrong and I'll provide sources for them if possible. wikipediatrix 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes:

• The article presents Hubbard's opinion. That's fine. But the article doesn't support Hubbard's opinion. This sentence portion present a book which Hubbard did not write and was not part of, as evidence for Hitler's tie to psychiatry, rather than presenting that it was Hubbard's opinion. "the rise of Hitler and Stalin"
• I get no link on this sentence portion: "the decline in education standards in the United States"
• Hubbard was long deceased when this sentence portion happened. But the article presents that he had an opinion that it was caused by Psychiatrists (of course it is not uncommonly known that Bin Laden's right hand man is a graduated Psychiatrist). "and the September 11th attacks"

It specifically says "Church of Scientology claims...", not Hubbard. Read it again. wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• This set of sentences which have no link, no publication which states that Scientology's stance is due to Hubbard's fiction. "This theme also appears in some of Hubbard's fictional works. In Hubbard's "dekology" Mission Earth, various characters debate the methods and validity of psychology. In his novel Battlefield Earth, the evil Catrists (a pun on psychiatrists), are described as a group of charlatans claiming to be mental health experts, who rule the alien Psychlo species."

Why do you persist in acting as if "This theme also appears in some of Hubbard's fictional works" equates to "Scientology's stance is due to Hubbard's fiction"? The two sentences couldn't be more dissimilar. Nowhere does it say that Scientology's stance is due to Hubbard's fiction. It simply says what it says, that the theme also appears in some of his fiction. Which it does. You are trying to twist it into meaning something it doesn't. wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I persist because the title of the article is "Scientology and Psychiatry" and should present that information. "Hubbard and Psychiatry" would be an article which could present every bit of everything Hubbard ever did that Psychiatry doesn't laude and love. But this article, Hubbard lived and died, Hubbard founded the Church, the stance of the Church hardly depended at any time on Hubbard's fiction. Hubbard's fiction is an area of information unrelated to the Church's stance on psychiatry. Hence it shouldn't be included.Terryeo 14:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what you say. Others say differently. In fact, the Mission Earth series attacks psychiatry in direct and non-allegorical terms, so I may expand the section even further. wikipediatrix 16:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• These sentences should appear in reverse order, as one should present the more general statement first, then individual statements from individual psychiatrists: "A number of psychiatrists have strongly spoken out against the Church of Scientology. After Hubbard's book, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health was published, the American Psychological Association advised its members against using Hubbard's techniques with their patients."
• The application of the blockquote which starts, "Our enemies are less than twelve men..." is not attributed to any psychiatrics, nor to psychology nor to anything remotely connected with either practice, except that the tweleve he mentions uses psychiatrists in their control methods. Thus, the article is positioning Scientology against the world's wealthy and not against psychiatry.
• This is not exactly right. The Church is more careful with people who have a "mential illness history" but dont actually forbid services utterly. "The Church of Scientology has policies which forbid its ministers to counsel the mentally ill"
• This sentence should not be included at all because it is not about Scientology and Psychiatry, but instead attempts to create bias against a particular psychiatrist. "It must be noted however that Scientology's position is quite different to that of other critics of modern psychiatry, such as Thomas Szasz, in spite of the fact that it is said he co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights with Scientology (see below)."

No, the sentence is literally true and it's quite important to illustrate that other anti-Psychiatry lobbyists don't even always agree with Scientology. wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is being used as a springboard to discredit Szasz by aligning him (at one time) with Scientology and then hammering away at discreditable things about Scientology (and Hubbard) rather than to present a dry, encylopedica analysis of how the two stand with regard to each other. Psychiatry has simply ignored Scientology. Scienotology has not simply ignored Psychiatry. Terryeo 14:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• This sentence introduces that "psychs" is a derogatory term but that is some individual editor's OR, based on the secondary source he quotes. It therefore is a secondary opinion of what the Church opines and should be introduced appropriately. It closely follows on the heels of Prime Source material and is not readily differentiated by the reader as coming from a secondary source. Besides which, myself, I know that is not accurate (as 'psycs' appears in Scientology literature). "Psychiatrists and supporters of psychiatry are derogatorily termed 'psychs' in Scientology internal literature. Psychs are generally regarded as suppressive persons and have the same non-person status as critics of the Church"

Considering we've established Scientology's hatred for psychiatrists, isn't ANY term they use for them a derogatory one? Anyway, I can get sources on this and will cite them soon. wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't hatred, Wikipediatrix. "Hatred" is what terrorists feel, "hatred" is a strong emotion and not the reasoned presentation which Scientology does in court cases. To spend money and time and effort which result in a country, such as Australia, changing its laws because Scientology brought psychiatric abuse to the light of day is not an expression of hatred (ended sleep therapy clinic, resulted in a change of Australain Law). "Hatred" doesn't produce that kind of result. "Hatred" might blow up or shoot bullets, but "hatred" does change law, doesn't improve society. Terryeo 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is not cited, nor quite stated accurately: "The International Association of Scientologists has funded several campaigns against psychiatry. Scientology states that psychiatry must not be trying to eliminate crime..."
• This sentence implies that Hubbard was not able to form a view after 1950, however Hubbard worked until 1986, creating a stack of publications much higher than the average ceiling. "Both therapies were popular in the 1940s and 1950s, when Hubbard would have formed his views on psychiatry"

It implies no such thing. It says just what it says. wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I tell you it is Origninal Research on the part of an editor to state, "Hubbard formed him views on psychiatry in the 1940s and 1950s" That is plain OR. Neither you nor I nor anyone else know when his views formed nor when he modified his views. I bring this up because I suspect that Hubbard continually formed his views about this subject on days other than the 1940s and 1950s, but my opinion is not the point. The point is, you can not state when a person's opinion forms. What you can state is, per WP:V published information which states information. Terryeo 14:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Legal Waivers says: "it has become standard practice within the church for members to sign ... " and gives a lengthy example from (apparently) an Introspection Rundown waiver. That waiver is not cited and the reader has no way of verifying those rather disurbing implications. It looks to me like some editor cut and pasted a piece from the Auditor's Code which a parishoner does not sign, but which a trained Auditor vows to.Auditor's Code
• the Citizens Commission on Human Rights portion is redundant, including the photo, and should be abbreviated with a link to Citizens Commission on Human Rights.
• The sentence: :Scientologists believe firmly in Hubbard's claims about psychiatrists." is completely unsupportable. It can be supported by example, but it can not be broadly nor generally supported and is a mis-statement, misrepresenting the common Scientologist's point of view.

So you're saying the common Scientologist disagrees with Hubbard? Or even MIGHT disagree with Hubbard? wikipediatrix 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So I am saying that it is OR to present "Scientologists believe" but would be appropriate if the New York Times has published "Scientologist's believe..." if the article were cited. Terryeo 14:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• This sentence may or may not be true, but it is unsupportable, it is opinion and is not cited by any publication and is OR and should not be in the article: "Mental health care professionals are not concerned that the public will take CCHR materials seriously"
• What possible sense does this sentence make, thousands of exceptions are made to it: "Except for court trials and media publications and public rallys, published materials have received little notice outside of Scientology and CCHR..."
• Well, there is my yes and thank you for asking. Terryeo 01:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Other groups' views

By itself the Antipsychiatry Coalition statement seems harsh. For NPOV, the group Mind Freedom also states that they are not Scientology or CCHR, but gives kudos to them, but it's not as short or as easy to sum up. Probably the paragraph above the quote needs rearranging. I wanted to use a reference rather than a link, but every page is slightly different in how references are handled so I made it a link for now. AndroidCat 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The section "such as Thomas Szasz, in spite of the fact that it is said he co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights with Scientology (see below)." Does the "it is said" qualifier make sense and where is the (see below) that fits this? AndroidCat 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I do see you are trying to cite the situation accurately and appropriately. May I ask, what information is presented to the reader about Scientology and Psychiatry by including an individual Psychiatrist's confusing, "now I support Scientology's stance, now I don't"? What does that contribute to the article? Terryeo 09:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Since "it is said" that Szasz co-founded CCHR (by CCHR certainly), and he is quoted by them frequently, he's not just an individual psychiatrist. It would be better if there was a connected reference documenting how his position is "quite different" from CoS. The page currently seems to have a long pro and anti reading list rather than references supporting text in the article. AndroidCat 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some change is needed there. "It is said" is not much different than, "It is rumored" and both are weasel worded introductions to non-encyclopedica content. It seemed to me that linking to Thomas Szasz' first webpage, homepage, main page, whatever to call that, seemed like that link presented the man's current point of view best. But something ought to be done. We do want the actual situation presented to the reader, don't we? Terryeo 14:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

chemical imbalances

The article is presently more about Hubbard and psychiatry than Scientology and psychiatry. An example of this happens just after the introduction where the phrase "for instance chemical imbalances in the brain." is used. During Hubbard's lifetime, little or nothing was published about "chemical imbalances" and to my knowledge (I certainly don't know it all) he never commented about "chemical imbalances in the brain" (which is of course psychiatry's presentation). Yet the article puts "chemical imbalances" right up against Hubbard's statements as if he were alive and in present time to comment on the situation. And "chemical imbalances" is a long ways from being a useable technology yet, many Psychiatrists have even announced publically that drugs and evaluations don't use any "chemical imbalances" information at all. So what's the point? Hubbard never commented on it, Psychiatry admits it is not yet a useable scientific theory. Terryeo 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is general agreement amongst the psychology community that some disorders are caused by chemical imbalances. Consider the dopamine hypothesis for Schitzophrenia. It states that those with the disorder produce too much dopamine. A person who has a large dose of amphetamines has a psychotic state and hallucinations, both leading symptoms of schitzophrenia (look it up in DSM IV). Amphetamines increase neural activity. Therefore amphetamines have a similar effect on the brain as having schitzophrenia. A common treatment for schitzophrenia is anti-depressent and anti-psychotic drugs, which slow the neural pathway. Therefore in this case, there is a link between chemical imbalance and mental disorders. The only reason why they cannot say definately is because it is so hard to test chemicals in the brain. Terryeo's argument is reminscent of a hard-line Christian's argument that Darwin is wrong because there is no massive concrete evidence and that we cannot prove the big bang. Psychologists have made massive headway into proving this hypothesis, and it does not help to have nay-sayers just dismissing these POVs. By the way, putting phrases which contradict your POV in quotes is demeaning and using rhetorical language fallacially. DanielRoseMQ 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See some of the sources in chemical imbalance. No one has proved that a gross imbalance of the overall level of neurotransmitters is the cause of observed problems. Like lobotomy, electroshock, hydrotherapy etc. the gross chemical treatments are basically just one more way to give the nervous system a hard kick in the seat of the pants, and I'd love to see how they stacked up against a literal hard kick in the seat of the pants in a clinical study. Psychiatrists and Scientologists are like two rival tribes of Neanderthals arguing over how to repair a radio. Maybe one is a little more technologically advanced than the other (knows a better way to shake it) but ... 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Psychiatrists and Scientologists are like two rival tribes of Neanderthals arguing over how to repair a radio".

I couldn't have said it better. It's such a super-quotable phrase that I'll place it now in my online book against CCHR and Hubbard! —Cesar Tort 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pain and Sex

The 7th reference listed is listed: "Hubbard, L. Ron (August 26, 1982). "Pain and Sex".". It is listed inappropriately. It should appear as follows:

• Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin of 26 Aug 82, Pain and Sex; contained in The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology Volume XII, pg 417 by Hubbard, published by Bridge Publications, Inc. ISBN 0884047024 Terryeo 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A VERY bad attribution

A personal website may not be used as a secondary source of information in a Wikipedia article, WP:RS (reliable sources). A newsgroup may not be used as a secondary source of information in a Wikipedia article, WP:RS. The first section of this article completely disregards and abuses both of those guidelines. If an editor wished to change Wikipedia's standards, the place to do it would be at the WP:RS page, or its discussion page. Solitarytrees has a cached newsgroup posting. A good deal of quoted text is cited and linked to that past newsgroup posting. The citation should be removed. The text it quotes should be cited to some other source or be removed. Terryeo 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That is link [9], [2] Terryeo 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not policy. It does not have to be adhered to like a set-in-stone rule. You've had this explained to you dozens of times on dozens of articles. What part of that can you not understand? wikipediatrix 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, Wikipediatrix. Why don't you begin by explaining to me what you lectured (or asked) User:SlimVirgin about on her talk page and later objected to when she pasted it to the WP:RS discussion page? Why don't you explain about that portion, about how you were told in that discussion page that WP:RS, within its area of address is "set in stone" and does form firm rules which must be followed. Start with that, will you? Newgroups may not be used as secondary sources of information for 2 reasons. Those have been extensively discussed at WP:RS and you were part of that discussion, though you got in on the tail end of it by attempting to quietly ask User:SlimVirgin's opinion on her discussion page. Terryeo 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained myself on the page you just mentioned, how many times do you want me to explain it? User:SlimVirgin is just plain wrong, and fortunately, she does not set Wikipedia policy singlehandedly. Debates about the matter are still raging on the WP:RS discussion page. wikipediatrix 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute that RJ67 contains the quoted text? Since I doubt the Church of Scientology provides a readily available online version of the excerpt, this is an acceptable online version of Hubbard's material in my opinion, especially from an article that contains more excerpts from the RJ67 lecture (if there was no more excerpt in the essay than the one on wikipedia, it would be pointless to link to it, the cite would still be valid though). You wouldn't want to remove information that quite significantly contribute to shed light on the Church of Scientology's uncompromising opposition to psychiatry, would you? Raymond Hill 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You have asked me if I dispute the existence, the validity of a quotation. It presents yet once again, an interesting duality. Should I reply to your question which is not actually about that article, or should I not? I choose not to. The burden of responsibilty lies on the editor who wishes to place or keep a citation within an article. It is entirely obvious to me that these articles can become very much like alt.net.scientology with only a little degredation in Wikipedia's insistence that Personal opinion on Personal website not be allowed as secondary sources. That is the point I raise. I have raised this issue countless times. The issue has been extensively discussed at the WP:RS discussion page. Why do editors continue to cite personal opinion on personal websites? A personal website contains unpublished opinion. It might contain previously published books or news articles too. Those would be citable. The personal opinions, the essays written by (anybody) are not citable. What is the difficulty? Are editors like little children who keep putting the penny on the counter instead of a dime? Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources WP:RS. Terryeo 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on what concerns you: the quote from Hubbard is not a personal opinion from some obscure netizen. It's Hubbard quoted from his RJ67 tape. Do you dispute Hubbard said what is reported here in his RJ67 lecture? The link to a web site where there are more excerpts from this same RJ67 lecture is merely a convenience for the reader, even if we would remove the link for some reasons, the quote from Hubbard would still be valid, it is well cited: Ron's Journal 67 tape. Do you dispute the RJ67 tape as a reference? Raymond Hill 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern is, I hope, the same concern every editor has. My concern is for a good Wikipedia. Newsgroups are not citable. WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet say so. It is a very bad citation and I have said so. I am willing to discuss whether or not Ron's Journal 67 was published if you like? I honestly don't know, as of this minute, when it was published or if it was published to the public or published to organizations within the Church. After affirming whether it was published or not, of course I'm willing to talk about where a copy of it might be found if it was published to the public. My statement was that it is a very bad attribution or citation to quote a newsgroup. Terryeo 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Other problematic links being used as secondary sources

• Link [10] within the article is using a personal website, [3] as a secondary source of information. Mike Gormez at mgormez@chello.nl, his personal site and opinion are being presented as "previously published by reliable and reputable sources" WP:V. It should be removed and the statements attributed by that site should be removed.
• Link [13] references to [4], a personal website that is used to state the website owner's opinion. Both his opinion and the link to his opinion should be removed from the body of the article. The website might be included in the exterior links section.
• Link [16] references a quote which is itself valid, but which appears at the link, [5] on a page full of personal opinion of the website owner. This is one reason why personal websites make such poor citations. The link should be removed, it could be included as an exterior link. A better source of that Hubbard quotation should be found.
• The section Legal Waivers has a large quote, it should be cited to a document which contains it. Terryeo 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The eighth reference

• Mieszkowskii, Katharine (2005), "Scientology's War on Psychiatry", Salon.com. The link to Spiegel.de is a cache, information which was once on the internet, but is no longer. It contains advertisements. Wiki policy suggests we use neither cached information, nor use websites with advertising on their pages. The reason for this is that we attempt to be an encyclopedia, rather than a springboard for advertising. Then, the second link points to a Wikipedia article Salon.com, which is a news company. What connection that Wikipedia article has to this article is tenuous at best. I would say both "references" which appear on that eighth line should be removed. Besides which, the list of references is plenty long without the questionable quality of a link with advertising and a link to a Wikipedia article about a news company. Terryeo 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What an awful lot of words over a matter solved with a trivial tweak. If you couldn't figure out that "Salon.com" appeared in a reference because that was where the article originally appeared, Terryeo, I really pity your poor research skills. Isn't Scientology supposed to make you more capable? Capable of what, nitpicking? Complaining? Developing traffic? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, to correct just two of the incorrect claims you made: "The link to Spiegel.de is a cache, information which was once on the internet, but is no longer." Actually, it is still available on the Internet, which is why it would have been trivially easy for you to find the original source of the story had you wanted to see the 'error' fixed: just take some distinct text from the story, say "dismiss Tom Cruise's recent outbursts against psychiatry as the ravings of an egomaniacal celebrity", paste it into a search box at http://www.google.com , and presto! The very first link leads you to the story on Salon.com's website. Second, as for "Wiki policy suggests we use neither cached information, nor use websites with advertising on their pages", the first part is demonstrably untrue as Wikipedia policy in fact instructs us how to locate cached information, for instance at web.archive.org, for appropriate use, and while Wikipedia policy disrecommends pages that seem to exist primarily for the sake of their advertising, to blindly overgeneralize that to all websites with advertising on their pages is just frankly a ludicrous reading which two seconds' critical thinking would have disposed of. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of invective talk for something that you say you could have solved in 2 seconds. Any reason you wouldn't be unwilling to tone down such personal comment to a mild roar? Terryeo 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think Antaeus would do well to dial back his invective a bit, I understand his exasperation: the article is fine, from a reputable source, with advertising of a type that is pretty standard in a large commercial newspaper or magazine site (like the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, for example). Terryeo, you've made a crusade of telling people how Wikipedia links should favor such corporate enterprises over small-scale non-profit ("personal") websites. Bear in mind that if the presence of advertising were to disqualify sites from being linked, sites like dianetics.org would also be quick to go. As to the link to the Wikipedia article about Salon.com, I agree with Terryeo--I don't understand why that link is there: it isn't the usual practice to link to the Wikipedia article about the publication an article appears in, is it? BTfromLA 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In references? Sure it is. That way, if people want more information about where a story is coming from, and Wikipedia has that information, it can be accessed easily. To give an example that happened to me just yesterday, I had a news story from The Arizona Republic and I was wondering whether that was a small-town newspaper with all that implies. Turns out it's the largest newspaper in the state. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing that much. Maybe I just never noticed. I see that Salon and The Washington Post are so linked in this article, but the others are not. Is there a style guideline about that? It seems like the sort of thing that benefits from regularization--some publication names linking to the cited article, some linking to the Wikiarticle, some unlinked... seems confusing. Do you suggest that a similar link go to book publishers (e.g. Henry Holt) as well? BTfromLA 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

... In a lecture called Aberration and the Fifth Dynamic, Hubbard stated:

"...take a sheet of glass and put it in front of the preclear -- clear, very clear glass -- which is supercooled, preferably about a -100 centigrade. You got that? Supercooled, you know? And then put the preclear right in front of this supercooled sheet of glass and suddenly shove his face into the glass. Now, that's pretty good. I mean, that was developed about five billion years ago by a whole-track psychiatrist ..... The mechanism of brainwashing which I gave you, with supercold mechanisms and so forth, is very well known, was used very extensively in the Maw Confederation of the Sixty-third Galaxy. They had a total psychiatric control of all of their officers and executives, and when they got tired of them they used this specific method of brainwashing." (Hubbard, Aberration and The Sixth Dynamic transcript, catalog #5611C13 15ACC-22) [15]

Note: Bold is mine --69.143.122.238 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation. sixth and not fifth, according a lecture given in Nov. 1956 at the 15th Advanced Clinical Course Terryeo 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Creationists"

The paragraph, Hubbard's views on psychiatry were remarkably similar, in many respects, to those of modern-day creationists towards the theory of evolution. A common creationist claim is that their opponents are bound by an inherently atheistic and immoral cult of scientific materialism and evolutionary philosophy either partially or wholly responsible for the ideological structures of modern social movements and governments which, they claim, promoted racism, sexism, eugenics, and genocide. In particular, it is often claimed that Nazism and Marxism-Leninism were inspired by evolutionary theory. Modern-day problems such as violence in schools, the breakdown of the nuclear family and social problems such as drug abuse are also laid at the door of evolutionary teaching in schools.[1] references to a piece about creationism. The paragraph was placed into the article by User:ChrisO on 29Aug2006. The article states User:ChrisO's personal opinion that Hubbard's views on psychiatry have similarities to "creationists". User:ChrisO does not provide us with any primary source for this stunning information (except himself). He does not provide us with any secondary source, either. Nor any tertiary source. User:ChrisO opines that Hubbard's views on psychiatry are similar to "creationist'" views. I for one say that is orginal research by User:ChrisO. To substantiate my statement anyone need only follow the link User:ChrisO thoughtfully provides. It says nothing at all about User:ChrisO. Neither does it say anything about Hubbard. Nor about Scientolgy. Nor about Psychiatry. It does some something about Creation. Perhaps it belongs in a differnet article? Perhaps User:ChrisO actually meant to place this in a different article? Terryeo 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like source-based research to me. I'm not surprised that you can't recognize it as such, since you have in the past tried to claim that Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science was "original research". By the way, I'm still waiting for you to provide some proof for your assertion that I have created more articles in the "Scientology Series" than anyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard says x, y and z (all referenced). Creationists say x, y and z too (also referenced). Observing that both parties say x, y and z is thus a simple factual observation based on referenced sources. -- ChrisO 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your paragraph introduces a conclusion. If you wished your paragraph to present that Creationists say X, Hubbard says X. Creationists say Y, Hubbard says Y. Creationists say Z, Hubbard says Z. Then you could enter that into the article. That is not what you presented. As you have stated it there is the introduction of a conclusion. In fact, you begin your paragraph with a conclusion and then attempt to convince the reader of your conclusion. Should you wish to introduce your personal conclusion then you would need to produce point by point statements from both parties which agreed strongly with each other. On each point. Then it would be appropriate to make statements about inferences of the pre-stated statements of both parties. The reason why is this, I see his statements as vastly different, each point, X, Y, and Z, than you do. You can not expect the average reader to follow all of the points and immediately understand your Original Research Conclusion. It is beyond WP:V, it is well into WP:NOR to post what you have posted. Terryeo 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? Hubbard came first. If aliens or creationists mimic his words, so what? What's the point, why introduce the arguement at all? Terryeo 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had much tamer deductions than this one fall victim to the maw of WP:NOR. This one has a logical problem. If your grandmother is fat, grey, and afraid of mice and an elephant is fat, grey, and afraid of mice does that mean Wikipedia should say she's like an elephant? Comparing the critics of one theory to the critics of another theory can be pejorative if one theory is much more solidly grounded than the other. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that Terryeo has been banned from editing Scientology-related articles. —Cesar Tort 02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatry is forced back yet one more step

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STATES' RIGHTS TO EXCLUDE PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY IN INSANITY DEFENSE CASES states the CCHR website], citing a recent Supreme Court decision which stated: a psychiatrist or psychologist is no more qualified than any other person to give an opinion about whether a particular defendant's mental condition satisfies the legal test for insanity. Terryeo 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientology - A Question of Faith: Did A Mother's Faith Contribute To Her Murder? 48 Hours, CBS News. AndroidCat 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'Cat's suggested article suggests that Jeremy Perkins who had just stabbed his mother 77 times was not responsible for his actions. The article suggest that had Jeremy Perkins seen a psychiatrist, he would be a well adjusted, happy person today and would not have commited murder. Some years ago psychiatry had more power than it has today. In those days any legally recognized clergyman, + any law officer + any relative could have a person commited and immediatedly drugged with psychiatric drugs so they were not available for questioning, statement or comment. I for one, am glad to see psychiatry become less powerful. Now, if we can get psychiatric drugs off the market whose side effects include propensity to suicide we will be well ahead. Terryeo 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Terryeo's famous claims about the infamous days of '1 clergyman + 1 law officer + 1 relative = instant commitment and probable skullduggery with the will just like in that 30's movie'. I'd really like to see him back up that claim but, well, those who wait to see Terryeo back up any of his claims are generally disappointed. I'm not even going to touch the line about 'We will all be "well ahead" if we manage to ban a drug which has a bad side effect; it doesn't matter how rare the side effect is or how many people who would have benefitted from the drug will now be deprived of its effect.' By Terryeo's logic we should all be working to ban peanut butter -- who cares that for most people it is a wholesome and nutritious food, we have to take it off the market entirely because of the small minority who are allergic to it! -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it should be noted that the talk pages of articles are for discussing the edits, not as a chat room or a place to vent. Since Terryeo cannot edit the articles, I have to question what point there is for him to constantly chime in with these personal opinions that do not relate directly to specific edits. To come here and post a header called "Psychiatry is forced back yet one more step" is soapboxing and trolling of the highest (lowest?) order, and it really needs to stop. wikipediatrix 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; inappropriate and almost amounts to trolling. --Justanother 02:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, anti-depressent drugs have a side-effect of propensity to suicide, since the user, who is so down, takes them and achieves the motivation to finally commit suicide (sorry, I'm jumping the gun and assuming those are the drugs he's raving about). So in Terryeo's perfect world, all the people with depression would sit at home, not doing anything because they are so sad. But wait, here comes the magical scientologist with a cure! Is that a medical instrument, or just another tool of quackery? Well praise Hubbard... DanielRoseMQ 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I told Terryeo sometime ago that Wikipedia was not the place for a jihad. I guess he believes otherwise.--Fahrenheit451 08:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the quotation about Perkins directly relevant? The implication is that Scientology is somehow to blame for the death of some poor woman because that woman listened to Scientology. This is at best POV and argument through anecdote. I'm not pro-Scientology, but this smacks of POV. Also: Might it be relevant to note that the reason some anti-psychiatric crusaders refuse to be associated with the Church is because they have reason to doubt the Church's motives for resisting psychiatry, which are largely self-serving? ArekExcelsior 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Frankly, I thought the whole thing about creationism was off-topic. Even if there are similarities with Scientology doctrine that shouldn't be the first (or near first) item in the article, as the main focus should be the relationship between Scientology and Psyciatry, not Christianitys relationship with Darwinism. I put it in its own independent section.--Dudeman5685 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarities with Creationism IS Original Research

I have to say that terryeo had it right here. Stating that Hubbards views on anything are similar to anyone else's views on anything is OR unless that opinion of similarity is sourced. Similarity is in the eye of the beholder and things are not often as similar as some would have us believe. I vote for removing the OR and if anything is left after removal of OR, then retitle the section or move the leftover bits somewhere else. --Justanother 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the wider point - which we certainly could do more to explain - is ,that Hubbard's views are very much of a kind with the various anti-science ideologues out there such as the creationists, the global warming deniers, the HIV deniers and so on. They all portray the scientific side as being a conspiracy acting for corrupt or bigoted reasons, responsible for any number of social problems. Science itself is presented as the villain and the scientific method is denounced as unsatisfactory.

If you read Hubbard's writings in any detail you'll soon see that they're very strongly anti-science; in fact, if you look at the Scientology Handbook, it explicitly presents scientists as evil. Take a look at this picture from the book, which is captioned "A relatively small proportion of a race, about 20 percent, possess antisocial characteristics. They cause trouble for the remaining 80 percent out of proportion to their number." See who's been chosen to portray the antisocial types?

I'm open to suggestions for how this can be presented in the article... -- ChrisO 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chris. The main point is that if that concept (that Hubbard's views are very much of a kind with the various anti-science ideologues out there such as the creationists, the global warming deniers, the HIV deniers and so on) is not presented elsewhere in an RS then to present it here first is the very definition of OR. I would be happy to discuss the merits of your idea elsewhere but for now I am simply pointing out that it is OR and not permitted on wikipedia. --Justanother 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Hubbard had no problem with Science or the Scientific method in general. Scientology is in fact (yeah, yeah, It's a cult, It's stupid, yada yada *yawn*) an application of scientific principals toward the acheivement of Spiritual (which is to say, subjective) results. Scientology has axioms which are built upon to form processes which when applied by a competent certified student of the subject bring about consistent deterministic results which can be observed by an individual. (but not objectively) So Scientology has scientific aspects though it fails admittedly in the ultimate one: that being objectively measurable results.

I assure you I have read LOTS and LOTS of Hubbard. He has no general anti scientific bias, he is very pro science. He is anti psychiatry and anti psychology for certain though. Neither of these subjects has a workable model of what a human being is, do not contain axioms, have no (verifiable or testable) theory on the chemical nature of mental illness and produce sporadic - if any - beneficial results. The only thing scientific about psychiatry and psychology are the statistical analysis used to analyse experimental results. This statistical analysis hangs a flimsy curtain of "science" in front of these subjects, but behind this curtain they are merely huge, controversial collection of opinions which rely generally on the publics low expectations and ultimately upon drugging people into more manageable states when they encounter major problems. In actuality, they harm people in the name of help and promote the mysteriousness of the human mind in order to maintain the socially elevated positions of Psychiatrists and Psychologists. If Structural Engineering was as slipshod and unworkable as psychiatry and psychology are, there would be no standing bridges in the world or any buildings of more than a couple stories. If people actually expected real results from these fields: genuine uniformly beneficial outcomes - instead of platitudes and drugs, they would all have been tarred and feathered as quacks or imprisoned as drug pushers (or worse).

Because of these things Hubbard had great contempt for these fields and considered them to be fake sciences, as do the majority of his adherants. So please don't misconstrue his unabashed detestation of Psychiatry and Psychology as a general distrust of Science or the Scientific Method.

More to the point the section in question is OR and should be expunged.Slightlyright 08:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have my big pile'o'Hubbard with me right now (since I'm on vacation) but I can assure you that he's hostile to a lot more than psychiatry and psychology. How about evolutionary biology for a start, aka "man from mud theory", which he claims is "taken by scientists from Egyptian demonology (study of demons) and foisted off (imposed by fraud) on man as 'modern thought'" (Scientology, A New Slant On Life)? There's much more where that came from. He's pretty hostile towards physics as well - perhaps not surprising given his utter ignorance of it, as a reading of All About Radiation demonstrates. (For instance, he claims that "sunlight is occasioned by a continuous fission going on, on a sphere called the sun". Actually it had been known since the 1930s that fusion is responsible for producing the sun's energy. Apparently he couldn't be bothered to look in the encyclopedia.)

You might want to have a look at this piece by Dr Robert Todd Carroll, from the Skeptic's Dictionary, in which he explains why the Scientology book The Rediscovery of the Human Soul is "a hostile collection of anti-science literature". Carroll also addresses Hubbard's abuse of (or perhaps ignorance of, if we're being charitable) the scientific method in another essay at http://skepdic.com/dianetic.html. The observation that Hubbard is anti-science isn't OR, nor is it novel; it's been around since Martin Gardner critiqued Dianetics in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science way back in 1951. That's why I think it needs to be documented - it's certainly readily sourcable. -- ChrisO 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will see the common current of "hostility" is toward those that are expounding unworkable models of what a human being is. Can't defend the fission comment, but making a mis statement is hardly hostility. In general i think labelling hubbard as anti-scientific would be mischaracterization, but god knows it wouldn't be the first or the one hundredth time he has been mischaracterized in Wikipedia, so if you have the RS, fire away.Slightlyright 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I would prefer to argue the merits of your idea elsewhere. If you can point at RS that makes that case then those RS can be referenced to the degree that they make said case. And comparisons or analogies not specifically sourced are OR and have no place here as analogies are made to advance a line of reasoning or an argument and wikipedia is not the place to advance new arguments. I would not consider non-peer-reviewed skeptic sites as RS just as you would likely not want to consider CoS sites RS for a subject of this ilk (making an overarching case as to the nature of Scientology or of Hubbard). Also The Rediscovery of the Human Soul is not really a book by LRH nor is that even the title (it is the sub-title); it is part of the Ron Series, just like Ron the Explorer and is actually titled Ron the Philosopher. These glossy pamphlets describe aspects of LRH's life and work and include some quotes but are not written by him. What does Gardner say? Does he say Scn is "anti-science" or does he simply say it is a pseudoscience or a fraud masquerading as science? --Justanother 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic (topic being inclusion of OR) but that picture is certainly easily misunderstood. Hubbard was always down on what he termed "the science boys" for developing WMD and putting them in the hands of a culture that had not developed the spiritual tools to be responsible with them (such a culture would not actually need WMD, of course). I see the "SPs" in that pic as a politician and a nuclear scientist; one developing the bomb and the other ready to use it. It really has nothing to do with "anti-science" but, as I said, could be easily (mis)interpreted that way. But there are SPs in every walk of life; just that the ones that are janitors do not kill hordes of people that are just trying to get by and create something nice for themselves and their loved ones. --Justanother 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: I feel that the inclusion of talk about creationism in an article about Scientologys' stance toward pshychiatry is basically irrelevant information. Sure misologistic tendencies can be found in almost all religions and even from secular quarters, but if an analogy doesn't help directly explain the subject of the article (ie an agency like the FBI, a game like baseball, etc.) it doesn't have a place in the article except as an aside or an incidentale section at the back.

I came to this article looking for one thing, and as I read it, it veered off in an off-topic and POV direction. So I moved it and am now discussing its possible deletion. (Can't do that on Brittanica!)--Dudeman5685 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarities with Creationism moved here for discussion

Here is the subject section. Regardless of the correctness or fallacy of ChrisO's comparison, I cannot see it as anything but total OR.

Similarities with Creationism

Many of Hubbard's views on psychiatry were very similar to those of modern-day creationists towards the theory of evolution. A common creationist claim is that their opponents are bound by an inherently atheistic and immoral cult of scientific materialism and evolutionary philosophy either partially or wholly responsible for the ideological structures of modern social movements and governments which, they claim, promoted racism, sexism, eugenics, and genocide. In particular, it is often claimed that Nazism and Marxism-Leninism were inspired by evolutionary theory. Modern-day problems such as violence in schools, the breakdown of the nuclear family and social problems such as drug abuse are also laid at the door of evolutionary teaching in schools.

In a very similar vein, the Church of Scientology claims that psychiatry was responsible for World War I [6], the rise of Hitler and Stalin [7], the decline in education standards in the United States [8], the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo [9], and the September 11th attacks [10]. The language used by Hubbard and the Church of Scientology is, on occasion, identical to that used by creationists to attack evolution; both, for instance, assert that the focus of their opposition teaches that "man is an animal." [11] [12]

--Justanother 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Many copyedits

I have made many minor copyedits like wikifying, punctuation, converting endnotes references and quotations, and expanding acronyms.

Also, I copied and pasted a paragraph that appears in the Antipsychiatry article for disambiguation purposes.

I modified the sentence “At least one other anti-psychiatry group has sought to distance itself from Scientology and the CCHR. The Antipsychiatry Coalition states...” for the simple reason that the “group” is a one-man show: Douglas A. Smith.

I removed “...but infrequently and in quite a different manner than the 1950s ECT” since, as can be seen in the sources of the Antipsychiatry article, it’s difficult to know how many ECTs are performed each year, though some professionals state that from 100,000 to 200,000 are performed (and precisely Douglas A. Smith has written an article which demonstrates that the effects of the 1950s ECTs and today’s are about the same).

Per WP guidelines I also removed self-reference: “(see Scientology controversy)”.

The explanation of the Szasz-Tom Cruise photo is wrong. Szasz only “founded” CCHR in a nominal way. Alas, this is my own OR investigation and I cannot source it until I or someone else gets published on this topic.

—Cesar Tort 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Outnumbered psychiatrists claim

Trivia: the hilarious claim that Scientologists and Dianeticists outnumber psychiatrists dates back to at least 1998.[13] (I've seen how much hotel space the APA convention fills from the convention centre to well outside the core of Toronto when it rolls into town. I don't think so.) AndroidCat 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, to say that Scientologists outnumber psychiatrists 2-to-1 would be preposterous enough, but 500 to 1?..... wikipediatrix 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Obscurred by photo

Not sure how to do the edit muself, but the opening paragraph is partially obscurred by a photo. Could someone do the necessary edits, please? StephenBuxton 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine on my monitor... I'll try to come up with a version that suits all browsers.... wikipediatrix 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that has done the trick! StephenBuxton 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

phrase removal

I have removed this —:

Scientology has also consistently evidenced more vocal opposition to biopsychiatry and to psychiatric medication than to related civil rights issues.{Fact|date=September 2007}

because I think it's impossible to source. The experience that in the past I had with Scientologists is that they are indeed more concerned about psychiatric medication of children than to adult civil rights issues. But that's just my own OR. Since nobody sourced it since September I felt free to remove it.

—Cesar Tort 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

standardization

I am tempted to standardize all block quotations. Which style would be more convenient, the {{Cquote or another? —Cesar Tort 04:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I better chose the < blockquote > style. —Cesar Tort 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Wiki formatting should be used over pure html when possible. (I don't know if I've even seen a style guide that says that, just a hunch.) Doesn't starting a paragraph with a colon give the same result as blockquote? AndroidCat (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This month I encountered the article with both quotation styles and I just wanted to standardize it. Do you think it's ok as it stands now? Any suggestions for further change (I'm lazy to bury my mind reading WP guides)? —Cesar Tort 08:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John Kuzma's quotation

I tried to obtain the source for this statement —:

"This book from the Church of Scientology offers their prospective on Psychiatry and Psychology (hint: they aren't huge fans). The book itself is the literary equivalent of a MST3K episode (my favorite ‘revelation’ — psychiatrists and psychologists are responsible for the rise in drug use in America since WW2). But it made me wish I could find a more even-handed and knowledgeable critique on the mental health professions."

—but didn't find it in the web.

I e-mailed Kuzama and he tells me that he believes it was taken off the web page for the University of Minnesota's Program in Human Sexuality; that Kuzama completed an elective there in his final year of medical school and had written a series of brief reviews of various materials in their library; that the review was written in 2001, but that it may have been taken off the web by this time.

Has anybody access to the 2001 University of Minnesota's Program in Human Sexuality to source the quotation properly?

—Cesar Tort 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs something on the leaked New Year speech

Where David Miscavige made the statement on the goal of dismantling psychiatry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.237.226 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

dubious paragraph

I would recommend to remove the paragraph of the unnamed Australian woman who killed members of her family. It looks like a newspaper sentence. A name and more info is needed for an encyclopedic article. —Cesar Tort 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Her name has previously been protected by court order, which may or may not still be the case. AndroidCat (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychology and Psycho-analysis

The beginning paragraph says the Church of Scientology is against psychology and gives a citation from a Scientology site so I'm not doubting that. However, I would like the antagonism between Scientology and psychology explained. Psychology is as a science somewhat to largely independent of psychiatry (while it borrows from neurological research, much of psychology fits more into the social science category and many psychologists are actually quite anti-psychiatry to a greater or lesser degree) and is again somewhat to largely independent of psycho-analysis such as Freud's (where Hubbard's opposition is noted in the Hubbard and Psychiatry section) (while psychology views Freud as an important figure its development is different than psycho-analysis, placing more insistence on scientific method and less on introspection and dream analysis for theory, although many in psychology view psycho-analysis as a sub-field). Now it is probable that Scientology just lumps the three together, but if not it would be interesting to see why it opposes psychology in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the CCHR magazines there's lots of accusations against Wundt and other psychological pioneers. The church seems to abohr the materialistic worldview or anything that smells like materialism, especially in psychological matters. It doesn't make much sense to mix it up with psychiatry but that's the case. Hence the mention of psychology in the article should stay. —Cesar Tort 04:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Relocation of quote in the lede

Any opinions on the best place for the long quote in the lede? It just plain doesn't belong in the lede, which should be a summary. I don't feel comfortable deleting it and I'd rather move it. Suggestions? Micahmedia (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put it but I agree that it does not belong in the lede. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly wrong..

This line is slightly wrong

• By comparison, the American Psychological Association, which is the largest professional association of psychiatrists in the United States, has 148000 members.

The American Psychological Association represents psychologists, NOT psychiatrists. The difference between the two is substantial; one is a discipline which requires going to medical school, as well as prescription powers in all states, where the other is a Ph. D, which grants you the ability to diagnose, but NOT to prescribe medication, except in a handful of states. The American Psychiatric Association, however, has a far smaller membership (as one would imagine; the number of years required for an MD versus a Ph. D. is substantial). Since this article I'm sure is controversial I figured I would suggest that the relevant membership statistics of both organizations be mentioned. SiberioS (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Quote from American Journal of Psychiatry

A response to Louis J. West's presidential address EDIT: No I got that wrong- a response to Carolyn B. Robinowitz's presidential address as the outgoing president of the American Psychiatric Association

Then there are those who want to burn our house down. Scientology is not only science fiction, it is an organization determined to destroy us. It influences our legislatures, our Food and Drug Administration, our schools, and our media as a moving force behind the unwarranted “black box warnings” that discourage people from taking treatments they need. Direct challenges to Scientology provoke ruinous lawsuits and no-holds-barred vilification. Our strongest defense is a public armed with accurate information about psychiatry—and Scientology. That information is on the world wide web; we will help you share it with your colleagues and your communities.

Stotland, Nada L. (October 2008). "Response to the Presidential Address". American Journal of Psychiatry. 165 (10). American Psychiatric Association: 1270. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.165.10.1268. ISSN 1535-7228. Retrieved 2009-02-15.

MartinPoulter (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter-point edit

I changed this piece of the article by taking out the last sentence and words after the ref: "The commercial motivation of Scientology in questioning psychiatry, with their alternative Dianetic "therapy", has been questioned . just as the commercial motivation of psychiatry should be, and for the same reasons. Both should be looked at closely in terms of results." The bit about the commercial motivation of psychiatry "should be" questioned sounds like a moderately worded Church statement... I thought it was a biased remark and, without a ref to support or provide example, I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.133.50 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Counter position??

Why is there a section that teaches Scientology beliefs and then the section that encompass everything else is labeled "critics" or "counter point". This isn't a scientologist view vs non-scientologist view debate! And if it is, the whole article should be re-written. I move that everything within the "counter-point" section be incorporated into one proper wiki article. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Great article

Just wanted to compliment the great article. It's thorough, well-researched and well-referenced, and surprisingly NPOV for a topic so easy to deride. If I had any feedback, it would be that it would be useful to get scientologists' reactions to some of the criticism, particularly regarding Jeremy Perkins and Hubbard's use of psychiatric care. I'm also interested in what incident may lie at the root of Hubbard's clear hate for the profession. Dcoetzee 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason can be clearly guessed in Russel Miller's book. After Hubbard beat his second wife Sara Northup, she wanted him committed and a psychiatrist labeled him as schizophrenic. Curiously, in a CCHR conference I attended (I was the only non-Scientologist in the auditorium!) the speaker, a member of the Sea Org, stated that the psychiatrists tried to involuntary commit Hubbard in 1951 (times of the Sara affair), but that he escaped using his Judo abilities. Aside of the fancy part of the story, I believe it has a ring of truth, as I try to show in an online book I published in Spanish [14]. In a Nature (journal) book review Martin Gardner asks "How could a man this crazy have lived to 74 without being committed"? I believe it was precisely the feeling of humiliation after being labeled by a psychiatrist, rather than humanitarian feelings for the victims of involuntary ECT, lobotomy, etc, what moved Hubbard to hate psychiatry.

—Cesar Tort 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The whole article is divided into different POVs with the "critical" facts being separated from the "non-critical" ones. Wierdness. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles conflict re: Hubbard's endorsement/rejection of Freudian theory

I'm not a contributor to these articles, but thought to point out a glaring conflict between the wiki article Scientology, which states:

Sigmund Freud's psychology, popularized in the 1930s and 1940s, was a key contributor to the Dianetics therapy model, and was acknowledged unreservedly as such by Hubbard.[133]

and this article (Scientology and psychiatry), which states:

L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, was critical of both Freudian theory and biopsychiatry.[4][5][6]

Thought it worth pointing out so that those in the know could correct or clarify this as appropriate. (I posted this same message at the talk page for the Scientology wiki) Allonepeople (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can see, the (primary!) sources cited in this present article don't even mention Freud. I've removed the reference to Freud for now, but the whole passage should really be rewritten with a firm basis in secondary sources rather than primary sources. Also note [15]. --JN466 22:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"world government" run by psychiatrists on behalf of the USSR

This section of the article is followed by a quote, which does not address the USSR at all, it rather talks about the Bank of England and the English premier.

May I change it to something less disjointed? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Phoning Home?

Does anyone want to add a sentence about the discussion of Scientology in psychiatrist Jacob Appel MD's Phoning Home to the article? It seems to belong, yet this a controversial article, so I will raise this for others to decide 199.102.71.20 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Passas, Nikos and Castillo

Grayfell, you are citing a completely different reason for rejecting the text from the first reason. As I said in my edit summary, nowhere does it say in the text that Scientology is a science. It is saying quite the opposite. Now you are saying that the reference is not reliable - arbitrarily saying that the journal is "obscure" and old. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say that these factors make a reference unusable. I found this in Wikipedia's page about identifying reliable sources: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Based on this standard, this source is useful for the text. You are making up your own rules.Nonchalant77 (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this content on multiple grounds.

The edit equated Scientology with "orthodox science", implying that it was an unorthodox science, which is false, since it's not a science at all. I feel that was sufficient to revert the edit, but it's not the only reason to revert that edit.

The source is reliable, but that's not the only standard we use. The content was verbose and redundant with what's already in the article, and the source is far too obscure to justify repeating the point in so many words. Age matters, and an old source from Behavioral Sciences & the Law is usable, sure, but it's hardly hefty for such a obtuse and promotional point. Why is this being added to the lede? Why is this source so important that it summarizes the entire topic? It's not. This is another example of minor, redundant info being added to a Scientology article without anyone bothering to consolidate or rephrase the existing content, even though it conveys basically the same point. The end result is that these articles become more and more bloated and promotional by the weight of tid-bits like this, which undermines neutrality. That it was included as an attributed opinion, even though it's not research, and not controversial, is a whole other can of worms. You call them "scholars" but give no way of understanding what that means. It turns out they're law professors, so what's their qualification for talking about business/psychology/NRMs? The article strongly emphasizes that the CoS is a "profit-making enterprise", so why was the major point of the source left out? Etc. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology and psychiatry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320221156/http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm to http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Improving POV while keeping 4 "stages" of LRH and Psychiatry

Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs)made some changes that shifted from four subheadings to just two. I had labelled the four stages: Request for treatment, Wouldbe psychologist, Publicly declared insane, and Psychiatry as evil.

"Publicly declared insane" has been re-titled "Hubbard's Psychiatric issues", which sort of misses the 'point' of the section -- Hubbard read headlines wherein a psychiatrist he'd never even seen publicly declared him "insane" based only on his wife's claims about her husband. Hubbard's later stances are only comprehensible in light of this very public threat to his reputation and indeed his liberty. Could we retitle that section to something that conveys what a big deal it would be to be "publicly declared insane" in the 1950s without also implying that the secondhand 1950s "diagnosis" was in any way valid?

Additionally, the "Wouldbe psychologist" sectionheading has been eliminated - the phase where Hubbard identified as a psychologist himself seems worthy of a sectionheading of some sort. Feoffer (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Based on the assumption that above objection were based on the "public declaration of insanity" wording, it is proposed to add the following to lede: "The Scientology movement was founded by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard initially sought psychiatric treatment himself. Later he identified as a psychologist. His work was rejected by mainstream psychiatry, thereafter, Hubbard was increasingly critical of psychiatry, psychology, and psychoanalysis. In 1952, it was publicly reported that Hubbard's wife Sara had consulted psychiatrists who allegedly concluded Hubbard met the diagnosis for paranoid schizophrenia. By the 1960s, Hubbard taught that psychiatrists were behind a world-wide conspiracy. Feoffer (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose split of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry

Copied from Talk:L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry

Biographical material about a 20th century person is sufficiently different in content from the material about the 21st century movement and its policies (e.g. Tom Cruise on Matt Lauer; etc) . Additionally, a split for the biographical material allows easier inclusion in the Hubbard biographical article series. Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it should all remain together. Why sunder the discussion of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? That makes absolutely zero sense. If you wish to link this information on the bio page, simply link it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The level of detail in the biographical material being added seemed to be undue weight in comparison to minimal detail about the organization and it its ongoing policies. Seemed like a perfect case for a summary style subarticle where excess detail is summarized and then a subarticle for readers who want the the extended quotes and extensive biographical details.

In any case, extra eyes always appreciated, if you feel strongly that one article is better than an article and a subarticle, that's cool :) Feoffer (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth pointing out that when the expanded material is reincorporated into one article, article size is >60k, which WP:SPLIT defines as "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". But if you still fill 1 article is best, that's cool. :) Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure where you're getting your data from, but the article as it exists currently, is "Prose size (text only): 31 kB (4927 words) "readable prose size"", which is the parameter split talks about. And that's after I reversed your split, and then you added quite a bit, which I think includes virtually every new piece in the split article. Since the total bits were 36,927 bits (split article) vs. 41,303 bytes of new material to this article. But one of the primary considerations should be what makes it easier for the reader. In my opinion, keeping these two closely related topics together makes it easier for readers to understand the issue. Regardless, take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)