Talk:Introspection Rundown

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Introspection Rundown article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Series Template

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)

huh?

Just noticed this paragraph, which is not only atrociously written, it really serves no purpose and doesn't make a whole lot of sense: "The above talks about how to actually do the rundown, while the reason for doing those actions is the breakthrough Hubbard spoke of. The first of those 3 listed bulletins spells out how a psychotic break comes after a person introspects endlessly. The whole action is designed to help the person look at what caused them to intorvert so completely, to understand it and to once again extrovert. For most people it might seem obvious, something happened, the person introvered and could not extrovert again. He then had a psychotic break. Hubbard found methods so the person could view their reasons for becaming introverted in the first place." wikipediatrix 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks like standard Scientology gibberish to me. There's some other stuff here about "technologies" and "educations" that also qualifies. --Krsont 09:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work?

This page is heavy on Hubbard's claims, but does not address whether they have been proven or disproved. Surely, in the last thirty-two years, we've enough evidence to reach a tentative conclusion? Are there any known cases of IR other than Lisa McPherson? To me, the whole thing sounds like nothing more than base coercion ... isolation, "auditing" which is not unlike interrogation, and a request for a written "guarantee" of good behavior. But I am neither a scientologist nor a long-time scientology-watcher, so I am very hesitant to put any of this into the article. --68.41.122.213 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this need. The only thing the article has for results is one case which went wrong. It needs statistics --Davidkazuhiro 05:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

In the overview section, there is very scarce information of the actual procedure. All I could get out of it was "nobody talks to the patient until he or she is willing to act normally again. Then the patient can be removed from isolation." I bet there are a lot more details involved, as can be inferred from the Lisa McPherson controversy. These details must be documented somewhere. --Davidkazuhiro 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa

The following is taken from the first paragraph of Lisa's page: "The death provoked controversy about the nature of Scientology beliefs and practices, particularly the Introspection Rundown although testimony indicates that she was never actually put onto the rundown but instead died during an attempt to "stabilize" her condition."

While this article says "McPherson was put on the Introspection Rundown after her accident on November 18."

Which is it? Was she on the IR or not on the IR? One of these pages seems to need to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.164.124 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Citations

Would it be possible for someone to take the book references and move them to the bottom of the article? Reading the ISBN and the copyright information within the article is jarring, especially when the citation is not in parentheses. Once I've read up on this, I'll try to take care of it if no one else does. SailorAlphaCentauri 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to say that i took a look at some of the sources cited by this article and they are dead links. kind of diminishes any credibility. 69.171.176.187 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]