This is an archive of past discussions about Thetan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How the did you do that, Wikipediatrix? "Thetan" was a redirect and now it is an article. How did you do that? heh ! Terryeo14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with you that a separate article for "Thetan" is necessary, and that it's essential for the reader to understand Hubbard's core concept of "Thetan" before going on to "Operating Thetan". Just remember this the next time you claim I'm just out to "cause confusion" and "destroy any chance of understanding Dianetics" as you said on my talk page. *smile* wikipediatrix18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Okee Dokee, I'll keep it in mind. BTW, would you mind spelling out more specifically what you meant when you said, "Dianetics Kills?" Or did I misunderstand and you didn't say that? Terryeo04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing and you know it, assuming you can read. I've set you straight on this already, so why are you asking the same thing again? The way you sometimes know things and sometimes don't, makes it sound as if you're either schizophrenic, or more than one person is editing under your username. wikipediatrix14:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As I trace your replies to my posts, I can see how it might appear to be that way. No, I am the only person who edits with this screen name. I sometimes have blocks of time and edit across several subjects. I was of the impression you had stated that in a reply and thought it was a quickie dismiss of a real question. I think I posted that question in several places and have seen you reply to it, eventually, as you came to it in several places. Sometimes it seems to me that your edits result in more confusion than good sense, but I suppose my edits look to you like I am pushing a point of view rather than allowing the normal inflammatory arguement? heh. Terryeo02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
is thetan to be dealt with as a theory
WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories tells how to deal with theories. If "Thetan" is a theory then we would want to arrive at a concensus of opinion. But if it is an information intuitive in concept to a reader then we simply present it as we would apples or oranges, citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Which way do we go with this one? Terryeo15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I say we discuss it just like one would discuss the idea of alien abductions, a flat earth, the efficacy of blue laundry balls, and any such other topic. Point out which parts of the article are merely beliefs spouted out by some religious leader, and which parts have scientific validity. Vivaldi07:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as you have the idea that "thetan" is the Scientology word for "spirit" (as in other religions and their use of the word "spirit" instead of "thetan") then we can probably arrive at concensus on presentation and content. Terryeo19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If all there was to the word "thetan" was the implication of "spirit", then deluded cult members wouldn't need the word "thetan" at all. And if "thetan" means the same as other religions' "spirit", then this article would be sufficient as a redirect to the "spirit" article, or perhaps a one-line sentence: "Thetan is the word Scientologist's use when normal English speakers mean 'spirit'". Vivaldi20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In broad, general ways that is exactly and precisely correct. "Thetan" means "spirit". However, Scientology does not stop with the Christian or Islamic idea that an individual's spirit leaves their body and goes to some "heaven" but instead spells out further things about the behaviour of one's spirit, the things which have an effect on one's spirit and has stated its purpose (within the Church of Scientology) to be to "rehabilitate the spirit". So, yes, it is a very simple, "thetan" means "spirit". But there is more information that has been gleaned and published about an individual's spirit. That's the meaning though, basically, of "thetan".Terryeo15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right, the "church" of Scientology does further explain the meaning of Thetan, it explains that the spirit, or "Thetan", leaves the body and goes on a trip to Venus, where aliens tell them lies about thier past and future lives. They are then sent back to eart, just off the coast of California, they travel to land and search for a woman who looks like she is about to get married or try to find a baby, so they may join with a "meat body".
Your first sentence is OR, stating the use is exclusive to cult members. You are misinformed to so state because the word has appeared in many books and other publications for many years. Your second statement tells us, you don't know what the word means but suggests it might have similar meanings to "spirit". Terryeo18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My second statement was a restatement of your statement, "...thetan is the Scientology word for "spirit"." I fully understand that thetan is completely different from what is conveyed by the word spirit. I also fully understand what it is that Hubbard says a Thetan is and what he said a Thetan was capable of. Vivaldi18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
removed sentence pasted here for discussion and citing
"Its existence is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation." (refering to thetan). Since Christianity has, for more than 2000 years, postulated that man might exist as a sprit, and because Islam likewise has a belief that people might have a spiritual existence, the above sentence which attributes the idea of "spirit" to Hubbard alone, is completely silly. Can you provide any citation for that? HEHTerryeo20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The existance of a THETAN is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation. Apparently you need to word clear that sentence. Even if Hubbard plagiarized his writings from the works of thousands of other people, doesn't change that fact. The existance of a THETAN is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation. Said another way: The thetan is nothing more than Hubbard's fanciful speculation. The thetan is not proven beyond Hubbard's fanciful speculation. The thetan does not exist as anything more than Hubbard's speculation.
The concept of a thetan as Hubbard defines it (as an entity that is capable of exteriorization of the human body with full perceptics) is completely a fanciful notion. It has no basis in scientific fact whatsoever. Your claim that Christians or Muslims believe in the existence of a similar spirit is completely irrelevant. This article isn't about Islam or Christianity. I have never heard a priest or imam claim that a human spirit was capable of acting on earth outside of the living body (and then able to return to the living body), and if I did hear one make that claim, I would also point out that it was also a ridiculous and fanciful claim. Vivaldi07:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Vivaldi. Could you be really clear if you are attempting to present that "man could not possibly be a spirit" and that, "there is no scientific proof that man is a spirit" OR if you are attempting to present, "Hubbard is bunk?" I am unclear if you are stating that ALL occurances of the belief, "man has a spiritual manifestation" is bunk, or if you are particularly and singularly targeting Hubbard's clarifications (i.e. his descriptions of spirit). To put it another way, "are all occassions of spirit in every religion to be treated as a theory, or, alternatively, is there some portion of the thetan article that you wish to treat as theory?Terryeo08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about THETAN. I don't believe it is worthwhile or relevant to discuss other religions in an article about thetan. If you can demonstrate even one single person on the face of the earth with supernatural OT Powers, then I suggest you go claim the $1 Million prize offered by James Randi. There isn't anyone that can exteriorize their "thetan". NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON! EVER! Your criminal Church is actively promoting a lie and you are working as an agent for that church. You are a fraud and the Church of Scientology is a fraud. Someday, you will regret ever having wasted your life in this criminal cult. Mark my words. Even the Inspector General of the RTC, Mark Rathbun, and Warren McShane, finally smartened up and abandoned your cult. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, you too will "see the light".Vivaldi07:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, this article is titled and about the subject "Thetan" which is the term Scientology uses where other religions use the word "spirit" and means the same. Vivaldi, no one is argueing with what you know to be true. No one is trying to convince you that the article is fact or fallacy. What is being spoken of is what the Church of Scientology states. I would invite you to understand what is meant by this single word and would further invite further discussion toward your continued editing. This isn't some sort of personal thing, Vivaldi, this is about putting informations, pieces of information together in a sensible way so people can understand what those informations mean. And then do as they wish to with the informations they have learned. Have a nice day. Terryeo08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If "thetan" means the same thing as "spirit" then there is no need for the article at all. However in Scientology, "thetan" is much more than a spirit. According to the clueless moron that invented Scientology, a thetan can control MEST at will and a thetan can "exteriorize with full perceptics" from a living body and then reoccupy that body at will. Also, one type of thetan is the disembodied "souls" of aliens that were blown up by Galactic Overlord Xenu 75 million years ago, that currently inhabit the bodies of all human beings -- and only high-priced Scientology courses can extract these alien demons. Wait until you reach OTIII, Terryeo, I'm sure you'll have a great time congratulating yourself on what a wise purchase you made when you get to read it. Vivaldi20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen many Scientologists claim that Scientology is not a belief system, that it doesn't require that anyone "believe" anything. However, it is clear that if a Scientologist didn't "believe" that things like "engrams" and "thetans" were things that existed in reality -- they couldn't be Scientologists for long. A "thetan" is a Scientology belief. There is nothing in the scientific world that demonstrates that a "thetan" exists in reality. Vivaldi20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am another one who would tell you that there is no belief in Scientology. As a person can refuse to understand what the word "cell" means, so too a person may refuse to understand the meaning of "spirit". That's every individual's right. But, if a person should choose to understand the meaning of the word "cell" then they could study biology. And if a person chose to understand the meaning of the word "spirit", and made up a few sentences using the word "spirit" (no matter how silly that sounds), then they could study the subject and understand what is being said. Terryeo00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
And any biologist that didn't accept the scientific meaning of the word "cell" would be ostracized. And any Scientologist that refused to accept that an "engram" or a "thetan" existed would not be allowed to continue through the courses required to become an OT. Vivaldi08:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point something out, but I have no idea how to accomplish a communication with you becuase anything I mention is some kind of arguement with you. There is something which is meant by the term, "cell", right? And that idea, that is not an actual cell but a conception, an understanding, an idea. A biologist who understood the term could work with the term and communicate with others about ideas, ideas which included the idea (which is agreed on) of "cell" and a cell's actions as it lives. Do you see the direction I'm pointing to? The same use of an idea in communicating happens with "spirit". A person need not "accept" that a "spirit" exists at all, but a person could communicate about the idea anyway. We can understand what each other means to communicate, even if we don't agree the other person's is real. It would help here, though, if you confined yourself to producing a good article for the reader rather than challenging the reality of what I consider real. That would be helpful to readers of Wikipedia.Terryeo17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo. Using your analogy about the word "cell". If there was considerable scientific doubt that such a thing as a cell existed, then the article at the word "cell" would also mention that the term "cell" is a concept that few scientists believed in. The same should apply to this article. There is nothing that demonstrates the existence of a thetan, nor can it be shown that Scientology techniques can provide "freedom" to a thetan. Vivaldi20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo." Yet most of the discussion on this page has been my pointing out, carefully, the meaning of the term which the article is about. This, contrary to your earlier statements on this talk page which spell out your uncertainty of the meaning of the term. Terryeo18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Body Thetan
A body thetan is a type of thetan and it should be mentioned here just as much as operating thetan should be mentioned. If Hubbard didn't think that the disembodied souls of space aliens weren't thetans, he would have called them something else when he came up with OT III. Vivaldi07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo has again removed the content about Body Thetan from this article discussing the scientology uses of the word thetan. It is important to include both Body Thetan and Operating Thetan here because both are common uses of the word. In Upper Level OT courses, one learns that all humans are infested with BTs, the disembodied souls of nuclear blasted aliens. Further Scientology courses and auditing are required to remove these body thetans. Vivaldi23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article's title is "thetan". There is a "body thetan" article, perhaps the section which seems umm, to you to be very similar to this article could be placed in the body thetan article and this article might point to it at "see other". Myself, I know the two terms to mean different things but I see your point. Both use a similar term, "thetan".Terryeo17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
A body thetan is a type of thetan. Just as operating thetan is a type of thetan. What do you think a Body Thetan is? Is it not the spirit of a being also? Vivaldi20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would respond to you if I had knowledge. I do not actually know, myself what a "body thetan" is. The Wikipedia article which I have stated my position about that article on its discussion page presents the term. I frankly do not know what it means. The Church of Scientology does not make a statement which defines it and I am completely unwilling to understand what Clambake.org and Xenu.net mean by their use of the term because it is theirs and not Scientology's term. I have made my decision about that article and am at peace with it. I can not help you with your understanding of the term because I do not understand the term.Terryeo21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Freedom
First of all the section that was previously titled "Freedom" is silly. Here is one sentence, "The Bridge to Total Freedom (The Bridge) leads to an individual having the freedom to live and operate in this way." Now, come on. That comes straight out of the Church of Scientology promotion pack.
There is no evidence that something like a thetan exists, let alone any evidence that one can "free" their thetan and make it do supernatural things like exist outside the human body.
Define the terms Thetan, Body Thetan, and Operating Thetan and leave the religious advertising and hullyballoo to the www.scientology.org website. Vivaldi08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll give this one more try. Wikipedia's purpose is not to present what is real and what is not real. I understand that you would strike from man's knowledge, strike all mention of "thetan", okay? And you would do that because it is so obviously not real, not real to you and obviously not real to anyone. I get it, you have said so. But, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to present what is real, what is actual, what is valid. Instead Wikipedia intends to present published information. The information of this article has been published for maybe 50 years. It is being published, read and used today. Its perfectly okay that you know "thetan" and "spirit" to be utterly false and untrue ideas. That's not the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents scientific theories which are unproven and other ideas, published ideas. That's the intent of Wikipedia. Terryeo17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't know what a "scientific theory" is. As far as your ideas on the purpose of Wikipedia, I'd have to disagree with you. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a compedium of knowledge. In order for something to count as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. So a thetan does not qualify as knowledge because it is not justified, is not true, and probably not even believed by more than a minute percentage of people on Earth. It is knowledge, the fact that Scientology teaches that a Thetan can be disembodied and can control a body. It is also knowledge that numerous studies have demonstrated that such a thing as a Thetan has never been able to exteriorize from the body with full perceptics (or control MEST) as has been advertised by the church on many occasions. Vivaldi18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Justified - False. True - False. Believed - False. In order for an information to become part of Wikipedia it must be published. Period, that's it. It is up to you, if you wish to edit to understand the ground from which you work and the direction you work toward. WP:NPOV(prime, stable policy), expressed as WP:V and WP:NOR. Read them if you wish to, everyone else does who edits very much.Terryeo23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You need to word clear the following words: "Encyclopedia", "Knowledge", "Justified", "True", and "Believed". You also need to realize that Wikipedia does not, and will not ever, require that any particular piece of information remain just because it is published somewhere. The quality of the source is often an issue and when appropriate to do so, published information is removed if that "information" is deemed inappropriate. Some authorities are valued more than others. Despite what you have been taught in your Study Tech courses, L. Ron Hubbard is not a respected scientist, nor is LRH a respected authority on science, physics, engineering, psychiatry, medicine, psychology, pharmacology, nuclear engineering, calculus, or any of other pursuits that he has demonstrated his complete failure to grasp even the most basic concepts of. Don't worry Terryeo. There is still time for you to save yourself from your criminal cult. Once you are out, you won't have to worry about your stats being met again this week. Vivaldi09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is how Wikipedia treats another ludicrous proposition, the notion of a Flat Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth You notice that the article mentions that in reality the Earth is not flat, but rather holds a spherical shape? You notice that the article points out that besides in very remote rural places, people no longer believe in a flat earth? Just because you have an idea that a thetan exists or that a thetan can become "free" doesn't mean that an encyclopedia is under any obligation to hold that belief up as true or correct. Vivaldi18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The word which defines this article is "thetan". It is a specialized word and used in a specialized way by a specialized group. Physics too, has its specialized words. Even your own group, your own peers, have a few specialized words with specialized meanings, specialized to your activities and probably not understood by anyone else. The difference with Physics and Scientology is, those words have a published meaning. The public has been informed of their meaning. Such is the case here. The article exists to present to the reader what the term means, how it is used, and something about the context it is used in. If you wish to have the article removed as an article, Wikipedia has processes for you to follow. If you wish to remove all of the Scientology articles, Wikipedia has avenues of action you may persue. It is beyond my control. Is it beyond yours? Terryeo23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish for it to be removed. I said define the terms and leave the advertising to the Church of Scientology's own webpages. You can't make the claim that Scientology can provide freedom to a thetan without providing evidence of that claim. If you want to say Scientology belief states that thetans can exteriorize from the body with full perceptics and then go back inside a living body, then thats okay. Just don't make the claim that Scientology really offers such abilities under the guise of "freedom". Vivaldi23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am writing an article. You said, "define ..." and you advised me. Your tone is challenging, your syntax convoluted and confused, your intent unclear, your edits uneducated and your manner repulsive. Have a nice day, bye :) Terryeo00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You are not writing an article. You are writing nonsense. There was a sentence in this article that said that "freedom" could be attained through the practice of Scientology. That particular statement is complete nonsense. There has been not one single shred of evidence ever produced by a Scientologist that indicates that a "thetan" can be "freed" through the practice of Scientology. As far as being uneducated, I would love to wager that my education background and intelligence far exceeds your deluded cult mind. Let's pick a neutral arbitrar and submit our Curriculum Vitae. I would wager that you have nothing more than a high school diploma, if that. In any case, this isn't about you or me, this is about the nature of true and verifiable information that was presented in the article. Scientology cannot show that a thetan even exists, let alone show that "freedom" can be attained. If you can provide even a shred of evidence of "freedom" of a "thetan" then you are eligible to recieve a $1 million prize from James Randi. Of course no Scientologist has even bothered to apply to collect the $1 million prize, because they know that Scientology isn't about truth or science, it is all about collecting money from unsuspecting victims. Vivaldi08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I say I am writing an article. You say I am not. I say I am editing per Wiki Policies and guidelines. You say I am writing nonsense. The middle portion of your post is a sort of personal challenge. The wiki guildelines spell out editor behavior. Were you able to understand and apply them your editing would be more productive. The last part of your posting has nothing to do with the article, instead it challenges the validity of published information. What's the point of communicating with you? Wikipedia isn't about the validity of the information in its articles, but about the quality of the information in its articles. If you didn't use an antagonistic tone with me, I would attempt to bring you to understanding of what Wiki's policies are and how they apply to informations but your communications fequently hold an edge that doesn't challenge the quality of information, but instead challenges the validity of it, or challenges me in some way. That simply isn't productive, it doesn't produce an article.Terryeo15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Wiki's policies. I am also aware that you like to tell others to follow wiki rules that you do not follow yourself. Information that is not truthful or valid is not quality information. Quality and truthfulness are inexorably intertwined. I realize that might take a long time to get through your head and perhaps you might have to go through some cult deprogramming to figure it out. Hopefully, some day, you can be free from your criminal cult and you can actually engage in productive truthful communication with other humans. Vivaldi20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Your edits and your talk page discussions say that you do not understand the term "thetan". That's plenty for me. Earlier you insisting that Hubbard had orgininated the idea "spirit" and therefore an article on Thetan was a distored, twisted lie. Now your arguements bring up the idea that "truth" should be extant in these articles. Wikipedia was not founded on any idea that "truth" should be the basis of any Wikipedia article. Until you understand the basis for building a Wikipeida, how can any other editor consider your convoluted lack of understanding to be educatable. "Truth". Ha ! Terryeo23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You pathetic liar. Were you this much of a liar before you joined the cult of Scientology? I never one time said that Hubbard originated the idea "spirit". You have been advised of this fact numerous times. You continue to lie. I can understand why a Scientologist would mock "Truth", because there is nothing more devasting to a dedicated Scientologist than the truth exposed for all to see. Vivaldi09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are unable to deliver communications without implications of attack. Unfortunately. That you do not understand the idea of "spirit", I can understand that. That you then, can not grasp the idea of "thetan" only follows. You invite discussion and proof that any person is more free than you are :) Terryeo09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Your attacks are just more subtle. I am just more forthright and honest because I haven't been deluded by a criminal cult that forces a person to twist their logic into pretzel-shaped forms. I fully understand the concept of the word "spirit". I also fully understand the concept of the word "thetan". The vast majority of the populace that believe in "spirit", do not believe in reincarnation as Scientology teaches that a "thetan" can do, nor do most people that use the word "spirit" think that they can extricate their own spirits from their body at will. Most people that believe in a "spirit" think that their spirit and body are intertwined inexorably until death where then it is judged by a Creator who can opt for the spirit to enter Heaven. This notion of a spirit is different from Scientology's notion of a thetan, which is why Hubbard chose the world thetan instead of using the preexisting word "spirit". If they were identical terms, then this article would be nothing more than a redirect to spririt. But you already knew that. Vivaldi18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand something, therefore you attempt to make an article present your misunderstanding. A = A = A. "There is no spirit" = "Thetan is a word for spirit" = "There is no thetan". I understand what you are saying. Your task however, is not to fool me, but to find a verification that "There is no thetan", quote it and cite it. That's what wikipeida is made of, not personal attacks, not judging the other editor "has been deluded by a criminal cult that forces a person to twist their logic into pretzel-shaped forms". Your judgement of another editor (and saying so) earns one thing. Guess what that is Mr. Vindictive? Terryeo23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You are a filthy liar. You have no comprehension skills. I never once wrote that there was not a "spirit". Nor did I ever write that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Your pathetic and twisted mind is again resorting to outright lying in order to hide the fact that your cult promotes pseudoscientific bullshit on a regular basis. As far as judging another editor, at least when I make my judgements I don't lie, as you have deliberately done -- now on numerous occasions. Vivaldi09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What does that edit have to do with anything? I never once wrote that there was not a spirit and I never suggested that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Hubbard did have some fanciful speculation about the existence of a thing called a thetan, but that isn't the same thing as a spirit, as we both well know. Vivaldi04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi edited to produce: ""There is no scientific evidence that indicates the existence of a thetan. Its existence is merely the fanciful speculation of science-fiction writer, [L. Ron Hubbard]." (at which edit Vivaldi removed a quoted, cited piece of text). Then at this difference: [2]
Vivaldi corrrected the earlier edit to yield: ""There is no scientific evidence that indicates the existence of a thetan. Its existence is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation." Which Vivaldi now states he never stated. In addition to these statements, on this page alone, Vivaldi has made these personal attacks to me:
You are a liar. I never said that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Your continual repetition of the same lie does not turn it into the truth, despite what you may have learned in your Church of Scientology communication course. Vivaldi04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Your criminal Church is actively promoting a lie and you are working as an agent for that church
You are a fraud and the Church of Scientology is a fraud
I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo
Don't worry Terryeo. There is still time for you to save yourself from your criminal cult
You pathetic liar.
You are a filthy liar. You have no comprehension skills
Your pathetic and twisted mind is again resorting to outright lying in order to hide the fact that your cult promotes pseudoscientific bullshit on a regular basis.
There you go Vivaldi, it is easy enough to read and check on for anyone with the ability to click a mouse.
Yes it is now easy to see for everyone. You have clearly demonstrated that you are in fact an unrepentent liar. I never once said that Hubbard invented the idea of a "spirit" and I never once said that a "spirit" is something that does not exist. You have not and you cannot show otherwise. You have repeated the same lie numerous times now, and I fully expect your deluded cult mind to continue to push the exact same lie yet again. There is a cure for that, Terryeo, but more than likely you will have to leave your criminal cult to gain the skill sets necessary to learn that repetition of a lie does not turn it into the truth. Don't worry, there is still time for you to save yourself. You don't have to be a victim of your cult forever. Vivaldi04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Terryeo18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please There is no excuse for your deliberate lying Terryeo. Please stop your deliberate and intentional lying! Terryeo, I consider your deliberate lies about me and my statements to be a personal attack on me. I would encourage you to quit repeating your vile lies in this forum. I never stated that Hubbard invented the idea for spirit, yet you continue to say that I did. That is a personal attack on me. Your lying is no different than if I stated, "Terryeo is a convicted pedophile that molests dead donkeys". You think you can make your subtle attacks on my character with impunity through the use of malicious and intentional deceit. Unfortunately for you, outside here in the real world, the Scientology communication tactic of repeating a lie does not turn it into the truth. Vivaldi20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, the policy does not say, "no personal attacks unless you are lied about" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless you are called a bad name" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless someone calls your relatives a bad name" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless someone says you said something you didn't say". The policy says, no personal attacks. Period. That doesn't mean much really, it just means, no personal attacks under any conditions, ever. Period. Perhaps you see a difference between what the policy says and the things you have stated on this page. Terryeo23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I am also encouraging you to stop your personal attacks on me. You may think you are being clever with your subtle jibes, but nevertheless it is still an attack on me when you put words into my mouth or accuse me of non-comprehension. Perhaps you can see the difference between being an honest human being and a Scientologist? Vivaldi00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, as long as you talk politely I am willing to reply politely. First of all you can notice that I did not direct that at a particular editor. It is a broad, general statement. At that time there were no, or almost no citations in it. It read as you would read a school book, without any reference about where the information comprising it came from. In addition to the "hardly a straight sentence in it" I made clear (I thought) the tone of the article was "nazi", suppressive, that it was written with an idea to present and invoke hostility, rather than to present dry, encyclopedic information. Terryeo20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to handle this
I want the article to accurately state Scientology's definition of "thetan" and tell of its context. When a reader gets that and understands what is meant by the term "thetan" then, after that, any controversy would be appropriate. Yet people edit the article, not to introduce controversy and make a better article. But edit the article to remove the meaning, the definition, the context of the term. Why wouldn't an editor want the subject introduced? Terryeo23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a mischaracterization to me. I'd love to see articles on all parts of Scientology, so that hopefully people will look it up here first and find out precisely what it is--dubious good mixed with great evil seems like an apt characterization. There's nothing against denouncing it as a ridiculous cult, provided we do it in a neutral and unbiased way, of course ^_^ On a more specific note, this article looks pretty good to me: the scope is precisely what it should be, it's not too long, and it is written in a neutral tone. However, Terryeo has some problems, which as usual he declines to specify. Hard to work on that kind of a basis. How about, Terry, you pick out sentances with which you have a problem, and tell us what the article doesn't say that it should. Hold off on your issues with the manner of presentation for a bit, unless you think that this article has all the information it needs in it. Tenebrous01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A "mischaracterization?" The definition which the creator of the definition states is a "mischaracterization?" What reasoning do you use to arrive at that conclusion, Tenebrous? Terryeo16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the clear contex of that statment, I believe that you are deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote in order to provoke an argument. Nevertheless, this is the mischaracterization that I was referring to:
Yet people edit the article, not to introduce controversy and make a better article. But edit the article to remove the meaning, the definition, the context of the term. Why wouldn't an editor want the subject introduced?
Further Explanation for the Stupid: I find it highly unlikely that those are the goals of the other editors working on this article. Therefore in my opinion that statement is a mischaracterization, and perhaps a deliberate one. Tenebrous02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I specify. How can I be more clear. The articles should present the subject they are about. They should present the subject, introduce the subject, in a clear, easy to understand manner. This is only good sense, Mr. Tenebrous and I'm sure your articles do the same. The difference with controversial articles is that after the subject is understood by the reader, then he can read on and find out how the subject is controversial. Dubious good mixed with great evil? What are you talking about? I am talking about presenting the idea which stands behind the word, "thetan". It has been published and used for more than 50 years. It appears in a number of publications including the Scientology (red tech) dictionary. It is an idea. As "spirit" is an idea and not a physical object and not evil or good, it is an idea. I want the article to present the idea the symbol, the term, the word, "thetan" stands for. What is difficult about it? If you would like to see what the meaning of the term is, just click "history" of the article and pick an early one, before ChrisO and Feldspar begin to disperse the meanings. Terryeo20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added some more info on the doctrinal aspects which hopefully should provide a bit more context. -- ChrisO01:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion you have dispersed the meaning which the article presented by placing your "additional info" into the definitions of the term, before the term's meaning can be communicated to the reader. You confuse the meaning of "thetan" by placing the dispersive "theta being" (introducing the word theta, introducing the word theta being) into the intorduction. A reader doesn't even understand that "thetan" is and you are running him around the pole with "theta" which is an altogether different and individuated word with a different and individuated meaning. Terryeo20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You want much more than that Terryeo, you have also been removing the explanation of the term Body Thetan BT from the bottom of the article, while simultaneously promoting the term Operating Thetan in most favorable glowing terms, at one point you even claimed that "freedom" could be attained for a thetan. Vivaldi00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been removing the "body thetan" section for reasons I spell out in my edit summaries. It is redundant, the same information is presented in the body thetan article and there is a link to it there. Why do you think it better to redundnatly present information?Terryeo20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think its just fine for an encyclopedia to be redundant. Both the George Washington article and the Martha Washington article mention their marriage. Or an even better example, see Cat and one type of cat, the Tabby cat. Notice how the cat article talks a little about the tabby cat and also provides a link for more detailed information at the main article for tabby cat? Have you not noticed that this happens in thousands of articles on Wikipedia? We don't need to save paper or anything. It's not like anybody has to pick up Wikipedia and carry it home on their backs. Sometimes a small amount of redundancy is more convenient than flipping through all the articles to find the information you want. So perhaps someone looking for thetan will see Body Thetan and say to themselves, "Hey, this is what I was really looking for. I saw that show on TV where that guy talked about how Xenu blasted up aliens and their disembodied souls ended up as body thetans stuck to all humans and that Scientology had a cure, albeit a pricey one". Then our hero could then flip to the Body Thetan article and read more about it. Vivaldi09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's wrong for Terryeo to be deleting the short OT and BT precis sections - despite his claims in the edit summary, the information in the precis isn't redundant at all but leads quite naturally into the articles. His objection is plainly a cloak for his underlying POV reasons. -- ChrisO01:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read what you have said and again suggest that a reader goes to an article to learn the information whose title the article espouses. If you want to combine a bunch of articles into one article, you should have spoken up before the disambiguation of Operating Thetan and Thetan. Now we have 3 articles. You seem to oppose every possible meaning in any of them. Thetan means spirit, it is the equivalent of spirit in other religions. Why is such a simple, straightforeward idea so difficult to deal with that you want to disperse people with "body thetan" and "operating thetan", wasn't it your idea in the first place to create several articles?Terryeo20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thetan
I have tried to say. You don't own a thetan, you are a thetan. it is not, "my thetan is a glorious shining ball of energy" but, "I am a glorious shining ball of energy". The concept, the idea, the definition of thetan is, "that which you are". not "I am me and my body is over there and my thetan is over here." Whether you choose to believe, disbelieve, love or hate does not matter a whit to the defintion and use of the word. It does not matter what you believe, fill it up with controversy but it is not an accurate statement to say, "people's thetan's ....". What you are, that is what is meant by the word thetan. That of you which is aware that you are aware. Why do people edit articles they refuse to understand? You want to edit and don't know the subject? No Problem Wikipedia encourages you to. Just edit what you do know and understand, add controversy, etc. Please do not edit what you do not understand.Terryeo23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, though it doesn't really matter to the editing of the article, I'll try to explain this idea of "thetan". A person can look in the far distance and then look at something closer to them. A person can direct their attention to their toe or to their finger. A person can read, or not read. A person can recall someone they don't like, or recall someone they do like. The action of changing one's attention, that is done by an individual. Whether you call it "self" or "myself" or "all that I am" or by some other name, it is an indivudal doing an action. That is what Hubbard refered to, the individual who is (usually) capable of directing their attention. That is what is meant by the term thetan. The individual. The causative element which is usually thought of as "me" or "self" or refered to when someone says, "you". Terryeo11:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and everyone already understood that. The only one here who isn't understanding something is you -- you don't understand that when we have used the phrase "my thetan", the "my" does not mean "something which I own, which is separate from me", any more than when one of us says "my self", they mean "something which I own, which is separate from me." See, in your eagerness to pretend that all the rest of us don't understand anything and that therefore all the editing should be left to those who "understand" (i.e., those who share your POV), you've created this whole fallacy that "my" designates separation and you've refused to comprehend the fact that counter-examples clearly show this not to be the case. And now, after your uncivil ravings about other editors "work as a team to destroy, defile, disperse and degrade an article's meaning" you start whining again about things that everyone already understands. The only person not understanding something here is you and what you are not understanding is that these articles need to be written so that people grasp the concepts, not to fulfill your paranoid fantasies about sinister plots to hide the truth through grammar. -- Antaeus Feldspar15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would really hope the idea of "thetan" is communicated in this article. Really. Please stop accosting me in an antagonistic manner Terryeo19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
By definition, my "self" is all that I am, but I still call it "my self" to designate the particular incarnation of that concept which is in that relation to me, and "self" is a much more inclusive concept than "thetan" since "thetan" explicitly excludes the person's body and their mind. Are you under the impression that because I say "my self" then I must not understand what a self is? Your idea that "my" always indicates something you "own" is incorrect; it can indicate that relationship but does not always do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, please quit accosting me in an antagonistic manner. If you find a piece of Scientology work which has Hubbard saying "my thetan" then go right ahead and use the phrase. Until someone does it is Original Research. I'm fairly sure that if you search enough, you can find some secondary source, someone who has misunderstood enough Scientology so they use the phrase "my thetan" and you could then quote them and introduce the misunderstanding. BTW, "my self" is normally written without a space, "myself". Still, my basic question is unanswered. Why would anyone attempt to edit articles they don't know about and argue with the introduction of the article, argue with people who do know the subject? Would editors do the same with, say, "rocket fuel" or "pitching baseballs?" Terryeo16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If you find a piece of Scientology work which has Hubbard saying "my thetan" then go right ahead and use the phrase. Until someone does it is Original Research. No, it is common sense being opposed by an editor who simply wants to nitpick. There is no misunderstanding here, except for your willful understanding that people can use a phrase such as "my thetan" while being perfectly aware that the definition of thetan is such that "my thetan" is a synonym for "me; the portion of me that is actually me." Exactly as predicted, you go right on obliviously babbling about how the use of the phrase proves that we are editing what we don't know about and should of course leave it to you. The only misunderstanding here is yours. Hubbard's own definitions makes it very clear that the person's thetan is not that person's body or that person's mind. The mainstream reader who comes to this article to learn what a thetan is, however, if asked what constitutes his "self", would probably include both his body and his mind. Therefore, it must be made clear to such a reader that of those things which he believes constitutes himself, the one which would be called "the thetan" is not his body or his mind. Do you understand that part? Do you understand that the point of us doing this is to communicate the concept to the reader? Do you understand that insisting that the article never refer to the thetan which is associated with a particular person as that person's thetan because that suggests (in your mind) that the thetan is an owned possession rather than a synonym for the person, is really insisting that the article be written in your language rather than the reader's? If you dig up a quote from Hubbard where he claims it is incorrect grammatical usage in Scientologese to ever refer to a thetan as a thing which exists in a relationship with a person (even the relationship of equivalence, which is the part that you keep falsely insisting we must not understand) then fine, bring us the quote and it'll go into the article. But if the reader doesn't get the concept that the Scientology paradigm holds the thetan to be the person from everything else we say on the subject, they're not going to get it because you throw yourself to the floor and go into a writhing hissy fit every time someone says "the person's thetan" instead of "the portion of what the conventional paradigm thinks of as 'the person' which Scientology designates as the thetan." -- Antaeus Feldspar17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
For God's Sake Feldspar, call yourself anything you want to. The article states its title. The article is not about convincing you about a word. How is it that you and ChrisO work as a team to destroy, defile, disperse and degrade an article's meaning together? You both begin doing that on the same day. You use different techniques toward a common result. I've told both of you that I don't care what controversy you present but I want the articles to contain and introduce the subject. A parallel with the Catholic Church would be to put "Priests rape choir boys" as the main ingredient of the article. I want the Scientology articles to present the subject. Your concept of what "self" means is does not matter to the reader of the Thetan article. You and ChrisO work together toward creating non-information in the Scientology arena. You have demonstrated your technique across a broad range of these articles. The two of you fight and refuse my opinion, Spirit of Man's opinion, Nuview's opinion, any opinion which might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article. When I try to talk with you, you refuse to get into communication.Terryeo15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that just possibly your idea that only devoted and convinced Scientologists like you and Spirit of Man and Nuview have "opinions" which "might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article" is what's incorrect here? Not to mention arrogant. -- Antaeus Feldspar18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How have I not been clear with you Feldspar? I want these articles to present the information they are about. I want them to accurately present them as you might prefer some other faith accurately present the idea of "spirit". After the subject is presented, so that a reader can know what is being talked about, then I have no objection to controvery in the article. What is unclear to you about that? This goal is Wikipedia's goal and I would assume your goal too. But your statement implies that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. The first was in the Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health talk page when you said something about the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article. This word "Thetan" it is a symbol and it stands for an idea. The meaning of the idea needs to be presented to the reader, after which time, well, hey, fill that article right up with controversy if you wish to. As long as the citations are in good order. Terryeo19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
But your statement implies that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. What a tiresome liar you are, Terryeo. How is it that you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and never stop to think "Gee, maybe there's something wrong with my crusade if I have to run like a scared rabbit from the truth any time I come anywhere near it?" As anyone can verify by going and reading Talk:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, what I said was not "the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article" but that this article did not need to cover the subject of Dianetics because there was already an article that had been doing that for nearly five years! You're like the sleazy politician who tries to smear his opponent by saying "You know how little Mayor Jones cares about law and order in this city? He voted against the bill that I introduced which would have created a police department!" What Selectman Sleaze fails to mention is that the city already has a police department, which is why they voted against Sleaze's proposal that they create a second police department to which Sleaze's brother-in-law would automatically be appointed the chief of police. So this is, what, the third, fourth time you've trotted out that little trick? How is it that you pull sleazy stunts like this -- constantly -- and then you act surprised and blame other editors when they don't trust you? -- Antaeus Feldspar18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, please quit accosting me in an antagonistic manner. I don't observe that I have created any lie nor upheld any lie here. What are you talking about? In any event I will happily discuss the book article on the book's page.Terryeo19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What I am talking about, I have already very clearly spelled out. You know that my position on the DMSMH article, as I have spelled out several times, is that it is not going to become a POV fork for the article which already exists, and has existed since 2001, for the purpose of containing the "meaning" (as you would put it) of Dianetics. What did you claim that I had expressed as my position? "That nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning." second emphasis added You knew the truth, you knew what I actually said on the issue, and yet you decided it would serve your purposes so much better to tell people "oh, he's announced that he wants nothing in any of these articles to have the slightest bit of meaning." You know what that is, Terryeo? It's a bald-faced lie. And you may think you are clever enough to get away with it but you are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What you are talking about is okay with me. You certainly state your position strongly. Gosh. As you wish to discuss my understanding of your statement about the Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health here, well okay. I stated what I did because that is how I understood you to mean your statement. That only the covers of the book could be discussed in that article, that none of the content of the book could be discussed in that article. I might have misunderstood you. That's possible, particularly when you spell out your statement on this page as you did. But that was the message I got. At that time we were all going around about how extremely significan a picture on the cover was which prevented us from including the content of the book within the article. Terryeo20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, Terryeo. But see, the thing is, you already used that pathetic straw man, "you're saying the article on the book can only be about the covers of the book." And that straw man was already demolished.[3] Now you are repeating that straw man here as if you didn't know it was no longer viable. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Because what you said here would still be a knowing lie. "Feldspar thinks that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning." Anyone can go to the talk page and see how often it was explained to you that Dianetics already existed to cover the subject of Dianetics and that was why a newly-written article on DMSMH was not going to try and usurp that role. Anyone can compare that to what you are pretending here, that I said "No! No meaning in any of these articles! Not the slightest bit! Not in any of them!" And having done that comparison, anyone can see that you are a damned liar. -- Antaeus Feldspar01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate place to discuss another article. But I said that already. Besides, you're not actually discussing, you are again accosting me in an antagonistic manner. Phrases such as "liar" need not be used. Would you like to be called a liar? You have been barred for a month for your method of dealing with other people. If you wish to discuss that article, that discussion page is the place to discuss it. If you wish to raise a personal issue, my talk page is the place to do that.Terryeo01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate place to discuss another article. Oh, give me a break. If you actually believed that, you wouldn't have brought up your deliberate misrepresentation of what happened at DMSMH in the first place. Yes, I'm calling you a liar. Why? Because you're lying, both about what happened at DMSMH and now about how I was supposedly "barred for a month" for personal attacks. Your friend JimmyT, now he was blocked for personal attacks, and no wonder. But I was not blocked; not for a month as you claim here or for a week as you claim here. Hmmm, a week, or a month? Which is it? Having trouble keeping your stories straight? Of course, since anyone can check the block log, anyone can see that both versions of your story are shown to be completely false. Finally, I don't think I need advice from you on where the appropriate place is to raise "a personal issue"; you decided that this page was the appropriate place to tell a lie about me purportedly claiming I wanted none of the Dianetics article to contain any information, and you decided this page was the appropriate place to tell a lie about me being "barred for a month". Why is it an appropriate place for you to smear my reputation and not an appropriate place for your lies to be answered? Oh, and you didn't call me a "liar", but you did call me a plagiarist, and refused to answer my question about where you were getting your "evidence" from, which why it was considerable time until I discovered that your assumption that I was guilty of plagiarism stemmed from you looking at a site and failing to notice that it specifically stated its content came from Wikipedia.[4] -- Antaeus Feldspar03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. It is possible we both have assumptions. But maybe we can communicate anyway. I recognize that you went to a lot of work to understand something there. Terryeo16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
contested paragraph placed here for citing
"According to Hubbard, thetans are immortal and perpetual, having willed themselves into existence at some point several quadrillion years ago. After they originated, thetans generated "points to view," or "dimension points" which caused space to come into existence. They agreed that other thetans' dimension points existed, thus bringing into existence the entire universe. All matter, energy, space and time exists solely because thetans agree that it exists." Hubbard doesn't say that. Terryeo14:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The four paras I added are all under the same citation - Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky, chapter 9.2. As for "Hubbard doesn't say that," as usual this is your own personal assertion which you haven't bothered to reference. It's your responsibility to produce a counter-claim. -- ChrisO19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The for paragraphs are not presented as a citation from A piece of Blue Sky, but when they are appropriately cited, so that a reader understands there is a specific source to that half of the article, then I will quite deleting that disaffected man's opinion who neither understood the concept nor presents information helpful toward understand the concept which was and is meant by a person using the term, "thetan." Terryeo16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Then you have made an error, ChrisO. That your Blue Sky author says that Hubbard says it, that is quite a different statement than "Hubbard said it". Do you see the difference? If you don't, I'll spell it out for you. John Smith might say, "Bob said that ChrisO is mistaken", but since you know Bob, you know he would never say that. What you have created here is that the Blue Sky author has said that Hubbard said something. Fine, good. So your task is to present that information that he said that Hubbard said (something) in the article. However, should you ever arrive at a quote that says that Hubbard himself said that, a quote from a refutable source which attributes that statement to Hubbard, then you could cite it appropriately. This is just good editing ChrisO and not a criticsm of your editing latitude. Terryeo19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raymond. I won't dispute that Hubbard said something very similar to what you just stated, that the physical universe (as we know it) exists because of agreements between beings. Nor am I trying to deny that it does exist ! heh. The statement I am pretty sure Hubbard did not make is: "thetans willed themselves into existence". Also, the statement above says "immortal and perpetual" and that seems redundant, unless ChrisO is implying something in addition to immortality when he says "perpetual". Terryeo18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The actual problem with the thing which you state that the Blue Sky bood (hundreds of pages long, where does one look?) is that Hubbard never said that "Thetans willed themselves into existence". I don't believe Hubbard said that. The Blue Sky author, in his bumble brained misunderstanding might think Hubbard said that and he's perfectly quoteable as a source of published information, but that statement is not what Hubbard said and can not be pinned to Hubbard when he didn't say it. The Blue Sky author, that's another story. Of Course he should be quoted as saying that Hubbard said that.Terryeo17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Thetans are also said to be omnicogniscent". Is likewise a false statement. Hubbard didn't say that either. "imnicogniscent" could mean, "aware of all things, all of the time" (godlike), I'm pretty sure Hubbard did not use that word. But, if he did (I could be mistaken) then the source of that information needs be cited. The basic problem should be very clear. The article is presenting totally unblieveable information as Hubbard's words. We should follow Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. We should not do Original Research. If there is a source of information, then cite it. But please don't cite a whole book for one sentence. We can not expect a reader to tediously read through 300+ pages to find the section which talks about the meaning of one word. Terryeo17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh ! "omnicogniscent" ! This has been here nearly a day and no one has commented. I don't believe it is cited and shouldn't be in the article. Terryeo21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You know how to request a citation. You certainly had no problem doing it here. Why are you suddenly so hesitant to mark it as needing a citation? -- Antaeus Feldspar01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, because my hands have been slapped at by so many people, so many times. Becuase I would rather tread lightly than rouse the evil spirits. heh. Terryeo08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop reverting that section. Hubbard did not say those things and did not mean those things. The piece of Blue Sky author states what he thinks Hubbard said. It is very bad writing for the article to suddenly have three paragraphs (which Hubbard did not say) which are interpretations of the Blue Sky author because it appears by reading the article that Hubbard has himself published those things. Blockquote the guy. Cite every paragraph, something. Hubbard did not say "Thetans willed themselves into existence". The Blue Sky author did not say Hubbard said that. It is perfectly okay to cite published work, the Blue Sky book is quoteable. But it is appropriate to cite primary sources (Hubbard's words) as primary and secondary sources (Blue Sky) as secondary and present which is which. Running them together so a reader doesn't know where secondary source begins and where primary source ends isn't appropriate. Terryeo15:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
removed my opinion?
I cited several sources, quoted them verbatim, placed them so they made sense together. What opinion? Those were verified statements, widely published. Terryeo02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Terryedo, I don't object to the change in the introduction that you wrote in (Revision as of 13:32, 14 March 2006). Perhaps it was taken out as a expedient means to remove other content that you wrote that they objected to? Vivaldi10:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Something odd seems to have happened to the edit history. After Terryeo first made the change to the first paragraph in ( Revision as of 11:50, 14 March 2006 ), somebody went back and reverted it removing his additions. My comment to Terryeo was that I thought his changes to the 1st paragraph were acceptable. Apparently some sort of super-editor moderator type is also able to remove their changes from the edit history, because I see now that no revert of the (Revision as of 11:50, 14 March 2006) is listed. Oh well. All is well. The intro that Terryeo wrote is still in the article as I write this Vivaldi06:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That kind of thing happens here and there. I'm only guessing but it clearly happened in an article recently when the database was locked, temporarily locked while the administrater handled something. A portion of an article disappeared, in that case and Feldspar restored it by going back to earlier verisions, find the sections which had disappeared, copied and pasted into the current article. In the database locked discussion that was going on at the time, someone said the articles are actually held on several servers which apparently are connected together, acting as a whole unit.Terryeo08:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Anybody know what hubbard meant to say by "consideration or postulate"? Was he stating that thetans had no mass, unless they were postulated to have mass, in which case they might have mass? Ronabop06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. Both terms are from common dictionarys. A "postulate" is a decision. An example would be, "I'll have breakfast in bed this morning". A postulate might be considered slightly differently than a normal, everday decision in the sense that a person might postulate they increase their salary and persist with it and eventually then, increase their salary. stated briefly, a postulate is a persistant decision. And with "consideration" similarly, it is the common, dictionary definition. A consideration might be, "I'll have cherry jam on my toast". An individual has mass only by consideration or postulate, only because he decides that he has mass. This is the meaning of the quote in the article. No, I am not asking you to accept that as being valid, but am spelling out as best I can, what is meant. And providing anyone interested with sources, common dictionarys, to check it out. I hope this is helpful. Terryeo07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That is indeed one possible explanation for what he might have meant. That it is the correct one is your opinion. That he was referencing his earlier quote is also your opinion---it's possible that he may have just simply been contradicting himself. As is the article does not state either opinion. This is a good thing. Tenebrous08:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The policys and guidelines tell us to present the information and let the reader understand it as they will, for reader to decide for themselves. I'm prefectly willing to keep my opinion out of it if other editors are willing to keep thier opinion out of it. "Hubbard contradicted himself" is an opinion or claim. Mine likewise is an opinion or claim. Would editing by policy and guidelines in this one example, keeping opinion and claim out of the article seem appropriate? Terryeo16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO put that "Hubbard somewhat inconsistantly claimed that thetans have mass....." in there and then quoted a piece. But I have the book he quoted from and so does he. Hubbard does present that information about the study and the mass loss that seemed to happen in the study when a body died. But Hubbard is not making a claim in the book. The context, takes several paragraphs, the context does not present what Hubbard spoke as being a claim. Hubbard simply quotes a study that seems to indicated some thetans sometimes exhibit mass. ChrisO did not fully quote the paragraphs, he shortened Hubbard's words so that it appears Hubbard might be "claiming" but Hubbard wasn't "claiming". It is an out-of-context quote which is misleading. Terryeo18:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
He is not simply quoting a study. There has been no study on the weight of thetans. There has been a study on the weight of souls, and Hubbard is at the very least claiming that that study is also accurate for thetans as well. I do not see that statement as being inaccurate or misleading. Also, have you found evidence yet that Hubbard never said these things, as was your previous contention? Or have you given that one up? Tenebrous23:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO presents that Hubbard stated something about the weight loss which was measured by a doctor which seems to happen when a body dies, right? That is what we are talking about, Tenebrous? Well, he did make that statement. ChrisO specifies when and where Hubbard's words are to be found. Are we still talking about that? I am saying that ChrisO has said something accurately. I thought I said that already? And I'm futher confused because I thought you understood the Scientology term "thetan" means "soul." The article says so. It is a direct quote out of Scientology's dictionary. I thought that is what we were talking about ? Terryeo21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Thetan" and "soul" are analogous but not identical. Otherwise we wouldn't need this article, would we? Go back and read my earlier post again until you understand it. Tenebrous22:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article states that Scientology says, "Thetan means soul." I really hoped to get that idea communicated. Hubbard could have used the word "soul" but he coined another word (I think) because the word "soul" has been used by many religions for a long time and has developed mystical uses. Uses which he did not wish to have to deal with. Such as, "if souls go to heaven then where is heaven and how many souls are in residence right now?" etc. etc. He coined the word "thetan", it means "soul" but apparently the first paragraph of the article does not communicate that? It is a straight, right out of the Scientology Technical Dictionary quote. As ChrisO's quote specifies, Hubbard's last sentence of that quoted weight study paragraph was, "those were heavy theatans, man." I don't understand how we are not communicating. Terryeo05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This Original Research Statement
Is discussed here already. It is OR to say, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistent about the physical properties of a thetan." because it is not a cited statement but is a conclusion on the part of an editors. The editor states his conclusion and states it. This is discussed here already. Feldspar reverted the statement back into the article after some discussion above. Why don't we just keep that statement out, let a reader draw that conclusion for himself? Another alternative would be for me to spell out more clearly (in my own words) how a theatan can "weigh" 1.5 ounces, how Hubbard's statement covers and spells out that possibility. I mean, if one editor is going to push his OR, then by golly, it is only appropriate an editor who understands what Hubbard meant, put his own knowledge. The statement shouldn't be there. WP:V denys it should be there. Yet Feldspar reverted it, put it back (probably because he saw I had made an edit, right?) Terryeo08:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not original research to say that water is wet and it's not original research to say that Hubbard was inconsistent about the physical properties of the thetan. Neither is it going to give you leave to insert your own original research on "what Hubbard meant". Thanks also for yet again repeating your assumption of bad faith on why another editor reverted your attempt to stretch and misapply policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar. If you will notice in the above discussion, I responded to an editor's question, carefully spelled it out as my opinion and stated (common dictionarys) where anyone could explore the meanings of Hubbard's statements further. Yet your statement again hopes to put my perfectly friendly reply into some bible-thumping catagory. There is more too, the measurement of "soul" or "spirit" or "self" or "thetan", whatever you want to call it, the measurement just before and just after death was very poorly done. 1942, six bodies measure just before and after death. That's a very very poor study. Even the doctor who did the study admits to difficulties. To bring that 60 year old study into this article would be dubious at best, don't you think? But why haven't further studies been made? With modern technology such studies might be possible. Terryeo16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, please quit accosting me in an antagonistic manner. I have explained what Hubbard meant. I understand that what he meant is not immediately clear and obvious. Yes, it is a subject which can be understood. Of course. No one is forcing anyone to understand anything, especially. But the article says, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistant..." and that is not a cited statement. I have presented what Hubbard meant, in an attempt to forstall an edit war. Because an individual might postulate or consider they weigh "1.5 ounces" then, they might actually weigh that, according to the cited statement that Hubbard made. Terryeo01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You aren't allowed to postulate "what Hubbard meant" as that is OR and its only your opinion. The article no longer states that Hubbard was inconsistent. It merely presents the two inconsistent statements that Hubbard wrote. There is no reason why the cited statements from Hubbard should be removed. Vivaldi17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, while I will respond to your comment, I shall also, on talk pages, respond to other editors questions as well. When I state my answer, which is obviously my opinion, you are free to understand it, ignore it or otherwise. Its my OR, yep, that's exactly right, thanks for wikipedifying a discussion page response :) Oh, by the way, I won't put my OR into articles if you don't put your OR into articles, how does that sound? The phrase, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistant .." is OR. Terryeo20:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It is odd that you respond to me here, but then accuse me of not discussing this exact issue on my own user page. In any case. You removed a section of text in the main article that was properly cited and attributed to LRH and then claimed that your reason of doing so was because you were presenting "what Hubbard meant". So you removed cited text and replaced it with something that explains what you think that "Hubbard meant". You did this in the main article, and I believe that is original research on your part to remove certain Hubbard citations that are inconvenient to your POV, because you claim you don't think Hubbard meant what he wrote. And I'm not talking about your actions on the discussion page, I'm talking about your actions to the main article -- which is what you were talking about when you wrote "I have presented what Hubbard meant". Because you presented what you think "Hubbard meant" in the main article by deleting a cited quote from Hubbard himself. That seems disingenous to me, and I suspect other editors would suspect the same thing. Vivaldi06:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I did say it that way. You do have a valid point because I did say it that way. There is a more accurate way to state it. The book which ChrisO cites "The Pheonix Lectures" has that exact quote "those were heavy thetans man". So on one hand Hubbard says "A thetan has no mass except by consideration" and on the other hand Hubbard says "those were heavy thetans man". 1.5 ounces is heavy, according to Hubbard. But he says that it is possible a thetan might consider that he has mass and weighs something. Does this communicate better? The difficulty I have with the article, frankly, is ChrisO's insertion of "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistant about ..." because there is no inconsistancy. Hubbard says a thetan might weigh anything he postualates he weighs. And then he gives an example of a study finding that thetans average 1.5 ounces in weight. Its a contextual thing and not obvious until you have the book chapter before you. Terryeo13:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo -- Your explanation does not fly. I removed the part that said "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistent...". I commented about that fact in my edit summary and I wrote here above that the statement was removed. You still removed the information even after I removed the text that said, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistent about". Your difficulty with ChrisO's insertion is completely irrelevant to my point, because it wasn't in the article when you chose to remove the text about Hubbard. Vivaldi06:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as the ChrisO statement, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistent..." statement is not included in the article, I'm ok with that portion. Terryeo06:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Uncited statements
This idea is you know, understandable isn't it? "willed themselves into existence" is uncited. "Omnicognizant" is uncited. The tone of the article says clearly, "I refuse to understand the concept and am going to disperse the article all I can". I'm not making anyone right or anyone wrong, but by golly, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. If a statement is uncited then it shouldn't be in the article. "Thetans willed themselves into existence?" Nah, that's uncited. I know you guys don't understand this idea or you wouldn't put stuff like that in the article. So what can I do? Well, I can remove uncited statements and, eventually, hope the article presents the subject as Scientology states it to be. Then, maybe, possibly, some reader can understand what is meant by "thetan" even if editors here refuse to understand the meaning of the term. Terryeo11:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
They're cited, just not from a work of L. Ron's. That makes it a secondary source, which is acceptable, unless you can prove that Hubbard did not ever make similar statements. Why don't you take a look at the source and find out where those phrases come from? Tenebrous14:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, there is nothing in the article that tells me Hubbard said that. And there is nothing in the article that say that the Church of Scientology has the position that "Thetans or Omnicognizant". Why is this an issue at all? If you want to present your great evil of Scientology by bringing someone's published opinion into the article, your duty is to find where, "John Smith says that Hubbard said (in a secret converstation in 1942) "Thetans are omnicognizant". Hey, go for it. I'll stick with the widely published, easily available publications which Hubbard is verified to have said and you go ahead and stick with your hidden, secret, hard to find things. No problem. Terryeo16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone continues to revert those two sentences which are JUST PLAIN WRONG. First of all, Hubbard didn't say and didn't mean that (my opinion). But, if someone DID understand Hubbard to say or to mean either of those things, then the article needs to present the secondary source as the source which says that "Hubbard meant ....". At present it is not that way. WHY MUST YOU ALL MISREPRESENT the subject? Why? What need is there for a misrepresentation? And you all do it with no discussion, you revert many times, Wikipediatrix asks questions in her edit summary without reading the discussion page (apprarently). What is this nonesense? Why aren't you all following Wikipedia guidelines? Do you have to present these subjects from only one POV? What is wrong with presenting them as they were meant, for example, this idea, "thetan". What is the opposition to presenting what the author of the term meant by it? Terryeo00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That weight experiment
The article says, "However, in a lecture series later published as a book, he claimed that a thetan had a small but measurable amount of mass:"From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago--a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments.."
And quotes a study that measures 6 bodies before and after death. I have that book, it does not actually document that is the study which Hubbard meant. And the study, if you read the link to it, it is not very well done either. 1940s stuff. 6 bodies. And even in that context the results are not uniform. The doctor speaks of weight gain and loss over a period of time. Its like trivial, man. It doesn't actually make Hubbard wrong, it doesn't make him right. Measuring the weight of 6 bodies at death in the 1940s with a balance scale? Its not a very good study, you have to admit that. Why put this kind of thing in the article. It doesn't make anything right and it doesn't make anything wrong. It adds nothing but a dispersive element to the article. Is that why you people keep sticking it back in, even though it is a very very poor study and done long years before good measurement techniques were developed? What's the point? Why fill the article with trivia? Terryeo18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
heh, Jimmy is proving himself to be just as "creative" as Terryeo with his edit summaries. He states that Snopes.com is "Unencyclopedic in my opinion", so he removes not only the material whose source is Snopes, he removes the embarrassing quote from Hubbard's own lecture series -- which are really Hubbard's very own words! How do we know this? Why, because they were published by that Very Reputable Publisher, Bridge Publications.... -- Antaeus Feldspar01:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there are any "embarressing quotes" Feldspar. I'm not opposed to any of the stuff in the article, but if we are going to include the study which weighs 6 bodies before and after death and has too little of a database to draw a conclusion and has conflicting informations even within that small sample, then we should at least document it. I have the same book ChrisO has, apparently because on exactly the page he specifies, I find that information. But, no where in the book does it say where that information came from. No where I can find, anyway. So we have a very poor study with no real conclusions which is itself not actually referenced (by Hubbard's words) but only referenced by ChrisO's original research whereby he thinks that is what Hubbard was talking about. I'm not opposed to that, but if we are going to include it, we should have a good deal of contextual information around it because by itself, it says very little. Terryeo04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In these edits[5], I corrected an innacuracy which presented a citation to show that LRH claimed thetas had weight. In the actual given, LRH only referred to an experiment by a doctor. That explains my change. I took out "later published in a book" accidentally but on second thought it wasn't really necessary to state that so I took it out. If anyone else thinks that is important to keep in the article that the lecture was later published in a book, then go ahead and put that bit back in, but realize it is trivial and interely irrelevant to the subject: Thetan. Now, Wikipediatrix please explain why you reverted my edits. --JimmyT13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In light of your behavior elsewhere on Wikipedia, I see no reason to enter into discussion with you, because you have fiercely and hatefully insulted everyone from Jimbo Wales to any editor who happens to disagree with you. When I revert an edit without a stated reason, it goes without saying that my reasons echo the reasons for the previous editor's edit. wikipediatrix13:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you reverted my edits, you have to explain it regardless of my behaviour elsewhere. My god, when are they going to ban me so I don't have to deal with stupid people. --JimmyT14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And even the most brainless is the one wastes his time engrossed in niggling little personal frays with an unknown and dedicated enemy who only goes by a pseudonym of JimmyT. You, File:Glenstollery.gif, are one of the most trivial kooks of the century, congratulations!! I'm going to archive our little chat at Terryeo's RfC and use it forever to show how much of a pompous idiot you actually are, so stupid you can't even see for it yourself that you look like a absolute airhead. --JimmyT15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You are now the arbiter and interpreter of LRH's written works? No, I'm sorry, your change only serves to introduce your POV, and the person starting a revert war is yourself. Tenebrous13:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I reverted JimmyT's following edit «However, in a lecture, he referred to an experiment that found some thetans had a small but measurable amount of mass» for the following reason: Hubbard first claimed that a thetan had a small mass (along with other characteristics), then went on to explain how we know that specific mass by referring to the study. I find it amusing that Terryeo dismiss the experiment of measuring the mass of a thetan as being poor (he is certainly right about this, although Hubbard didn't find a problem with this particular experiment it would seem), all the while Terryeo finds no problem about the other characteristics "pure static", "no wavelength", which are supported by no study at all, let alone poor ones. In any case, what matters here, we are just quoting Hubbard. Raymond Hill13:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OK that explains it. But what doesn't make sense is the citation given does not show it. Wikipediatrix is dumb, Tenebrous is crazy, and you Raymond Hill, I guess you're just skeptical. :) --JimmyT14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I just knew it ! The weight experiment thing which ChrisO just had to have in there, which was critically important to include, which provided hours of amusement, editing, counter-editing and interpretation and confusion. That experiment. Now, after 3 paragrahs (about 1/5 th the total article's lenght) those 3 paragraphs say almost nothing at all, either about "thetan" or about "weight loss at death" or about "scientology" or about "hubbard" or about "the pheonix lectures" or about Wikipedia editor's ability to write good articles. Will someone delete that now? Terryeo04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about, Terryeo? It's not even possible to identify what section of the article you're babbling about, since no section of the article matches the description you give. -- Antaeus Feldspar14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This link, Thetan#Thetan_in_Scientology_doctrine begins just after its second paragraph with: "However, in a lecture series later.." and that section concludes with, "MacDougall's experiments are generally not regarded as having any sort of scientific validity." All of that says the information is hardly worth noting. Yet the article dedicates nearly 1/5th of its space to a series of statements which taken together mean almost nothing. It wasn't a very valid experiment. Its results were inconclusive. It is not completely clear whether Hubbard was making a joke or not. Why introduce a reader to information of little help to him toward understanding the idea which "thetan" stands for? Terryeo20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've explained your argument more clearly, I can identify for you where its flaw is. "MacDougall's experiments are generally not regarded as having any sort of scientific validity" does not lead logically to the conclusion "MacDougall's experiments are not worth noting in this regard". They certainly are worth noting in this regard, as they provide substantiating evidence for a prominent POV on Hubbard's work -- namely, that it has no scientific validity either. Hubbard was very fond of pronouncing things to be "scientific fact" but there is little indication that he actually understood what the process of science was; when he refers (in all apparent seriousness) to "experiments" generally regarded as laughable as if it was good scientific research, whose results backed up his claims about thetans, that is strongly suggestive of the hypothesis that he neither understood how to conduct scientific research, nor even how to recognize good scientific research and distinguish it from crackpottery trying to put on the garments of science. The same is true of Hubbard explaining in A History Of Man just where Piltdown Man fits into the chronology of man's evolution, and going into detail about Piltdown Man's habits -- and not even making any attempt to revise his work for accuracy when Piltdown Man was proven to be a hoax! It strongly supports the hypothesis that all of Hubbard's "research" was simply Hubbard making things up and proclaiming "this is scientific fact!" You ask "Why introduce a reader to information of little help to him toward understanding the idea which "thetan" stands for?" The answer, of course, is that we wish to communicate a full picture of what a "thetan" is -- including the fact that many believe it to be a non-existent figment of Hubbard's imagination, and including the good reasons they have for thinking so. -- Antaeus Feldspar23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
When does a thetan come into existence, and what is the relationship between theta and a thetan? Is a thetan "made up of" theta. I'm asking this way because I see a similarity inbetween theta and the Gnostic idea of logos and the spirit as an emanation of logos. Or did Hubbard not think this far? --BirgerLangkjer17:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
An excellent question, BirgerLangkjer, and my main object to ChrisO's editing as he did, introducing a brand - new idea and word, "theta being" in an inappropriate place which leads to misunderstanding. "Thetan" is a word which means "individual spirit" or "individual soul", that is, an individual. "Theta" is another word and has another meaning. Theta means thought, it is a Scientology word which means "thought". So, to answer your question, if an individual person can be said to have a relationship with thought (we think thoughts, such as, 'I'll have a cheeseburger') then, that is exactly and precisely the relationship a "thetan" has with "theta". Theta is thought. A thetan is an individual. When a thetan comes into existence he might think a thought or he might not. Hubbard spells out that the first action of an individual is assume a viewpoint. An example might be, "there is motion" or, "there exist other things besides myself". These are my own examples, but Hubbard says, "the first action is to assume a point of view". Does that answer your question? I can do some quotes from Hubbard if that would be helpful, or try to answer directly, whichever you prefer. Terryeo22:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Some sources for all this would have been nice. Without them, nothing you just typed does any of the editors any good. wikipediatrix00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing to respond to your question. Perfectly willing to. I do understand that you have said that you do not understand what I have typed. I have tried before to respond to you. You say it sounds like "applesauce" so I am going to have to ask, what are you asking? Is it the two words "theta" and "thetan" or something else ? Terryeo06:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't ask any question. I didn't say anything about not understanding what you typed. I didn't say anything about "applesauce". I said "Some sources for all this would have been nice. Without them, nothing you just typed does any of the editors any good". This is why communication with you is irritating and impossible. wikipediatrix17:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. BirgerLangkjer asked a question. I responded to his question. So far so good I hope? Then Wikipediatrix, you asked me something, indicating that I did not supply sources, verifications, etc for what I said. So far we are eye to eye, is that right? Then, When I asked you what part of what I said do you want information about, you judge my response to be: "This very morning, in fact, my suggestion that Terryeo provide sources for his specious information was met with an string of utter and complete non-sequiturs" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Wikipediatrix? I asked you what part of what I said are you asking about and you tell me, (not here of course where I could reply to you) that my answer is "a complete non-sequitur?" Is that the situation as you read it, Wikipediatrix. Terryeo22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
'theta:' energy peculiar to life or a thetan which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it; natural creative energy of a thetan which he has free to direct toward survival goals, especially when it manifests itself as high tone, constructive communications. See also thetan.
'thetan:' the person himself-not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The term was coined to eliminate any possible confusion with older, invalid concepts. It comes from the Greek letter Theta (Theta), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also Thetan, or “theta to the nth degree,” meaning unlimited or vast.
Neither of those definitions appears to be very clear to me. I'm not sure whether taking that definition from the glossary page would clear anything up either (in fact at least the first part of the definition is already used in the article). I'm not sure how this quite fits in with what Terryeo is saying above either. Yay unto the Chicken08:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Thetan and we pronounce it Thee-tan. Only misguided outsiders would ever say 'Thay-tan', as that means roughly "he who was robbed".86.42.219.2815:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Glossary links
Note that there are at least two online Scientology glossaries, sometimes with different definitions:
[6][7]. (Note that the first one is titled The Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary [emp added].)
As a point of information, a Scientology jargon word is usually defined several times by Hubbard in different lectures. "Thetan" for example. I think there are 4 definitions in the article right now. The definitions do not conflict with each other, but tell different aspects of the idea. Basically it means spirit, but goes on to tell of some particular and specific aspects of spirit which Hubbard found to be realistic as he went about establishing procedures to rehabilitate an individual spirit. Terryeo16:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Those are both perfectly good, official glossaries. The idea, Thetan is the Scientology word for Spirit is a complete idea. And probably sufficent for readers. But Scientology does nothing but concern itself with the spirit and found it useful to define certain aspects of the spirit and found it could. So we find things like "immortal" and "no mass, no wavelength but by consideration or postulate". You know, things that most of us probably take for granted anyway. Christianity holds that the spirit is immortal, doesn't it? And who has ever come up with, "man's spirit has weight?" These further definitions do say things, but probably most people assume those characteristics when they hear the word, "spirit." (my opinion). Terryeo19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Body weight experiment
I'm starting a new discussion on the reference in this article to the weight experiment; 'he pointed to a study that implied a thetan had a small but measurable amount of mass'. Does anyone have the transcript of this lecture from 'The Phoenix Lectures'? I have listened to this once and nowhere do I recall the lecturer implying a thetan had weight, so if anyone has the quote I'd like to see it. From recollection, it was about the thetan plus mind having mass, not the thetan, the mass contained in the mind like baggage being carried around. This reference needs to be checked and if needed corrected. Further, the idea of a thetan having mass is inconsistent with all other original references I have read or heard on this subject, the definitive source being Scientology Axiom 1; 'Life is basically a static. Definition: a life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.' --Andrew eagles19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Two bits about thetans and weight that you might look for:
Fundamentals of Thought:
"In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is
simply a finer, higher level physical energy. The test of
this is conclusive in that a thetan 'mocking up' (creating)
mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can
increase the body mass and, by casting them away again, can
decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and
an increase of as much as 30 pounds, actually measured on
scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by
creating 'mental energy'."
Phoenix Lectures:
"A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has
practically no wavelength. Actually a thetan is in a very, very
small amount of mass. From some experiments conducted about
fifteen or twenty years ago - a thetan weighed about 1.5
ounces! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these
experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining
any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that
the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces and
some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.)"
(Apparently it's around page 146 or 147 of some plaintext transcript.)
for the latter, page 147, chapter 13, Axioms of The Phoenix Lectures copyright 1968, 1969 by The Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization United States (West Temple Street, Hollywood) ISBN 08840400062.Terryeo13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks, that gives me a place to start looking. It is clear to me that if this is an accurate transcription of the 'Axioms' lecture given in context then it doesn't marry up with the many other original references to thetans and should be treated as such. No doubt I will look into this and find a definitive answer. --Andrew eagles23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
He ends with, "those were heavy thetans, man" and he doesn't provide the source of the study. That is ChrisO's imaginitive reasoning which may be correct in this case. But in any event, the study only had 6 cases that it measured before and after death, the weight change wasn't clear and happened at a single moment and there were other factors that made the thing less than clear cut. I believe he was making a joke there. Like, "can you believe this!?" Terryeo10:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
some epistemological questions...
1. If Thetans are "very, very close to being a pure Static" and have "practically no wavelength", then how can they possibly have any effect on humans at all, and how are they responsible for all of mankind's mental and physical ills? 2. Does Hubbard provide any real sources for his claim that "a doctor" found that Thetans weigh between 1.5 and 2 ounces? (This actually seems extremely heavy for a pure static with no wavelength!) Why - and how - did he weigh the patients, bed and all? 3. Given what the Church of Scientology has said, and continues to say, about the nature of Thetans, how exactly does the Auditing process remove them when they cling to humans and become Body thetans? I ask these questions not to engage in idle argument over these clearly unscientific notions, but because their unquestioned presence in these articles comes very close to giving validation to unsubstantiated medical advice, which may necessitate the placement of a Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer on these and similar Dianetics/Scientology articles. wikipediatrix18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In the book itself Hubbard does not specify the study which he says measured the loss of weight at death to be 1.5 or 2.0 ounces.Terryeo09:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1. The answer is in the Scientology Axioms. 'Axiom 1. Life is basically a static. Definition: a life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive. Axiom 2. The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions. Axiom 3. Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.'
2. This is not in dispute see discussion above, in any case the reference to weighing bodies made by Hubbard was a humorous one, and not made as a claim in support of his own research.
3. Given the axioms above and that processes in Scientology can change considerations and postulates, I think it is fairly clear how this comes about. This may at first seem esoteric, but the material you refer to on 'body thetans' is confidential and aimed at those who already have an intimate knowledge of theta and thetans. Scientology does not give medical advice, it is a religion, and 'body thetans' are a spiritual phenomena, again nothing to do with medical advice. --Andrew eagles23:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I was looking for a literal and scientific explanation, not one in Scientological axiomatic terms. And secondly, I see absolutely no reason to believe that Hubbard intended his comments as "humorous". Finally, how can Dianetics/Scientology not be medical advice when they plainly and openly state that Body Thetans are the cause of all mental and physical disease? Read this for a LONG (and sourced) list of medical cures that Scientology has claimed. And what about Downtown Medical and Purification Rundown? wikipediatrix00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology does not say anything about body thetans. The manner in which Xenu.net and Clambake.org write, they make it appear that it does, but it does not. The article which I completely disagree with and have said so there, about that subject likewise is misleading. The Church of Scientology does not make any statement about body thetans. Terryeo11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with your clambake link is the same as with many clambake links. That one purports to be about physical ills but when I trace the links it turns out there is another subject introduced that has nothing to do with physical ills, but is yet another implication that Hubbard didn't have anything worthwhile to say. Terryeo10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you don't like the page because it doesn't present Hubbard in a good light and you can't refute it. Do you deny that Downtown Medical has anything to do with medical matters? wikipediatrix13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate that you read my reply, Wikipediatrix, there are no other words. I meant my comment to mean just what it says, that is, The link you thoughtfully provide leads to a list of medical conditions which Clambake presents that Scientology says it cures. However, upon clicking through those links, Clambake presents me (in the cases I clicked through) with something different than they say they present. In other words the starting link is something like, "Scientology says it cures "this link .. diabetes" (or something) but when I click it, then click the following link and get to Clambakes presentation of where, exactly and in what context Scientology says that it cures Diabetes, I get to a long page of opinion, evaluation and anything but Scientology's actual words. Terryeo22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Scientology does not make any comment whatsoever about "body thetans." It is very easy to think they do, but they don't. If you look carefully at the document which is the source of that term, you will find it is not created by the Church of Scientology nor by L. Ron Hubbard. I'm willing to discuss the origination of that document, but it does not represent the stance of the Church. About Downtown Medical, this is the first I've read of that organization. I see at this time right now, that article states the false: "an effort to remove drugs from themselves and from their body thetans." That's utterly and completely untrue and misleading. I know the Purification rundown, I know it intimently and well. At no point in any of the technology behind it does it mention "body thetans". Nor does the purification rundown propose to cure anyone's ills. I can say only what others who make attestations after doing the purification rundown say, you have a lot more energy afterwards. But haven't Europeans done health spas with saunas for generations for the same reason? Terryeo22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The question you asked me, as I understand it to have been asked was: "Do I deny that Downtown Medical has anything to do with medical matters?" My answer is and was, "I never heard of Downtown Medical until you asked me about it, I clicked the link and read about it. The question from which your question formed (trying to be through here for you, Wikipediatrix) was: "you don't like the page because it doesn't present Hubbard in a good light..?" My answer to that is, "I just want accuracy." Your earlier question which brought these questions was, "how can Dianetics/Scientology not be medical advice when they plainly and openly state that Body Thetans are the cause of all mental and physical disease?" My answer to that is, "Scientology does not use the term body thetans." My further comment is, Xenu and Clambake present the idea that Scientology does use that term, but scientology does not publish that term. Terryeo22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You might acknowledge that I went to the effort of responding to your series of questions, rather than attempting to refute my honest responses to your questions by stating your belief. Since your position is so clearly stated, please quit accusing me of doing things which I have no hand in, such as presenting that I am in some way associated with those websites presentation of "body thetans" and "curing ills" through a "purification rundown". :) Terryeo23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Seemed to me, also that Hubbard was being humorous and not seriously expecting his students to swollow the study. The study only had 6 cases, it wasn't a very good study, he was making a joke. Terryeo09:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there annotated versions of Hubbard's works that mark the joking parts? Heavy thetans, joke. Frieght trains on Venus, joke. R2-45, joke. Implant stations on Venus and Mars, joke? Incident II, joke? Full exteriorization, joke? I presume that you'll be able to provide a cite if you change or remove something because "Hubbard was just joking". AndroidCat23:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, there are no evaluated, annoted versions of Hubbard which tell you what he meant by what he said. Unless you like your tea twice stirred and prefer wwww.xenu.net to www.scientology.org you will have to work through every creation of Hubbard to glean what he meant. Rare will be the Scientologist who will tell you what he meant and if he does, it will be his opinion only and no one else's and he'll let you know that, too. I'm not about to put my opinion into the articel, not only is it against WP:NPOV but it is one opinion only. But you comment points to the trouble we're having AndroidCat. Different editors understand differently. This should not surprise anyone and is why we have discussion pages. Terryeo23:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in terms that use not Scientology jargon, the first element of understanding would be along the lines: That which is aware that it is aware. If a person directs their attention to a thought, that which has made the decision to direct attention is thetan. Once you get the idea of thetan then you can begin assigning qualities to that. To understand the idea of "thetan" it is simply that which can direct awareness to a thought, to a touch or to anything. Call it the center of attention if you like. The core of awareness, whatever makes sense. If a person takes some time and thinks of a memory, examines the memory, gets the picture to become pretty real. Then whatever is looking at the picture, that is a thetan. Umm, this is not a lecture, but an attempt to be helpful. Terryeo09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "body thetans" Well, no. Actualy Scientology does not make any statement about "body thetans" and that article is based on an unpublished (by scientology) document. It could be considered rumor or something, but is not the word of Hubbard nor the word of the Church of Scientology. The only source for that article is not any Scientology publication, it is a sort of rumor about a Scientology publication. Terryeo09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Haven't checked Terryeo's sources, but if these are "reuptable" sources, then I'm Donald Duck. "More reputable" just doesn't cut it.Fossa00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I have run into this situation before. I state that the Church takes no position on something, various "hostile" websites state the Church does take a position on it and presents their evidence that it does so. The Church does not take a position on "Xenu" nor on "Body Thetans." Any source of in formation which you find is unpublished by the Church of Scientology. Because they neither publish, nor responde when queried, nor will any OT in good standing speak of those subjects in the manner you wish for, you revert back to "hostile" to Scientology websites to read and understand what you should think about those things. Then you compare my information to your "source" (hostile website) and know you're right and I'm wrong. heh. Nonetheless, the Church of Scientology does not take a position on those issues, any information you have on those issues has no primary source of information, the information available to you is rumor. Terryeo02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Any reason WHY you don't consider Fishman, Spaink, Heidal-Lund, Christman, etc. to be more reputable than Terryeo? Other than just because you say so? wikipediatrix00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
AFAIR Terryeo has presented no sources at all, and he simply wants to get the rumors spread by the anti-Cult activists erased. I agree with him, not because he presents a more credible source, but the sources you present are simply useless, as they come from self-admitted opponents of Scientology, who have a track record of distorting facts by exaggerating Scientology's alleged dangers and ignore any evidence in favor of Scientology. They are as useless sources as is the Church of Scientology itself, when it comes to the effeniency of its practices. And, no, I would not source an article about African Americans based on KKK sources (even if they might actually be true once in every blue moon), nor would I source the reliability of Volvos based on research conducted by BMW. --Fossa18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to point out the obvious here. Obviously I am an individual, unsupported by a team of lawyers, editors who check my spelling, etc. etc. I give you my opinion when asked. I state what is in certain books when asked and cite them including page number, ISBN, title, date of publication, etc. I am not in any Wikipedia article nor have I published except on Wikipedia. All of the sources which Wikipediatrix, in her wisdom has chose to compare me to have at least some of those resources. When I respond to a question, it is entirely up to the respondee how he or she views my response. On the other hand, doing as Wikipediatrix is doing, is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy because it is an attempt to bring a fellow editor into disrepute. If Wikipediatrix has something to say, there are various forums available to her. The most immeditate would be WP:PAIN, there is arbitration, there are Rfc's which she is free to initiate and last but not least, *gasp* she could by bolly golly, speak with me directly. But attempting to create editor agreement about an editor by comparing his edits with public websites (which in this case I mostly don't find to be accurate websites) isn't in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia nor with Wikipedia Policy. You have a nice evening, Wikipediatrix :) Terryeo01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I was speaking of your sources and your arguments, not you personally. I thought that was obvious. If you feel my criticisms of your edits are unfounded, feel free to state why, but I will continue to voice my disagreement with your edits as I please. wikipediatrix02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo states «The Church of Scientology does not say anything about body thetans»: it's a core belief taught at the highest levels of Scientology. That doesn't mean the belief doesn't exist. It has leaked enough as of now — thanks to countless former members — that clearly it is a core belief of Scientology that "body thetans" are responsible for illnesses (mental or physical). We must not forget that the Church of Scientology sued Keith Henson after he posted a part of the "secret" levels which says it is possible to cure physical illnesses by auditing out "body thetans" (see Tilman Hausherr's essay). Many former members also confirm the "body thetans" belief. Raymond Hill15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I said that. It would be more accurate to say, "The Church of Scientology does not publish to the public, anything about body thetans." That's an accurate statement. I used the syntax I did within the context of a conversation, but more accurately, it does not publish to the public. Its perfectly okay with me of anyone or everyone spends all of their time with the subject, your time is your own and you are free to do as you wish. However, Because the Church does not publish to the public and does not present that information, I submit it is inaccurate to present any portion of it as a "core belief" or even, any belief at all. The Church is completely upfront with their beliefs, they state them outright. While I will happily attempt to take anyone through the reasoning of it, an encyclopedic presentation of Scientology is not an expose' presentation of Scientology. Therefore, Wikipedia should present Scientology instead of editors being swayed by stolen (and possibly doctored) documentation. Besides which, that stuff is full of specialized jargon. The Class VIII "assists" lecture which keeps getting cited, a person would spend 2 to 4 years studying before having access to that one. Terryeo16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Church is not completely upfront with their beliefs: you know perfectly well that portions of their beliefs come only with reaching higher levels. The Church has stated this themselves. And while I understand that you regard any information unflattering to the Church as an "exposé", that in no way indicates that we should stick to only what the Church says about itself. That's not going to happen. wikipediatrix17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you actually wish to discuss the OT Levels and I'm willing to but I don't know them except to know what is publically presented, and to have understood the reach of such auditing within the larger catagory of what auditing is, how it works, what results it achieves and how that would apply to any auditing action. You might also wish to discuss with me about people "reading what they want and forming their own opinion" but I think I have stated my position on that. Of course, feel free. My interest is in introducing the articles so that a reader can understand the subject the article is about. I'm not interested in preventing controversy nor am I especially interested in "slanting" controversy. I would just like good information to appear, first things first and controversy after the reader understands the subject. That's all. I make the statement, a person's beliefs are going to be pretty much constant and are stated widely. Scientology believes the human spirit is immortal and that abilities once lost can be rehabilitated. I don't believe anyone from any level of Scientology would dispute that. Beginners would have skepticism. The OT levels are just specific past moments of one kind or another, specific past moments of travail, difficulty, trouble. Auditing such moments is what Dianetics and Scientology does. No matter what terminology is used the auditing just follows procedure and it is similar procedure from A to Z. Terryeo17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the existing intro is adequate. I just spread out the text into two separate paragraphs and made the quotes a tabled list to make it more readable. wikipediatrix17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's fine about the Blue Sky reference, except it is completely unclear if Jon Atack says that Hubbard said, or if Jon Atack says the situation is as stated. It is confusing about who is saying it because it is not an actual quote. Then, after it is confusing about who is saying what, then it is confusing because "omnicognizant" could mean anything from, "always aware first of self" to "aware of all things all of the time (godlike)" and so that's why I did the blockquote which isn't right, apparently. If we are going to cite Jon and what he says, can we be clear that it is he who says it and what he says? Terryeo12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record (I am not gonna change this, because the whole Scientology series is fraught with such non-encyclopedic, non-scientific stuff and there are enough people, who will revert any sensible edits): It's of course not "fine" to source a factual claim about Hubbard through a book that is virulent anti-Scientology and that does not meet normal scientific standards. That's like sourcing biological theories of evolution on some creationist literature or, again like sourcing Volvo reliability scores on research published by BMW.--Fossa13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That's so true. At this time I am trying to get that information which Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky states, get it to be clearly cited. As it stands it almost reads like Hubbard is babbling. Terryeo21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, what kind of nonsense (a value judgement BTW) Hubbard ever emitted, what matters (or rather: what should matter in a encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is not) is the credibility of the sources. And Atack's credibility is, well, how should I put it gently, non-existent. Fossa23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good question, Wikipedia is some sort of fairly new way to broadcast common sense (which may or may not be nonsense), but which professes to be an encyclopedia and which is considered by a majority of its readers and editors as an encylopedia.
Would I be willing to contribute credible sources on this article? No, not really, I find the lemma "Thetan" ludicrous (not worthy of an encyclopedia, that is) and, what is worse, I would not want to contribute with any effort to a projet that does not share very basic scientific standards. And I am neither inclined to work on article, where some zealot would erase my work. I'd rather publish it on a credible platform. Fossa02:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This? Lemma: "A word treated in a glossary" def.3 or "A subsidiary proposition used to demonstrate a principal proposition?" def.1 I see it as a word treated in a glossary but ChrisO edited the article to treat it as the latter. Thus we have almost all of this talk page filled with a simple disagreement of which Lemma definition is used. Terryeo13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how you justify this rather sweeping statement. Yes, Atack is a strong critic of Scientology, but how does this affect his factual accuracy? Do you think it's not possible to be a critic and an accurate reporter at the same time? -- ChrisO23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Atack is not a "critic" of Scientology, but -- mildly put -- an opponent, who puts forth all sorts of far-fetched arguments to discredit Scientology. His arguments are usually as credible as are L Ron Hubbard's. Thus, he's not a credible source. Fossa02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Your argument ("Thus, he's not a credible source") is a self-referencing generalization.
Scientology did sue because of the book. It sued the publisher on copyright violations (lost), it sued the author (but not the publisher!) on contents (won the removal on one single paragraph [8] in pre-trial, thanks to a procedural win, i.e. the merits of the defense never made it to trial). The paragraph is still in the book. [9] This suggests that the book is pretty good on the facts. --Tilman16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any objective basis for making that claim? Do there exist any independent reliable and reputable sources that indicate that John Atack is not credible? If so, then I suggest you report your findings here and provide citations that are verifiable. Vivaldi02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, you are correct, this is "my point of view". By the way: do you have a independent "reliable and reputable" source that demonstrates that Waldorf and Statler (of the Muppet Show) are not reputable sources on the question of youth culture? Do you have a reputable source that shows that Vlade Garginovic is not the greatest NBA player of all times? Do you have a reputable source that shows that I am not the most handsome person on Earth? Fossa03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It is more than your POV. It is your Original Research. I can find a number of people that cite Jon Atack's work on the topic of Scientology. He is clearly someone with a substantial amount of knowledge in the field and he has provided verifiable references himself in his work. So given that at least some people think Atack is reputable and reliable, it is now up to you to provide sources that discredit him. Your other questions here are silly, because nobody has ever published a claim that you are the most handsome person on earth, and nobody has ever claimed that Waldorf and Statler are respected authors on the subject of "youth culture", and nobody has published the claim that Garginovic is the greatist NBA player. If a reliable and reputable source has published those silly claims, you are free to bring them up in their various articles on Wikipedia. Good luck. Vivaldi20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Really "you can find a number of people that cite Jon Atack's work". That's just great. I can find a number of people who cite Brothers Grimm's fairytales. Does that mean it's legitimate to claim in an encyclopedic article that snow is produced according to Grimms by an old women waving her pillows in the sky? Now can you find me one, single reputable source (peer-reviewed journal article, scientific monograph, etc.) which cites Attak as a secondary source? Fossa11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History; The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions; The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements; Misunderstanding Cults etc etc etc. There are no doubt more but I don't have access to full-text databases right now. But really, your complaints about Atack are nothing more than your own personal dislike of that source - you haven't presented a single argument other than "I don't believe Atack is credible." What you believe is irrelevant. It's what you can substantiate that counts around here, and right now you haven't bothered to substantiate anything you've said. Or is it the case that sociologists are somehow magically exempted from normal requirements to back up their assertions with evidence? -- ChrisO16:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not a matter of "dismissal" but a matter of understanding what Atack says. My post below spells out the misunderstandings he presents on that page which the article references. He didn't understand what Hubbard presented. He then presented what he thought that Hubbard presented and put his spin onto Hubbard's ideas. That he is published makes him quoteable, but if he is quoted then his quotes should simply be attributed to him, that WP:V. Terryeo20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"Youth culture" is a subject, not a question. Waldorf and Statler are fictional characters and probably not reputable sources for anything. Vlade Garginovic doesn't get any google hits, so I can't say anything about him, but Michael Jordan is generally considered to be the greatest NBA player of all time, and that could easily be supported. And there's a number of sources that rate the attractiveness of people (celebrities, mostly); I'm sure that you haven't made People Magazine's list of the Most Beautiful People recently, and while that's not the only authority on the subject, I sincerely doubt that any reputable source has claimed that you are, in fact, the most handsome person on Earth. Anything else you want to waste our time with? Tenebrous07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems an unjustifiably relativist point of view. Surely the key criterion is whether whatever he says is verifiable? It's true of course that Atack has a strong point of view but that doesn't by itself make what he says unbelievable. He's fairly scrupulous about referencing his claims, which makes it easier to check them independently. To give you one example from my own personal experience, Hubbard claims that he sank one or maybe two Japanese submarines during the war. Atack, citing Hubbard's naval record, says he didn't sink any. I checked that by getting my own copy of Hubbard's naval record. I also got hold of postwar British and American assessments of Japanese naval losses, compiled from the captured archives of the Imperial Japanese Navy (a source which neither Atack nor Hubbard seem to have been aware of - understandably, since it's fairly obscure). Both sources confirmed that Atack was right and Hubbard was definitively wrong.
I'll admit that that kind of fact-checking can take some time to do, but I think the point is clear - you can't simply dismiss everything a source says because you have a personal dislike for that source. -- ChrisO08:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Jon Atack's Blue Sky book is a reference but as you used it in the article, ChrisO, it was not well referenced. First of all, it was unclear that those words which he said were his and they should be. In an page full of new words and concepts, an attribution to yet another author should be clear enough so a reader can understand whose words he is reading or reading about. When Atack's words are referenced, it is appropriate to make it clear that it is his words which are being quoted, being summarized, etc. My arguement is not that his work appears nor that his book is cited, but that the article makes clear its citation. In this case I am arguing about the form of that citation. I earlier argued about De Wolf's paragraph as well, but now it is pretty clear who is saying that paragraph. Terryeo13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the False Statements from A Piece of Blue Sky
The article presently references a chapter of Jon Atack's book. The funniest line in the chapter (my opinion) is: "OTs usually believe they are influencing events through psychic power." In many of his statements he uses the weasel worded, "Scientologists believe" which is his opinion, and completely unsubstantiatable. He could use, "The Church of Scientology states...." but instead uses the generality which can't be checked on, "Scientologists believe." Some examples from that chapter:
Scientologists are willing to see their practice as a psychotherapy... (Scientology has never been presented as a therapy, but as a "rehabilitation of the human spirit through knowledge")
Scientologists use the term "neo-gnosticism" to describe such beliefs when they are allied to a supposed system of enlightenment. (of hundreds of Scientologists, none have ever used that word in my presence, nor I, nor church documents)
Scientologists believe that any problem, whether physical or mental, exists because there is some distortion in their perception of it (what is true for you is true, period. It would be past decisions that be the source of such problems.)
Some of his other statements are plain wrong:
False statement: "Homosexuality is outlawed."
False statement: "Thetans are all-knowing beings, and became bored because there were no surprises." (Hubbard does mention that thetans like a game, but he never attributes that they "become bored" without surprises)
False statement: (Scientology) .. "It glorifies personal wealth, and teaches people that they are not responsible for the condition of the world." (exactly the opposite, Scientology states that man is responsible for what man has created in the sense that until an individual is willing to be responsible for something, they can not become free of it)
False statement: "The Sea Org manages the Orgs, and, more loosely, the Missions. The Orgs and Missions have no hand in management, and are ill-informed of its activities." (Every Mission and Org manages itself though it gets some help from higher orgs which is included as part of its payment for use of symbols and copyrights)
False statement: "Certain tenets are essential to Scientology. The first is the assumption that Man is basically good (although this does not extend to critics of Scientology, even those who helped to create and sustain the movement. Those who criticize Scientology are irrevocably evil)." (Scientology holds that all men are basically good and trying to survive and this includes everyone, even those who are evil which Jon Atack mentions).
False statement: "The belief in reincarnation is also necessary for progress through even the early levels of Scientology." (what is true for you is true, period at all levels)
False statement: "These give Hubbard's explanation of the origin of life:
1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.
2. In the beginning and forever is the decision, and the decision is TO BE.
3. The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint."(this is Hubbard's presentation of the beginning of existence, not the beginning of life)
False statement: "Despite its claims to be nondenominational, and to welcome members of all religions, Scientology is essentially anti-Christian.Nor is Scientology compatible with the beliefs of. other faiths. A Buddhist, for example, could not truly be a Scientologist. The core of Buddhism is the disintegration of the self." (Buddhism's core is self-enlightenment, greater awareness, not disintegration. One's belief is not the issue in Scientology, one's knowledge is, Scientology means, 'study of knowledge')
misleading statement: "Scientology seeks to undo "other-determinism," and return the Thetan to "self-determinism," and eventually to "pan-determinism" where he acts for the good of all." (there is a bit of truth to that but "pan-determinism" means "for the good of self including others as well" For example Bill Gates served himself by marketing the Windows Operating System but served others as well)
misleading statement: "The Life Static is most usually called a Thetan." (this is a very abbreviated, partially stated and misleading definition that Hubbard once used in a specific context. An individual is refered to by the term, "thetan" and is stated to be static.)
Unattributable statement: "One universe ended and another began, and there have been many universes, each more solid and entrapping than the last." (doesn't sound like Hubbard but I don't know it all. Never heard of that one)Terryeo19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting original research Terryeo. You do realize that it is not the editor's job to determine the veracity of the statements that are quoted? We need merely to say that, "Jon Atack wrote, 'Such and such...'" and that is enough to make it verifiable. If you can find another source that has analyzed the Atack book, or another source that contradicts what Atack wrote, then you are free to quote them and cite them. I'm not going to respond to each of your points above, even though I disagree with your assessments on nearly every point, because it is a fruitless effort. Wiki editors and Wikipedia is not in the position to be fact checkers of "Truth". All we do is cite what other people write and say. Vivaldi19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR applies to every article on Wikipedia. It does not apply to discussion pages. Discussion belongs on disucssion pages. The reason I listed the out-points of Jon Atack's book is because the article does not cite his work well. His work is his work and should be attributed to him, but such attribution should do as the De Wolf paragraph does, attribute it to him so the source of information is known. Particularly, it is poor editing to have the article present "Hubbard said ...." when it is actually Jon Atack's opinion that "Hubbard said ...." I have changed the article so Jan Atack is attributed with what he presents several times but editors revert without discussion. This leaves a tiny little number at the end of a praragraph, the paragraph saying "Hubbard said ... (nonesense things). Perfectly OK, per WP:CITE that A Piece of Blue Sky is quoted and attributed or even discussed, but it should be attributed so a reader understands the article is no longer using primary source material, but is then using a secondary source of information and who and what source.Terryeo13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Read the Wikipedia Policies in their entirety, specfically, this and this. In addition, try to understand what these two sentences from NOR mean: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." (remember what it says in the link before that as a reputable source!). And "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." And the latter is excatly what Terryeo was doing. Now the Wikipedia rule book is pretty useless, but not as useless, as you try to frame it. Fossa11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I gave my analysis, I signed my post, I did it on a discussion page and I did it with the intent of causing an appropriate attribution within the article. I did not present my Original Research to the public in the article because I have read those policies and I understand. The citation as it stands in the article right now is very poor. The reader is going along, everything is from primary source except De Wolf's statement (which is properly attributed to De Wolf) and then we read, "Hubbard said ...." but the words are no longer Hubbard's published words. Instead they are Jon Atack's publication of what he thinks Hubbard said. That's the reason I posted it and that's what I hope to accomplish, a good citation per WP:CITE or at least per WP:V. Terryeo13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The source for the claim is cited immediately following the text. If you go to the footnotes it clearly shows that Atack is responsible for publishing the claim that "Hubbard said....". Vivaldi12:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute that it does. But I dispute that we read, "Hubbard said .... (bunch of in my opinion, nonesense)" and then after we read that we finally get to a small number. IF we explore that number then we can find out that ChrisO is not actually quoting what Atack said that Hubbard said, but loosly writing a narrative about what Atack said that Hubbard said. It is too loose, it therefore needs better attribution. Terryeo12:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried blockquoting and it was reverted. So I've made Jon Atack's 2 paragraphs of information into one longer paragraph of information, it was presented as a narrative anyway rather than as a series of actual quotations from his book. Terryeo00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Atack's narratively presentated counter opinion
Jon Atack obviously states that Hubbard is wrong (many times). An editor has included a very poorly worded, and narratively written couple of paragraphs which were and are very poorly cited. We have a guideline for this sort of situation. In fact it is policy, WP:V. [10] states: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page." My difficulty is the manner in which Atack's book is cited. His book is not quoted, instead a 2 paragraph, long, rambling discourse is presented about what his book says. In it appears, "Hubbard said....". That's fine IF the presentation is attributed to Atack. Myself, I know Atack separated from Hubbard the day Hubbard begin to find people were remembering things of past lives, and when the procedures which had broght the memory forth were followed (as with every Dianetics procedure), the person blew it off and felt great (It got good results). There's where Atack stepped away from Hubbard. I have presented a brief clarification on this page, how Atack mispercieves Hubbard. I don't care at all whether you agree with me, with Atack or with the man in the moon. But WP:V is to be followed, policy is to be followed. Therefore, because this back and forth discussion has gone on for more than a week with no betterment in the paragraph's attribution, I am removing it and will continue to do so until it is better attributed. Terryeo22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Vivaldi, that is more clearly attributed than it was. Now, at least as a guy reads along he is not left out in left field with no idea that he has been led out into left field because he is reading Jon Atack's opinion. Terryeo01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Reliable Sources
A guideline, WP:RS states: "Pesonal websites may not be used as secondary sources". In this article, at this time, Xenu.net is an example of a personal website which is used as a secondary source of information. Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky is linked to and appears on Xenu.net which is a personal website. It appears when linked to as Clambake.org and contains in its disclaimer that everything on the site is one individual's personal opinion, that he is the only person responsible for what is on the site and that he answers, therefore, to no one about the relibability of the information. Therefore, per Wikipedia guideline WP:RS that information may not be linked to and used as a secondary source of information. batchild is another personal website which is being used as a secondary source of information. DeWolf's statements are contained on that website. It too is unreliable by Wikipedia standards and should be unlinked as a secondary source. Terryeo16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out to Terryeo, his logic is entirely incorrect. What he is suggesting is that a source which would be acceptable if it were mirrored nowhere on the Web, suddenly becomes unacceptable when a "personal website" mirrors it -- clearly an absurdity. -- Antaeus Feldspar03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I am quoting a guideline. You suggest that I am interpreting a guideline within certain, mirrored parameters when I am actually quoting a guideline. It says, "no personal websites may be used as secondary sources". That is what it says. It says nothing about mirroring, it says nothing about ownership of material, it makes no disclaimer, it makes no exception. It says what it says and it says it in bold with added emphisis (last I looked). It makes no exception for "personal websites if those websites are hostile to Scientology" and it makes no exception for "personal websites except those contributed to by Scientology article editors" (like ChrisO does). Terryeo03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines aren't rules. Do you cognate that? Guidelines aren't rules. I notice you sometimes repeat the same thing over and over so I thought I'd give it a shot myself, it's a neat gimmick. Guidelines aren't rules. Operation Clambake is not a personal website anyway, and even if it was (which it isn't): Guidelines aren't rules. wikipediatrix03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that Guidelines are not rules. Anything more to that? Guidlines are guidelines. There are no rules, actually though if someone persistantly refused to recognize policy, they might be spontaneously banned. That might be called a rule. Yeah, I understand that, even though it is terribly obvious that you are convinced guidelines are to be ignored at a whim. HEH. Terryeo07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"if someone persistantly refused to recognize policy, they might be spontaneously banned." Not quite true. Not spontaneously banned, but very deliberately banned by a committee of disinterested arbitrators because the committee sees the persistant refusal to recognize policy on the part of "someone." Do we know anyone who meets that description? BTfromLA19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, it was I who was constrained to respond to the arbitration committee. It is you who is free not to. However, if you wish to, you may, after you read what is present here. What you do is up to you. May I meanwhile request that you civilly tell me what contribution to the article your posting contains? Terryeo02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
My above remarks were intended to remind you that you are widely perceived by the Wikipedia community as one who flouts Wikipedia policies and the underlying philosophy of Wikipedia editing. About twenty editors have protested your disruptive behavior, many of whom have spent large amounts of their time attempting to collaborate with you in a spirit of good faith. Should this reminder cause you to moderate your current campaign to dismantle articles and sow chaos in talk page discussions by insisting on what you surely understand to be an utterly baseless argument, it will have an enormously salutary effect on this article and many others. BTfromLA05:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
BTfromLA, surely you understand that I am attempting to communicate. Sow chaos? I'll tell you what, if editors would, of their own free will and ethics, simply follow wikipedia policies and guidelines there would be no disturbance. It is those editors who do not actually understand the subject, who insist, even though they do not understand the subjects, that their editing should control the articles, should control the personal website cited, should even cite newsgroup postings on occassion, it is those editors who grow disturbed by discussions of guidelines and policies. The policies are plain, I am suggesting we follow them. I do follow them. If I have an issue with a guideline, I get into communication with a person who is active in that guideline. You could do the same. Unlike some editors here, whose behaviour includes "contributing to" Xenu.net, or editing guidelines, and even subjecting honest editors to racial slander, my intent is that we fulfill wikipedic standards. It continues to baffle me that an editor who does not understand the subject would object to the introduction of the subject, yet that has gone on in every Dianetics and Scientology article. What disturbs you? I say that apples are green, I cite sources and even quote and cite valid primary sources and editors who do not have a clue in the world about the color of apples revert my edit. Terryeo08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Terryeo. You are indeed quoting a guideline. You are also going against the clear intent of the guideline. Whether it's "guideline" or "policy" or "convention" or anything else, if you think that Wikipedia is perfectly fine with editors tortuously interpreting the letter of a rule to produce effects clearly contrary to the spirit of the rule, you are completely mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The spirit of the rule is "Good, widely published information" should be easily available and of good repute. While "poorly published" information is likely to not be available. Scientology produces good information and stands behind it. Controversial information exits too, but xenu.net is probably as good as it gets for an expert in that area. And he says all of his stuff is "opinion" and does not claim it is authentic, fact checked, that he honors copyright laws or even that he honors any law. "Outlaw site" would be a potential description of Xenu if you ask me. Terryeo08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The information available at Xenu.net is also easily available at other sources. It's just that many of them require you to purchase a book or visit a library or other such easy task. We can cite the author of a book as a source providing the information needed to find the original source, then also provide a convenience link to that information that is presented somewhere else. It is like the "External Links" section of an article. The linked text isn't the source, the linked text is merely provided for convenience to the reader. Vivaldi (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussions at the talk page of WP:RS sure do indicate that other sources will have to be used and that Xenu.net can not be used as a secondary source of information within a Wikipedia article. And the reason for that is not to make small of sources of information, but to make large of the accuracy of information. A personal website has nothing between the content on it, and the public. No fact checking for accuracy, no guarenteed spell checking and on Xenu.net, few attributions to copyrights and to authors. There are additional reasons too, why personal websites aren't suitable to be used as secondary sources. The issue has been an underlying issue in these articles for some time. Perhaps now other editors will allow statements from the U.S. Navy which is obviously not a personal website. Terryeo12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussions at the talk page of WP:RS sure do indicate that other sources will have to be used and that Xenu.net can not be used as a secondary source of information within a Wikipedia article. You are again mistaken. The the talk page of WP:RS is not policy either. The talk page of WP:RS is not even a guideline. It isn't even actionable at all. There is one policy that applies here. And it really is a policy. You can read it at WP:POL:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. And that is this: Guidelines are not set in stone. Also, when we use Xenu.net to provide convenience links to material that is properly sourced at another, albeit more inconvenient location, it is perfectable acceptable and that is nearly a universal viewpoint. Vivaldi (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So then Vivaldi, is it your position that you intend to ignore the simple direction, "Xenu.net is a personal website and may not be used as a secondary source?" Terryeo11:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask something, now that the dust has kind of settled at WP:RS and Xenu.net has been declared by experienced editors as a personal website and even an arbitrator has declared and stated why he declares that Xenu.net is a personal website, let me ask something. How it is that my earlier statements which say exactly the same thing the people at WP:RS and the arbitrator I note say, how is it that you people were so vehemently strong and universally opposed to discussion that Xenu.net is a personal website? Do you have a vested interest or something? Is it because someone here encouraged the owner of the site to mention Wikipedia on his first page? What is the story? Terryeo11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
At least we are discussing. The clear intent of the guideline reads, "Personal websites may not be used as secondary sources" (unless someone has modified it, that statement stood for months). That's a tuffy, what could it possibly mean? hmm, Maybe we better "interpret" it for the good of Wikipedia, huh? Okay, I'm game, how do you want to "interpret" this guideline which obviously addresses almost all of the Anti-Scientology Sites quoted and cited in these articles? It has been ignored for months, you wish to just ignore it, knowing "we are right and the majority of wikipedia editors who formed that guideline are wrong?" Terryeo01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
(1) Xenu.net is not a "personal website". It is not a blog. It is the most visited site on the Internet for information about Scientology (that isn't owned by the Church). It is highly reputable and reliable. (2) Andreas is an expert on the topic at hand and has been for nearly 10 years. Even if we thought that the Xenu.net qualified as a "personal website", WP:RS makes an exception for experts discussing their field of research. (3) Guidelines are not policy. Even if we were to grant that Xenu.net does not meet the guidelines, it doesn't matter, because Wikipedia specifically mentions that guidelines are not requirements and that the occasional exceptions should be made when it's necessary to create a better article. WP:RS is not a policy, its merely a recommendation or guideline for how things generally ought to be done. Exceptions can be made when deemed necessary by editors. (4) Most of us fully support the guidelines at WP:RS as they are written, however, nearly everyone here has a different understanding than Terryeo about what this particular guideline means and how it is to be applied. (5) Mirrored copies that are not themselves used as sole sources for information can be provided as a courtesy to the reader. The source is the person that originally authored the article or book, the original publisher. The mirror copy is just a convenience link, much like we provide in the External Links sections in many articles. External links and courtesy links, not used as sources themselves do not need to meet the requirements of sources that are recommended by WP:RS. Vivaldi (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure your discussion at WP:RS has brought forth the simple facts that: Xenu.net is a personal website. And that: Guidelines are set in stone within their own application. Wikipediatrix attempted that arguement, that arguement about guidelines being some kind of flexible idea that could be manipulated. Her arguement let to clear statements. I think you'll find we simply can not use Xenu.net as a secondary source and that we are constrained within guidelines. But, if you can talk editors into modifying the guidelines on the guideline talk pages, well, that's cool too. Terryeo12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What I am very certain about is that guidelines are not policy and there may be exceptions made to guidelines when it is necessary to make a better article. In fact this statement I just made IS POLICY. See the policy about it at Policies and guidelines where it specifically and unambigiously states, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". And it's not necessary for us to change a guideline, or to discuss it on its talk page every time we feel the need to make an "occasional exception". Guidelines are not policy. There are no "guideline enforcers" other than the general consensus of editors. We as editors decide when we should follow a particular guideline word for word, or whether or should make a particular exception. Vivaldi (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That question too has been hashed over at WP:RS and the result is still, Xenu.net is a personal website and falls under the personal website restrictions. Isn't the reason obvious? The guy who runs xenu.net can place any information he can dream up on there, with no fact checking, no responsibility, nothing more than personal opinions. Terryeo11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Stuff to think about: (1) Who are the editors, fact checkers, and other persons responsible for the WP:RS and WP:V of Xenu.net, who can be sued for plagarism, libel, defamation of character, etc... IOW, who are the multiple persons who make up Xenu.net, that raise it above the standard of "personal website", and *how* (more importantly) does existing policy and guidelines help educate WP editors as to the difference? (2) A.H.L. may or may not be an expert.... how do we know? *How* does existing policy and guidelines help educate WP editors as to the difference between being an expert on a topic, and an expert at arguing about a topic, or merely an expert on advocacy about a topic (What is A.H.L. an expert on, specifically? CoS theology? CoS geography? CoS philosophy? CoS Heremeneutics)? (3) Yup, its a guideline.... or, rather *some* of this discussion is about a guideline. WP:V is not a guideline, it is policy. To quote WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." I have already registered an opinion in several places that if we can cross-reference material found at O.C./xenu, that would be greatly preferable to presenting O.C. as the sole, or primary, or even convenience, source. (4) Maybe, maybe not. As I personally currently understand the matter, Terryeo (as do others in CoS) has a different mental relationship (to textual information, as a matter of personal religious training) than many others. CoS teaches that words themselves have actual, profound, important *meanings*, not entirely unlike the many faiths of Herbert's Dune series. I've seen quite a few editors become confounded (and, to my eyes, baffled and annoyed at times) because of the way Terryeo both treats, and uses, words. While many of us in a po-mo, po-symbol, po-construct-bias world treat words as if they were relative, temporary sounds/letters, Terryeo does not seem to have the same perspective. Hence, long discussions about words like "policy", "belief", and even neologisms like "POV" or tenses like "is/was" (see:Fair Game). I view this as par-for-the-course/expected in wikipedia, but others have found it difficult to work with. (5) Is only a problem if the source used is unreliable.... which does happen, and has happened. All sources are fallible. Ronabop06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well stated, Ronabop. The difference between "fair game is a practice" and "fair game was a practice" appears as a difference of only two characters. Some people will read and understand that as a tiny difference. Others will read that and understand it as a larger difference. I honestly attempt to be as clear as possible with my typed words. I do not intend to be obtuse or misleading. I try to state things as simply as possible. And I think all the editors likewise do. I think all of us try in good faith, try to make clear statements. If there is a word I use and someone doesn't understand what I am saying then I don't go further until that mis-understanding is cleared up, usually. But all of this is an illustration of why we should not use Clambake.org as a secondary source. This area is easy enough to misunderstand. A little bit of additional confusion, even when presented in good faith, and the reader of our articles is not going to be able to understand the controversy. Sure, they will be able to understand that controversy exists. But to understand that "thetan" is a word Scientology uses instead of "spirit", but which means the same, that is less easy. Is there are particular issue which I could respond to? Terryeo12:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Vivaldi, your statements on this page are about the policies and guidelines by which we edit. On the talk page of the guideline which applies here, WP:RS, you appear to be attempting to cause the people who keep that page in good condition to accept your POV, that Clambake.org may be used as a secondary source of information in Dianetics or Scientology articles. The experienced editors there who state about Clambake.org, "They can be included in external links, but they can't be used as sources if they're run by one man." disagree with you here and have told you, twice now, the site may not be used as a secondary source of information, and then the second time, the site may not be used as a convenience site to link to Jon Atack's, A Piece of Blue Sky. Why do you come to this page to discuss the guideline pages which is being mis-represented by your statements on this page? BTW, in addition to all of that, the Arbitration committee is actually ruling on whether Clambake.org / Xenu.net is a personal website or not. That is happening hereTerryeo21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Tenebrous, I've a little bit of military experience. A person who survives a while in an organization has done so because they understood how to get along within that community. The same rule of thumb generally applies here, though there might be some exception. Why buck heads with people who have written guidelines, established policy, delt with a mix of editors for years? Terryeo22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I find this discussion, after Wikipediatrix mentioned Terry and his citing of WP:RS. WP:RS is a guideline to improve article quality. That is my argument without discussion of this article-specific instances of personal websites being use as reference. WHat are your arguments for ignoring WP:RS? Why wouldn't you want to improve article quality? Would propaganda-laden articles be better quality for you? --Nikitchenko02:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko, it appears that you are addressing these questions to someone in particular, but it is unclear whom you are addressing. BTfromLA06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Specific websites which are no less reliable than the average editor
Some of the information of this article comes from personal websites which are not allowable sources for use according to the guideline WP:RS and its parent policy, WP:V. The reasoning for that Policy and subsequent guideline have to do with fact checking and responsibility. A personal website could post anything at all, "The moon is said to be made of green cheese", for example, and attribute it to anyone at all, stating on the website the person might have stated that at any time at all.
citation #7 leads to batchild's site, Ron De Wolf's late night interview. It is used as a secondary source.
The only identification of the information on the site, all of which is critical to Scientology is "batchild" and the email address given: "batchild1@cox.net" It is pretty obviously a personal website created by an individual.
citation #9 a and b, lead to Clambake.org which is a personal website discussed specifically and in detail at WP:RS. It can not be used for information within an article. Though it might be included as a "exterior link" or an "additional site of interest" or a "additional reading", that sort of thing. But WP:RS has made clear about Clambake specifically. Information from it can't go into an article and be cited as coming from Clambake. Terryeo15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Citation #8 states a specific article of a magazine? but is linked to a Wikipedia article that has a number of exterior links. None of them mention the article, nor do any of them mention the date. If a secondary source of information is used then it should be attributed and, if possible, linked to its source. Its source is not another wikipedia article. The link should be removed, first of all. Secondly, if possible, the article should be linked directly to.Terryeo15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, in all the cases you mentioned, the source is not the website. Period. You state "the reasoning for that Policy and subsequent guideline have to do with fact checking and responsibility" as if you have not changed your story on which "reasoning" serves your ulterior motives numerous times. Before, you were claiming that if the disclaimer on a website said that the website was the owner's personal opinion, that was an unshakable claim to authorship which overruled the fact that the webpage specifically stated particular material to have been authored by someone else.
Your current "reasoning", that a website owner could potentially engage in falsehood on a grand scale, completely making up text and falsely attributing it to any chosen source, is a red herring. Why? Substitute "Wikipedia editor" for "website owner" and the sentence is still entirely true. If your claim that we bar the use of anything found on any personal website because it might potentially be a forgery held any water, then clearly Wikipedia would bar editors from using any sources at all, because of the exactly equal likelihood that that editor was simply making things up. Instead, we ask for verifiable sources, and then if anyone doesn't think that a quotation matches the sources, the burden of proof is upon them. -- Antaeus Feldspar19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent that you notice, the source of the information is not the website. Excellent that you understand the information which is quoted and appears in the article was not created by the website on which it appears. Excellent, very good. I engage in no reasoning whatsoever. The guideline WP:RS makes a simple statement. It does not say, "If a personal websites has information on it which came from other source and was not created by the owner of the website, then it is okay to quote and use that information as a secondary source of information with Wikipedia articles". That is not what what WP:RS specifies. If you care to read through the discussion which is on the Discussion page of WP:RS then you can understand the reasoning (which those editors spell out), but which I do not, myself do here, which then creates the guideline WP:RS which disallows those informations to appear in any wikipedia article if they are linked to and sourced from a personal website. Terryeo08:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is guideline, it is the "how - to" of Policy, WP:V. That policy, at this time, makes these 3 statemetnts:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Notice policy #2 states, "Cite a reputable source" which is a clear statement that information not only must be of "reputable publication" (published by a reputable source point 1), but must be cited from a "reputable source" (point 2). Personal webistes are not considered to be "reputable sources" and therefore, any information which they contain is not citeable per WP:V. The reasoning for this has to do with "reputable". There is just no reason why a personal website might not contain most of a document, but leave out a section of it. Or even, mis-state part of a document, leave out a comma, insert an extra paragraph of the website owner's own opinion. It is not an issue if a particular personal website does, or does not do that. It is an issue of quality of information. Personal Websites are not of sufficient quality of information that they may be used as secondary sources of information. That's the policy, that's the guideline. Those links within the article which are ciations for particular informations should be removed from the article. Terryeo09:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, since you've been so particular about alerting people that the issue of sources and websites is being examined by the Arbitration Committee in the RfAr against you, perhaps you'll find what the Arbitrators are actually saying to be interesting: "As I've said above, WP:RS, and the fact that Clambake is a personal website, in no way precludes using it as a source for mirroring content from reliable sources like the NYT etc. Given that you could simply cite the NYT without providing the link to Clambake at all, the absurdity of removing a reference simply because you link to Clambake as a convenience is obvious."[11] -- Antaeus Feldspar22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are suggesting that my understanding of the statement which guides our editing is too literal? That it is equally good to cite a New York Times article, whether held on the New York Times servers or on Clambake? Is that the point you are making ? Terryeo19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, at this difference, [12] you specifically state that you understand that personal websites may not be used as convenience links, mirrors, whatever you want to call them. That a New York Times article, carried by, say Clambake, is not a valid verification, but should instead be linked to the website that created it, the New York Times. You say so at that edit difference. Yet here you attack me for presenting that same understanding. Wikipedia seeks to be of good quality and to do so, it necessarily must provide links to the best sources of information available. Don't we all understand that? If a wiki (not our beloved wikipedia) were to allow newsgroups to be quoted then its repute would fall as low as its lowest cited source. We want Wikipedia to have reputation and be viewed as reliable. Quoting and verifying on personal websites lowers that standard, lowers the bar. Yet by that difference you state that you understand that, while on this page you seem to be pushing for such "convenience links" or "mirror sites" on personal websites ? Terryeo19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing, as anyone can check for themselves by reading that diff. Well, as long as their reading comprehension skills are up to snuff. -- Antaeus Feldspar22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Then the strength of your proposal, "an article may be linked from any website it appears on" would be that more articles could be linked. But the weakness of such a proposal would require extensive research by every editor who links, a read could not be confident the links he was led to as secondary sources were all good links because John Smith could establish a site, place, say, Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky on it, state, "I hate Scientology" somewhere on his site and then fill the rest of his site with lies, slander, misdirection, mis-statement, etc. etc. The only guarentee of quality would be the personal research of an editor who linked to a personal website's "convenience link". Whereas WP:V and WP:RS encourage no editor to do such research, such fact checking (checking the copy of Jon Atack's book against another copy of Jon Atack's book held in his lap). Terryeo23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I must say, your wild and vivid imagination about all the different things that "John Smith" could get up gives one cause to wonder how far any of us should be trusting your claims of what various sources say. -- Antaeus Feldspar01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
May I ask how your judgement of me, your wild and vivid imagination, which leads to your wonder which understates your specific cause for concern, how far should any of us be trusting your claims of what various sources say, how that leads to anything? You should behave exactly as policy spells out, you should consider other editors edit in good faith. But as far as "trusting my claims of what sources say", I don't suggest you do. I suggest our policies and guidelines don't suggest we do, either. Instead, I would say, the thing to do is to check out for yourself, as I do for myself, the various sources which editors provide. And as long as you bring it up, and seem to actually inquire, I would say, keep a skeptical mind, examine sources with at least a gram of doubt for both its authenticity and its application toward the specific point it addresses within an article. Thanks for asking :) Terryeo19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Atack, who achieved Operating Thetan level...
Doesn't seem to be an attributed statement. As the article presently stands, there is no indication of Jon Atack every having achieving any educational or processing level in Scientology. Whether this is editor oversight or editor Original Reseach, who can say. In any event, no link to Atack's certificate is provided, no indication of the publication of Atack's "Operating Thetan" level is provided. It should be attributed or it should be removed. Terryeo15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As a point of information, people who are expelled and declared are not certified individuals. For example, if the Catholic Church has a Priest who was excommunicated from the Church and later wrote a book and claimed to be a Catholic Priest, then the claim would be false because, of course, the Catholic Church would not stand behind his claim. However, if such an excommunicated individual claimed that he had once been a Catholic Priest, then that would be accurate. Ths same situation applies with Mr. Atak. I'm pretty sure he is not certed. It is possible he once was, however, your comment does not address the issue. As usual, your comment is more of a personal nature. This probably means you are about to go on one of your rampages where you edit for 2 days without looking at discussion pages, your only communications being derogatory edit summaries. Terryeo16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What "snide tone" do you get from a completely open and honest comparison of two religions and the standards which they apply to their members, Mr. Stollery? How could a person state the actual situation more clearly and openly? I state nothing snide nor hidden, quite the opposite, I draw a comparison and a prallel to make more clear why such a citation would be relevant. Terryeo03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Glen Stollery, but I'm pretty sure that most readers would understand that "This probably means you are about to go on one of your rampages..." contains a touch of the bitter and snide. Your failure to even acknowledge that part of your post while trumpeting how "clearly and openly" you've addressed matters is plainly dishonest. BTfromLA19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you are referencing some portion of this discussion which appeared somewhat after the post which you reference. It kind of looks like you might be referencing several things said both before your post, BTfromLA and after the posting of Stollery of 18 Jun20006 at 16:22, which I replied to on 19 June 2006 at 03:29 because your post (just above) came even later, on 19 June 2006 at 19:04. So, in keeping the discussion thread it would be necessary to be specific because rather than post at the end of discussion (which is normal when contributing to a discussion) your post appears here, early in the discussion and seems to take up a civility issue which I replied to earlier. Perhaps I could clarify some element of civility for you? Terryeo03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? You wrote: "This probably means you are about to go on one of your rampages...." then Glen Stollery wrote, "Such a snide tone!," then you wrote, "What "snide tone" do you get from a completely open and honest comparison of two religions...", then I wrote, "I can't speak for Glen Stollery, but...", then you wrote "Apparently you are referencing some portion of this discussion which appeared somewhat after the post which you reference." Huh? BTfromLA05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So in other words, you are grasping at straws, which is why you go off onto your irrelevant tangent about whether it would be accurate for an ex-priest to claim he is still a priest. Such a scenario has nothing whatever to do with the situation at hand -- it seems like pretty "dispersive" editing to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I raised a valid issue, Jon Atack's certification of OT III. That information was introduced into the article [13] and was not and is not attributed. It was newly introduced by an editor. WP:CITE states, This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.WP:V#Burden of evidence states, The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit. User:Antaeus Feldspar made that edit. User:Antaeus Feldspar refuses to discuss the issue of citing the new information he put into the article. User:Antaeus Feldspar instead uses the phrase "grasping and straws". Instead of discussing the issue his edit raises, he accuses of "irrelevant tangent". I attempted to draw a parallel because I was fairly sure the significance of Atack's certification (which was placed into the article) would not be understood. Two editors didn't duplicate the parallel I presented. Fine, good. Nonetheless, the issue lies where Feldspar dropped it, in the article. The statement is unattributed and a citation is needed. The issue needs confronting if the information is in the article. It is unattributed information. Terryeo03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your "parallel" was not "duplicated" because it wasn't a parallel. You say "well, if a Catholic priest was excommunicated and later claimed to be a Catholic priest, that would be completely false!" Why, yes, it would be. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation, because Atack makes it very clear that he is not a Scientologist anymore, unlike your theoretical Catholic priest who is trying to assert that he is still a Catholic priest. One might think that you made such a poor and inapplicable analogy just through general inability -- well, they might, if you hadn't then gone on to correct the very factor you got wrong, clarifying that if the ex-priest stated that he had been a Catholic priest, he would be correct. So, that leaves us with a puzzle -- why did you go along your wholly imaginary road of "Priest who was excommunicated from the Church and later wrote a book and claimed to be a Catholic Priest" when you yourself saw and pointed out the difference between claiming one is and claiming one was something? I see you are definitely following the advice you gave others (which is a nice surprise, in a way) of "Make large of any incivility. Don't let it go by, don't continue to work toward concensus, don't consider for a moment that the article's content takes precedence over incivility." That's why you are currently presenting yourself as a victim here, complaining that "Instead of discussing the issue his edit raises, he accuses of 'irrelevant tangent'." Yes, in fact, I do. And if you went on an irrelevant tangent, the shame does not belong to me for accusing you of it, but for you of doing it. Now, would you like to explain how your theoretical ex-priest falsely claiming he was instead of had been a priest is in any way relevant? -- Antaeus Feldspar04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo's argument here is a bit difficult to isolate: Terryeo, are you saying that Atack can't be called an OT since he is no longer part of the church? That's what the priest bit seems to imply, and as Antaeus points out, that has no bearing at all on this article, which clearly states that he was OT III before he left scientology. (Actually, I just looked at his book: it appears that he had completed OT IV and was "on" OT V at the time he bailed out.) Or, are you saying that the claim that he ever completed OT levels is not documented, thus must be removed? I'm sure somebody can come up with documentation--just a link to his book will provide his own account, if that satisfies you. But since he's published that information repeatedly, been cited by innumerable publications, been accepted as both a former OT and a bona fide expert on scientology by several authors on the subject including Russell Miller, and been the subject of lawsuits by the church of scientology and related agents, none of which (as far as I know--correct me if I'm wrong) disputed the fact that he was once a Scientologist who completed several OT levels--is this really an honest challenge? When combined with that earlier irrelevant priest analogy, it looks to me like you are simply trying to raise distractions and disrupt the work of the editors for no good reason. Why not focus on whether the information is accurate or relevant, rather than wikilawyering? Editors with something productive to add rarely need to cite the wikipedia policies and guidelines. BTfromLA05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your posting does address the validity of the statement which Feldspar introduced into the article without citation, but it does not address the attribution of the statement. Who or what attributes Atack's statement as being valid? Is Atack the only individual on the planet who says that Atack completed OT levels, or is there more behind his statement than his word alone? A citation would tell that story because a citation is necessarily attributable. I ask for a citation, what is the problem with asking for a citation? Terryeo18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, as far as I know, the info comes from Atack's own account, "On to OT," Chapter three of part one of his book, A Piece of Blue Sky. It is probable that he's sworn to this in court depositions, or that other documentation is available, but I'm not up to doing that research. And there's the problem with asking for a citation--you are making a demand that editors perform time-consuming work to document a claim that really requires no further substantiation. You are making continual demands that editors respond to your objections and analogies on talk pages, which is also time-and-energy-consuming. If you wrote in an article, "John F. Kennedy, who was once President of the United States...," it would simply be "Dev-T" to demand that editors must use their time to substantiate or argue about the uncited claim that he was president. Not every word or every claim requires a citation. Without a legitimate question about the validity of a claim, demands for citation amount to an abuse of the wikipedia process. In this case, I'm not persuaded that the Orwellian church policy you describe does constitute a legitmate concern about the validity of Atack's account of his background, though I think that policy is worth describing on the Suppressive Person page. BTfromLA18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo raises the issue of attribution about a new piece of information in the article. The attribution of Atack's OT III level which was inserted by User:Antaeus_Feldspar[14]
Feldspar makes personal comments, doesn't address attribution
Terryeo addresses the issue of attribution, attempts to explain how it pertains
Stollery makes personal comments, doesn't address attribution
Feldspar makes personal comments, doesn't address attribution
Terryeo, ignores small personal issues, addresses attribution again.
BTfromLA makes personal comments, doesn't address attribution
Feldspar makes personal comments, doesn't address attribution
I once again point out, Feldspar inserted the information that Jon Atack attained OT III in the article. That information has not been attributed. That information's citation has not been addressed. I raised the issue. The issue has not been addressed on this talk page. Instead, several personal discussions have been attempted. Terryeo05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Jon Atack's OT-III seriously contested? He has been accepted as an expert witness on scientology in many court cases and I'm sure that if his Operating Thetan status were successfully contested we'd never hear the end of it. --Tony Sidaway06:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The central element, which prompted my request for a citation is a question of attribution. I suspect the only source of Jon Atack's statement about completing an OT level is Jon Atack. The attribution of Atack's statement will be present in a citation. The reason I ask for a citation is because his statement would have greater validity if the Church of Scientology issued it than if Jon Atack stated it. Terryeo18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If Jon Atack claims to have completed OT III, shouldn't the article present that he did in his own words, complete OT III? If the Church claims the Atack completed OT III, then shouldn't that be cited? I raise the issue of citation because the information was placed recently into the article without any citation. I don't oppose nor do I disagree but ask that if a statement is presented as being valid that the previously published source of that validity be cited. Terryeo08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, Terryeo, I did very directly "address attribution"--you, in response, failed to address anything I said. BTfromLA08:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You mention that you view Jon Atack's book. Okay, fine, good. What chapter number and page say that he completed OT III? Are those his words or are those the words of another person or organization? I'm asking for a citation for information which was recently placed into the article. Such citation would be appropriate in the article. Terryeo08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try again to spell out the need for citation. Jon Atack says something about what levels he has completed in Scientology. Fine, good. However, those are his words and his claim. The Church revokes the certificates of any individual who is expelled and declared. There is reason for this. In the same way that the Catholic Church would revoke the status of "Priest" from a man who was once a Priest, but through his own sins had become unfit for Priesthood, so too, Scientology revokes the certificates of an individual who has been expelled and declared a suppressive person. So, If Jon Atack says "I completed OT III" then that is Jon Atack's claim. Fine, good. Jon Atack is free to make any claim he wishes to. But, Atack's words are his and his alone. According to the Church he did not complete OT III. According to the Church, no member who has been expelled and declared has completed any level, ever. There is reasoning behind this policy. The reasoning has to do with the Church's goals which include that an individual can only achieve a level of rehabilitation through their own effort. Whether you agree or disagree, the actual situation is, that statement of Atack's can only be Atack's claim, it is not and could not be the actual situation as recognized by the Church of Scientology. "Jon Atack completed OT III" is a false statement. "Jon Atack claims he completed OT III" may be a true statement. I ask for citation for this reason. Terryeo08:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The church policy of altering historical facts to suit their current political desires isn't found in the wikipedia guidelines. The article states that Atack achieved OT status before he left the church. There's nothing about whether the church subsequently revoked his status, or whether they recognize it today, or whether they admit that he exists, and I don't see how any of that is relevant in this context. It seems to me that the point of mentioning his OT background is to clarify that Atack experienced these teachings within the church, rather than simply examining them from a scholarly remove. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever made a serious claim that he did not do so, and as Tony Sidaway mentioned, if the CoS really had doubts about Atack's OT status, it seems virtually certain they would have made loud, public objections to his claimed history. As far as I know, they have never raised such objections. Whatever they say about him within the organization doesn't matter here. BTfromLA09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"According to the Church, no member who has been expelled and declared has completed any level, ever." Terryeo, can you give us an exact citation to this policy? I find it a quite fascinating policy. If a Catholic priest decides to leave the Church, or is even excommunicated as in your "parallel", the Church says he once was a priest but is not one any longer. Even the annulment of a marriage is a declaration that the marriage which existed was not a sacrament -- not an attempt to declare that the act of marriage was never entered into. It would be interesting to know if, by contrast, anyone who experiences the OT levels for themselves and says "This is not true for me" is suddenly, retroactively, declared by the CoS to have not ever experienced the OT levels for themselves... -- Antaeus Feldspar14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your reply tells me that all of your personal comment from above was not quite as you presented it to be, and that you did understand the parallel by which I attempted to point out the importance of Jon Atack's attribution to the statement, "Jon Atack who achieved OT III..." I'm not a happy camper about your refusal to confront the issue which I raise. A request for citation is very appropriate. It will take me a few hours to put together the information which you have requested. But that will go on this talk page, of course. Or on your User Discussion page if you prefer. I think I also saw an "expert", more trained than I, make a statement about the Church's reasoning in cancelling certificates. Meantime, would you place a citation or attribution and page number which supports Atack's claim ? Terryeo15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Jon Atack's certs and awards might have been cancelled.
This action is not a punitive action.
HCO PL 12 Aug 63, Certificates and Awards
Hubbard Communications Office has full control of all certificates and awards of Dianetics and Scientology and may issue according to policy and suspend or cancel at discretion. The basis of issue is competence. The basis of suspension is violation of ethical use.
The basis of cancellation is failure to comply with the conditions of an order of suspension.
HCO PL 7 Mar 65RA, Issue III, Offenses and Penalties
4. High Crimes. These consist of publicaly departing Scientology or committing suppressive acts.
Cancellation of certificates, classifications and awards are amongst the penalties which can be leveled for this type of offense as well as those recommended by Committees of Evidence.
A reward system for merit and good performance also exists.
So, you see, the possibility exists that by creating an article which states something which Atack did not state, but which is attributed to Atack, ("..achieved OT III..") an editor might be fouling Jon Atack up with the Church in a way he does not wish. Therefore we should not present information about his level of achievement which he does not wish to publically state. For wikipedia to present "Jon Atack achieved OT III", it is appropriate, according to Wikipedia, to provide a citation. It is just good Wikipedia Policy to follow Wikipedia Policies. Please provide a requested citation. Terryeo17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, that's actually kind of disappointing, because it doesn't match up with what you were saying. All you're presenting is the CoS's assertion that it can cancel any certificate and declare the person to no longer be OT III, or IV, or V, or VI. What you were claiming was that the Church actually regards itself as having the ability to rewrite the past -- such that if Joe Scieno completes OT III on Monday, the Church awards him a certificate saying he reached OT III, but if on Tuesday he says "you know, this OT III thing with the space aliens and the body thetans, I've just decided it's too hokey; I don't believe in any of this" the Church will then assert that Joe Scieno never completed OT III -- even though the Church issued a certificate the day before saying that he did. Perhaps you can come up with something a little better, something that actually supports the description you gave. -- Antaeus Feldspar18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's very puzzling to me how, if any given Operating Thetan level is an actual and real state of being, that it could simply be undone by the stroke of a pen. Terryeo seems to be acknowledging that OT levels are mere titles to be granted and un-granted, and not actual advanced states of being, as promised by the CoS. wikipediatrix19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
When Atack published a book, of course any portion of the book makes a quotable citation, no arguement about that. I'm glad to have learned what portion of his book we are talking about. Anyway, that is the Church's policy, it grants certificates of completion and has been known to revoke a certificate of completion. The person didn't actually complete, even though, at the time, the Church thought they completed, and the person has to do the level again. "A state of beingness" is not as easy to determine as how full a measuring cup is. It is rare that a certificate of completion is mistakenly granted, and has become more rare in recent years, but (apparently) it can happen. My only personal experience with such mistakes is what I've read on the internet, and most of that from Wikipedia. Terryeo13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this request for a citation of a quite prosaic and (except for the church, which has a vested interest) uncontested fact is a misuse of Reliable sources. That the church of scientology may have revoked and now contest Atack's status should be mentioned, of course, but it should not be used as grounds for denying or omitting mention of the fact that he is considered an expert in the lower and middle levels of the scientology church's Operating Thetan program. --Tony Sidaway12:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if some of the dispute here might be the result of a category confusion on Terryeo's part. There are three distinct categories that we can identify in relation to OT III status:
you can attain OT III having completed the relevant course (an historical event that happens at a particular point in time);
you can be an OT III (an ongoing state of "beingness", per Scientology doctrine, which depends on having completed the OT III course); and
you can be certified by the CoS as being an OT III (which lasts only as long as you're in "good standing" with the CoS).
Now, in the case of Atack, there's no dispute that he attained OT III. It's pretty clear that he doesn't now regard himself as an OT III, and it's very clear that the CoS has rescinded his certification. But the mere fact that he has disowned Scientology and the Church has disowned him in turn does not mean that Atack never attained OT III in the first place. That's a definite historical event which nobody disputes, as far as I'm aware. So a statement that "Atack achieved OT III" would be entirely accurate; a statement that "Atack is an OT III" or "Atack is certified as being an OT III" would not be. -- ChrisO17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The explanation which you have attempted to create is invalid. You have left out an actuality. The Church certifies individuals. That certification process is not perfect, but is workable. It is presented as "workable" and not as "perfect". It is possible for an individual to appear to have attained a level (as Atack did), and be certified (at a moment in time), yet not actually have attained the level. This is the position the Church takes with Atack. They later revoked his certification (apparently, I have not read that, specifically). Atack says he attained OT III. Fine, cite him for saying so. The only expert on the planet (the Church) says otherwise, fine, cite them for saying so. That would be a balanced presentation. But if the article presents that Atack achieved a level, then the information should be cited. Terryeo02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, as you have many times in the past, you are pretending you didn't get an explanation that you got many, many, many, many times. <large>No one gives a shit whether the Church still considers Atack to be in its imaginary state of "OT III".</large> The actual point at issue is whether the Church taught Atack everything that it teaches as "OT III", and that's not disputed by anyone. Do you think that the Church certified Atack "at a moment in time" when they had not presented Atack with all the information that constitutes "OT III"? Like the Roman Catholic Church declaring someone a "priest" who had not had the requisite training in the seminary? No? Then Atack received the training and he is qualified to talk about what that training consists of. Period. End of story. -- Antaeus Feldspar21:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That's very well explained, Chris. One wonders, though, what Terryeo would find to object to in the statement "Jon Atack achieved Operating Thetan level III before leaving Scientology", since it does not under any interpretation assert that the CoS still claims him to be in that state, that he still claims to be in that state, or even that he still attaches any significance at all to the state. -- Antaeus Feldspar18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The situation of an uncited, unattributed statement in the article is what begin this discussion. The statement, as it stood at that time, was uncited and unattributed. I understand that Feldspar now understands the situation and (probably) how the situation of Atack's statement in the article would be a better statement if attributed and cited than unattributed and uncited. Perhaps Feldspar misunderstood my request for a citation and views such a request as an objection? I did not state an objection to the statement. I pointed toward the OT III statement needing a citation. From a reader's perspective a cited statement is better than an uncited statement. It is not that I object to Atack making a statement, nor to Feldspar's edit, nor to the words Atack writes, utters and publishes, but that Wikipedia will be of better quality if editors will follow policy and guidelines. Terryeo03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I understood your theoretical example of a former Catholic priest who was excommunicated but then went around telling others he was still a Catholic priest in good standing to be at least an attempt to be relevant to Jon Atack, but your answers are hinting to me that I was wrong to give you so much credit. Your request for a citation for a fact that even the Church of Scientology accepted was indeed how you began this discussion, but your comparison of Atack to an ex-communicated priest who falsely still claims to be a priest is where you chose to take it from there. Why are you under the impression that you can get away with that by just saying "how dare you spend time picking apart my throw-away dead-agenting? Let's get back to my original quibbling!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe you just said that my attempt to explain why I asked for a citation (the parallel I gave about a priest) appeared to you at the time to be an honest attempt to communicate in the area, though, from what you said, you considered it at the time to be a poor parallel. Then, I think you said that you have re-evaluated your earlier evaluation of my attempt to communicate in the area (my parallel about a priest) and consider, at this time, now, that attempt to not be worthy at all. However your last sentence makes no sense at all to me and I don't know what you are talking about. However, I am glad that you understand the situation well enough to understand that a statement in an article is better cited than uncited. Thank you. Terryeo03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to spell out why it is appropriate to cite Jon Atack's statement about his achievement of an OT Level. User:ChrisO has further spelled out that Jon Atack's statement of his own estimation of his achievement is attributable and that has been further stated by several editors. But, please understand, I am not criticizing Atack's statement. I am pointing out that only one person on the planet considers that Atack achieved OT III, and that person is Jon Atack. The Church does not consider that he achieved that level of processing. It has revoked his certificate in the area, which is a clear statement of its evaluation of Atack's processing level. The Church, as I have tried to spell out by quoting policy, considers that is mis-evaluated Atack's processing level and that Atack never did achieve OT III, thus an attribution (such as a page number from his book) would be appropiate within the article. Terryeo00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, if you want anyone to take your claims seriously... well, I guess the reaity is that you don't care about that, you just want to make trouble. I'd love it if you could persuade me otherwise. But you've utterly ignored pretty much everything anyone here has said. According to you, "only one person on the planet considers that Atack achieved OT III, and that person is Jon Atack." What about the many journalists, judges and, for that matter, wikipedia editors who have been mentioned here as believing Atack's account? You continue to refuse to acknowledge what people here are saying: that no reputable source doubts Atack's widely published claim (you certainly haven't supplied any examples), that the fact that the CoS may have rescinded his certification is irrelevant to the passage in question, and that what you are doing here is, as Tony Sidaway said, "a misuse of Reliable sources." In other words, as I wrote ealier, "Without a legitimate question about the validity of a claim, demands for citation amount to an abuse of the wikipedia process." What is preventing you from honestly confronting what the editors here write? BTfromLA05:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I begin this discussion with Atack, who achieved Operating Thetan level...Doesn't seem to be an attributed statement. BTfromLA presents my statement as a "claim". Which it is. However my "claim" is easily observed. Simply read the article. The statement is not cited and is not attributed. This discussion has grown lengthy but has not been about the article. This discussion has been about the validity of Jon Atack stating that he achieved a level. My my statement which begin this discussion is not about that validity, my statement is about that attribution. The article does not cite that piece of information. The article does not attribute that piece of information. The reason I point this out is because the editor who introduced that piece of information did it in a manner which did not cite nor attribute that information. The statement has an official air to it. There is no official air to it. It is Atack's statement about himself. No one on the planet besides Atack supports his statement. And even his statement is not cited nor attributed to him. This article is not about Jon Atack. If it were, information from Atack would not need to be cited. This article is about a term which the Church of Scientology uses. Atack's claim should be cited, attributing it to him. A book and page number should be referenced so that Wikipedia readers can easily understand where that piece of information about Atack comes from. And BTfromLA, it is unnecessary to refer to my statement (viewable and exact) as a "claim" because you can easily view the information which I state to be true. Perhaps you are becoming mixed up about the validity of Atack's statement. I am not challenging the validity of Atack's statement and have not challenged the validity of Atack's statement. What I have stated and still maintain is; It is appropriate to cite the source of Atack's statement. Terryeo08:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, again you ignore virtually everything that everyone has written. Please re-read this thread: writing as if you didn't hear the objections that have been repeatedly raised and elaborated by multiple editors seems contemptuous of the other editors and the Wikipedia process. Nobody disagrees with your observation that the phrase about Atack and OT III did not have its own seperate citation, although Atack's book is both clearly identified in the sentence and bibliographic detail is provided in a footnote in the same sentence. And nobody disagrees that editors are permitted to challenge unsubstantiated information, and remove dubious claims if the requested citation is not supplied. Among the claims you've made that I was referring to--and that everyone else here has responded to--is, as you just put it, "It is appropriate to cite the source of Atack's statement." There is a question here about whether or not it is appropriate, you see. When are citations needed? At what point do demands for citation of information that is not in doubt become a form of disruptive or abusive behavior? You have failed to acknowledge that these questions have been raised. Another of your claims is the bit you just restated as "No one on the planet besides Atack supports his statement." This claim is obviously false, as several editors here have demonstrated. BTfromLA18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Several editors have stated their personal knowledge that Atack has made a statement something like, I achieved OT III. That is quite a different situation that several persons attesting to Atack having achieved OT III. Several editors are attesting to Atack having made that statement. Okay, good. But that is a different situation than several editors having direct or secondary knowledge beyond Atack's personal statement. You suggest I re-read. I Requested a citation. You, and several editors, have suggested the phrase does not require a citation. I point out it requires a citation and I point out why it requires a citation. The book is large, why not supply a page number or something? If Atack has a statement, why not attribute it to him? What is the big tickle with suppling a citation? Are you all afraid to quote him? What ? Terryeo20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, why won't you address the questions I raised above (which reflect what others here have been saying as well)? There's no problem with citing Atack--there's another problem here, though, and you keep pretending it hasn't been mentioned. BTfromLA21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All right. Let us be brief, ok? I raised the issue that Feldspar's edits, "Jon Atack who achieved OT III. . . " needs a citation. Now what? Terryeo21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether there is a need for this--is there any credible reason to dispute the fact that Atack was once a Scientologist who progressed up the OT levels before leaving the Church and becoming a historian/critic of the group? If not, there's no need to cite it, anymore than there's need to cite the claim the John F. Kennedy was once President of the US. It appears to me that the clear concensus here is that the claim about Atack's OT status does not rise to the level of dubiousness needed to respond to your challenge with a citation. BTfromLA21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand. The question you raise is, "is there any reason to dispute the fact that Atack once achieved OT III" do I understand you correctly? I would not at this time now, dispute that statement, but think the article would be better served if that statement were cited to Atack, who stated it. But that wasn't the reason I raised the issue. I raised the issue because the article should (my opinion) state: Jon Atack who claims to have achived OT III. The reason I say this is because that is the actual situation. There is one person on the planet who can tell you that Jon Atack achieved OT III, Atack himself. The Church does not accept that Atack achieved OT III, not today and not ever at any time. The Church (who issues such certifications) considers that Atack did not achieve OT III. That's why I asked for a citation. Terryeo21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Jon Atack can state he achived OT III. Sam Smith can state he is OT II. I can state I have achived OT I. But, an individual's statements do not a certainty make. Thus, we have certification. The Church of Scientology apparently has made public announcement that they made a mistake with Atack. The Church revoked his certificates. The meaning of that action is, "The Church of Scientology does not consider that Atack ever attained OT III. On one hand we have Atack who says he achived OT III. On the other we have the Chuch who says he did not. Thus, an attribution would be appropriate. Terryeo00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I sure wish you could get to the point earlier, Terryeo, it would save a lot of aggravation. I disagree that Atack's history needs to be flagged as his personal claim, for reasons already spelled out in earlier posts. The short answer is that, except for you, Terryeo, nobody on earth seems to dispute the facts as written in the article, and there are many people (and institutions) who have accepted them. BTfromLA00:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried to be brief. The statement as it appears sounds like some authority has granted or agreed that Jon Atack achieved OT III. Jon Atack never achived OT III, but Jon Atack's opinion is that Atack achieved OT III. Any Scientologist who reads through the article will know that. Any public who does not understand Scientology's policies will not. A request for a citation is quite reasonable. Why not include a page number from his 300+ page book where his statement can be found? Terryeo15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As has been written ad nauseum, a number of authorities--judges, journalists, arguably even the lawyers representing the Church of Scientology, have granted this historical fact. Are you saying that Atack is lying--that he never really was a member of the church who went through the training and moved up "the bridge" before he left scientology? If so, please supply some evidence. If, as I think is the case, you are saying that the Church of Scientology is the one and only authority about the history of the Church and all the people affiliated with it, and that they may freely alter past facts to suit themselves and whatever they say currently is true, and if they tell a contradictory story tomorrow, then that becomes the truth... Terryeo, can you really believe that? Whatever the case, nobody outside Scientology believes that. Whatever the Church of Scientology management says in the present (and do you even know that they've said any of the things you attribute to them?), it can't change the historical record. If Terryeo walked in to an "org" in 1990 and made clay figures and recieved a certificate of completion, then that really happened, no matter what anybody says, and no matter whether the certificate is later declared void. BTfromLA17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point continuing this debate. Terryeo is plainly trolling and wasting people's time - don't fall for it. He can't edit the article anyway, so his objection is academic. -- ChrisO17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
On a number of occassions, ChrisO, you have suggested editors just ignore me. I tell you, it would be appropriate for the article to cite a source for the statement, "Jon Atack, who achieved OT III .." I have asked nicely that a citation be provided for that statement. My request was per WP:CITE, and really, follows WP:V. When questioned why a statement in an article might need a citation, I extensively replied. Editors have quit discussing the issue which PLAINLY is spoken of at WP:V, uncited material may be removed by any editor. And now, User:ChrisO describes my pointing the isse out as "trolling". The care you people are taking with building a quality encyclopedia is very plain.Terryeo19:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No, ChrisO is right. The situation has already been explained to you very clearly. The Church can declare all it wants that when Jon Atack went through the Operating Thetan levels, he clearly did not get the spiritual benefit of them. No one is disputing that, but also, no one but you cares. The issue everyone else is on, and everyone else is agreed on, is "did he go through the Operating Thetan levels?" and the answer is "Yes, he did." You know, over at Talk:Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine you have been utterly insistent that a particular edit was not just a bad edit, but an edit made in bad faith. And you claim that you are perfectly justified in assuming bad faith because supposedly, no one could have made that edit as a result of a mistake. Well, guess what? No one could have it explained to them as many times that the Church cannot erase the historical fact that Atack learned everything the Church teaches as "the OT III levels" as you have had it explained to you, and still fail to comprehend it. Therefore, there is a very simple explanation for why you are still persisting. -- Antaeus Feldspar16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO and Antaeus, I hear you. I'm well aware of Terryeo's propensity to disrupt Wikipedia via his demands for attention on talk pages, on grounds that run the gamut from marginally plausible to flatly preposterous. Indeed, I'm on record as suggesting that Terryeo should be banned from the Scientology-related talk pages for just that behavior. (More importantly, I think Wikipedia should make a policy to guard against deliberate disruption via "Dev-T"-style tactics.) But, while it may never be possible to untangle the extent to which Terryeo's rationalizations are the result of sincerly held beliefs as opposed to deliberately disruptive tactics, I find his mentality (and the window it offers into the mindset of Scientology) fascinating, and occasionally, my fascination draws me in to one of these largely fruitless exchanges. But not entirely fruitless--this idea that the CoS gets to rewrite history willy-nilly is a new one on me, and it's rather mind-boggling to imagine that anyone would accept that as true. Do most Scientologists believe that? BTfromLA18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, this is somewhat similar to paraphasing the whole problem as: "when Atack was awarded OT III credentials, according to the church, he didn't really have OT III abilities, so the CoS had to revoke the credentials". So, its not merely a matter of the church erasing history. Let's take another field, say medicine. A person can go through medical school, get certified as a doctor, and then lose their credentials (for malpractice, dis-use, abuse, etc.). Does that mean they never learned the materials? No... but it does mean that they have lost the right to call themselves a Medical doctor. Basically, this whole convoluted discussion could have been avoided simply by acknowledging that Atack *was* certified OT III, and then had it revoked, so he technically isn't OT III.Ronabop02:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are overly optimistic, Ronabop. If you go through the painful process of reading this whole exchange, you'll see that Terryeo has tried several approaches to agitate around the phrase in question. Since the article never mentioned Atack's certification or lack of it, while it did make it clear that he had since left the church... well, my suspicion is that Terryeo would have still found some grounds to raise havoc. I'd also note that a discourse on Atack's certification status would have been inappropriatly digressive at that point in the article--the sentence mentioned that fact in passing, it was not the subject of the sentence. Given the number of times Terryeo has launched these sort of exchanges (he recently became similarly exercised over the fact that the church of scientology was described as "controversial" in one of the articles), there is a strong case to be made that Terryeo's goal here is to disrupt the editing process, not to create informative articles. Several of the editors have concluded as much. BTfromLA03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ronabop has exactly and precisely understood why I requested a citation. BTfromLA talks about my "agitating". I simply requested a citation. BTfromLA simply didn't want the article to be well cited, I guess. ChrisO didn't want the ariticle to be well cited, Feldspar didn't want the article well cited. I requested a citation. I pointed to an edit and said, "that isn't cited". When questioned (and it has gone on and on) I spelled out why I felt it necessary. Ronabop has exactly understood the situation. I attempted in every instance to minimize and reduce any problem, I tried to be brief and direct. I simply requested a citation. What is the problem? Terryeo04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I have noticed a strong pattern, and in the spirit of wikilove, I wish to share it. :-) It goes something like this:
Terryeo has a moral, theological, editorial, or factual dispute with an issue.
Terryeo currently adheres to a belief system (Scientology) governed by a strong ruleset.
Terryeo then attempts to navigate the WP ruleset in order to resolve the problem, because he (?) is accustomed to using rulesets to mediate and manage disputes.
Because the WP ruleset is loose and weak, Terryeo attempts to use the few strong rules (WP:V, WP:CITE), to resolve arguments which *aren't really about the rulesets* in the first place.
In this case, since Atack isn't certified OT III by the CoS, Terryeo asked for a cite. The problem Terryeo had *wasn't* about whether or not there was a cite, it was that the article was misrepresenting something.
Other editors get annoyed by what looks like wikilawyering, not realizing that the source of the problem isn't the rules.
By determining and addressing Terryeo's actual moral, theological, editorial, or factual dispute, the whole problem goes away.
Let's apply this formula to the whole use of the word "controversial" in article intros. Terryeo has been asking for cites, and badgering about how subjects should be introduced according to rules, but best as I can tell, that *isn't* *the* *actual* *problem*. The problem is that editorially, many of the CoS articles are loaded with weasel words and bias in the intros, and Terryeo doesn't like it. Terryeo rails on about "introducing the subject properly", but the real complaint isn't about *rules*, it's about content. Because Terryeo is so focused on rules (as part of a lifetime belief set), other editors get dragged into multi-page, bizarre discussions on "rules", rather than getting to the meat of the problem. Ronabop05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What I actually want is well written Wikipedia articles. This means citation and good information. That Atack "achieved" OT III by his own statement is what should have been introduced by Feldspar who introduced the information. Atack's statement should be cited. To say that I was attempting to work against that information is just not accurate. I requested a citation. A request for a citation is very reasonable. The article is better with that statement cited and its attributable source known. Now the only missing element is; which page of Atack's book says that Atack says that? Terryeo16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your analysis offered in the spirit of "wikilove," Ronabop. I like your intention--trying to mediate the conflicts between Terryeo and the other editors in terms of cross-cultural misunderstanding. It certainly does seem that Terryeo has a different relationship to rules and authority than the rest of us. (And to language and communication, I might add.) Your insight is that he insists on describing his objections in terms of policy enforcement because that reflects the culture of Scientology, in which he is steeped. That may well be true. I disagree, however, with your belief that other editors don't recognize that Terryeo's protests about citations and attributions and reliable sources aren't really about the rules. I think it is transparently obvious to everyone who has interacted with Terryeo that, at least 99% of the time, Terryeo's claims are motivated by some combination of: a. His perception that something in the article reflects unfavorably on Scientology, Hubbard, or the Church, and b. his perception that something is being presented in a way that deviates from the texts authorized by the Church. (There is another goal that some believe Terryeo has--undermining the work of other editors via digressive talk-page disputes and inane make-work claims on their time. It seems that you are rejecting that theory and assuming good faith on Terryeo's part. I've found that assumption increasingly difficult to maintain after months of exchanges with him, but I'll grant you that for the purposes of discussion.) It was apparent in the current case, for example, that Terryeo was unhappy with what he saw as a phrase that lended legitimacy to Jon Atack's account of the Church's teachings, and that he would like to add qualifications that suggest Atack is a dubious source since the church has expelled him or, better still, to remove Atack as a source. While some exasperated editors snapped at Terryeo, others actually did attempt to address this issue directly. Unfortunately, Terryeo has a tendency to ignore challenges to his premises and instead respond with non-sequiters and more invocation of rules. Your suggestion, if I understand you correctly, is for editors to look past what Terreyo actually says--his repeated demands for citations, etc.--and to intuit what his actual objection is, then make changes in response to that, rather than getting balled up in torturous arguments on the talk pages. Alas, I don't think that's an effective solution. First, it assumes that Terryeo's objections are valid and appropriate, or at least innocuous enough that they can be indulged without harming the articles. It seems clear to me that he will persist and persist in his attempts to reword everything until it reads as if it were written by the Church of Scientology--it won't lead to "the whole problem goes away" at all. As to your suggestion that we apply your approach to the use of "controversial"--here's the disputed phrase in question, a topic sentence from the middle of the Narconon article: "Their affiliation with the controversial Church of Scientology has made Narconon itself a focus of controversy." This is followed by several examples that support that thesis. Yes, I'm sure it would make Terryeo happy if the word "controversial" were dropped, and the sentence would still make sense if it were. But the word actually helps clarify what follows; I don't think it's fair to characterize this use of "controversial" in that context as either a "weasel word," or excessive bias. And I'm sure Terryeo would not be satisfied with that one change. I do agree, Ronabop, that many of the Scientology-related articles contain sections that are biased, poorly written, and overloaded with claims and counter-claims. I attribute much of this to Terryeo's influence--ironically, his insistent demands for citations and references and examples for all the "entheta" material has pushed the articles toward an anti-Scientology POV in some cases, and has degraded the readabilty of the articles pretty much across the board. I appreciate that you are asking us to look at what we can do to improve our working relationship with Terryeo, rather than putting the onus of change totally on him, but given the history here, I can't see much hope unless Terryeo finds a way to honestly face the objections to his behavior that so many editors have spelled out, time and time again. BTfromLA19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord !, what a huge post to respond to. BT's post has implications of implied criticsm and other evaluations. I feel I ought to say something in response. My own evaluation of my editing actions are that articles mis-present information. In this case of Atack's proposed OT III status, Atack is not and never has been OT III. I understand that he says he achieved that. He did not. That is my opinion and since his OT III certificate has been revoked, it is the Church's opinion. This is opinion only. Atack has his opinion, BTfromLA has his opinion, I have my opinion. It is entirely appropriate to state Atack's cited opinion in the article. My objection is not that Atack has an opinion, my request for citation was toward making clear and specific a information. Because that information presents a potential misunderstanding unless it is cited. To generalize, those editors who have not studied the information they are presenting in these articles, frequently present the information in an easily misunderstood way. I am doing nothing but following policy and guidelines and I frequently cite them because it is what we are all doing, anyway. This long discussion should never have happened. Feldspar should simply said, "well yeah, I introduced the information in an uncited manner and so I'll cite it." That's the spirit of Wikipedia which is spelled out at WP:V and WP:CITE. And the same is happening in other articles. Editors who have not studied the information run into something they wish to include. Fine, good. But to make a good article, some points are important enough to require verification. I understand that an editor who has no inkling of what a processing level would be, would think that if the Church had once certified that Atack had completed a level, then that would be forever. However, as the above discussion illustrates, that is not quite the situation. There are sometimes difficulties, Atack is an illustration that doesn't happen often, but might happen on rare occassion. Obviously, Atack's situation is not a common situation. If it were, there would be many such individuals who react as Atack reacted. Wikipedia has standards, every editor should make effort to fulfill them. Terryeo02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case of Atack's proposed OT III status, Atack is not and never has been OT III. I understand that he says he achieved that. He did not. That is my opinion and since his OT III certificate has been revoked, it is the Church's opinion. Terryeo, we are writing this article in English, not in Scientologese. I understand -- I think we all understand, after all your repetitions -- that in Scientologese, "is not and never has been OT III" might mean, in English, "is not now, and never was, at any point in time, considered by the Church of Scientology to have achieved OT III", or it might mean, "was in the past considered by the Church of Scientology to have achieved OT III, but later the Church got pissed off at something he did and retroactively declared him to clearly not have achieved exactly the spiritual state that they previously announced that he had achieved." However, in English, "is not and never has been OT III" only means the former, not the latter. You make your usual petty and snide insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you is someone "who has no inkling of what a processing level would be", but you don't seem to have an inkling that the point is not whether Atack is currently considered by the Church of Scientology to have achieved the spiritual state of OT III that Atack himself no longer even believes exists. The point is that Jon Atack has been through everything that the Church teaches as part of OT III and is therefore qualified to say in turn what those teachings consist of. Now can we stop the Dev-T? -- Antaeus Feldspar01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It would have saved editors large amounts of discussion had you simply referenced your edit as every editor is required to do, Feldspar. The complexity of the issue which arose was unnecessary, the discussion which takes up a fair bit of page was unnecessary, that several editors had to come onto the page and comment was unnecessary, my explanation of the Church's policy, my opinion, the quotations of policy, all of that could have been very very easily avoided if you had only complied with Wikipedia policy to begin with. Terryeo18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing would have been avoided; you would have found some other unfounded pretext for complaint. I mean, you moan piteously about how you were forced to provide an "explanation of the Church's policy", but that's completely untrue, since your "explanation" went into the irrelevant issue of whether Atack is still regarded by the Church of RevisionismScientology as being OT III, and you persisted on that irrelevant note despite no one thinking it relevant to the article whether the Church had stuffed Atack's OT III record down the memory hole or not. So even if I had complied, not just with Wikipedia's actual policies, but your own particular inconsistent and self-serving version of the same, I have no doubt you would have found some other bizarre and illogical point to suddenly purport as being of great importance. If all else failed, you could have turned to your favorite claim, that Scientology, unlike any other "religion" on Earth, does not have beliefs. -- Antaeus Feldspar01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar, when you say; you would have found some other unfounded pretext for complaint, you have assumed bad faith. The question was simply: "There was an uncited piece of information which needed a citation" and you refused to provide a citation for the edit you had made when the information was within the book you cited. Now you have refused to acknowledge that you refused to conform to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and principles. :) Terryeo02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I generally refuse to "acknowledge" things that are not true. Are you suggesting that I am somehow obligated to "acknowledge" any accusation you make, no matter how devoid of merit it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar21:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12 Editors just went through weeks of discussion because you refused to comply with wikipedia policy when a citation was requested for an edit which you made. The result was that Wikipedia policy was followed, the statement you edited, cited. Happy Ho Ho's. :) Terryeo08:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current wording. Page numbers would be ideal, but unless someone contests that the provided specific few hundred pages don't contain the paraphrased assertions, they're unnecessary. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
lack of evidence
I am quite certain that this small edit will reap months of abuse.
Yet I will try to explain. I removed the phrase that referred to a lack of scientific evidence. I removed it because it should be understood that any religious belief rests on tenets that have not been validated by science. Some would suggest that this is itself a workable definition for philosophy, religion, theology, history, rhetoric, literature, music, etc.--these are disciplines that do not rely upon science for validation.
So the reason for my removal is not that I believe in Scientology, (it should not be an issue, but in reading this page it is clear that it is an issue. I don't). I removed it because otherwise we should tack it on as a qualifier to nearly every paragraph in most of the Wikipedia pages.
Most of what we "know" we do not know through science.
There are important things that we can discuss and submit truth claims about which are not--can not be--validated by Scientific work. Science can not make any claim to beauty, to justice, or to love.
We have no scientific evidence that prayer "works." We do have a handful of single shots with ambiguous protocols, but calling something "an experiment" does not make it science. There have been a handful of attempts to "prove" transmogrification, meditation or speaking in tongues. None of these--to my limited knowledge--have ever been proved or disproved through a strict adherence to science. I believe they cannot, and those who would claim otherwise are guilty of scientism, logical positivism, and reductionism.
It makes no sense to me to throw in a statement about a lack of scientific proof, when the discipline itself requires the supernatural. By definition, anything supernatural can not be scientific.
The difference is that the claim of being able to "exteriorize with full perceptics" (leave the body as a thetan) is a quite literal claim in Scientology, and should be just as easy to demonstrate as true yogic flying. Strap an OT in a chair, put up an eye-chart three feet behind their head, have them read the chart. Religions are welcome to claim spiritual bliss and well-being, afterlife assignment, eternal salvation or triple your money back; these are the god-of-the-gaps type claims that can't be measured by science. Exteriorization is a provable claim and James Randi should be $1,000,000 poorer if so.
If I say that I can call spirits from the vasty deep to give my car 200 miles per gallon, it doesn't excuse me from demonstrating 200 mpg just because there's a supernatural explaination—it can be examined by science just like pet psychics or Fortean claims of discorporate travel and return. AndroidCat11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Unsoured Claim
This sentence has been wanting a citation for two weeks:
MacDougall's experiments are generally not regarded as having any sort of scientific validity. [citation needed]
I'm deleting this link, which is on the section labeled 'body thetans'. It appears to be a rant (by D. Ehrlich?) that was posted on some message board. What would be needed here would be something from the CoS itself or maybe a reliable newspaper, magazine, or possibly a sworn affidavit. S. M. Sullivan23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section 'Body Thetans' says that the ultimate goal of getting rid of body thetans would be getting rid of the body. Looks like original research. A really extraordinary statement. S. M. Sullivan23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I took it out, if anyone wants to put it back they had better had better have a WP:V source on it, as it is a bizarre claim.S. M. Sullivan04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thetan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡01:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Venus?
The "Thetan's and Death section" is drawn entirely from an LA Times article which claims to be quoting Hubbard from an unspecified lecture in the 50s. There is no other record of this claim in any of Hubbard's material. I believe it should be removed, or at least clarified that this is a "LA times said Hubbard said," not presented as orthodoxy.Monkthatgotfunk (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There are other references to the between-lives area on Venus, easily findable online. The primary source seems to be a 1963 lecture in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course called "Between Lives Implants". George Malko's "Scientology: The Now Religion" mentions it. Steve Fishman's "Lonesome Squirrel" mentions it. From the Anderson Report, page 56, "Hubbard categorically asserts as a fact that "a few mornings ago" he was up in the Van Allen belt and that he then went on to Venus, where he inspected an implant station." So I dispute the claim that there "is no other record". However, the source to use in the article is not these primary sources but an investigative article in a newspaper of record, which is the current situation. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
