Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dianetics

Dianetics

I don't know about anyone else, but this thing has grown so long I am not sure if a mediator is assigned to this or not. I am unsure where the mediator, if assigned, will pose questions. And a lot more. Things are not being added to the bottom, this thing is getting convoluted, complicated and dispersed. If the mediator wants something can he bring his message forth clearly, somehow? I post here because at least this gets read, though I know its not right to post at the top. Terryeo 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting mediation between Antaeus Feldspar/ChrisO/Modemac/Wikipediatrix and Terryeo concerning various issues regarding Dianetics. These include:

• should Dianetics be treated as a pseudoscience (and therefore subject to WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience), or should it be presented as a scientific theory?
  • no to both of those, but several editors won't talk about how to treat it.Terryeo 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No to pseudoscience. I disagree with the "or" questin that implies no other recourse. I have answered the 8 precepts of a science, and no one has refuted the discussion. The pseudoscience section should be removed from the article and the pseudoscience treatment applied to the article and discussion should be withdrawn. Spirit of Man 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have not really part of the dispute, until perhaps just now. But I believe the subject should be treated for what it is: early research into what became an applied religious philosophy which is neither pseudoscience nor scientific theory. --JimmyT 10:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that since there is an actual stated scientific process, for something to be presented as science it should fall under sed process. If you want to deal with it as psedoscience, you can call it a psedoscientific theory. If you want to deal with it as science, I believe the proper term in this case is conjecture, not scientific theory rmosler 11:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • After milling over much of the talk page and the article itself, I have to ask, does it have to be presented as science at all? Why not just call it a belief. That is what it seems to be, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. I take what I have experienced and logically form beliefs. These do not have to be peer reviewed, or evaluated by the scientific community for me to think that they are right. I don't have to use the term theory, which to many (myself included) is a hot-button term that gets us very riled up when we BELIEVE that it is being used incorrectly. rmosler 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I'm saying: does it have to be presented as a science at all? It is early research into what eventually became just a portion of a very expansive applied religious philosophy. --JimmyT 12:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Rmosler, if there are issues of bias regarding this mediation, I'd like to know your POV on the subject of religion and if you are a mediator. To make it fair I'll let you know I am a Scientologist. I am not a mediator, just helping to keep the discussion within context, in case that position is any problem to this mediation. --JimmyT 12:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the message. I'm kinda new on this (I usually stay over in my chemistry area). I agree with you completely, I think that this is a belief. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not a part of the mediation committee, however I have been reading through both the article and the talk board and I feel that a lot of what seems to be going on are personal attacks, and conflicting ego, on both sides. I wish that we would have an unbiased article, the purpose is to explain what dianetics is. If there is a conflict, then say that. I dont think that it needs to be said in every sentence. But I do take offense to the term "theory" being used, because to the scientific community, that is a very powerful term. rmosler 12:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • • At last! Someone who wants an article to present the information the article names ! reduce. I don't think we have to judge it to be theory, science or pseudoscience to present the information which it consists of.Terryeo 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • To rmosler: if this was simply a belief, it certainly would be pointless to tag it as pseudoscientific. However, Dianetics is not presented as a belief. The important book introducing Dianetics, "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", already misleads the reader into thinking it is actually science. Now the reader opens the book, and finds numerous medical conditions which are said to be cured by the application of Dianetics. Furthermore, the author explicitly states that Dianetics is based on scientific facts [1], so much that people have been fooled into thinking this was scientifically sound [2]. By presenting itself as a science, Dianetics is thus entitled to be debunked. Raymond Hill 16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If Dianetics was not presented as a scientific belief, it would be inaccurate to call it pseudoscience. For example, Roman Catholics believe that transubstantiation turns bread and wine into the body and the blood of Jesus Christ. This is not presented as a scientific belief but a religious one. By contrast, Hubbard (Dianetics' creator) claimed Dianetics to be "an exact science comparable to physics and chemistry but simpler ... really essentially an engineering science," saying it was "entirely mechanistic and works with engineering precision."[3] I do not think it is possible to have an NPOV article that avoids entirely the subject of whether Dianetics is claimed to be a science. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point; however, during the Middle Ages (and before) Catholisism believed transubstantiation to be in line with a "scientific" view. Views change. Beliefs change. I do not want beliefs to be misrepresented as Scientific. I really think that we can make some progress. I can see a similarity between Wikipedia and Law. The rules are important, but almost equally so is the way we put them into practice. Lets make it into a good precedence. rmosler 07:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Edited rmosler 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • As a Catholic I think I can comment on this one. :-) Transubstantiation has never been presented as a scientific fact. During the Middle Ages and before there was no such thing as science, in any case. The change in "substance" that is said to take place in the process of transubstantiation is philosophical, not chemical; the change is explicitly said to not be perceivable through physical means. As science only deals with physical phenomena (via methodological naturalism), transubstantiation can't be addressed by science in any meaningful way. Compare this to what Hubbard says - he makes specific claims of testable physical effects, explicitly putting Dianetics into the realm of science. Don't forget that he calls Dianetics "the Modern Science of Mental Health", the "Science of Survival", etc... -- ChrisO 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• is it POV to apply WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc to Dianetics? (A recent addition of a template citing these policies [4], taken from the top of Talk:Intelligent design, has been repeatedly deleted from Talk:Dianetics on the grounds of being "POV".)
  • those policies are perfect, the problem with the template was that it ruled out discussions religion and theory, confining the whole article to only one POV, pseudoscience. Terryeo 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)come to think of it, rather than object to the confinements of the template, I modified the template to possibly include additional discussion areas (religion, theory).Terryeo 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To insist others use these policies, and then continuously do destructive POV actions oneself in violation of them is not the intented use of the policies. The calling parties have been doing this. Spirit of Man 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The template is incorrect because it states that NPOV: Pseudoscience is directly applicable to the subject. The subject should be treated for what it is: early research into what became an applied religious philosophy which is neither pseudoscience nor scientific theory. Claim of applied religious philosophy is attributable to primary sources related to the applied religious philosophy. --JimmyT 10:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• should scientifically unverified results presented by L. Ron Hubbard et al be presented as hard facts in the article?
  • the results you mention should be presented alongside other results, there is room for both if properly presented. One group's study, another group's study.Terryeo 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The eight precepts of a science do not require scientific review or approval of the subject. The article is about Dianetics. L. Ron Hubbard is the primary author of the materials of the subject. If he or his books are cited that does not suddenly imply "hard facts", that is a personal POV. A citation is merely a citation not a hard fact. Spirit of Man 02:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How are they being presented as hard facts? I just realized Wikipedia's own policies imply that it doesn't present facts but statements that can be verified as not original research: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V. I find this a seriously illogical policy for an Encyclopedia. Should we continue to contribute to this "tabloid" ??? --JimmyT 10:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This guideline is useful in evaluating Hubbard's results, so Dianetics#Scientific_evaluations does a good job at explaining why Hubbard's results are questionable. Raymond Hill 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer to these may seem obvious to most editors, but we are having severe problems trying to reach any agreement with Terryeo. This may be due in part to editorial inexperience (joined 7 December 2005) and a lack of experience editing anything other than Scientology-related articles [5], concerning which he has a strong POV. I believe that the problem may be resolvable with some independent advice from a mediator, preferably one with some understanding of the nature of science (as this is a key question). Assistance would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that science is actually the main question in the article. ChrisO has used more than one, unpublished, slanderous sort of citation which doesn't contribute to editor cooperation. Terryeo 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  I agree that user conduct is actually the key part of this dispute, but the user conduct in question is Terryeo's. It not only includes highly partisan characterizations such as accusing ChrisO of using a "slanderous sort of citation" but also making at least two accusations against other editors that Terryeo was completely aware were false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  I'll be real specific. ChrisO cited an unpublished, legally protected, Church of Scientology, confidential Class VIII document with the challenging tone: "You really think that nobody outside the Church of Scientology has read those lectures? You may be bound by religious prohibitions, but that's certainly not true for non-Scientologists. -- ChrisO 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)" [6]"Terryeo 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for being specific enough that it discloses the lack of merit to your complaint. Please explain where the "slander" is in there? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  Sure Feldspar. By "slanderous" I mean to specify two things. One, the challenging tone ChrisO uses and more importantly, the attitude ChrisO brings to the table. WP:V spells out what a citable source is. There are plenty of citeable sources for this subject. An unpublished document is slanderous if it is a confidential or secret document. This puts wikipedia into the area of expose' reporting rather than encyclopedic creation.Terryeo 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've got news for you: that doesn't even come close to the definition of slander. wikipediatrix 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  See below. Spirit of Man 18:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  The issue is not Terry's behavior or his claim of slander, to focus on this is an avoidance of the actual issue: VERIFIABILITY as noted by Terry. --JimmyT 11:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  I posted to the Discussion that the Xenu material was malicious and explained to Wikipediatrix that she should not represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologsists in this way and should not remove the copyright and artwork symbols that protect the book cover. She removed these things and posted 3 or 5 references to additional malicious and damaging websites that should be made known to the copyright holders according to Wiki policy. I presented that no where in Scientology published materials is any mention of Xenu details or these malicious details that tend to restimulate people excessively. She finally removed the material under this pressure but Calton removed the copyright protection symbols again and displayed all the malicious materials again. ChrisO's citation was intended to be a refutation in support of keeping the malicious and damaging Xenu details that are truthfully not published in any Scientology materials. His actions meet all of the legal requirements for "slander" or "libel" if you will. This is my opinion. If you would like an opinion from the owners of the rights please feel free to ask them and present these details. Spirit of Man 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I'm missing something. You say "His actions meet all of the legal requirements for "slander" or "libel" if you will" but there is a very important legal requirement under United States law without which nothing can qualify as slander or libel, and that is that the statements in question must be knowingly false or made with malicious disregard for the truth. You keep harping on "malicious, malicious" but that is simply not enough to support your claims. Where is the untruth? You yourself have just affirmed that Scientology doctrine talks about Xenu by expressing the belief that details about Xenu "restimulate people excessively", but even if you didn't, you face the little problem that Scientology's own witness Warren McShane testified in court to the contents of OT III and even to the connection between the "75 million years ago incident" and the volcano on the cover of Dianetics. Are you seriously claiming that ChrisO acted with "malicious disregard for the truth" by ... trusting Scientology's witness not to perjure himself on the witness stand? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• You and ChrisO and Wikipediatrix and Calton, have no authorization from L. Ron Hubbard to publish any of his works. Do you agree this is true? You specifically do not have the right to use these details he has refused to give publically, because they could harm. He specifically states there are details that can lead to booby-traps that can harm or kill people. Do want to harm people? If you don't you shouldn't be messing with any of this. If you credit him, you can't use what you posted. His name and Dianetics, are protected by the copyright symbols you removed. You have no right to represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologists and say they have authorized you do these malicious things in disregard for the truth. You have no rights to publish anything in or about the Class VIII course or the OT III courses of the Church of Scientology. None of these sources has given you permission to do so. Do you agree this is true? They have never given anyone permission to do so for good reasons. They never gave Warren McShane that type authorization. He was in court under oath, I don’t think he had much discretion in what he could not say. Scientology has never published the details of the materials you keep placing, and replacing maliciously with disregard. Those details are harmful and you shouldn't want to use them in this way. You do agree you intend them to be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, Bridge Publications and Scientologists, as well as the general public? To alter previous citations to make newspapers and others cite L. Ron Hubbard as if he is disclosing them is malicious disregard. To persist in presenting the materials, the off-site references and even continuing this discussion with those materials posted is "a malicious disregard for the truth." This is my opinion. Do you have any doubt this is true and that you folks have been intentionally acting in callous disregard for the harm you are doing or that could result? All references to "Xenu" details should be removed on Wikipedia. Spirit of Man 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Here is what I agree and do not agree with:

  • You and ChrisO and Wikipediatrix and Calton, have no authorization from L. Ron Hubbard to publish any of his works. That's literally correct, but whether we need any such authorization is a different matter.
  • You specifically do not have the right to use these details he has refused to give publically, because they could harm. I do not agree that they could harm. I realize that this is a belief of your religion, but that does not obligate me to believe it or act as if I believed it.
  • He specifically states there are details that can lead to booby-traps that can harm or kill people. Yes, he specifically states that. I don't believe it to be true. I believe it to be an excuse that Hubbard invented to explain why Scientologists should not be allowed to learn the doctrines of their own religion until they were "ready".
  • Do want to harm people? If you don't you shouldn't be messing with any of this. As I already said, I do not hold the same religious beliefs you do, and I am not obligated to do so either.
  • If you credit him, you can't use what you posted. His name and Dianetics, are protected by the copyright symbols you removed. You are showing a confusion between two completely separate areas of law: trademark law, and copyright law. I don't think someone who doesn't know the difference between those two is someone qualified to pronounce what is prohibited by them.

  The name L. Ron Hubbard is copyrighted. The name Dianetics is copyrighted. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, sorry, they're not. It is simply not possible to copyright a name. This is what I mean: you don't even know the difference between trademarks and copyrights, and yet you're trying to declare what those trademarks and copyrights do and do not legally prohibit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You have no right to represent the beliefs of high-level Scientologists and say they have authorized you do these malicious things in disregard for the truth. These are three separate statements. I have never said that high-level Scientologists have authorized me to talk about Scientology. I completely disagree that I need authorization from high-level Scientologists to talk about Scientology. As for whether they are "malicious things in disregard for the truth", the intent of that standard is to discourage people from thinking "If I make it up off the top of my head and don't make any efforts to see whether it's true or false, I can't get in trouble because I didn't know it was false." Your idea that it is acting with malicious disregard for the truth to rely on (or just to relay) testimony given by Scientology's witness in court is frankly wishful thinking on your part, rather than reality.
  • You have no rights to publish anything in or about the Class VIII course or the OT III courses of the Church of Scientology. Incorrect. My rights to publish what is in those courses -- that is, the actual text -- may be limited, but thanks to the doctrine of fair use, it is absolutely incorrect to say that I have no rights to publish anything in those materials. As for publishing anything about them, you are absolutely incorrect that I have no rights in that area. You seem to be operating under the misconception that the right to discuss Scientology can only be granted by Scientology's permission.

  • In the sense you say 'about' that is accepted. I don't hold the view you state. You certainly have the right to discuss.

  • None of these sources has given you permission to do so. Do you agree this is true? I agree that they haven't given permission and have already explained that I don't need their permission.
  • They have never given anyone permission to do so for good reasons. I agree that they may have never given anyone permission and I express my doubt that their reasons were "good", at least in the sense of "morally good" or even "in a spirit of enlightened self-interest".

  • The good reason I refer to is "because those detalis can cause harm. The reasons you stated are not what I'm talking about. Those are your views and if they do no harm, I don't have a problem with that. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I am aware that according to your beliefs, talking about those details with someone who has not reached the correct state of readiness is prone to cause harm. However, that is a belief of yours which I do not share. You state "Those are your views and if they do no harm, I don't have a problem with that"; however, stating it in that fashion gives the impression that you do have a problem with my views if they "cause harm" according to your beliefs. I am trying to communicate to you that you cannot bind others on Wikipedia to your beliefs -- no matter how strongly you believe them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • They never gave Warren McShane that type authorization. Why do you think this matters? Warren McShane was called as a witness, to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. That isn't trumped by the rules of a private organization like Scientology; even if Scientology had specifically denied McShane "authorization" to answer questions about the OT levels, he still had to answer the questions put to him truthfully or be in contempt of court.

  • You are confusing what I said. He was authorised to answer. He was not authorized to authorize others to publish details that could be harmful to the public. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, I am not confusing what you said. I am pointing out that you are confusing "what Scientology wished they could limit McShane's testimony to" with "what McShane actually testified, in court, as Scientology's witness." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • He was in court under oath, I don’t think he had much discretion in what he could not say. Here, again, you are confusing two completely separate things -- what Scientology wants people to know, and what is the truth. I have no doubt at all that Scientology never wanted those things to come out in court in the first place but their want doesn't determine what's legal and doesn't determine what's true.

  • I accept that.

  • Scientology has never published the details of the materials you keep placing, and replacing maliciously with disregard. Again, you're mistakenly assuming that the only way information can be true, or legal to print, is if Scientology wants it to be known.

  • I didn't say that and don't mean that. I'm only talking about harming the public, then claiming you didn't know it would do that. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  But once again, you are assuming your own beliefs as if they were facts. You're talking about "harming the public, then claiming you didn't know it would do that" as if everyone accepts or even has reason to accept that it would do that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Those details are harmful and you shouldn't want to use them in this way. Again, "those details are harmful" is a statement of your religious beliefs, and my religious beliefs are far different.

  • It is not a statement of religious beliefs. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  No matter whether you call them religious beliefs, pseudoscientific beliefs, applied religious philosophy beliefs, no matter what you call it -- it is a statement of your beliefs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You do agree you intend them to be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, Bridge Publications and Scientologists, as well as the general public? Fully disagree, of course. I don't believe there's a single bit of harm to the general public in anything I say about Xenu; I don't believe in Dianetic engrams, period, let alone that there are engrams of you-know-who out there waiting to be 're-stimulated'. I think the general public is better served by knowing what is in those OT levels before they pay large amounts of money to have the CoS tell them. Of course, they may be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, and Bridge Publications -- if the prospective customers of Scientology find out what they're really in for before they buy.

  • To my knowledge all the data of those levels is public already, except that which meets my criteria. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • To alter previous citations to make newspapers and others cite L. Ron Hubbard as if he is disclosing them is malicious disregard. As explained before, I think you are conflusing "malicious disregard for the truth" and "malicious disregard for what L. Ron Hubbard and his successors would want". As for "alter[ing] previous citations", well, so far I've been able to guess how you've confused "true" with "permission from Scientology" and trademark law with copyright law but here I can't even guess what you're misdescribing because it's so far from reality.

  • Here is the quote, from the DMSMH book page, "Newspaper reports and critics of Scientology have claimed that the volcano on post-1967 editions of Dianetics refers to the story of Xenu, who is said by L. Ron Hubbard to have placed billions of his people..." Hubbard did not disclose many details like that publically and specifically warned against it because it could harm people. I'm asking you not to do it either, or advocate it. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  So, again, when you say "alter[ing] previous citations", you don't actually mean "altering previous citations", you mean 'revealing information about the contents of the OT levels other than what Hubbard and/or his successors would have 'wanted' revealed.' -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • To persist in presenting the materials, the off-site references and even continuing this discussion with those materials posted is "a malicious disregard for the truth." You have not presented one single shred of evidence relevant to whether or not it is the truth. All you've done is argue that Scientology doesn't want people to know these things, which is agreed but irrelevant.

  • It is not agreed. I agree "want" is irrelevant, I'm arguing that you are harming, and saying you don't know it to be harmful. That is different. You are assigning a false reason to Scientolgy, because you don't see the harm. "The harm" I'm concerned about is the harm to the public done by you, but not recognized by you. That is irresponsible. If a gun is loaded, you don't get much credit for saying, "I didn't know it was loaded". I'm saying you need to find out for yourself what is harmful, like when someone tells shocking news too quickly, then take a look at this whole xenu thing in that light. Spirit of Man 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I agree "want" is irrelevant, I'm arguing that you are harming, and saying you don't know it to be harmful. And this is the crux of the conflict, which is that your argument that I am harming entirely depends on accepting what L. Ron Hubbard said as truth. You say I'm being irresponsible for not realizing 'the harm I'm doing', but what that equates to is you telling me that I'm being irresponsible for not accepting L. Ron Hubbard's word for what is harmful and what isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This is my opinion. Do you have any doubt this is true and that you folks have been intentionally acting in callous disregard for the harm you are doing or that could result? It's more like "Do I have any doubt that it's not true?" to which the answer is "No, I have no doubt that it's not true." I do not subscribe to your religion; I do not believe that certain information which also just happens to be embarrassing to Scientology will restimulate engrams, or that there are any engrams at all to restimulate, or that there is any harm whatsoever that would result. I have not been acting in callous disregard for harm just because I have not followed one religion's views that reading the Xenu story in anything other than a paid-for course or in Hubbard's Revolt in the Stars script will do harm.
  • All references to "Xenu" details should be removed on Wikipedia. I thank you very much for illustrating why doing so would be unjustified. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Fair Use permits you to cite documents in Wikipedia, but not those which are unverifiable.--JimmyT 10:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems this paragraph got deteted in on of the edits:

Antaeus, I take this statement, as a response to my question of intention, as an admission of slander for the purposes of Wikipedia; "Of course, they may be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, and Bridge Publications". The key point for this mediation is that you do not personally recognize your actions as harmful. So I will address that next. But first of all I want to go on record saying my opinion is the belief you state for the reasons the church does not publish certain specific material is not true. The truth is, in my opinion, the details of the material can be harmful to the general public, thus the use of the term slander. The general affects on our society of this material have been published and is not secret. The end result of the level is Freedom from Overwhelm. Any beliefs of Scientologists in general or at higher levels would reflect this public knowledge, not the harmfull details you and sites like xenu.com have built into a fabricated, totally false conspiricy. Spirit of Man 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, have you seen someone become more happy when they receive good news or presents at Christmas? Have you seen them become unhappy when they loose something valuable like a job, or they receive bad news like the loss of a loved one? I recently visited my brother-in-law's family after their grandson had commited suicide. It was out of the blue and sudden. When I first heard the news I went to them. The young man had paid for and planned to complete his doctorates and he was planning for college and a life teaching at the college he knew. He had discussed such things with his family that very day. His doctor changed his prescription to add an antidepressant and the boy scribbled a suicide note and was dead within three hours of taking the first pill. I talked to my brother-in-law, but there was nothing in this life he wanted to talk about but one thing. The moment he heard the news. He had been in shock ever since. I let him talk about the only thing he could talk about. He was at a party and the waiter said he had a call. He picked up the phone and someone told him his favorite grandson, that he had so many dreams for, was now DEAD! They took the time to convince him this was totally true. He dropped the phone and went into shock. He had to be driven home. His family was also in shock and feeling apathetic. The boy's mom was despondent, not eating and not sleeping, the family began a death watch fearing for her life. Antaeus, have you personally seen people react this way? People can be harmed when they receive certain kinds of information. They can die from it, if is is important enough to them. This doesn't have to do with my belief system. It has to do with you and your compassion for others. Can you give me a similar example from your life? Would you prepare someone for such news, by having them put things down they are holding down, sit in chair and soften the blow a little? Or do you believe it is your obligation to tell people in such vulnerable circumstances such information as bluntly and as quickly as possible with all the overwhelming details to bring home the horrible news? I have known two people that researched the xenu material before it was researched by Hubbard. One died, and the other told me what happened to him. I hope you don't mind if I spare you the details here. I ask you to believe that certain types of information can be harmful if presented in the wrong way. Spirit of Man 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am seriously saying that ChrisO has defied WP:V more than once. He once modified WP:CITE to justify his action (later reverted) and he has since cited documents from the long past (1982) which were never published and which are most certainly unavailable. Yet he cites them as if it is incumbant upon the reader to find them. In addition, many of his other citations are poorly formatted and poorly presented. As another example, he uses 2 different copies of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, apparently written in different languages but I'm not sure of that. ChrisO is editing in ways which prevent collaberative editing, rather than working toward collaberative editing.Terryeo 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is where ChrisO modified WP:CITE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACiting_sources&diff=36407183&oldid=36384353 --JimmyT 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that though you accused ChrisO of slander, you cannot support that accusation; you can only accuse him of other things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the Fishman Affidavit was made public in two different court cases, it's pretty ridiculous to still maintain the Xenu material was never printed or published by Scientology. And to say I removed the Xenu contents from the article "under pressure" is an understatement, since you made extremely sinister-sounding personal threats against me and legal threats against Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Fishman Affidavit is not a credible reference and is not even a publication by a notable publisher. ("Note that the claimed OT VIII in Fishman, which refers to Jesus as "a lover of young men and boys", is not considered authentic" Fishman Affidavit) Who knows what else Fishman has fabricated? Citation of the affidavit to compose Wikipedia articles is detrimental to the credibility of Wikipedia. --JimmyT 11:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the OT levels submitted as part of the Fishman Affidavit became a credible reference when the Religious Technology Center said "Hey! That's our copyrighted material there! You can't use that without our permission!" and brought lawsuits. They later stated that they had made an error in claiming the OT VIII submitted in the Affidavit as their own, which is the only reason there is doubt about the authenticity of that document. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I take this statement, as a response to my question of intention as an admission of slader for the purposes of Wikipedia; "Of course, they may be harmful to L. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology, and Bridge Publications". The key point for this mediation is that you do not personally recognize your actions as harmful. So I will address that next. But first of all I want to go on record saying my opinion is the belief you state for the reasons the church does not publish certain specific material is not true. The truth is, in my opinion, the details of the material can be harmful to the general public, thus the use of the term slander. The general affects on our society of this material have been published and is not secret. The end result of the level is Freedom from Overwhelm. Any beliefs of Scientologists in general or at higher levels would reflect this public knowledge, not the harmfull details you and sites like xenu.com have built into a fabricated, totally false conspiricy. Spirit of Man 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, have you seen someone become more happy when they receive good news or presents at Christmas? Have you seen them become unhappy when they loose something valuable like a job, or they receive bad news like the loss of a loved one? I recently visited my brother-in-law's family after their grandson had commited suicide. It was out of the blue and sudden. When I first heard the news I went to them. The young man had paid for and planned to complete his doctorates and he was planning for college and a life teaching at the college he knew. He had discussed such things with his family that very day. His doctor changed his prescription to add an antidepressant and the boy scribbled a suicide note and was dead within three hours of taking the first pill. I talked to my brother-in-law, but there was nothing in this life he wanted to talk about but one thing. The moment he heard the news. He had been in shock ever since. I let him talk about the only thing he could talk about. He was at a party and the waiter said he had a call. He picked up the phone and someone told him his favorite grandson, that he had so many dreams for, was now DEAD! They took the time to convince him this was totally true. He dropped the phone and went into shock. He had to be driven home. His family was also in shock and feeling apathetic. The boy's mom was despondent, not eating and not sleeping, the family began a death watch fearing for her life. Antaeus, have you personally seen people react this way? People can be harmed when they receive certain kinds of information. They can die from it, if is is important enough to them. This doesn't have to do with my belief system. It has to do with you and your compassion for others. Can you give me a similar example from your life? Would you prepare someone for such news, by having them put things down they are holding down, sit in chair and soften the blow a little? Or do you believe it is your obligation to tell people in such vulnerable circumstances such information as bluntly and as quickly as possible with all the overwhelming details to bring home the horrible news? I have known two people that researched the xenu material before it was researched by Hubbard. One died, and the other told me what happened to him. I hope you don't mind if I spare you the details here. I ask you to believe that certain types of information can be harmful if presented in the wrong way. Spirit of Man 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• In the spirit of disclosure and fairness when assigning strong POVs, it will be useuful to ask Modemac and his friend Fledspar about their strong POVs in regard of Scientology. Or is it that they claim have no such POV? --38.119.107.81 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  38.119.107.81, do we know you better under some other name? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Terryeo has taken to quoting and interpreting Wikipedia policy very broadly to support his arguments. Consequently he is accusing the four editors listed above (including myself, and including ChrisO) of egregious violations of policy, at least when it suits him. --Modemac 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Modemac has commented, I'll comment also. I have occassionaly stated when someone is at fault and stated how and why. That is true as far as it goes. I have been working toward "how to present the information which comprises Dianetics" for some while. Several of us have begin to see ChrisO, Modemac and a couple of other editors are only willing to present it as "pseudoscience" in the manner of Intelligent_design. While I am willing to have a portion of the Dianetics article be treated in that manner, I believe there are religious aspects as well. At least one other editor and myself have agreed the information might be treated as theory, WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories because there are associated concepts of "engram", etc. Apparently ChrisO so stongly disagrees with this idea that he is unwilling to discuss the idea. It was on that note (from my understanding) that he submitted to mediation. It was my impression we were all communicating on some level and *poof* its in mediation.Terryeo 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One more comment, the sequence of events at they happened. Several of us were working toward an agreement of how to treat the information which comprises Dianetics. ChrisO entered and saw the discussion and stated it should be presented as pseudoscience. He then posted the template that denys any other method of treating the subject except as pseudoscience. No Theory, no religion, nothing but your ChrisO's POV on the subject. That being the case, when I persisted (as per earlier agreements) with "theory" and the possibility of "religion" ChrisO submitted to mediation.Terryeo 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry may have made mistakes, perhaps under stress, but a more important issue is verifiability. See my previous comment about the unreliability of the Fishman Affidavit. I think Modemac should comment on this issue which is a major dispute rather than focusing on Terry's alleged mistakes. --JimmyT 11:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Terryeo is the problem. The above group represents an extreme POV. I refer the mediation to the comments of Wikipediatrix referring to me in association with Charles Manson, serial killers, etc, with a view to saying that her intention is that I should have no say on Wikipedia. She had just deleted the entire contents of the Philosophy of Dianetics section I had revised a third time after two deletions by Antaeus without prior discussion, or any discussion at that point. She did not discuss but made it a pronouncement. ChrisO has recently deleted the entire article and replaced it with own version of things. Modemec then repeatedly deleted edits to that even after discussion. I think the problem is this group, not Terryeo. As to pseudoscience, I have presented test results from the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation published as the Introduction to Science of Survival. ChrisO then deleted that and rewrote his own version as from a survey rather than a study, and then providing a fanzine article that disputed the survey. I presented the facts of 50,000 or so Clears as the results of Dianetics. It is not pseudoscience and should not characterized from an extreme POV only. As to NPOV I think the above group uses it as an overt banner only to wave when in fact they are covertly acting as Wikipediatrix has outlined. Denying neutrality and stretching the POV of the article further and further to direction of Clambake.com and Xenu.com and other sites that have been shutdown by legal actions. As to "hard facts" this a common comment by Antaeus. He deletes a sections repetitively without Discussion then days later claims that I intended this when I did not. He may have some kind of a point but shouldn't it be discussed then revised with a "he said" or citation or change in the wording, instead of wholesale repetitive deletions without discussion? Spirit of Man 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"they are covertly acting as Wikipediatrix has outlined"? I have no idea what you are talking about, please explain. wikipediatrix 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think such explainations should be in the Discussion area, but since your arn't discussing there, here goes. Antaeus deleted my two philosophy edits per BTfromLA's request without discussion, you then deleted a third edit without discussion and made an alarming statement without discussing it either. This is the first line from your statement: "Just because there are two sides to any issue doesn't mean these two sides get equal time." In the context of that time it looked like you two were making a point of denying me any view whatsoever. Then you went on with your statement: "To use an extreme example, we don't give serial killers like Charles Ng benefit of the doubt and devote many paragraphs to the notion that maybe Ng had good reason to torture and kill all those women." It seems to me you are assuming an extreme viewpoint and comparing me to this serial killer in a context of torture and killing women. Continuing on with your statement, "Scientology and Dianetics are similarly EXTREMELY controversial matters and the long string of veriafiable and proven misdeeds by the Church" I note you have provided me with no such data previously and offered me no rebuttal here. I posted a rebuttle but you did not discuss. "(who are we supposed to believe, Time Magazine or Spirit of Man?) means that like it or not, it is NOT being unfair to weigh an article towards these FACTS and against the philosophical opinions of the subject, or the subject's adherents." To me this says you consider your beliefs as stated here as FACTS sufficient to deny me access to Wikipedia on this issue. "This isn't picking on Scientologists - the same goes for Moonies, Heaven's Gate disciples, Jim Jones followers, Charles Manson devotees, Anton LaVey Satanists, Branch Davidians, and any other group that attracts pathologically contentious fans. wikipediatrix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)" You have compared me to Charles Manson and Satanists, and as a pathologically contentious fan. You state this view is your justification why it not unfair of you to deny me any right to post my philosphical edits. You state this from the context of an edict that you have refused to discuss. This seems the same plan that Antaeus had used in the two earlier reversions. And the same plan ChrisO had used when deleting all edits with his rewrite of the entire article without discussion, that deleted all attempts to fairly represent two sides. It is true Antaeus has made entries on these matters just before the mediation started, but one has to ask, was that to soften the view for mediator review or make amends for a mistake? Please continue this in the Discussion area. Spirit of Man 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting your poorly-written, improperly-sourced, unencyclopedic philosophical ramblings is NOT "denying you access to Wikipedia", and I'm only one among a dozen other editors who have reverted your edits. And you've deliberately taken my "both sides don't necessarily get equal time" quote out of context: I then went on to explain that we don't give, say, Ted Bundy equal time to give his own POV that murder is okay. We don't say "although some critics have stated otherwise, Bundy's perspective was that random killings of young women were justified", and then go on to devote many paragraphs to his personal philosophy. In so illustrating, I am not "comparing" Scientology to Ted Bundy, Satanists, etc. but it often takes an extreme example to properly make a point. Scientology has been embroiled in so many controversies, crimes, and court cases over the decades that it would be misleading and whitewashing to give Scientology the POV "benefit of the doubt" that you want. wikipediatrix 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia Tricks should provide exact reference of what he means by "poorly-written..." otherwise his rambling entry should be viewed as a personal attack upon User:Spirit of Man. --JimmyT 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, if that was your view you should have discussed it so the material could be revised. You didn't "revert" the material to any of the previous three states, you deleted an entire section. You "say" you are not comparing me to killers, but you blindly do exactly that here again under scrutiny. I did not present "personal" philosophy, I used citations from Dianetics books and honored the content there. You now attempt to mask your actual intention and responsibility by saying others do it and imply I'm asking for a "benefit of the doubt" by pointing out a representative misconduct here where you are a party to calling for the mediation. I believe this representative misconduct overt or covert, by the calling parties is the heart of the matter, not Terryeo. Terryeo is just defending against all this in his own way. Spirit of Man 02:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On many occassions I've felt Wikipediatrix reverted my edits and used the excuse "POV" simply because I had made an edit. I've also seen her gloat in anticipation that she would soon revert Spirit of Man's philosphy when she saw it.Terryeo 07:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if I did compare Dianetics to Ted Bundy in a sense which implied similarity (which I didn't), you are not Dianetics, so by what arrogant osmosis do you arrive at the notion that it's YOU I've done the comparison to? Can we stop talking about you and talk about the article now? wikipediatrix 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any objection to you reverting the Philosophy section you deleted? Don't you think people interested enough in Dinetics to come to Wikipedia would want to see what the philosophy is all about? Spirit of Man 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, with all due respect, you can't force on us that 50,000 Clears is meaningful to us: this is a specific Dianetics concept not recognized outside Dianetics (I am aware of many "clears" that are no longer adherent of scientology, do you count them?). Therefore, it has no value to people that don't consider Dianetics scientifically sound. What matters are the claims, and the absence of proof about these claims, as simple as that. It's not about POV, it's about facts not matching the claims. I actually understand that you strongly believe in Dianetics, the point is you have to understand that the claims made by Hubbard don't pass scientific scrutiny, and this has nothing to do with ChrisO's opinion in particular, but the secular approach of an encyclopedia. Raymond Hill 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Raymond Hill" might be a mediator but he edits toward the same POV as ChrisO (disallowing any real information about Dianetics in the Dianetic article) under the twin appearences, "Povmec" and "Raymond Hill". Terryeo 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems "Raymond Hill" is User:Povmec. --JimmyT 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond, I don't know you, so I shall assume you are a mediator. The state called Clear is the most basic quantifiable claim of Dianetics. It is the goal of Dianetics published in early books. A Clear is the most fundamental result of Dianetics. A Clear can be tested. A Clear is a standard. [For example: all Clears, no matter the original IQ have IQs above 135. This is required.] Clears can be counted. The results show if the subject works. Do I count Clears no longer adherent? Yes. It is a state not a membership number. It is the basic data needed by anyone that considers Dianetics to be unsound. And I believe if you don't see the actual results of a thing you should consider it unsound. Clears are the results. If you presume to evaluate or form an opinion of Dianetics there is no more basic thing than Clear. If you don't know what it is and why it is important how could you have a valid opinion about Dianetics? It seems to me this is most important and is what a person that read a book would expect to see at Wikipedia. He expects to see what is important. Not what is hearsay. Do you agree? Spirit of Man 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond, one more thing. When did the article on Dianetics start to revolve around whether people consider it to be scientific rather than what the subject is? Isn't it up to the reader to decide on the facts of the matter, and not your decision to exclude this opportunity? I'm not saying I have a problem with you presenting your view, I'm saying it is wrong to exclude the subject and ONLY present your view. I think that amounts to simply advertizing your personal ideas. That is a long way from an encyclopedia of knowledge where people that might have an interest in reading about something interesting to see what it is for themselves and get some ideas. Do you agree? Spirit of Man 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree that Terry is the problem here. I admit I have not had the chance to thoroughly study this discussuion and it is very confusing because similar disputes between the same editors are ongoing over several articles. A problem I notice, is that preclusion of Terry's voicing of verifiability issues are often effected by redirection of attention with borderline personal attacks upon Terry. --JimmyT 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Extending the decision pending confirmation that all parties accept mediation, and answers to questions. The parties need to define clearly the issues to be mediated. If all the parties do not sign on for mediation within 14 days, the mediation will be rejected. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to know exactly who Raymond is, as he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the Mediation Committee. A mediator will be assinged once all the parties have acknowledged acceptance of the mediation, and the issues to be mediated have been defined. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear: I'm not mediating this issue. As the chair of the Committee, it is my responsibility to see to it that requests are accepted or rejected, and then assigned to a mediator. I would like to see a demonstration (something along the lines of a list at the bottom of the page where all the parties sign saying "I agree to mediate") so I know that the case can be assigned to a mediator. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My username is Povmec (I have a pending request to change it to my real name), Raymond Hill. I'm actually a party to the dispute even though my name doesn't appear at the top (I wasn't sure I could add myself up there..) My opinion on various points concerning Dianetics can be seen at Dianetics#Dianetics_and_pseudoscience (Povmec, or Hill later on), and I mostly support ChrisO version of the article, which he took great care to reference abundantly with facts, and thus is closer to being neutral in my opinion. Because of that, I can't be a mediator here, but I wish to take position when questions will be asked. Raymond Hill 16:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am the 'opposing party' and will state 'my side of the story' here. I would also invite that JimmyT and Spirit of Man are active and interested parties to the dispute, though not specifically named by ChrisO in his appeal to mediation.
  • Early 5 Feb, several editors had been working toward a consensus of how to introduce the subject matter which comprises Dianetics. Several had agreed that theory spelled out at WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories was at least a possible method. Some of our talk from 2 Feb is [7] and earlier included whether we could treat Dianetics as original research or should treat it as theory. The question of treating it as religion remained to be unconfronted at that point.
  • On 5 Feb. ChrisO entered the discussion and stated it should be presented as pseudoscience [8].
  • This is the reason it is in mediation. ChrisO's stated POV is that all of the information which comprises Dianetics is Original Research and is covered under the policy WP:NOR and is therefor inadmissible into any wikipedia article. He has said the same in another wikipedia article, Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health and Antaeus Feldspar has agreed with him there. I completely disagree with his views that no information about Dianetics shall ever reach the reader's view. I am utterly opposed to preventing that information which has been sold for 55 years in a dozen publications from being pruned from the articles. I understand the need for including secondary sources of information and I further understan the need for tertiary sources. Pseudoscience is one of those opinions and that is just fine with me. But to exclude the information which secondary sources comment on is completely against WP:NPOV. It is simply impossible to present secondary sources of information on (any color rock here) without presenting (the original rock). ChrisO and his group want to present secondary opinions but exclude the subject matter which those opinions address. This is why ChrisO appealed to mediation.
  • This 5 Feb discussion spells out the results of this difference of opinion just before ChrisO submitted to mediation. [9]
  • On 5 Feb ChrisO placed a template to the top of Talk:Dianetics. [10] This was before he appealed to mediation. It was his attempt to limit talk on the discussion page to those things which align with his POV. It cautioned "new" editors and stated certain policies apply to the article. It implied some policies are to be given more attention within the article than other policies. It included [11] but did not include either religion or theory, nor did it imply that WP:V should be paid close attention to. WP:V has been repeatedly violated by ChirsO in this article, he cites unpublished sources. That he in addition cites difficult to find sources is another point of contention that I have with him. In particular his template excludes certain areas of discussion. I maintain that his placing such a template violates WP:NPOV because there is no article on wikipedia to which all policies do not apply. I maintain it is inappropriate to attempt to manipulate a talk page to exclude religion and theory from a subject whose copyrights are owned by a religion and whose dissemination has been successfully done for 50 years by a religion. Further his template excludes, "discussion of the worth of Dianetics" which prevents or at least inhibits editors from arriving at a consensus of opinion. For example, "engram" is a term used in Dianetics. To include or not include it in the article is likely to be a discussion. To discuss it, the worth of the term kind of has to be discussed. This is the sort of discussion ChrisO's template denys.
  • Sorry, these links to discussion don't format as well as I had hoped. 65.147.74.203 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • again, sorry. I thought I was signed in and see I was not. I wrote and posted that which is immediately above. Terryeo 17:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Is it my perception, or is ChrisO not accepting mediation? Yes he has posted some questions in initiating this mediation but I don't see him stating acceptance. It seems he is more interested in intimidating me and the others. He is where he has just tried to intimidate me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADianetics&diff=39388969&oldid=39387898 --JimmyT 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now ChrisO is citing[12] Wikipedia policy: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications" and about the same time he replaces an external link to a publication [13] that is not peer-reviewed, academic, or scholarly. The external link is to Cecil Adams who no one really knows who he is. The external link was first copied into the article by Wikipediatrix[14]. How can mediation? --JimmyT 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please take a look at Terry's comment and my response where I pasted the link to his edit of WK policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dianetics&diff=prev&oldid=39401397 --JimmyT 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• And now he says he's moving information up, but really he is inserting new information.[15] --JimmyT 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• JimmyT, I invite you to read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. This could have prevented you from stating the above (wrongly), see for yourself [16]. Don't forget, every edit are "on the record" in wikipedia, and I am surprised that you are actually a party against the pseudoscientific characterization of Dianetics, since you are on the record as stating that "an applied religious philosophy does not need the endorsement of any scientific community" or "it has been criticized as pseudoscience and quackery by [...] anti-religious bigots" Raymond Hill 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for suggesting another policy I am not really familiar with. I will respond to you with a personal message from me to your talk page. A template mentioned tempers flaring, I apologize to Wikipedia for letting it happen to me when I wrote about the anti-religious bigots. Don't forget the specific verifiability issue raised by Terry in regards to ChrisO's attempt to include unverifiable documents and his action in supporting his POV by modifying policy which was reverted by Terryeo and JesseW. If you notice most of my edits on this and the Dianetics talk page you'll see thats my main concern in that verifiability dispute. But yes I think the pseudoscience label is not accurate because Dianetics was early research into Scientology the applied religious philosophy which isn't dictated by any scientific community. --JimmyT 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• It says right on the Cecil Adams page, "he" is a column written by "The Chicago Reader". In other words, the validity of Cecil Adams is not as a scholar, but as a journalist. Newspapers are valid citations on Wiki.--M@rēino 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Newspapers are not reliable. --JimmyT 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's interesting to see how JimmyT is determined to paint ChrisO as the person allegedly disrupting the Dianetics page...yet, interestingly enough, ChrisO's edits are widely accepted by the persons reading and contributing to the article. The only two persons attempting to revert ChrisO's additions to the article are Terryeo and JimmyT...who also happen to be the ones making accusations against him. Also of note are these two comments from JimmyT: [17] and [18]. Far be it from me to suggest anything, of course. :) --Modemac 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  I want CrisO's Carroll edits reverted. This statement demonstrates his approach. The Carroll statement is false but a key one for his pseudoscience issues. A citation to an Dianetic empirical test study is presented that refutes it utterly. He repeatedly deletes the Dianetics test study citation. Then applies pseudoscience to the article and discussion because there is "no empirical testing". I don't see how this is not fraudulant? Spirit of Man 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I have attempted to be completely clear that I intend to follow wiki policy. On more than one occasion I have reminded other editors that I am not asking they 'believe' the information which I cite. On frequent occasions I have defended myself from the sort of personal attack which Modemac often understands is happening. ChrisO has violated WP:V, to say so is not an attack, but an attempt to get on with appropriate application of appropriate policy. At this time now, the situation revovles around "how shall the information which comprises Dianetics be treated." ChrisO says, "Dianetics is original research" and suggests the information from Bridge publications which publishes Dianetics materials (large organization, many publications, well established) not be included because it is a special interest publisher. I suggest we simply follow established Wiki policies. Particularly, WP:NOR#Disputes_over_how_established_a_view_is leads us citing Dianetics publications and being able to cite secondary sources equally well. But to use WP:NOR as an excuse to exclude thousands of pages purchased by millions of readers simply doesn't make sense. This is not meant as a personal attack but a statement of my understanding of the applicable Wiki Policies and Guidelines. Terryeo 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  Well, you see Modemac, the thing is, ChrisO is the person who initiated an appeal to Mediation which was the unusual step that started this sequence. We were all playing nicely on the Dianetics Discussion page and making progress toward a good, balanced article. ChrisO read and he says, understood what I was talking about (he singled me out) and placed the template (nothing but pseudoscence applies here, is what it said) and refused to discuss as the rest of us were doing. Even you were discussing Modemac. BTfromLA, Feldspar, we were all talking. It is ChrisO who did not want the discussion to continue and brought it to mediation. That is why he is singled out, though he attempted to present it as if it was I who was singled out. Terryeo 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here is my complaint: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADianetics&diff=39431649&oldid=39426774 ] That is a direct response to ChrisO's 2nd intimidating message. --JimmyT 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to make Essjay's job easier.

In an effort to make Essjay's job easier, and the start of mediation more timely, I suggest the following organization be added to the request for mediation.

• A list of Interested parties that have edited Dianetics articles recently.

Interested Parties: ChrisO, Antaeus Feldspar, Wikipediatrix, Modemac / Raymond Hill, Terryeo, Tenebrous, KillerChihuahua?!?, JimmyT, ScienceApologist, ⇒ SWATJester /wiki/Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svgReady Aim , 137.229.152.246, Spirit of Man, AndroidCat, Friday (talk), Katefan0, NicholasTurnbull | (talk), rmosler

I don't think all those people should have a part in this. I don't want one. Also, 137.229.152.246 is me; Wikipedia doesn't like to keep me signed in. Tenebrous 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I ask that each interested party add separately in their own words, the issues they personally wish mediated. This may clarify which issues have dropped out for people or have been added. And tell which issues have achieved consensus as we move forward. Issues with specific interested parties should name the interested parties so the conflict can be observed. Each party should update their entries as discussion progresses. Each party should agree to answer questions by a mediator and accept mediation. Those that do not present issues may be considered outside the mediation.

• The sub-articles of Dianetics to be included should be named and included in mediation.

Spirit of Man 16:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man I agree to answer mediator questions and accept mediation of these issues.

• Should Wikipedia take unto itself to redefine and marginalize the Scope of Dianetics?

In citable written works, the subject matter is defined to encompass all existence including; philosophy, science, therapy, defining the human spirit and the human mind, and defining the whole track of spiritual experience.

• The calling parties have not permitted the subject of the article, and sub-articles to be presented on Wikipedia as a person consulting an encyclopedia could reasonably expect.

• The calling parties are not permitting the science of the Dianetics to be presented. The calling parties have deleted empirical test results presented by Dianetics, cited by editors and presented as missing by their citations.

• The calling parties are only permitting the subject to be called pseudoscience or "ideas" or "culture" and have acted to conceal or prevent its use.

• The calling parties seem to be conducting a progressive program to reduce the scope of the subject and the reach of the editors that wish to present the scope of the subject available to readers. Spirit of Man 17:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • There is really only one main issue here (I believe). There is a group of editors who are editing the Dianetics article that do not understand what Dianetics is. ChrisO is the central person of this group because he does large edits which Feldspar, Modemac and Raymond Hill and Wikipediatrix see as valid. There are three of us who know Dianetics (Spirit of Man, JimmyT and myself). The Dianetics article does not communicate to the reader what Dianetics is. We have a group of 5 (who do not understand Dianetics) and a group of 3 whom do. The group of 5 has engaged in any number of poor editing procedures to defy the group of 3 of us whom know the subject from presenting the subject in the article. That is the reason why this is in mediation. There are details. There are the examples of confidential documents cited, there other very poor quality verifications. There is a long, rambling piece about Hubbard's economic difficulties in Kansas. This is exactly what should be expected from people who do not understand the subject which they are attempting to write about. We have expert editiors and we have people who think they know about Dianetics. The two groups are head to head. They won't let us who know, edit. They revert frequently and use the reason "RV POV edit" or similar. They won't let us introduce the subject and when we get close to introducing the subject they rewrite the whole article. They insist that anything stated in a book from Bridge PUblications must be presented as a "claim" while any rag website's verification against Dianetics is to be presented as a "statement". I do not know what the solution is. I believe they are doing their damndest to do what they feel is right. I suspect they would even say, "Yes, I know all about Dianetics". However, I could have anyone whom I have ever known, who knew Dianetics, read that article and they would know by the third sentence that whomever had written it did not know the least thing about Dianetics. It is glaringly, baldly, disgustingly obvious. It is not an article which tells a reader anything about Dianetics. Terryeo 11:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I would agree that for the most part, this is the crux of the problem: Terryeo is part of a group of three editors who think they understand "what Dianetics is" -- i.e., they think that their POV about Dianetics is "what Dianetics is", rather than being their POV about what Dianetics is. For instance, in this edit, Terryeo changes the first sentence of the article to describe Dianetics as "a workable theory", even though he knows that there is no consensus (except, again, in his private group of three editors whom he would like to regard as the only ones qualified to edit the article) about Dianetics even being a "theory", let alone "workable". This is a textbook case of a POV edit and yet Terryeo describes the situation as "They won't let us who know, edit. They revert frequently and use the reason "RV POV edit" or similar." (emphasis added) This is the main component of the problem: Despite the best efforts of other editors to explain it to him, Terryeo is either unable or unwilling to make the distinction between his beliefs about Dianetics and "what Dianetics is". He continually alleges that other editors are preventing "information" about "what Dianetics is" from being included in the article, but even allowing for this actually meaning "The POV shared by Terryeo and Spirit of Man and JimmyT about what Dianetics is", what we actually see in Terryeo's edits is more frequently an attempt to suppress or marginalize other POVs on the subject. For example, after Terryeo has already been presented with the court testimony of a witness for Scientology, in which without being prompted he mentions "The volcanoes on the cover of Dianetics" in response to questions about "Xemu and the volcanoes and something that happened 75 million years ago" [19], Terryeo inserts into the article his own POV and his own original research about the connection between the Xenu incident and the volcanoes that have appeared on the cover of the book from 1967 on: "Critics, having little else to criticize, have focused on reasons why a volcano appears on the cover. The publisher of the book apparently feels it sells books." (emphasis added) [20] Terryeo continuously argues that he is being prevented from making legitimate edits but even if we try to assume that he is editing in good faith, Terryeo's edits are frequently just unacceptable by Wikipedia standards, trying to insert claims made by Hubbard or by Bridge Publications or by Scientologists as if they were the final word on the subject. (And frankly, it is very hard to believe that Terryeo is editing in good faith; since he previously accused other editors of "doing original research, stating your own opinions without any verification" for stating a connection between Scientology's Xenu doctrines and the cover image of Dianetics[21], it's hard to believe that he could then have inserted his own opinion without any verification on the very same issue without realizing that he was doing exactly what he protested about!) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • My GOD! you refuse to recognize that I know what Dianteics is? You do not even recognize that 3 of us understand the subject of Dianetics, that we are "expert editors?" My GOD! Terryeo 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Since you seem to think that being an "expert editor" means you can unilaterally declare Dianetics to be a "workable theory" and make similar edits to eliminate POVs that do not match what you "understand", then yes, I decline to consider you an "expert editor". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreements to mediation

• I am willing to go along with a mediation decision and direction. I recognize that I am, to a degree, the target of some editors. I consider the main reason for this to be that I persistently refuse to allow unpublished citations (such as inter-organizational communications and confidential documents) to appear in these articles. ChrisO brought it to mediation with the statement: "should Dianetics be treated as a pseudoscience?" I am not attempting to prevent that presentation in the article but have worked toward additional presentations as well. I believe the reason it is in mediation is that a small handful of editors are insisting that Dianetics only be presented as pseudoscience. The official Dianetics website presents Dianetics [22] as an activity. A statement early on the page says: "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." I would like to see the Dianetics article present (at least in part) that Dianetics is an activity, as the Dianetics website presents Dianetics to be. The difficulty, I believe, in these two different presentations revolves around the definition of term "reactive mind." I can't get the definition into the article because when I say, "reactive mind" some other editor immediately reacts, "pseudoscience" and deletes my edit. When I put a definition of "mental image picture" into the article, another editor reacts, "pseudoscience" and the article ends up being all about pseudoscience which is a single POV about Dianetics. The article needs the additional point of view about what it is today. Thousands of people are spending thousands of dollars, the Church of Scientology owns millions of dollars of property. "Pseudoscience" is a perfectly okay thing to "prove" or argue about, but it does not describe what is happening today. I want the article to include that information on which the activity of Dianetics is based. I want the article to include what the activity of Dianetics does.Terryeo 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to mediation on the three issues presented in the RfM (as seen at the top.) Raymond Hill 20:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to mediation. I am convinced the issue is not whether Dianetics is or is not pseudoscience because the Dianetics site does not comment in that area, [[23]] but instead, the issue is whether the reader of the articles are allowed to view that information which comprises Dianetics. ChrisO (and a few editors) disallow it at Dianetics and at Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health.I think I signed this twice nowTerryeo 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to mediation on the issues listed at the top of the RfM. I disagree with Terryeo's characterization that the issue is "whether the reader of the articles are allowed to view that information which comprises Dianetics". Terryeo might honestly believe that his attempts to add "that information which comprises Dianetics" are opposed because editors such as myself don't want "that information" to be revealed; however, as we have made numerous attempts to explain to Terryeo, it is because such edits are not acceptable when they violate key policies, such as this edit which in the context doesn't even seem like an attempt in good faith to improve the article in accordance with WP:NPOV but simply an out-and-out troll (if you think it's an edit that could have been made with good-faith intent, make sure you look at the edit summary.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that mediation should occur although I am not really a part of the dispute. I think the article should be presented in a NPOV rather than focusing on the pseudoscience issue. Also some editors seem to be reverting entire edits just because they disagree with one small part of an edit whereas they should correct the part they disagree with rather than make an entire revert of edits which contain some valid edits. I could be wrong in my estimation, but this is what I see from watching what I can over the last several days. Also the verifiability issue of some references Chris has presented needs to be addressed, I believe they are unacceptable and not verifiable, this has been pointed out by Terry and at least one other editor. --JimmyT 14:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to mediation, but I recommend that we further agree to three basic principles to make it more likely that we will reach a successful conclusion.

First, we should set a time limit on the mediation to ensure that it does not drag on indefinitely. I'm open to suggestions for how long this should be - I'd suggest two or three weeks at the most.

Second, we should ensure that we are all clear about the scope of the mediation. The mediation is about content and policy issues, not about user conduct (on either side). We should not be seeing a repeat of the ad hominems and borderline legal threats that have regularly characterised Talk:Dianetics.

Third, we should set a word limit on arguments: 500 words for a proposition, 500 words against, etc. Talk:Dianetics is one of the most verbose and rambling talk pages I've ever had the misfortune to see on Wikipedia; this mediation page is going the same way. Concise summary arguments, not rambling personal essays, are what's needed here.

I hope that the mediator will give consideration to these points and I'd like to invite him/her to adopt them as ground rules for this mediation. If this mediation isn't clearly defined and kept within agreed limits, I think we're likely to find it spinning off into irrelevance very quickly - obviously, I'd like to avoid that, and I hope the other participants will want to avoid it too. -- ChrisO 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a little confusing. First ChisO asks for mediation based on 3 points. Several of us agreed to mediation based on that information and on the request of the mediator whom posted. Now ChrisO chimes in late that he will agree IF... and further attempts to limit what the mediation is to include. My agreement to mediation was based on what the mediator requested and I did not intend it to be based on this attempt by ChrisO to control what will be mediated and what will not be mediated.User conduct is the main issue here if you ask me. ChrisO has repeatedly refused to play nicely with others and I believe his conduct both in naming me individually and in his refusal to discuss in the discussion pages merits attention. Terryeo 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)In fact, the single reason mediation exits in the first place is because people are unable to resolve things for themselves in discussion pages, or by working together in discussion pages. A good deal of the difficulty revolves around how we treat each other. Terryeo 01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you misrepresent what I've said. I haven't said anywhere above that my agreement is dependent on the three principles I've suggested. I believe that having a focused mediation is more likely to produce a worthwhile result than having a free-for-all. WP:M states: "Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other." I've proposed what I think would be useful ground rules for this mediation. It's up to the mediator to decide whether he/she wants to endorse the ground rules that I've proposed.

As for user conduct, that is outside the scope of a mediation (at least as I understand it). WP:M states: "Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines." If you think my editing is so bad, you should bring a request for comment against me. The three issues that are the subject of this mediation are matters of content and policy, not issues of user conduct. I strongly advise you not to abuse the mediation system if your intention is to use it as a platform for further personal attacks against myself and other editors. -- ChrisO 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you have disregarded what I said. There is only one reason why anything ever comes to mediation. That reason is that the people involved have not been able to communicate on the discussion page. I would say more but my first statement was ignored by ChrisO and I wouldn't expect this one to be understood either. Terryeo 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: After consultation with other members of the Committee, we must reject this request. While there is definitely a case for mediation, and the parties seem to be willing to mediate, this particular request has grown so lengthy before acceptance as to be completely unmanageable. There is simply no way we can make heads or tails of what is going on, with all the cross-commentary. The parties are encouraged to refile this request using the new {{RFMR}} format. Please note: You must stick to that format strictly! Any commentary or other additions will be removed by a member of the Committee. The format is designed to provide exactly the information needed to accept or reject a case; mediation will not begin until after a case is accepted, therefore commentary is not required or accepted until the mediation has been accepted. Please adhere to the format strictly.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By The Way, thank you for being considerate and neutral in an area that spawns emotion. Providing a platform for discussion has helped somewhat, in resolving the issues which brought it to mediation. We are communicating a little bit better. Im Addition, a few neutral editors have appeared in the article's discussion space because it came to mediation and their discussion is likewise proving fruitful. Sincerely, Terryeo 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the Committee's decision and I'm grateful for their consideration of the matter. I thought my original mediation request was short and to the point - it's very regrettable that it turned into a rambling slanging match. (Unfortunately this is something that's plagued Talk:Dianetics and a number of other article, template and user talk pages as well.)

Although I'm willing to refile the request, I'm increasingly convinced that we need to deal with the issue of user misconduct across a range of articles, notably repeated violations of WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and borderline violations of WP:NLT. A mediation of Dianetics would not resolve those issues and would not resolve the ongoing problems on other articles.

Accordingly, I intend to file a user RfC in the hope of prompting a change in behaviour, or failing that to provide a basis to take the matter to the ArbCom. -- ChrisO 20:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, here at last is the place where real stuff of this page is happening, right where it should be. It was clear to me from the beginning that ChrisO (and his group) misrepresented the situation. All of the problems which mediation would confront could be handled in the discussion pages if people would discuss. It is unfortunate that people do not. Alas, what solution is there when people refuse to discuss, yet revert edits with reasons like, "too POV, reverting". Terryeo 22:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)