Talk:Auditing (Scientology)

Refbombing isn't collaboration
So instead of conceding that your cited source doesn't mention "tin cans" or even "tin", you lie and berate me in your next edit summary, then go on to WP:REFBOMB the lead using mostly outdated sources or those that rely on outdated sources. FYI: Not all auditing uses an emeter. FYI#2: The electrodes are tin-plated steel cylinders, and are not "tin cans" à la food packaging (although those were used in the early days of e-meters, and undoubtedly contributed to the current language of calling them "cans"). FYI#3: The more you push your POV, the more I feel compelled to present or defend the opposing view for correctness and good Wikipedia writing practices. FYI#4: Don't ever assume my disinclination to continue fighting over your edits is confirmation those were correct or good. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given your tone ("I challenge you...") in your edit summary and here, I'm not going to rise to this. The source I referred to was the Secrets of Scientology site hosted on the Carnegie Mellon address. There are numerous instances where they are referred to as "tin cans", one of which I added to the references, along with several other sources from 1987, 2006, 2015. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As you've made a fabricated accusation of "refbombing" which you're now doubling down on, please indicate which sources you think are added "without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic". Cambial — foliar❧ 19:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The term just struck me as odd as well (and I am perfectly unaffiliated with Scientology). Of course it's not hard to see why they may be called "tin cans" even by Scientologists, in a lighthearted way, or by critics, for purpose of ridicule, or simply because of their vague resemblance. But I fear neither of these belong on an Encyclopia, light heartedness in describing things, or ridicule. Cars also get referred to as tin cans on occasion, then usually referring to their manner of being crushed, and that is not mentioned in the article on Cars. I am optimistic that only tin cans should be called tin cans on Wikipedia, outside direct quotations and the like. Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Tin Cans
I am not a Scientologist but is "tin can" really the proper term? It sounds a little dismissive or like mockery. But I cannot claim to know what these things actually are made of or what's inside Coca Cola? . I imagine the galvanometer works on some level, as far as measuring electrical resistance is concerned, so making light of it may not be necessary. Pseudoantiquasi (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Your assumption on the language is correct. The Church of Scientology officially calls them "electrodes" with the word "cans" being used ubiquitously in Hubbard's writings (but not "tin cans").  Technically, from an electrical standpoint, they are electrodes. "Electrode" describes the function; "cans" describes the shape. The derogatory usage "tins cans" was added here. I had tried to change it to two electrodes (called "cans"), but was reverted. There's an earlier discussion on the provenance of cans at, but despite prototypes coming from kitchen supplies, the term "tin cans" (which evokes the image of a container holding food) was not used. The term "cans", however, is pervasive. Several examples can be seen at commons:Category:E-meters, and none of the images shown are prior food containers. This image shows an array of Scientology cans of varying sizes.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)