Talk:Auditing (Scientology)/Archive 1

This article isn't about auditing.
This article isn't about auditing. It doesn't even define what auditing is or how it is done. No mention of why any auditing is done is mentioned either, except the sliver of information, "goal to become clear" and that isn't accurate. At one time, about 1950, the goal of auditing was to become clear. That it has no definition at all of auditing (except the one word, 'listening') would tell anyone why the article isn't about auditing.

So what is this article about? Well, it looks like it is a springborad for controversy. With the best of intentions Ronobop wrote what he could. But immediately on his heels along comes the possibility that anything you say in auditing can and probably will be used against you in a court of law. No parallel is made between auditing and the Catholic Confessional, which is closely resembles. Auditing is a bit more scientific perhaps. Certainly the persons who audit are much more finely trained to listen to confessionals than Catholic Priests. As one example, after doing the training routines a friend and his buddy went on a crowded street. One read a book and the other listened. They moved further and futher apart until they were a block and a half apart, crowded street. And still understanding each other. But this article is all serious and everything. Terryeo 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, Agreed. This article needs major work and seems to address auditing mainly from the perspective of "what could be controversial about it", there is some valid data but a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about many things. Ravenna 07:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ravenna, if you would be specific, I'll try to address issues. Terryeo 05:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup!
I did a massive cleanup on it. My problem with this is not the tone of the article but the lack of organization in it. What I've done is not nearly enough, there are multiple redundancies in the article, the "Discussion" section is too long, and a couple of those short paragraphs should probably be rejoined with the beginning. I got tired of trying to do it all, I might have a go at it later. Oh, and to whoever did this, I'd prefer you take your concerns here rather than cluttering up the edit space with them. See past lives for info on past lives in Scientology and in other religions. Grandmasterka 03:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed it some, though my editing is a bit narrative, at least it presents the ideas. Terryeo 05:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Correcting the definition of an auditor and removing a false statement that is reference to a Wiki article that doesn’t exist. For information about how auditing is NOT related to hypnosis also see http://www.scientology.org/wis/wiseng/wis4-6/wis5_2.htm, which gives a description of auditing. Nuview 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This link should be in another article
Memorandum of Intended Decision in Church of Scientology of California vs. Gerald Armstrong First of all it is PFD and takes a while to load, an "intended decision" in a 1984 case, a court document (apparently). But it revolves around Hubbard's biography, it has maybe a paragraph or two in a large document which mentions "PC folders" which would apply to the subject of this article, Auditing. The court case (if you read through that) was about a man who was working on Hubbard's biography and the difficulty with documents and why he was bringing a case and so on. Auditing, the term "auditing" probably doesn't appear anywhere in it and it is about other topics. It doesn't say, as far as I can read, that the court made a decision about "PC folders" in general. Is there any reason we should leave that reference in there? Terryeo 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, it should stay. It verifies a claim made in the article--it isn't presented as a link to more info about auditing. The reason for mentioning it is clearly stated in the article: it documents the Church's use of "PC" files for their own, non-theraputic, ends. As long as that is included in the article, the citation should be, too. BTfromLA 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, as long as the article also notes that the G.O. which order it was, has long since been disbanded and therefore its "orders" are no longer in force within the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 17:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This has the potential to lead to another long, crazy, point-counterpoint section. As you know, the GO was disbanded but the OSA was created, and there are no shortage of commentators who claim that the same activities--unscrupulous intelligence gathering, harrassment, etc.--continue under the auspicies of the OSA. I'd vote for keeping the mention of this brief and passing in the auditing article, and if the controversy is going to be hashed out somewhere, maybe the Scientology Controversy page is the place.  BTfromLA 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I said okay? Terryeo 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just suggesting that if you are insitant about "but the GO no longer exists," it may lead to a more elaborate set of explanations that will threatedn to consume the article.   BTfromLA 17:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I ask you to understand. The G.O. was a suborganization within the Church of Scientology at one time.  It created a good deal of trouble for the Church.  It was disbanned, its orders no longer have force, etc.  An example of the sort of trouble it caused is in this article, including the order number.  However, that was some years ago.  It is a historical sort of situation.  Today things are done differently.  The G.O. did quite a lot of harm to the public image of the church, but hey, what is published is true, isn't it?  However, what is published was true at the time it was published.  That does not mean it is in force today.  Somehow, BTfromLA, I simply don't feel threatend by "the leading to a more elaborate set of explanations that will threaten to consume the article."  That really needs to be confronted.  If it is confronted now, here, in this article, then fine, good.  If it is confronted by creating yet another article which traces the G.O. and the various grey sorts of things it caused to the Church's image, then that is fine too.  But it would be unethical editor behaviour to allow the G.O. order in the article to be presented as being in force today, today when the G.O. has been disbanned for many years.  It is simply inaccurate, long past, long dead information, the kind of information that newspapers will never give up because they think people give a damn about it. Terryeo 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While the OSA is not identical to GO, there are a number of Guardian Orders that were simply relabelled for OSA. Hard information on OSA is scarce because they haven't been the subject of police raids, investigation and docuemnts entered as evidence, so it's difficult to say how much OSA has changed. I have seen examples of posting of material obtained from culling auditing folders of an ex-member as recently as this year. AndroidCat 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't believe that is the situation. You say that a number of G.O. orders were used verbatim and simply relabelled. Yet you can not say how much different the OSA is from the GO.  Let me point out the most obvious, bald, blatent difference.  Under the G.O. the Church of Scientology got a lot of bad Publicity.  Under the OSA, it has not had that quantity of bad Publicity.  Almost all of what people are carping about, quote Clambake and Xenu about were events under the G.O.   You state something about orders AndroidCat, but you supply no verifications for your statement and you refuse to even speak of your own personal experience.  Perhaps your reasoning about G.O. orders is as crystal clear as your reasoning about "patter drills"  (either they are practical drills or they fall under chinese drilling, Neither of which is actually the situation). Terryeo 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I've never said anything about patter drills, I conclude that you must be talking to some AndroidCat from an alternate universe. However, when I do have a good set of references about relabeled GO orders, and OSA actions that have brought bad publicity, or even bad Publicity, I will add them when I have time, no worries. For example, I was surprised that there was no mention of Bonnie Woods on any pages until today. As for my personal experiences, I've never refused to speak of them. (Probably Skippy from the alternate universe again.) They might make an addition to the OSA article, but .. it would be a bit too much like Original Research if I added them. AndroidCat 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. You don't reason about Patter Drills, okay, fair enough.  Now, about your statement regarding The OSA being a duplicate of the G.O.  Hey, my statement above is about the article and including or not including a long defunct G.O. order in if and only if that order is presented as being in force in present time.  ok? Oh, and if you would care to make a statement which presents your POV about Scientology that would be fine with me too. Terryeo 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The G.O. order
The G.O. order happened one time, apparently. Apparently one person was effected by it. A court case mentions it. With a population of millions of readers of Dianetics and who knows, thousands of people having done auditing, I can certainly understand its importance in the daily life of your average Scientologist, or in the daily life of a person who is thinking of learning more about Scientology. Its significance could hardly be made more cricital, after all, the G.O. did some harm to the public image of Scientology. Of course that was some years ago. Of course the G.O. was disbanned. Of course its orders no longer have force within the church. Of course most of its memebers are no longer members of the Church because of their actions. Nonetheless, I understand, some editors simply must have this critical datum in the article. Okay, good. So, let us place that datum per WP:V which compares a widely published, well known datum to a narrowly published, narrowly used, historically accurate datum. If the single court case and use of someone's PC folders is to be in the article, put it in the controversy section, all right? Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of pages about auditing, describing auditing and auditing procedures and what, 3 or 4 pages of court documents. And the court documents are published, ok, but not published widely, read by many, and so on. Terryeo 16:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's edits, analogies and accusations
On my talk page, Terryeo wrote me asking to communicate about "Your editing changes here for which your edit summary states: "BTfromLA (tried to rectify some of the gross POV in the intro--somebody will need to do this for the whole article)". Terryeo says that my edit "mis-states, confuses and belittles the subject."  He then proposes that just as a race car driver is the proper expert to write about car racing, so a scientologist is the expert qualified to write about scientology.  (His whole note can be read on my talk page.)  He suggested that I discuss changes on the article's talk page, so I am responding to Terryeo here, and I welcome the views of others.
 * Wikipedia, as it says in one of the policy guidelines, is not an instruction manual. Terryeo, you keep using the analogy of a first person "how to" account to defend your edits... the "parallel" articles you imagine are about how to drive a race car, graft fruit, hammer a nail, etc.  Wikipedia articles are rarely if ever designed as "how to" articles--if "how to" is covered at all, it is within a larger context of the history of the topic.  (See, for example, auto racing). Wikipedia articles are overall descriptions of topics compiled, best as possible, from reliable third party sources.  This has been explained to you many times by many editors, hasn't it?
 * Yes, I understand pefectly. If there were any third party source capable of understanding, duplicating, doing an auditing procedure without becoming themselves, Scientologists, that would be the source to use.  The problem is, anyone capable of actually auditing has become a Scientologist.  This is exactly the same problem in all of the Dianetics and Scientology articles.  It takes some effort and some persistance to understand, by the time you do, you like and use it and declare yourself to be a Scientologist.  An article can no more detail how to audit in a single page than a person can learn nuclear physics in with a single page. We can but try. Terryeo 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying, Terryeo. I find your response rather disturbing, though. You completly skip over my main point that Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual, and conclude that "we can but try" to "detail how to audit."  No, that is not the goal we are aiming toward, and if you can't get your mind around that, I despair that you can ever become a productive (as opposed to disruptive) editor.  Your argument that there are no good third-party sources about scientology because anybody with any glimmer of  understanding of the subject declares themselves a scientologist is painful to read. I don't know what to say in response without offending you.  Perhaps I can ask you this--is there any other (non-Scientology related) topic for which you believe "if you understand it you'll join us, if you don't join us it is because you don't understand anything about it" holds true? BTfromLA 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding I said in response. I agree with you, we can not present a "how to audit" manual here.  I guess I have been a little misleading, I don't intend that such a thing happen and I know it is completely beyond what would be possible.  I don't think it is desireable, either.  However, I believe it is possible to introduce what auditing (withing Dianetics and Scientology) is all about.  Now, now, BTfromLA, of course I am aware the "read it and you'll join" is a silly overstatement.  There have been a number of people who have quit the Church, etc.  Nothing is 100 %, but finding a disinterested 3rd party whom can "test" the concepts of auditing will prove to be difficult.  Not 100 % impossible perhaps, but difficult.  Of course I know what I've said isn't 100 % and I'm sure any sane individual would, I didn't mean to mislead anyone.  I was pointing out the difficulty, not meaning to close discussion off. Terryeo 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that being a practicing scientologist make you an expert in scientology is false. Certainly, knowledge of scientology from the viewpoint of a practioner can contribute valuably to the articles, but it is not the same as expertise in the subject as a whole.  This is true for any topic--a good race driver would not necessrily be a competent editor, nor does their driving proficiency make them knowledgable about the history and philosophy of auto racing. If that driver/editor started to rhapsodize about how thrilling the g-forces are or how much they dig the feel of some new steering wheel or how auto racing makes the world a better place and everybody should try it, that stuff would have to be edited out of a Wikipedia article.
 * Your assumption that Wikipedia articles should be written by "experts" is also false. Expertise in the subject isn't needed with Wikipedia editing --the job is to clearly organize and present previously published facts and expert opinion, not to originate that material.
 * except for a single entry, I think it was in Dianetics, out of fustration because everyone is removing a reasonable introduction of Dianeitcs (probably with the same good intention you are doing here) I haven't attempted to insist on any portion of any article being created only by experts. Terryeo 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your misunderstanding and consistent misapplication of the NPOV concept is so extreme that about twenty Wikipedia editors have signed on to a formal procedure designed to change your behavior. Does this not give you pause? LRH's point of view on scientology is far, far, far from NPOV.
 * It tells me that without a doubt, the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology are not easily understood. I have been reasonably polite and complient.  Some other editors have been far more hostile and attacking than I have been.  We are talking about presenting information to the reader, I believe. Terryeo 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits at the Auditing article are not only from a biased POV, they are written in a completely inappropriate style and peppered with awkward phrases like "a person...becomes that much more in control of their own attention."
 * Fine, which is what talk pages exist for.Terryeo 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was certainly not intended to offend--the fact is that the article was in really bad shape and I wanted to flag that fact for other editors. I do not have unlimited time to chat at length with you about these same issues over and over again. The fact is, there is a well established  consensus about these matters, and you continue to violate that consensus.
 * Perhaps I can ask like this. When you read my presentation of Auditing, was it that you came away feeling that you did not learn anything? Or was it that you saw obvious difficulties with flow and style? Terryeo 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't charge that my edit "mis-states, confuses and belittles the subject," unless you can point out specific examples where this is the case. If there is something inaccurate in there, it should be changed. Otherwise, I am confident that my version is far more clearly written and informative than the version it replaced, and I invite the opinions of others about this. BTfromLA 19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling after reading the edit that replaced my introduction. My specific in this case was "therapy".  Terryeo 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That what I said to you. At least you read it and responded to it, even if you didn't actually understand the point I was presenting to you. Specifically the difference between the introduction which I wrote and the introduction which you wrote is an early word. "Therapy" You define it as a therapy. That is to say, you judge it to be a therapy, you apply that evaluation and you present your personal evaluation to the reader. Specifically and exactly your introduction reads, "Auditing is a theraputic procedure..." I am attempting to get into communciation with you about this subject, however, since you are not going to attempt to understand my objection to such a presentation, then of course, here is where it will be hashed out. Auditing is a procedure. It is an action, it is something that two (usually two but there are group auditing procedures as well), that people do. When it is presented as a "therapy" then that is an evaluation of a procedure. It is an evaluation that an editor might be able to support and find some reference to and be able to cite and state the reference to it, possibly. BUT what need is there to present this evaluation of a procedure early in the article, in its introduction. Why not present the procedure? These articles are full of emotionally slanted words and this is another exmaple of an unneeded, emotionally rich word presented with no rhyme or reason. And what, people who have never audited, never used it but have only read about it from sites like Xenu and Clambake feel Wikipedia should be a watered down clambake presentation? It really does not make good sense, people. It really doesn't.Terryeo 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider letting go of the "I'm a Scientologist and you're not, therefore I know more about it than you" routine. It's getting old and is insulting to all the other editors. wikipediatrix 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that what you get from this? Scientologists have, on and off, attempted to edit the articles of Dianetics and Scientology for some time.  They have uniformly been driven off for various reasons.  You too can read they "I'm leaving and here is why" user pages. If you know a subject and you want to see the subject introduced, and you know the subject is not being introduced, then what would you do?  I have attempted to communicate.  Often I communicate why, explicitly, the subject is not introduced.  After the subject is introduced, I have little interest in the controversy that I know very well, many editors (read my Rfa) take great pleasure in muck raking in great detail.  Almost all of such muck rakinig happened more than 10 years ago, but by golly, it just has to appear in these articles.  I want the articles introduced.  Once a reader understands the subject, they can understand the controversy.  Until they do, they can not.  They can understand there is controversy.  This article, for example.  BTfromLA is insistant that auditing is a "theraputic" procedure, the 4th word of the introduction says so.  A person is not going to understand auditing when you tell him it is a "theraputic" procedure.  Yet not only is a more clear, bold statement of it reverted, but other editors who have no clue of what auditing is also insist the misleading introduction stand.  Which is why I used "race car" as an example, thinking perhaps you would understand the similarity.  Terryeo 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, is that your whole response to my list of comments? That I refused to understand that you were upset with the use of the word "therapy"?  You didn't even mention that in your initial remarks to me!  But, now that you bring it up, here's the reason to use some adjective to modify the general terms you favor like "action," "practice," or "procedure."  It's because, taken alone, the reader is given scant idea what the heck the "action" is for.  So, if it's not theraputic, maybe it's intended for self-improvement or to gain spiritual enlightment or make you wealthy or some other goal.  But what you offer, consistently, is woozy, vague, bad writing.  "Therapeutic" seems pretty fair, and hardly belittling. The first dictionary I looked at has this definition: "therapeutic /therrpyootik/  • adjective 1. relating to the healing of disease. 2. having a good effect on the body or mind."  Isn't auditing claimed to a have a "good effect on the body or mind"?  By the way, if you are serious about communicating, please respond to my points above: this "therapy" question was nowhere in your original set of complaints.  BTfromLA 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like "therapy" because it implies that Dianetics really is therapeutic - it imbues a certain gravitas to it that it shouldn't. I'd be happy with "pseudoscientific therapy", however. wikipediatrix 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough--my point (and I know you understand this, Wikipediatrix) is that the opening should attempt to classify the subject. I guess part of the deal with Hubbard was that he insisted that his work was sui generis, incomparable to anything before or since.  That attitude itself is anti-scolarly and anti-encyclopedic: the encyclopedia classifies and compares things.  And you're right, I thought referring to it as a theraputic procedure was offering Auditing the benefit of the doubt.  It's disheartening to have that described as belittling the subject.  BTfromLA 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazing what you people can read into a single evaluative, emotionally slanted word like "therapy" which shouldn't be included in the first sentence of the article. Happy HO HOs. Terryeo 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Honest, I didn't mean to be disheartening. Maybe we could keep it to "a communication procedure?" which would not attempt to evaluate whether it had worth or did not have worth.  It is after all, one person directing another person's attention, the second person (the preclear) telling the auditor all about what his attention has been directed to.  Terryeo 05:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

E-Meter is not a galvanic skin measuring device
I would like to change any reference to "galvanic skin measuring device" relating to the e-meter. The e-meter is a resistance measuring device similar to a Wheatstone Bridge and serving the same function that device has since its discovery in 1860 by Sir Charles Wheatstone. It does not measure the skin nor galvanic reactions on the skin due to sweating or "unsweating". It does not measure tiny currents generated by the body and measured by galvanic instruments. It measures electrical resistance in the body and compares this resistance to a precision calibrating resistor (12,500 ohms) supplied with each meter. E-meters have been optimized for use in measuring and recording quantitatively the spiritual stress encountered in Scientology counselling. Spirit of Man 02:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you are correct, I support the change. But (I add this because of the history around here), please don't simply remove the galvanic skin response description without replacing it with an equally specific description. BTfromLA 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Galvanic or Galvanometer isn't inaccurate, but it does seem archaic and imprecise and combining it with "skin measuring" does conjure up images of jumping frog's legs sans frog. (There is one company that does use "galvanic skin response" for their bio-feedback device, but others use galvanic for a number of other do-dads.) I will object to any POV description that states that it measures "spiritual stress"—the most important part of the circuit of unknown resistance is the contact area between the "cans" and the subject's hands. That resistance is altered by changes in sweat and the firmness of the contact. CoS may conclude that those changes in resistance are caused by "spiritual stress". (If they feel that sweat and firmness of grip are unimportant, they should try auditing tests with common skin-patch electrodes to eliminate those as variables.) AndroidCat 03:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, galvanic skin response is widely known about but not used very much because, hey, what does it measure but skin resistance, anyway? But yeah, that is what an E-meter measures, that is what the dial reads out, that is what you view when you view the dial of an E-meter being used, you are viewing the meter's representation of the amount of resistance that human body is offering to a tiny electrical voltage. Actually the E-meter isn't even real accurate about how many exact ohms of resistance the human body offers.  But it is real accurate about small changes in resistance.  No, common dictionarys will define "galvanic" and police departments, the FBI, etc, all of those, they have some small amount of experience with "galvanic skin response" as a part of a lie detector.  The E-meter is set up to detect very small changes, that's the main difference between it and a common ohm meter (which every electrical technician uses). Terryeo 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can bridge both definitions without causing offense, especially since the whole GSR/EDR/PGR/SCR field is currently kind of vague. Even *with* skin-patch electrodes, people who are stressed have different results than those who are calm, but the firm science backing all the reasons exactly *why* this is true is still a murky area, AFAICT. In any case, it's better than testing to see if witches float. :-) Ronabop 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The dictionary defines galvanic as: "Having the effect of an electric shock" and the word derives from "Gal·va·ni /gäl-'vä-nE/, Luigi (1737–1798), Italian physician and physicist. Above all Galvani is known for his pioneering experiments in the electrical stimulation of frog nerves and muscles" which is not how an E-meter works, not what it measures and its voltage is much to small to cause any such reactions.  I agree, let's keep "galvanic" out of the situation.Terryeo 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what I'd call a dictionary. Even my Pocket Oxford lists galvanometer as part of the galvanic entry. AndroidCat 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * golly, what a great contribution ! But how is the common reader to access your Pocket Dictionary?  Frankly it is okay with me however we present the subject, as long as we present it in a manner which a reader can understand it.  The word "galvanic" first appeared as the direct result of an individual who noticed his frog muscles jumped and that was one of the pathways by which we have batteries today.  So, how do you suggest we communicate this idea?  Copper wire conducts electricity easily, Glass does not, the human body is somewhere in between the two.  Terryeo 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Volney Mathison, the man who invented the e-meter, says it's a galvanic skin response detector. This article says it's a galvanic skin response detector (galvanometer), and that it hasn't changed much from Volney's original e-meters to the present day. A simple Google search brings up lots of sources that state it is a skin response galvanometer. wikipediatrix 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's all true enough. I looked through the meanings of "galvanic skin response" and "galvanic" and "galvanometer" and I find there is simply no other disipline who uses this well enough to have really nailed it down to a single, well recognized term.  I can tell you this, it is an experiment anyone can do with an ohmmeter (measures resistance)  grasp the two leads right close together in one hand. It measures the same on the meter as grasping the two leads with two hands.  The amount of resistance a skin measures seems to be the same whether the two connections are close together or far apart on the skin. Terryeo 18:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's POV pushing again
Terryeo's latest battery of edits (now reverted) were rationalized by this summary: "I don't believe that. I've known at least hundreds of Scientologists, none of whom ahd been so harrassed." When will Terryeo get it through his head that articles are not based on his own beliefs and his own personal experiences? wikipediatrix 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * and Hello again to you Wikipediatrix. I freely state my experience not so that any individual can take my experience as the word of god, but as a reason for requesting a citation within the article. Perhaps you viewed my request?  You see, there is no further documentation presently presented but a single court case, no indication of substance but a single order number, no text of that order, that order long ago lost its force, that organization was long ago disbanned, etc. etc. etc.   So, since, obviously I have some experience vaugely in the area, I freely state it.  Please do continue to recognize it as my POV, because it is my POV.  And, on the basis of the scant information in the article, added together with my experience, I freely state my POV and request a citation per Wikipolicy.   May I point out, your reply appropriately attributes my responsibility to me but does not reply to the issue I raised.   It does not suppy a citation where I appropriately requested it, nor does your reply state your experience but instead (and perhaps this is a hint of bad faith that I am reading into and perhaps you did not mean it that way), but instead you attack my experience and somehow imply it might not be real world, valid, actual experience.  But whether my experience is valid or is not valid, I have requested a citation for a poorly referenced statement within the article.  Terryeo 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not implied anything about your "real world, valid, actual experience" other than that it has no place in our articles. The "single court case" is sufficient for now, and is not "poorly referenced". However, more sources COULD be obtained if you really want that. wikipediatrix 14:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some sources state there are 8 million Scientologists world wide. I do not present this information to you so that you believe or disbelieve it, but to provide a context for my requested citation, and a background from which my "hundreds of scientologists" can be viewed.  In 50 + years, one scientologist had some sort of altercation about his PC folders.  Of course, what should I expect but that it would be found and exposed !  heh.  However, if there is another one, don't you want it found and exposed likewise?  I am attempting to prevent the general, wide statement that inevitibly happens about these things.  Then when I say, "whow, that was just one case" everyone chants together, and right on key, "POV ! POV!"  But in this case, not only is there only one guy complaining, but the organization he is complaining about, the G.O. does not exist, the G.O. order does not exist, etc. etc.  Historicaly it is valid presentation (I guess), as a representation of what a parishoner could expect, it is completely off the wall. Terryeo 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Stop bringing your opinions to the articles and go get some proper sources. wikipediatrix 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. this link tells you from an official church site the historical context of the Guardian's Office, the trouble certain individuals caused the Church, why it was disbanded, when, and so on.  Additionally. the Office_of_Special_Affairs article spells out some of that as well.  And please quit preferencing every comment you make to me with "Terry is POV pushing" Terryeo 20:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant a source OTHER THAN Scientology's official sites, obviously. If you aren't pushing a Scientologist POV, then try to find some non-Scientologist sources. wikipediatrix 14:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What I am actually doing, though you don't choose to understand, is I am attempting to cause these articles to introduce the subject which they purport to be about. This might take 1 paragraph, it might take 3.  It does not require a whole article to introduce a subject.  Then, you have kilobytes and kilobytes to just chock the articles up with hot, invective controversy.  My task is rather simple, I have stated it a number of times.  If you actually consider that a subject should not be introduced because it sounds like "POV pushing" then I invite that you should read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR which together tell us the direction and purpose of Wikipedia.  A POV should be presented if it is present, it should be presented by good verification and it should be presented in a manner which is not emotionally slanted, but as dry and encyolopedica as possible.  The idea, you see, is that a reader becomes able to understand what the subject is about. Terryeo 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your responses are just one non-sequitur after another. Go back and reread this conversation from start to finish. You're jumping all over the place. You make a statement, I ask for sources, you change the subject and move the goalposts somewhere else. wikipediatrix 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what does not make sense. Are you asking me to seek out and present to you, sources which support your POV and are embarressing to Scientology which  would provide the article with additional examples of the G.O. having used PC folders in the manner specified about, such sources which  should seek out and find to put into the article? Terryeo 05:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Patient" as used for an introduction of a Preclear
BTfromLA, I would say that your rewrite of the introduction is not too bad. But "Patient" is misleading. Here is a dictionary link to definitions of "patient". If you can point out any one of those 9 definitions which suits, please say which it is. Additionally, even the derivation of the word, "to endure" has little application in the context of a person who is sitting comfortably in a chair and happily telling their past thoughts to a trained listener. Here's another dictionary with more definitions of "patient", again, if you can find one that fits a preclear's situation, please so say. The definition that comes closest might be: #5 (from the last link) "Capable of calmly awaiting an outcome or result" but that isn't what a preclear does. A preclear talks about what he's thinking, what he has thought, what comes to mind as a result of the auditor's quesiton. I submit that "patient" is at least a mis-leading manner of presentation and at worst causes misunderstanding because a preclear is not undergoing pain, is not enduring a procedure but is instead an active part, indeed, the most active part of the processing. Terryeo 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, Terryeo, I greatly appreciate that your objection here is stated very specifically. As to the definitions you ask about, "patient" is being used as a noun, so the first six definitions--"patient" as an adjective--are irrelevant.  (By the way, the two dictionary links you provided seem to have exactly the same definitions.  I'm surprised you don't try onelook.com: it offers links to a whole bunch of dictionaries, and it appears to be scientology affiliated, with a link to "study tech" at the bottom of the page. )  Clearly, the suggested meaning comes closest to noun def #1:  One who receives medical attention, care, or treatment.  I understand your objections to that--it's not really medical, the preclear is more an active agent than a passive reciever of treatment.  (It might be noted, though, that Hubbard himself used "patient" in the early days.)  "Preclear" alone makes no sense in an introductory paragraph--we have to have a roughly equivalent term to allow readers unfamiliar with the process to quickly grasp the basic situation.  I'm happy to replace "patient" with a better term, if you can offer one.  Do you have a better idea?  BTfromLA 18:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)  Would "subject" work?  I'm not sure that would be clear enough, but there might be a way to work it in.  BTfromLA 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, I appreciate your forthright and honest reply to my question. And your understanding of my reaction is spot on, I can't possibly get it that "one who receives medical attention" applies.  Hubbard certainly did use "Patient" in 1950 and with Dianetics.  When it became clear to him that people were remembering things of previous lifetimes *gasp* things changed, the relationship between the askor and the askee was no longer the same as before and the askee was no longer laying back on a couch as was popular in "treatments" and "therapys" of those years.  Scientology hasn't ever used "patient" I don't think, but I could be mistaken, certainly it doesn't today. I have changed the introduction a little and removed the word "patient" but I'm willing to flex in the area. Terryeo 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims again
When an organization makes a news statement or makes an announcement, then they might be making a "claim". However, when that same organization has publically published, and published for years, documentation such as the Church of Scientology does, then that documentation is not a "claim" but a "statement". For example, Feldspar recently edited the article to introduce "claims" in regard to Church policy which is spelled out in Hubbard Communication Office Policy letters, has been so spelled out for many years, is known to and adhered by every staff member in every Church and Mission of Scientology. Its not a "claim" it is a "policy". It is an opererational basis, about preclear folders. It is a day - to -day manner of treating preclear folders. Everyone within the Church who holds a preclear folder in their hand necessarily (might maybe be some exception somewhere, probably not) necessarily knows the policy for handeling PC folders. It is not a "claim" it is a manner of operating, a policy. One might present, "The Church operates by HCO Policy which includes the handeling of preclear folders, but some exception was found ..." A "claim" has less substantiation, it is less published than a long standing policy. Terryeo 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your definitions for these terms are bizarre, self-serving, and incorrect. A claim is a claim, whether it's couched in a "statement" or a "policy" or not. wikipediatrix 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To make a "claim": To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters. A "claim"  presupposes the maker of the claim is making a statement of some doubt which is open to question.  Whereas a "statement" is the broader catagory, it is "Something stated; a declaration."   All claims are statements, only some statements are claims.  It introduces bias to the reader to present statements as claims, the reader should be allowed to judge for themselves if a statement is a claim instead of being educated by the editor that a statement is a claim.   This approach is in keeping with dry, encyclopedic writing instead of emotionally biased writing.  Also, WP:V says we should present quotations and cite sources rather than present quotations as "claims" or "hints" or other emotionally biased presentations. Terryeo 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Church of Scientology has thousands of pages of text. To a reader not familar with a beginning point, it might all seem like many, many claims.  This is not the actual situation.  The actual situation, which occurs in probably every Scientology course rests on the simple statement, "if it is true for you, then it is true". That is, no person is ever expected to believe anything.  No person is required, conjoled, urged or suggested to.  The basic datum is like, "here is the statement, make what you will of it" and this is everywhere, all through Scientology.  I see so many instances of "The Church claims...." but actually it is that the Church states.  A claim is a statement by which the validity of the statement's subject is being commented on.  Instead, the Church makes statements.  The validity of those statements are purely up to the reader.Terryeo 18:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar (doesn't) make a bad edit
at this difference Feldspar removed information which was quoted and cited to Scientology.org in a complete and proper citation manner. His edit summary stated: "(replaced heavily POV paragraph with a more fact-based formulation; added main for Engrams)". That is a bad edit. That is not what Wikipedia allows. There is no wikipedia policy or guidelines which allows the edit you made there, Feldspar. In fact, WP:V says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." and that material was cited. The material fulfills every aspect of good quality source and includability into Wikipedia. You have no right whatsoever to remove it. Obviously it does not meet your personal standard, however, your personal standard is not the standard Wikipedia is built on. You must not remove cited material from good quality websites without discussion, simply because it does not meet your personal point of view. You must discuss such situations because the policies and guidelines warn against removing cited material. That is just a bad, POV - pushing edit, User:Antaeus_Feldspar. And the information you inserted isn't even cited !. You removed good, cited information and inserted uncited POV.Terryeo 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misread something because when I call it up a second time it presents itself differently. I guess what I have stated above is not valid. Sorry about that. Terryeo 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being open to the possibility of error. Thank you for the apology.  I would guess that when you looked at the diff, you mistook the "before" and the "after" for each other and thought I removed a citation to http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/auditing/pg005.html when in fact my edit introduced that citation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Something like that. BTW, did you get the congradulatory note Dave sent you guys?  I posted it on my user page in case you missed it. Terryeo 14:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it at Talk:Gold Base, and followed the link to the original. I must say it was a pleasant surprise to have someone whose work I greatly respect acknowledge my own, when I had no idea he even knew of my existence.  Thank you for letting us know, that was a pretty gracious thing to do... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Other Auditing
Does anyone else find it comical that the auditing portion of Scientology is the part that (allegedly) scams you out of your money by having to take it over and over again, paying the fee each time? I always remember what this method is because of the word audit. Unsinged comment left by: 22:59, 27 May 2006 70.152.253.173 (→The Other Auditing) Terryeo 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a moment from your gayity and read the wikipedia policies and guidelines, you too might become interested in other points of view.Terryeo 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly presented Engram section
''Engrams Main article: Engram (Dianetics) A person who has confronted such moments in such a way so as to. .'' begins the second section of the article, the section about "Engrams". Imagine for a moment you had never heard of the word and were reading the article and ran into that phrasing. Would you understand what was being talked about? The phrasing presupposes a reader has previously read the Engram article. I would create a piece here for inclusion there, if another editor would like to improve that portion. Terryeo 00:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Many ?
and many former Scientologists have testified that this private information was used by the Church to harass or intimidate them, or that they themselves had used it in this fashion at the direction of the Church. Yet the article does not reference to a list of many, instead the article constrains itself to 4 persons who have made such statements. "Many" would be a list of "many" people who have made that statement. In addition, if that actually did happen at all then it happened under the old Guardian's Office. That organization was taken apart and is no longer in force (for years now). The reason it was taken apart and the members comprising it removed, is because it got the Church into various kinds of trouble. So, to present a neutral point of view in the article rather than an obvious biased and critical point of view, the phrase should use the term several or a few rather than the term many. Terryeo 08:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, "several" would be more appropriate than "many" and I have changed the article accordingly. As for the Guardian's Office being dismantled, that would still not change the past, which is pertinent to a subject. Vpoko 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If we had such a list as Terryeo describes then the presence of the list would be what he complained about. He'd waste no time declaring that the suppressive person black hat critical person editors were of course organized in a great conspiracy (coordinated through "alt.net.scientology", of course) to pack the article full of a big long laundry list of each and every former Scientologist who claims to have been a victim of or a participant in this practice.  "Why is it," he would write, "that the critical person editors feel entitled to violate the non-negotiable Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV?  It is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV to devote half the words of the article to tediously repeating the accusations of people who obviously never understood the subject of Scientology (or else they would never have left Scientology) and therefore cannot be said to know anything about it, not even their own experiences in it.  But I guess that is what the black hat suppressive critical person editors feel they must do, in their never-ending biased quest to see to it that the informations which comprise the subject of Scientology are not communicated..." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have stated that I have complained. I state a situation.   The situation is very straightforeward, the situation does not lend itself to odd, wierd, strange interpetation.  The situation is not presented in a NPOV manner, indeed, the situation is not presented accurately.  You don't confront on the issue I raise, you don't comment on the issue. Instead, you say that I have complained and raise another issue.  I would welcome your comment on the mediation presently applied toward, in regard to a situation very much like this. here. Terryeo 16:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another uncited, unciteable statement
This is is built from bits and pieces of citeable statements, combined together to imply an auditor might read R2-45 and shoot himself. Heh, 2 funny. The article says, ''There are many "auditing processes", some simple, some complex, that the auditor may choose to use when appropriate, such as Straightwire or R2-45. In some situations and with training, an individual reads the things the auditor would say, responds to them. .'' Its either needs a cite (I know beyond doubt there is no such citation) or needs to come out.Terryeo 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The above original research was brought to you by Wikipediatrix at, stating, added info. Rather that take it apart piece by piece (which always results in strong arguements which are never about the issues I present), I'll just say. Hey, that's Original, Uncited "added info". It is about as reliable as "the moon is made of green cheese" and should be removed. Terryeo 07:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be completely specific. There are many "auditing process", some simple, some complex, that the auditor may choose to use when appropriate, is pure bunko original research.  You won't find it anywhere in Church writings nor in Hubbard's writings.  Because it is not the auditor who makes such choices.  It is the Case Supervisor who makes such choices.  I'm probably going too far by saying what is, rather than saying what is not.  Every time I say what is, 150 editors scream, "is too!" and present dispersed, personal website opinion that attempt to prove they know better.  The phrase I have specified does not exist, it is original research, conclusion drawn by User:Wikipediatrix. Terryeo 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This paragraph needs to be removed in its entirety. It is totally unsupported (in addition to being mostly wrong).
 * "There are many "auditing processes", some simple, some complex, such as Straightwire or R2-45. In some situations and with training, an individual reads the things the auditor would say, responds to them, notes the meter's reading, writes down what is happening, and thus an auditor need not be present in person."
 * R2-45 is not a process that would ever be practiced by an auditor. In fact most of the processes in the 1954 COHA book have no place in Scientology as it is currently practiced. Secondly, there is no such thing as "remote auditing" (auditor need not be present in person). If you cannot provide WP:V of these they should be removed.
 * Can you get valid sources that state what you just stated - "most of the processes in the 1954 COHA book have no place in Scientology as it is currently practiced"? If so, great, show us. If not, why are you even bringing it up? Wikipedia demands "Verifiability, not truth". wikipediatrix 15:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this thing for 2 days. It would take a Class IV case supervisor (my opinion) to respond adequately.  Hubbard came up with "standard technology" as a "razor thin pathway" to lead a person through the bank and become clear.  But I honestly don't know enough to tell anyone why in less than say 1000 words, Hubbard's standard tech procedures work many times better than the many things to audit which he defined in COHA and I don't have a quotation that could be helpful either.  Sorry, it would take more familiarity with the tech than I have, to respond to that one. Terryeo 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is upon the editor who inserts information. The editor who states that an auditor has any choice whatsoever in the processes that auditor runs is required by wikipedia policy and guideline to provide proof by reference that an auditor has choice.  He does not.  His choices are very constrained.  I am not going to attempt your suggeted game, Wikipediatrix.  You suggest an editor can insert the wildest statement, "an auditor can run a lot of processes if he chooses to".  That is an untrue statement.  The editor who inserted it has the responsibity to reference it.  I know better. The processes which an auditor can run are spelled out by his Case Supervisor in writing in a document which he is required to be familar with before he begins a session.  You notice I am being very polite here. I am not saying, "what a pile of doo doo".  The article makes false statement.  You suggest I prove the statement false.  I point out that wikipedia policy requires an editor to support his edit.  You have attempted to create a challenge, "prove it wrong", while I, wisely passing your challenge by, re-state once again for your enlightenment, wikipedia policy.  Happy Ho Ho's.  Terryeo 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look, I agreed with you and removed the offending statement about auditor's choice from my last edit, but even that wasn't good enough for Justanother, who apparently wants the article to say only what he wants it to. So much for compromise. wikipediatrix 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * wikipediatrix, I applaude your effort to actually contribute to the article rather than simply nullifying the good faith edits of others. Well done. The paragraph has major problems that we are discussing below.  Please feel free to join in. --Justanother 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As always, I welcome comments on my editing. I edit to make the articles read better and better represent the reality of Scn. --Justanother 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed in accordance with Template:Fact
From Template:Fact

4 If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.

I am removing the following paragraph as it is doubtful and extremely harmful to imply that an auditor would shoot his PC. Also, there is also no "remote auditing" in Scn. If you want to restore this you are required to provide citations.


 * "There are many "auditing processes", some simple, some complex, such as Straightwire or R2-45. In some situations and with training, an individual reads the things the auditor would say, responds to them, notes the meter's reading, writes down what is happening, and thus an auditor need not be present in person."

As always, I welcome comments --Justanother 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the reference to the controversial R2-45 should be removed in that particular paragraph (there is no proof it was ever used, let alone presenting it as a usual auditing process.) But I don't see a problem with the rest. Can we just removed R2-45 and keep the rest? Maybe clarify the second sentence (which seems to describe solo auditing): "In some situations and with training, an individual can audit himself, reading the things the auditor would say, responding to them, [...]" Raymond Hill 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some auditing actions in the modern world which were developed after a good deal of reasearch where a person audits themselves, reading the auditing command and responding to it. R2-45 is not one of them. Heh. Terryeo 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Raymond, I agree with you if mention of solo auditing is not elsewhere in the article. I'll look later unless you want to take care of this now. My bad, I did not realize the original editor was describing solo auditing but I see that now. That "auditor need not be present in person" threw me and I thought he was refering to some sort of long-distance auditing like Koos used to claim to do. --Justanother 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is another one of those mis-statements which are easily understood. "remote auditing" almost sounds like it might really exist but of course does not.  "solo auditing" does exist.  But an article which creates a new terminology for an established practice, well, could we expect a public person who wants to learn a little about Scientology to be able to understand when they are faced with editor-created terms like "remote auditing?" Terryeo 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Terry, that "remote auditing?" was my term but described something "practiced" by a famous character from the early days of ARS. I thought at first that the editor was describing something like that but I see now he was describing solo auditing, albeit poorly. ---Justanother 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm not even the editor who put that text there, I was simply restoring it because you gave no good reasons for its removal. Now you admit you did all that edit-warring because of your own misconception. You even reverted my edit in which I removed the "auditor's choice" text that offended Terryeo.
 * I am, however, the person who inserted the link to R2-45, simply because at the time, Straightwire and R2-45 were the only articles specifically devoted to auditing processes I could think of. I'm well aware that R2-45 has (probably) never been actually used, but that's not really the point. It is still on the books as an editing process.
 * And my (ignored) challenge to Terryeo above still stands: if someone can find a valid source that specifically backs up his claim that most of the information in COHA is no longer used in Scientology today, I'd welcome its inclusion in the article. wikipediatrix 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I read your "challenge" a little more carefully I have to ask you which of my statements you refer to. Because even COHA information is valid information and will produce positive results if done by the book.  I am not talking about exclusion of processes, but am talking about Hubbard finding more efficient processes which make the earlier processes (such as many of those in COHA) to become rarely used.  Not "never", but not "every case spends time with those processes" either. So, which of my statements are you "challenging", Wikipediatrix ?Terryeo 00:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, you have an interesting manner of posing a challenge. While I can "fill you in" by stating what I know is true, at this moment right now I don't have a 2 or 3 line quotation that would fulfill what you say.  What I got is a rather large body of information which Hubbard introduced as "Standard Tech", the standardiztion of all auditing procedure for all auditors in all auditing situations.  It is, when understood, obvious but it can't answer your "challenge".  However, I consider your request worthwhile and will see what I can toward a simple, easy to understand one liner. Terryeo 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, I am an honest person and if I make a mistake I admit it. What was written said that no auditor need be present. That implies that the auditor is elsewhere. That could be termed "remote auditing" and does not exist in Scn. In solo the auditor is right there, he is present. So my misconception was in wrongly divining what the editor was TRYING to describe, not what he DID describe. Surely, you don't hold it against me that I could not read the editor's mind when his words said something different. Secondly, if you want to make the point that lots of different processes exist why do you think you are limited to what is found on wikipedia. How about doing a bit of work and finding a few that are not on wikipedia, like, oh for instance, objective processes, rudiments, listing and nulling, etc, etc, that can be easily found on both pro and anti-Scn sites. You show us proof that any auditor would seriously consider R2-45 and you have every right to put it there. --Justanother 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

References - Catholic Confessional - Auditing
Justanother has placed placed a template after Auditing has been compared to the Roman Catholic Confessional . Here are some references. Even Scientology's critics concede that auditing often helps people feel better by allowing them to air troubling aspects of their lives--much like a Catholic confessional or psychotherapy--and keeps them coming back for more. (free registration required). Additionally these links state similarly:, , (section 248) To obtain these I googled; "Catholic Confessional" + auditing. Terryeo 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting stand to take, Terry. It is a critic's stand that if Scn works at all then it is because it is similar to older technologies such as self-hypnosis, religious confession, pschyotherapy, or newer ones like bio-feedback.  Notice that the article you reference is a crtical article.  The Scientologist would say that auditing works because it is a precise technology based in the laws of the human spirit as researched by LRH and that if those other technologies work at all it is because they mimic or predate Scn in some aspect.--Justanother 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pschyotherapy, I like that typo. Yotherapy for short.  Terry, I see now that this analogy was your idea in the first place.  I put that down to your not being a trained auditor??  But for the purposes of wikiediting I simply put that one must be really really careful with analogies, especially in the case of describing Scn.  I think the less analogies the better; present Scn as what it is and let the critics make the analogies.--Justanother 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about being careful with an analogy. At the time I was feeling a bit desparate.  Since a newspaper had made the analogy I knew it could be included and I felt it communicated the general idea, if not the specifics of auditing.  That was pretty much my reasoning. Terryeo 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Security Checks
User:Wikipediatrix introduces Security Checks into the article without defining the purpose or the intent of security checks, without defining where they are used, by whom they are used or who they are used on. Some astounding examples of "Security Check questions" are presented. *BOOM* Security Checks  The manner in which this new, unsourced, undefined information is introduced is weasel worded;  Similarly, Security Checks ...  Similar to what? Similar to the proceeding topic ? In what way? What source of information states that Scientology's Security Checks are similar to ... ??? Not only is there no reliable source of published information provided by User:Wikipediatrix, but no source of information links the similarity of Security Checks to previously presented topics. It is incumbent on the editor introducing the information into the article to provide a reliable published source which states, Security Checks are similar to .... -Terryeo 00:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When a paragraph starts with "Similarly," it's a safe bet it's referring to the paragraph that precedes it. It's common sense to me, anyway. wikipediatrix 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's easy to follow. What reference states a similarity and what element of the previous paragraph does that reference state is similar? Terryeo 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need to cite sources to state that water is wet. We don't need to cite sources that lakes and oceans are similar. We also don't need sources to say "Similarly" regarding Preclear Folders and Security Checks, because they both involve the records kept of one's being attached to an E-meter while answering highly personal questions. Obviously. wikipediatrix 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The similarity might be stated, both involve written records of what one says? With the implication such written records might be used against one at some future date? Terryeo 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't see that it's a big deal. I don't think it's misleading or unclear. If someone else does, they can take a crack at it. wikipediatrix 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it as it is, either. Vpoko 20:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Auditing description
I added an excellent description of what auditing is straight from a Scientology website (http://training.scientology.org/wis5_2.htm) that explains perfectly what auditing is for and what it achieves. 


 * Umm yes, straight word-for-word—cut and paste, I think. While on matters of practice, doctrine, scripture, dogma, etc, their view is important, on many matters the Church of Scientology sites are not always Reliable Sources. The claims of the last paragraph, in particular, are not necessarily accurate just because they say so. Bottom line, a quote is a quote and should be noted and sourced as such. AndroidCat 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mind control
I am placing this article back into Category:Mind control despite the previous reversion by Justanother. The description of the category is as follows:

This category covers the subject of individual or mass persuasion, facilitated by coercive psychological, medical, or other technological methods.

As a field of study which is often conducted under conditions of secrecy, many of the topics in this group are not necessarily objectively verifiable in a traditional sense—however, please limit additions to articles about individuals or topics which are extensively and/or exclusively associated with the subject of mind control.

There is literally a mountain of evidence and criticism from social, political, and academic sources associating the practice of "auditing" with psychological and medical coercion, i.e., mind control. —popefauvexxiii 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "mountain of evidence" is one biased government report from 35 years ago and a bunch of quackery from Lerma? Sound more like a molehill to me, and a small one at that. --Justanother 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the quote "extensively and/or exclusively associated with the subject of mind control." It makes my job (keeping the Scn critics honest) a lot easier. Auditing fails that test. --Justanother 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ha. you win. popefauvexxiii 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. --Justanother 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Terryeo is right!
I was looking at the article and I was going to write about what is wrong in the article but noticed that Terryeo already did above on January 2006.

Note: It didn't had a header so I gave it one.

Specifically this articles needs to talk about auditing, theory and techniques.

Well I guess I will take care of that if no-one else will.Bravehartbear 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

82.29.7.220 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the entirety of this page cult-seeking pseudo-religious dogma being presented as fact?

Am I the chose one
I tried the free test they do on the street the other day and they couldn't get a reading out of me no matter what they tried. The machine was working as it gave a reading on them when they tried it. Does this mean I'm the chosen one of Scientology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.222.65 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. You should probably ask Tom Cruise for confirmation though. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BRoys' changes
I don't really like too much. (1) it loses the main article wikilinks, (2) numbered lists rather than sections doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia style. (Too lazy to sift through to see if this is spelled out anywhere.) The contents table can be depth-limited if that was the problem. AndroidCat (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm working on it. It is more informative and correct than the few lines there were before. I'm just hitting the hight points now, will flush it out soon. BRoys (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag
From primarysources - This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page. This article relies waaaay too heavily on primary sources. These should be culled in favor of secondary sources independent of the subject of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly where does Justanother see "original research"?
Here is the introduction with which, to judge from his reaction, you would have thought that I murdered Justanother's puppies:


 * Auditing is a practice that was originated by author L. Ron Hubbard as the central practice of Dianetics and later, in a slightly different form, as the central practice of Scientology. While Hubbard had originally declared Dianetics to be a "modern science of mental health", there has never been scientific confirmation of the alleged effects of auditing, and so it is considered a pseudo-scientific practice, or a religious practice by those who accept Scientology's description of itself as a religion.

Justanother went into a tizzy, reverting with the edit summaries "you are adding your own OR interpretation of what you imagine that Scn'ists consider auditing to be." and "fine - no "religious" but please leave out your unsourced opinion". What exactly is it that Justanother is talking about here?? There is nothing but NPOV here.


 * Hubbard invented auditing.
 * He originally invented it as part of Dianetics.
 * It is the central practice of Dianetics.
 * It is also the central practice of Scientology. (I admit, I couldn't give you chapter and verse on what distinguishes Scientology auditing from Dianetic auditing; the previous version of the introduction claimed that auditing was "further refined" from Dianetics to Scientology but that involves a clear value judgment.)
 * Dianetics was claimed by Hubbard to be a science but is instead regarded by mainstream science as a pseudo-science, and there has never been scientific confirmation of any of the benefits claimed for auditing.
 * Those who accept Scientology's description of itself as a religion, however, regard auditing as a religious practice.

What on earth is Justanother complaining about? Is he simply under the impression that he doesn't have to follow the rules of Wikipedia, as long as he throws about enough terms like "OR!" "unsourced!"? Let's be frank: the introduction of an article should serve as a mini-article. It should give quick answers to basic questions like "What is auditing? Who does it?  How is it done?  What is it supposed to do?  Is there dispute about whether it actually does that?" Instead of trying to fix these matters, Justanother actually opposes giving the article an NPOV description; he wants to give everyone the CoS POV that auditing is good for "counseling" -- and wants to suppress the POV that auditing is not effective. My God, imagine the meltdown he'd have if I had insisted on making the introduction fully NPOV by including the POV that auditing may actually be harmful to those who undergo it. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

3 removed sections.
I have removed 3 sections which were mainly sourced with primary sources, and not in an encyclopedic format. There are large amounts of jargon as well as textbook-like formatting. To add any of this content back to the main page, I suggest that we pick out any valuable knowledge here, find secondary sources for it, and re-add it in paragraph form. Until then, it is archived here. ← Spidern  →  19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Basic format of an auditing cycle
An auditing session consists of many short cycles of question/answer or command/response. For an auditor, the basic format of a cycle must follow this structure:


 * 1) Is the preclear ready to receive the command/question?
 * 2) Auditor gives command/question.
 * 3) Preclear looks to his "bank" of memories for answer.
 * 4) Preclear receives answer from his "bank".
 * 5) Preclear gives answer to auditor.
 * 6) Auditor acknowledges the preclear's answer.
 * 7) Auditor is able to see that the preclear recognizes the acknowledgment.
 * 8) Cycle begins anew with the next command/question.

Typically, a process consists of many Auditing Cycles smoothly and rapidly executed such that these individual components are not apparent. For example:
 * Auditor: "Recall a problem you have had with another."
 * PC: "...hum... well there was this one time..." [PC gives an answer]
 * Auditor: "Thank you. Recall a problem you have had with another."
 * PC: "OK, once I was..." [PC gives another answer]
 * Auditor: "Good. Recall a problem you have had with another."
 * PC: "My friend, Joe, used to..." [PC gives another answer] "But hey! All my problems..." [PC states a new realization about himself or life]

Types of Auditing

 * 1) Dianetics
 * 2) Book One - Running chains of engrams as described in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, directing the preclear to recount an incident containing pain and unconsciousness over and over again, and if that is not erasing the incident, asking for an earlier/similar (E/S) incident to run. Once the earliest incident ("Basic on the chain"), has been processed the whole chain evaporates.
 * 3) Standard Dianetics (made obsolete by NED) - A formalized method of running engram chains developed in 1969.
 * 4) New Era Dianetics (N.E.D.) - Refinements made to Standard Dianetics to accelerate the selection of incidents and the creation of 'Rundowns' or packages of processes to address specific areas of aberration.
 * 5) Scientology
 * 6) Objective - look or touch the physical universe processes. These vary from the complex to a simple Locational: "Look at that wall. Good. Look at that floor. Thank you. Look at that door. Good..."
 * 7) Subjective
 * 8) Rudiments - processes to get the Preclear to be in-session.
 * 9) A-R-C Breaks - Upsets, resolved by assessing the component of ARC broken and the type, taken E/S to EP.
 * 10) Present Time Problems - taken E/S to EP.
 * 11) Missed Withholds - Secrets that someone else almost found out about, examined and taken E/S to EP.
 * 12) Assists - processes to help a person with short term upsets, injuries or intoxication.
 * 13) Flows - many processes have variations based on the four flows.
 * 14) Flow 1: others to self
 * 15) Flow 2: self to others
 * 16) Flow 3: others to others
 * 17) Flow 0: self to self
 * 18) Repetitive Command - A single or a series of questions asked and answered over and over until the EP is achieved.
 * 19) Security Checking - A formalized confessional procedure used with lists of pointed questions asking for transgressions the PC has committed. The thorough examination of such events restores the PC's responsibility in that area.
 * 20) Listing and Nulling: the asking of a "Who or What" question, then dealing with the singular right answer.
 * 21) False Purpose Rundown - An expansion of Security Checking that drills down to find and blow away the reason the PC committed the transgressions in the first place.
 * 22) Audited NOTS (N.E.D. for OTs)
 * 23) Solo
 * 24) R6-EW
 * 25) OT Levels
 * 26) Solo NOTS (N.E.D. for OTs)

Terminology
From 1949 to 1986, Hubbard devised and continually refined a cornucopia of processes, techniques, and jargon surrounding the auditing process.

Although in the early days it was common and accepted to audit without E-meters, the E-meter was reintroduced in January 1958. "Coffee Shop Auditing" was common in the 1950s, in 1971 Hubbard derogatorily denounced "coffee shop auditing" and dismissed it as "meterless fool-around, mostly by students". Today the E-meter is indispensable in Scientology, and most auditing terminology refers specifically to E-meter usage and behavior of the needle on its readout. However, the E-meter is not used with "book auditing". Any two people can each study a book and decide to "co-audit", that is, take turns being an auditor or preclear.


 * Age Flash. In an "Age Flash", the auditor tells the PC (preclear) to give the first number that pops into his head when the auditor snaps his fingers.
 * ARC Break Assessment. The auditor reads a list of "ARC Breaks" (Upsets) the PC could potentially have. As he reads the list, he watches the needle for reactions. When a serious ARC Break is hit upon, the needle fluctuation "may be dirty, stuck or sticky, but may also give the appearance of floating" between 2.0 and 3.0. (see "Floating Needle".)
 * Automaticity. When a "very rapid machine-gun fire outflow of answers" comes out of the PC during auditing.
 * Buttered All Over the Universe. This term has been used in two distinctly different contexts. One is for a PC during auditing who gets confused about remote viewpoints and thinks he is anywhere and everywhere at once. The other refers to a thetan who, unknowingly, really is in contact with many different points throughout the universe.
 * Cognition A "Cog" is the action of the preclear suddenly realizing something about himself or life, it is a "Wow - Now I understand..."
 * Communication Lag. A pronounced delay between the asking of a question and getting the answer. According to Hubbard, testing a person's communication lag is "the most important method of telling whether a person is sick or well. A person who answers quickly and rationally is in much better condition than a person who answers after a long consideration". In Narconon, drills are done to reduce or eliminate one's communication lag.
 * Dead Thetan. A total lack of E-meter reaction. Can either mean that the thetan is refusing to acknowledge the process or that he thinks of himself as being dead and thus fails to influence the E-meter. This lack of E-meter reaction is written down as an "X" in the preclear folder.
 * Dirty Needle. The needle "jerks, tips, dances, halts, is stuck, or has any random action on it with the auditor sitting looking at it doing nothing".
 * Fall. The needle sways to the right, as opposed to a "Rise", which would be to the left. Also called a drop, a dip, or a register.
 * Floating Needle. Originally defined as an unexplained hovering of the needle between 2.0 and 3.0, with the same speed to the left as to the right. May be a sign of a cognition, whether the PC voices it or not. In October 2000 a floating needle was redefined as "a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle" that could even exceed the parameters of the dial and not just be confined to the 2.0-3.0 range. This alteration has caused some controversy among some auditors.
 * In Session. When a preclear is willing to communicate with the auditor and has his attention on his own case he is 'in session'. Any deviation from this condition reduces the effectiveness of any therapy.
 * Instant Rudiment Read. A needle reaction before the auditor has finished the question. This occurs when the PC has either anticipated the next words in the auditor's sentence, or when one of the words in the sentence must be handled on their own for whatever reason.
 * Mock-Up or "Mockup". The act of creating a mental picture, which, though technically imaginary, is also "a self-created object which exists as itself or symbolizes some object in the MEST universe. It is a thing which one can be." The preclear is often asked to do mockups during auditing, and Hubbard has claimed that these mental mockups can produce verifiable physical manifestations such as increasing body weight.
 * Mood Drills. In 1975, Hubbard instituted "Mood Drills" in which the auditor would rehearse auditing Training Routines TR1 through TR4 over and over, each time done in the mood and style befitting each different level on the Tone Scale. This can be especially challenging, as Hubbard noted wryly: "Lots of laughs doing it really. Doing TRs as a dead auditor is pretty tricky." The purpose of the drills are to keep the auditor aware of how his own personal mood and demeanor can improperly have an effect on auditing sessions.
 * Muzzled Auditing. While some forms of auditing require a certain amount of chattiness and conversation, for the most part a "muzzled" approach is preferred, in which the auditor says two things and two things only: giving the command/question and acknowledging the answer with "thank you". In 1972, Hubbard said stating the "model session patter" in this manner "always gets the best results". In some forms of muzzled auditing, a non-sequitur answer is to be ignored or simply nodded to, with the question then asked again. In others, the auditor says the word "flunk" and re-asks the question. To help enforce Hubbard's "model session patter", David Miscavige ordered Patter drills be instituted to help student auditors memorize it. Some, such as former Scientologist Robert Dam, have criticized this method.
 * Murder Routine. A colloquial term among auditors for a simple way to trick the preclear into admitting overts (well-known counter-survival acts) and withholds (hidden counter-survival acts). The name comes from the classic example of asking the PC if they've murdered their wife, to which the PC may respond "oh no! I only cheated on her!" Although not officially issued as Standard Tech until 1974, Hubbard says he began using this trick in 1961 while auditing in South Africa.
 * Needle Pattern. Certain people may have their own "Needle pattern" reaction on the E-meter which is chronic and constant, even when both they and the auditor are saying and doing nothing.
 * Restimulation. Like a 'flashback' of sorts, a PC may find engrams for forgotten and buried incidents or implants "restimulated" and re-experienced.
 * Rise. The opposite of a "Fall". The needle sways to the left instead of the right.
 * Rocket Read. A needle reaction "characterized by a spurted, accelerated beginning... it looks like something taking off, like being shot... its other characteristic is a curled end."
 * Rock Slam. When the needle slams back and forth in a "crazy irregular slashing motion". In 1962, Hubbard stated it "indicates a fight, an effort to individuate, an extreme games condition". By 1978, he had decreed that a rock slam indicated a hidden evil intention toward the subject of questioning, which meant that in response to questions about the Scientology organization, it indicated an evil intention toward the Church itself. Within the Sea Org, this was once grounds for assignment to the Rehabilitation Project Force.
 * Rundown. "A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena."
 * Straightwire. The PC is asked to mentally imagine, or "mock up", a line being strung between themselves and an event in the past. Says Hubbard, "the auditor is directing the memory of the preclear and in doing so is stringing wire, much on the order of a telephone line".
 * Theta Bop. A rapid (five to ten times a second) dance of the needle. Said to mean "death", "leaving", "don't want to be here" in 1961's E-meter Essentials book and was described as the thetan "vibrating in and out of the body". But by 1968, in The Wall of Fire (OT III), Hubbard revealed that a theta-bop reading was actually caused by Body Thetans trying to exteriorize from your body.
 * Tiger Drills. This was originally part of a series of drills where student auditors practiced different reads and different "goals", the idea being that "to be a Tiger" would be a very unlikely goal, and therefore a good challenge for drills. In time it was determined by Hubbard that "to be a Tiger" was especially useful as a drill goal because it was a "null, unmeaningful word" that would not accidentally restimulate any engrams. For a time in the 1960s, this sense of "Tiger" as null led to slang usage among Scientologists to refer to Suppressive persons. This slang meaning seems to have fallen out of usage since Hubbard's death.
 * Time Shift. An auditor can take a PC to or through an incident by announcing "It is three minutes later", etc. The auditor doesn't need to wait for those moments to actually elapse in real time. Its purpose is to skirt around the perceived parameters of an incident to make sure the true beginning and true end have been determined.
 * Very Good Indicators When the Preclear is smiling, happy, bright eyes, or even laughing he is said to have "VGIs"

bull baiting
In the bull baiting article, there is a disambiguation link to this article claiming that this process is frequently refered to as bull-baiting. A quick Google search indicates that there is some truth in this. Can an editor of this article add relevant info about the use of the term bull-baiting to this article? I do not watch this article, so if you seek any reply or info from me, pls do so on my talk page. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The process of bull-baiting is mostly performed on prospective Auditors in order to prepare them for anything a PC (pre-clear) may do while being audited. The instructor or instructors are permitted to do anything they wish in an attempt to distract the person being trained short of physically touching them. Bull-baiting quite simply is an exercise to train auditors not to react to anything a PC says or does and to remain focused on the physical comfort (or discomfort) of the PC while answering the Auditor's questions or taking guidance. The actual content of the answers to the Auditors questions are almost always of no consequence while any physiological changes are thought to be of great importance. Thanks Jyuma

Removed for non-relevance.

Neutral Point of View violations
This article has a clear bias and lacks neutrality and objectivity. Should be rewritten to give a more concise description of the activity and not espouse the dogma of the church of Scientology. Among other issues are the external links to Scientology websites, the positive tone associated with pseudoscientific and potentially psychologically harmful practices, and information based only on internal Scientology sources (Including at time of writing 15 of 42 sources attributed to founder of the cult L Ron Hubbard.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1303:47BF:9DA4:47EB:20AC:CBFA (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

[show]
The right corner of the second box / frame (counted from the bottom upwards) contains: see title. Is this a mistake? If so, would you please correct it Steue (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Still odd grammar?
If so, please be specific. Steue (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Emotional tone scale
"Emotional tone scale" redirects to this article. None of the words, emotional, tone, or scale, appears anywhere in the article. Were those edited out at some point? If so, can that information be recovered? Gerntrash (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This needs better sources
What makes this nice religious topic notable? Current sources are very weak, they are either primary or mention the topic in passing. BEFORE suggests the topic may be notable, but we have to be careful with some sources published by the affiliated religious institutions, as they are not independent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)