Talk:E-meter/Archive 2

Article no longer compliant with WP:Due/ Undue
The current majority opinion of the academic community on the ability of the e-meter to assist with medical or psychological practice is clearly strongly negative, yet nowhere does this article reflect that. This article is therefore no longer compliant with WP:Due or WP:Undue policy. I easily found evidence of the article's extreme pro-Scientology weighting in the article's lead, which claimed that the e-meter had been around for over 100 years (nowhere supported by the cite), and implied that non-Scientology related therapists (i.e. typical psychologists and psychiatrists) were using it as a therapeutic tool, again, nowhere supported by the cites. Freezone thereapists are Scientology related, and that was not made clear in the wording. There is no longer a section titled, "Controversy". What is left of the old "Controversy" section (Now E-meter and the law) has been reworded to imply that the controversies were all mistakes, and it is now fully legal. All very inaccurate, misleading, and out of compliance with WP:Due/ Undue. I propose reverting this article back to an earlier edition of this article that complied with WP:Due/ Udue, so it can again comply with WP:Due/ Undue. Scott P. (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The majority opinion on electrodermal activity is mixed, from Martin Gardener (who was not qualified to offer an opinion on the subject) to modern users publishing in peer reviewed journals cited. Please see the sources cited here and in electrodermal activity and its use in both research and therapy.  If you still think Gardener's opinion is relevant, you can add it, but it just makes Gardener look a little silly, given the professional heavyweights who found value in the subject. The lede is not required to provide all cites if it truly summarizes the body of the article. WP:LEDE.  The body tells the history: "The first EDA meter was developed in Russia 1889 by Ivane Tarkhnishvili. It was popularized for psychotherapy by Carl Gustav Jung in a series of papers published in German in 1906 and in English in 1919."  If the E-meter is currently illegal (or less than fully legal) anyplace inside or outside of Scientology, certainly that should be mentioned. What other controversies would you like to see brought forward? Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could give precise snippets to demonstrate your assertions. For example, your statement that the article claims the emeter is "fully legal" when it is not. I'm not sure what you're trying to assert, because the emeter in itself was never illegal to begin with, unless you have information that says otherwise. What is illegal is the use of the Scientology emeter for the purpose of diagnosing medical conditions and illness, or at least that's what appears to be the agreement made between Scientology and the FDA. From what I can tell, the article is pretty clear about this, so I'm not sure what you're getting at or I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Keep in mind the emeter is just one of out many biofeedback devices like the polygraph, all or at least most considered by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience. As I suggested on the CCHR talk page, the best thing for you to do would be to open up a "request for comment" and let other editors chime in with their view and see if there is any consensus regarding your assertions and proposed changes. Laval (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that it's material to your statement, but I don't think the polygraph or the e-meter, as currently used, are really biofeedback devices. Certainly the polygraph does not have the "goal of being able to manipulate them at will," like the lede says in the biofeedback article. ;-) Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is certainly true that the polygraph, when used as a lie detector, is not a biofeedback device according to the definition used in that article, but the Scientology meter, as used by Scientologists, is. The whole point of using the E-meter in so-called "auditing" is to "guide" the preclear (patient, client, etc) through their mind in locating and/or triggering memories, emotional states, physical sensations and so on, supposedly through the measurement of electrical resistance (or "charge" in Scientology jargon) - actually, the last section of this page explains it pretty well, and psychological/physiological conditioning is the most important factor in using biofeedback devices in the first place. Scientology takes it a step further by claiming the e-meter can help guide you toward spiritual freedom and immortality, in addition to the standard claim of helping locate the mental or spiritual sources of physical pain and illnesses, which of course is forbidden by the FDA but I guess the disclaimers are enough to shield them from prosecution. There are 3 or 4 articles in psychology/psychiatry journals from years ago which study the biofeedback and conditioning aspect of the e-meter which may be of interest for this article, but I'm allergic to all this pseudoscience and woo. Laval (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I'll be jiggered. I thought the auditor used it more like a nurse uses a stethoscope.  E-meter says:
 * ''According to Hubbard, the E-meter is used by the operator for three vital functions:
 * ''To determine what process to run and what to run it on.[40]
 * ''To observe how well the process is running.[41]
 * To know when the process should be stopped.[42]
 * Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The e-meter has been a controversial device since the earliest days of the Scientology movement when they were confiscated by the government, to this day when Scientology continues to make the rather controversial claim that its e-meters make good measurements of the "psyche, the human soul, spirit...."

This article nowhere reflects the ongoing and consistent highly controversial nature of this device. Even the "Law" sections each conclude on a positive statement summarizing how the law eventually submitted to the e-meter. Outside of Scientology, the medical, psychiatric, and therapeutic communities remain effectively uniformly opposed to the ongoing use of this device, legal failures to stop its use notwithstanding. The page appears to be roughly 80% pro and maybe at most 20% con. RS is approximately the reverse. I still see no reason why this article should be allowed to remain so flagrantly in violation of WP:Due/ Undue policy, or why such nonsensical claims as its supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims should remain. Unless anyone can explain to me how a device that is uniformly contested by the therapeutic community outside of Scientology is the same device allegedly being suitably explained here, I will repair this page as needed. Scott P. (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1970, there were 1500 professional journal articles concerning electrodermal activity (EDA) and its use as an indicator in therapy and research. According to the journals cited on the EDA page, the use of EDA is still on the increase in those fields.  I have asked you to consult the journals that are cited here and in the EDA page.  You may find there, for example:"EDA is used widely in psychological research due to its low cost and high utility. Hugo D. Critchley, Chair of Psychiatry at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School states, 'EDA is a sensitive psychophysiological index of changes in autonomic sympathetic arousal that are integrated with emotional and cognitive states.' Many biofeedback therapy devices utilize EDA as an indicator of the user's stress response with the goal of helping the user to control anxiety."  This article is fully supported with references.  If you find statements not supported, flag them.  If you find references that are not WP:RS, flag them.  Where are the sources that say otherwise? Add them to the article.
 * Multiple RS support the use of EDA meters before 1915, including Jung's own published papers in German. I asked you to consult those sources, but you do not comment on them directly. That should be your first task before further discussion. The fact is, Mathison did not invent the E-meter -- that was the claim of some writers who were plainly not familiar with the field and did not do their homework.  But the translation of Jung's own book from 1904 is published on Google books.
 * As for the legal sections, each story is chronological beginning with the earliest events and ending with the most recent events. Do you know of any secular uses where the E-meter hit legal problems? Was the premises of Mathison Electorpsychometers ever raided? Were lie detectors ever banned from use or manufacture because of the EDA component?  Are biofeedback devices contraband and confiscated on import anywhere in the world?  If you know of any nations where Scientology or other E-meters are forbidden, those stories belong on the page. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that Sfarney (Grammar's Little Helper) has been the primary editor of this page for the last half a year, and this is what the article looked like before he began making his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E-meter&oldid=639347143 A lot of information critical of the E-Meter has been removed: it should be restored to bring back WP:DUE. Kage Acheron (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Can a device be criticized? The FDA arrested it, prosecuted it, and tried to "condemn" it to destruction, so I guess we can "criticize" it. Will the court have to appoint counsel?
 * I have used the best sources available. For example, in place of Corydon/DeWolf's vague statement that Mathison invented the E-meter "in the 1940s," I have used Mathison's own statement that he got his original idea while listening to a lecture by a "controversial" speaker in 1950. Other sources have identified that speaker.  Moreover, with the full back-history of the instrument, the reader can competently evaluate the magnitude of Mathison's invention (it did not spring into being from nothing like Athena from the head of Zeus), and Corydon/DeWolf's allegation that Hubbard misappropriated the E-meter from Mathison.  I have tried to present the simple facts that were missing in the original page.  If you think it necessary to add a layer of opinion and disapprobation, well, what can I say?  I don't think opinions are the proper commerce for an Encyclopedia. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stating the obvious problem, Scottperry. And thank you to Kage Acheron for suggesting a fix: rollback to before Sfarney started shifting the article to a positive bent. I agree with Laval that more could be said about the psychology of the e-meter as a Scientology tool, but we should certainly restore the paramount evaluation of the thing as unreliable nonsense, per mainstream sources. This article should not become a voice for Scientologists or their apologists. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Should I say thank you for reading the non-Scientology references provided in the article? No, I should wait until you read them, then you tell me which of them are pro-scientology, and which are just plain professional journal references. And you should read them too, before offering an opinion on the subject. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is ultimately User:Scottperry using language and making statements that are not helpful or taking into account WP:Consensus. It is totally inappropriate for an editor to go around stating that they are going to single-handedly of their own accord without any prior discussion whatsoever with other editors revert to an earlier version of an article going back a few years. May I remind everyone that this and other Scientology-related articles are subject to discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, which means that any radical or "militant" changes or canvassing to make such changes are explicitly prohibited? User:Scottperry has already been canvassing on anti-Scientology forums here and here.

Regardless of whatever problems this article or other Scientology-related articles have, I cannot agree with taking any militant action against them to the extent of threatening to take action against consensus or to refuse to open an RFC where warranted (as User:Scottperry has explicitly stated) prior to taking such radical action or to explicitly and directly canvass on an external forum in direct violation of Arbitration Committee sanctions. Laval (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment At the time of Laval's posting, the second extra-Wiki thread had been in existance for only a day. Perhaps a very precice Google search would have found it, but that more likely suggests active monitoring of critical sites. No one who isn't an involved party does that. Could editor Laval declare his/her involvement on the issue? 209.171.88.121 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, masked man, that participation in off-site discussions is not forbidden. Anyone here could partake regularly in those forums without breaking the rules. However, it is not OK to recruit editors to weigh in en mass from one of those forums, and in this case, ScottPerry has done just that at least twice over. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to clear violations of ArbCom sanctions and User:Scottperry's canvassing on external anti-Scientology forums, I suggest notifying the appropriate administrators and everyone taking a step back from editing this and other articles like the CCHR until everything has been sorted out. Laval (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(revised) RFC: The best way to keep this article in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue
Which version of this article do you prefer? 13:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for all of the struck-out-text above. As the supporters of what I view as a pro-Scientology edition of this article have now refused to agree to the initial request of this RFC to leave the article as what I believed was a WP:Due/ Undue compliant edition of the article, at least until this RFC could be completed, and as they have again reverted the article back to what I will now refer to as the "Conserved edition", I must now rewrite this RFC as best I am able in light of their recent refusal. So without further adue, here is the now revised RFC:

I have recently performed a major overhaul of this article in an effort to bring the article into what I see as "compliance with WP:Due and WP:Undue policies". While none of the other editors here have denied my concern about the article's aparent non-compliance with WP policy, no other editor here has yet endorsed my wholesale overhaul of the article. In order to acheive what I believe to be WP Policy compliance within this article, before its most recent rollback to what I am calling the "Conserved edition", I had essentially restored the article to a "properly contemporized" 2007 edition of the article.
 * My proposed "Policy-compliant" article page can be seen at:
 * Proposed "Policy compliant" article edition by Scott Perry.


 * The diffs between what I am calling the "Baseline" edition from 2007 and the proposed "Policy compliant" edition can be seen at:
 * "Baseline" to "Policy compliant" diffs.


 * The diffs between my proposed "Policy compliant" edition, and the current "Conserved edition" can be seen at:
 * "Policy compliant" to "Conserved edition" diffs.

Again, my apologies for the strikeout. So now, the revised RFC question becomes:


 * Do you support or oppose the restoration of the article to what Scott Perry calls his "Policy compliant" edition, which he has created due to his belief that the current edition is no longer compliant with WP:Due and WP:Undue?
 * Thanks
 * Scott P. (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Oppose" -- This RFC is not correctly posed per Requests for comment. (1) It should be posted BEFORE doing a massive revert, not afterwards.  (2) It fails to provide a neutral statement of the issue.  Instead, it speculates on a conspiracy and asserts the RfC poster's reversion is the "neutral one."  Argue your case only in the discussion portion of the RfC, not in the header. (3) It misrepresents the history of the discussion.  You have not demonstrated that the journal references that you have deleted did not support the page text, or did not reflect the best sources available.  Instead, you have ignored my requests to address those references, characterizing them as "implied consensus" with the reversion. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is now no revert in place, (per your party's actions) so your party has now rendered that point rather moot.
 * I think the primary question above was phrased neutrally. Perhaps you were referring to my earlier question, which I must agree was not phrased as neutrally?
 * It does not address minor recent changes to the article because the supposition I made was that fairly major changes, as the changes I have now proposed, need to be made. And no I never said that your party was in consensus about my proposed revision.  I merely said that you were in "implied consensus" that there were WP:Due/ Undue issues with the page.  As I understand it, there is the widespread supposition that when a specific claim is made, and the other party chooses to remain silent about the specific claim, there is usually a certain sort of an "implied consent" being made by the silent party, at least that's what they did in court once on Hill Street Blues, but who am I to know for sure?
 * Scott P. (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor who has been actively involved in developing the RFC pages over the years, I would like to say that objection #1 is spurious. There are no rules that require RFCs to be opened before, after, or during any particular edit or reversion.  There are also no rules that prevent ongoing editing of the page during the discussion.  RFCs are meant to be normal talk page discussions plus an advertising mechanism, not a work-stopping bureaucratic maneuver.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - can you please a diff showing the results of your changes? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion Jyt, I just put up the two diff links and the one proposed revision link, which I hope is what you were suggesting. Scott P. (talk)
 * You do realize you are accusing several of us here as being "pro-Scientology"? That is totally out of line and you had better show some evidence to back up this alleged bias. You have also not responded to evidence I presented indicating that you have been canvassing on anti-Scientology forums. and
 * Laval (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reasons for supporting the "Conserved edition" are your own. I merely said that the "Conserved edition" appeared to me to be pro-Scientology.  For all I know you are merely into the properties of E-meters because you have some interest in them based on your love of electronics.  I don't really care.  Scott P. (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your nearly "supernatural" awareness of my off-Wiki activities, not a single person from that board has posted on this talk page, so further ad-hominem attacks on irrelevant grounds would seem to me to be a bit of an attempt to derail this RFC by any means you can dream up. Yes I asked for help there, and no, none was received here.  I have since asked that nobody from there post here, at least for the time being.  We have no reason to believe that any number of editors in here have ever been canvassed by the Church of Scientology to post here, do we?  Scott P. (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very relevant, per Canvassing. Your behavior and statements reflect a distinctly anti-Scientology bias &mdash; a bias against a particular subject is, obviously, not in and of itself an issue and should not be, within the constraints of WP:NPOV. The problem is when someone with an anti-Scientology bias goes to an external forum and basically claims that the Church of Scientology is covertly taking over Wikipedia articles on Scientology &mdash; here is an exact quote: Right now there seems to be some kind of a systematic infiltration of Wikipedia going on by the CoS... I'm an old hand editor for the last 11 years at Wikipedia and some of us are trying to stop this CoS operation over there. This is clearly a problem. Do you deny making this absurd claim? Laval (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Conserved version appears to have much more about Mathison than the other versions, and this emphasis on Mathison is what I prefer, since he is the inventor. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Who invented the E-meter and how long has it been in use?
It is also apparent that you (User:Scottperry) are unaware that L Ron Hubbard did not invent the so-called "E-meter" and that this device had been invented and in use long before Hubbard's adoption of it for Dianetics and Scientology? It was Volney Mathison, by the way, who invented the device that was later patented by Hubbard as the "Hubbard Electrometer." Mathison's meter, as is stated in this article and in Mathison's bio, is basically a repackaged Wheatstone bridge, which had been in use since the early 1900s by psychiatrists and/or psychoanalysts. I am not sure why you dispute these clearly documented facts. In other words, why do you dispute the fact that L Ron Hubbard did not invent the E-meter and its variants and why do you dispute that it had been in use as a Wheatstone bridge (which Hubbard himself admits) long before the advent of Dianetics and Scientology? Laval (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The e-meter as we know it today was certainly originally invented under a different name, the Mathison Psychrometer I believe it was, back in the late 40's. Later Hubbard clearly modified it and renamed it, then used it only for his own purposes, which was for "auditing".  And so it is exclusively used for this to this day.  In order for Hubbard to have gotten his own patent, he would have had to have significantly modified it.  So, the name "e-meter" as it applies to a galvanic skin response meter, has never been associated with any other device besides the Scientology e-meter, that is until someone here started claiming it had, with no documentation to prove that earlier supposed association or use of that name. E-meters in the 1800's?  E-meters built and used specifically for auditing are no longer the same devices cops use to detect lies.  Come on. Your thinking on this does truly amaze me.  Scott P. (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your amazement aside, do you have sources that dispute the sources currently used in this article? In other words, what exactly in this current version of the article are you disputing and what sources are you using to make such disputes? Laval (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you for finally getting down to brass tacks here. I just read through refs 1,2, & 3, which you placed as supporting references to your statement that the e-meter had been around for over a century.  Please forgive me, but I could find no wording to that effect in any of those three supporting references.  Did I miss something?  What specific wording in which place in which specific text did you find something, stating that e-meter was over 100 years old?  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't place any refs in the article about the history of the device. Versions of the article going back at least to 2013 use a source stating "The device is a variation of a Wheatstone bridge, which dates to 1833 and measures electrical resistance and skin conductance." The citation there specifically stated: "The Genesis of the Wheatstone Bridge" by Stig Ekelof discusses Christie's and Wheatstone's contributions, and why the bridge carries Wheatstone's name. Published in "Engineering Science and Education Journal", volume 10, no 1, February 2001, pages 37–40. This is essentially what the current version states. Are you disputing this and is this why you attempted a wholesale reversion to one prior to 2013? Laval (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now we're getting somewhere. You see, this article is not about the Wheatstone Bridge, which is over 100 years old.  This article is about the e-meter, which term and device only came into existence as we now know them in the 50's.  What you are doing is like saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica has been in existence since the first century CE.  No, encyclopedias came into existence then, but Britannica did not come into existence until 1768. It is these types of very odd interpretations of the facts that are sprinkled throughout the article, that have caused the need for a major article overhaul. I hope you can see the difference here.  Scott P. (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wheatstone Bridge is not a "device." It is a circuit configuration for measuring small differences between impedance components, and those components may be resistance (as in this case), inductance, or capacitance. The Wheatstone Bridge is not even essential to the E-meter, no more than a gasoline engine is essential to an automobile.  As it happened, that was a fundamental component for a very long time, but not essential.  The true grandfather of automobiles is not the first internal combustion engine, but the human carriage, which may be drawn by gas engine, electric engine, steam engine, horse, dog, or coolie. In the case of the E-meter, Here is the ancestor: "The first EDA meter was developed in Russia 1889 by Ivane Tarkhnishvili. It was popularized for psychotherapy by Carl Gustav Jung in a series of papers published in German in 1906 and in English in 1919.  Jung and his colleagues used meters to evaluate the emotional sensitivities of patients during word association.  Jung was so impressed with the instrument, he allegedly cried, 'Aha, a looking glass into the unconscious!' Jung described his use of the device in counseling in his book, Studies in Word Association, and such use has continued with various practitioners." Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just located another source: "Bob Thomas, senior executive of the Church of Scientology in the United States, described the E-meter ... 'Some very early work on this was done by Jung, who used a list of words. I think he combined it with the psycho-galvanometer. By this word association, he was attempting to increase the effectiveness of the free association techniques, which he was not sure about.'" Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, there is obviously no consensus for your wholesale reversion of the article to an earlier version from several years previous (in this case, apparently from 2007) and I can guarantee you that you will not find any editors who would support such an action, as was clearly demonstrated on Talk:Psychiatry in regards to that article. Laval (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the RFC over at the Psychiatry article, I was totally satisfied with the outcome of that article. I don't care how it's accomplished, but somehow these non-compliant articles need to be redone to acheive compliance.  In the case of the e-meter article, it has gone far more out of compliance than the Psychiatry article ever did.  Thus I feel more strongly here that a full revert will be required here.  You still haven't told me if you feel the article is in compliance with WP:Due/ Undue.  What is your opinion on that, if you don't mind me asking? Scott P. (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * All that happened at Psychiatry was a chunk of the criticism section was taken out and made into a new article. No other changes were made there and there was no consensus that there was any undue weight being given to critical sources. In this case, you are claiming that undue weight is being given to what you are referring to as "pro-Scientology" sources, and no, I do not agree with that as it is clear that this is not the case. The Church of Scientology claims Hubbard as the sole inventor of the E-meter, makes no mention of Volney Mathison, and makes all sorts of claims regarding the function of the device that are at best pseudoscience. Scientology also denies that the E-meter is a simple galvanic skin response or electrodermal activity device, and that such devices (including the polygraph machine, all variously known as "biofeedback" devices) are measuring what Hubbard refers to as "mental mass." I do not see this article giving any sort of undue weight to the Scientology or Hubbardian view, and I do not understand why you would view it as being guilty of such. Laval (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a huge waste of time. Why do you think it proper to delete all reference to Carl Jung using an Electrodermal activity meter for assessing lists of emotionally disturbed subjects?  Why do you use the wrong date for Mathison's E-meter invention?  I could start at the top of the article and list 50 things you have omitted or reverted to false statements.  Why do you have the wrong name on the 1954 patent, and the wrong date for Hubbard's patent?  You have not read the source articles that you trashed, and it is not my job to spoon-feed them to you.  Dubois-Reymond (1849 in Germany), Vigouroux (France, 1879), Ivane Tarkhnishvili (1889 in Russia), Carl Jung (1904), Mathison 1950 ... Wikipedia is not a coloring book.  Moreover, the "sweat" hypothesis is at least a half-century out of date and does not cover all the EDA phenomena.  The term "galvanic skin response" that was outdated among the professionals 40 years ago.  Reverting the page was inexcusable vandalism. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Opposed. For the record, I am uninvolved in editing this or any other Scientology-related articles, having nothing to do with that organization, and was drawn here by a discussion on one of the noticeboards. I admit to being confused by the terminology used in this RFC and am inclined to oppose per Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper. Perhaps it would be better to start anew with an RFC that shows what you want to change and why- the RFC should also have a neutral title, and should not include more language that criticizes other editors. No offense, but I had a very hard time figuring out this RFC. I applaud your desire to have a policy-compliant article. I suggest starting with a policy-compliant discussion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Scott, did you not read Requests for comment? Read the entire page and follow the guidelines about neutrality and simplicity (a simple question is best). It also looks like this off-wiki message board appeals constitute canvassing. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , would you mind posting that canvassing link to the Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents? I will if you prefer not to. The issue issue of Scott's conduct is currently under discussion. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are the links:, . JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I had originally posted the links there to ANI. Had they been removed? Laval (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One was there in your post, I just now added the second. Thanks, JoeSperrazza. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I had also added that there is an apparent pattern of behavior on Scottperry's part, considering his attempts at Psychiatry and Citizens Commission on Human Rights to revert those articles wholesale back to versions from a few years previous that he considered to have not been slanted toward a pro-Scientology bias. And this is only the most recent issue &mdash; especially considering the violation of WP:3RR (which does not, as he believed, actually require 3 reversions to be in violation), not to mention the reversion of an article to a 2007 version (!), why he was not blocked or at the very least temporarily topic banned is perplexing. Laval (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The admin will do what the admin will do. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem stew
It's beginning to sound a bit like an echo chamber in here, with 3 or 4 voices deciding how best to boil the victim and serve him up. I hear that a few pages of a badly compromised article add quite the spicy accent to ad-hominem stew as well. They say a baked apple in the mouth is quite enchanting. Oh, and don't forget the onions!! Scott P. (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I the only editor in this whole friggin place who cares enough about Wikipedia to have the nerve to stand up to these poor misguided takeover artists? Is this what Wikipedia is to be, a charade of who can attack who the best, with total disregard for the articles themselves?  Does no other unbiased editor care?  If so, then you are welcome to whatever mess this is place is fast becoming.  If not, then now is your time to speak.  I ask... now, or perhaps never. Scott P. (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of Note: When will you to read the material you are trying to trash? You have still not addressed a single point that needs improving in the existing text, an RS omitted, an RS mischaracterized, or a source that is not an RS.  Developed articles are improved one point at a time.  If the article were as bad as you say, addressing a single point would be like shooting apples in a barrel.  That may be why you smell the BBQ: Your integrity as a Wikipedia editor is at stake, and with every avoidance of your real job as a cooperative editor, you are helping to grill it.   So, as I have requested repeatedly, start naming the individual points that need improvement and why. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Poor misguided takeover artists"? Who are you directing these various ad hominem attacks against exactly? You do realize that you've been making ad hominem attacks from the very start, and that it is these very attacks against other editors that has been driving your campaign? Laval (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As posted on ANI, editors here should be made aware of recent more bizarre behavior on Scottperry's part in his (apparent) attempted involvement of the police and allegation that " I am dealing with some rather unpleasant folks here".  What exactly is that all about? Laval (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone with two brain cells could easily ask themselves, "How do these editors here seem to have all of this personal info about Scott?" Do they have some kind of a PI on his tail, or what?"  This morning when I got up, I had to shoo-away the PI parked in front of my apartment.  When our eyes locked, he burnt rubber to get out of there before I photographed his plate.  My cell phone calls being intercepted strategically.  Voicemails getting strategically erased.  My calls getting interrupted in mid-call and recordings of earlier calls getting played back to me.  I guess not too many folks have two brain cells these days.  **sigh** Scott P. (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I almost forgot the cherry on the top. Now we're getting calls from someone who was known to us to have been in illegal possession of a gun, but who is also known to us to be off her rocker.  Fun fun fun! Scott P. (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And where is the FBI in all of this so far. So far eating doughnuts!!! (At least so far as they have let me know thus far.) Scott P. (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The people here are Internet savvy. As Sony and so many others learned to their woe, What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet. The diffs Laval posted are encountering removed material. In its place we find personal messages including phone numbers. Amazing. The individual who complains of no privacy on the internet then posts personal phone numbers. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So, can you point out whatever "diffs" you are talking about, and which phone numbers you are talking about? I haven't posted any phone numbers which involved removing WP info. Have you? Scott P. (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At least I personally, the human called "Scott Perry" haven't. If you might be seeing anything that would indicate otherwise, I would be all ears (eyes) to see the diffs. By the way, you still haven't told me what you made of this diff.  Did that diff answer your question about what I was talking about or not? Scott P. (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't I see personal phone numbers on your talk page and instructions on how to reach you? The last dozen entries have been deleted, so that remark cannot be confirmed, but the reason for removal is "personal information."  As for the duplicate headers, I created a header on your talk page to notify you of the ANI, not knowing the template would create its own header. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No problem then. Scott P. (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I concede defeat in my edit attempt
I hereby concede defeat in this attempted edit. The response to my attempt has been demonstration enough as to exactly what dynamics are at play here, and how intractable the issue I had hoped to point out still is. I saw not a single editor here acknowledge once that there was any violation of WP:Due or WP:Undue in this article, and so it now shall remain in the eyes of those who control this article. This little demonstration has proceeded pretty much exactly as I had expected. I thank all for taking part in my little attempt at making Wikipedia better, and I apologize to all here who I feel fairly certain probably believe that quite the opposite motive of mine is most likely true. Scott P. (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your RFC was muddled and malformed. I haven't a clue if your concerns are valid or not, but your over the top responses and argumentative approach surely makes most people suspect that there is a WP:CIR issue. Drop the espousal of conspiracies and re-file a simple RFC with diffs addressing one clear issue. Get consensus. Repeat until all issues are addressed. Furthermore, attacking longstanding editors, such as myself, that came here to help based on your post at WP:ANI doesn't help your cause. It make it look as if you are WP:NOTHERE, at best. However, if you're really giving up on this article, then go. Reading through your posts, this is not the first time you've asserted you were moving on, so your credibility, already diminished by your bad behavior, will be even lower if you continue to edit this talk page with anything other than an attempt to post a clear, simple, beginning RFC. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

* Comment: Only here for the RFC and I think I am sorry for it. The best I can say for it is that it seems about suited to such a subject. Like most corrupt "religious" subjects it does not lend itself to rational discussion because rational discussion treads on toes of wishful thinkers and axe grinders. Personally I consider, except in ethical aspects, that the meter and its proponents deserve about as much respect and standing as bone pointing, but technically I do not see much that is objectionable in the current version of the article, having skimmed it very superficially. Certainly some readers might read it as lending Scientology some credibility, but for such I have no remedy to propose. As for the RFC, before anyone asks me to do it again, please prepare a more coherent and substantial proposition on which to request for comment. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Electrodermal Activity is not exclusively a scientology subject. You might find there is less "bone pointing" and more science on that page. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I have no problem with electrodermal activity and physics or physiology in general; I even have a certain degree of toleration for futile hopefulness in their application in a world full of woe, want, and general doom, despair, despondency, and placebo. My revulsion is not for the rational applications of electric measurements, reverse osmosis, faked quantum mechanics, biochemistry, and so on; what unavoidably leaves me with a certain sense of itchiness is their rational dedication to nothing better than fraudulent parasitism on ignorant desperation. On certain other topics however, it is better not to get me started. Such as.... Nooohhh; I said DON'T get me started dammit! JonRichfield (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help if you thought about the wars in the middle east, death of the phytoplankton, and the drifting plume from Fukushima. I sometimes have to do that to get to sleep at night. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Touché! :) JonRichfield (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Emeter pricing
I have no sources at all, but for those inclined to take the time to dig this stuff up: Mark V is no longer sold by any Scientology organizations - in the past it was apparently authorized for use by students doing the "Method 1 word clearing" course but not for any kind of auditing. Doesn't look like its been sold by Scientology for years, the last ones sold off in the 00s. Since 2013, the new "Golden Age of Tech 2" Mark 8 meter is the only accepted device that students & auditors are allowed to use and this thing costs US$5000 each and there are "limited edition" ones in different colors that cost US$15000 each and there's supposed to be an even more limited version (less than 10 or something) coming soon that will go for US$50000 and a rumoured diamond encrusted version for US$100K in a few years. Scientology promo emails I think are the only legit sources for this kind of thing. Laval (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reversion by UnequivocalAmbivalence
, Concerning reversion of 09:34, 10 October 2015, of month-old text, I suggest this matter should be discussed rather than clobbered with an edit war. The article is about EDA meters, of which E-Meter is one type, but the article is traditionally named "E-Meter". We can fix that by changing the article title and creating "E-Meter" as a redirect. EDA meters are well accepted in the trades mentioned, and the history is well-known and well documented. The text was well sourced and should be left as it was. Please read the sources and bring your conclusions here if you still disagree. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed text
I just removed the following text added by :

In 2015, Donald A. Westbrook wrote that the church’s embracement of the e-meter as a religious artifact assured that it “can be quantifiably used for the purposes of auditing as Hubbard always intended, and meanwhile legally validated as a theological tool, which further legitimated the church’s claims to genuine religious status.”

I'm not clear exactly what it means, but as I read it, it means that the Church was now free to use the E-meter in auditing while still claiming that it's a religious, non-medical instrument. If this really is the point of this quote, it's dealt with well enough below without needing a reference to this article. --Slashme (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E-meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403205233/http://www.ronsorg.ch/english/emeterenglish.htm to http://www.ronsorg.ch/english/emeterenglish.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E-meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216050903/http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/ to http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122084024/http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/6105a07%20Saint%20Hill%20Special%20Briefing%20Course%20Lectures/TXT/6207C19%20SHSBC-191%20The%20E-Meter.txt to http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/6105a07%20Saint%20Hill%20Special%20Briefing%20Course%20Lectures/TXT/6207C19%20SHSBC-191%20The%20E-Meter.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Breeding and Wallis?
The article says:


 * In 1958 when Scientologists Don Breeding and Joe Wallis developed a modified, smaller battery-operated version, which they presented to Hubbard, he again used it. This was christened the Hubbard electrometer. Hubbard patented it on December 6, 1966, as a "Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body" (U.S. Patent 3,290,589).

The names Don Breeding and Joe Wallis do not occur on the patent, which is attributed solely to Hubbard. They're found on a number of Web pages by critics of Scientology, however, e.g.:


 * http://exscientologykids.com/emeter.html
 * http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/volney.html

But these do not actually cite any published sources for the names. And some pages, such as skepdic.com, cite this article for those names. This feels a bit like a circular chain of references to me.

This other page claims to be from an article in a 1989 issue of Gnosis, although I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source. It mentions those names in a footnote only. At the very least, if it is from 1989 we can be confident it didn't get those names from Wikipedia!

Meanwhile, our Scientology article claims Hubbard as the inventor of the E-meter. So, what's the deal? Does anyone have WP:RS for Breeding and Wallis as inventors? —FOo (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don Breeding is attributed as designing the transistor version in Scientology's own publication, Ability 65 (1958, page 7) ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190917202046im_/https://smallpdf-production-files.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9f5aa3ade31045f5b42e035103c59c4c.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIA3I33L6ORWU47E5IQ%2F20190917%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190917T202045Z&X-Amz-Expires=900&X-Amz-Security-Token=AgoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEK%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMSJIMEYCIQCpr5gPs0%2FJ%2Fl9D040G0TO5C4KfNOegCix%2F9jwfALeUgQIhAKh75gtPvqbvzkDXK2CLVWg8BbnCPCDMkErtk2n8zL3wKtoDCHgQABoMNzc0OTYzNDU4OTc5Igyk2u3gLJSFtkSDETEqtwMLGQj1hLpNZEygT8nP3%2BZXGfXpcKpJOA1SevnKLyb%2BYouSPCykPj%2BVrj1wdxky3TDpDOLY%2BivQUkQ0JKrNx%2FqFaXzF7vg%2BetX5QYd8vbjVi01THrsNcq%2BXNIbCxoNbqfU0z1ffdR%2BbguDGD1u8kRB4lo%2FJjsTQniqzToZlV334wgkoG3qdOPzRgZCOI6lIBPJZA%2BqwwhvjnyuTXQ71mnU5tXblUlqIxXHTBYqx%2BtqKSsxb8jB%2FzEXcY2mV6y05hWy1hQ6n2FwsA7OAoaBobrd0BbmHf8%2BLQ1ZToQIaXa%2BcZvxoFrnWuyl%2B16q3clykRKvxNK692QQ3RdKWeparQyNw1wAfWCIsvqAg2AXdy1H9Cn4yZeQCx8hm3iw4s6jgP0jfRbl2uJKwsDQs%2FVGprJ%2BMpxMWCzCfYcaXP8QgH7iQBywGxFTA5AzqPsK2fsDAvFo0ErAC3S6qelp0t%2F8JfgkTx5kiUaAt%2B33Q%2BlHi5VLm3uENqFz8ra7yKqryMrh4R1vnHZjRc92VMoKRzQ5JyZD7P%2B5TxClMEwYuaQAKVU3EeDyoHPN8z0Dh2GGLmYf1mVJWJ1JJeo7NMODug%2BwFOrMBDLpZXuxUuLfdr6ojm9UFamS2GIQDaI1s1audBEIyg9%2BBaFOB3TMr%2BSWbDv5sUhFlvp%2B0IDMJcAyXvFA9ZY6dg39fCAau5dBeF38quX2CAhL4Y6T1mk%2FLrTUlWYCaTNqV8Em8ptoXxVzRRDnf3mec8jFXvHNcpsTytXBuveUNVnsAr0ZTHw5uA%2F3OdUXqTSMlGndB%2BfYvzXRTgUzil5yAohTg0WPIc61Xh6uAcb60MhVlhEw%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22Ability%2065%20%25281958%252C%202%20of%2023%2529-pages-7.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27Ability%252065%2520%25281958%252C%25202%2520of%252023%2529-pages-7.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Signature=a8439142a2087cc5db5dcf8e9e854a1995f1841cfc3b47c747bbd0463762b3c1 archived version of just page 7]) Mardeg (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Polygraph
(Moved here from my user talk page)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  07:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Bit confused by this edit.

"Rigorous testing of the polygraph has yielded mixed results" is incorrect; testing has consistently shown that polygraph testing is a junk science.

"some critics classify polygraph operation as a pseudoscience" is a weird way to put it. It would be more reasonable to say that scientists and experts in all relevant fields agree that it is nonsense.

Maybe this was different in 1983 but we live in 2024 now. Polygnotus (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't add that content. My edit was just to add some citations that were already in use in the article to replace the "citation needed" tags. It looks like the content itself was added in 2015 by this edit. I don't know anything in particular about polygraphs, but it sounds like you do. You're welcome to edit the article. It could use an update.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  07:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)