Talk:Engram

Talk:Engram (Neuropsychology)
To fostor NPOV, this discussion space should not have been moved or redirected under neuropsychology. Transporting discussions of engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) is an act which, in my opinion, violates NPOV and consigns discussion under the light of neuropsychology and inherently proscribes discussion of the Dianetics Engram. According to Wikipedia's articles, Hubbard's Dianetics explores the engram with almost entirely different bounds. --JimmyT 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you might not be aware of how the situation came to be. Up until a short time ago, there was only one "Engram" article, called just Engram.  Most of the article was of course about the mainstream concept of the engram, but as discussion of the much different Dianetics concept attached to the same term got to be a larger part of that article, an editor had the idea to have separate articles for the mainstream concept and for the Dianetics concept, and have Engram be a disambiguation page that pointed to both of the other two.  To accomplish this, the existing engram article (which was, again, mostly devoted to the mainstream usage) was moved to Engram (neuropsychology), and its talk page was moved to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology).  Now, when you move a page, the old title becomes a redirect to the new location; this happened for both Engram and Talk:Engram.  Engram of course was turned from the redirect created by the page move into a disambiguation page.  However, since disambiguation pages usually don't need talk pages, Talk:Engram wasn't changed.  Hope this clarifies things.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes it does. --JimmyT 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add, looking at the history of the engram article, at no time did it present the commonly known definition of the word. The word has been used for more than 50 years, its in probably any dictionary.  The article was a special interest article and did not and was not intended to appeal to the broad public.  By including the commonly understood use of the word (as Jimmy has done) it creates the appropriate demarkation point, allows Wikipedia to appropriately fork and present specialized pages with the reader's understanding of how a fork is appropriate. Well done, Jimmy. Terryeo 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, please don't use the word "fork", since you are either unwilling or unable to use it in the sense that the word is understood on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really Feldspar, I'll use the word "fork" anytime I choose to. Terryeo 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being requested, as an editor, for the good of Wikipedia, to either use "fork" and "forking" about the arrangement of Wikipedia articles only in the sense that that word is in use on Wikipedia. If you are unwilling to use the word correctly, or do not have enough understanding of the correct usage of the word to use it correctly, you are requested to not use it at all.  If you are interested in harmonious editing then you will understand the importance of not giving words your own private definitions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeking an argument, the blind man found one. Seeking enlightenment the deaf man heard something.  Seeking a fork, the buddhist found a spoon.  Seeking a spoon, the christian heard one hand clapping.  What does this mean? lolololTerryeo 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That given the choice between a mature response and an immature response that's easier, you'll take the easier response -- even when it makes you appear to be gibbering? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy arguements, Feldspar, I'll use "fork" when I wish and speak the word to whom I wish when I wish to. Do you get it? Terryeo 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do indeed get it. Whereas a mature editor would say "All right, since there seems to be something I'm not 'getting' about the Wikipedian meaning of the word 'fork', I'll express my meaning in different words, rather than cause unneeded confusion," you are saying "I don't care how much confusion I cause; the actual impact of my actions upon others and upon the process of productive editing I claim I value is meaningless next to my unquestionable right to do anything I wish."  Got it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, continue to mature Feldspar. LOL. fork, fork, fork. Terryeo 09:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Engram
You contend "re-ordering and using Wiktionarypar template, per WP:MOS for disambig pages" as a justification for your adjustment to the disambiguation article. Can you please clarify which portion of MOS supports your view on not having the entries in alphabetical order? Thank you. --JimmyT 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly; it's Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The first point is covered under "Linking to Wiktionary", which states "Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary. To do this, use one of the "Wiktionary parameter templates" on the first line."  The second point is covered under "Order of entries", which states "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below."  The idea of other orderings is discussed as follows:  "For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common. Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top."  "Engram" is not a place or person, and the Dianetics and NLP usages of the term are not as common as its usage in the mainstream field of neuropsychology.  There would have to be a good reason to go against the guidelines in this case, and the only argument that has been advanced for ever changing it to alphabetical order is shown in Terryeo's edit summaries:  "arranged into the ever popular, much used by Potomec  [sic], alaphabetical  [sic] order", "rearranged to comply with Pomec's  [sic] ever popular, "alaphabetical  [sic] arrangement"", "Resequenced to comply with Povmec's alaphabetic  [sic] sorting" and finally, the puzzlingly nonsensical edit summary "rm redirect" which made sense as my edit summary when I fixed the redirect of Talk:Engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) that had been left over from a page move, but makes no sense in the context of Terryeo putting the entries in an unneeded, and as we've seen, counter to well-established style guidelines, alphabetical order.  "Povmec put items in alphabetical order on a non-disambiguation page so I'm going to do it on this, a disambiguation page" is not a good enough reason to go against the established practice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, really, that was my position, and I feel guilty that Antaeus had to take his own time to make the statement justifying my stance. But I coudn't have done it better. I first went through various disambiguation examples around to get a grasp at how topics should be properly disambiguated. Mainstream usage first. Less common ([especially] pseudoscientfic usages after.) Terryeo, actually agreed that Dianetics was not really presented as a science of the mind on the Dianetics talk page. Raymond Hill 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with what Potmec views as an "established practice" and what millions of other people view as an "established practice" disambiguates at "engram". I maintain that millions of people use the word "engram" in a Dianetics sense. Potmec insists Dianetics is a debunked splinter that hardly exits. Feldspar insists that Dianetics was a fad for a brief period of time in the 1950s. While Millions of book sales (Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health) say otherwise, such information is not acceptable to either Potmec or Feldspar. Terryeo 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you seem utterly incapable of saying Povmec's name? Repeat it with me: P-O-V-M-E-C. Let's do a patter drill on it, shall we? And do you have a legitimate source for your notion that "millions of people use the word 'engram' in a Dianetics sense"? Otherwise, you "maintaining" it doesn't amount to much. wikipediatrix 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * whew, this is the first time I've seen you on this page User:Wikipediatrix, are you aware your name has been used to put an article into mediation? Regarding your question, I'll happily answer you if I believe you understand what the purpose of a patter drill is :)  You suggest saying a series of sounds together, but that isn't how a patter drill is done.  Estimates of the number of copies of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health sold, range in the area of 50 million.  That would consititue "millions of people" who might use the word found therewithin.  However, I know myself that the Church of Scientology owns millions of dollars worth of property and deliver services every day based on that word.  The people who take those services and study the subjects use the word.  At any one time the quantity of persons using the word might be near zero, but the totality of people who have encountered and used that word must certainly be in the millions. Terryeo 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those copies were sold in the 1950s. Immanuel Velikovsky's books were also best-sellers at the same time, but how many people today still believe his pseudoscientific ideas? And your original claim was that millions of people use the word "Engram" in a Dianetics sense. Now that I've pressed you on the matter, it seems you're really just saying that millions of people have encountered Dianetics. Which is also doubtful, but in any event, it seems to indicate you have nothing of substance to bring to the table. wikipediatrix 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. As with other moments when you say, "present the evidence" and I spell out a portion of the evidence, you say in turn, "no it isn't, you haven't proven it to me!" :)   lol.  Terryeo 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen you present so much as a shred of valid evidence about any subject on Wikipedia. You have an extremely naive and childlike concept of what constitutes evidence, proof, and scientific validity. This is another reason I rarely bother to engage in discussion with you, because I sometimes get the definite feeling that I am arguing with a child. wikipediatrix 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it is not that hard to figure out that the "established practice" referred to in the last sentence of my explanation does not refer to any of the practices of Dianetics, but to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Here is the sentence:  "'Povmec put items in alphabetical order on a non-disambiguation page so I'm going to do it on this, a disambiguation page' is not a good enough reason to go against the established practice."  Does it make any sense whatsoever to think I would have been referring to the practices of Dianetics, rather than the guidelines of Wikipedia that were the subject of, well, the entire paragraph? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, still going on about alaphbetical order? heh ! There is some arguement about "which is most popular". It doesn't seem so critically important to this disambiuation page that's it worth hours of hammering on.  There are what, 5, maybe 10 lines of print, a reader can get it fairly easily. Heh. Terryeo 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Typical Terryeo: start an argument, then when someone responds, say "are you still going on about that? it's not important". If he hadn't responded, you'd take your opposite tactic, which is to cry that no one is discussing these edits with you. wikipediatrix 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The more frequently I spell out my full reasons and reasoning, the more frequently I get things like, "well isn't that just an applesause of verbage" or similar. I'll spell it out here in this instance.  The page was "engram" and an article about neuro something.  People started this l-o-n-g series of Dianetics articles (for reasons I can't fathom) and while I don't mind that they exist, I don't wish to see them presented in derogatory or false ways.  "engram" is one of the Dianetics words and so, hey, I took a little responsibility and clicked to where someone would go if they clicked "engram".  I found the article.  I included a one line mention of Dianetics use of the term.  Povmec simply couldn't abide it in HIS article.  (my evaluation of why he sent it to mediation).  Thus we have a disambiguation page.  So, on the disambiguation page we have the possible mis-agreement.  Dianetics is the more commonly used meaning of the term "engram" or "neuro-something" is the more commonly used meaning of the term "engram" and on that basis rests which meaning should be listed first.  I tried and at least one other person tried to put a dictionary definition on the page, thus giving a reader some guidence.  But Feldspar can't abide that, nor could Povmec (not that those two are the same individual, heh!).  So here we are today.  I've taken Povmec's idea (alaphabetize everything) which I don't myself like at all because it scrambles up meanings in a long list, and I've applied it here and *POW* along comes feldspar doing precisely the actions that his ummm, predecessor did.  heh !  I find it rather amusing, actually. Terryeo 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're confused. Povmec never said "alphabetize everything". There's a difference between alphabetizing references in an article and alphabetizing disambiguation data. If you say you don't like the idea, why did you start an edit-war over whether Dianetics should go first on the list?? Just to try to make a point? wikipediatrix 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried and at least one other person tried to put a dictionary definition on the page, thus giving a reader some guidence. But Feldspar can't abide that, nor could Povmec (not that those two are the same individual, heh!).  Hmmm, let's see.  What does Disambiguation say about dictionary definitions?  Oh, let's see, there's a section all about dictionary definitions:  Disambiguation.  Let's see what it says about dictionary definitions:  "Dictionary definitions don't belong here."  Well, that seems plain enough.  "However, there are templates for linking to Wiktionary. (See How to link to Wikimedia projects.)" Hunh.  So, I supposed that someone could, if they wanted, follow the proper procedures to provide a link to a dictionary definition, for them what absolutely felt they had to have a dictionary definition.  -- I mean, someone other than me or Povmec could do it, because of course neither of us can "abide" dictionary definitions....  Oh wait. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, I never said 'alphabetize everything'. Please point where I stated such a thing.
 * Furthermore, this is not MY article. I was concerned that the article was misleading the reader into thinking that Dianetics was scientifically sound, which it is not, as simple as that. This issue was resolved, thanks to the mediator, until you came back to change the alphabetical order with no regards to the guidelines about disambiguation. Raymond Hill 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Copied from neuropsychology"
JimmyT, thanks for this good edit here. A good disambiguation page helps a reader who comes looking for a particular article figure out which of the articles linked from that page he's looking for; your description of Engram (neuropsychology) will help a great deal in making that clear for the reader. Good job! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)