This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Unless someone talks here. Specifically the article quotes "Science of Survival" (I have copies of that book) and says it states some things on page 131, etc. Well, I have two editions of that book. Neither states anything remotely like that. What edition of that book (there were 4 altogether) is being used for those ugly quotes? Cite it or lose it, whomever posted that stuff. I'm going to delete everything in the article which I know to be untrue and is not cited. If you have a published fact and you cite the source of your fact you will have to include the edition of Science of Survival you got it from too. My copies of SoS do not contain the text which the article quotes. Terryeo 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that I understand how to view historys I see that user at IP address 208.63.153.135 came in here, posted this "command over others" stuff, put 2 anti-scn links and fled. heh. This gets interesting when you know how to view who did what.
Added a note regarding the Scientologist's belief that "Tone 40" gives a Scientologist the ability to command others (and objects) through sheer force of will.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/xenu-05.html http://freezoneamerica.org/Clearbird/guide2004/book/22Objectives.htm
This article is really ugly and hard to read. Some formatting, anyone? I'll probably get to it later. Could use some graphics, sections, etc... /twocents Marbahlarbs 06:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, and explain the reasons on the talk page." It is clear, because I am the other editor of this article, that what you are guided to do, Feldspar, is to attempt to reach consensus, rather than place the NPOV template on the talk page. Therefore, I am removing the template and attempting to get into communication with you about the subject. Hello? Terryeo 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available." Why don't you try that, Feldspar? Just talk on the discussion pages of the articles toward getting your POV put in and the other guy's POV removed ? Terryeo 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the "cite needed" tags from the latter two bulleted criticisms. While it would be nice to attribute such criticisms to known bodies, they don't need citations because they're logical arguments. Logical arguments don't rely on appeal to authority to be correct, and we shouldn't present them as such. It's also a violation of NPOV that the introduction and details sections have neither cites nor {cite needed} tags, and yet the criticism section has one of the two on every statement. -- Davidstrauss 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
the following three statements from that section are uncited. The introduction to these criticism is the weasel worded, "critics say". well, what critics? where is that published? Which sort of critics? are the "critics" persons of known repute or is it OR on the part of an editor?
I am adding a para to clarify the meaning of sympathy in context of the tone scale. This has been misunderstood by some editors and has lead to factually incorrect entries to the article. -- Andrew eagles 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This section is a lot of “critic opinion.” Complete opinion and hearsay. I am removing it as it has no place in this article. Streamlight 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on the following entry; 'The ultimate goal of Scientology is claimed to be "a free being".' I have not seen this 'ultimate goal' stated in any original reference other than this article. The aims of Scientology are clearly stated elsewhere. But nowhere have I seen original reference to 'The ultimate goal of Scientology'. This sentence is misleading, and if it cannot be substantiated by original reference should be removed from the article. -- Andrew eagles 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely just pointing out the complete lack of evidence suggesting the tone scale is accurate should be enough criticism. Also, is a citation really needed for the first point of criticism? It's painfully obvious from the article that the tone scale is completely arbitrary. I would have thought it made more sense for someone to cite research that demonstrates it works, unless wikipedia has to present every unproven idea as fact. Calling something obviously rubbish is indeed NPOV if there is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that it's true. Neutral does not mean gullible. Dave420 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I just checked my dictionary and it said the word "tone" had many meanings as a noun and a few as a verb, but none were listed as an adjective. "Tonal" however is an adjective meaning "of a tone or tonality". Shouldn't the scale be called the "Tonal Scale"? Or if not that then the "Scale of Tones"? Steve Dufour 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hubbard devised the "Tone Scale" in 1951 as a tool for auditors. It intends to classify people in a range or scale according to how spiritually alive and how dead a person is, both personally and in their relationships to others. It prescribes auditing procedures to use with a person depending where they are on the scale.(quoted from article)
The tone-Scale existed in nucleus in DMSMH (and maby before), but tones were called zones there, and there were only 4 of them. I am nearly certain that the tone-scale was discussed in Notes on the Lectures, which was published in late 1950.
The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation is a chart around the tone-scale, and Science of Survival is a book written around that chart, so therefore it might not be much of a stretch to say that Science of Survival 1951 is the book about the tone-scale, but the assertion that the scale came to be in '51 is wrong.
I am also pretty sure that hubbard thought this useful to anyone who could understand it, from the git-go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
The tone scale has no scientific basis. (quote from article)
I think that any person studying animal behavior, would, after it is stripped of metaphisics, and political ideology consider Science of Survival pure brilliance. Hubbards views on emotion would match most such peoples views, completely, I suspect. Witness sociobiology/ evolutionary psychology, which even come to similarly harsh political conclusions.
the aythor does a great npov disservice by skimming over or completely neglecting that the tone-scale was initially from 0.0 to 4.0. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) in this edit.
The last point made seems to be a case of synthesis per WP:SYN. HubcapD 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Map of Consicousness link doesn't work. If it can't be found elsewhere, might I suggest deleting it? HubcapD 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
this quote appeared in the article:
In looking through my copies of Science of Survival I can't find it, though I did find the other partial quote of the article on page 131 as the article specifies. If anyone can find that quote in their copy of Science of Survival, please speak up. There were at least 3 different editions of SoS and I only have 2 so it is possible it was stated. I place it here for discussion and citation as specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability Terryeo 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:10, 10 January 2006 (PST)
Ok, from dianetics, where the tones were called zones, science of survival does indeed increase the number of icrements. However; the statement that SOS divides the tone scale into many increments is highly misleading becouse a) they were already so divided as of dianetics/ certainly by Notes on the Lectures, and b) the real expansion of the tone scale was after SOS, fairly continually untill the "TONE SCALE IN FULL" came. The important thing about Science of survival is that it created a chart of it in terms of human behavior (hence the name of the chart). That is also why I modified the article to eliminate the human behavior ref of the 1st line. Send responces to Tad Slamp 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Again: Science of survival is about the tone scale, but more exactly about a chart the tone scale exixzted in dmsmh in a simplified form under a different name. The reccomended auditing procedures in SOS, should have been understood in terms of the state of the art in scn as of 1951. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, criminals are routinely jailed by society, and criminals definitely meet the definitions of lower toned people." Yes, criminals meet the made-up definition of "lower toned people". However, they are jailed because they are criminals, having committed crimes, not because they are "lower toned people". The flawed syllogism here is:
Now let's substitute something for "lower-toned people":
Sorry, this is only good for a laugh, not for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well; Hubbard was of the opinion he'd something revolutionary/ as totalitarian as it may be or sound, he was saying that w/out some way to improve tone it was a given that people in a certain tone would commit certain acts. People are carbon based life forms, but you cannot predict their behavioor by that. The claim of SOS is thatr with the chat / its tone scale you could w/absolute or near absolute certainty. 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Found appropriate article and fixed deadlink in external links section. Matipop ( talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Emotional tone scale. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
– "Tone scale" may refer to Category:Color scales or Category:Musical scales, and the concepts of Scientology are by no means common knowledge, so even if, due to Scientology's SEO efforts, a basic Google search throws up quite some hits referring to their concept, Google books shows a completely different picture. It may be argued that "Emotional Tone Scale" is anyway the more complete name, but either way, the Scientology concept is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tone scale", and most people searching Wikipedia for tone scales will be surprised to end up with this Scientology concept. Therefore we can either disambiguate by appending "(Scientology)", or choose "Emotional Tone Scale" per WP:NATURALDIS. PanchoS ( talk) 16:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emotional tone scale. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Unless someone talks here. Specifically the article quotes "Science of Survival" (I have copies of that book) and says it states some things on page 131, etc. Well, I have two editions of that book. Neither states anything remotely like that. What edition of that book (there were 4 altogether) is being used for those ugly quotes? Cite it or lose it, whomever posted that stuff. I'm going to delete everything in the article which I know to be untrue and is not cited. If you have a published fact and you cite the source of your fact you will have to include the edition of Science of Survival you got it from too. My copies of SoS do not contain the text which the article quotes. Terryeo 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that I understand how to view historys I see that user at IP address 208.63.153.135 came in here, posted this "command over others" stuff, put 2 anti-scn links and fled. heh. This gets interesting when you know how to view who did what.
Added a note regarding the Scientologist's belief that "Tone 40" gives a Scientologist the ability to command others (and objects) through sheer force of will.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/xenu-05.html http://freezoneamerica.org/Clearbird/guide2004/book/22Objectives.htm
This article is really ugly and hard to read. Some formatting, anyone? I'll probably get to it later. Could use some graphics, sections, etc... /twocents Marbahlarbs 06:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, and explain the reasons on the talk page." It is clear, because I am the other editor of this article, that what you are guided to do, Feldspar, is to attempt to reach consensus, rather than place the NPOV template on the talk page. Therefore, I am removing the template and attempting to get into communication with you about the subject. Hello? Terryeo 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available." Why don't you try that, Feldspar? Just talk on the discussion pages of the articles toward getting your POV put in and the other guy's POV removed ? Terryeo 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the "cite needed" tags from the latter two bulleted criticisms. While it would be nice to attribute such criticisms to known bodies, they don't need citations because they're logical arguments. Logical arguments don't rely on appeal to authority to be correct, and we shouldn't present them as such. It's also a violation of NPOV that the introduction and details sections have neither cites nor {cite needed} tags, and yet the criticism section has one of the two on every statement. -- Davidstrauss 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
the following three statements from that section are uncited. The introduction to these criticism is the weasel worded, "critics say". well, what critics? where is that published? Which sort of critics? are the "critics" persons of known repute or is it OR on the part of an editor?
I am adding a para to clarify the meaning of sympathy in context of the tone scale. This has been misunderstood by some editors and has lead to factually incorrect entries to the article. -- Andrew eagles 13:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This section is a lot of “critic opinion.” Complete opinion and hearsay. I am removing it as it has no place in this article. Streamlight 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on the following entry; 'The ultimate goal of Scientology is claimed to be "a free being".' I have not seen this 'ultimate goal' stated in any original reference other than this article. The aims of Scientology are clearly stated elsewhere. But nowhere have I seen original reference to 'The ultimate goal of Scientology'. This sentence is misleading, and if it cannot be substantiated by original reference should be removed from the article. -- Andrew eagles 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely just pointing out the complete lack of evidence suggesting the tone scale is accurate should be enough criticism. Also, is a citation really needed for the first point of criticism? It's painfully obvious from the article that the tone scale is completely arbitrary. I would have thought it made more sense for someone to cite research that demonstrates it works, unless wikipedia has to present every unproven idea as fact. Calling something obviously rubbish is indeed NPOV if there is absolutely no evidence even suggesting that it's true. Neutral does not mean gullible. Dave420 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I just checked my dictionary and it said the word "tone" had many meanings as a noun and a few as a verb, but none were listed as an adjective. "Tonal" however is an adjective meaning "of a tone or tonality". Shouldn't the scale be called the "Tonal Scale"? Or if not that then the "Scale of Tones"? Steve Dufour 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hubbard devised the "Tone Scale" in 1951 as a tool for auditors. It intends to classify people in a range or scale according to how spiritually alive and how dead a person is, both personally and in their relationships to others. It prescribes auditing procedures to use with a person depending where they are on the scale.(quoted from article)
The tone-Scale existed in nucleus in DMSMH (and maby before), but tones were called zones there, and there were only 4 of them. I am nearly certain that the tone-scale was discussed in Notes on the Lectures, which was published in late 1950.
The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation is a chart around the tone-scale, and Science of Survival is a book written around that chart, so therefore it might not be much of a stretch to say that Science of Survival 1951 is the book about the tone-scale, but the assertion that the scale came to be in '51 is wrong.
I am also pretty sure that hubbard thought this useful to anyone who could understand it, from the git-go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
The tone scale has no scientific basis. (quote from article)
I think that any person studying animal behavior, would, after it is stripped of metaphisics, and political ideology consider Science of Survival pure brilliance. Hubbards views on emotion would match most such peoples views, completely, I suspect. Witness sociobiology/ evolutionary psychology, which even come to similarly harsh political conclusions.
the aythor does a great npov disservice by skimming over or completely neglecting that the tone-scale was initially from 0.0 to 4.0. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp ( talk • contribs) in this edit.
The last point made seems to be a case of synthesis per WP:SYN. HubcapD 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Map of Consicousness link doesn't work. If it can't be found elsewhere, might I suggest deleting it? HubcapD 00:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
this quote appeared in the article:
In looking through my copies of Science of Survival I can't find it, though I did find the other partial quote of the article on page 131 as the article specifies. If anyone can find that quote in their copy of Science of Survival, please speak up. There were at least 3 different editions of SoS and I only have 2 so it is possible it was stated. I place it here for discussion and citation as specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability Terryeo 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:10, 10 January 2006 (PST)
Ok, from dianetics, where the tones were called zones, science of survival does indeed increase the number of icrements. However; the statement that SOS divides the tone scale into many increments is highly misleading becouse a) they were already so divided as of dianetics/ certainly by Notes on the Lectures, and b) the real expansion of the tone scale was after SOS, fairly continually untill the "TONE SCALE IN FULL" came. The important thing about Science of survival is that it created a chart of it in terms of human behavior (hence the name of the chart). That is also why I modified the article to eliminate the human behavior ref of the 1st line. Send responces to Tad Slamp 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Again: Science of survival is about the tone scale, but more exactly about a chart the tone scale exixzted in dmsmh in a simplified form under a different name. The reccomended auditing procedures in SOS, should have been understood in terms of the state of the art in scn as of 1951. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"However, criminals are routinely jailed by society, and criminals definitely meet the definitions of lower toned people." Yes, criminals meet the made-up definition of "lower toned people". However, they are jailed because they are criminals, having committed crimes, not because they are "lower toned people". The flawed syllogism here is:
Now let's substitute something for "lower-toned people":
Sorry, this is only good for a laugh, not for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well; Hubbard was of the opinion he'd something revolutionary/ as totalitarian as it may be or sound, he was saying that w/out some way to improve tone it was a given that people in a certain tone would commit certain acts. People are carbon based life forms, but you cannot predict their behavioor by that. The claim of SOS is thatr with the chat / its tone scale you could w/absolute or near absolute certainty. 192.220.136.179 ( talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Found appropriate article and fixed deadlink in external links section. Matipop ( talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Emotional tone scale. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
– "Tone scale" may refer to Category:Color scales or Category:Musical scales, and the concepts of Scientology are by no means common knowledge, so even if, due to Scientology's SEO efforts, a basic Google search throws up quite some hits referring to their concept, Google books shows a completely different picture. It may be argued that "Emotional Tone Scale" is anyway the more complete name, but either way, the Scientology concept is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tone scale", and most people searching Wikipedia for tone scales will be surprised to end up with this Scientology concept. Therefore we can either disambiguate by appending "(Scientology)", or choose "Emotional Tone Scale" per WP:NATURALDIS. PanchoS ( talk) 16:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emotional tone scale. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)