Talk:Auditing (Scientology)

Tin Cans

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

@Pseudoantiquasi: Your assumption on the language is correct. The Church of Scientology officially calls them "electrodes" [1] with the word "cans" being used ubiquitously in Hubbard's writings (but not "tin cans"). [2] Technically, from an electrical standpoint, they are electrodes. "Electrode" describes the function; "cans" describes the shape.

The derogatory usage "tins cans" was added here. I had tried to change it to two electrodes (called "cans"), but was reverted. There's an earlier discussion on the provenance of cans at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard § Soup cans, but despite prototypes coming from kitchen supplies, the term "tin cans" (which evokes the image of a container holding food) was not used. The term "cans", however, is pervasive.

Several examples can be seen at commons:Category:E-meters, and none of the images shown are prior food containers. This image shows an array of Scientology cans of varying sizes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Explanation of last edit

By 'last edit' is meant Special:Diff/1285921303

• I reduced some WP:OVERLINKing, especially of common words.
• I removed "galvanometer" from the lead as it is not a usually understood term. It is used in the body where it is explained (correct), but adding it right next to E-meter as a bluelink in the lead might cause readers to click on the wrong bluelink to get further information (incorrect). It should remain in the body, but is out of place in the lead. (See also MOS:OVERLINK, "Links may be excessive even if they are... ")
• Auditing with an e-meter (second sentence) is not explained in the DMSMH book (third sentence), so I removed the second half of sentence three of the lead.
• I altered the statement about prosecution from the lead because it is neither properly sourced nor mentioned in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the article and not introduce new concepts. See MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE.
• I renamed the controversy section "Claims" to "Claimed benefits", and moved it above the others.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing

There continues to be WP:POVPUSH issues in this article, specifically the introducing of controversies before even explaining "what it is" (an encyclopedia's bread and butter).

For example, the sentences "L. Ron Hubbard incorporated several hypnotic techniques into auditing practice. It is designed to induce a light hypnotic state and create dependency and obedience in the auditing subject.[9]" are mentioned before describing what it is. It should go later.

Another example is the 4th sentence in the lead, "Auditing uses techniques from hypnosis that are intended to create dependency and obedience in the auditing subject.[9]". This concept has been claimed by critics of Scientology. Fair enough. However, the placement of this comes prior to explaining "what is auditing", which interferes with the reader's understanding of the topic. See MOS:INTRO.

I have changed the subheading "Anderson report" to "Hypnosis", and such claims should be detailed there (expanded from just Anderson report) with a summary sentence in the lead placed more appropriately than it is now.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentence "Auditing uses techniques from hypnosis that are intended to create dependency and obedience in the auditing subject." is part of the explanation of what auditing is, based on reliable secondary sources. It’s not something "claimed by critics" but an observation in a modern handbook summarising the current understanding in the academic field of clinical hypnosis. The claim that such material is only "claimed by critics" is POV-pushing. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Engram (Dianetics), Incident (Scientology), and Implant (Scientology) into a new section in Auditing (Scientology) perhaps like this:

• Case
  • Engram
  • Implants and special incidents

with a summary paragraph under "Case" explaining what that is.

Implant and Incident have a lot of cross-over content. Both these, and Engram, are part of auditing. These concepts don't really have a purpose except as discussed in auditing — the purpose of which is the removal of engrams, incidents and implants from a person's case. They are all relatively short subjects, though engorged here over time. By keeping them as separate articles it dilutes an understanding of the subject. See also Talk:Incident (Scientology) § Review which I wrote two years ago.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Merge: I fully agree with Grorp's reasoning. Anyone who comes here because of the non-standard way Scientology defines Engram, Incident, and Implant will most likely end up on the Auditing (Scientology) page anyway, so it makes sense to do the merge and leave the usual redirects behind. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per Grorp Cambial — foliar❧ 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)