Talk:E-meter
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-meter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
To add to article edit
To add to this article: at least a brief mention of the "floating needle" (F/N) phenomenon. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Why? What is the connection to the E-meter and which reliable source makes that connection? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- The floating needle is one of the needle reactions of the meter. It indicates a few things, but mainly it is "the" needle reaction that is required to manifest in order to end an auditing session. It is described in various books. I found this one today.[1] ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Harley, Gail M.; Kieffer, John (2009). "The Development and Reality of Auditing". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). Scientology. Oxford University Press. pp. 183–206. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.003.0010. ISBN 9780199852321. OL 16943235M.
Polygraph edit
(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)
- @Polygnotus: 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)
Confusing edit
With what seems like earlier editors' attempts to ridicule the topic of the e-meter, this article has become more "what it is not", and fails to clearly describe "what it is". The article was (and should be) intended to describe the Scientology device (WP:DUE)—keep its title in mind. Though it could still mention "other similar devices" or "non-Scientology uses", one must keep in mind WP:DUEWEIGHT.
I made some changes (rearranged sections) with the goal of an outline like this:
- Lead (need rewriting)
- Overview (keeping it brief, cover what is it, who uses it, how is it used, why it was invented)
- History
- Mathison (cover Mathison's invention)
- Hubbard (cover Hubbard's association/participation with the invention or ongoing modifications)
- Earlier use of potentially similar devices (as an aside, because none were part of the e-meter's invention)
- Use in Scientology (put a little more detail than the overview of how it is used)
- Technical description (put all the electronics/geeky stuff here)
- Legal issues
That last section titled "Scientology beliefs and theories" is mostly uncited, heavy on the quotes, and I'm not really sure what the purpose of it was. Other things of note: The constant use of "EDA" is odd, since all the sources called it a "galvanometer"; I suspect EDA is coming from the "what it is not" category of sources. The article is also heavy on quotes.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Capitalization edit
The trademarked term is spelled "E-Meter". I thought that "e-meter" would be the general term as written, but no. Every Hubbard or Church of Scientology source, from very early to recent, seems to have capitalized it as "E-Meter". There are 104 instances of "e-meter" in the article, with varying capitalization. Perhaps we should standardize it to "E-Meter", unless it is used in a quote which capitalizes it differently. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting source edit
I found this source today. Very interesting. Lots of photos. It looks like a composite of excerpts from many other sources. Doubtful it could be used as a citation (non-RS), but it might be useful for information... and then a more reliable source found.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
A 'secular' or 'scientific' perspective is needed. edit
Whilst explaining Scientologist's perspective and understanding on the device is an important part of the article, as a Wikipedia article, it needs a 'secular' or 'scientific' section to this page too which I find is lacking. This is something that really needs to be expanded upon. 203.211.79.70 (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the page is an over-detailed monstrosity in much need of simplifying/clarifying. Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'secular or scientific'? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article is all too credulous and seems to not achieve the balance that other fringle articles do when documenting quackery 66.41.165.13 (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)