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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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:

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Categories