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
editTo 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.
Capitalization
editThe 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
editI 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.
A 'secular' or 'scientific' perspective is needed.
editWhilst 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)