Talk:obnosis

Please help improve this page with neutrally presented information and syntax or wiki formatting edits!


 * The deleted version was nothing more than a fairly esoteric link. The entry is now cleaned up to something resembling our standards, but has been requested for verification. If three independent, durable cites are not provided within the next month, it shall be deleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

rfv Removed after resolution. Asil 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) rfv met - cites exist; page is not a Group Page, as the word use transcends Scientology. Asil 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Derived terms
I suggest that derived terms be dispensed with for now. Each term must be created and survive the verification process on its own merits. Considering that the word itself is still being considered under rfv, derived terms is somewhat out of the question. Once the terms have been created and verified, then they can be listed here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Derived Terms Removed
Asil 02:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Derived Terms

 * 1) * obnostic: of knowledge by observation
 * 2) * 2006 Janet Reitman Rolling Stone Magazine
 * "Unique among religious faiths, Scientology charges for virtually all of its religious services. I think it can be a useful exercise to obnose those three paragraphs, and draw the obnostic conclusion".


 * 1) * obnose: to observe truth or solutions within a situation
 * 2) * 2005 FreeZone
 * "one looks at the is-ness of something, at what is actually there; fortunately, the ability to obnose is not in any sense “inborn” or mystical; it is easily regained and improved through the technology of Alethiology and Alethanetics."
 * 1) * obnose: intelligent appraisal of all factors
 * 2) * 2005 Boris On BlackJack, "The Other Side of WINning BlackJack" Base21 Play
 * "Table-departure is of course the obvious choice. Another possibility is that although you have a large bet out, you may occasionally have to make assertive hit plays, when you obnose that the players to your left are unable (or unwilling) to hit their hands."

Page Replaced by Scientology Agenda
by contribs)] [[User:Asil|Asil 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Put old non-scientology links and greek/latin derivations back - complain of Edit War

start replacement example--

Noun

 * 1) The act of consciously noticing small details.

Usage Notes
This word is mainly used in the context of the "obnosis drill" of the Church of Scientology, details of which can be found here. It is interesting to note that usage of the word does not seem to reflect the "do not make assumptions" idea which seems to be the purpose of the exercise.

---end replacement example--

This word is in use in Common Use - this edit was out of Wiktionary Standards - formal complaint. Asil 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts
Conrad.Irwin's replacement is far and away superior to the current entry which is a mess. The replacement should be reinstated and then left alone. SemperBlotto 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Asil 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) All edits must meet the Wiktionary Rules

"Thoughts" relate to a subjective statement
Calling a list of references that equate within Wiktionary policy to "a mess" is not salient to any discussion (and subjective). None of the definitions for the word, and uses for common use were included. Your changes were also outside of the scope of acceptable edits from Wiktionary words, also known as "subjective agenda censorship". This word would be considered http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Protologisms with those edits (and then continue to be owned by Scientology) via their censorship agenda. Asil 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will try to explain why I decimated your work:
 * Some of the citations do not show a use of the word, in particular the "Team Obnosis" cites are just using 'Obnosis' as a name, and thus it does not have a definition in that context.
 * Several of the citations are "mentions", which means that the author defines the word as they use it. This poses a problem, because they are free to define the word however they wish - I tried to find citations where this did not occur, as that shows more correctly (in my opinion) how words are used.
 * A few of the citations were for totally different defintions, in particular "Walter Alter" and "Bob Black" use the word to mean "failing to observe the obvious"
 * Most of the citations are not "durably archived", this means that at any point in the future there is no guarantee that we will be able to read these documents again. Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion prefer citations from places which will be accessible in a few, or even many, years time - this precludes most of the internet, but newspapers, academic research, newsgroups and books are all welcomed.
 * The etymology seemed arbitrary; yes, it may well come from Greek (it certainly looks plausible) - but where is the evidence for this? (Indeed the 1965 PDF seems to imply that it is not Greek, just a portmanteau of observing and obvious)
 * The first definition doesn't make sense, "knowledge by observation"; "knowledge gained by observation" - perhaps, that would fit with one of the cites I found.
 * Do you want to have a go at addressing some of these issues? Just in case you didn't find them, I did not delete all your citations, just moved them to Citations:obnosis. Conrad.Irwin 00:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank You Conrad Irwin for your intelligent analysis and explanation and FINALLY addressing this on this discussion page. Generally, before (and during) the edit a discussion page is noted, NOT AFTER?

"Uses with definitions do count; however, the 1970 cite only mentions the term. The other two are valid. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)" The word is greek/latin and english as the current etymology shows. REPAIRING the word etymology would be appropriate, rather than changing the definition and replacing all of the links (as you did). I have replaced the citation page with this note. Additional greek/latin/english formatting or corrections would have been helpful, as well as talk page discussion before replacing the page with a made up definition that is not consistent with the latin/greek/english word etymology. Thanks Asil 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have modified the Team Obnosis link(s) for sense, as suggested.
 * Definitions are allowed and used extensively on Wiktionary. Urban dictionary is also extensively used on Wiktionary.  Domain sourced Blogs are also extensively used, once 4 durable rfv's are found (as are available on this page now as written). See the following note on the rfv page:
 * Purely scientology uses (as you replaced the page to appear) will have the word moved to Scientology tag. The word, as the cites clearly show, is NOT simply a scientology word and exists in common use (see also the derivations above - a common moniker of a word that has been in common use for some time - like obnosis).
 * The word has 3 defined uses, or sense meanings, like many words. I have added the latin and greek of these versions for sense clarification [which is why wiktionary exists - so we can examine word etymology for use with verifiable cites].  The cites for Technophilia by Bob Black and Walter Alter, are verifiable per Wiktionary standards, meeting full requirements.
 * Newspapers are included. The current links are durably archived and exist in more than 4 uses for the word, meeting rfv.


 * Word was not started by LRH. Just commonized - it was a general term used in post war slang amoung teenagers.  Asil 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Derivations moved to citations page Asil 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarified 10 old references

 * Added original source for WikiMedia page - on a durable source.

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT WITHOUT DISCUSSION?


 * Sorry, but that does not meet our definition of a durable archive (which must generally be on print or other durable media, or Usenet). -- Visviva 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that "source" is a site created solely to attempt to promote the added "sense" (which is effectively redundant anyway). It is meaningless. The material there was deleted by WP, for similar reasons. w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obnosis same contributor promoting the same entirely unsubstantiated material. Having been created to promote the word, the alleged source is all mention in any event, and no use whatever. Removed rfc and unreferenced; entry is fine, and Scientology source is well known and documented. Robert Ullmann 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

print sources
Note that Google books gives exactly two citations for obnosis: the Ross book on reading (1970, using exactly the Scientology sense, 12 years after Hubbard), and Hubbard himself, in 1958.

User "Asil" (note that Asil is Lisa Kachold, "Asil" is "Lisa" reversed) who created both this entry and the WP entry now deleted, has not produced a single citation of use in independent durable media, either here on in the WP edits and process, that is not directly traceable to the Hubbard coinage. Robert Ullmann 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And, though our quotation from the Ross book has been trimmed to hide the fact, it's not just that it's using exactly the Scientology sense, but that it explicitly attributes it to Hubbard — no middleman or anything. —Ruakh TALK 16:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added Hubbard cite from 1958; antedates others. Word simply didn't exist previously. (Note to Lisa/"Asil": no matter what you do you can't create a source antedating Hubbard.) Robert Ullmann 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, GBC has an 18something use as eye-dialect, a substitution for 'diagnosis'. It does appear in at least one other citation pre-1958, and another post-1958, to indicate ignorance/slapstick. - Amgine/talk 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the eye-dialect one — it wasn't there before — but anyway it doesn't seem relevant. I don't see the ignorance/slapstick ones that you mention; is b.g.c. giving different results to you than to me? —Ruakh TALK 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Classic Example of Making Greater A Thing through Resistance
This entire exercise is a classic example of creation through resistance.

Asil 04:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Who can claim ownership for a word? rfv sense
Word is clearly, a mixed sense (common use and scientology) definition with three different known definitions (that can all be verified by greek/latin) as evidenced from the Citation page:

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations:obnosis&oldid=6187875

The original authorized page has been whittled away into UseNet news for appallingly scientology terms outside of even common SCN use by edit wars.

Requested Sense Revision and Cleanup of main page; will consider deletion if the sense cannot be correctly designated with durable sources [and left in place without edit wars].

A page protection will be attempted should a sense be correctly identified to match the many technical uses, common uses (including non-scientology songs, technical teams, and literature uses).

Lisakachold 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The citations filed under "non-Scientology sense" are not acceptable under WT:CFI, as they are online postings, not durably archived. -- Visviva 03:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== Correction to Visviva = REQUEST for Administrator Determination and Protection


 * The newsgroups filed under "Scientology sense" are not acceptable under WT:CFI, as they are not durably archived.


 * The citations under "non-scientology sense" are durably archived as a domain site, not a blog, not a commerical site, which is FQDN and contains a community source for information, history or interest material WT:CFI.


 * Why are the rfv sense and rfc tags regularly removed? That has not been resolved yet.  This editor failed to follow protocol.

Changes to full Citations include the entries that are regularly removed from entry to make this a scientology only term.

(cur) (prev) 08:17, 2 March 2009 Lisakachold (Talk | contribs) (6,048 bytes) (add medical reference to sickness to term sense) (undo)

Again: Who owns a word? Where did the rfv tag go?

Lisakachold 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The RFV matter was attended to and the issue closed, ro the RFV tag was removed. There is no cleanup to be done, so the RFC tag was removed.  --EncycloPetey 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

obnosis
Removing a rfv rfc tag from obnosis was done by you why? The required request pages have been noted? Please use the discussion page before wide sweeping edits and especially because this page is under edit war flags.

Also, a user lisakachold can edit their own comments on the discussion page. Really these are basic respectful use best practices. Removing of rfv sense and rfc tags that have not been resolved by an editor or administrator and repeatedly reverting past edits that were originally authorized back in october for rfv in attempts to move the word obnosis to a scientology only definition while whittling away media, web site and common use references (that do meet WT:CFI ) is censorship not editing and certainly not acceptable use under wiktionary.

Flagged the following users pages with notification their editing actions are outside of acceptable actions without discussion of each item on the talk page, where the source could be repaired. The agenda is obviously not coordinated for anything but a scientology only use of the word.

Atelaes (Talk | contribs) Kayak Runner (Talk)) Visviva (Talk | contribs) Ruakh (Talk | contribs) Carolina wren (Talk | contribs)

Page has been regularly edited to remove all but scientology sources and definitions however durable and WT:CFI sources exist.

SUGGEST DELETION if this does not cease. Lisakachold 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Lisakachold 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not delete words as a result of edit warring; we block users who insist on pushing a POV through edit warring. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

obnosis

 * Obnosis scientology based edit wars on citations page

Use for the word "obnosis" is no longer simply a scientology source, but has clear durable sources meeting rfv:

See Citations page (which is edited by Scientology word purists with non-durable sources):

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Citations:obnosis&oldid=6187851

The nomination for cleanup is for obnosis, to include the original content.

User Asil created the page, the word was accepted with a mixed tag, now the citations page and word page are whittled away with non-durable sources removing without indicating first on any talk or discussion page FIRST.

The page/word needs to be either correctly designated (by the many durable sources in the citations that indicate this is not a scientology page) or it must be deleted as being "outside of common use".

There are three registered Wiki users who will also nominate it for deletion if it has not been correctly described.

The current UseNet references are outside of durable sources and common use.

The page then needs to be protected.

Asil 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An entry that meets CFI will not be deleted simply because three sockpuppet accounts have said they will nominate it for deletion. Wiktionary doesn't work that way. --EncycloPetey 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)