Talk:Dianetics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dianetics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	Dianetics was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scientology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

Welcome to Wikipedia's Dianetics article.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Dianetics in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Dianetics is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy WP:NPOV, while WP:NOR and WP:V require equal attention. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are reasoning behind NPOV, the neutral point of view, NPOV: Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", How to deal with Theories. The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Dianetics. See WP:NOT.

On the other hand, this talk page serves the purpose of discussion, toward arriving at consensus of viewpoints of editors as spelled out at WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.

Martin Gumpert - question / edit request

Martin Gumpert, a physician, is quoted in the final paragraph of the section Scintifific Rejection. Is this the same Martin Gumpert? If so could I suggest a link? 2.14.10.86 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. Section is Scientific Rejection. ‘Scuse my bad typing 2.14.10.86 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, thank you for noticing. I have fixed it. Grorp (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (Travelling in France at the moment so different IP but I made original request). 185.113.50.43 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Time to remove the template?

It was added in 5 April 2010 by a since-banned user. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur that it originated from Cirt (despite the re-dating in 2018). His talk page post at Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13 § Primary sources doesn't give much to go on. The article could use some work, but those tags are definitely stale.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of why it was originally placed, Dianetics#Concepts specifically is still pretty bad. Hubbard was extremely prolific, and his church's history is extremely convoluted, so any attempt to summarize Dianetics based mainly on his own writing is guaranteed end up being WP:OR. The section should still mainly summarize reliable WP:IS with primary sources used sparing and to clarify specific points of confusion. I would also suggest cutting Lewis as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by suggest cutting Lewis as well. I see only one Lewis citation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was too vague. To put it another way, I think some sections should be rewritten to focus more on reliable, independent sources. I understand this wouldn't be a simple undertaking.

Whether or not Lewis is reliable/independent is debatable, but my suggestions would be to just remove it as a source completely. It seems easier to figure that kind of thing out sooner rather than later if the article is rewritten. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• From WP:WTRMT: Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. (emphasis added)

I say we simple delete anything that is only supported by original research or excessive primary sources and remove the tag. If this reduces the article to a stub, so be it. We can always add to it whenever we have proper sourcing for the addition. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I will take a stab at it. (in progress...)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) In my first pass through the article, I got to the end of the "Concepts" section. Will continue another day.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Notes from my work.

• The Nation of Islam part doesn't belong in the lead. Putting the references here for the moment.^[1] Along the way, I noticed NOI is also mentioned in these sources:^{[2]: 359 [3]: 253n8}
• Removed several items from 'further reading' that were also used as citations.
• Enhanced some references (URLs, ISBNs, OLs, etc.).
• Swapped out (tertiary) source "Philosophers and Religious Leaders".
• Swapped out Hubbard/CofS sources wherever I could.
• Removed a bunch of junk.
• Did some verification along the way, though a few sources I had no access to.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Gray, Eliza (October 5, 2012). "The Mothership of All Alliances". The New Republic. Retrieved November 19, 2012. Rossetter, Shelley; Tobin, Thomas C. (18 October 2012). "Louis Farrakhan renews call for self-determination among Nation of Islam followers". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012. Mohammed, Asahed (February 28, 2013). "Nation of Islam Auditors graduation held for third Saviours' Day in a row". Final Call. Retrieved April 22, 2013. Reitman, Janet (2011). Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618883028. OL 24881847M. Urban, Hugh B. (2011). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691146089.