Talk:Dianetics

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)

It was added in 5 April 2010[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=354166589&oldid=353904053][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADianetics&diff=354166710&oldid=350716919] by a since-banned[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3ACirt] 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 {{Section link|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 {{tq|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)

: I'm going to remove the tag. It looks like I removed a whopping bunch of OR back in April 2024. A fresh look today shows that all paragraphs seem sourced with at least one citation, and most have several. The tag seems stale at this point. It can always be re-added if someone finds OR within.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Notes from my work.

• The Nation of Islam part doesn't belong in the lead. Putting the references here for the moment.{{multiref2 |1={{cite news|title=The Mothership of All Alliances |first=Eliza|last=Gray|url=http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/108205/scientology-joins-forces-with-nation-of-islam|newspaper=The New Republic|date=October 5, 2012|access-date=November 19, 2012}} |2={{cite news|title=Louis Farrakhan renews call for self-determination among Nation of Islam followers|first1=Shelley|last1=Rossetter|first2=Thomas C.|last2=Tobin|url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781|newspaper=Tampa Bay Times|date=October 18, 2012|access-date=November 19, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105093720/http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781|archive-date=November 5, 2012|df=dmy-all}} |3={{cite web|title=Nation of Islam Auditors graduation held for third Saviours' Day in a row|first=Asahed|last=Mohammed|url=http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_9651.shtml|publisher=Final Call|date=February 28, 2013|access-date=April 22, 2013}} }} Along the way, I noticed NOI is also mentioned in these sources:{{r|reitman|p=359}}{{r|urban|p=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-talk|refs=

{{cite book |last=Reitman |first=Janet |author-link=Janet Reitman |title=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |title-link=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |date=2011 |isbn=9780618883028 |ol=24881847M |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt }}

{{cite book|last=Urban|first=Hugh B. |author-link=Hugh Urban |title=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |title-link=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2011 |isbn=9780691146089}}

}}

It seems very unfair to mention that in 1950 American psychiatrists thought that Dianetics was pesudo-science, without also mentioning that their Freudian framework -- which lead them to think that any attempt to 'cure' psychological symptoms was actually dangerous -- was also pseudo-science, now largely rejected. 1.159.83.148 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:A perceived or notional "fairness" toward ideas is not a factor in determining content here. We represent the content of reliable sources. While much Freudian psychology is indeed discredited, it is not generally referred to in the relevant academic literature as "pseudoscience". Cambial — foliar❧ 08:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds STRANGE with some of these articles and their wording for example you do not see the word "invented" on the page for Cognitive behavioral therapy. And repeating the Pseudoscience claim, to what specifically? With what ideas or what practices because it is STRANGE with some of that wording in these articles that seem to show a certain narrative, and it is freaking crazy with this auto updating preview on talk pages adding a topic here what is with that lol!

Additionally considering this last line first paragraph, it lacks a source and sounds biased in that regard: "It involves a process referred to as "auditing", which utilizes an electrical resistance meter, ostensibly to remove emotional burdens and "cure" people from their troubles."

Cheers God sword77 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Cognitive behavioural therapy is an accepted clinical practice widely used in healthcare across the world. Dianetics is nonsense made up by a mentally ill fraudster. There's no reason there would be any similarity between the two articles. One might just as well ask why we do not see similar wording in the article for Chemtrail conspiracy theory and the article for gravity. The answer is obvious. This is a mainstream encyclopaedia. Its content reflects what appears in reliable sources. Absurd and groundless fringe ideas, like the subject of this article, are not written about with the same framing as accepted scientific and medical practice. The sourcing for the lead can be found in the body. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)