Talk:Dianetics

Former good articleDianetics 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
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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.

Time to remove the template?

It was added in 5 April 2010[1][2] by a since-banned[3] user. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudo Science

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudoscience and "invented"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Importance?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Dianetics / Scientology --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dianetics