Jump to content

Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Good Article

I've read the page once before I think shortly before reviewing it, this article seems to fit all the criteria nicely. Think about fixing this up to become an FA sometimes soon if you can, unless your still in that arbcom thing or whatever, but the article seems stable despite it. Homestarmy 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the arbcom thing is dead news. heh. Terryeo 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Brainscams

Hi, I posted this on the Scientology talk page. Perhaps it is more appropriate here. Here is something that may warrant addition (or at least help clarify certain points here).

In Beyerstein’s paper on Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. (1990p28) he states that

“The areas of science that enjoy the greatest prestige at any moment are the most tempting targets for appropriation by pseudoscientists. Capitalizing on dramatic progress in the neurosciences, the merchants of personal success were quick to commandeer neurological jargon to provide a patina of authority. Scientology's "engrams" and its notorious "e-meter" were pioneers in this trend.”

Beyerstein, B. L. (1990) Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age. Intl. J. of Mental Health. Special issue on quackery 19(3):27-36.

Regards HeadleyDown 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeek ! I've lived in fear that the shrinks would understand just enough Dianetics to apply it, thanks for scaring me. LOL. Terryeo 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Terryeo. I didn't intend to scare editors. Actually, I'm a bit foggy about why you should be scared. And why you think its funny. Could you explain? HeadleyDown 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to "Source" (Hubbard), all psychiatrists are inherently evil people, so presumably Terryeo thinks they would apply it only in evil ways. ... it's sad, really. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sure, I had heard that Hubbard considered himself to be perfectly fine without the help of empirically supported medications. Well, its a point of view, I suppose. I'll see if I can find the actual quote. HeadleyDown 08:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, now we have conflicting datums. All psychiatrists are inherently evil people and All men are basically good and trying to survive. Gosh. I am sure Hubbard said the second one, but I'm not sure he said that first one, exactly like that. I suspect he left the door open a crack, just in case, you know, in some non-lethal way, some disinfected psychiatrist might wish to stick his toe into the Church's door. Terryeo 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True 'nuff. In fact one big name psychiatrist was almost a scientollogist. Ever heard of Thomas Szasz? So many psychotherapies/ mind models have been stolen from Hubbard, its ridiculous. Arthur Janov, Eric Berne, Timothy Leary, Carl Rogers (will provide my arguments as to why I beleive hubbard an uncited souce and/or underground success, for each of these instantiations apon request[BTW, with Berne it is not that both Hubbard/Berne talked about games while digging into John Von Neumann, [as might be expected], Its more fundamental than that]). Why it's enought to make a thoughtful scientologist wonder whether they can ever get a fair test of scientology claims.Thaddeus Slamp 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this

This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:

  • Finally, "Flavius vanillus (talk · contribs)" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

FT2 (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Psychotherapy ?

"Hubbard presented Dianetics as a revolutionary and scientifically developed alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry" Does this mean that Dianetics (is not|does not claim to be) a psychotherapy?

Sorta. As an exCoSer here, I can say Hubbard might have strategiesed wrong, in not calling Dianetics a form of psychotherapy, but not really. In 1950, when DMSMH was written, there were very few therapies, and to most people therapy meant psychoanalysis. @ the time hubbards approach and goal were so radically different that saying psychotherapy would have lead to unneccasary mis-understanding. Also, there was no schooling or training that was strictly required @ time of publication. People were meant to team up and do this themselves. Nowadays, there are approaches much more disssimilar to psychoanalysis than dianetics, and psychoanalysis and dianetics therapy have grown much more similar to eachother as years go on. Dianetics is not much practiced as book one auditing these days/ few psychoanalysts practice classical analysis. Both Hubbard / freud realised that the particular talk therapy was not the point, but rather the goal in question. They parted ways on psychoactive drugs, however (don't think Hubbard would ever condone future psych drugs), while freud felt sure drugs would eventually replace his whole similarly self-created self-created proffession. Also, hubbards goal was always a super-human state called clear. Never heard of anyone calling themselves a freudian or even neo-freudian/professing anything like so grandua a goalThaddeus Slamp 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Apokrif 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer you directly without any citation except that you read what Dianetics presents itself to be, [[1]. It is communication with an individual about their thoughts. It addresses what a person thinks, and what a person has thought in the past. In addressing what a person thinks and has thought in the past, it is potentially an alternative to conventional psychotherapy and psychiatry. (that's my statement and not anyone else's statement, though the two may coincide).
If Hubbard claimed that Dianetics was an alternative to psychotherapy I can't see how it could be classified as a psychotherapy! -- ChrisO 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all what I know it that WP says that Hubbard said it was an alternative to conventional psychotherapy. Apokrif 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
When Hubbard first introduced Dianetics he had not been battered by the various legal battles that ensued. With an innocent smile he introduced Dianetics as an alternative to convential psychotherapy. I don't believe he had any idea what a legal mindfield it is to try to help people. Terryeo 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in the interests of accuracy, "with an innocent smile" Hubbard was introducing Dianetics as an alternative not only to conventional psychotherapy, but to conventional treatment for arthritis, leukemia, sinusitis, et cetera... I guess it is a legal minefield to try and help people, especially if you are taking sizable sums of money for helping, and even more especially if you're making big promises that your help is going to be 100% effective and you can't actually support those promises. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand :) While I meant "an innocent smile" in the sense of his having no idea of the legal battles which would enuse, you understood, "an innocent smile" to mean another implication. Oh well. Terryeo 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh. He sure changed his tune quickly, when he stated that enemies of his church (which obviously includes psychiatrists) "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Extanto 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure was funny, ha. ha. ha. <curtesy smirk> He first presented his information to psychiatry. They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it. So he went public with it, publishing DMSMH. The references User:Extanto quotes was in place for a short while about 40 years ago. ha. ha. The Church found that policy didn't work and cancelled it. You'll find a fuller study of that situation at Fair Game. Terryeo 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "They ignored it and stated they would continue to ignore it." The real-world version: Psychiatry did not ignore Hubbard's Dianetics, but rather noted that Hubbard's claims were "not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations" (a situation that continues to this day.) Rather than put a blanket ban on it, which one would expect if they were (as Hubbard alleged) trying to suppress it, the APA's resolution recommended that "the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims."
  • "The Church found that policy [Fair Game] didn't work and cancelled it." The real-world version: The Church found that the practice of declaring people "fair game" caused "bad public relations" and cancelled the practice of declaring that status -- while specifying that this change "does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP". In several court cases long after that supposed cancellation, the Church brought in experts to argue that "fair game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and therefore constitutionally protected. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I like my version better, it is more direct and uses less words. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but I'd rather have the version which tells the truth. Even if that's more complicated than your version, that's just because the truth is frequently more complicated than the convenient Party line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
On a related topic: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/154CLR120.html "courts have held that a statement by an individual or by a group to the effect that the group is not a religion is not a critical admission in litigation by that person or group seeking to establish that it is" --Apokrif 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fantasitic what personal websites will present isn't it? Hand typed "replications", "archived" as if they were real documents, headings typed a little larger, full of dead links? That site suggests if anyone has any questions they should email unisetliqdn@yahoo.com. Of course anyone with a yahoo.com email address must be reliable, isn't it? Doesn't yahoo.com make all of its adherents pass reliability tests before granting an email address (sarcasm) ? Such a citation would be fine to discuss on talk pages, but certainly nothing from that personal website should reach the article's page. Terryeo 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reprinting this 1ce, as I think I've an important contrib/ don't want it missed: As an exCoSer here, I can say Hubbard might have strategiesed wrong, in not calling Dianetics a form of psychotherapy, but not really. In 1950, when DMSMH was written, there were very few therapies, and to most people therapy meant psychoanalysis. @ the time hubbards approach and goal were so radically different that saying psychotherapy would have lead to unneccasary mis-understanding. Also, there was no schooling or training that was strictly required @ time of publication. People were meant to team up and do this themselves. Nowadays, there are approaches much more disssimilar to psychoanalysis than dianetics, and psychoanalysis and dianetics therapy have grown much more similar to eachother as years go on. Dianetics is not much practiced as book one auditing these days/ few psychoanalysts practice classical analysis. Both Hubbard / freud realised that the particular talk therapy was not the point, but rather the goal in question. They parted ways on psychoactive drugs, however (don't think Hubbard would ever condone future psych drugs, while freud felt sure drugs would eventually replace his whole similarly self-created self-created proffession.Thaddeus Slamp 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Crank magnet articles

I am looking for information from experienced WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki. See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistenta and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship". (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better.

You make a good point, unless your going to get all ape-s**t mcarthy witch hunt on kranks. After all, whats the diffference, really, between a krank/ a person w/some tendancies torwards krankism. What I'm saying is: Valid point if not taken too far. After all; I resewmble that remark! Thaddeus Slamp 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there. If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent. I particularly like war stories, so let me have any of those (links please, not on the page).

There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page. User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.

I don’t know much about this subject except that it's a possible crank magnet. If you know of any other, let me know, or even better, cut and paste this message on those pages. I'm going round the obvious places like intelligent design, Goedel, Cantor and so forth, but there must be many such. Dbuckner 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical and science claims

Official church site The first two videos make pain cure claims. "Dianetics is a science of the mind", comparisons with the law of gravity. AndroidCat 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me, heh ! Terryeo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

POV overarching descriptives

The article says Dianetics was "developed by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard". Hubbard was much more than a sci-fi writer, even as just a writer, and he was much more than just a writer. Primarily identifying him as a sci-fi writer is inherently POV. What is the point at all except to not-so-subtly imply that Dianetics is more science fiction. It is really irrelevant (and wrong too as he did lots more than write sci-fi). Out of everything LRH did in his life up to that point; explorer, philosopher, naval officer, world traveler, mariner, writer and, yes, researcher; why do we pick just one aspect and out of that one aspect drill down even further? Why, if not for the sake of POV? Here is how Antaeus Feldspar worded it when reverting my most recent removal of the term: "the fact that it is relevant to a POV that you do not share is not sufficient justification for surpressing information". I think that I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that I do not wish to suppress critical views of Scientology (or Dianetics). I do object to writing entire articles, or vital portions of them (like the first mention of the author of Dianetics), from a critical POV. Why do we need to describe him at all; that is what the bio article is for. Just leave it out then. Comments? --Justanother 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time he published the first Dianetics articles and books, Hubbard was best known as a writer of science fiction, as can be verified by looking at contemporary reviews and discussions of Dianetics. While he held other jobs, there is no dispute (is there?) that writing science fiction was Hubbard's main professional identity, and remains a significant chapter in his biography. One could substitute "pulp fiction" writer, but really, Sci-Fi is where he made his name--he wasn't just a journeyman, he had a real reputation, far greater than any reputation he established as a mariner or naval officer. It seems entirely appropriate to mention his sci-fi career at the top of this description, just as it would be if he had been a famous inventor or a movie star. I don't see bias in mentioning the single most conspicuous fact about his identity at the time he published Dianetics when introducing Dianetics. BTfromLA 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually "writer" or "author" would be the correct term if we want to mention his profession or "claim to fame" prior to WWII. His output dropped off after 1940 as he devoted himself to the military and then to his theories. His long-time friend, John Campbell, was an early believer in Hubbard's theories and first published the material in Astounding Science Fiction but it was not presented as science fiction; it was presented as what it was, a brand-new "science of the mind".[2] Interestingly, the cover does not try to get any "mileage" out of Hubbard's name; a conscious decision I am sure to not link it to fiction. Here is an interesting site:

While John W Campbell's Astounding is best known for its fiction, Campbell himself liked to stress that it was a magazine of science fiction AND science fact. This page lists the major non-fiction contents of all issues of the magazine from July 1939 to September 1960, under two headings: Campbell's own editorials, and other factual articles arranged alphabetically by author.

If we feel a need to pigeon-hole Hubbard right off the bat then "author" or "writer" would serve best as a compromise. --Justanother 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(48 publications, 1947-1950, mainly Science-Fiction, followed by Western and Fantasy.

Isn't Android Cat supposed to be 1 of the CoS supporters here? Don't they teach you OSA Shills Anything?! Your both wrong, and are dishonoring Hubbard! In 1950, Hubbard was QUITE OFTEN refered to as an engineeer. The earliest dictionary definition I've yet found defines dianetics as: "(derived from dia [through] and [nous] mind)A Science of the mind created by american writer and enginerr, L. Ron Hubbard" ( I beleive thats pretty near dead on balls accurate rendering of a large dictionaries definition, from about 1951.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AndroidCat 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks Cat. But you know, of course, that, for Hubbard, 48 stories in fours years (one/month) is nothing. What was his output at the peak of his pulp career in the 30's. do you know? I would imagine one or two per week if not more if he could find a market for them all (hence his many pen-names). --Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(In comparison, 64 publications, 1937-1940, mainly Adventure and Westerns. His peak year was 1936 with 48. AndroidCat 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
We disagree on this one, Justanother. Hubbard's "claim to fame" was not as a writer on diverse topics (though he did write other sorts of fiction), but specifically as an author of stories and novellas in the science fiction pulps, especially Campbell's Astounding, where, as you say, he first published Dianetics material. Just as A.E Van Vogt (another Dianetics supporter) or Robert Heinlein would properly be billed as science fiction writers, so should Hubbard.

Not the same. Doesn't follow. For 2 reasons: Hubbard published ALOT of non-sci-fi (especially adventure)/2) 1 of his most famouse books is not SF. Fear (book) is clearly a thriller, w/no trace of SF.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 

 It is clearly the one thing for which he was best known in 1950, and it remains an important part of his career.  There's no shame in it. BTfromLA 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Though I would say his claim to fame was in Fantasy and Science Fiction or pulp fiction in general. I agree; absolutely no shame but inappropriate in his first mention in the article. I will give you an analogy (which will also serve to illustrate my oft-mentioned point that unsourced analogies have no place in a main article as they are usually presented to forward a line of reasoning and, as such, would be OR if unsourced). Suppose that a fellow, Bob Smith, trains as a mechanical engineer and while he is in school and afterward, to support himself as an inventor, he takes a job as a clown. He becomes quite well-known as a clown, perhaps even starring in his own TV show. Meanwhile he invents a new safety harness for children in a car, the Safomatic. Assume it is on the market today. So here in wikipedia we might see "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by the famous clown, Bob Smith." I don't think so. It would say "The Safomatic is a patented child restraint system invented by Bob Smith. Mr Smith was a mechanical engineer that, incidentally, achieved fame as the TV Clown, Smarmy." Same point. No shame in being a clown; degrades his contribution; it is POV. --Justanother 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well said Justanother.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to extend it to "fantasy and science fiction," I wouldn't argue, though my impression (not having read a lot of it) is that Hubbard's writings of note cluster in the latter category. I don't agree with your analogy--you are suggesting, it seems, that Hubbard's fiction career was incidental, but I would argue that it was his major professional focus for many years. And, as you've said, Dianetics first appeared in the pages of a sci-fi pulp magazine (which, like the other pulps, did address scientific theories as well as pure fiction, as you say). It really does make sense to mention it up front. BTfromLA 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my analogy is not intended to suggest that his fiction career was incidental to his life; I agree it WAS his major professional focus just as Bob's was being a clown. My point is that it is incidental to his development of Dianetics, which he created as a non-famous philosopher and student of human behaviour, i.e. researcher (a "hat" many contemporaries will support); just as Bob's clown career is incidental to his invention of a safety harness which he created as a non-famous mechanical engineer.

Since Hubbards claims were so contravercial/since he tended to have deep argument w/contemporary academic procedures, the best label he could hope for is "social thinker" like Confucius.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 

To make prominent mention of the non-sequiter "famous" occupation while ignoring the less famous qualities which actually led to the development of the contribution is, IMO, a deliberate POV attempt to degrade the contribution; especially when it appears in the very first mention of Hubbard as the author of that contribution. Hubbard was a student of philosophy and human behaviour; that actually is the underpinning for his successful pulp career.

You have a point, but you are probably overstating it. Even the churche "Hubbard: the philosopher shows that Hubbard a) was not an academic philosopher, and b)(possibly more importantly) Hubbard had a love-hate relationship w,/philosophy/a strong generally anti-intellectual (or @ least scarringly seemingly anti-intellectual) side to his whole stance.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 

He is often credited as one of the first authors in sci-fi to move it away from wizz-bang technology and more toward human issues.

That must be credited to John W. Campbell; I strongly suspect. That was the new way Campbell wanted to do it/ Hubbard, as a general writer, was thought correctly to be 1 of the writers who would be capable of thewanted product.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dianetics did not come from a "science-fiction writer"; it came from a very intelligent, well-read, well-traveled, student of philosophy and the human condition. If you don't want to mention that in the first introduction of Hubbard then don't mention anything.

Your going to loose (by over-statement), I suspect, using your current strategy. I think Hubbard has valid claim to engineer/ fantasy (in the broader sense) author. Contemperary sources usually supported his engineer claim, and his writings show it was the manner of thought with which he was clearly most familliar/ seemingly his approach to the problems he attempted to solve.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 

--Justanother 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that I agree with what you're saying at all, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability. No reliable third party sources would agree with your POV (he being a researcher, etc.). None would disagree that is was a science fiction writer, though.

Well put.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) 

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi (and thanks for the recent help with the page vandal). It would be OK if you agreed with what I was saying just a teensy bit (laff). Point is that, of course, yes, he was a writer. But he was also a student of the mind and of the human condition (his ability as a hypnotist is well-documented)

citations needed.Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

. The validity of Dianetics has been validated subjectively by millions of people. It is NOT science-fiction. It did not come from a "science-fiction writer". It came from an insight into the human mind and condition gleaned from a lifetime of questioning and observation.

You two have become bickering ideologists spouting off different party lines/@ this time I think you are both lowering the quality of Wikipedia!Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, too, that cannot be sourced easily. But that does not change the fact that pigeon-holing him as a sci-fi writer in the first introduction of his name as the creator of Dianetics is POV and serves mainly to degrade the contribution, IMO. It is best left off and let his bio speak for itself rather that predisposing the reader to a POV. --Justanother 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard first published Dianetics in a Science Fiction magazine. The original hubbub around Dianetics took place in the science fiction subculture, and several of the first Dianetics devotees--including Campbell and Van Vogt--were high-profile Science Fiction professionals.


 In 1950, Hubbard was primarily known as a science fiction author, and the overwhelming majority of contemporary publications that mention Hubbard (virtually all of them that I've seen) say as much, including those that discuss Dianetics.  There is, in other words, an important connection between Dianetics and Hubbard's roots in science fiction;  Dianetics emerged in that subculture and it addressed ideas that were being actively discussed in that subculture (such as General Semantics). To supress that connection in the opening for fear that it will taint the veracity of Dianetics would hardly be NPOV.



BTfromLA 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I bow to the consensus that would likely stand against my idea here. Bow. Thank you for considering my point. --Justanother 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Thaddeus Slamp 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I erased my last few comments becouse they were angry mis-uses of Wikipedia. I really think you 2 are wasting wikipedia, and should be stopped. You're playing little games and bickering using ideology, in my opinion! I think existential dishonesty (see existentialism) should be prevented on Wikipedia! Really, tho, what I should say, is I think you were both purposefully mis-using this forum, especially @ the end!Thaddeus Slamp 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Facts Of Dianteics.

This page appears to give facts of Dianetics only to the uninformed. There are some words used here that are Dianetic termonology but not necesicarly used correctly. I seriously dobut that this article was written from a netural point of view and if so then they never bothered to actauilly read Dianetics. I find this article misleading as to the actual purpose and process of Dianetics and perhaps if you were intrested you would read it for yourself.

As for the E-Meter it dosent mesure the spiritual state of a person. That just sounds like religious hocus pocus to me. What it actually does is measure resistance of mental image pictures. Every thing that you have experienced you have recorded as a mental picture. You use these pictures all of the time. Each of these pictures has measurable mass. If you think that this isnt true the close your eyes and think of a picture. You saw that picture so it had to exist somewhere as mass and is measurable as a energy witch has a resistance to the flow of other energies. Pictures with physicial or emotional pain have more mass than those without. The E-Meter sends whats called a carrier wave through your body through one can and is received throught the other. The current is too small to detect but it is there. Once its back at the meter the meter mesures the signal compared to the one it sent and gives a read if resistance.

This is usefull in auditing because it helps the auditor find what to audit. You audit incidents with physical or emotinal pain because thats what is messing you up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.42.77 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

First of all, a reference is needed to verify this statement about the E-meter. What book was it published in? And second, all published Scientology books begin with a disclaimer noting that the E-meter "does nothing." See: E-meter#Controversy. --Modemac 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the newer E-Meter Essentials has all that info. Of course, it would be presented here as "claims" not "facts". And "does nothing" is not the same as "measures nothing". --Justanother 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Review

I came across this review online. Is it usable in the article or as an EL? It's quite negative but it mentions things that aren't in this article. Totnesmartin 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sod it, I'll put it in meself if nobody's bothered. Totnesmartin 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This sentence comes out of nowhere and looks like vandalism to me, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was true >.>

In Dianetics, the human mind is described as a collection of "mental image pictures," which contain the recorded memory of a past moment, including all sensory perceptions and feelings involved, including, but not limited to, the feelings associated with being shot in the chest by the alien warlord of Gamma Sector Chi. One type of mental image picture, created during a period of unconsciousness, involves the memory of a painful experience. Hubbard called this memory an engram, and defined it as "a complete recording of a moment of unconsciousness containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions."

57.68.10.185 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Self Help Guide

Hello all.

Authoritative Guide to Self-Help Resources in Mental Health, Revised Edition (Clinician's Toolbox, The) by John C. Norcross, John W. Santrock, Linda F. Campbell, and Thomas P. Smith (Hardcover - Jun 6, 2003)

This book rates Hubbard's Dianetics, Clear body clear mind, and Scientology books as "Strongly not recommended" (Page 348). Not sure whether it is appropriate here or on the scientology article or both. It basically says that if a guide condemns normal medicine it should be avoided. New age books such as these and NLP tend to do so so they should be avoided according to source. Seflhelpsanity 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this checks out. I think it will be relevant to the scientific evaluations section as that's where the writer's base their assessments. Docleaf 05:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

in the interest of fairness once again

I just thought it should be noted that DMSMH contained complete instructions for auditing dianetics therapy as practiced @ that time. That therapy was in many important ways quite (I am not being ornate, all those qualifiers were carefully thought out/estimated asthe right thing)different than current instructions. The entire 2nd part of the book was a handbook of dianetic procedure. If hubbard purposefully created a pseudoscience, he put ALOT of effort into it. Every book with dianetics in the title that hubbard wrote, (and all but Dianetics 55 do, I beleive) had different procedures, and taped lectures do show a jumpy evolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Interestingly, though, the CoS and the Dianetics Foundation still treat DMSMH as being every bit as accurate and applicable to today as it was the day it was published. Nowhere on any of their texts and their sites and their promotional materials for selling DMSMH do they admit that Dianetic auditing procedures have changed since 1950. The Materials Guide Chart, which shows all the different books with Hubbard's evolving techniques of Dianetics over the years, treats all the books as equals, not acknowledging that any of the material is outdated or obsolete. wikipediatrix 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a contradiction. If you build a higher quality bridge above an already existing 1. The 1st bridge still gets you where you need to go.

Admit??!! They've not been asked. If it aint broke, don't fix it!

None are from a scientology point of view (there are a few exceptions). Goes back to the bridge analogy I just mentioned. Hubbards system is @ least mostly internally consistent, whether that is appearant to the outside world or not.

That defense having been made, I hate hard-sell/ can empathise. Thats what Hubbard orders hem to do, tho. Maby theres a reason, or maby not. It's not my problem!

Ever heard of SOP? A new SOP does not negate old SOP's, it just replaces them operationally. THe new state of the art is better, but the old state of the art is as good as it ever was! Thaddeus Slamp 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Removed your insertions from my text above* Please don't insert your own comments directly into my post, it makes it impossible to tell who said what. You ended up with my signature attached to one of your own comments, which I didn't appreciate! As for the content of your reply, I can't make heads or tails of whatever it is you're trying to say. wikipediatrix 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?! What do you have trouble understanding? Being pissed @ my insertion is 1 thing. Pretending you've no idea what I was saying quite another. I am becoming convinced I am the victim of a ruse.Thaddeus Slamp 03:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, you are mistaken to think that all books are treated as equals. I wonder where you get this from? A look at the Materials Guide Chart you mention shows you that this is a chronological sequence of publications (seen the arrows on there?). Read in sequence these books give you the full picture on how Dianetics and how Scientology developed. The Dianetics Book does contain workable practices and it helps people all over the world, every day. It's simple, it works and it can be done off the book no matter where you are and no matter if there is a Dianetics group or Church of Scientology around or not. That is why the the book is supported and sold. Dianetics has been amended but not replaced by NED (New Era Dianetics) and ExDn (Expanded Dianetics) almost 30 years later based on experienced made and further discoveries. Today's Bridge is complete and the fastest route. That does not invalidate the first techniques which still work. Makoshack 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation number 37 is returning a 404 error, anyone have a new link to the source? Trinen 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency - Pre-clear or preclear?

Which is it? Wikidan829 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't look for consistency in Hubbard's writings because you won't find it. Over the years, the term has commonly been used as:
Preclear/preclear
Pre-clear/pre-clear
Pre-Clear
PC
pc
Speaking just for myself, I prefer to use "preclear (PC)" the first time in an article and then "PC" in each instance thereafter. wikipediatrix 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
haha ;) Well I'm just talking about in our wonderful WP articles, how Hubbard says it is trivial to me. We use both in the articles, and I think someone(I would do it if I knew which one) should go through them all and make them one way or the other. Wikidan829 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As for "preclear", the non-hyphenated, non-capitalized way does seem to be the most common in Hubbard's own usage, which should matter since it's his own made-up term. However, most Scientology texts simply say "pc" more often than not. wikipediatrix 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I always prefered Preclear because of the book "Handbook for Preclears" states it as such, and it's the only time I know of that it made it into a book title. Trinen 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Heading Dispute

This phrase keeps going back and forth between being added by several people (including me) and deleted by Wikipediatrix. I'm not sure if he thinks it's irrelevant, unsourced or what.

"Dianetics is the only the first level in a series of secret Scientology teachings; its higher level of teachings are kept secret from members who have not reached these levels. In the Church of Scientology vs. Fishman and Geertz case, former scientologist Steven Fishman introduced as evidence what appeared to be Hubbard's OT I through OT VIII documents, of which a small portion known as the Xenu story has received much media attention. Xenu, according to the documents, was an evil galactic overlord who oppressed free spirits with science fiction-like tactics in the Earth's distant past (at which time planet Earth was known as Teegeeack.) The Fishman affidavit became public domain as a court document, and contains confidential course materials sold at a high cost. The church subsequently dropped the case against Fishman and petitioned the court to seal the documents, without formally acknowledging their authenticity." wagsbags 20:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, new posts go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I've moved it down here where it belongs. Secondly, I'm not a he. Thirdly, taking an abrupt left turn into tangential matters that aren't about Dianetics don't belong in an article about Dianetics, let alone right off the bat in the article's intro! All the Xenu/Fishman stuff is amply covered in the appropriate articles already. wikipediatrix 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion: this doesn't belong here. This is well covered where appropriate. Raymond Hill 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that mentioning that Dianetics is part of series of teachings is relevant. However, you don't need to go so in depth with them -- just link to the appropriate articles. GSlicer (t • c) 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, oops. Second of all, oops again :S. Thirdly, I'll concede the portion in dispute goes into too much detail but maintain that the rest of the series of teaching should be mentioned with links where appropriate. How about something like "Dianetics is the only the first level in a series of Scientology teachings with higher levels of teachings being kept secret from those who have not reached these levels." And then maybe one more sentence with links to the OT article and the Fishman Affidavit article. wagsbags 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but Dianetics in not "a first level in a series of Scientology teachings" and has never been! What is your reference for this non-scientological claim? COFS 04:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it could be more precisely stated that the state of "Clear", reached through Dianetics, is required before access to the upper-level materials. Raymond Hill 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
So the Purification Rundown and Grade 0 etc are "Dianetics"? Not that I know. COFS 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that? Raymond Hill 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see you saying that. I think she's talking about the position of Dianetics on the "Grade Chart", remember, "The Bridge" (not this dilettante far-off-reality film, but the actual Scientology way to salvation). It gives the steps, what is "first level", "second level" and so on. The fishy nonsense spread by MI5, pardon, waxbag, is not on this chart, not taught in Scientology and not believed either. Misou 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something like this. "waxbag" confuses historical sequence with what is happening in real life. COFS 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as "fishy nonsense", I think wagsbags means well. Just politely pointing the error would have been enough. In any case, the fact that the state of "Clear" is required before moving to upper-level, that might be worth mentioning in a few words, but certainly not go in so much details. Raymond Hill 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In principle, I agree, of course, but I can't blame Misou for going overboard with the invective because "just politely pointing out" things never ever works around here, especially when you're not part of the "Scientology is a global scam and it is my duty to expose it!!" clique. wikipediatrix 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


What "error"? http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part02/chp06/img/grdchart.gif is the chart I've seen hanging up at scientology churches and it clearly shows OT levels so are you simply claiming the Fishman afidavit isn't true? wagsbags 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude. This has little or nothing to do with Dianetics. Why are you so insistent on shoehorning this controversy where it's not needed? wikipediatrix 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
His point is that an individual is required to reach "Clear" to have access to higher Scientology teachings. I believe it's worth mentioning — without going into details of course. The sentence "Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology." could be rewritten as, "Dianetics is the secular predecessor of Hubbard's "applied religious philosophy," Scientology, and it is still employed and disseminated by the Church of Scientology, as reaching the state of Clear (Scientology) is a requirement to access Scientology's upper levels." Raymond Hill 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that was his point, because you're not talking about Xenu, OT and Fishman and he is. wikipediatrix 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Make it my point then. Raymond Hill 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The article already notes in several places the connection between Dianetics and Scientology. I don't care about "Clear" being mentioned, I care about wagsbags going off on a long tangent about Xenu and the Fishman Affidavit in the intro. wikipediatrix 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't write the text in question, nor was I the first or only to put it in the article. It appears I've done a poor job at explaining my position. I feel the text in question is important information, however it is (as you've pointed out) well covered in the appropriate articles (Fishman Affidavit, Operating Thetan, Scientology). My remaining qualm is that there doesn't seem to be a place (that I can find) that really explains the progression of training (which is why I wanted a link to the Operating Thetan article). Upon closer inspection of the chart this may not be easy to do. Basically I felt that a part of a series should at least have links to all other parts of the series but it seems this may not be possible. wagsbags 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

more vandalism

"In Dianetics, the human mind is described as a collection of "mental image pictures," which contain the recorded memory of a past moment, including all sensory perceptions and feelings involved, including, but not limited to, the feelings associated with being shot in the chest by the alien warlord of Gamma Sector Chi."

I'm guessing that's vandalism that nobody noticed yet :)

Donman77 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Either that, or scripture we're not at a high enough OT level to know. ;) _ 192.250.34.161 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That will do, anonymous IP pusbag. Don't come here again. Donman, thank you for pointing that out. TimonofAthens (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Sentance

"According to Hubbard's research, mental and psychosomatic physical problems are caused by traumatic recordings called engrams that are stored in the reactive mind."

The opening part of this sentance mainly the use of the word research doesnt sit right at first glance to me, is there a reference we can cite which documents this research? or one that is peer reviewed etc? I would argue that "Research" implies a scientific approach and as we know Dianetics has been discredited by scientific study.

May be nitpicking on my part? Not fully familiar with wiki standards. So raising this here for experienced input. Cheers -- 82.71.22.74 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are. 205.227.165.244 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's research was published in research volumes. Scientology_bibliography#1980 A photograph of one the 15 or so volumes can be found in a cached page at amazon. John Fitzgerald Smith (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Corraborating JFS's post. more than a dozen volumes of catagorized and cross-referenced research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimonofAthens (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Beware of Scientologist sockpuppets

Just a little heads up: The IP above (205.227.165.244) is registered to the Church of Scientology in LA, as it also says on their user page. This is a pretty good reason to be thoroughly suspicious of any edit or point they make. Said IP has been used to spread Scientologist revisionism(like on the Cult Awareness Network article) and propaganda(various drug-related articles) on Wikipedia since 2003. 83.92.244.246 (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientologists are at war with "the internet" in general, because it exposes their fraudulent claims, harassing behaviors, and cult-like nature. They are completely indoctrinated and should not be trusted, particularly when it comes to describing themselves. They've tried to intimidate me into silence in the past, for questioning the validity of their claims, and asking for evidence. They're bullies, using lawsuits and blackmail to get what they want. After all, L. Ron said it was ok, even a good idea, to attack and not defend. Not only do they have sockpuppets, but they have legit users who pretend to be unbiased, and yet add a scientology POV to every scientology article. Beware of these people, they seek to undermine wikipedia itself, to destroy its credibility for their own purposes. Fuzzform (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for this kind of verbal machine-gunning, please. Nobody is to be excluded from having a voice on Wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimonofAthens (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to category

I would like to add Dianetics to Category:Parapsychology (and Scientology as well if all goes over well here). Agreed? --24.57.157.81 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics possibly (although I don't remember Hubbard promising any paranormal stuff), but I expect resistance for Scientology because of the religious angle. AndroidCat (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Dianetics?

Someone on OCMB mentioned something called "Black Dianetics". While Dianetics was created to help people, the purpose of black dianetics seems to be the opposit. I couldn't find anything about this on wikipedia but google gives a few hits. Perhaps this is worth adding to the article?

http://www.spaink.net/cos/mpoulter/worst/andre4.html

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=27646

Nxsty (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of primary sources in this article?

It appears that JDPhD (talk · contribs) is adding citations to primary sources in this article to back up material in the article, when it would be preferable to use secondary sources instead, so as to avoid WP:OR violations. Would appreciate it if someone else could look into this please. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Jargon"?

I am writing this to explain why I reverted this edit, posted with the edit summary "rm unencyclopedice [sic] jargon". These were the changes made in that edit:

Old New
... traumatic cellular recordings ... ... traumatic recordings ...
... called "engrams" ... ... called engrams ...
... the "reactive mind." ... the reactive mind.
... erase the engrams in the reactive mind and refile them as data in the analytical mind to achieve ... ... erase the engrams in the reactive mind to achieve ...

The first change does not have anything to do with jargon, because "cellular" in this context is not jargon. It means exactly what a reader would think it means, namely, that the recording which Dianeticists believe takes place when an "engram" is created is recording on a cellular level. Now, one can certainly question the accuracy of that statement; the engram (Dianetics) article says Hubbard at one point definitively stated the recording was cellular and then later repudiated that claim. One can certainly question the placement of this detail; the introduction may not be the place to discuss where these engrams are supposed to reside, especially if the answer is "first Hubbard claimed one thing and then he claimed another, so let's go through all the answers." But simply removing it altogether does not seem appropriate.

The second and third changes have to do with jargon, but they do not have anything to do with removing jargon; instead, they remove the stylistic indicators that "engrams" and "reactive mind" are jargon terms. Why would this even be desirable? They are jargon terms from the theories of Dianetics; it would only be a disservice to the reader to remove the quotes which mark them as such and incorrectly suggest that the reader could understand what "stored in the reactive mind" means by looking up "reactive" and "mind". I am sorely puzzled why an experienced editor (and now, a second) would claim that they were removing jargon when the jargon is still there, still unexplained.

The fourth change is much like the first; it has very little to do with jargon. Perhaps you could say that it is too much detail for the introduction, but that is not what was argued. Perhaps you could say that "refile" and "analytical mind" and even "data" are jargon terms, but the edit summary was "remove ... jargon", not "remove information which is expressed in the jargon of the subject".

If Cirt and GoodDamon are both convinced that the changes they both made needed to be made, I can only ask them to explain the rationale behind those changes. What was expressed in their edit summaries was not it. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories: Category:Psychiatric treatments and Category:Alternative medicine

Both of these categories Category:Psychiatric treatments and Category:Alternative medicine are inappropriate. Dianetics is neither a "psychiatric treatment" nor "alternative medicine". Cirt (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is RS that dianetics is part of a treatment program, and it isn't part of modern EBM. The category is a navigational aid, not a label. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The category is both. Dianetics may be "part of a treatment program", but it is not "psychiatric treatment" or "alternative medicine". Cirt (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
how about a 'category:alternative psychiatric treatments'?:) All I am concerned with is that the article shouldn't be placed directly in category:alternative medicine, which I'm tidying up. So please take a look at the subcategories listed here [3] and see if you think it has anything to do with those or not. I'm trying to make the contents of the cat consist mainly only of links to the subcats, with hardly any articles placed directly in it, as instructed at the top of the page. Other than that I don't mind, I just want the alt med category pristine :) Maybe we do need an alt psych one.:) Sticky Parkin 15:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As the header of this subsection states, neither Category:Psychiatric treatments nor Category:Alternative medicine are appropriate categories. I had removed them both, but apparently another user keeps adding one or the other back in. This should be discussed here on the talkpage first, with consensus reached one way or the other, before re-adding these inappropriate categories. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but how about a Category:Alternative psychiatric treatments, (if could be not in alt med, but a subcat of Category:Psychiatric treatments) which I think might be useful for a fair few articles? I don't know how long it was in Category:Alternative medicine, perhaps for a while- people only noticed it when I was trying to clear out that category for cleanup reasons:) I agree it doesn't quite seem to apply, and anyway if there it should be in one of the subcats. Sticky Parkin 00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Debating about possible subcats is a good idea, I just don't think "Alternative psychiatric treatments" is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

THE PERFECT MATRIMONY

Spidern added a reference[4] to the article that does not contain anything about Dianetics or related subjects. I removed it and any original research going along with it. Shrampes (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the reference. I simply moved the text as cited up [5] to the lead (there was a definition in both the lead and a section of the page). I hadn't checked the citation so I wasn't aware of its content. ←Spidern→ 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You re-added an unrelated source, for whatever reasons. It is helpful to check the content of a source before adding it. Shrampes (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I did not "re-add" anything. Check the diffs, I only moved content from one part of the page to another. Look at this revision of the page that contained the source before I even edited the article. ←Spidern→ 17:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to hypnosis

There is a reference that Hubbard oposed hypnosis and only a few lines later it is stated that Hubbard warns against self-auditing and autohypnosis. The statements seem to contradict; the first statement reads like promotional content for Dianetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.114.198 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

scientology

i am just know understanding scientology and its means and i want to know what other people think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.22.201 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref for this article

The following article:

  • {{cite journal|title=Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind: Science-Fiction Origins of Dianetics |first=Albert I. |last=Berger |journal=Science Fiction Studies |volume=16 |issue=2 |date=July 1989 |pages=123-144 |publisher=SF-TH, DePauw University}}

is available through JSTOR and seems highly relevant to the L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

There should be noted in the criticism section that S.I. Hayakawa wrote an article on Dianetics about the use of General Semantics in it. It's embarrassing to be related to Scientology in any way. I wouldn't be surprised if both Korzybski, Freud, and all the other scientists and philosophers are turning in their graves because of Scientology defiling their works. DukeTwicep 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC+1)

S. I. Hayakawa's response and several others are mentioned at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health#Reception. Perhaps some of that could be copied into this article? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is Dianetics?

The article says a lot of stuff about Dianetics. It has lots of references. At no point does it tell the reader what Dianetics is and does. At no point does it hint why Dianetics hasn't gone the way of the dodo bird. If Dianetics is actually a complex of mystical bits, stuck onto a common core word like bits of used chewing gum at a bus stop bench, why hasn't it disappeared? There is something to the subject that this article only rouses the curiosity about. But does not state. John Fitzgerald Smith (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to me to say a lot about what Dianetics is and does. I can't see where it says, or even implies, that it's "a complex of mystical bits, stuck onto a common core word like bits of used chewing gum at a bus stop bench". What improvements to the article are you proposing? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Describing L.. Ron Hubbard

There has already been a discussion on the Talk page for L. Ron Hubbard about how he should be described. Multiple reliable sources describe him again and again as a science fiction author and creator of Scientology. That's the rationale for describing him as such in this article. "Spiritualist" is incorrect and "author" on its own does not mention the genre which primarily made him famous. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

scientology

i am just know understanding scientology and its means and i want to know what other people think about it.

-You're better off not even paying attention to them. If you teach your kids to do the same, the world will be a better place. cults and sects have been nothing but trouble in the past, and this organization is already plagued full of bad deeds and evil doers. In fact, they threaten anyone and anything that slanders their soiled name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.216.128 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Black Dianetics

This entire section appears to by either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. while there is a controversy over Manson and his association with Scientology, tying it to this article by using a quote from L. Ron about misuse of tech stating that criminal minds + Scientology can lead to bad things and then bringing up Manson followed by the CIA experimentation (with scattered references at best throughout this whole process) is shabby at best and bears no real direct connection with Dianetics. I would like to remove this section in its entirety for those reasons.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies way too much on primary sources, likely verging on WP:NOR. Especially with regard to this particular subject matter, there is an over abundance of secondary source coverage, and there is simply no need to rely upon primary sources for this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

To get a psychoanalysts certification,a required time of study is four years. Before that, to qualify for entry into psychoanalysts curriculum, one must study psychiatry for four years. to qualify for entry into psychiatry's curriculum, one must study medicine for four years. That is a total of twelve years. Psychiatry offers no doctoral degree, from ignorance of the cause of mental illness. Psychoanalysis has no doctoral degree, ignoring the cause of mental illness. Yet psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are called doctors. The title of doctor derives from the studies in medicine,m.d. There are no doctors of psychiatry, nor of psychoanalysis. Dianetics discovered the cause of all inorganic mental illness, situated in the subconscious. with it's upgraded method of free-association technique, combined with an instrument that detects stimulated memory in the subconscious,locating mental mass of trauma is precise,and addressing the content of that mass of imagery, getting it verbalized, causes it to dissipate. Dianetic auditors have successfully aided in the dissipation of all mental mass from the subconscious.I.Q., increases. At full dissipation, and of duplication in millions of subjects, Dianetics satisfies and exceeds academic requirements to qualify as a doctoral discipline. Dianetics is the completion of stalled psychoanalysis. Merge the two, and eradication of mental illness is on the horizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.9.72 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what organization this person is associated with. --LibreLearner (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

possibly meaningless statement

"The preclear's job is to look at the mind ..."

I do not think that this statement has any meaning in English. I speak the two cognate languages, French and German, and can give neither plausible translation any sense. Of the many things that one can be said to "look at", "mind" is not one of them. See wikipedia on introspection, phenomenology and subjectivism.

Is the word "mind" a typo in that phrase? Is there a reference to cite?

The full sentence in the section "Procedure in Practice" reads on this date

"The preclear's job is to look at the mind and talk to the auditor."

G. Robert Shiplett 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is overly detailed and biased in favor of Hubbard's primary sources. As time allows I plan to work on balancing it. I'm open to feedback. Andrew327 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The lead currently states that, "Dianetics divides the mind into three parts: the conscious 'analytical mind,' the subconscious 'reactive mind', and the somatic mind." Later, in the section titled Basic Concepts we are told that, "A basic idea in Dianetics is that the mind consists of two parts: the 'analytical mind' and the 'reactive mind.'" So which is it, two or three parts? Cottonshirtτ 04:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This article as a whole is very awkwardly written and often essay-like. The intro paragraph is particularly awkward, however we must first determine how best to define Dianetics in the first sentence. Currently it states that it is a "set of ideas and practices". The mention of "metaphysical relationship between mind and body" is pure original research and should be rewritten in neutral terms. Scientology officially defines Dianetics as a "spiritual healing technology" that addresses how the mind affects the body. We should tackle this first paragraph and reach a consensus on how best to define and describe Dianetics in the intro. Laval (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, wasn't Dianetics originally introduced in 1948 in a science fiction magazine that is today published in book form as the precursor to Dianetics? If so, that should be the year for the category on establishment, rather than 1950. Laval (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember that the opinion of the Church of Scientology is not a reliable source, but the article has room for improvement and I hope someone is willing to work on it. Andrew327 20:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"Also, wasn't Dianetics originally introduced in 1948 in a science fiction magazine" --- it says right there in the first paragraph of the History section: Astounding, May 1950. Idontcareanymore (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't understand why the introduction is so big. Save that stuff for the body. The introduction is just supposed to introduce what Dianetics is.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dianetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Self-help book"?

Grayfell (talk · contribs), you reverted my edit[6] with the explanation, "This is talking about the book, which was and is categorized as a self-help book." Is this categorization universal? Certainly not by the author, the editor, or the publisher. The categorization is not mentioned again in the body of the article. Who puts the book in this category that we accept it without question and without citing the authority? Thank you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty close to universal from what I've seen. The publisher does refer to it as a self-help book. Here's a press release issued by Dianetics.org in 2014 saying "Dianetics has long been established as the best selling self-help book of all time..." I'm sure there are more where that came from. Regardless, the author/editor/publisher's descriptions are only partially relevant in the context of the New York Times Bestseller list. The article on Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health refers to it as a self-help book, as do many reliable sources. "Popular" is vague and redundant with NYT bestseller, and kind of undermines the point of the recently added material. Maybe we don't want that in the article, though, I don't know, but if it's not a self-help book, than we would need to figure out what to call it. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Grayfell (talk · contribs). Thanks for that correction -- I didn't know. It is an anomaly though, when every in description, two people, not one, are required to do the Dianetics auditing. "Personal development" might be more compatible with both fact and RS. Or maybe we don't have to characterize it at all. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, auditing does contrast with self-help in a way. I can see it, but I don't think self-help is always the same as "solo-help". The phrase self-help is very commonly linked to support groups, study groups, and other activities that require multiple people, so I think it's okay to keep it in. Wow, the article on personal development is a mess of synth and refspam and pet theories. I guess this may be a cop-out, but that page is a big project that I'm not willing to tackle right now, and I'd like very strong sources specifically connecting Dianetics to the topic before connecting the two. If nothing else to prevent that article from spreading too far before it's fixed up. I guess that's not a policy-based argument, but that article's pretty bad. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. The lede musta been copied from a bottle of tincture of rattle snake. And here we wrestle over single words and the reliability of sources. OK, case closed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

reincarnation

Dianetics/Scientology posits reincarnation. Does it have anything to say about what sort of rebirth an un-"clear"ed individual, versus a "clear" one can expect? Human? Bottle fly? 98.14.15.215 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Campbell

Grayfell, how does a single mention of why he supported Hubbard and his feature of Dianetics in Astounding Science Fiction an "overstatement?" This detail is well-supported and merely expands on information that is already there. Again, an arbitrary assessment.Nonchalant77 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, so that it's a detail is exactly the problem. This one detail is provided from a source which only mentions it in passing as part of a larger, mostly unrelated point. This is undue and overly promotional. Also, Hubbard was not a doctor or medical professional, and Dianetics is not a medical procedure, and implications of medical efficacy, even indirect ones, should be handled cautiously and only with substantial sources. It's also not clear from that source whether this is being stated as simple fact, or is a continuation of the church's hagiography from the previous paragraphs. This context makes the claim that he was "cured" even more ambiguous. Finally, the cite was improperly formatted to imply that the book's editors were the article's authors (one of the authors is David G. Bromley, who's controversial in his own right). This is a minor point, but it suggests that the source was not thoroughly checked. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The context was already provided for in the Wikipedia article. There is no space nor bandwidth to explain the entire context - if every editor had to do that for every edit then nobody would be able to edit. The detail is enough. Just because a detail is not bitingly critical, it does not mean it is promotional. Neutrality is about representing the available references on a subject, which may include both critical and non-critical content. I checked Google Books and it says that Zellner and Petrwosky are both authors and editors, so your point fails. I have checked the reference thoroughly. It's just an additional point created against the edit so as to make sure that is not re-posted.Nonchalant77 (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dianetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dianetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dianetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

Could you rearrange the first sentence? Right now it says 

Dianetics (from Greek dia, meaning "through", and nous, meaning "mind"), referred to by practitioners as a therapeutic science of mental health, is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

It might be simpler if "referred to" were made a separate sentence and placed after the rest. The result would be 

Dianetics (from Greek dia, meaning "through", and nous, meaning "mind") is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.  Its practitioners refer to it as a therapeutic science of mental health.

208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've also added a sentence, for balance reasons, detailing its lack of acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. Sceptre (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 Undone: This request has been partially undone. "Un-answering" this to let another editor have a look. Sceptre (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
information Note: Marking this closed as more or less  Done (as of now). Further disagreement should probably be discussed anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hubbard and "relieving traumatic and psychosomatic disorders"

@CWatchman: Regarding this and this edit, good practice is for the person who wishes to change the article gain consensus when challenged, which is is explained as the "be bold, revert, discuss" cycle.

An editor's personal familiarity with a topic is not sufficient. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, with a very strong emphasis on independent sources, as explained at WP:RS and WP:INDY. Further, first-hand knowledge is not usable as it is considered original research. Hubbard's writing is considered a WP:PRIMARY source, which should only be used with caution. Further, any claims that Dianetics is a intended to "relieve" a disorder would need very reliable sources, because Wikipedia holds medical claims to a higher standard, per WP:MEDRS. Hubbard was not a recognized expert in psychology or medicine, so he is not usable for any medical claims at all. Any claims made by Hubbard would need to be contextualized as claims, not as facts, and the significance of any particular claim should be supported by reliable, independent sources.

Because Dianetics is not accepted as a valid treatment by the scientific meainstream, and its underlying claims are not scientifically supportable, the topic is also WP:FRINGE, and should not be misrepresented as having acceptance. Wikipedia is, like it or not, a tertiary source which therefor has a mainstream bias. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

.

Grayfell, please forgive me if I cause you embarrassment, but the latter edit I submitted. which you accuse of being non-encyclopedic and not being a "reliable source" was lifted DIRECTLY from the OXFORD DICTIONARY!!! The only word I added was "traumatic" and I replaced "aim" with "purpose".

Is the Oxford Dictionary not a reliable source? Did THEY produce "original research"?

OXFORD: "A system developed . . . which aims to relieve psychosomatic disorder by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images.[1]

EDIT: " a system . . . which was developed with the purpose of relieving traumatic and psychosomatic disorders by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images."[2]

Please explain.

The Oxford statement did NOT claim, as the title of this section quotes out of context, that Dianetics is "relieving traumatic and psychosomatic disorders". It said that it was developed for that purpose——that it's aim was for that purpose.

The other edit which you site, was lifted directly from a magazine article (which I slightly altered to prevent plagiarism).

In the past I have never, neither have I needed, to lift statements from encyclopedias or other articles, but this subject is so volatile I didn't want to make the mistake of being accused of "original research." Whether or not my slight alterations make me guilty of plagiarism is whole other subject open to argument.

Secondly you accuse me of "personal familiarity" and "first hand knowledge." I am NOT a Scientologist. I am a Christian pastor with degrees in theology and psychology and I am also a published author. As a writer I find the neutrality in this article to be atrocious. I am also a scholar in the study of comparative religions and errors in this amateur article blare out at me like a trumpet.

I ask that instead of deleting HUGE portions of this article, as well as deleting other various small changes throughout, that you consult this Talk Page first. And please quit erasing my statements on Talk Pages while leaving other of my statements. Either delete them all or leave them all. Selective deletion alters what I was actually communicating.

Again, I am not attempting to be contentious, just correct.

Neutrality and correct information should be the goal for this pitiful article.

CWatchman (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there are both content and policy problems, but let's go through these one at a time.
Attribution is required when closely repeating. If you derived this from another source, you must cite that source, and as an academic, I hope you know that close paraphrasing is extremely poor practice, and is especially unacceptable without attribution. By your own admission, you lifted this from a source, but did not cite or mention that source anywhere. Readers had no way of knowing that this was taken from somewhere else. This is plagiarism. This is absolutely not appropriate, per WP:COPYVIO. This is not open to argument, this is a non-negotiable policy. Do not do this again.
What "magazine article" are you talking about? Please disclose this to prevent plagiarism and copyright violations issues. This content may need to be removed from the article's history, per Wikipedia:Revision deletion.
Next, this was not the Oxford Encyclopedia, this is an online dictionary jointly hosted by Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press. What is the Oxford Encyclopedia, anyway? Should I be embarrassed by the name, or something? As a dictionary, it may be reliable for basic definitions, but Wikipedia is explicitly not a dictionary by policy. The specific goal of this project is to provide information beyond basic definitions.
Further, all sources must be judged in context. Even if it were not plagiarized, this single-line summary may or may not be appropriate in other contexts. In this context, I do not accept that it is appropriate. It is implying that the purpose of Dianetics is to resolve disorders. Wikipedia's policies do not allow us to make such bold, unsupported statements without context, or much, much better reliable sources. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide context, not just simplistic definitions. Dianeticists may or may not believe they have resolved certain issues, but reliable sources would be needed to present this as a defining trait. Since many, many sources dispute that Dianetics is an effective treatment for anything, an online dictionary (even a top quality one) is not sufficient to undermine this.
As for personal familiarity, you have added things without citing any sources at all, but you have not provided any way for other editors to verify this info. This is not appropriate. All content must be verifiable. This is, again, part of Wikipedia's policies. That you mention your credentials suggests that you have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. We do not have the ability to verify your academic credentials, nor would we if we could, nor would that matter. As an academic, your familiarity with reliable sources may help you locate them and summarize sources neutrally. You are not given any special privilege over any other editor.
As for individual talk pages, I will manage my talk page as I see fit. You are free to delete comments on your own talk page, but you should not refactor other people's comment, except in limited cases. See WP:TPG. As I have told you multiple times, I am not interested in hosting a debate on this topic on my talk page. This is the appropriate place to discuss specific changes to this article. Anything else should be discussed elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/dianetics
  2. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Dianetics&diff=920409988&oldid=920395247


I admitted that I lifted it from the Oxford Dictionary and that I had never done that before, nor will I do it again. And I know I am supposed to cite such statements, however, I was not at my office at the time and intended on inserting it citing from my Oxford set, after I was able to retrieve the information. Dot-coms just seem so nonacademic.. And I did indeed make a mistake saying encyclopedia instead of dictionary, but the slip was due to my voluminous Oxford set which is just as LARGE as many encyclopedic sets.

The site I provided for the dictionary has the very SAME definition for Dianetics as my Oxford set!!! So my stance remains.

As for the site not being the online Oxford, it certainly was until recently when it accepted Dictionary .com as a host. Regardless, the Oxford set and the Cambridge Dictionary both use similar language in defining Dianetics.

But all of this is beside the point . . . you called a reference from the Oxford Dictionary a non-reliable source!!! This is what is most embarrassing.

In addition, you are STILL misunderstanding the Oxford quote——it is NOT saying that Dianetics cures anything at all, it is saying that it was developed for that purpose——that it's aim was for that purpose.

If wording was the problem you should have corrected it, not annihilated it.

As far as your statement “As for personal familiarity, you have added things without citing any sources at all “, WHAT are you talking about? All of my past additions have been MORE than well sourced. In one of my articles the references are almost longer than the article itself.

And if you are referring to the quotes you just deleted, they were simply definitions that I replaced the present definitions with, and THEY are not sourced either. Why do they still appear and while mine was deleted?

As for my Christian theological credentials, I mentioned them in simple response to your accusations that I am somehow familiar with this group. And you DO know who I am.

To say the Oxford Dictionary is not a reliable source is incredulous.

I have spent too much time with this drival.

The fact remains, this article is not neutral and it is not accurate.

CWatchman (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I remain fully unembarrassed by my rejection of statement which did not have a cited source at all. If that is somehow "incredulous", so be it. If you knew this was controversial, and that's why you plagiarized sources, why didn't you cite those sources? This doesn't make any sense, even on its face. You had access to the source when you made the edit, so you should add the source at the same time. No excuses. This is the same standard, I would hope, you hold your students to.
Individual Wikipedia editors are not a reliable sources. Sources must be published and verifiable. Is that really so confusing? The existence of a source, somewhere in the ether, is not enough. You need to provide sources so that other people can evaluate them. Picking terse, context-free source you personally prefer is not inappropriate, because it ignores the mountains of sources already cited which tell a different story. You do not get to decide that your source, which you couldn't be bothered to mention, must be treated as the best description of a notoriously complicated and contentious topic.
Further, your editorializing about how prolific Hubbard was in his writing was also unsourced. Combining primary sources to make a claim which is not supported by any of those sources is WP:SYNTH. You need to cite sources for your conclusions. That's how this works. As the tags already explains, the article already has WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY source problems. Since my assessment of your edits was that they made these problems worse, I have reverted. The burden remains with you to gain consensus for these changes. Start with actual, secondary sources, please.
The lede should summarize defining traits, fundamental details, and the most significant aspects of a topic according to reliable sources. This is then explained in detail in the body of the article. This is standard for Wikipedia articles. Inline citations are not, strictly speaking, required for the lede paragraphs, but this doesn't mean references are optional. The aim of Dianetics is based on a pseudoscientific foundation, according to reliable sources. We do not tuck unflattering bits away in a WP:CSECTION. Among other things, this is a form of editorializing. If it's important to sources, it will likely be important to readers, and so it should be important to us. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I told you that I did not have access to my Oxford edition which was at my office and I didn't want to quote from a dot-com. I knew the dot-com was correct but I dislike using these as much as I dislike using "lol" as a legitimate word. The internet changes too readily while brick and mortar publications quoted remain the same within that edition. I just didn't get my sources submitted fast enough.

Just let it rest! I am tired of talking with you about this insignificant article. The only thing that concerns me now is the fact that this section of the article remained unchanged for a long, long time until this situation occurred. Now suddenly someone named Septre shows up and makes a drastic change. She used some words which haven't appeared much with users discussing this article such as the grammatical, but not commonly used as a Wiki word, lede. This person wrote, "The lede summarizes the body of the article. Being pseudoscientific is a defining trait according to many, many reliable sources". Hmm, I am really suspicious of a sock puppet here. Please let me know if you have any idea as to whom this may be or if my suspicions are baseless.

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am through with this nonsense. This article is being preyed upon by radical Scientologists and radical anti-Scientologists and is totally useless as a neutral article. It's impossible! This article is a mess I don't have time to fool with. No need to respond, I'm out of here.

CWatchman (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about the Internet. Your plan to eventually "submit" a source still means this was indistinguishable from plagiarism.
The article has been tagged for having problems for a long, long time, and someone else finally made an edit which addressed those specific problems.
I am the one who restored that edit, and I am the one who said that being pseudoscientific is a defining trait according to many reliable sources. I use the word lede, and so do many other editors, as indicated by the redirect WP:LEDE. If you think I am a sock puppet, start an investigation, but casting aspersions without any follow-up, based on an apparent inability to read the article's history, is totally unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. That was very impulsive of me. CWatchman (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


I apologize for not handling this better.

OK, lets review. I didn't think the word "metaphysical" was appropriate, so I removed it. The article then appeared to define it simply as a mental science. I added the Oxford definition which you didn't like. So, someone decided it came too close in legitimizing the therapy in question, so they added a statement from a 1957 book saying it was a fraud. Now the article seems to begin with a direct critical attack on the subject, which is already fully covered later in the article.

I agree with the suggested lede in "Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019" above. Restore the statement about it being metaphysical and the whole subject is handled. The reader will instantly know it is not a legitimate science in the orthodox sciences, yet at the same time it will not appear to begin so aggressively negative.

My goal is to see more neutrality in this article. Friction between religious ideas has been the cause of war, separation, and destruction. We need to learn to agree to disagree.

In summary, the lede was much better off before I started fooling with it. It was there a long time without problem and I propose it a better lede which should be restored.

CWatchman (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a sticking point, let's be clear. You expanded the definition, but did not cite Oxford or anything else. If you do not understand my explanation of the multiple reasons I rejected those changes, then consensus for them seems unlikely. The article, and the lede, obviously have a lot of problems, since the article has been tagged as having original research and primary source issues since 2010. (One of those tags was 'updated' for some reason, but they have both been here for that long). Whether or not the lede was better off seems like it's missing the forest for the trees, because the article is still a mess. I will add further comments below. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Lede

For the creation of a more neutral lede, I propose one of the two following drafts:

""Dianetics (from Greek dia, meaning "through", and nous, meaning "mind") is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Its practitioners refer to it as a therapeutic science of mental health."

OR

"Dianetics (from Greek dia, meaning "through", and nous, meaning "mind") is a set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and body created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Its practitioners refer to it as a therapeutic science of mental health.

The APA responded to the published material in 1950 with a resolution stating, “these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations."

I do not think either of these are a more neutral, and at this point more drastic changes will be necessary to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.
By emphasizing the APA's response from 1950(!), we would be implying to readers that this was an unusual or especially significant conclusion. Perhaps, but this is not necessarily true without a reliable, secondary source treating it as a defining trait. Many reliable sources from many organizations have described it as pseudoscience, spanning decades. It is not just the APA, but other academic bodies, experts, and governments.
The first paragraph seems like a reasonable introduction. The rest of the lede, however, is so bloated that it damages the article. I have made an attempt to clean this up somewhat, but so much more is needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


Thank you

CWatchman (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

I must say Greyfell, that you did a remarkable job on making the article more neutral as well as more fluent. Of course, it still is not completely neutral, but it is much, much better and no longer gives one the impression that they are reading an attacking article written by anti-Scientologists. The article is about Dianetics and not about Scientology or it's conflict with detractors. It still needs a lot of work but is much better than it was. Good job!

CWatchman (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel that this article should be categorized into the pseudo/alternative science series. The section on mainstream scientific treatment of Dianetics is at the very end, and marking this as part of that series would go a long way to immediately giving readers that necessary context.

2601:600:A37F:F111:D53F:E3E4:5A68:5511 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the introductory sentence labels it as being metaphysical. CWatchman (talk)

Dianetic practitioners outside of Scientology

The article seems to ignore that there are groups outside of the CoS which practice Dianetics-only but do not practice Scientology.

I think there should be a reference in the lede that includes a brief reference to independent Dianetics-only groups and alternative offshoots.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an online independent source:

"Who is Dianetics primarily used by at present?– Dianeticists and practitioners of any of the Dianetically based theories.  

What are some of the Dianetically based theories?– Dianetics, Idenics, Scientology, Free Zone Dianetic Therapy, Dianous, Synergetics, Humanics, Dianology, E-Therapy, Dianasis, Amprinistics, Pastoral Christian Dianetics, Re-evaluation Co-counseling, and others. It is predominantly used within Scientology.

What is the basis of Dianetics?— Dianetics is strongly related to the ideas of Sigmund Freud (psychoanalysis) and the ideas of William Sargant (abreaction therapy). Hubbard borrowed ideas heavily also from Carl Jung (the meter), Grinker and Spiegel (Narcosynthesis and hypnoanalysis), Alfred Korzybski (theory of identity, the effects of language and semantics), Nandor Fodor (prenatal and birth trauma), Otto Rank, Georg Groddeck, Grace Pailthorpe, Isidor Sadger, and many noted psychoanalysts of the day.

Was early Dianetics created as a branch of psychology?– Dianetics has been referred to as a “branch of psychology.” Hubbard created the “Freudian Foundation of America” and offered graduate auditors certificates which included that of “Freudian Psychoanalyst.” Atack writes that the original Dianetics techniques can be derived almost entirely from Freud’s lectures.

Does Dianetics work? While the claims of Dianetics are unproven, and many of them unfounded and outrageous, it may still offer some benefit in the form of abreaction, which is a psychoanalytical term for reliving an experience to purge it of its excess content. This is a type of catharsis. The theory may contain a unique method of becoming conscious of repressed traumatic memories. Although the benefits would owe more to Freud than to Hubbard, it is the unexplored method of the latter which some propose for more research (i.e., analyst directed therapy using techniques such as the flash-answer, directing the somatic strip, the repeater technique, and use of reverie)."

https://dianeticsresearch.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/example-post/

CWatchman (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 


The California Dianetics Association of Dianetics Auditors is the oldest Independent Dianetics organization in existence. It pre-dates even Scientology. Their web site is http://ca-da.org/whoweare/whoweare.html

In another Wiki article on Dianetics I found the following information:

Synergetics is a self-help system developed by Art Coulter in 1954.[17] American businessman, Don A.Purcell (Junior), founded an early Dianetics organization which had a tentative claim on the Dianetics trademark, joined Synergetics and allegedly returned the Dianetics and HASI trademarks ownership to Hubbard when Hubbard was forced by Purcell's Lawyers to close the failed Wichita Dianetics Foundation in a civil legal dispute over unpaid organisational bills and lawyers fees was settled 'out of court' amicably in 1954 in the US.[18] In 1976, Coulter published Synergetics: An Adventure in Human Development; he later founded the Synergetic Society, which published a journal through 1996.[19]

Idenics is a personal counseling method not affiliated with any religion, that was developed by John Galusha beginning in 1987. Mr. Galusha researched for L. Ron Hubbard during the 1950s, and was one of the founders of the first Church of Scientology in 1953.[20][21][22] Galusha claimed that all personal issues can be addressed by thoroughly looking over the problem at hand, without judgment. The counselor asks a series of questions until the solution is considered found, by the client. Mike Goldstein, the owner of Idenics methodology and author of the book, "Idenics, an alternative to therapy", claims that the method is as effective over the telephone as in person.

(Wiki article)

CWatchman (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Where did the first part come from? You say this was from "an online independent source" but don't say what that source is, or where you found it. Much of this is identical to wording from Wikipedia articles, such as this one, or Abreaction. We cannot use sources derived from Wikipedia, as this creates circular references. Therefore, wherever this came from, it is unlikely to be reliable.
I will also remind you that copy/pasting information without clear attribution is a potential copyright violation. Please provide a link to the page as a bare minimum. A Google search for distinctive text strings finds nothing. At the very least, as a basic courtesy to others, do not force us hunt for this. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The latter part was from Free Zone (Scientology)#Alternative auditing practices. That article is not about Dianetics, it is about Scientology, specifically, those who follow Scientology outside of the Church of Scientology. Since we cannot use Wikipedia as a source for other Wikipedia articles, we must look at the article's sources. Those sources do not appear to me to be reliable. The one possible exception is this page from Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky. This mentions Synergetics only in passing, and describes it as a "derivative" of Dianetics, but offers no other details. This offers very little to work with for this article.
If Synergetics and Idenics are closely related to Dianetics, we will still need a reliable source to explain the relationship for us.
The website for the The California Dianetics Association of Dianetics Auditors doesn't appear to be a reliable source either. It is also not an independent source for the topic of Dianetics. It is independent of the Church of Scientology, but that's not the important part for Wikipedia's purposes. The website seems to have been completely inactive since 2014, and lists "upcoming events" scheduled for May 2004. If there are any sources which provide outside info about this group, or even demonstrate that it still exists, please present them. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the first is an unreliable source and that the second is from Wikipedia. I am not suggesting we use these as sources, I simply posted them because of the content. It is quite interesting. I recognize most of the information they quote from a book I have read, perhaps written by Atack. I am searching for the source.

The first source seems to be an unfinished stub. There are no references added yet and the site doesn't appear to have actually set up properly. I actually forgot to include the link because it seemed insignificant at this point. It appears to be an unfinished blog. It is found here https://dianeticsresearch.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/example-post/

Again, I am not suggesting them as sources but just as containing some interesting excerpts. But I do recognize the information and suggest we track down the sources.

As for the California Dianetics Association of Dianetics Auditors, it is a very well known group which has been around a long time. I have heard a lot about them, I just haven't tried to find sources.

There are many Dianetics only groups, but I just don't have time to dig into this. CWatchman (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

.

Here is an interesting video about the Free Zone (practitioners outside of the Church of Scientology): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEd6xycIJZ0 ).

CWatchman (talk)

  • Pseudoreligious bollocks outside the context of the pseudotreligion? OK, but I am pretty sure the cult demand that they own it, so anyone claiming to use it outside would seem to be in some trouble, no? Guy (help!) 16:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The CoS have rewritten and republished the literature and told members to burn the old literature. Many dropped out of the church and are using the old, original material. Those using Dianetics-Only claim none of the religious tenets of the church but the Free Zone includes both Dianetics and Scientology. This is how I understand it. CWatchman (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

Change the title of the book Norman Vincent Peale is cited as writing fro, The Art of Happiness to The Power of Positive Thinking [7] BColbyHamilton (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The source refers "Norman Vincent Peale's True Art of Happiness", so I changed the article to reflect that. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow 2607:9880:3617:FF3B:11EE:8E6C:4731:301 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

exactly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC89:FE:E49F:1:0:2885:D9AD (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no commonality between Dianetics & Scientology and Nation of Islam beliefs or practices. However, several high-ranking outspoken Nation of Islam individuals seem to have gotten themselves caught up in Dianetics and Scientology and they are spreading it through their ranks. See also Louis Farrakhan § Dianetics, Tony Muhammad § Scientology, and Nation of Islam Pushes White-Dominated Scientology. Grorp (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dianetics/Archive_13&oldid=1170917297"