Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13

message: 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)
replies: text: Nah, the arbcom thing is dead news. heh. Terryeo 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Brainscams 

message: 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:
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as ""
:* HeadleyDown editing as "".
:* Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.
:* Finally, "" 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)
thread_title:  General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crank magnet articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: makes sense to me, heh ! Terryeo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical and science claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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". 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (In comparison, 64 publications, 1937-1940, mainly Adventure and Westerns. His peak year was 1936 with 48. AndroidCat 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV overarching descriptives 

message: 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).
: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Facts Of Dianteics. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self Help Guide 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  in the interest of fairness once again 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My opinion: this doesn't belong here. This is well covered where appropriate. Raymond Hill 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So the Purification Rundown and Grade 0 etc are "Dianetics"? Not that I know. COFS 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say that? Raymond Hill 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, something like this. "waxbag" confuses historical sequence with what is happening in real life. COFS 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Make it my point then. Raymond Hill 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heading Dispute 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  more vandalism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Second Sentance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Beware of Scientologist sockpuppets 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Add to category 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black Dianetics? 

message: It appears that  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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate usage of primary sources in this article? 

message: I am writing this to explain why I reverted this edit, posted with the edit summary "rm unencyclopedice  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)
thread_title:  "Jargon"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate categories: [[:Category:Psychiatric treatments]] and [[:Category:Alternative medicine]] 

message: Spidern added a reference 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)
replies: text: I did not add the reference. I simply moved the text as cited up  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  THE PERFECT MATRIMONY 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to hypnosis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  scientology 

message: The following article:
*
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)
thread_title:  Ref for this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What the hell is Dianetics? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Describing L.. Ron Hubbard 

message: 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)
thread_title:  scientology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black Dianetics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  possibly meaningless statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dianetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150622131025/http://www.smi.org/route/page06.htm to http://www.smi.org/route/page06.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509055558/http://www.dianetics.org:80/en_US/info/01/pg003.html to http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/info/01/pg003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , you reverted my edit 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Self-help book"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  reincarnation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Campbell 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204155459/http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/ to http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/articles/terra/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010414032602/http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/essays/engrams.html to http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/essays/engrams.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://anonireland.com/content/wppdfcontent/books/messiahormadmen.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413195909/http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg005.html to http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223041313/http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/8-4-sih.pdf to http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/8-4-sih.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105093720/http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312004725/http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/creation.htm?FACTNet to http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/creation.htm?FACTNet
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428234523/http://www.scientology.ie/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/gloss.htm to http://www.scientology.ie/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/gloss.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030226223940/http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/dianetics-auditing-steps.html to http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/dianetics-auditing-steps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Marking this closed as more or less  (as of now).  Further disagreement should probably be discussed anyway.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Lede

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Change the title of the book Norman Vincent Peale is cited as writing fro, The Art of Happiness to The Power of Positive Thinking  BColbyHamilton (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020 

message: Wow 2607:9880:3617:FF3B:11EE:8E6C:4731:301 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: exactly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FC89:FE:E49F:1:0:2885:D9AD (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Since when Islam is related to Scientologists ?