Talk:Dianetics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Dianetics has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 This article has an assessment summary page. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Dianetics article.
Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Dianetics in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Dianetics is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy WP:NPOV, while WP:NOR and WP:V require equal attention. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are reasoning behind NPOV, the neutral point of view, NPOV: Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", How to deal with Theories. The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).
Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).
This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Dianetics. See WP:NOT.
On the other hand, this talk page serves the purpose of discussion, toward arriving at consensus of viewpoints of editors as spelled out at WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.
 Archives |
|||||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
