Talk:Dianetics

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 &mdash; 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, Neutral_point_of_view, 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.

Martin Gumpert - question / edit request
Martin Gumpert, a physician, is quoted in the final paragraph of the section Scintifific Rejection. Is this the same Martin Gumpert? If so could I suggest a link? 2.14.10.86 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Section is Scientific Rejection. ‘Scuse my bad typing 2.14.10.86 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Yes, thank you for noticing. I have fixed it. Grorp (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Travelling in France at the moment so different IP but I made original request). 185.113.50.43 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Time to remove the template?
It was added in 5 April 2010 by a since-banned user. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I concur that it originated from Cirt (despite the re-dating in 2018). His talk page post at doesn't give much to go on. The article could use some work, but those tags are definitely stale.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Regardless of why it was originally placed, Dianetics specifically is still pretty bad. Hubbard was extremely prolific, and his church's history is extremely convoluted, so any attempt to summarize Dianetics based mainly on his own writing is guaranteed end up being WP:OR. The section should still mainly summarize reliable WP:IS with primary sources used sparing and to clarify specific points of confusion. I would also suggest cutting Lewis as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what you mean by suggest cutting Lewis as well. I see only one Lewis citation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  04:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment was too vague. To put it another way, I think some sections should be rewritten to focus more on reliable, independent sources. I understand this wouldn't be a simple undertaking.
 * Whether or not Lewis is reliable/independent is debatable, but my suggestions would be to just remove it as a source completely. It seems easier to figure that kind of thing out sooner rather than later if the article is rewritten. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * From WP:WTRMT: Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. (emphasis added)


 * I say we simple delete anything that is only supported by original research or excessive primary sources and remove the tag. If this reduces the article to a stub, so be it. We can always add to it whenever we have proper sourcing for the addition. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I will take a stab at it. (in progress...)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) In my first pass through the article, I got to the end of the "Concepts" section. Will continue another day. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)