Revision as of 03:38, 2 December 2008 editSpidern (talk | contribs)3,835 edits →THE PERFECT MATRIMONY← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:08, 20 April 2024 edit undoGrorp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,462 edits →Notes: new section | ||
(162 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = 13 | |counter = 13 | ||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(90d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Dianetics/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Dianetics/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{talkheader}} | |||
{{controversial}} | {{controversial}} | ||
{{ArticleHistory | {{ArticleHistory |collapse=yes | ||
|action1=PR | |action1=PR | ||
|action1date= January 19, 2006 | |action1date= January 19, 2006 | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
|action3link= Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Dianetics/1 | |action3link= Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Dianetics/1 | ||
|action3result= delisted | |action3result= delisted | ||
|action3oldid= 227195165 | |action3oldid= 227195165 | ||
| | | | ||
Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
|topic=Philrelig | |topic=Philrelig | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Scientology|importance=High}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
⚫ | <div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color: |
||
⚫ | __TOC__ | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | <div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:#ecfcf4; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;"> | ||
⚫ | ==Please read before starting== | ||
⚫ | <!-- Please leave, do not archive --> | ||
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Dianetics article. | Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Dianetics article. | ||
Line 55: | Line 60: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
== Martin Gumpert - question / edit request == | |||
⚫ | __TOC__ | ||
Martin Gumpert, a physician, is quoted in the final paragraph of the section Scintifific Rejection. Is this the same ]? If so could I suggest a link? ] (]) 12:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
== "Jargon"? == | |||
:Ahem. Section is Scientific Rejection. ‘Scuse my bad typing ] (]) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
I am writing this to explain why I reverted , posted with the edit summary "rm unencyclopedice {{sic}} ]". These were the changes made in that edit: | |||
:: {{done}}. Yes, thank you for noticing. I have fixed it. ] (]) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
{| border="1" align="center" width="60%" | |||
:::Thanks! (Travelling in France at the moment so different IP but I made original request). ] (]) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
! Old !! New | |||
|- | |||
| ... traumatic ''cellular'' recordings ... || ... traumatic recordings ... | |||
|- | |||
| ... called "]s" ... || ... called ] ... | |||
|- | |||
| ... the "]." || ... the ]. | |||
|- | |||
| ... erase the engrams in the ] ''and refile them as data in the analytical mind'' to achieve ... || ... erase the engrams in the ] to achieve ... | |||
⚫ | |||
== Time to remove the template? == | |||
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 ] 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. | |||
It was added in 5 April 2010 by a since-banned user. --] (]) 01:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
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, ) would claim that they were removing jargon when the jargon is still there, still unexplained. | |||
: I concur that it originated from Cirt (despite the re-dating in 2018). His talk page post at {{Section link|Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13|Primary sources}} doesn't give much to go on. The article could use some work, but those tags are definitely stale. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 02:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
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". | |||
::Regardless of why it was originally placed, ] 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 ]. The section should still mainly summarize reliable ] with primary sources used sparing and to clarify specific points of confusion. I would also suggest cutting ] as well. ] (]) 03:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
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. -- ] (]) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
::: Please clarify what you mean by {{tq|suggest cutting Lewis as well}}. I see only one Lewis citation. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 04:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Inappropriate categories: ] and ] == | |||
::::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. ] (]) 05:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
* From ]: '''Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently.''' (emphasis added) | |||
Both of these categories ] and ] are inappropriate. Dianetics is neither a "psychiatric treatment" nor "alternative medicine". ''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 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". ''']''' (]) 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 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.:) ] ] 15:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
As the header of this subsection states, neither ] ''nor'' ] 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. ''']''' (]) 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. ] ] 00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Debating about possible subcats is a good idea, I just don't think "Alternative psychiatric treatments" is appropriate. ''']''' (]) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
: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. --] (]) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== THE PERFECT MATRIMONY == | |||
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. ] (]) 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
I will take a stab at it. (in progress...) <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 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. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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. ]<font color="green">]</font>] 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Notes == | |||
Notes from my work. | |||
* The Nation of Islam part doesn't belong in the lead. Putting the references here for the moment.<ref>{{multiref2 |1={{cite news|title=The Mothership of All Alliances |first=Eliza|last=Gray|url=http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/108205/scientology-joins-forces-with-nation-of-islam|newspaper=]|date=October 5, 2012|access-date=November 19, 2012}} |2={{cite news|title=Louis Farrakhan renews call for self-determination among Nation of Islam followers|first1=Shelley|last1=Rossetter|first2=Thomas C.|last2=Tobin|url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781|newspaper=]|date=October 18, 2012|access-date=November 19, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105093720/http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/louis-farrakhan-renews-call-for-self-determination-among-nation-of-islam/1128781|archive-date=November 5, 2012|df=dmy-all}} |3={{cite web|title=Nation of Islam Auditors graduation held for third Saviours' Day in a row|first=Asahed|last=Mohammed|url=http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_9651.shtml|publisher=Final Call|date=February 28, 2013|access-date=April 22, 2013}} }}</ref> Along the way, I noticed NOI is also mentioned in these sources:{{r|reitman|p=359}}{{r|urban|p=253n8}} | |||
* Removed several items from 'further reading' that were also used as citations. | |||
* Enhanced some references (URLs, ISBNs, OLs, etc.). | |||
* Swapped out (tertiary) source "Philosophers and Religious Leaders". | |||
* Swapped out Hubbard/CofS sources wherever I could. | |||
* Removed a bunch of junk. | |||
* Did ''some'' verification along the way, though a few sources I had no access to. | |||
<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]</span> 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Sources-talk|refs= | |||
<ref name="reitman">{{cite book |last=Reitman |first=Janet |author-link=Janet Reitman |title=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |title-link=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |date=2011 |isbn=9780618883028 |ol=24881847M |publisher=] }}</ref> | |||
<ref name="urban">{{cite book|last=Urban|first=Hugh B. |author-link=Hugh Urban |title=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |title-link=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |publisher=] |year=2011 |isbn=9780691146089}}</ref> | |||
⚫ | }} |
Latest revision as of 08:08, 20 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dianetics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Dianetics was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please read before starting
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Dianetics article.
Newcomers to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)
- Done. 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)
- Done. Yes, thank you for noticing. I have fixed it. Grorp (talk) 00:48, 12 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 Talk:Dianetics/Archive 13 § Primary sources doesn't give much to go on. The article could use some work, but those tags are definitely stale. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of why it was originally placed, Dianetics#Concepts specifically is still pretty bad. Hubbard was extremely prolific, and his church's history is extremely convoluted, so any attempt to summarize Dianetics based mainly on his own writing is guaranteed end up being WP:OR. The section should still mainly summarize reliable WP:IS with primary sources used sparing and to clarify specific points of confusion. I would also suggest cutting Lewis as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please clarify what you mean by
- 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)
Notes
Notes from my work.
- The Nation of Islam part doesn't belong in the lead. Putting the references here for the moment. Along the way, I noticed NOI is also mentioned in these sources:
- Removed several items from 'further reading' that were also used as citations.
- Enhanced some references (URLs, ISBNs, OLs, etc.).
- Swapped out (tertiary) source "Philosophers and Religious Leaders".
- Swapped out Hubbard/CofS sources wherever I could.
- Removed a bunch of junk.
- Did some verification along the way, though a few sources I had no access to.
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources |
---|
|
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class Alternative medicine articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Scientology articles
- High-importance Scientology articles
- WikiProject Scientology articles