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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scientology C‑class High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spidern added a reference[2] 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)[reply]