Talk:Scientology/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Number of recruits

The cited source for an estimate of numbers is Bigliardi 2016. Bigliardi does not, in fact, make his own estimate. He merely refers to other sources that made estimates about numbers, Trinity College (ARIS) and The Underground Bunker. For ARIS he cites Urban 2011; he cites Ortega directly. Urban has only one sentence with a claim with actual numbers in:

Thus, the American Religious Identification Survey found that Scientology’s numbers in the United States were not only nowhere near the level claimed by the church but also that its numbers had fallen significantly from fifty-five thousand in 2001 to twenty-five thousand in 2008.

The article he cites by Ortega says:

In 2011, we gave detailed reasons why we estimated worldwide membership at 40,000. The same experts we relied on then believe the organization has continued to shrink, and we would estimate current active membership at around 30,000, planetwide.

So, there is no "2016 scholarly estimates" - that's a complete fiction. There's one 2016 article in a low-to-mid-ranked journal which refers to estimates made by others in 2008, 2011, and 2014. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Question for User:ModernDaySlavery

@ModernDaySlavery: What problem are you trying to solve by adding "by experts" at the end of the second sentence? Each 'label' is described in more detail in the first section "Definition and classification" and even more discussed in its subsection "Debates over classification". Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Could you further explain your thinking about why you consider "by experts" an important addition?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@ModernDaySlavery: Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you should try to discuss this here until a consensus is reached, not lay out your arguments in edit summaries while reverting.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"Scam"

Apologies if I've missed anything, but is anyone able to point to any of the given (academic) references that support the "scam" label for Scientology? I've had trouble accessing a few, but none of the given references I've been able to check contain this term. Cult, business, religion, sect, "scheme" and "racket" – but not "scam". GhostOfNoMan 22:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Google led me to "Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?" by James Lewis. I've added it to the article. Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I've also added it to the list in the lead. GhostOfNoMan 09:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, Behar 1991 – the first citation – and Beit-Hallahmi 2003, both of which are cited immediately following that sentence, use either that word or an exact synonym of it. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The first, an article in Time magazine, doesn't describe Scientology as a scam; rather, it accuses the group's members of engaging in financial scams, which is quite different. But you're right – that one does at least contain the word "scam", contrary to what I said. (I wasn't able to access the full text of Beit-Hallahmi 2003, I only noted "racket" in the abstract.) I'll see if I can find further references. GhostOfNoMan 09:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Beit-Hallahmi is perfect actually, now that I've been able to read the full text. I thought "racket" was a mention in passing, going by the abstract, but it's actually the exact sort of reference I hadn't been able to locate. Clearly supports the "scam" label. My fault for not digging further initially. Thanks. GhostOfNoMan 09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@GhostOfNoMan: You should try to get access to WP:The Wikipedia Library because most of these academic/scholar papers are available through there. It's a great resource.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll check that out – thank you! GhostOfNoMan 04:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality of point of view

Most of this article leans towards Scientology being a cult/scam when it should be written from a neutral point of view. See: WP:NPOV BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! How could this article be improved? in specifics supported by sources? Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I read this the same way. Drsruli (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If you read the policy you linked, it states:

"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

Reliable sources are almost uniformly negative in their assessment of Scientology, so it would be difficult to make the article more favorable towards Scientology than it already is without violating WP:NPOV. 2600:1007:B0AB:7B3A:0:32:8313:D801 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1007:B0AB:7B3A:0:32:8313:D801 oh. Sorry, I was wrong. BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Statement about secrecy in beliefs and practices section

The point right before citation 120 says:

"Much basic information about the Scientology belief system is kept secret from most practitioners."

This is straight-up untrue. While some things are hidden unless you pay for it, all of their churches have a library which contains most of their books, and you can look at them for free. BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The claim is now attributed directly to the quoted scholars rather than stated as fact. Inclusion of the free libraries would be an improvement but it'd require a reliable source. Feoffer (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The statement is reported as fact by three expert academics published by two of the most highly-regarded university presses. Are there secondary reliable sources of a similar calibre that dispute this statement about information being kept secret? In the absence of scholarly sources disputing this, a neutral framing avoids stating as opinion material that the most reliable sources give as fact. Urban devotes an entire chapter of his book on religion and secrecy to Scientology. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2025

There is a comma that needs to be a period. “ …to such independent Scientologists as "squirrels", In…” Ctchristensen11 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Notable members?

Is there any chance for the above mentioned section to be added? 188.33.46.2 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

1 billion year contract

there should be a section about sea org the sector of scientology and a section about the billion year contract you sign if you join Jaypet12 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is covered.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoice

The history section reads "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics..."

I know that a good number of WP:RELIABLE sources rightly classify Hubbard's ideas as psuedoscience but to call it so in wikivoice seems a tad non-neutral. Personally I have no problem with it being labeled that way nor do I like Scientology, but I'm curious as to what others think about this.

Any guideline or policy I should know about? Thank you! Kvinnen (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You answer your own question: the most reliable sources available - namely scholarship - consistently and commonly characterise it as pseudoscience. In a situation such as this, where a term is used widely by the best sources, avoiding using the same term for unspecified reasons would fail to maintain a neutral point of view. The aim is neutral representation of the secondary sources; it's not "avoid anything that may be regarded by some as negative". Cambial — foliar❧ 17:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. Every rule can be misapplied of course, but, thanks for your clarification. Kvinnen (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the current framing of the sentence is problematic. An earlier version — “Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950” — is more neutral and better suited to Wikipedia’s encyclopedic tone. The revised sentence, which states that Hubbard sought to “promote his pseudoscientific ideas,” goes beyond describing the subject and instead attributes motive and judgment in Wikipedia’s voice. That’s a subtle but important distinction.

While it’s true that many reliable sources characterize Dianetics as pseudoscience, it’s also true that others frame it as part of a belief system or religious movement. Wikipedia’s goal is to reflect the range of views presented in high-quality secondary sources, not to editorialize or imply intent. Saying Hubbard promoted “his pseudoscientific ideas” risks suggesting he knowingly advanced falsehoods, which we cannot substantiate.

A better approach might be to retain the neutral structure and introduce the scholarly characterization in a separate clause or sentence — for example: “Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system that has been widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific.” This preserves neutrality while still representing the dominant academic view.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That suggestion does not accord with WP:PROFRINGE nor WP:VOICE. The scholarship treats dianetics as pseudoscience as an established fact. We don't therefore try to frame it as opinion. As extremely fringe ideas, it's appropriate to indicate their fringe position as pseudoscientific, as established by RS. There aren't reliable secondary sources that dispute that dianetics is pseudoscience. Sources positioning it as part of a religious practice, or as part of a scam, are not relevant: being pseudoscience and part of a religion are not mutually exclusive.Cambial — foliar❧ 21:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand the relevance of WP:PROFRINGE and WP:VOICE, and I agree that reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize Dianetics as pseudoscience. That said, I still believe the current sentence oversteps by embedding that judgment directly into Hubbard's intent — i.e., that he set out to promote "his pseudoscientific ideas". That phrasing risks violating WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by assigning a scholarly conclusion to Hubbard's motivations, rather than describing the subject and then attributing the scholarly consensus.

A more neutral construction would be: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."

This preserves the weight of reliable sources while avoiding editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. It also allows space for the broader context — including its religious framing — without conflating belief systems with scientific legitimacy.

I'm not suggesting we downplay the pseudoscience label, only that we apply it with precision and proper attribution. That's how we maintain neutrality, especially on contentious topics.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You say you understand the relevance of WP:VOICE. But you've not addressed the fact that your proposed text breaches one of its key principles: Avoid stating facts as opinions.

You write that the wording indicates Hubbard set out to promote his pseudoscientific ideas. I agree. Hubbard did set out to promote his pseudoscientific ideas, so that's appropriate. Whether he lacked the intellect to distinguish those pseudoscientific ideas from science (given his academic record this seems the more likely), or knew his ideas were nonsense but saw an opportunity to make money, is immaterial. Either way he set out to promote pseudoscientific ideas, presenting them as science even though they are not. Deluded/stupid/greedy/evil: it doesn't make any difference to the fact Hubbard set out to promote pseudoscience. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

All things being equal, best to source the attribution. It's difficult to imagine that Hubbard fully regarded his own ideas as pseudoscientific -- it's a distinction that simply did not exist in his era; psychiatrists of his day were literally doing studies on astrology and calling it science. Talk therapy for birth trauma was still semi-mainstream in the psychiatry of the 1940s. Feoffer (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point, Feoffer.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Cambial, I want to clarify that I'm not disputing the scholarly consensus that Dianetics is pseudoscientific — that's well-supported and should absolutely be reflected in the article. My concern is with how that characterization is currently embedded in the sentence: "Hubbard promoted his pseudoscientific ideas." This phrasing assigns motive and judgment in Wikipedia's voice, which risks violating WP:VOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

We can't assert that Hubbard knowingly promoted pseudoscience, regardless of whether we believe he was deluded or deceptive. That's speculation, not verifiable fact. A more neutral phrasing — such as "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific" — still reflects the academic consensus while maintaining encyclopedic tone and proper attribution.

I understand that pseudoscience and religion aren't mutually exclusive, and I agree that WP:PROFRINGE supports identifying fringe ideas. But our job is to represent reliable sources with precision, not editorialize or speculate about a subject's character. Sources that discuss Dianetics as part of a religious framework are relevant to the broader context and shouldn't be dismissed outright.

Given the disagreement here and the strong views involved, I think it would be helpful to open a Request for Comment (RFC) to get broader input. I will post an RFC on the matter.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

So far in agreement with you. Kvinnen (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: is the statement "Hubbard promoted his pseudoscientific ideas" the same as "Hubbard knowingly promoted pseudoscience"? It seems to me that the first asserts that Hubbard promoted Dianetics and that Dianetics is pseudoscience while the second asserts that Hubbard promoted Dianetics and that Dianetics is pseudoscience and that Hubbard knew that Dianetics is pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yes. That is the reason for the RFC... the 'knowingly' part.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem. It seems that you read "Hubbard promoted his pseudoscientific ideas" as including "knowingly" while I read the exact same words and see no implication that he knew it was pseudoscience. If only there was an RfC somewhere where we could see how other people read that sentence... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is no implication of "knowingly" in the current sentence. But suppose that there were. There are several solutions to such an issue that do not involve framing pseudoscientific bullshit as “regarded by scholars as bullshit”. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Word change in lead

"rejected as nonsense by the scientific community"

In this sentence, I replaced the word "nonsense" with "baseless". By opting for a word that preserves [[WP:TONE], I'm not changing the meaning or the spirit of the sentence. Edit summaries like "better" and claiming that this word-change is not adherent to reliable sources is simply preposterous. @Cambial Yellowing @Roxy the dog - Kvinnen 🌙 13:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussions about how you should sign a post belong on the user's talk page, not an article talk page. Feel free to start a new discussion that only covers the contents of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please explain why you sign your posts on two newlines. Do it like this please. Thanks - Walter Ego 13:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not mean for that to happen. Also, is there anything wrong with signing the way I did? Kvinnen 🌙 13:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed yes. It looks awful, and it banjaxes page presentation. Why have you changed your signing method? - Walter Ego 13:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, that was not intentional. Kvinnen 🌙 14:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

For someone with a problem with signatures, I must say that yours is surely confusing. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Kvinnen 🌙 14:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at your link, but your point is too obtuse for me. - Walter Ego 14:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to assist you.

"A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users". Kvinnen 🌙 14:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you confused? Do you claim my sig is unsuitable? Be clear and explain what is wrong with it please. I note that there are two links as required, to my User and Talk pages, unlike your own? - Walter Ego 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see your TP. I do not think this is an appropriate forum to discuss a concern that is particular to you. Kvinnen 🌙 14:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You changed the meaning, because "baseless" and "nonsense" mean different things. Sorry to hear you perceive Walter's and my edit summaries as preposterous. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I changed it because, "nonsense" does not go with the formal encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia prefers. Kvinnen 🌙 14:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does. Nonsense is a non-slang word that is used in formal contexts in English. Who did you accept an apology from? I expressed sympathy for your situation, one that neither Walter nor I can do anything about. I hope you find a solution. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Cambial, thank you for your sympathy. May G-d bless you. Kvinnen 🌙 14:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hardly an expression of sympathy, Cambial. That was classic dismissiveness with a side of sarcasm. And of course you want your comments visible. Facepalm   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I met Kvinnen's dismissive "your edit summaries are preposterous" with a response of a similar tenor. And yes, comments that are on-topic should remain visible on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Placement of the "transnational corporation" sentence

I noticed that the "transnational corporation" content was moved in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=next&oldid=1324378377

This material seems to fit better under the subheading "Debates over classification," where it is alongside other content about marketing and finances. In contrast, the lead paragraph of "Definition and classification" is intended to introduce the scope and breadth of classification, so placing the sentence there feels out of context.

Would others agree that it makes more sense to keep this content in the "Debates over classification" section?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In fact, that edit restored the long-standing status quo, as you know. Hugh Urban's and Stephen Kent's similar but differently nuanced descriptions both seek to summarise the multifaceted nature of the article subject. You’ve not articulated a clear reason why you want to move one but not the other. Your reasoning to move Kent is very weak. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Order of characterization words

A recent edit changed the order of the characterization words in the second sentence of the article to: a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam. The edit summary suggested that alphabetical order is "simple and neutral," but this seems inconsistent with both the article itself and MOS:LEAD. For example, "scam" was already in the last position (so the mention was moot), and a later passage in the article is not alphabetized either: "Debate as to whether Scientology should be regarded as a cult, a business, a scam, or a religion has continued over many years."

I think the prior order works better—a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam—for two reasons:

1. It pairs "religion vs. cult" and "business vs. scam," which creates clearer conceptual contrasts for the reader.
2. The article body introduces Scientology concepts first (Is it a religion?) before discussing the Church of Scientology (Is it a business?), so mentioning religion/cult before business/scam in the lead reflects that structure.

Alphabetical order doesn’t add neutrality here, and may reduce readability and understanding.

Feedback would be appreciated on whether "a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam" is the clearer arrangement.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In fact, that edit restored the long-standing status quo, as you know. I sort of understand what you’re going for with the contrast, but one could equally contrast “business, or religion,” for example. The contrast you propose is not a strong one. If going with your schema, why not put business, scam, cult, or religion, other than your desire to put religion first? Editors have also sought to put ‘scam’ first, presumably according to their view. Alphabetical order is neutral, unlike your proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Grorp's No. 1 is precisely the reason why I chose that order in my reverted edit; their point No. 2 is also reasonable but didn't occur to me. Alphabetical order doesn't make much sense to me: this is not a long bulleted list but a short four-item descriptive phrase. Ordering it alphabetically would be as arbitrary as ordering it by word length or number of syllables... Yes, the rationale could be neutrality but that's not obvious - it could also be a choice not to start with the contentious "religion", which would be understandable but, alas, not neutral.

In fact, the vast majority of academic sources criticise Scientology vigorously, yet still consider it to be a new religious movement. Even staunch critics of Scientology's characterisation as a religion, such as Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, openly admit that the scientific consensus lies elsewhere. Entries on Scientology can be found in virtually every encyclopaedia of religion, and most encyclopaedias, as well as English dictionaries, define it as a (new) religion, a religious system, or similar. I will share an analysis of sources on this topic later.

Therefore, my preferred text would be something along the lines of:

Scientology is a new religious movement created by L. Ron Hubbard. Critics have described it as a cult, a business and a scam.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresent Beit-Hallahmi’s view, so egregiously that it is difficult to understand how you did so accidentally. Beit-Hallahmi is an academic, so he understands, as do other scholars and observers generally, that there is no "scientific consensus", a term of your own invention as regards this topic. The reason being that this is not a scientific question. The closest thing to a scientific consensus would be in relation to Dianetics, and the consensus is that it’s a pseudoscience worthy of ridicule. What Beit-Hallahmi says in reality is

The first, espoused by most NRM scholars, as well as some legal and administrative decisions, asserts that Scientology is a religion, perhaps misunderstood and innovative, but a religion nevertheless, thus worthy of our scholarly attention. The second, found in most media reports, some government documents in various countries, and many legal and administrative decisions, states that Scientology is a business, often given to criminal acts, and sometimes masquerading as a religion. [emphasis mine]

Please don’t misrepresent the content of sources to try to buttress your argument.

We don’t privilege the view of a minority of sociologists in the NRM area. Beit-Hallahmi's view is accurate, whereas your opinion about the vast majority holds only if you restrict the academic views to a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's quite disappointing that apparently you haven't read the source you accuse me of misrepresenting. Beit-Hallahmi explicitly and unreservedly acknowledges the existence of a scientific consensus among NRM scholars. By the way, NRM is not "a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology", as you believe, but is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses religious studies, anthropology, psychology, law and political science; if you are interested in the subject, you could start by reading our Academic study of new religious movements. In his book, Beit-Hallahmi mentions an ironclad consensus within the NRM network, which he describes as leading to advocacy and collaboration with the cults. "Consensus" and "collaborationism" are actually the main subjects of the book, as you will see from skimming the index. It is revealing that the book has been denounced as an exercise in conspiracy theory by Stuart A. Wright due to its harsh criticism of the NRM academic community (Wright 2025). As for Scientology specifically, you can read the lengthy tirade against the group of NRM scholars researching the subject - the clear skew, superficiality, or selectivity, in the way Scientology has been looked at by NRM scholars - from page 187 onwards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment. Luckily for him, Donald Westbrook is not a sociologist; he is an American scholar of religion, with an MA in theology and a BA in philosophy . In his 2019 book Among the Scientologists: History, Theology, and Praxis (Oxford University Press), he writes that Today, the academic study of Scientology falls most charitably under the study of new religions or new religious movements (NRMs). Since you've argued the opposite, and maintain that we should disregard NRM scholarship in favour (I guess) of the media reports, government documents and legal and administrative decisions mentioned by Beit-Hallahmi, do you have a source of comparable weight supporting your view? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you've argued the opposite, and maintain that we should disregard NRM scholarship. Where have I argued this? Nowhere. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame that you're disappointed. I thought that you were referring to the relevant Beit-Hallahmi text - i.e. the one that is cited in the sentence that this talk section is about. It's amazing you think I haven't read the source, given my previous post contains a sizeable quote from it. But I note you're talking about a different source, by the same author, that is not cited in the sentence this talk section is about, but appears only in part of the article body thirteen paragraphs later. My error was in assuming you were discussing the relevant source.

Beit-Hallahmi's later work, which I added to the article here and so can assure you I've read, does not, as you falsely imply, speak of an "ironclad consensus" with regard to the question of whether Scientology is a religion. The phrase "ironclad consensus" appears only in a different chapter of the book, that focuses on the higher education research network, and in which the word "Scientology" does not appear even once.

I must ask you again to please refrain from grossly misrepresenting the content of sources.

The single reference to a consensus in the chapter on Scientology in the book is that:

The scholarly literature contains specific discussions of the reasons for the conversion from secular psychotherapy to a religion (Bainbridge & Stark, 1980; Wallis, 1977). There seems to be a consensus on the secular reasons for this transformation: “The switch to a religion, however, can be regarded as a managerial decision, as it was better able to retain its ‘clientele’ and compete” (Passas & Castillo, 1992, p. 105). As Wallis (1977, 1982) shows, Hubbard used only one way of measuring his success: financial liquidity and solvency.

One naturally wonders whether you have read the source to which you refer, or merely "skimm[ed] the index", as you mention above.

Stuart Wright is criticised severely in the book, for his support and apologist work for a group responsible for two horrific terrorist attacks that murdered twenty people. His unserious review is a rather pathetic attempt at what he presumably sees as a justified counterattack on his part. It's rather embarrassing for the editors of that journal they failed to disclose the conflict of interest. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I was arguing about neutrality, and my point was that the opening paragraph fails WP:NPOV because it doesn't reflect the current scholarly consensus. To establish this consensus, Beit-Hallahmi 2025 is far more relevant than Beit-Hallahmi 2003, and he clearly presents his position as a minority view within the field of NRM studies.

You dismissed Stuart Wright's review as unserious and a pathetic attempt at ... counterattack, which suggests you are very invested in the subject and have a strong POV. But note that W. Michael Ashcraft also published a critical review of Beit-Hallahmi's book stating that Beit-Hallahmi is on a moral crusade, and has been for much of his academic career ... The anticult viewpoint, which Beit-Hallahmi reflects, without being wholly invested in it, has been edged out of mainstream scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences. W. Michael Ashcraft is Professor of Religion at Truman State University and he's not mentioned in Beit-Hallahmi's book. These are the only two academic reviews I've found. Our article cites Beit-Hallahmi 15 times and includes 3 verbatim quotations from his work. In doing so, it fails WP:BALANCE. Beit-Hallahmi's claim that Scientology is not a religion squarely fits the notion of "minority view" per WP:UNDUE: he is basically the only recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP still denying Scientology's religious nature.

There's nothing distinctly sociological in the idea that Scientology is a new religion. It is widely held and largely commonsensical, and is also reflected in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionary - both defining Scientology as a religious system. It doesn't imply any positive value judgement on the subject: sometimes religions (new and old) do very bad things to people and defend silly views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You believe that Beit-Hallahmi (2025) is far more relevant than Beit-Hallahmi (2003). You give no reason why you believe this. There's been no drastic change in the nature of the article subject in the last twenty years. If you think there has been, please quote the sources that indicate such a change that leads you to that view. This is not a fast-evolving (barely a slow-evolving) article subject.

You claim "he clearly presents his position as a minority view within the field of NRM studies". Again, stop grossly mispresenting sources. Beit-Hallahmi is a psychologist. He is not in the field of NRM studies. He does not position his view as a minority within the field, because he does not position his observations within the field at all. Indeed, he positions his view as a complete outsider to NRM studies writing from a different discipline with a different perspective. He writes that most NRM studies academics view Scientology as religion. I quote the part above where he does this - in his 2003, not 2025 work - in my first reply to you. There's no doubt that the majority view from NRM studies academics is that Scientology is a religion. NRM studies academics are not the dominant majority in academia. They are a miniscule subset.

You write, which suggests you are very invested in the subject and have a strong POV. It suggests nothing of the sort. It's a prosaic observation that when an academic's judgement, integrity and professional ethics are brought into serious question by a work, a review of the work by that same academic is questionable at best.

You write He is basically the only recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP still denying Scientology's religious nature. This is complete rubbish. There's no reason to disregard the scholarship and journalism sources of the 30 years prior to 2020 and instead only look at the output of those within the NRM studies field from the last decade. I can see why someone might argue to do that, but it has nothing to do with writing an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

the view of a minority of sociologists in the NRM area. It's really not a minority view -- Scientology is a religion. Regardless of whether one believes it good or bad, worthy of tax exemption or not. Cult, Business and Scam it certainly may be, but it's definitely religion. That said, I do prefer the the Grorp's wording for reasons he stated. Feoffer (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Feoffer, I should have punctuated that sentence better. It should have read "We don’t privilege the view of a minority of sociologists: [those] in the NRM area". By which I mean it is the view of that minority of sociologists that focus on NRMs. Amongst that group, the view it is a religion is certainly the dominant view. There are numerous other disciplines that have tackled the topic of Scientology, including psychologists, cultural theorists and others. It is not the dominant view that Scientology is a religion amongst those other groups. I addressed this issue here. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. Feoffer (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we're getting caught up in debating which scholar has more clout than the others, but the core issue here is simpler: which of the four descriptors should appear first in this lead sentence of an article that averages over 4,000 views per day while considering readability and easing readers into a topic (per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY), such as applying top‑down summarizing throughout the many levels of this complex subject.

Per WP:LEAD and WP:DUE, the lead should reflect how reliable sources most commonly introduce Scientology. The question at this point in the content isn't whether it is a religion, business, cult, or scam, but rather: which of those terms do high‑quality sources use first when introducing the subject?

Major scholarly and journalistic sources typically start by mentioning Scientology is a religion or is described as a religion, before moving on to challenge or qualify that descriptor. Even if RSes go on to argue that it may not be solely or genuinely a religion, this same ordering should be mirrored in this article's lead, per WP:DUE.

There appears to be emerging consensus that 'religion' should be the first of the four descriptors. The next question is the order of the other three.

If it proves difficult to reach consensus here, one option would be to open a formal RfC so that a wider group of editors can weigh in. Another possibility is to consider whether this topic area should again be treated as a contentious topic, given the challenges in sustaining constructive discussion.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that sources that cover this issue start by mentioning that Scientology describes itself as a religion, before explaining the authors' analysis. The exception to that would be the NRM research network. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

But this is simply not true. Occasionally the sources say that Scientology self-describes as a religion, but mostly they say that it is a religion in their own voice. And there's no such thing as an NRM research network: NRM is a research field (the one most pertinent to this subject) to which scholars of various disciplinary backgrounds contribute. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Naw, sources say it's a religion. Kids are born into it, people live their lives in it, people believe it on their deathbeds. That it's profitable is besides the point -- The LDS Church has $100bn. It's definitely a religion, that's not a minority opinion from a subset of scholar. It's religion -- the intentions of the founder do not matter, and while it may have began as a con, sometime between 1951 and 1954, Hubbard definitely started "Eating his own dog food" and died a true believer. The attempt to "wall off" Scientology as some sort of fluke religion has been completely rejected; It's a religion, and the critiques that it was born out of financial interest actually extend to religions far more broadly than just Scientology. Feoffer (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Flat-earthers and holocaust deniers have kids and continue to believe their views on their deathbeds. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and the biblical literalists who insist the earth is flat? They really are religious.Feoffer (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Most published books written by critics start with the premise that Scientology is a religion, as witness their use in the title. This includes:

• Lamont, Stewart (1986). Religion Inc. : The Church of Scientology. Harrap. ISBN 0245543341. OL 2080316M.
• Malko, George (1970). Scientology: The Now Religion. Delacorte Press. OL 5444962M.
• Ortega, Tony; Cooper, Paulette (2018). Battlefield Scientology : Exposing L. Ron Hubbard's Dangerous "Religion". CreateSpace. ISBN 9781727131567. OL 26519438M.
• Reitman, Janet (2011). Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618883028. OL 24881847M.

If a religious scholar takes up the subject of Scientology, then they are either starting with the premise that it is a religion, or it calls itself one and that should be a matter to evaluate.

• Cusack, Carole M. "Leaving New Religions". In Enstedt, Daniel; Larsson, Göran; Mantsinen, Teemu T. (eds.). Handbook of Leaving Religion. pp. 231–241. doi:10.1163/9789004331471_020.
• Kent, Stephen A. (1999). "The Creation of "Religious" Scientology" (PDF). Religious Studies and Theology. 18 (2): 97–126. doi:10.1558/rsth.v18i2.97.
• Urban, Hugh B. (2011). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691146089.

This non-religious scholar does likewise:

• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (2003). "Scientology: Religion or racket?". Marburg Journal of Religion. 8 (1). doi:10.17192/mjr.2003.8.3724.

Even Lewis' book is filled with chapters by religious scholars, making the assumption that Scientology first fits into the religion category before supporting or refuting it.

• Lewis, James R., ed. (2009). Scientology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.001.0001. ISBN 9780199852321. OL 16943235M.

Then there's the name Church of Scientology by which the organization has presented itself as a church since the early 1950s, 70 years ago.

This report from 1979 was published 46 years ago by the then top media outlet of its day—in Clearwater, the land settlement location for Scientology. It is a compilation of numerous articles they first published in their paper, most which introduces Scientology as a new religion (perhaps 'new' suggests simply 'new to Clearwater'). They won a Pulitzer for this reporting.

• Stafford, Charles; Orsini, Bette (1979). "Scientology: An in-depth profile of a new force in Clearwater" (PDF). St Petersburg Times. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 9, 2007. "The 1980 Pulitzer Prize Winner in National Reporting". The Pulitzer Prizes.

The 1990 landmark investigation by the Los Angeles Times resulted in a sixteen-part series which supports the religion-first concept with headline titles such as:

• Defining the Theology
• Church Scriptures Get High-Tech Protection
• Church Markets Its Gospel With High-Pressure Sales
• Shoring Up Its Religious Profile
• When the Doctrine Leaves the Church

I'll leave it there for now. Across decades of coverage—from critical books to Pulitzer‑winning journalism and scholarly works—reliable sources consistently introduce Scientology first in religious terms before moving on to other descriptors. Per WP:DUE, that ordering should be reflected in the lead. If anyone believes "business" deserves to come first, the next step would be to demonstrate a substantial body of reliable sources that introduce Scientology in that way.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No, going by titles of works is not how we write an encyclopaedia. Hubbard spent the last decades of his life, after the swing to "the religion angle" circa 1960, seeking to market and publicise his works as a religion. Miscavige and co. continually reinforce in all of their public relations bumph that it's a religion. It's therefore perfectly natural that in responding to the topic that has been advertised for six decades as a religion, commentators start with that jump-off point. It's the characterisations and conclusions that reliable sources draw, not the titles they use, that matter. Authors inevitably and appropriately make comparisons to the marketing and advertising perspective of religion given by the Scientology corporation. That does not mean they define it the same way. This is even revealed by your silly list above: you include the journal article "Scientology: Religion or racket?" in which the author characterises the article subject as a confidence trick. But because he uses the word "religion" in the article title - because that's how Scientology presents itself to the world, and that's what the author disagrees with - you think that's a reason to privilege the characterisation "religion". That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on this talk page, against some stiff competition. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If all you gleaned from that was 'titles', then any counterpoint you make falls short of an argument.

I will remind you yet again to mind the civility policy. Comments like these violate WP:CIVIL: your silly list and That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read on this talk page, against some stiff competition.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You made "Most published books written by critics start with the premise that Scientology is a religion, as witness their use in the title" the premise for your argument. So yeah, I took you at your word. How the Scientology organisation advertises itself to potential marks or recruits – "it calls itself one" – is irrelevant. The fact that the word "religion" appears in a work's title does not mean the starting premise is that Scientology is a religion. That isn't a logical inference. You are welcome to make ridiculous arguments like that, but no, characterising the argument you make as ridiculous is not a personal attack. If you want to discuss that, the place is user talk, and not here. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you please try to be more WP:CIVIL when you're responding to other editor's comments? Repeatedly saying their comments are "ridiculous" isn't helpful. I will address this further on your talk page, as you suggested. By the way, I've also noticed that the lead uses the words "ridiculed/riducule" twice, both following your edits . This kind of language is not appropriate for the talk page or for an encyclopaedia.

No doubt Scientology has attracted extensive criticism, which we must cover, but Grorp's remark is spot-on: do we have a substantial body of reliable sources - or even a single reliable source - that introduces Scientology as a business, a cult or a scam? As far as I can see, all encyclopaedic entries on Scientology inform readers of the criticisms, but none approach the subject in the same way as we do. By some distance, our article is the most critically engaged - indeed, the most hostile - tertiary source on Scientology available. And on the question of whether Scientology is a religion, it departs quite markedly from mainstream scholarship. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we don’t censor or avoid language like “ridiculed”. No idea where you’re getting that notion from, certainly you cite no policy, nor is that a part of our policies and guidelines. The word “ridiculed” is used in reliable sources to characterise the response by the medical and wider scientific community to Hubbard’s initial publication and marketing of Dianetics, and the role in popular culture of the Xenu mythology. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

In my eyes, it largely boils down to differences in definitions. To some, Business and Religion are mutual exclusive; to me, they're not. Scientology began as a business before becoming a church, business is certainly the works. "Cult" and "Scam" are then just the negative versions of Religion and Business. The consensus among religious scholars doesn't me other views aren't valid too. Feoffer (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Gitz6666's collapsable list of sources helped me provide my thoughts more definitively here. Thanks for that, Gitz! A good number of sources do attribute religion as a descriptor to Scientology. Furthermore, upon my sporadic research online, I was able to find this essay.

The abstract of the essay is as follows;

“When new people are inducted into Scientology, they are often told that there is no inherent conflict between Scientology and any religion, including Christianity. But it is common for Scientologists to be less than truthful at the outset. By calming the new person's misgivings, they know that by the time the person has become fully indoctrinated, these misgivings will no longer matter.”

Scientology is compared amongst and against a spectrum of religions, rather than the purview of a scam or a business. Even when read from a staunchly critical standpoint, at most, one can categorize this comparison as that of a cult, rather than a business or a scam.

Here is a non-scholarly source, CNN

It goes:

“Yet there’s a lot more to this religion than just its ties to Tinseltown “, before proceeding to question its legitimacy as a religion."

When referring to Scientology in third-person, however, the article does assign the descriptor "religion" to it.

“Scientologists have faced opposition from the medical community over the religion’s claims about mental health…”

From the manner in which Scientology is referred to in common parlance, one can infer that it is not the first instinct of either the general populace or many scholarly voices to refer to it as a "business" or a "scam".

Based on this and some good arguments presented above,“a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam” appears to be the most accurate representation of the sources provided, and therefore, adheres to WP:NPOVN with much more success than other proposed variations or the existing version. Kvinnen (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Scientology's religious status

As promised in the preceding thread, the collapsed box below contains a source analysis of Scientology's religious status. Please feel free to add any additional relevant sources.

Sources on Scientology's religious status

Academic works claiming or implying that Scientology is a religion

• Black 1997: For the reasons given in the preceding analysis, I consider that Scientology is rightly regarded as a religion
• Burke Rochford 2007: Among the more established new religions
• Lewis 2012: The Church of Scientology is a psychotherapeutically oriented religion founded in the mid twentieth century by L. Ron Hubbard ... Many critics, including certain national governments, have rejected Scientology’s status as a religion ... Once the "goodness" issue is set aside, it is obvious that Scientology is a religion
• Lewis 2015: for a number of different reasons, it is clear that Scientology actually is a religion parading as science, rather than, as Hubbard imagined, a science parading as religion
• Melton 2009: Birth of a Religion (article title) one major focus of the ongoing controversy on new religions
• Rothstein 2016: At first glance, Scientology is a religion of the intellect ... In this sense, Scientology is a rather ritualistic religion ... is a collective devotional cult aimed at the ultimate adoration of Hubbard
• Urban 2011: A History of a New Religion (book title) the world's most controversial new religion
• Westbrook 2018: one of the most recognizable American-born new religious movements
• Willms 2009: this claim [being a religion] seems to be supported by the majority of the (mainly Anglo-Saxon) scientific community ... Scientology's claim of being a religion can hardly be denied from a scientific point of view ... a very rationalized or modern religion
• Wilson 1990: even if it could be conclusively shown that Scientology took the title of ‘church’ specifically to secure protection at law as a religion, that would say nothing about the status of the belief-system

Academic works with mixed/articulate views

• Barker 2016: like many other new religious movements ..., it cannot rely on long standing legal and community acceptance ... The Church of Scientology is one such religion [operating at the margins of the legal definition of religion]
• Bromley 2009: a quasi-religious organization ... a prophetic, contractual religion
• Grünschloß 2009: a multifaceted international organization that cannot be labeled easily within established categories ... [There is not] a final solution to the question of whether Scientology can be regarded as "religion" in the proper sense of the word ... One problem with the application of the label "religion" to Scientology seems to be the misunderstanding that once the label is granted to Scientology, then somehow one has approved of its basic goodness ... Is Scientology a New Age religion? It certainly is the technological religion of a fully disenchanted industrial world—or, to put it the other way round, a reenchanted therapeutic endeavor, a reenchanted secular technology ... Scientology can rightly be perceived not only as a postmodern, but also as a postreligious New Age religion
• Kent 2009: Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components

Academic works denying that Scientology is a religion

• Beit-Hallahmi 2025: Scientology cannot be classified as a religion. Because Scientology is a profit-oriented organization (Beit-Hallahmi describes the view that Scientology is a business, and a criminal one, as found in media sources, some government reports, and numerous court decisions, while the opposite view is espoused by the majority of NRM scholars; he acknowledges that his views on NRM challenges the consensus developed during the 1980s among NRM scholars, and accuses them of collaborationism with the cults)
• Halupka 2015: its characterization as a cult stemmed from its implementation of several contentious practices, including: forced labor; brainwashing; and the excommunication of ex-member ... the Church of Scientology has demonstrated the effectiveness of business structure and tactics in the pursuit of legitimization through legal recognition
• Shermer 2020: In my opinion, if Scientology is not a cult, then nothing is a cult and the term has no meaning ... most of us do not consider Scientology a religion, at least not a religion that resembles in the slightest the world’s major faiths ... the UCLA historian of religions Jean E. Rosenfeld ... reproached me for concluding that Scientology is a cult and not a religion.2 Her reasonable point is that all religions start out as cults ... Fine. I recognize the difference between scholarly and popular usages of language, and the difference between scholars who want to understand and activists who want to bring about change. (I vacillate between the two ...) But the point in distinguishing between religions and cults is not their ideas so much as what people do with those ideas – how they act on their beliefs – and after binge watching ex-Scientologist Leah Remini’s A&E series Scientology and the Aftermath ... I conclude that anyone who would join a Fair Play for Scientology Committee is either delusional or an academic historian who willingly and knowingly turns a blind eye to reality

Encyclopedias of religion featuring Scientology entries

• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions: religio-scientific movement
• Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: The creation of L. Ron Hubbard, who ... developed a religious philosophy which was then incorporated into the Church of Scientology.
• Sage Encyclopedia of Religion in America: new religious movement
• Lion Encyclopedia of New Religions: new religious movements
• Routledge Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements: Scientology began not as a new religion but as a new system of mental therapy ... Continuing his research Hubbard had by 1952 developed his religious philosophy in relation to mental health problems ... In 1954 the first Scientology Church was established in Los Angeles ... A controversial movement throughout its history (by Peter B. Clarke)
• ARDA Religion Dictionary: A new religious movement, founded in 1953 by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists believe that suffering is caused by ingrained records of past experiences ("engrams"). Scientologists aim to remove these "engrams" and become "Clears."
• Brill Handbook of UFO Religions: The Church of Scientology is not exactly a “UFO religion” in quite the same sense as [other churches] ... is a complex mixture of self-help therapy, modern esoteric and occult currents, Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and elements of Hubbard’s own active science fiction imagination ... However, Scientology did emerge out of the same general Cold War context of alternative religions, nuclear anxieties, and space exploration that helped give birth to many other UFO movements of the mid-twentieth century ... Scientology also developed an elaborate cosmology and history of the universe ... As such, Scientology should be considered a key part of the larger alternative spiritual milieu that was both shaped by and helped shape other more explicit UFO religions (by Hugh B. Urban)
• Brill Encyclopedia of Christianity Online: noting that Its status as a religion or a church is vigorously disputed
• Religion Past and Present Online: noting that the self-proclaimed title church emphasizes its claim to be a religion. Critics have reconstructed motives that are primarily economic...
• World Religions in America (WJK 2003, 2009): Scientology ... frequently has been dismissed as a "cult," and otherwise asked to defend itself as an authentic religion. It certainly is true that Scientology involves novel beliefs, practices, and organizational forms. It thereby is very different from many traditional American religions. No matter, the Church of Scientology ... is a religion of significance to scholars. Although Scientology is a very new American religion, it exhibits almost all of the ordinary features of the major world religions (by Dell De Chant and Danny L. Jorgensen)
• The Encyclopedia of World Religions. Revised edition (DWJ 2007, ed. by Robert S. Ellwood and Gregory D. Alles): A religious movement founded in 1952 by the science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard … The tightly organized and economically active movement has been controversial in the United States and several other countries. It remains, however, prosperous and successful

Encyclopedias of religion not featuring Scientology entries

• Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (yet discussing scientology in the article on "Alternative Religious Movements and Race in America")

Other encyclopedias featuring Scientology (sample)

• Oxford World Encyclopedia: Religion founded (1954) by L. Ron Hubbard in California, USA. It attracts criticism over its methods of recruiting and keeping members.
• Oxford Dictionary of Public Health: A belief system founded by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) that is described as a religion, the Church of Scientology. Its leaders assert that their teachings and practices enhance mental health and physical vitality and expect their followers to adhere to somewhat rigid conduct
• Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History: a new religious movement

English online dictionaries

• Cambridge Dictionary: a religious system created by the American author L. Ron Hubbard that is based on a search for self-knowledge by following a course of study and training
• Chambers Dictionary: a religious system which claims to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of its adherents by scientific means
• Collins Dictionary: the philosophy of the Church of Scientology, a nondenominational movement founded in the US in the 1950s, which emphasizes self-knowledge as a means of realizing full spiritual potential
• Oxford Dictionary of English: a religious system based on the seeking of self-knowledge and spiritual fulfilment through graded courses of study and training. It was founded by American science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow! Impressive.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you made a list of sources that focuses singularly on sources that refer to whether Scientology is a religion. The question you sought to answer was not "how do sources define Scientology?", but "which sources comment on defining Scientology in one particular way, as a religion?".

For further clarity, you believe this to contribute to an effort on your part to better maintain neutrality, yes? There is evidently a disconnect here. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Cambial, your WP:UNCIVIL is showing again: There is evidently a disconnect here.

We're still waiting on you to present sources that show 'business' should be the primary characterization for introduction of scientology, since you're the only one asserting 'business' should come first. (If anyone believes "business" deserves to come first, the next step would be to demonstrate a substantial body of reliable sources that introduce Scientology in that way.) Meanwhile, the other editors here seem to be leaning towards 'religion' first. (Though I'm not quite certain of Feoffer's position on the ordering of the words.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Grorp, since you insist on keeping groundless accusations on article talk, I’ll respond briefly. “There is a disconnect here” is not uncivil. Please ensure you understand the meaning of words before accusing editors of this or that. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's just you that's waiting on that, despite my response pointing out the obvious: Scientology has continually and aggressively marketed itself as a religion since around 1960, so it's unsurprising that commentators respond to their contentious self-representation. I've not argued "business" ought to be a "primary characterization", a term of your invention that I don't find useful. None of those descriptors ought to be given priority, but language forces some kind of sequence. I'm not sure that being first in the list even gives something priority. Alphabetical order is a simple and perspective-neutral sequence. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well done. I think the FRINGE view is that Religion and Business are mutually exclusive. There is no metric one could find and no line one could draw that will exclude Scientology as a religion while still including Mormonism. Scientology's status as a religion is not up for seriously debate, though it's status as a tax-exempt organization is certainly controversial. Feoffer (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Even if Scientology were outlawed or declared a criminal organisation, it would still be a religion as long as most scholars in the field, encyclopaedias and even English dictionaries continue to describe it as such. And religions can be military organisations (the Khalsa) and revolutionary movements (Taiping Rebellion) - so why not also business organisations?

As to the source analysis, I'm not sure I understand CY's comment. The analysis simply maps how reliable sources classify Scientology. Some call it a religion, some are mixed, and some deny its religious status. The point is to show the range and weight of sources so we can apply WP:UNDUE when deciding how to describe it in the lead. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You claim "The analysis simply maps how reliable sources classify Scientology". It doesn't do that. Nor do the titles you gave this section or the list itself support that claim. It "maps", or to be accurate is a list of, what various sources you selected have stated about *whether Scientology is a religion*. Evidently that's the only characterisation you have the slightest interest in. You are free to make that your exclusive focus, but realise that doing so tends to produce a view on what merits inclusion that does not accord with a neutral point of view. Those of us concerned with having a neutral point of view - which should really be all editors - will naturally come to different conclusions than your own. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I still don't get if you're complaining about the subject of the source analysis (whether Scientology is a religion does not deserve exclusive focus) or if you're complaining about how the sources were identified (the analysis only maps the sources I selected). If it's the former, I think the subject deserves consideration: it's widely covered in the article and some editors (actually, only one...) defend the fringe view that Scientology is not a "true" religion, but something else. If it's the latter, you are free to improve the source analysis by adding scholarly sources that dispute Scientology's religious status. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"The Church of Scientology has been described..." fails verification?

The Church of Scientology has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgments as both a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business

The sentence has been in the article since 2020, but after taking a closer look, I found that five of the nine cited sources either fail to verify the statement or were misrepresented, so yesterday I removed them and today removed the whole sentence citing WP:SYNTH and weak/old sources . Cambial Yellowing, however, disagrees in part. They restored one source and the whole sentence , and also expanded the list by adding in parliamentary debate together with a new source (UK minister speaking in the House of Lords in 1996).

I've checked the sources carefully, but haven't been able to verify Edge2006: see my request at WP:RX. If anyone could help with this, that would be great.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that unless Edge2006 supports the broad formulation currently in the article, the sentence is unverified and is a straightforward case of WP:SYNTH:

• No source states that government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, etc., have described Scientology as both a "dangerous cult" and a "manipulative profit-making business".
• We have no source supporting "international parliamentary bodies".
• Superior courts judgments are not "numerous".

In fact, if we set Edge2006 aside, the remaining five sources support only this:

In 1965, the Anderson Report, a Victorian government board of inquiry into Scientology, concluded that it was "a dangerous medical cult". In the 1971 Court of Appeal judgment Hubbard v. Vosper, Lord Denning referred to Scientology as a "cult", while noting evidence suggesting that some of its course materials could be dangerous. In 1984, John Latey, a judge in the English High Court of Justice (Family Division), described Scientology as "both immoral and socially obnoxious" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". In 1991, an investigative cover story in TIME magazine characterised Scientology as "a ruthless global scam" and "a hugely profitable global racket". In 1996, during a House of Lords debate, government minister Emily Blatch warned of the "potential dangers" of Scientology and referred to it as a "cult"

I know this text is disappointing and it also raises WP:UNDUE concerns, but this is what happens when we work with primary sources and avoid WP:SYNTH.

Happy to hear other views, and to adjust the wording if I've missed something. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not a new source that was added. Thanks for clarifying that Espersen is one of the several parliamentary debates cited. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2026

id like to edit this as i see wrong information Spaghettimonster67 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

No request, nothing done. - Walter Ego 11:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

RFC on framing of a sentence in article text

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is ongoing disagreement about how to phrase the following sentence in the article:

• Current version: "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics, in 1950."
• Alternative proposal: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."

The core issue is whether Wikipedia should state in its own voice that Hubbard promoted "his pseudoscientific ideas", or whether the pseudoscience characterization should be attributed to reliable sources in a separate clause. The earlier discussion is at Talk:Scientology § Wikivoice.

Input from uninvolved editors is welcome to help determine the most neutral and policy-compliant phrasing.

• Option 1: Keep the current version.
  • Option 1b: Text should continue to describe as pseudoscience in wikivoice but may revise to clarify whether Hubbard intended to deceive. (option added 09:10, 6 November 2025)
• Option 2: Change it to the alternative proposal.
• Option 3 (please specify): There is some other consideration, and how that consideration may be satisfied. (option added 09:10, 6 November 2025)
• Option 4 Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a method that academic analyses commonly/generally classify as pseudoscience. (option added 17:06, 20 November 2025)

14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC) (date the RfC started)

Discussions and votes

The literature on the topic uniformly recognises it to be pseudoscience. Are there RS that dispute this? If not, is there a good reason to frame an undisputed fact as an opinion? Cambial — foliar❧ 15:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It ''is'' pseudoscientific. The only question is whether it's stronger article text for us to explicitly attribute that conclusion to RSes or to simply assert it as fact. I feel like it's stronger to attribute the conclusion to the sources. Feoffer (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A key principle of NPOV is we must Avoid stating facts as opinions. The proposed wording states an uncontested fact as an opinion. It is made worse because it is a WP:FRINGE idea, which we are not here to promote. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but it's not as if we can dip a strip of litmus paper into a document and confirm the empirical fact that it's all pseudoscience. Asserting it as fact doesn't make very strong text -- instead say something like "The literature on the topic uniformly recognizes it to be pseudoscience." and list all those same sources. We can attribute without making it seems like a 1-sided opinion. Feoffer (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The status quo sounds too hostile to be encylopedic, do you propose an alternative that in your opinion adheres to WP:VOICE? Kvinnen (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hostile towards whom? Or towards what? A mainstream encyclopaedia factually notes that pseudoscience is pseudoscience. It doesn’t really matter if a minority perceive that as hostility. That said, mainstream science and academic discourse is generally hostile to pseudoscience and other fraudulent attempts to present illiterate nonsense as serious thought. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hostile towards Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View. Kvinnen (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to focus on the following comments:

• "Okay, but it's not as if we can dip a strip of litmus paper into a document and confirm the empirical fact that it's all pseudoscience. Asserting it as fact doesn't make very strong text -- instead say something like "The literature on the topic uniformly recognizes it to be pseudoscience." and list all those same sources."
• "A mainstream encyclopaedia factually notes that pseudoscience is pseudoscience."

The first thing that strikes me is that some editors see an unattributed claim that something is a fact in Wikipedia's voice as being stronger than the same claim attributed to a universal consensus among experts in the field. Other editors read the exact same words and see the attributed version as being stronger. This might be another example of editors in their 20s and 30s reading something one way and editors in their 60s and 70s reading it the opposite way. Or it might be related to some people thinking that Wikipedia's voice is authoritative while others think that only those things supported by citations to reliable sources are authoritative. As an experiment I looked at all of the fringe topics I listed at WP:YWAB. How did the editors of those articles handle this?

• "Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century." Pseudoscientific is unattributed and uncited.
• "Alchemy is an ancient branch of natural philosophy, a philosophical and protoscientific tradition that was historically practised in China, India, the Muslim world, and Europe." Protoscientific is unattributed and uncited.
• "Numerology (known before the 20th century as arithmancy) is the belief in an occult, divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events." No wording either way whether numerology is pseudoscience. Nothing in the article implies that numerology isn't legitimate.
• "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine." Pseudoscientific has a citation.
• "Acupuncture is a form of alternative medicine and a component of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in which thin needles are inserted into the body. Acupuncture is a pseudoscience; the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge, and it has been characterized as quackery." Pretty much everything has a citation, reflecting the ongoing war between Wikipedia an acupuncturists.
• "Proponents and practitioners of various esoteric forms of spirituality and alternative medicine refer to a variety of claimed experiences and phenomena as being due to an energy or force that defies measurement or experimentation, and thus are distinct from uses of the term energy in science. Claims related to energy therapies are most often anecdotal, rather than being based on repeatable empirical evidence, thus not following the scientific method." Again, lots of citations.
• "Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite availability and supporting evidence. The term covers refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. Although adverse effects associated with vaccines are occasionally observed, the scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective is overwhelming" Lots of citations.
• "Magnetic therapy is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine practice involving the weak static magnetic field produced by a permanent magnet which is placed on the body." Pseudoscientific is unattributed and uncited.
• "A crop circle, crop formation, or corn circle is a pattern created by flattening a crop, usually a cereal. The term was first coined in the early 1980s. Crop circles have been described as all falling "within the range of the sort of thing done in hoaxes" by Taner Edis, professor of physics at Truman State University. Although obscure natural causes or alien origins of crop circles are suggested by fringe theorists, there is no scientific evidence for such explanations, and all crop circles are consistent with human causation." Multiple citations.
• "A laundry ball or washing ball is a product made of solid, insoluble material promoted as a substitute for laundry detergent. Producers of laundry balls often make pseudoscientific claims about their mechanisms of action and exaggerate the extent of their benefits." Citations at the end of the paragraph supporting pseudoscientific wording.
• "Facilitated communication (FC), or supported typing, is a scientifically discredited technique which claims to allow non-verbal people, such as those with autism, to communicate." Scientifically discredited technique has a citation.
• "Magnetic water treatment (also known as anti-scale magnetic treatment or AMT) is a disproven method of reducing the effects of hard water by passing it through a magnetic field as a non-chemical alternative to water softening." Disproven is unattributed and uncited.

I stopped there. Please note that I only looked at the lead paragraphs. All of the articles have material farther down that support the lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you draw any conclusions from your experiment?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is all over the map on this. We could pick any of the proposed wordings and be fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Keep the current version (univolved from FTN). WP:PSCI policy is clear that we clearly describe pseudoscience as such. There is no need to add "so says X", and as Cambial mentions above, stating facts as opinions can be an NPOV issue depending on context here. There also seems to be a little potential confounding between PSCI and WP:RS/AC.

A a good teaching example is climate change denial where we say practically all scientists agree climate is warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. You'll get contrarians say, "Well not all scientists agree, they even admit it, so the scientific consensus must be disputed." Then you'll get some that say, "Well, it's only the scientists, and probably those bought off by the government." That kind of stuff is why PSCI is so strongly worded to say we just plainly state something is pseudoscience. Not that so and so says it is, but simply that it is. You do need to be careful about qualifiers for our general audience even if you think appealing to academic authority strengthens the claim.

Now there could be mention somewhere in the article if there's focus on a WP:RS/AC saying there is a consensus this is pseudoscience with that deeper context. That doesn't preclude statements that directly say this is pseudoscience, so any leading text in the lead or beginning of a section really should just say this is pseudoscience followed by this more in-depth content discussing who says so if relevant. KoA (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 Neither are problematic, but per WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions". The MOS makes sense about avoiding language where it is undue, but policy has precedence and the fact that it's pseudoscience could not be credibly contested, so does not need attribution either. I'll reevaluate this if other options are available above. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

---

• Option 1: Pretty much everyone who knows anything about Dianetics and is not a practicing Scientologist considers it to be pseudoscience. As Martin Gardner points out:

"[Hubbard claimed that] 'The Creation of dianetics is a milestone for Man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch.... The hidden source of all psychosomatic ills and human aberration has been discovered and skills have been developed for their invariable cure.'

That word 'invariable' is not a typographical mistake. 'Dianetics is an exact science,' Hubbard writes, 'and its application is on the order of, but simpler than, engineering. Its axioms should not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist as natural laws hitherto undiscovered.' Dianetic therapy operates with mathematical precision. It never fails."

If that isn't pseudoscience then I am the pope. Dianetics being a pseudoscience should be presented as the established fact that it is --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 per KoA and WP:FRINGE. Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Emphasis mine. Statements of fact should not be attributed to opinion.

Note: I notified wikiprojects Scientology, Skepticism, and Relgion/New religious movements of this RFC. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Cambial Yellowing continuously misunderstands the intention behind the proposed wording. Nobody here is delegitimizing the claim that Dianetics is pseudoscience, rather to stick to an encyclopedic voice instead of a harsh critic's. Your numerous sources to that effect are helpful but irrelevant to this discussion. Kvinnen (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. And considering so many others seem in agreement with Option 1, I wonder if I worded the RFC well enough or thorough enough, or people are just "me-too-ing".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not see a problem so far. Perhaps Scientology is a sensitive subject? It does have a lot of negative reporting and people feel rather strongly about it. That's all just speculative of course, but I expected Option 2 to be received better than this haha. Kvinnen (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Scientology is a sensitive subject? No, I've encountered this stylistic schism before. I'd rather Roswell Incident didn't WP:ASSERT that it was a military balloon and instead attributed that to a nearly universal conclusion of scholars. Others prefer to "say it like it is". I get both views. Feoffer (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You’ve evidently failed to grasp the purpose of article talk pages. It’s to discuss what ought to go in the article. Other editor’s claimed or actual intention, often nebulous, is not relevant. What matters is the content of their proposal. This proposal breaches the non-negotiable NPOV policy not to state facts as opinions, which is the obvious and ready explanation for why there is unanimous opposition to it, as those opposing it explain in their !votes. Do try to stick to what people actually write, rather than imagining a reasoning that fits with a narrative you want to believe about your desire to change the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how I have "failed" to grasp the purpose of article talk pages, when I merely clarified what I think you may have misunderstood from the exchanges above, especially when the user in question does not object to my representation of what they have said, based on their most recent reply above. There is no need to patronize. Thank you. Kvinnen (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You open your first post with "It seems to me that User:Cambial Yellowing continuously [sic] misunderstands the intention...". You write "There is no need to patronize". Please read this article and this article. Whether I or anyone understands the intention is irrelevant. I responded to the proposed content. Cheers! Cambial — foliar❧ 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As did I. Cheers to you too. Kvinnen (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Cambial, your remark—Do try to stick to what people actually write, rather than imagining a reasoning that fits with a narrative you want to believe—was unnecessarily patronizing. You might consider applying that same principle yourself.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I’ll continue to apply the principle I refer to in my previous response when editors with preposterous suggestions open their remarks with patronising and wrong claims about "understanding" instead of about content. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 - The claim that "Dianetics" is pseudoscientific" is not as widely accepted as "sun rises in the east" or "sky is blue". It is a widespread belief not a unanimously accepted belief, therefore, it makes encyclopedic sense to attribute it, if anything, the qualifier "widely described by scholars" adds more credence to the statement than what exists now. Kvinnen (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we applied that standard to other articles, our coverage of many scientific fields would have to say "widely considered by scholars" in almost every sentence. Basic facts about astronomy, geology, and biology are not universally accepted, just to name a few. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Your analogy is not appropriate. The claim that Dianetics is pseudoscientific does not depend on the direct, empirical observation like laws of physics, biology or astronomy. It is an evaluation within the philosophy/sociology of science wherein scholarly judgements are explicitly attributed, discussed and often debated.

  Because of this difference, it is not redundant or a case of presenting "facts as opinions". The proposed phrasing by User:Grorp clarifies both the breadth of the expert agreement (it is widespread, not marginal) and the nature of the claim (a scholarly characterization, not a simple empirical fact).

  Whereas, adding "widely considered by scholars" to statements like "Sky is blue" would weaken those claims, because they are directly and universally evidenced by empirical science not just described by scholars. Kvinnen (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree, Mx Granger's analogy is entirely apt. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Perfect, thanks for clarifying that you disagree. :) Kvinnen (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  You write that the claim that "Dianetics" is pseudoscientific" is not as widely accepted as "sun rises in the east" or "sky is blue". What are the scholarly sources that dispute the fact? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I do understand both sides. We'd never say "Earth is round, per scholars" but I think 'pseudoscience' is more like 'pornography' than planetary science: it may not be quantifiable, but "I know it when I see it". Earth's curvature and temperature are hard facts, but a book's genre is, fundamentally, a matter of scholarly or popular opinion. Feoffer (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree. It is fundamentally factual that pseudoscholarship is methodologically unsound. That not everyone is capable of making accurate assessments of methodological soundness does not make it a matter of opinion, any more than temperature was an matter of opinion before Celsius or Fahrenheit, or acidity before the development of pH indicators (or without the presence of measurement tools). Nor does the fact that methodologies previously thought to be sound might have later been found to be unsound. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's less about Scientific vs Pseudoscience, and more about the distinction between Pseudoscience and Religion. Neither exhibit a "sound methodology". Experts (and I) agree Dianetics (1950) is the former, but it's not as black and white as science vs pseudoscience. Feoffer (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  A religion can engage in pseudoscience. For example, Young Earth creationism is a religious view. Creation science is pseudoscience. It becomes pseudoscholarship when something is presented as scholarship. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• (summoned by the bot) Option 1. Dianetics is plainly pseudoscience, and we should state that as fact, not weaken the sentence with qualifications about who describes is as pseudoscience. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. As per KoA, Mx Granger, IP, WP:VOICE, and the bleedin' obvious. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. We state facts as facts, and we can additionally note the reception by the scientific community wherever it's due to do so. For example, in the body, we say that Dianetics was "rejected as nonsense by the scientific community" after describing it as pseudoscientific. I'd be more likely to support adding additional content along those lines to the lead than I would to remove factual description. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Option 4 and Option 1b were introduced since I !voted, but I continue to support Option 1, and for the same reasons. I think Caeciliusinhorto has it right on the "intentional deception" point, and I second their analysis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 4, or any other wording which doesn't seem to attribute to Hubbard the concept that he knowingly and intentionally planned on deceiving the masses with his ideas (Dianetics). As Feoffer pointed out somewhere above, these "sciences of the mind" were all the rage in those days, and Hubbard wasn't the only one trying to cash in on the movements. The current wording (option 1) suggests Hubbard knowingly set out to deceive, whereas I doubt there's a single reliable source which makes that impossibly-provable claim, except as an author's opinion (which requires attribution).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC) I'm adding "or Option 4" to my vote. My reasoning is that the ideas 'created Dianetics' and 'considered pseudoscientific' should be presented in separate clauses, since they are distinct concepts. I'm flexible on exact phrasing, but I think it is important that the sentence structure makes the distinction clear.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Grorp I can agree with your reasoning here. The main reason I !voted for option 1 is because I'm against attributing the characterisation of dianetics as pseudoscience to opinion. I'm not against changing the exact wording, as long it describes dianetics as pseudoscience in wikivoice. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I also strongly agree with @Grorp on this. Not only is there no evidence that Hubbard didn't believe, but from what I understand he spent a fair amount of time self-auditing. You don't do that if you don't believe that the "tech" works. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer: The whole point of the RFC was to unstick the above discussion which was going nowhere. As mentioned above, it was Cambial who was the one who originally changed the sentence away from "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950" to the current version. Kvinnen is the one who brought up the idea that the current language wasn't neutral (see above "Wikivoice" thread). The Scientology article introduces "pseudoscience" as early as the third sentence, and the Dianetics article uses "pseudoscience" 6 times! There has been no objection to framing Dianetics as pseudoscience in Wikivoice; the issue was only the wording of the one sentence which implied a deliberate and knowing scam from the outset—a concept that has been widely speculated, never proven, and will probably remain a mystery until the end of time.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp: There has been no objection to framing Dianetics as pseudoscience in Wikivoice– Are you sure? @Kvinnen and @Feoffer seem to, or am I misreading their comments? I agree with you on pretty much everything else. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not certain—it just seemed that way. To be honest, I'm growing weary of these prolonged debates, especially when rational discussion feels futile with those firmly fixed on a particular outcome. I had hoped that an influx of new voices might help break the logjam.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale multiple times here. I want Dianetics to be known as pseudoscientific in nature, but calling it so without attributing to some of the most strongest sources that have the right footing to classify it as such seems counterproductive and weak without academic backing. I do not want to sacrifice WP:NPOV to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kvinnen (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any debate over whether Dianetics is pseudoscience, certainly not from me. I think, stylistically, I just prefer an assessment of that nature be put in the mouths of experts, while most people here prefer we just assert it outright ourselves. I would find my style more convincing and stronger, but other readers seem to feel assertion is the stronger statement of pseudoscience. Feoffer (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. Kvinnen (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Feoffer's and others' comments without stating any vote made me think that perhaps we should add a third option—"Option 3: Some other wording. Please specify."—even at this late date, rather than leaving the options black-and-white, this-or-that only. Hmm?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm open to this. Kvinnen (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've added both option 1b, which I think reflects Chess enjoyer's comment and an option 3, "any other considerations". Feel free to revise or remove before anyone uses either, or add a 2b to further split the issue of wikivoice/not vs other factors. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 per WP:FRINGE, WP:BLUESKY, WP:PSCI, and pretty much every content policy, guideline, or essay that says anything at all. (I'm here from WP:FTN) lp0 on fire () 22:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per everyone else. In regards Grorp's concern that the current wording suggests that Hubbard intentionally decieved people with Dianetics: I don't believe this is a concern. The text is equally compatible with the interpretation that Hubbard genuinely believed Dianetics to be true; there have been plenty of true believers in pseudoscientific ideas over the years. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3: Really think giving too much prominence to vague pejorative label instead of informative content there, but if you have to have the insult then don't be ambiguous about is the article saying Hubbard said ti or did external critics say it. Go with what WP:V would support. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per everyone else - Walter Ego 14:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 (First !vote since option 4 was added): In my opinion, this is superior to the previous alternatives, and I encourage others to reconsider their !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 looks best to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 – the current statement is direct, clear, and accurate, putting the most reader-relevant information first. The alternatives are mealy-mouthed and awkward, giving an initial impression that "Dianetics" is serious, and then hiding behind unnamed "scholars" or "academic analysts" for the claim that it's nonsense, misleading readers by suggesting that the question might have two legitimate sides. –jacobolus (t) 17:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the "other side" is that Dianetics is a religious practice, and there are scholars who would make that claim. It's easy to ASSERT something is Pseudoscience not Science -- but the line between bunk and faith is probably one experts should draw. Feoffer (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  In fact, that should probably be true for every page that uses "pseudoscience" in Wikivoice. Kvinnen 🌙 06:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Whereas this is what the current lead says: "and his ideas were rejected as nonsense by the scientific community"

  I'm sorry what encyclopedia reads like that? Kvinnen 🌙 07:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  A mainstream encyclopaedia that follows the content of the highest quality reliable sources, and treats bunk science, hogwash, and systems invented by the mentally ill with the regard they are due. Example:

  I have never been confronted by such a bold and immodest mixture of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from long-acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly invented terminology. Most revolting is the repeated claim of exactitude and of scientific experimental approach, for which every trace of evidence is lacking

  Cambial — foliar❧ 11:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's fine. The organization/movement Hubbard founded can be described as a cult, religion, and/or fraudulent scheme in a different sentence. That his "ideas about the mind" are pseudoscientific is a separate topic from whether its adherents behave like cult members or religious followers. –jacobolus (t) 02:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:PSCI requires one to

  1. Not award undue weight

  2. Clearly label pseudoscience as such

  3. Prominently include an explanation by experts (which the article does)

  All of which is adhered by the new option 4. Kvinnen 🌙 07:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Are these last couple of posts intended to justify your tag? They dont. I feel like removing it. - Walter Ego 07:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this rises to the level of a NPOV dispute. More about stylistic preferences. Feoffer (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I fully agree with @Walter: the tag is inappropriate. Re: some other comments in this section. Feoffer – you're right that new religious movement sociologists claim Dianetics is a religious practice, but the dichotomy you suggest (the line between bunk and faith) does not exist. Things can be, and are, both. NRM sociologists do not deny that Dianetics is pseudoscience. Scholars commenting on that question are unanimous, and discuss its character as pseudoscience in detail (e.g.). Thus whether that small group of NRM sociologists says it is faith is not relevant to this issue. Kvinnen – there is no substantive difference between 2 and 4. Article content must adhere to the entirety of WP:NPOV, and merely fulfilling the ten sentences of PSCI does not mean it follows all three-and-a-half thousand words of NPOV policy. Neither of those sentences adheres to a fundamental principle of NPOV, a principle that is put in the first section in bold text for a reason.

  Avoid stating facts as opinions.

  There is a reason option 1 has more than double the !votes than all other options combined: following WP:VOICE is simple and mandatory. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  There is a reason, sure. Kvinnen 🌙 11:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  I entirely disagree with this. In my opinion the previously stable sentence meets all of these criteria, and option 4 clearly does not. –jacobolus (t) 02:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"His ideas were rejected as nonsense by the scientific community"

I would like to see citations to reliable sources that establish the following two claims:

• That a significant portion of the scientific community responded to Hubbard's ideas, as opposed to ignoring them.
• That multiple sources in the scientific community used the term "nonsense" to describe Hubbard's ideas.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

To fulfil your first wish, I suggest reviewing the most well-known books on the topic listed in the sources section, and the citations in the reflist in the RfC above. Listed in the sources section, for example Miller, Russell (2016). Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. Silvertail Books; Urban, Hugh B. (2011). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.; Atack, Jon (1990). A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. Carol Publishing Group. These review the response in the literature, including by prominent figures such as Erich Fromm, Martin Gumpert and others. In the refbox above Kent (1999), Hellesøy (2014), Manca (2012) contain relevant information to your desire. Kent and Manca (2014) give a fairly detailed history. I realise, Guy, that the response one might expect is that Hubbard was simply ignored. This didn't happen for two reasons. 1. Because of the brief 6-8 month "craze" for Dianetics, and the book making several best-seller lists including NYT. Medical professionals and others felt a responsibility to inform people that it was bs. 2. Hubbard reached out to the American Medical Association and the American Psychology Association following publication, and as Hellesoy puts it "his new science was dismissed as pseudoscience. The expansion of Dianetics societies made the FDA take an interest in the movement, as they were practicing therapy without a license. This quackery accusation could easily be avoided if auditors were reconceived as clergymen".

I've no idea how many sources used the specific word "nonsense", nor do I think that's relevant. It's a summary of a reasonably-sized literature. Martin Gumpert uses that specific word. Others use similar phrases. Kent and Manca write that reviewers from a scientific background and/or in scientific fora either ridiculed Hubbard's work or attacked his work. Certainly responses to it in the literature go beyond merely "baseless" and ridicule Hubbard's ideas as not making sense if taken seriously. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Experts have never "ignored" Hubbard, it's been always been controversial with them. APA warned against Dianetics in 1950 in a VERY rare statment. But "Nonsense" may be suboptimal. Gumpert's full quote is "a bold and immodest mixture of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from long-acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly invented terminology". To my ears, "nonsense" is something that's mostly harmless. Feoffer (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't like "nonsense" and IMO "baseless" is worse. I would simply go with something along the lines of "His ideas were rejected by the scientific community". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Dianetics is not pure nonsense nor is it completely without basis in psychoanalysis. It's more like a mix between a cargo cult and the telephone game of someone who heard about Freud and Otto Rank's birth trauma theory. Feoffer (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't really capture the reaction, and it suggests - inaccurately - that they thought it worthy of serious attention. But they knew it was garbage immediately, because, as per Carroll, "just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist". As Urban notes,

"Dianetics was the object of hostility from the established healing professions. The movement and its leader were criticized and ridiculed in the press"

Kent (1999):

"Members of the psychiatric community, however, replied in a series of stinging book reviews. While a couple of reviews by medical doctors were favourable (F. L. 1950, 45–46; Wolffe 1951, 70), others hammered or ridiculed Hubbard’s book and the therapeutic techniques that it outlined... Other reviews from the period were even more condemning and sometimes ridiculed Hubbard himself (see Bures 1950, 32; Peck 1950; Rabi 1951; Stearns 1951)."

The Anderson Report states of Dianetics' claims:

"preposterous, ridiculous, and entirely untrue".

Dr. Morris Fishbein's editorial in Postgraduate Medicine mockingly wrote

"the writer of this weird volume suffers apparently from a cacoethes scribendi [i.e., an incurable itch to write]" (Fishbein, 1950; emphasis in original).

Scientific American's review began with

this volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page than has any publication since the invention of printing

In The American Journal of Psychiatry, a physician wrote that

"the whole project [of Dianetics] was irresponsible by accepted scientific standards" and Hubbard's science fiction writing likely prepared him for a "nice ignorance of reality"

. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Where does Urban note "Dianetics was the object of hostility from the established healing professions. The movement and its leader were criticized and ridiculed in the press"? Page number please, or link to an article, or something.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

My bad that's not in Urban but in Lewis & Hellesøy (2017), p. 325. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I note you’ve just now inserted these sources into the article while we are actively discussing it. Per WP:CONSENSUS, these things should be agreed upon before being added to the article.

You're referring then to:

• Lewis, James R.; Hellesøy, Kjersti, eds. (2017). Handbook of Scientology. Leiden: Brill Publishers. ISBN 9789004328716.

On page 257, Lewis and Hellesøy are not offering independent analysis — they are summarizing the Anderson Report. The wording they use is taken directly from Anderson (1965:48):

Anderson’s report was unremittingly negative in its assessment, with the opening paragraph noting that: “This Report should be read, it is submitted, with these prefatory observations constantly in mind” (1965:1) followed by the inscription at the beginning of this chapter. The Report, which ran to 173 pages minus appendices, was a breathless series of denunciations against Scientology: referring to scientific and medical claims made for Dianetics and Scientology as “preposterous, ridiculous, and entirely untrue” (1965:48), ...

Anderson report page 48:

CHAPTER 7 / HUBBARD’S SCIENTIFIC DEFICIENCIES / Hubbard makes for dianetics and scientology a great many preposterous, ridiculous, and entirely untrue claims. He is a great propagandist and believes that, if he repeats ...

Since the Anderson Report itself is freely available online, citing Lewis and Hellesøy here does not add scholarly weight — it simply repeats Anderson’s language. Presenting both as separate references is misleading, because the 2017 book excerpt is derivative of the 1965 report.

The straightforward approach is to cite the Anderson Report directly. Using Lewis and Hellesøy as a proxy while also citing Anderson separately looks less like improving verifiability and more like advocacy. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, clarity and accuracy matter more than rhetorical stacking of sources.

Mistaking Urban for Lewis, mentioning a quote from one unspecified page number of an unspecified source, then switching to another page number, then using Lewis as a proxy—all this is confusing to editors involved in the here and now, let alone someone later trying to verify references.

Slow down. Get consensus. Then act.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't cited Anderson in the article. In the article I cite pages 257 and 325 of Lewis and Hellesøy, which is the more recent, secondary and thus preferable source. Nor have I mentioned page 257 of Lewis and Hellesøy on this talk page. The Consensus policy does not state "things should be agreed upon before being added to the article; on the contrary, it states explicitly that consensus can be reached through editing. Do try to get your ducks in a row, especially if you want to misuse the talk page, yet again, to bore everyone by seeking to criticise other editors, and once again entirely without merit. It's not clear what you mean by using Lewis as a proxy – do you think Lewis is acting on my behalf? You do realise that he's dead? What is your point? Cambial — foliar❧ 22:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

To save you some time, Grorp, note that I muted notifications from you quite a long time ago. So although I can see that you tried to ping me in your message above, I do not receive any notifications from you. Save your typing finger (/s), if you like. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Using Lewis as a proxy for Anderson. And no, Anderson isn't a primary source for the Scientology article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: This sentence is still in the article. Is this issue still something which needs to be taken care of, or shall we archive this thread?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

See . Either someone gives me a quote from a source, or it stays out. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Shall we archive this thread as done, or leave it up a while longer?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I am fine either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Recent reverts

It's impossible to work on this article, and after the last reverts by Cambial Yellowing (four consecutive edits), I'm giving up the effort. But please note the following carefully:

• Government bodies and other institutions maintain that the Scientology organization is a commercial business that falsely claims to be religious [Cowan 2009, Dericquebourg 2009], or a form of therapy masquerading as religion [Flinn 2009].

The text was added by CY with this POV edit: 06:59, 20 July 2023. The previous version said anti-Scientology activists ... These critics maintain that .... CY changed this to "Government bodies and other institutions", without changing the cited sources. In doing so, CY misrepresented the sources: 1) Cowan 2009 attributes the assessment to Anton Hein (2001), a rather notorious Dutch countercultist and to Stephen Kent and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, whom he criticises; 2) Dericquebourg 2009 attributes the assessment to many people, while also noting that Scientology considers itself a religion and dismissing the "false religion/true religion" issue as irrelevant to sociology; 3) Flinn 2009 attributes the assessment to Many commentators and then observes that the real issue is how to distinguish between "therapy", "religion" and "philosophy".

Yesterday I removed the text with a detailed edit summary . Today CY restored it and replaced Cowan 2009 and Dericquebourg 2009 with Beit-Hallahmi 2003 (presumably meaning Beit-Hallahmi 2004), that is, the same scholar Cowan 2009 criticises; for some reason, CY left Flinn 2009 in place . This is textbook cherry-picking of sources - searching for sources that support your preferred version - and it's also a deliberate misrepresentation of sources (Flinn) and forcing a minority view/fringe view (Beit-Hallahmi) into an article that already cites him 15 times plus three verbatim quotations.

• Many aspects are obscured by layers of secrecy, and by Scientology advocates engaging in lying and obfuscation.

The first draft of the text was added by CY with this 25 October 2024 edit, which was a good edit because it contained a verbatim quotation from Urban 2021 stating A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/ or dissimulation. But on 13 June 2025 with edit summaries rewrite as text and + advocates , CY rewrote this material so that it now reads as advocates engaging in lying, while leaving Urban 2021 as (misrepresented) source. There's obviously a big difference between Urban's description of organisational secrecy in Scientology and CY's claim about Scientology's "advocates" (people) engaging in "lying".

Yesterday I removed the text and explained why and today CY reverted and added a source : Hammer-Rothstein 2012. However, also this source doesn't support "advocates lying", as it focuses on institutional secrecy and says what follows: Scientology is a religion based on control over information, where access to new levels of doctrinal insight is carefully guarded ... This myth is kept secret to most Scientologists ... core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system are unavailable to most practitioners. Restricting access to texts is closely connected to issues of power ... reference is made to texts that exist only in a metaphysical realm.

The article is full of unverifiable material and POV claims that aren't backed up by proper references. I tried to do something about it, but it's frankly impossible to work under these conditions. Unless other editors step in and undo CY's reverts, I won't touch this article with a barge pole from now on: it's just a frustrating waste of time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The source is Beit-Hallahmi 2003. Bizarre that you think it "presumably" to be "Beit-Hallahmi 2004", given there is no such source in the source list. Beit-Hallahmi reviews a significant body of the existing literature: academic scholarship; legal rulings; and findings by other institutions. Beit-Hallahmi is not cited for his scholarly view on the question in this instance, but for his review of the output of other institutions: "The first, espoused by most NRM scholars, as well as some legal and administrative decisions, asserts that Scientology is a religion, perhaps misunderstood and innovative, but a religion nevertheless, thus worthy of our scholarly attention. The second, found in most media reports, some government documents in various countries, and many legal and administrative decisions, states that Scientology is a business, often given to criminal acts, and sometimes masquerading as a religion... If you ask legal scholars to classify Scientology, the consensus judgment is quite clear, and numerous legal scholars as well as judges clearly feel that there is something illicit and sinister about it. They are not just skeptical about its claims, but make decisive judgment calls and remain decidedly unconvinced that it is entitled to the religion label. John J. Foster, a British jurist charged with investigating it (1971), gave us the definitive study of Scientology, based solely on the organization's own writings and nothing else. His conclusions, which seem to have been ignored by NRM scholars, were that Scientology can only claim to offer a system of psychotherapy, and as such should be regulated. Its only aim, he found, was to produce profits. Any claims of Scientology to be a religion were ridiculed, and many of its fraudulent acts were exposed" Cambial — foliar❧ 19:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Editor Midnightblueowl made a massive overhaul of this article in 2022. Other editors have made significant content changes since then. I rarely take issue with their changes, because it’s clear they understand content policy and are adding relevant well-sourced content and only deleting content from poor sources. You deleted content for no good reason. For example, in one of your most recent edits you delete content sourced to Urban (2021) “engaging in lying and obfuscation” and admit in the edit summary that the content is sourced - you quote the relevant part. There is no attempted justification for the deletion in the edit summary. The word “advocates” is a plural noun in the article text. The word “dissimulation” in the source means lying or pretending. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The word “advocates” is a plural noun in the article text. I know, that's obvious. Could you please quote the passage in Urban 2021 where he says that the advocates of Scientology engage in lying? There is a clear difference between institutional secrecy within an organisation and advocates engaging in lying on behalf of that organisation; between an organisation's lack of transparency on the one hand and individual dishonesty on the other; and between "dissimulation" (concealing or obscuring information) and "lying" (asserting something false as true).

For reference, this was my edit summary , and I was referring to Urban, Hugh B. (2021). Secrecy: Silence, Power, and Religion. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226746784.003.0007. ISBN 978-0-226-74664-7. Retrieved 2025-12-04. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not what dissimulation means. Dictionary synonyms for dissimulation in American English, of which Merriam-Webster is generally regarded as the standard dictionary:

1. deception
2. deceit
3. deceptiveness
4. cunning
5. fraud
6. deceitfulness
7. cheating
8. duplicity
9. lying
10. dissembling
11. double-dealing
12. dishonesty

Cambial — foliar❧ 15:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to improve the references. That said, it's entirely appropriate to report that "Government bodies" say it's a business or therapy masquerading as a religion. That's not a fringe minority view, it's a very mainstream one, even if I personally argue it's grossly mistaken. You could cite Lawrence Wright. Similarly, many voices accuse the organization of secrecy and organized deception -- just as they make similar claims about Opus Dei, the LDS Church, etc. Lawrence Wright would be fine to source those statments. Feoffer (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not raising a due weight concern, but a verifiability concern: if that text is to be retained, we need to find a supporting source. My feeling is that phrases like "a commercial business that falsely claims to be religious" and "a form of therapy masquerading as religion" are not how government bodies or similar institutions usually speak about these subjects. They may say "Scientology is a business for tax purposes", "Scientology is prohibited from practising medicine", or "Scientology is illegal in this country". But the notion that they would assert that Scientology is falsely pretending to be a religion is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires solid secondary sourcing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It would be an exceptional claim to name a living individual and assert they don't really believe in their own religion. It's not a fringe claim to share the opinion that the word "religion" shouldn't cover it. The Beit-Hallahmi quote looks fine for supporting the text, to me. But we could certainly add other sourcing. If I'm not mistaken, when the switch from business to church first happened, Hubbard explicitly told people that it was strictly a concern for solicitors and lawyers or something. Feoffer (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Not first happened. That quote was from 1962, as your next edit pointed out, which was a full decade after Hubbard started a religion/church/scientology because he lost rights to Dianetics (techniques and organizations).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I was mistaken by many years. Turns out, a full decade after the first church, Hubbard was still saying it was just a legal designation. Personally, I think he and his creations were inherently religious going back at least his out of body experience. It's not a therapy masquerading as a religion, it's a genuine religion that briefly tried to be a secular therapy before finally embracing that they are, in fact, a religion. Feoffer (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Round 2: Use of the word 'lying'

(Stay on topic this time)

I reverted Cambial's recently inserted language ("and through Scientology engaging in lying"), which is alleged to be supported by a quote ("A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/or dissimulation").

I contest that wording.

Reasoning:

• By earlier consensus, we've been trying to use "Scientology" to refer to the belief system not as shorthand for the organization. Belief systems don't "engage in lying"; people do.
• The source's quote is either:
  • referring to how Hubbard structured Scientology knowledge into layers, some of which are only revealed as one continues with Scientology and up The Bridge to Total Freedom scale,
  • or is referring to the organization in general.
  • Without access to the full source context, it is unclear which was intended. If the source meant the former, then "lying" is incorrectly framed for this article and this sentence. If it meant the latter, then this is the incorrect article to put this into. Either is reason enough to remove it in the meantime.

If left intact, the sentence would have read, "Much basic information about the Scientology belief system is kept hidden from most practitioners, with layers of secrecy, and through Scientology engaging in lying and obfuscation."

However, there is no "basic information" that is kept hidden. The concept of layered disclosures could be better represented in another way. In fact, the sentence would be more correctly worded as "Some information about the Scientology belief system" by removing "basic" and "much". I will leave the rest of the sentence until later.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Every major organisation - church, business, political party, elected official - has been accused of lying from time to time, often with good reason. We don't voice these claims, at least not in wikivoice, unless there is a predominance of sources, per WP:DUE, WP:TONE and WP:WTW. But here we don't have a single source alleging lies, so it's not even a matter of neutrality and style; it's about verifiability and no original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Earlier discussions here decided to more clearly separate the Scientology article (for the ideology) from the Church of Scientology article (for the organization) because there was too much duplicated material between those two articles. Since both topics are huge, it is perhaps a natural division. I am guessing this mention of an organizational issue may be a remnant of the duplicated content that didn't get removed from this article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC). There were also discussions (North8000, Cambial and myself?) during which it seemed we all agreed that there was too much duplication between Scientology and Scientology beliefs and practices as well as some other second-level articles, and that this overlong article needed some heavy trimming. Though I tried to accomplish some of the trimming (per the methods discussed at WP:SUMMARY), I was blocked by reverts and gave up. We should reconsider how we might trim this article... in a separate discussion.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Added an academic source on Hubbard teaching lying as the tool for control. Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that "pastor David Chakranarayan" writing in a book published by Answers in Genesis (described as American fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization) qualifies as "academic source". I think there's a consensus that Answers in Genesis is not reliable . Moreover, the quoted sentence "The only way you can control anybody is to lie" can be interpreted in different ways: was Hubbard advocating lying? Or was he rather warning against lies/control, and opposing them to honesty/influence? I don't know. In some Scientologist websites, I read that the latter interpretation is correct. In fact, the text goes on explaining that organised religions lie to people and therefore sooner or later people will revolt . The sentence is often cited with endorsement by Scientologists, as a valuable teaching from Hubbard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I will go a step further. @Feoffer: Your source doesn't possibly support your wikivoice wording of Hubbard and his followers have been accused of organized deception, and Hubbard famously taught insiders that "The only way you can control people is to lie to them., which you cited to World Religions and Cults : Atheistic and Humanistic Religions, Volume 3, chapter author David Chakranarayan, editors Bodie Hodge & Roger Patterson, 2016/2024. pp. 97-98.

I have no idea where Chakranarayan got that information, because their citations fail verification. The entire 3-sentence quote in the Chakranarayan chapter is, "The only way you can control people is to lie to them. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." It is cited to "Off the Time Track from Technical Volume 1 p. 418 excerpted in Journal of Scientology issue 18-G". I have both TV1 and JS18G, which are identical in text to each other, one isn't an excerpt of the other. They are both excerpts only of a lecture. Though both mention the first sentence of Chakranarayan's quote, the following two sentences do not exist. So the cited author got it from where? Did he just fake the citation? Did he obtain an audio of the 1952 lecture (doubtful) and then just cite it to these printed excerpts? I say doubtful, because though Hubbard recorded everything, he obviously didn't have a clear recording from that lecture or they wouldn't have printed only fragmented excerpts in 1952.

The excerpts indicate that the lecture was about things to audit and variations of humans, including: the aesthetic band, invalidation, regret, decision, sex, MEST, and other thetan-case concepts. "The only way you can control people is to lie to them" falls between 'regret' and 'decision'. This is not a lecture about how to control people, nor about lying.

Hubbard often discussed lying as a way to entrap a thetan while speaking in the context of how to untrap a theta by discovering the lie during auditing. The "Technical Volumes" are for Hubbard writings on how to audit. They are separate and distinct from the "OEC volumes" where he wrote about how to run an organization, which is the sort of writings where you would expect Hubbard to talk about lying to people deliberately.

Even if Chakranarayan did obtain a copy of the full audio or lecture transcript, and it did contain those three sentences, the lecture still doesn't cover the material that would be supportive of Hubbard and his followers have been accused of organized deception, and Hubbard famously taught insiders that "The only way you can control people is to lie to them."   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You obviously know Hubbard's writing far far better than I do, which is a real asset. Obviously Chakranarayan isn't as good as source as I thought! We can use Lewis and Urban instead. I think it probably came from the Philadelphia talks -- that's Hubbard at his most unfiltered, I think. And yes, getting the balance right is important and difficult: Critics present a caricature of Hubbard that is simple, nefarious, and wrong. Scientology has had its Fawn Brodies, but we haven't met its Dan Vogel yet. Feoffer (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking again, sure enough 18G does say Philadelphia. I don't know anything about Brodie or Vogel so that comparison is lost to me. So your latest change was to swap Chakranarayan for a bare-url to Handbook of Scientology, chapter 11 Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Scientology and Conspiracism by David G. Robertson, page 309? On page 309, Robertson quotes and cites Urban 2011, The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion, pages 57 & 65 in two separate spots.

On Urban page 57, the quote about lying to people is preceded by "As he explained in a lecture in 1952, organized religion is primarily about lying and control, that is, about deceiving and manipulating people through notions of sin and guilt, rather than freeing them through knowledge." So there Hubbard is talking about 'them over there, not us'. So that's not it. Urban page 65 is the 1953 letter to O'Brien and is as stated.

However, neither Robertson nor Urban p 57 or 65 supports content such as Hubbard and his followers have been accused of organized deception, and Hubbard taught insiders that "The only way you can control people is to lie to them." Nor does swapping its source alleviate the problem of its location in the article, as I stated under section header "Synth of Hammer and Urban".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC).

Feoffer, instead of trying to find alternative sources which support content about Hubbard lying and 'teaching' followers to lie, please explain why you think this placement in the article of these two sentences about 'lying' is correct (in the lead paragraph of "Beliefs and practices").   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A key reason is that, as Hammer and Rothstein observe "Scientology is a religion based on control over information". What they choose to do with that control, on which the religion is based, is obviously fundamental to its beliefs and practices. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Synth of Hammer and Urban

@Cambial Yellowing: I have tagged your edit for WP:SYNTH. Your edit changed

• Some information about the Scientology belief system is kept hidden from most Scientologists, with layers of secrecy and obfuscation.

to

• The secrecy around the Operating Thetan material means that core texts, that present basic information about the Scientology belief system, are kept hidden from most Scientologists, with layers of secrecy, obfuscation, and dissimulation.

Source 1, Hammer says: "This myth is kept secret to most Scientologists, who will only be allowed to hear of this incident in the mythic past during initiation into one of the higher, advanced initiatory levels (known as Operating Thetan III, or OTIII). In this way, core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system are unavailable to most practitioners."

Source 2, Urban 2021: Gitz pointed out above that you are relying on the Urban quote, "A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/or dissimulation."

Source 1 plus source 2 together doesn't come up with what you wrote. It is SYNTH.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that "Some information about the Scientology belief system is kept hidden from most Scientologists,[ref Hammer] with layers of secrecy and obfuscation.[ref Urban]" is fine. Both sources are focusing on institutional secrecy, that is, on the esoteric structure of Scientology (things like "the Bridge to Total Friedom", secrets about certain aspects of Hubbard's life and doctrines, etc.) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I don't have an issue with citing Hammer and Urban. My issue is with combining the two to say something neither source said in the first place. Hammer is referencing Rothstein ("His name was Xenu. He used renegades") when he uses the word "core". But I think he misunderstood what Rothstein was referring to, when Hammer wrote "core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system", and then Cambial morphs that into one of at least three different versions. At this point, even if the latest sentence+citation was okay, the placement in the article is all wrong. The section starts out with its summary all light and top-level... then BAM! XENU! LYING! It is jarring to read it. Per WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."

I'm not sure what Rothstein meant by "core". And I don't think the Xenu story is a "core belief" in the sense that it is "basic" or that beginners should have known about it, or that all of scientology revolves around it. The Xenu story was invented/written in 1967, which is long past the invention/writing of "core" principles of Scientology. So what core was Rothstein even talking about? He only uses "core" twice in the 19-page chapter, in the paragraph that follows the first instance, and that other occurrence doesn't explain it. Is it "core" because the critics want to expose and ridicule the story and somehow he heard "core" from them in their stories?

We could continue to go around in circles with this. Suffice it to say that the sentence, even the "Some information..." variation, is simply misplaced in the article. The sentence "Scientologists regard his writings on Scientology as scripture" should be followed immediately with "In Scientology Hubbard's work is regarded as perfect, and no elaboration or alteration is permitted"—without shoehorning Xenu or lying-concepts between them, breaking the continuity of the concepts for the reader. I wouldn't be surprised to find this concept also mentioned elsewhere in this elephantine article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp: "Without access to the full source context" Allow me to fix that with some copypasta:

"The preceding chapters have explored an array of different modes of secrecy, ranging from adornment and advertisement to social resistance and terrorism. Yet in many cases, secrecy is by no means a static phe nomenon but instead one that changes and morphs over time, shifting in relation to changing social and cultural contexts. Religious secrecy is also very much a historical process that is bound up in a complex dialectical relationship with the larger political, economic, legal, and governmental structures in which it is enmeshed.3 The same secrets that might in some cases serve as a form of “adornment” or symbolic capital may in other cases become a source of embarrassment, exposé, scandal, and litigation.4 This chapter explores this aspect of secrecy as a historical and dialec tical process in the complex case of the Church of Scientology. From the church’s first appearance in the 1950s, popular media accounts and jour nalistic exposés have made a great deal of the role of secrecy in this com plex movement. Recently dubbed “America’s most secretive religion,” the church has also been the target of numerous critical documentaries such as the BBC’s “Secrets of Scientology” and many others.5 However, de spite this intense media attention to the secretive aspects of Scientology, relatively little serious scholarly analysis has been done on the deeper role of secrecy in this movement or to the complex ethical and epistemologi cal challenges involved in the attempt to examine aspects of new religious movements that are confidential or off limits to outsiders.6 A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/or dissimulation. The founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), was quite secre tive about his own biography, and many of the details of his life’s nar rative were later proved false; he also spent the last years of his life in hiding, when he was wanted by the FBI and other agencies.7 Scientology was highly concerned with internal surveillance, and in the early 1960s it developed a practice called Security Checks designed to identify poten tially subversive members within the organization.8 The church had its own sophisticated intelligence bureau called the Guardian’s Office that was engaged in fairly remarkable acts of espionage, including the infiltra tion of the IRS and other agencies during the 1970s.9 Finally, Scientology developed highly esoteric levels of advanced training called the Operat ing Thetan levels or OT, which claim to reveal the ultimate secrets of the human spirit and the past history of the universe.10 During its first few decades, Scientology might even have been described as a kind of Cold War religion. That is, it reflected and often epitomized the larger concerns with secrecy, information control, and surveillance that pervaded the US during the 1950s and 1960s.11 This chapter, however, focuses on just one aspect of Scientology’s complex teachings: OT VIII, the last and highest of the Operating Thetan levels released by the current church. OT VIII is claimed to re lease the “total freedom and power” of the human spirit,12 yet ironically, it has received little serious attention by scholars of religion. Thus far, most of the scholarly and journalistic attention has focused on the infamous Xenu narrative contained in OT level III, which was infamously satirized in the American TV show South Park.13 Despite its rather provocative and highly sensationalized science fiction narrative, however, the Xenu story is not the most interesting or controversial of the OT materials that have leaked to the media; it is arguably only the tip of the “esoteric iceberg,” as it were." Cambial — foliar❧ 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it is a synthesis. As it had been reduced to one sentence from two sentences, I tried to stick to that format. To fix the synthesis, we should have two sentences, as they're about slightly different things. One source (Urban) in that sentence is discussing general secrecy and deception in Scientology. "A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/or dissimulation." The word "some" misrepresents the source, which states "a great many aspects". The word "dissimulation" is technically fine, and I initially used that word. But it's not a particularly common word, and I thus chose a word that a wider readership will understand. I'm not tied to any particular word, and Merriam-Webster lists numerous synonyms:

1. deception
2. deceit
3. deceptiveness
4. cunning
5. fraud
6. deceitfulness
7. cheating
8. duplicity
9. lying
10. dissembling
11. double-dealing
12. dishonesty

The other source (in Cambridge Companion to NRMs) is, in these sentences, discussing OT stuff. It's reference to core texts is discussing those:

"Scientology is a religion based on control over information, where access to new levels of doctrinal insight is carefully guarded. A Scientological origin myth that has been hotly debated in the media concerns the role of the evil space ruler Xenu. This myth is kept secret to most Scientologists, who will only be allowed to hear of this incident in the mythic past during initiation into one of the higher, advanced initiatory levels (known as Operating Thetan III, or OTIII). In this way, core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system are unavailable to most practitioners. 14 Restricting access to texts is closely connected to issues of power: the leader or the highest echelons of a movement in this way mon opolize the source of religious truth. This method of exerting control is brought to its ultimate consequence in movements where, besides actual texts that can be read and commented upon, reference is made to texts that exist only in a metaphysical realm, inaccessible to ordin ary humans but of considerable importance nevertheless: virtual texts. According to Scientology executives, a library of ground-breaking texts by L. Ron Hubbard is stored in Church facilities, still awaiting the proper time for revelation. Another example of a text with (presumably) only a narrative existence is the Book of Dzyan that forms a basis of Theosophy. Purportedly composed in the ancient language of Senzar, this work – not known outside the Theosophical context – was, as men tioned above, quoted and commented upon by Helena Blavatsky, who structured much of her Secret Doctrine around this virtual text."

Cambial — foliar❧ 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Notes