Talk:Scientology/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Scientologists which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixing the article

I see several things need to occur based on earlier talk page issues brought up. These might include:

• rewording so that the article is written more in plain English and less in academic-style writing (per INTRO, TECHNICAL, NOTJOURNAL, PLAINENGLISH);
• dealing with the citation overkill occurrences;
• simplifying and shortening the lead so it actually gives a summary of what Scientology is, and bumping from the lead any content which is better covered in the body and is not a major defining characteristic of the topic;
• removing or changing content which violates UNDUE, or at least get the article to a point where people are not continuing to post that the article fails NPOV.

Feel free to add to this list if you think of anything.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I did a major trim of the lead. I tried to work on each paragraph in sequence, leaving the same topic for each paragraph, rather than an entire rewrite. It does read entirely different, though, since I simplified it greatly. The "details" should be in the body, not the lead. Let me know what you think about the new lead so far.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Views on Hubbard vs.Views on Hubbard by Scientologists

An editor (User talk:800437516a) recently changed the "Views on Hubbard" section to "Views on Hubbard by Scientologists", removing a view on Hubbard by some non-Scientologists that was, not surprisingly, critical. I question whether the average reader really benefits from only reading about views on Hubbard by Scientologists rather than views on Hubbard by Scientologists and non-Scientologists. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

They removed content which was sourced; thank you for reverting the edit. They then altered other things such as removing the framing of "allegations". I reverted that because the result shouldn't be said in wikivoice. They are welcome to participate in discussions on this talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by in wikivoice? 800437516a (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If an article said "according to Guy Macon, Gorp is awesome^{[Citation Needed]}", that would be making the claim in Guy Macon's voice. We also use the term "with attribution" to refer to such claims. If instead an article said "Gorp is awesome^{[Citation Needed]}", that would be making the claim in Wikpedia's voice. See WP:WIKIVOICE. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

But there are several other titles that can be seen as allegations, as breaking Wikivoice.

The Mistreatment of Members section for example, are mainly allegations by ex-scientologists; much like the Allegations of Coerced Abortions section. They only differ in severity of claims 800437516a (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are going on about. The only claims in Wikivoice in the Mistreatment of Members section is the claim that Leah Remini produced a documentary television series and filed a lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. Thise are facts, not allegations. All allegations are attributed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant that the title specifically should be in wikivoice 800437516a (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If there were more details on the criticisms of L.Ron.Hubbard in said section, I probably wouldn't have edited it. It just seemed more purposeful if it was merely about views on Hubbard by Scientologists. Perhaps the section should be expanded upon, with greater detail and a more easy to understand structure 800437516a (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts re "allegations": If someone has filed suit, that's an allegation. If someone has won a lawsuit on that point, it would no longer be an allegation. A cluster of similar allegations... still allegations. If academics and scholars and other reliable sources are writing about a topic and they are calling those things truths (and not allegations), then we could say they said that (using attribution). If many scholars are saying that, then we could maybe remove the "allegations" framing.

Expand? Expansion is the last thing this article needs. This article has grown too large and too bloated with minute details when it should be a top-level summary of Scientology which summarizes here while pointing to the many subarticles which are also written. We're in the middle of a project to reorganize the topic and trim down this main article by pushing details to the subarticles.

The large section "Controversies" is one of the sections that hasn't been worked on recently. The correct subarticle for that might be Scientology controversies which also has a section titled Mistreatment of members. You might take a look there as well.

Welcome to editing in this topic.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The framing makes more sense for me now. I probably will start editing somewhat in the sub-articles 800437516a (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We can always use new editors. Feel free to ask general questions about editing in wikipedia at User talk:Grorp, ask general questions about the Scientology topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, or even send me an email. See some of my notes about the 'size reduction project' at the thread above, Summary style.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"Allegation of human trafficking and other crimes against women"

So males never get trafficked? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)