Talk:Scientology

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2025

change amount of money it costs to do Scientology audits. 2025 number equivalent is $561,393.81 2605:59C8:804:7100:548:E601:D84:4D10 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The number is calculated on the fly by using page coding Template:Inflation, which for the US only goes to 2023. When the template coding is updated to 2024 or 2025, this page will automatically display the more recent calculations.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead: Accessibility?

The lead on this page seems to be a bit difficult to follow. If the average user is simply skimming it for quick information, it is hard to tell what is important to know about scientology, and instead, offers a lengthy background before explaining what scientology purports and does. I think the entire section on Dianetics, which is the opening paragraph in the lead, should either be removed, moved down, or moved into the body of the page, as it is a specific history. The first things a reader might want to know is: what constitutes scientology, and what's the controversy about? We get that information only in the second paragraph. The last two paragraphs of the lead seem redundant/ excessively detailed for a quick skim. Thoughts on merging and making more concise? Oraclesto (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. 600 words is an appropriate length lead for an 11,000 word article. The average user would have little or no difficulty in reading it, and it covers all the most important aspects of the article. How Scientology came to present itself as a religion is fundamental to the subject, and an 80-word summary appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph is awkward. The first sentence talks about a belief system, whereas the second sentence is referring to the Church of Scientology organization(s)—that is non-sequitur. The phrase "By 1954, he had regained the rights to Dianetics" is irrelevant for a summary and could be omitted. Mentioning the FreeZone in the first paragraph is undue weight; every movement or organization has offshoots. Those are just for starters.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with all of these suggestions @Grorp. I can give it an initial try, and if @Cambial Yellowing disagrees, we can discuss here. Oraclesto (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

We have an L1 heading about the free zone, as well as its own article and at least one separate article about a group within this "zone". It's appropriate to cover L1 heading topics in the lead of the article, in summarising the movement that is one of the two definitions of the article subject (i.e. ideas; movement) Cambial — foliar❧ 21:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about whether the free zone is mentioned in the lead. Heading level can be one of the indicators but IMO not one of the main ones and IMO not a driving force for putting it in the lead. For such a big and wide-ranging topic/article, free zone is a tiny part of the scope. Maybe leave it out of the lead or have just one short sentence on it in the lead? North8000 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Currently we have one 16-word sentence, but we needn't even have that much to summarise the components of the Scientology movement neutrally - in fact it may be better to incorporate that sentence into the preceding one. I've made a version. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing I found your edit summary misleading, as your edits were much more than a simple reword. I have tracked each one of my edits individually, had you wished to revert any, in the spirit of collegial participation. Did you notice that I put everything that I took out of the lead into the body? I explained the rationale for the third paragraph in my edit summary. Now it's in both places.

The free zone edit was helpful. I'm not sure why the rest were quietly reverted under the guise of "reword." Oraclesto (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

They were not improvements in content, language or style. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Reading below, I see you have more detailed thoughts that this simple sentence conveys. Can you please elaborate how exactly they are "not improvements in content, language or style"? Please reply to each edit so that I may better understand your rationale, instead of hiding behind a single "reword." Remember not to bite (points 1, 2, and 4 under "how to avoid biting" be helpful review for you). Oraclesto (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to explain why you think your proposed changes were improvements, not vice versa. However, briefly: 1. as per the community consensus at WP:STRUCTURE, we are obliged not to separate off content according to its point of view – we should be reducing the controversies section by incorporating it into the main narrative, not expanding it. 2. the movement is comprised of people and their activities, by definition; it is not comprised of ideas. 3. we do not editorialise: a brief summary of the most prominent prosecutions is appropriate, the phrase "long string" is not. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Had you taken seriously (given you admitting that you "skimread" below) my edit summaries as well as my suggestions on this talk page, you could have understood why these proposed changes were, to me, improvements. Do not shortchange me on my efforts to explain my rationale.

To revert every edit without explanation reflects WP:OWN. See points 3 and 4: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." and "An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior"

With that being said, thank you for your helpful explanations. As a new editor, learning what you find problematic is useful for me to understand. A few responses:

1. Ok, replying in point 3, as I think they are related.
2. Understood. I was feeling unsure about that edit. I do still feel the sentence is clunky and unreadable, which is what I was trying to fix according to MOS:FIRST. This sentence can be improved because "movement" is so vague that it is completely unhelpful to a new reader. Do you have a source that claims that a movement comprises people, and not "sets of beliefs and practices."? Or a different suggested proposal?
3. Understood that the wording leaned editorial (though I slightly disagree, but will defer to your expertise). However, why is something in the lead but not in the body? I am thinking about MOS:LEADREL "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..." I recognize that it doesn't have to show up in both places. But it seems like undue weight to list each example (and I'm not sure why those specific examples, as opposed to any other host of legal trouble?). Is there a way to summarize more concisely, then expand in the relevant section, in a way that is not editorial in language?

Now, one edit I still disagree on regarding style is this edit:

The page (and your reversion) read: "Hubbard initially developed a set of ideas that he called Dianetics, which he represented as a form of therapy. An organization that he established in 1950 to promote it went bankrupt. He then recharacterized his ideas as a religion, likely for tax purposes, and renamed them Scientology."

I suggested: "Hubbard initially developed a set of ideas that he called Dianetics, which he represented as a form of therapy. He later recharacterized and renamed his ideas as a religion called Scientology, likely for tax purposes."

The rationale is that a new reader does not need to know about the organization established in the 50's went bankrupt. When you're looking for the who/what/when/where/why in the first paragraph, that information is extraneous, and a new reader doesn't really know what to do with it. As for moving the clause in the final sentence: "likely for tax purposes" as an interrupting clause breaks flow. It is definitely an improvement in style to move the clause to the end of the sentence and group both verbs together. The suggested edit follows a S-V-O structure that is intuitively more readable to an English-speaking audience. Oraclesto (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I skimread only when it becomes obvious, as it unfortunately does with a very small minority of editors, that a significant part of their post is to discuss their perception of other editors' motivations or actions, which is not the purpose of article talk. I think that distinction is obvious from the context below. You have also chosen to misuse article talk for that purpose, but I'll respond once only to your unsupported claims.

You write that "To revert every edit without explanation" reflects ownership. Presumably you mean every edit done by another editor. I'm not sure that's true, but given I haven't reverted every edit without explanation, including several of your recent edits, that line of argument doesn't stand up to the tiniest scrutiny. I agree with some of your changes, such as that mention of the book rights is unnecessary in the lead. Others fail to adequately summarise the most important parts of the article body and/or fail to maintain a neutral point of view.

I don't know what to "shortchange [you] on [your] efforts" means. Do you feel this is transactional in some way?

Despite your claimed familiarity with the conduct guideline about ownership of content, you misrepresent its content - the succeeding sentence reads Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale would be an indicator. I explained the rationale, with further detail on your request.

I'll respond to the points relevant to this page shortly when I have some time. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably needs work but it's inherently going to be complicated because Scientology is a combination of many different things. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove freezone mention in lead paragraph as UNDUE

I suggest removing the segment from the lead ("there are other groups of practitioners known by the umbrella term free zone") and replacing the final two sentences with this: "By 1952 he founded the Church of Scientology which, by 2016 estimates, has around 40,000 members worldwide." (The date is a remnant typo; Scientology was created in 1952, while 1954 was the year Hubbard regained control over Dianetics. See History of Dianetics and Scientology.)

Reasons:

1. The phrase about freezone bisects the the comment about the Church of Scientology and the 40,000 number which is an estimate of Church of Scientology membership, not worldwide practitioners of any-form-of-scientology.
2. By stating "remains the largest organization promoting Scientology" then following with freezone gives the freezone WP:UNDUE weight.
3. Cambial Yellowing's argument that freezone should remain in the lead because we have an L1 [sic] heading about the free zone, as well as its own article is flimsy. Numbers of members—Church of Scientology and freezoner—are mentioned under "Demographics" where they are duly noted, discussed and compared, and not in the F2 level section "Free Zone and independent Scientology". The segment in the lead makes it seem like the number of freezoners is large, but I have never read any numbers about the freezone, though there are writings where the author speculates that the freezone is increasing while the Church of Scientology membership shrinks, and in those writings the estimate of Church of Scientology members is around 25,000. But that's all we've got. Definitely not lead material.
4. The high placement of freezone in the lead (in the first paragraph of four), gives the freezone even more undue weight.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I lean towards removal as well. It's a bit random for the lead. The proposal for replacement looks great and is much friendlier for the uninitiated reader who is just trying to learn a bit from a few paragraphs. Someone who doesn't know anything about Scientology gets nothing out of knowing that there's a "free zone" group (and nothing else about it). Oraclesto (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. Feoffer (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm near-neutral on that but lean towards taking it out. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

First two sentences are non-sequitur

Currently, the first two sentences read as:

Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It is variously defined as a cult, a business, a religion, or a scam.

The first sentence is made awkward by the tail end phrase: "and an associated movement". This is followed by "it". It, which? It, a movement? It, Scientology? The terms cult, business, and scam have been applied to the actions of the Church of Scientology, but rarely if ever applied to "the scientology movement", which this article is allegedly supposed to cover. Freezoners might consider their beliefs and practices as a religion, but not as a cult, business or scam. Is sentence two meant to apply to "an associated movement" but really meaning the Church of Scientology?

These questions are what I meant when I mentioned two threads up about the first two sentences being non-sequitur.

As for DUE/UNDUE, Scientology has more frequently been referred to as a "new religious movement", and that is more descriptive than being called simply a "religion" (the current wikilink).

Maybe change the opening lead to:

Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by L. Ron Hubbard, is a new religious movement, and the term is a trademark of the Church of Scientology.

I notice that this article omits mentioning the trademark and leaves the reader with the idea that anyone and any group can use the term "Scientology".

Discuss.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would the fact that "Scientology" is trademarked belong in the first sentence?? Leijurv (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)#

Why would we ignore WP:NPOV? Numerous high-quality sources state it is not religious. Seeking to privilege some sources over others sounds like WP:ADVOCACY, which we don't do here.

The phrase "and an associated movement" does not make anything awkward. As MartinPoulter neatly summarised the reasoning for that opening here:

"Associated movement" in this case means that Scientology is not just a set of beliefs and practices but also activity by people and organisations, including the Church of Scientology, its related organisations, and all the competing Scientology groups. It's essential to mention it in the first sentence to convey what Scientology is.

Cambial — foliar❧ 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree with @Grorp's suggested change for the first sentence! Great idea and more clearly explicates the very vague word "movement," which seems to be thrown into the sentence and reads awkwardly. This is a stylistic improvement that I think is absolutely necessary for the readability of the first paragraph. Oraclesto (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's an organization, a business, a set of beliefs, a set of practices, philosophies, the story of a person (because he is so much a dominant aspect of it) an edge-case religion, an edge-case cult. I would not put "movement" (due to it's common meaning) even in the top 10 nouns for what it is. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Other encyclopaedias, amongst other reliable sources, disagree. e.g. Britannica’s short description and opening sentence: Scientology, international movement; Scientology, international movement that emerged in the 1950s Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I guess if I was forced to use just one word, "movement" might be it even though I don't think that it's a good one. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the reliability of WP:BRITANNICA. In this case, it was written by Melton, who is a new religious movement scholar and apologetic of Scientology. Even so, the word "movement" in this writing is referring to the Church of Scientology Scientology movement, and not scientology beliefs in general.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The confusion here is that the single word "Scientology" is frequently used as shorthand for "Church of Scientology". However, for some reason we have separated those two concepts into two separate articles. If Church of Scientology is the article for the organization and Scientology is for the belief system, then you shouldn't conflate the two within Scientology. You must conscientiously distinguish that whichever reliable source you're looking at might actually have meant "Church of Scientology" (the conglomeration of organizations) but used the single word "Scientology". If you're going to use the Scientology article for beliefs, and add the freezone stuff in there—and all those freezone-leaning Aled Thomas citations—then you should carefully separate the two articles/concepts. A belief system is not a cult, is not a business, is not a scam. Organizations can be. (And most of the freezone groups don't operate in the same cultish/business/scammy way the Church of Scientology has done, and is one reason they broke away from CoS). The first lead sentence describes a belief system, and the second describes an organization, without any language explaining how you flipped from one to the other (hence my use of the term non sequitur). And herein lies my complaint about giving the freezone any prominence, is because "Scientology" is so closely related to "Church of Scientology" that they might as well call the freezone "alt-scientology".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No-one is conflating Scientology and Church of Scientology. The word "Scientology" is used to refer to 1. the beliefs and 2. the movement (i.e. all the people that hold said beliefs, including but not limited to those who go to Church of Scientology events). The phrase "Church of Scientology" refers to an organisation with buildings, employees, water bills, and lots and lots of lawyers. A belief system and movement can absolutely be a cult, a business and a scam, and indeed in this case it is, according to numerous sources cited in the article and previously referred to on this talk page. You claim they might as well call the freezone "alt-scientology". Who is the "they" in that sentence? If it refers to reliable sources, the relevant fact is: they don't. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @North8000 here as well. A new reader will have no idea of whatever subtext the editors are carefully loading into "movement," and it does nothing whatsoever for the sentence meaning! Strongly agree with removing that word. However, when using a term like "New Religious Movement," which is hyperlinked to its own page, we have a much better sense of the meaning of "movement." Oraclesto (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources support my viewpoint

Challenge accepted, Cambial. I'll take you on about reliable sources. The second sentence in Scientology has 10 citations. I checked every one, except Edge to which I have no access, and each one uses the term "Scientology" to refer to the "Church of Scientology". When each of these sources refers to "cult", "business", or "scam", they are exclusively referring to the Church of Scientology and not the freezone.

• 1. Behar. When Behar uses "Scientology" or "the cult", he's talking about the organization:
  • For nearly 40 years, the big business of Scientology has shielded itself exquisitely behind the First Amendment as well as a battery of high-priced criminal lawyers and shady private detectives.
  • Scientology has lately resorted to a wide array of front groups and financial scams
  • The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members
  • A cult leader
  • the cult even haggled with the Lotticks
  • Many dentists who have unwittingly been drawn into the cult are filing or threatening lawsuits as well.
  • Yanny represented the cult until 1987, when, he says, he was asked to help church officials
  • "Every investigator is very cautious, walking on eggshells when it comes to the church," says a Florida police detective who has tracked the cult since 1988.
  • the cult's tax-exempt status

• 2. Kent.
  • Scientology provided the newscast with copies of Vaughn and Stacy Young's signed...
  • Scientology spokesperson Mike Rinder...
  • the position of Scientology towards its RPF programs...

• 3. Anderson.
  • p.113. Though scientology may be said to be a business or occupation
  • Throughout this report, the word "scientology" is not capitalized, and many times it is referring to the belief system, however at the time (1965) there was no freezone. Everything "scientology" was part of the Church of Scientology, and the Anderson report was an investigative report about the Church of Scientology.

• 4. Edge.
  • I have no access to this

• 5. Hunt.
  • solely refers to "Church of Scientology", never just "Scientology"

• 6. Beit-Hallahmi.
  • Uses the word "Scientology" but means "Church of Scientology".

• 7. Urban.
  • p.46 is referring to early Dianetics, not Scientology. Even Urban's source (Wonder's Child p. 184) is referring to Dianetics
  • p.6 is using "Scientology" to mean the organization: "much of the journalistic, academic, and popular literature on Scientology ... we find numerous exposés by ex-members, journalists, and critics, who attack the church as either a cynical, money-driven business or a dangerous cult of mind control and power."

• 8. Halupka. No page numbers given.
  • Uses "Scientology" as shorthand for the organization(s). Only covers the organization and its efforts to gain tax-exempt status and shake it's cult-like status. "While Scientology maintains that such practices have since been stopped" is talking about the organization in shorthand.

• 9. Westbrook.
  • Refers to "Scientology" as meaning the organization:
  • p.373 "Building on insights in the academic literature, this piece attempts to fill a lacuna by giving more attention to some of Scientology’s own media programs and efforts."
  • p.378 "The church is variously referred to as a cult, “corporate Scientology,” and the “Church of $cientology” (Lewis, 2014)."
  • p.384 refers to "Scientology" as meaning the organization: "the Internet would prove to be Scientology’s 'Waterloo' ..."
  • No mention of the words 'scam' or 'business'.
  • p.386 "the Scientology organization" implies there is but one

• 10. Urban
  • p.135 "Miscavige argued that this decision by the IRS in America would help the church with its struggle for recognition as a "religion" in other nations, particularly in France and Germany, where it has been consistently labeled a "cult" and a for-profit big business." "It" is referring to the organization.
  • pp.135-6: "Scientology's war with the IRS ... Scientology quickly emerged as one of the wealthiest and most powerful new movements in postwar America. ... Scientology has been widely attacked by journalists, anticult groups, and various government agencies as a brainwashing cult and a greed-driven business." The word "Scientology" refers to the organization.

In closing, these sources support my contention that the second lead sentence is out of place in this article because they refer to the organization, not a belief system or movement (as this article purports to be about).

As for the word "movement", that implies there are numerous organizations that are following a belief system. In the case of Scientology, the Church of Scientology has trademarked the word "Scientology" and has (in the past) litigiously gone after break-away groups (freezone) over the use of their copyrighted publications and trademarks. So mixing non-Church of Scientology Scientology in this article while using reliable sources which apply only to the Church of Scientology's Scientology is incorrect sourcing, and confusing to a reader. Sure, have a section about the freezone to explain that there are some breakaway groups/practitioners, but that is a very small portion of "Scientology".

Alternatively, make it clear that Scientology is the belief system of the Church of Scientology and make this article exclusively about the Church of Scientology's Scientology, with small side notes about the freezone.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't support the notion that Scientology and Church of Scientology are coterminous

On numbers 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 you simply make the claim "Scientology" refers to the organization. Nothing in the quotes nor the sources supports this. You've simply quoted some of the text, and then on no evidence made a claim about what they are referring to. It's not any kind of argument.

Your unsupported claims about what you think the authors' really mean nevertheless do not provide a basis for your claim that these sources support [your] contention that the second lead sentence is out of place in this article.

I agree that some sources have sometimes the word "Scientology" as shorthand for the Church of Scientology organisation. They are nevertheless two separate things - one an abstract noun or a nebulous group, one with a mailing address. The use of the word Scientology as shorthand for Church of Scientology clearly gives room for confusion - all the more reason for us not to confuse the two.

You write that As for the word "movement", that implies there are numerous organizations that are following a belief system. That's exactly the case. Whether the Church of Scientology organisation has trademarked the word Scientology remains irrelevant.

Re: Alternatively, make it clear that Scientology is the belief system of the Church of Scientology and make this article exclusively about the Church of Scientology's Scientology. Can't see any evidence there's any difference between the two, and such a proposal sounds like pretty flagrant advocacy. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS and accused me of WP:ADVOCACY without any evidence, diffs, or explanation. I insist you provide diffs for your accusations of advocacy, and/or explain what you think I am advocating. What is this viewpoint you think I'm pushing?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposals like: "Maybe change the opening lead to: Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by L. Ron Hubbard, is a new religious movement, and the term is a trademark of the Church of Scientology." looks like advocacy for presenting Scientology as "religious" despite the numerous sources, including scholarship, which state explicitly that it is not. The sentence "make it clear that Scientology is the belief system of the Church of Scientology and make this article exclusively about the Church of Scientology's Scientology" looks like advocacy for making the article only about "Church of Scientology's Scientology" - even though there is zero evidence for that being different from Scientology practised elsewhere. That the CST has trademarked the word Scientology is an irrelevant trivial detail - why are you advocating including it in the lead, and advocating to make the article exclusively about "Church of Scientology Scientology" - a concept with no evidence base? Cambial — foliar❧ 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I see. So you are capable of presenting an argument but you'd rather start with insults (Personal attack removed).

From your edits, I know you detest that Scientology is called a religion and that the Church of Scientology is called 'the Church' or 'the church' (examples: [1] [2] [3]) but that doesn't change the fact that most reliable sources refer to Scientology as a religion and a church even while being critical of it and disclosing its controversial sides. From what I know about it, I also wouldn't classify Scientology as a religion, but our opinions are irrelevant and don't change the fact that such a classification has been made, broadly, and is even covered at length in this article. As a Wikipedia editor bound by NPOV, you don't have any right to "declare" Scientology "not a religion".

My suggestion for changing the first two sentences was to open a discussion on how we might change from two non-sequitur sentences to something else.

This article speaks of "the Scientology organization" over and over (38 times!), which disaffirms your assertion that this article is about generic scientology. And I'll bet that if we checked all 500 citations in this Scientology article we would find that 95% of them are referring to Church of Scientology Scientology and not generic or freezone scientology. Content about generic scientology beliefs mostly belongs in Scientology beliefs and practices. If you honestly think there is zero evidence for that being different from Scientology practised elsewhere then you know nothing about the freezone, which not only doesn't follow Church of Scientology Scientology to the letter, but each group picks and chooses which parts they want to follow, reinterprets it, and even adds to it. Try reading Free Zone (Scientology).

I don't know what your background is about Scientology in real life, but it seems you too often respond emotionally, instead of discussing it rationally, and take a "my way or the highway" approach by quickly asserting your rightness, insulting other editors, and not actually arguing the merits of changes or suggestions. Examples [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]; the last 3 examples are not Scientology-specific.

If you cannot edit neutrally, be collaborative, and stop being hostile toward other editors, then maybe you shouldn't be working in this topic.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

the fact that most reliable sources refer to Scientology. That isn't a fact. You saying a thing does not make it true, and you provide no evidence for that specious and incorrect claim. I've noted in previous discussions that in one particular discipline, sociologists of religion - as is their wont - characterise it as a new religious movement. Scholars in other fields and numerous journalists do not, and several explicitly say it is not religious.

you don't have any right to "declare" Scientology "not a religion". Actually on talk I do. Scientology is not a religion, it's a scam. In article space we represent the views in RS: some call it a scam, some a cult, some a business, some a religion (there are various others; space is limited).

It's you that has proposed "declaring" Scientology to be one of those things to the exclusion of others in article space. So don't try to project your behaviour onto me.

This article is about Scientology - the whole topic - the abstract concept and all the people following it. That obviously includes Church of Scientology and people who go to its events and courses. So the article obviously includes content about Church of Scientology, as it should. But the Church of Scientology organisation is not the main subject - more detail on that is handled at the Church of Scientology article. Of course there is some crossover.

As stated to you previously, I've no interest in yet another of your screeds in which you claim things about my edits and then produce ostensible or pretend "evidence" which does not support your perception. It's not the purpose of article talk space, and to be blunt, it's tiresome and I can't be bothered reading bullshit. I skimread, looked at some of your diffs/links, and once again they contain none of what you claim. Stop making things up, and stop discussing your groundless perception of other editor's motivations in article talk space. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

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)