Talk:Scientology

ANI notice about editing on Scientology topic

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the derailing of content discussions. The thread is Cambial Yellowing on Scientology. The discussion is about the topic Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the late notice. I had initially posted the notice at WikiProject:Scientology, which had been inactivated 10 years ago, and though I reactivated it 2 years ago now, it still has less than 5% of the page watchers that this article has—meaning this subject has far more interest than an old WikiProject does. Since the editing of this article is of substantial focus in the ANI thread, I am placing a notice here as well.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The ANI thread and its result was archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209 § Cambial Yellowing on Scientology.

Today, I am archiving several of the mega-threads here on this talk page that were related to the ANI but which are probably no longer needed as a working copy for the Scientology article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:46, 3 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)

Summary style

Per WP:SUMMARY, it is recommended that when an article is large (as this one is), one should split out subtopics to other standalone articles. Earlier talk page discussions settled that Scientology is the topmost article for the subject, with major articles Church of Scientology and Scientology beliefs and practices tied for second. It had been mentioned that "Scientology" was being used for content about the belief system while "Church of Scientology" was a spin-out for the organizations. However, I posit instead that "Scientology beliefs and practices" should be used for the belief system, while "Scientology" be designated the overarching label for all the topics.

There have been several earlier attempts at reducing the content in the Scientology article, while actually using the other articles to contain the detailed material while leaving short summaries in the Scientology article... per WP:SUMMARY. However, any attempts to reduce Scientology were met with a gatekeeper, and attempts were abandoned. Now that we are free to constructively work on this article, I think it's time to revisit the SUMMARY project.

Recently, I used the summary style and the template {{excerpt}}. I move some detailed content about real estate properties from Scientology as a business into the Scientology properties article, then modified "Scientology properties" so that there was a lead paragraph without any citations (citations were moved into the body of the article, leaving the lead as a true summary). Then I used {{excerpt}} to dynamically copy the lead paragraph into "Scientology as a business". It worked like a charm. (Citations in the lead can cause a problem in the target article, especially if the citations are "named" references, and they collide with similarly named ones. It's just cleaner to summarize the lead properly and leave citations in the body.)

We can use this method to reduce the content of Scientology so that it actually is a top-level article; a summary of the subject. Of course that means cleaning up the excerpt-source articles and working up their leads.

I'm willing to start working on this, but it would be helpful if others at least chime in. What say you guys?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The article needs lots of work, and looks like you have a plan for it. Feoffer (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do, Feoffer. Right now I'm splitting up the huge template TM:Scientology (previously 184 articles) into major subtopic templates and this is helping me straighten out in my head the "topic tree" (hierarchical organization) that will be the framework for the summary style structure.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: The article has been trimmed from 224,000 bytes down to 128,000 bytes, which is about 57% of the larger size, and that trimmed the citation count from 505 to 250. Plenty more to trim/summarize, especially from the two largest sections "Church of Scientology" (80 refs) and "Controversies" (117 refs).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Subtopics done

• Thetan
• Auditing
• Ethics and justice
• Scientologists
• Free Zone

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Etymology
• Scientology symbols
• Operating Thetan
• Space opera in Scientology
• Xenu

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you are doing a great job. I don't edit in this area much because I know so little about Scientology other than the electronics in the E-Meter, but it is great to see how this important topic is being improved. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. There's lots of work still to be done to turn this into a [hierarchically] top-level article for the entire subject area... that is readable, understandable, and useful.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Reception and influence  Done   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Media and academia  Done   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Popular culture  Done   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I created a new article, Scientology analysis and criticism, which contains the content moved from these four sections:

• Definition
• Classification
• Scientology in religious studies
• Influences

Its lead is now {{excerpt}}ed into Scientology § Scientology analysis and criticism.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Legal status  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• History  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Church of Scientology (and subsections).  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, I really like what I am seeing. I wish I knew more about the CoS and could be more help. I have been checking the edits looking for errors, but haven't found any. Good work! You can expect a little something extra in the paycheck we all get.^{[Citation Needed]} for editing Wikipedia. Who would have guessed that building an encyclopedia was so lucrative? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

They must have a wrong address for me cuz I didn't get the check. (LOL) I'm glad someone is at least observing the edits and I'm not just editing in a vacuum. Just a little more trimming to go and then we can reorganize and rebuild the article as a REAL top-level summary article. I even have plans for the beliefs and practices article and how it fits with this one. Dang this hobby; will I ever be done with this project! Please do keep checking my edits. Someone ought to.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Great work, thank you. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 06:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Controversies.  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Beliefs.  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Hubbard as source.  Done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:43, 7 June 2026 (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)

New focus

Though I'm not done overhauling this article, the last week of working on a new replacement for the "controversies" section has taught me some things... primarily that this article is meant to be an overarching article about the entire topic of Scientology.

It isn't about "the movement" while the Church of Scientology article is about "the organization" (as had long been asserted by some earlier editors while still bloated with subtopics about the organization). This article is about the Church of Scientology's Scientology (movement and organization), with just a side mention of freezone. The article (this one) is supposed to cover and overview all the major topics related to Scientology without diving into details.

It should answer basic questions of a casual reader, "What is Scientology? What do Scientologists believe? What practices are involved? Why is it so controversial?"

Secondarily, I've learned that WP:SUMMARY is not just about trimming bloated content, but about a hierarchical structure of a major subject. We have the daughter articles for details. What we didn't have was an overall article for the entire subject. We do now. Still needs work, but I think this is a good start.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)