Talk:Scientology

"Very long" tag
I agree that the article is too long. Opening a thread here in which to put comments and engage in discussion. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I wish to start by pointing out a goal from WP:CANYOUREADTHIS: "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion: an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow." ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That inevitably leads to the idea of a top level article and top level sub-articles beneath it. Which then leads to the fact that we basically have two top level articles (this and Scientology beliefs and practices)which are 90% duplications of each other. And this is inherent in the title because "practices" is 80% of what Scientology is. And we have many many sub articles but no organized usable set that this areticlecan me made more dependent on.     My thought for a 2 year plan is to make / keep this article as the top level one and decide on 4-6 main top level sub articles are just beneath it.   And "Beliefs and Practices" needs to be changed somewhow. Maybe refine / clarify it to only practices that are very closely related to beliefs.  North8000 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree re: Sci beliefs and practices and this article. It should be merged into this one, in my view. The Church of Scientology and Scientology in religious studies sections ought to be considerably shorter. The controversies section ought not to exist (as per WP:STRUCTURE): its parts should be incorporated into the main narrative about the movement/scam. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly; I made the drawings to help illustrate. It seems like we have been treating Scientology as a topmost article in a hierarchical structure similar to the left diagram (with 3 primary child-articles below it). It seems that North suggests continuing this style but to make the topmost article more of a WP:general overview article and less of a duplicate of "beliefs" article. It seems that Cambial is proposing Scientology be the container for beliefs and practices, and there is no single topmost article, or perhaps Scientology and Church of Scientology hold topmost status (like the diagram on the right). Am I on the right track? I have been viewing the Scientology article as an overview article like in the left diagram, and wonder if this difference in viewpoint is why Cambial and I have had disagreements over this article. After looking at some other religions and how they have structured their articles, I see the "beliefs" article is their topmost article with no overview above it. I say "topmost", but only because their various navbars and sidebars use the "belief" name rather than the "church" name, but entry into the collection of articles is not necessarily a top-down approach.

Using the Scientology article for beliefs would allow us to trim much content, though I have a few concerns:
 * 1) By assigning "beliefs" as a topmost article instead of having an overview article, does it grant the scientology belief system a broader recognition than its one-to-one correlation with the Church of Scientology? (I consider the Freezone to be a very minority offshoot; an afterthought.)
 * 2) Many of the "practices" are specific to the Church of Scientology organization (RPF, suppressive declarations, war on psychiatry) and are not (though they sort of are) general "beliefs" of "Scientology" (if one were to generalize it as a belief system). Most of those "practices" fall under controversies/criticisms. Or do we separate practices into "red volume" material (auditing and training) versus "green volume" material (administrative actions... which would include everything about ethics/justice—the source of most of the horrific actions/practices COS engages in—as well as recruiting, sales, marketing, fundraising, public outreach, management, and legal contracts)? Where do we draw the line between practice of belief and practice of policy (which is also their belief, because of KSW1)? Perhaps this entanglement is why I have favored a top-down single overview article approach to the collection of articles as a way to tie together Scientology and Church of Scientology.

Food for thought. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO "Scientology" should be the top level article. One comment about trying to organize this. Without getting into a categorization debate, I don't think that the usual structure for covering a church is applicable. A church is usually centric on a set of beliefs, and so beliefs can be covered as such. For Scientology IMO this is not the case. Further, Scientology as a whole has aspects of being an (generic term) organization (or somewhat a set of organizations), a church, a business, a set of practices, a disparate set of beliefs, arguably a cult, a central person and their teachings/writings which are a central defining part of the organization. I think that we need to acknowledge this unusual situation when trying to organize coverage. Again, without getting into categorization debates, structurally it is an organization which is a combination of all of the above things. Structurally, I think that free zone is structurally just a tiny off shoot of the organization which uses some of the organization's beliefs and practices and should not affect our overall planning on coverage on what is actually the described agglomeration where the only term broad enough to think about is "organization"      North8000 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree about this being the top-level, and that there is no reason to look to structures from other articles. My view is that this article is not and ought not to be about organisations, but about what the opening sentence says: the set of ideas [beliefs and activities], and a movement that follows those ideas. That movement as a whole specifically not being an organisation, insofar as it is disorganised. You're right that we obviously cannot ignore that CoS organisation is by some margin the most publicly visible part of that movement (and, historically, its source). But we can't say that it's representative of the whole. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that you have disputed my use of the word "organization" but if you knew the limited way I intended it perhaps you would not.   I just meant it as the only vague-enough term to include all of the above listed things. Nothing more.    If it will clear it up, I'll use the word "agglomeration" instead.  So, when when are trying to figure out coverage structure we need to recognize that Scientology is an agglomeration of all of the above things. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that clarification, and agree. I think the distinction is useful: Scientology (the non-ideas meaning) is an agglomeration (nebulous, disparate, but with common characteristics); Church of Scientology is an organisation (connected legal entities, has a CEO, etc). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 13:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So if agree on "Scientology" being the top level article, IMO we need a short list of top level sub articles which it can be dependent upon/ closely coordinated with. I think that one good candidate is the current "beliefs & practices" article except trim "practices" to only those closely related to beliefs. (which I think are inseparable from beliefs anyway) So it would include things like auditing but not things like "fair game"  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * North8000, where do you suggest the administrative practices go?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sort of relates to what the "top tier" sub articles are. The subject being such a complex agglomeration I'm  still trying to think of an idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's a starting point idea on "top tier" articles just beneath "Scientology". It's basically the narrowed "beliefs and practices" article plus some headings from this article. (add :Scientology" to all of these titles : <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Beliefs and practices" (but only practices closely related to beliefs)
 * The Church of Scientology
 * Free Zone and independent Scientology
 * Controversies
 * Legal status (including disputes over legal status)
 * Scientology in religious studies
 * Demographics
 * Reception and influence
 * Looks fine apart from "Controversies". We ought not to be separating content based on the apparent POV subject, so as to maintain NPOV. Scientology as a business would also come right under this article in a hierarchy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Subconscious command-like recordings
The description of engrams as recently added to the lead is not in the article body, nor in Auditing (Scientology), Engram (Dianetics), nor Scientology beliefs and practices. I don't dispute that it could be an accurate summary of how secondary sources describe the concept. But we should ensure this is sourced (particularly "command-like"). I'm not saying we must have sources that use this exact phrase by any means, but we should have sources that describe the engram concept in similar terms, and this description needs to be in the article body. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 11:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You might start with DMSMH, though Dianetics: The Original Thesis has extensive content about the nature of engrams and commands. I'm quite sure there are dozens more sources that cover the concept of engrams being "subconscious command-like recordings". From DMSMH: "Man has unwittingly long aided the reactive mind by supposing that a person, when 'unconscious' from drugs, illness, injury or anesthetic, had no recording ability. This permits an enormous amount of data to enter into the reactive bank since none have been careful to maintain silence around an 'unconscious' person. The invention of language and the entrance of language into the engram bank of the reactive mind seriously complicates the mechanistic reactions. The engrams containing language impinge themselves upon the conscious mind as commands. Engrams then contain command value much higher than any in the exterior world. ... Perhaps before Man had a large vocabulary these engrams were... If Man had not invented language or, as will be demonstrated, if his languages were a little less homonymic..." ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not on the rantings of a mentally ill narcissist. As Church of Scientology cannot be relied upon for such basic facts as their own membership, and Hubbard for such basic facts as his own life story, secondary sources are what is needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 11:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Whether or not Hubbard's ideas are scientifically sound, or mere belief, it is neither incorrect nor contentious to state that he declared engrams to be recordings in the reactive mind that contain language and enforce commands on the person. Such explanations are exactly what an encyclopedia should cover. There are plenty of secondary sources that echo the same concepts because Hubbard wrote about this concept early on and repeated it in multiple books. It is a fundamental building block to Hubbard's entire Dianetics writings including later writings after he incorporated Dianetics into Scientology and made New Era Dianetics and NED for OTs. Try Handbook of Scientology (Lewis 2017) if you're still seeking a secondary source.


 * If you're not willing to let me make changes (because you revert almost everything I do to this article), then you'll continue to see long writeups on the talk page, which grow longer the more you stonewall. If you're not willing to make the changes yourself or allow other to—especially after errors, corrections and sources have been pointed out—then you are being disruptive to the project. Whether or not you think Scientology is a religion or belief system or pure poppycock is irrelevant, because you should be here to build an encyclopedia and not engage in snide remarks about the subject matter (see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:Talk page guidelines). Wikipedia is not your WP:PODIUM—"Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote a person's or organization's beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." If you cannot participate without every second edit having some sort of derogatory dig at this subject matter (such as: the rantings of a mentally ill narcissist), then you should not be editing in this area.


 * If you would be more cooperative and constructive, then I might actually have more time and enthusiasm to tackle Engram (Dianetics), Auditing (Scientology), Clear (Scientology), Reactive mind, etc., including updating with fresh content and secondary reliable sources. Dealing with such a labyrinthine subject, sorting through current content to discard junk, identifying the best sources, and figuring out how best to present the subject to a reader, requires concentration and tenacity—elements already in short supply in a volunteer project.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a primary source can be used for statements of fact. This is not a straightforward statement of fact. If there is no secondary source for it, it doesn't belong in the lead, and probably ought not to be in the article.
 * There's no stonewalling. Several of your proposals are simply not appropriate or helpful to building an encyclopaedia. Your disruptive removal of entire sections of content based on scholarship on the grounds you consider them "juicy gossip", your widespread citation of Hubbard's Scientology writings with no secondary source; these are not how we build Wikipedia.
 * Until you are able to properly grasp that this is a mainstream encyclopaedia built on the secondary work of others, perhaps take a break from editing Wikipedia, and familiarise yourself with how to approach it.
 * Hubbard was mentally ill according to his own family. I have no interest in your view as to whether I or anyone else ought to edit the topic.
 * When you decide to participate in building a mainstream encyclopaedia based on reliable secondary sources, you will find far fewer of you edits generate opposition. Much of your current approach - deciding for yourself what ought to be given prominence from the primary sources, and giving your own interpretation - is simply not a useful addition to the project. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * So you still haven't looked up Handbook of Scientology which is a secondary source covering the same material? You might have simply tagged the phrase "subconscious command-like recordings" with citation needed in the beginning, which might have garnered from me an actual secondary source instead of an educational explanation for you on the talk page—which you are now using to scold me because it was primary source when it was intended as an explanation, not a source for you to cite.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You could refrain from writing another pointless diatribe (pointless, because you don't really imagine I give it more than the barest skimread do you?) You could refrain from following it up with a complaint that you were scolded (forgetting this page). You could simply add the longer description matching this phrase into the body of the article, and add the citation to a secondary source that support it to the article. You know, like a Wikipedia editor would. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request / content dispute / re auditing sessions
Change: A fee is charged for each session of "auditing".

to: A fee is charged for auditing.

I have twice attempted to correct the information, but reverted it here and here. I believe Cambial Yellowing is unable to correctly evaluate this issue considering their edit summaries, such as the derisive personal opinion about auditing "let's not assume this actually occurs when it's just a made-up lie", the incorrect "make clear it's pay-per-hour", and the snide comment to me while still being incorrect "nevertheless, this is not a one-time payment" (oh yes it is). I am tired of dealing with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR games. Someone else (besides Cambial) should make the determination of this content dispute.

Reasons for the change: The longer sentence is incorrect; the shorter sentence is correct. The longer sentence makes it seem like scientology auditing sessions are one hour long (or some fixed period), and paid per-session like you might find in psychology counseling. Scientology auditing sessions are not one hour long, nor fixed; they could be 5 minutes, or they could be several hours long. A Scientologist purchases auditing in blocks of 12.5 hours, called an "intensive". Intensives have long been paid in advance, and at the end of each session the used minutes during the session are deducted from the number remaining on account. It is administered like retainer fees in professions like lawyers and accountants. Before starting an auditing program, scientologists must purchase in advance the estimated number of intensives the case supervisor told them they would probably need for that program. That might be a much as 4, 8 or more intensives (50 or 100 hours or more). The Church of Scientology is suppose to deliver one intensive (12.5 hrs) per person per week. Early on in COS history, an "intensive" meant auditing within a single week, and sometimes that target was 25 hours of auditing in a single week per individual. So one session does not equal one hour like is common in psychology therapy. (Side note re stats: Registrars count their stats as dollars income (however many intensives they could sell that week); HGCs count one "paid start" each time a 12.5-hr intensive is started; auditors count "well done auditing hours".)

Here are just some of the sources to back up what I have written.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the sentence makes it seem like scientology auditing sessions are one hour long. You evidently accept that an hourly/time-based rate is charged for auditing, so the sentence is not incorrect, as you claim. Your increasingly tiresome repetitive charge of ownership lacks merit, so there's no reason to respond to it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 04:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Cambial: A fee is charged for auditing services (inferred correctly in the short sentence). Fees are not charged for auditing sessions (inferred incorrectly in the longer sentence). I sense your English is good enough to understand the difference between those two sentences. However, it is a fact that your insertion of "for each session" was accompanied by the erroneous "this is not a one-time payment", and when thus combined implies you meant a payment for "each session". So either you did not understand the source material or you chose not to. But I believe your reading comprehension is good enough to understand the underlying sources, so I lean toward the latter explanation because here you are—again—deliberately insisting and defending your version directly in the face of sources and facts to the contrary (a repeating behavior with you and the main articles of Scientology). So if this is not OWNBEHAVIOR, then you tell me what it is.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your false dichotomy is not a serious argument: "So either you did not understand the source material or you chose not to." - your implicit claim these are the only possibilities is unsupported. I understood the various sources materials, and the sentence accurately reflects them. Your claim that Fees are not charged for auditing sessions is inaccurate, almost to the point of absurdity. Many other editors have made both small and comprehensive changes to the page. Where their edits are based on reliable scholarship, or correct the grammar or improve the flow of the text, I welcome them. Edits based on someone's personal interpretation of a primary source, or which introduce a grammatical error already fixed by another editor, are not improvements. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 10:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Auditors don't determine an individual's Clear status
I attempted to correct erroneous content with this edit, and reverted it back with this edit.
 * Incorrect content: Once an "auditor" deems an individual free of "engrams", typically after several years, they are given the status of "clear".
 * Closer to correct: Once all of a person's engrams have been removed, they are given the status of "clear".

It isn't an auditor who decides if someone is clear or not, but is the case supervisor (C/S)... and only if the person has verbalized the "clear cognition" in session and the auditor wrote it down in the session worksheets for the C/S. The auditor just delivers the message to the preclear from the C/S.

The removal of all engrams doesn't make one clear. If the person has all their engrams removed (on NED/New Era Dianetics which is a Scientology procedure), but doesn't verbalize a clear cognition, then they must do the "alternate route to clear". It can be seen on the grade chart near the large letters "CLEAR". And none of this has to take years (unless you have to first amass the money to pay for it).

In the 1950s-style Dianetics procedures, the removal of all engrams would presumably make you clear, and there was no case supervisor involved because the practice in those days was auditor-as-sole-practitioner; but in Scientology the clear cognition is required. And though I've read it could take a significant amount of time (years?) when auditing with 1950s Dianetics techniques, that doesn't apply here. The 1950s Dianetics techniques is rarely used anymore, except as an optional introductory service in a Church of Scientology to give someone a taste of auditing when recruiting new members. Since this is the Scientology article, not the Dianetics article, then the Scientology rules of clear, and their timeframes, should be represented here.

The source for much of what I've written above is the grade chart. I recommend correcting the content by removing the parts about 'auditors deeming freedom from engrams (in order to declare clear)' and 'taking several years'... unless someone can come up with sources that support those concepts. The removal of those erroneous concepts doesn't require the addition of a source. Furthermore, the lack of an extant source mandates they be removed. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your preferred phrasing states in wikivoice something for which there is no evidence: that engrams exist and that they are removed. Engrams are only a fantasy, so we cannot state in wikivoice that they are removed. If there is a reliable secondary source, preferably scholarship, that states it is a "case supervisor" that deems an individual free of engrams, I would obviously have no objection to a factual correction to . The fact it typically takes several years is supported by Shermer 2020, Tobin 2016, Kent in numerous papers, and I think Urban's book, though I would need to check the latter. The Scientology organisation is not a reliable narrator of its own activities, being full of aggrandising marketing, so secondary sources, not, yet again, a Scientology website, are what is needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 10:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Your reference offerings were a dry hole: Shermer 2020's chapter on Scientology didn't have anything related; Tobin 2016 is about getting money out of people for years, not how long auditing takes to get clear; the two Kent sources in don't cover this topic (I checked); and I didn't find anything in Urban 2011 about length of time to clear when I was checking that book yesterday for the concept. Which brings me to the point that if a source cannot be found that states Scientology auditing to clear "takes years", then we're better off removing that portion of the sentence, per WP:VERIFY. Same with the auditor issue: if a source cannot be found that says "auditor", then just remove it. The case supervisor hasn't been introduced or explained, so don't replace "auditor" with "case supervisor" in the article; a "who" is not needed for reader understanding. One doesn't need a secondary source to remove WP:OR, just a lack of sources verifying such content.Your pronouncement—"Engrams are only a fantasy, so we cannot state in wikivoice that they are removed"—explains your repeated use of quotes as MOS:SCAREQUOTES, instead of simply using quotes once at the first introduction of an esoteric term. The word "engram" was already introduced as a special term two sentence before, so remove the quotes around the second use, as well as around the second use of "auditing". Your expression of bias should not be allowed to interfere with the making of the encyclopedia. And yes, you can and should paraphrase what reliable sources say. Change the sentence to: Once all of a person's engrams have been removed, they are given the status of "clear".    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  20:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no expression of bias. Please assume good faith and don't make groundless claims about other editors, as it's uncivil. Your proposed sentence is unsourced. Your desire to add unsourced content and your repeated use of Scientology books and websites as sources is not going to work here. There is no reliable source for the claim that "once all of a person's engrams have been removed, they are given the status of clear": no reliable source states that engrams exist. Stating that the Scientologist concept of "engrams" is merely a fantasy is simply a fact.
 * Stating a fact is no indication of bias.
 * The quotation marks are not scare quotes; they are used to differentiate the fact that the word is used with an entirely different meaning from any natural language sense of the word. That's why there's no need for quotation marks on Thetan or Operating Thetan - no such word English word exists, so no differentiation is necessary.
 * The passage in Shermer: "Envision converting to Judaism but having to pay for courses in order to hear the story of Abraham and Isaac, Noah and the flood, or Moses and the Ten Commandments. Or imagine joining the Catholic Church but not being told about the Crucifixion and the Resurrection until you have reached Operating Theological Level III, which can only be attained after many years and tens of thousands of dollars in church-run courses. That is, in essence, how the Church of Scientology dispenses its theology." The other references I'll need to look up; it's not a vital clause of that sentence so I've removed it temporarily. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 22:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Glad you removed "typically after several years", because according to Shermer that passage is referring to years to reach OT III, not Clear. Now please remove the rest of the incorrect content.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If only there were some to remove. But there isn't. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre (page numbers)
Re Special:Diff/1229598896. The version downloadable from Oxford Academic (via Wikipedia Library access) shows the page numbers ending with 388. Here are screenshots of top of document and bottom of document   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. The chapter references finish about one-fifth of the way down p. 387 of the book. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That explains you repeatedly changing it from 388 to 387. I only have the online version, accessed through Wikipedia Library, and I'm not acquainted with any reasons why there might be differences between the online and print versions of the book. Each chapter has its own separate DOI number, and using a chapter-specific DOI in a citation makes it easier for Wikipedians (with access to Wikipedia Library) to verify content... which would be the online book.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  22:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientology officials has an RfC
Scientology officials has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)