Talk:Scientology/Archive 33

Reduction project B&P
In line with the earlier discussions about article size and organization of content across multiple articles, I will be working on a project to push "beliefs and practices" type content to the article Scientology beliefs and practices (one subtopic at a time), and reduce the duplicate content from the Scientology article, with the goal of leaving a summary in Scientology. (Later to determine the scope and composition of Scientology.) Edits will be made in coordination with edits made to Scientology beliefs and practices. (A separate project will be to push & reduce content that should be in Church of Scientology.) ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still working on this as time (and interest) permits. Lots more to be done. Anyone is welcome to jump in and pick a subtopic to work on.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a necessary effort, and the approach you state above is the right one (reduce duplication and leave a summary). To accord with WP:CORRECTSPLIT, don't remove content (like ) leaving a subheading with no article body text, or with only a single sentence. The article is moving towards the ideal range of readable prose size; it is unnecessary and undesirable to remove the summary content that is the purpose of this headline article. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * CORRECTSPLIT doesn't apply, considering there are already several WP:CONTENTFORK articles: Scientology beliefs and practices, Church of Scientology, and others. We're not in the process of trying to split Scientology, but instead trying to remove the duplicates (forks) that have been left behind from a split, or were deliberately duplicated. The empty-ish sections will likely go away entirely (or be combined into a summary section) because the plan has been to remove the majority of the section "Beliefs and practices" in favor of the splitaway article with the same name. Do not re-add chunks of fork material as you recently did to sections ARC and KRC triangles (diff) and Opposition to psychology and psychiatry (diff). You are undoing incremental work already done and making future duplicate work. At 230K (150K text only), this article is still no way near a reasonable size, and I estimate a full half of it is still duplicate material. Removal of content is not dependent on article size, but on duplication of content. If you want to help, then identify material that is duplicate in this article and another, and push the majority of the content into the breakaway article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct split applies. Just because the articles to which content is being split off to already exist, does not mean we should have headings or subheadings that are devoid of content. There is always to be summary content, and ideally this ought to consist of at least a couple of paragraphs. n.b. readable prose size, not page size, is the relevant metric. It's currently at 72 kB. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, "If all the content of the section is being removed use the "See" template." Where it refers to "couple of paragraphs", as in "Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate)", that is for when you're actually doing a split of an article, not directing a minor subtopic to a duplicate section in another article. It is describing, of course, guidelines for when you're splitting an entire large article, then sure, I'll grant that a "couple of paragraphs" would be appropriate. But not here. Per consensus, the article is bloated with duplicate content.
 * It is not your place to "permit" me to shift out and summarize only bland and boring informational content about 'beliefs and practices' while reserving for yourself unilateral decision-making to keep all the juicy gossip bits... all the while moving them higher and higher up the page, which downplays the common and typical beliefs and practices by placing them below your chosen sensational subtopics.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that they are "sensational" or "juicy gossip" is your own. According to the scholarship, the section discusses the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests. It is therefore highly relevant to this article about "the system of beliefs and the associated movement". Cambial — foliar❧ 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Material invented after 1967 doesn't trump basic concepts from 1950 through 1967. What source says OT III and the Xenu story is the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  07:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rothstein in Lewis 2009. Scientology. OUP. It refers to it prominently as Scientology's founding myth. <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 07:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Founding myth" as in the alleged story of the start of the universe, not the start of the religion. The Xenu story is not a premise upon which all other things Scientology hang. In fact, very few things in Scientology rely on the Xenu story. The vast majority of Hubbard's writings and lectures happened prior to his invention of the Xenu story, like 95% of the material he churned out.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting original research, but not useful for page content. I'll simply quote Rothstein on Xenu/OT3, who says 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> 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rothstein admits on page 374 to relying heavily on Wikipedia's explanation of Scientology, cites Wikipedia over 10 times, used 6 or 7 Wikipedia pages in his footnotes, and frequently refers to Wikipedia in his chapter, which means using his write-up as a source for a citation in Wikipedia is pretty much a violation of WP:CIRCULAR: Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  09:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The author does not "admit to relying heavily" on Wikipedia's explanation. He notes that. He notes that his scholarship is based on checking various renditions (including that on Wiki) to the original, and that he will. He does not refer to Wikipedia when noting that the Xenu story is the mythological framework for the courses central to Scientology practice. The section in this article is based on a variety of scholarship and other reliable sources, and there are numerous other reliable sources examining this founding myth not currently cited (e.g. Lewis 2016, which also refers to this as a foundational myth). If you believe you can build a consensus to delete this section, present on the article for at least fourteen years and built by numerous long-time editors, you're free to seek to do so.

Similarly, deleting entirely the Psychiatry section, on the article for eight years having been added by in  and built by several editors since, is not justified by mere reference to a "reduction project" for this page in which you are the only participant.

As you know, Scientology is a big subject, and there is a lot to cover in the article. It is bound to be large. It is currently well below the "must be shortened" prose length of 15,000 words. Nevertheless, there could be room for making it shorter, much of which could be achieved by simply tightening up the language. Wholesale deletion of sections, on the basis that you think they are "juicy gossip", that you don't like them, or that they are covered in far greater detail on their own article, is not a productive way forward. <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> 11:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of maintenance templates
Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation:

The article text you tagged was and

The sources, with page numbers, state:

If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content. <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> 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something that at most needs removal of the templates, not a big nasty epistle. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote a grand total of eighty-five words [the rest is copypasta]. If you perceive eighty-five words to be a "big epistle", I pity those receiving your thank-you notes. Which text do you perceive to be "nasty" in "Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation... The article text you tagged was...and...The sources, with page numbers, state...If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content." ? <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> 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been rather busy. I'd be delighted to answer your question in detail when I get a chance to sit down with it. Responding to what amounts to a gish gallop can be tedious and is why you only get one or two things answered at a time. My short answer is: yes... I checked the sources you cited... the older ones and the newer ones you added like a REFBOMB.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a shame you perceive it be “like a REFBOMB”. It isn’t a “refbomb”, by the definition used on this website. I didn’t ask you a question. <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> 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a question? Then it really was intended to be an epistle as suggested. Maybe you're just telling me how it's gonna be, instead of discussing content disputes. Is that it? Bulldoze your way through the article, bully the other editors until they all go away and leave you to your POV-pushing version in all its glory. Do I have that right yet? When you post like you did above, the assumption is there is, or has been, some sort of content dispute. The purpose should be to open a discussion. If you don't like the way I introduce a concept (such as using the phrase "I'd be delighted to answer your question") then what you shouldn't do is tone police with I didn’t ask you a question. You will get an answer when I have some time to sit down and detail out why I added those three "failed verification" tags.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Bulldoze your way through the article...to your POV-pushing version in all its glory." Wow, the projection is strong with you buddy. I know you were keen to remove, without discussion, all that terrible, as you put it "sensational...juicy gossip" that multiple scholarly sources describe as the foundational myth of the article subject and that has been on the article for sixteen years.
 * There is plenty to discuss about Wikipedia content. There is even plenty to discuss about phrasing, grammar etc. My grammar regularly gets corrected on this article, and my phrasing improved. The question of whether the three quotes from reliable sources above support the four sentences of article text listed above is one of fact. The fact is that they do support them. <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> 19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Answer from Grorp
When I saw the content, I read the sources. The early sources didn't verify the content and I knew them to be wrong anyway, so I wasn't going to go looking for alternative sources to cite. I simply removed the false content. You re-added the information and added more sources. I looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify. Editing the content was not an option because your content was exaggerated and incorrect as to the facts. So I tagged the three instances instead.

I just completed another dive into this subject. According to all the sources, they allege 3 incidents: 1951 New Jersey, 1953 Detroit, 1954 California. Kent 1996 is the one which mentions the actual sources. I suspect Urban 2011 and Westbrook 2019 rely on Kent, and possibly the original newspaper articles. I present links to online copies of the Kent-cited news articles (all are very short):
 * 1951:
 * 1953:
 * 1954:

Basically, 1951 was a charge against the HDRF organization (not Hubbard) for "conducting a medical school contrary to the law"; the case was dropped without coming to trial. In 1953 Detroit, the charge was against a couple for "operating a vocational school without a license". In 1954 California, this is a gossip sentence in Aberree, a Scientology newsletter which maybe happened but is so vague it could have been an arrest without charges or a full trial with sentence of 10 days, we don't know and neither does Kent 1996.

The cases weren't "practicing medicine without a license", and they weren't against Hubbard. Only one was against HDRF, the other 2 were against individuals operating privately and not part of HDRF.

So the following 3 content excerpts from the article at the time of my tagging, contained these falsehoods:
 * 1) Following the prosecution of Hubbard's Dianetics foundation for teaching medicine without a license
 * 2) Hubbard and his early Dianetics organization were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in the early 1950s
 * 3) Throughout the early 1950s, adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against the Dianetic Research Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license.

1: Was that a "prosecution"? It was dropped and never came to trial. The word (at least in lay American English) implies a trial or final determination, not simply charges or setting a court date. 2: Not Hubbard. Not "his" organizations. Not for "practicing medicine without a license". 3: "Throughout the early 1950s" is an exaggeration. "Adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license" is a stretch since Aberree is not reliable and there was only one couple arrested for (but was dropped) "practicing medicine without a license" in favor of "operating a vocational school without a license" (an easier case to win in court, per the source). "Brought proceedings against" is better wording than "prosecution" (in #1).

Checking Kent 1996, Miller 1987 pages 174, 213 & 222, Westbrook 2019 pages 81-84 (and several other sources that weren't even cited), none of them say Hubbard was prosecuted. None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".

Two arrest incidents (Detroit and California) do not fit Urban 2011's page 62 exaggeration: "throughout the early 1950s" and "Hubbard's followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses", especially when he immediately follows with the same 3 incidents in a way that doesn't fit his prior exaggeration.

Westbrook 2019's wondering out loud on page 84, "Perhaps this is an allusion to the earlier legal difficulties that arose from allegations of practicing medicine without a license" isn't really reliable (he's guessing) and is a stretch since he's referring to the April 1953 letter to O'Brien after the March 1953 Detroit arrest. California hadn't even happened yet.

What we have here is circular reporting. All could have had access to the same sources: the newspapers (or copies of them), one Scientology-rag, and the other writings that preceded their own.

Even so, the imprecise claims in the cited sources do not amount to the exaggerations or imprecision you added. You have added further content since the time I tagged the above 3. "Prosecution" for medical now appears 3 times in the article.

Did Hubbard run from New Jersey because he was afraid of prosecution for "practicing medicine without a license"? Sure. Was he concerned at "the writing on the wall" after the Detroit news? Yes. Hubbard acted like the criminal and coward he was: scared of getting caught, running when the heat got too close, and swapping corporations, locations and policies so he wouldn't have to worry as much.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The “failed verification” maintenance template is for use [emphasis in template page]. It’s not for use when the Princeton University Press book and Routledge academic journal cited both support what is in the article but you don’t agree with it because of your original research.
 * You claim that after I re-added the information and added more sources. [You, Grorp] looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify. You also claim None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".
 * Urban (Princeton UP, 2011):
 * Similarly Kent (Routledge, 1996):
 * If you want to make the argument that this scholarly work by a subject-matter expert published by one of the leading academic publishers in the United States, and this journal article by another subject-matter expert published by a leading international academic publisher, are both incorrect, by all means make your case centrally. For now, academic publishing is considered the best kind of source available, so we can rely on it for statements of fact. Using inappropriate maintenance templates is not a way to address your issue with the sources. <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> 15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * None of your scholarly sources use the term "prosecuted" and none accuse(d) Hubbard directly. Your decision to cherry-pick a few phrases from out of a few sources, remove them from the context of their source, exaggerate the language (WP:OR), knit them together into the WP:SYNTH that you did, and repeat the concepts three times in the article, shows your penchant for POV pushing on this topic. Focusing on use of "failed verification" template and your interpretation of when it should be used is a red herring. Suggesting a publisher would fact check every minute sentence and turn of phrase in a scholarly work they publish is a fantasy.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  16:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You said None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license". This is categorically untrue, . You claim there was no prosecution, despite Kent pointing out there was an “impending trial”. Hubbard set up the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation – as is recorded in multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to those already cited – the same organisation that Kent indicates was facing an impending trial; thus it’s fair to describe it as his organization. If you would like to change the words in the Elizabeth case from “practicing medicine without a license” to "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license” because you think it’s an insufficiently exact synonymous phrase that results in a libel against a man dead for 38 years, be bold and change it. I’ll not object, even if I hold the distinction to be nil. <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> 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Xenu story in this article: placement and quantity
Per Hugh Urban about the Xenu story: "'Although the media have made a great deal of the Xenu story, it is important to note that it is a relatively small part of the larger Scientology belief system and not a concern for most ordinary Scientologists. Moreover, the Xenu story is really quite unremarkable when compared to the more elaborate space opera narratives contained in Hubbard's publicly available lectures from the early 1950s.' —Hugh Urban in New Age, Neopagan, and New Religious Movements: Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America (2015)"

There has been much fuss recently over the inclusion/exclusion and positioning of the Xenu story in the article. Currently, there is content in the section as well as in the lead section. It is also covered extensively in articles Xenu and Space opera in Scientology, mentioned in Operating Thetan, but not really mentioned in Scientology beliefs and practices which is where it should be instead of in Scientology.

As I tried to point out earlier (and was falsely accused of original research), the Xenu story is not a major part of "what is Scientology"—which is the most basic question an encyclopedia must answer for readers seeking information about the topic, and which comes before "tell me all about Scientology".

I'm not insisting reference to the Xenu story be removed entirely from the article, but the section could be shorter and should be placed further down the page. Placing it higher on the page, as was recently done, gives the story undue weight within the article.

Also, the language and concepts in the lead (inserted in 2021 diff diff) are incorrect. Relying on a citation to Rothstein, such wording as "this forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology" is a synthesis of concepts in Rothstein that don't correctly represent Rothstein's words. And given that the Xenu story "is a relatively small part of the larger Scientology belief system", it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all as it hinders a reader getting their answer to "what is Scientology" before having to read through content which is, ironically, "the subject of popular ridicule".

I propose that the section "Space opera and the Wall of Fire" be moved to Scientology beliefs and practices, and the Xenu material in the lead be removed. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a foundational myth, it is a centrally relevant and significant part of "what Scientology is".
 * I disagree with your characterisation of your earlier undiscussed removal as "much fuss". One editor removing without discussion a whole section of content, cited to reliable scholarly sources, is unfortunately something that happens a few times an hour somewhere on Wikipedia. Thankfully for the project, tools have been developed to keep such disruption to a minimum.
 * I'll first add some relevant context to correct misleading statements in the above about the article lead. It's true that some specific wording was added to the lead on this topic by me in 2021, but this topic was not then new to the lead, nor is it "incorrect", nor is it a "synthesis", by the definition of that term on this website. I'll address your central claim, which is not well supported by the minority academic view on which you rely, last.
 * Material about the Operating Thetan level mythology has been in the lead since as early as 2008, rewritten in 2009 and rewritten and included more prominently than it is now in 2015. It was removed at some point, and an oblique (piped) reference was added in 2019, which I then built on.
 * You claim a synthesis but neglect to indicate which parts of the source you perceive to have been combined to produce something new. No parts have been combined to produce something new, so that lacuna is at least understandable. Stable article text: Rothstein:  One can argue I suppose about the word "central": in my view, the statement that the mythology provides "the machinery of the courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the Bridge" means that it is central. I'm not particularly attached to that word; it's simply how I phrased it when condensing Rothstein.
 * As is stated in the opening sentence of the article, both in the current version and in every version, 2008 - 2019, that I reference above, "What Scientology is" is a number of "beliefs" and "practices". Describing "what Scientology is" therefore involves explaining the nature of this set of beliefs, including their systematic character. Urban observes, as does the current lead of the article, that the Xenu myth is "not a concern for most ordinary Scientologists". As is also explained in the lead, this is because of the particular systematic character of the set of beliefs that is Scientology, specifically their hierarchical secrecy. Urban (p.101): . Urban also notes (p.104): In a later work on the topic, Urban notes that (p. 166)  Rothstein is not alone in noting the foundational place of the Xenu narrative to the belief system –
 * Grünschloß: Bogdan:  Raine:  Shermer:  Rothstein and Hammer: Lewis:
 * In a system of belief in which "a great many aspects...are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation and dissimulation", it is unsurprising that this myth is also kept secret from new initiates.
 * In describing this set of beliefs and practices, the foundational myth, which provides the framework for the rest of the beliefs and practices, is evidently of central relevance. <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> 17:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Response:
 * The length of time certain content (whether true or false) has been in a Wikipedia article is an irrelevant argument and a fallacy. See CCC/Consensus can change and ARTICLEAGE for examples in wiki of the "age of content" being a fallacy for argumentation.
 * A foundational myth (per Rothstein, "a story of the origin of man on Earth and the human condition") is not equivalent to a core or central belief. Nor is foundational myth (explanation of creation) equivalent to soteriology (salvation theory).
 * The portion of Rothstein you provide omits the preamble to said quote: "In this chapter, however, I shall explore ". It is not his conclusion, and he goes on to discuss across 19 pages more angles of the myth, within their context. Though he writes "the myth about Xenu, which, in the shape of a science fiction–inspired anthropogony, explains the basic Scientological claims about the human condition" Rothstein does not conclude that the Xenu story is "central" to anything, except in "It also discusses the central role this narrative has played in efforts to debunk Scientology."
 * Rothstein has misunderstood the difference between a thetan and a body thetan, as demonstrated in his statement "Space opera, then, denotes a certain historiography, Hubbard’s introduction of a new reality, a new foundation for everything, indeed a new anthropogony that is already detectable in the auditing narratives that predate his writing of the Xenu myth . With the Xenu narrative, however, we now know for sure where the thetans come from, what their precise problems are, and how these problems can be solved". Prior to 1967, Hubbard had already codified how thetans came into being and what their nature and abilities were; the Xenu story only describes where "body thetans" come from. The Xenu story is only a foundational myth as related to humans on planet earth—a late portion of Hubbard's history of thetans. Hubbard had long described (mostly in the 1950s) the origin of thetans in the eons prior to the Xenu incidents. It was the Xenu incidents which created the body thetans; damaged thetans. It is basic mistakes like this that illustrate why Rothstein's work is not wholly reliable as a sole source to "Despite being kept secret from most followers, this forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology" which I assert is SYNTH.
 * All of those other quotes you included mention "foundational myth" and some mention its importance to the "advanced levels" (OT levels) of Scientology. None mention the Xenu story as central or core to Scientology in general.
 * Scientology's Grade Chart didn't have any OT levels prior to Hubbard's "discovery" of the Xenu information in December 1967. The OT levels were codified in 1968 and '69. Common sense tells us that the OT levels including the Xenu story could not possibly have been central or core prior to then. Xenu is only central or core to the OT levels. And since only about 1% of Scientologists ever get past Clear (giving them a shot to enter the OT levels), one cannot logically say the story is central or core to all of Scientology.
 * Re McShane: Sure a "core part of Scientology's advanced materials" but only because "Religious Technology Center director Warren McShane testified that the church derives significant revenue from the fixed donations its members pay to study the texts".
 * In response to, As a foundational myth, it is a centrally relevant and significant part of "what Scientology is": No. Being a secret foundational myth, unavailable and unknown to about 99% of Scientologists, specifically makes it "not central" and "not significant".
 * Re the text in the lead, Despite its efforts to maintain the secrecy of the texts, they are freely available on various websites, including at the media organization WikiLeaks. These texts say past lives took place in extraterrestrial cultures: I will remind that references to "extraterrestrial cultures" is openly and freely discussed amongst Scientologists, and is available to any pre OT level Scientologists as well as non-Scientology public in the form of publicly-available non-confidential books and lectures. It is only the Xenu story that is secret.
 * Re the text in the lead, forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology: it does not, and none of the above various authors' quotes point to it, either. If anything is "Scientology's soteriology", it would be the practice of auditing using Hubbard's written techniques and guided in general by the roadmap The Bridge to Total Freedom. Xenu and the body thetans are just a part of that, but are neither a key piece nor central or core.
 * Re your conclusory statement, "the foundational myth, which provides the framework for the rest of the beliefs and practices: The Xenu story is not "the framework for the rest of [Scientology's] beliefs and practices", and that doesn't match what Rothstein wrote.
 * My objection isn't to Rothstein, but to synth created from it. I end with a quote from Rothstein as it relates to editing with a neutral point of view: "predictably, anticultists and ex-Scientologists want to expose the absurdities of the narrative and its irrational nature".
 * ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s true that consensus can change. Nothing you’ve written has illustrated that it has changed. You repeat your charge of a synthesis but again neglect to state what parts you perceive to have been combined - as stated above, the article text is taken from the same three sentences in one paragraph of Rothstein, not combining different parts to make something new, so there is no synthesis.
 * I made no argument based on the age of the content - as I explicitly stated, I merely corrected some misleading statements from your OP: specifically in that instance “language and concepts in the lead (inserted in 2021” (my emphasis) whereas in reality the concepts were in the lead thirteen, twelve, six, and two years earlier, as shown.
 * I disagree with your assertion that the words "In this chapter, however, I shall explore” change the meaning of the sentences following it. Your assertion that “Rothstein has misunderstood…” is your own original research. Scholarship published by a leading academic press (and widely cited elsewhere on the topic) is given greater credence on this website than one editor’s personal views.
 * You claim All of those other quotes you included mention "foundational myth". This is incorrect. As well as some sources agreeing that it is a foundational myth, other sources state variously that the material is:
 * You give nothing relevant in the literature stating differently, merely your own research.
 * You claim “Re the text in the lead...it does not, and none of the above various authors' quotes point to it, either. If anything is "Scientology's soteriology", it would be the practice of auditing The article text does not state this is the claimed soteriology itself, it explicitly states, as does the source, that it is the mythological framework for the soteriology.
 * I don’t find your argument, lacking as it does any support whatsoever in reliable scholarly sources, remotely persuasive. <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> 08:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on the main question. But I think that we need to be careful not to be trying to see (or include, exclude, emphasize or de-emphasize based on) existence of (and then analysis of) a main belief system as we would with a typical religion. Scientology is more of an set of methods/practices, organization / system / business and those beliefs are are just supporting pieces of that agglomeration. As a side note, the Xenu story is perhaps amongst the most outlandish sounding things in the agglomeration and so insertion / removal / emphasis / de-emphasis of it does affect the impression of Scientology given by what is written. I think that the Xenu story certainly needs to be covered in this top level article. Again, these are just comments, and really aren't a specific answer to the specific question. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unused sources
The following sources are not actually referenced in the article (Harv errors). Putting them here in case someone needs to grab them for future use.



▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * More



▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
The opening sentence should be edited to read "Scientology is a cult, invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard, claiming to be a religious movement" (or something similiar). The article must be clear that it is a cult, not simply that some believe it is a cult. Cult analysts strongly believe it is one of the world's most destructive cults. It has done countless harm to many people, ruining their lives. Only people within the cult believe it is legitimate. By stating that "it is variously defined as a cult", you imply it might not be. Wikipedia has indicated other cults are indeed cults in the opening sentences of those other pages - including other cults that are less destructive than Scientology is. Wikipedia must be accurate and not feed into any lies that are sometimes perpetuated by problematic groups. Relegating the concern to the "Controversy" section is not enough, especially since that section is not very explicit that the movement is indeed a cult. All cult experts agree about the destructiveness of Scientology - it is not an opinion. If you define other cults as indeed cults, you must also do the same about the most destructive cult our world faces. Please note: I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with Scientology. I am a social worker and have followed news of world-wide cults for many years. 97.120.78.249 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you provide citations from reliable sources to support your assertion? <b style="color: green">TechBear</b> &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Scientology is defined as a religion and is registered so. The use of the word cult is therefore unjustified. Skippy9999 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Defined thus by whom? There is no such thing as "registering as a religion" in the United States. I don't know what country you live in, and are referring to, but you might want to consult Scientology status by country.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is tax exempt in the us therefore reccognised as a religion. Same in many other countries including the UK. 2A0D:3344:150:1910:C8D5:7619:ED41:7F12 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not tax exempt in the UK. There’s no point making things up here: others will see through 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> 21:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is tax exempt in the us therefore recognised as a religion. Same in many other countries including the UK where it gets the benefits of being a religion. Skippy9999 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your assumptions are incorrect. Since you appear to be new to Wikipedia, though no doubt are familiar with arguing your viewpoint on social media, let me inform you that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussing the merits of "ideas" about a subject, but are here for discussions about the improvement of a page. A Wikipedia editor is expected to write only what has been written by others, in a similar weighted balance to how a subject has been written about by others. A Wikipedia editor is not allowed to insert their own beliefs about a topic. For example, trying to discuss the merits of Scientology or its status as religion or not-religion is not the purpose of a talk page in Wikipedia. The material is already covered in the Wikipedia article Scientology status by country. There is no definitive or exclusive status or category for Scientology world-wide. The US government is forbidden by its constitution from "declaring" any group a religion or not. A tax-exempt status is not the same as being declared a religion, as you will see from reading Scientology status by country.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Demographics
the comment that there are 40,000 Scientologists is incorrect… it is way bigger than that. please correct with:

Over 11,000 Scientology Churches, Missions and affiliated groups exist across 167 nations. 92 million L. Ron Hubbard books and lectures on Dianetics and Scientology have been distributed in the last decade. Skippy9999 (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done . This is per sources in the Scientology section. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentences
The lead sentences discussing the definition of Scientology are redundant, lengthy and unpolished. Is calling Scientology a "scam" an actual "definition?" Is it represented with enough weight in the literature? It also seems to be a word that's redundant with business and cult, and makes the sentence excessively wordy. The word "scam" is not actually a definition either, but more of an evaluative statement of some people based on their experience. This word is not discussed or represented in the body of the article either. I move that the word "scam" be removed here, because it does not really add to the content. It's beefing up an already convoluted and lengthy section.Summerallergies (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The lead sentences are not redundant. Yes, scam (or racket) is a definition that has been used by a variety of journalistic and scholarly sources. Business and cult are utterly different things to scams, so your claim of redundancy between them makes no sense. A scam is a definition, contrary to your claim. The word is discussed in the body of the article, contrary to your claim. It's an appropriate - and accurate - description of the article subject. <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> 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We went down this same road six months ago. You do realize that anyone can scrutinize every single edit you make in Wikipedia, right? I'm beginning to see a pattern. Please review Advocacy if you haven't already.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

" The US State Department has criticised Germany's treatment of Scientologists in its reports on international religious freedom"
Well, they would, wouldn't they?

Can anyone guess where Scientology originated from?

Anyone? 24.69.97.22 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ This passage that gave undue weight to criticism given by a department of one government against another government's policy has been removed. <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> 16:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotation formatting
For accessibility and display compatibility, the manual of style (MOS:QUOTE) indicates that quotes should be in blockquote format. Quoteboxes are not generally appropriate in articles as they display vertically on mobile browsers. <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> 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Neither of your assertions are correct. Mobile does NOT show Quote box vertically. (See here https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk) And MOS:QUOTE does NOT say must be in Quotebox, it says Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By display vertically I mean that it is not over to one side as it is on a computer browser - one image does not demonstrate otherwise. Instead it displays above the beginning of the following paragraph (i.e. in that case at the beginning of the section before our paragraphs in wikivoice). The text you quoted supports what I wrote: - indicates that quotes should be in blockquote format. It doesn't support your misrepresentation of what I wrote, but that isn't relevant. <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, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * see Safari on ios and Chrome on ios. <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> 15:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you had looked at the URL in the screenprint I posted, https://ibb.co/V38F1Jk, you would have noticed it IS the mobile version. If, however, you were referring only to a cell phone format, then please mention that next time. Not only is that quotation not very long, it is a key belief of Scientologists and as such should be more prominently placed than at the bottom of the section—which is where you put it at first, and it looked like crap, overlapping with the section which followed (not unlike placing an image too close to the bottom of a section). Now that you provided some screenshots, and I checked my own cell phone (which I do not use for Wikipedia), I can see how a cell phone version looks better as a boxquote, though short boxquotes on a larger screen look awful unless you add a |author= parameter. I suppose that's because wiki's mobile version uses a bar along the left of a boxquote making it obvious it is a quote, and the non-mobile version does not (making the indentation look like a mistake or oversight). I'll try to be more aware of cell and mobile version formatting, and hope you'll try to be more aware of non-mobile version formatting on screens bigger than a few inches. Question: I'm curious if you always/only use a cell phone to access Wikipedia, or do you use other formats/devices?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Quotes require sourcing
This usually goes without saying, but a reminder that quotes require high-quality sourcing. Please don't add text to quotes that is not in the cited reliable secondary sources. <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> 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Depending on the situation, that can be a requirement but as you wrote it is not a categorical requirement. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am so sorry that you felt you needed to revert and scold me for making an edit that follows precisely what is in the sources. I guess the correct quotation wasn't sufficiently derogatory of Scientology for your liking. I already did this work yesterday, and I shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to prove you wrong, but here we are. Yet again. (Links to screenshots are provided for ease of access and illustration.)

I had already checked each citation before I made my edit. There were three sources at the time: Senn 1990, Passas n Castillo 1992, and Beit-Hallahmi 2003. Passas mentioned Senn, as well as Behar 1991, so I also looked up Behar. Then curious what policy everyone was quoting from, I searched and found the actual reference by L. Ron Hubbard—first the 1991 version (a revision) and then went looking for and found the 1972 original version.

Both Senn and Beit-Hallahmi had the same language as Hubbard's, whereas Passas did not match. The extra wording in Passas came from Behar (Time Magazine). I don't know where Behar got the extra words because they do not exist in the Hubbard versions of that document. Now you have added Behar 1991 and Harman 2012 as sources. Harman (Haaretz newspaper) doesn't mention where they got it, but the format is the same "run on text" exactly like Behar, including the ellipses.

Now I can hear you saying, "But there are reliable sources that say those extra words", and I will point out that half of your sources have extra language that is not in the original text (a primary source), while the others quote the original text precisely, and in a manner similar to the original text and dissimilar to the run on text of Behar. So one could reasonably conclude that somehow Behar (Time magazine) got it wrong, or was printing a quote from someone they interviewed rather than using the actual printed book from the Church of Scientology that was in print at the time. Some have perpetuated Behar's mistake, while others did not perpetuate the mistake.

Oh dear, what do we do when we have conflicting "reliable sources"? Pondering... which version to use, which version to use. I know, let's use the higher quality sources which actually match the original text from Hubbard. What a concept! ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What is your reliable source for what you describe as the “original version”? An imgbb upload? Oh dear indeed. Contrary to your claim, the reliable sources are not in conflict. The term reliable sources does not in these instances need scare quotes. The phrase, "", does not appear in any of the cited reliable sources, so your claim that your edit follows precisely what is in the sources does not bear scrutiny. <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> 10:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * My sources are the actual books. I went to great lengths to make all of those images yesterday and upload them to imgbb.com to assist in illustrating my post above. The blue is computer-generated highlighting. Do you think I'm trying to deceive you? Why would I do that? Or do you think I'm stupid enough to rely on some little image I found on the internet? You should know me better than that by now. If you would actually assume good faith in the first place, then I wouldn't have to go to such lengths to counter your ownership behavior (revert, chide by edit summary, and post more to talk page to 'school' me). Scare quotes? Lead-in sentence? My focus yesterday was about the fact you were fighting to retain phrases that didn't actually exist in the original source. I wasn't concerned about me having added a lead-in sentence that was literally in the source which I had cited using the |author= parameter. But today you want to nitpick about me not mentioning that yesterday while I was focused on trying to counter your insistence on retaining erroneous extra wording. I discover today that it was you who inserted this paragraph and incorrect quotation in the first place—not surprised, considering the push-back you are engaging in. This is such a waste of time, and the umpteenth bout you've engaged in. Every edit you make to the Scientology topic articles is geared toward further disparaging the subject, which unbalances NPOV even more, whereas I have added content on both sides of the POV-divide. This is a contentious topic and I cannot sit by while you pick and pick and pick at NPOV: sneaking in vilifying bits here and there (ex ex ex ex ex ex ex ex), removing neutral or positive content (ex ex ex ex), increasing the visibility of negative content (ex ex ex) while reducing the visibility of neutral and positive content (ex ex ex), being aggressive with other editors or bulldozing your preferred version (ex ex ex ex), and transforming this article over time to suit your POV (almost the entire lede is now your authorship).     ▶ I am Grorp ◀  23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not reading yet another of your ridiculous personal attacks. “Sneaking in”? Every edit is visible to anyone. Don’t be absurd. Your imagined (projected?) views of my motivations do not merit discussion.
 * It is only you who repeatedly takes an aggressive tone with extensive use of bold and groundless accusations on the talk page. You repeatedly fabricate charges of 'ownership' and fail to demonstrate what you claim. Note the short and to-the-point length of my prior responses compared to your umpteenth diatribe.
 * Back to the topic: the originals are not books, so whatever you took those from are not the original. As is cited in multiple reliable sources, the original is a letter reproduced and sent as “policy” to Scientology franchises in 1972. Similar letters - facsimilies, not retypings of many of which are or were available on enturbulation.org and WikiLeaks - are, unsurprisingly, typed and Xeroxed, not printed, and are thus set in Courier font, not Times New Roman.
 * The very obviously digitally created documents to which you linked (check the pure white background) are not even the first version from Hubbard’s Management Series 1974. They look identical to OCR copies of the 2001 reprint edition Management Series that have circulated online for years (an authentic reproduction of the 1991 edition of the book - irrelevant to the topic as it is - can be found at the Internet Archive).
 * Given you evidently have not taken from the original source - a policy letter to Scientology franchisees - but have taken from what appears to be a copy of a book marketed as a secular guide to administration and management, your claim that this is a phrase "that didn't actually exist in the original" has no basis [unnecessary bolding in your original comment]. <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> 00:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What is it that you imagine are the contradicting facts for which you've tagged the article? Three reliable sources refer to this quote. No sources deny this quote. There is no evidence of a contradiction. <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> 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure there is. Senn 1990 is cited, and it contradicts your preferred version (Behar 1991). There really are only two versions—Senn and Behar. Passas n Castillo 1992 quotes Behar directly, and Harman 2012 too, because Behar and Harman both call the document a "bulletin" when it's a "policy letter"; "bulletin" has a special meaning in Scientology—bulletins are printed red-on-white and are about auditing, whereas policy letters are printed green-on-white and are about organizational administration. The slip in language belies that Harman copied it from Behar (or from someone else who copied Behar). Senn was published before the 1991 Hubbard version you said was irrelevant to the topic, though they match. And Senn's footnote says they obtained it from the 1985 case Scientology v. Commissioner 83 T.C. 381, 422 1985, which also matches. Behar's extra wording "make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop" and "however you get them in or why, just do it" doesn't appear anywhere else I can find. I've presented evidence that the 1972 Hubbard version (published in book form in 1976, which is a reprint of the 1974 first edition) was similar or identical to the 1991 Hubbard version (and Senn's version). That leaves only 1972–1974 for possible differences. Even if you imagine adding those extra words into the A to L list, they just don't make sense there. You have produced no evidence that there ever was some other-worded version that matches Behar (just some guess about franchisees though the policy letter wasn't addressed to franchisees and its content doesn't apply to them). Using critical thinking skills, if an earlier version of the policy letter had included the extra words, but they were removed before the 1985 case, and were removed before the 1974 book publishing, then what is the likelihood that Behar in 1991 would have been looking at such an [alleged] early version from 1972–1974 instead of all the other versions/copies that would have been printed during the 17 intervening [pre-internet] years since then? Meanwhile, the quote in the article right this minute (and the minute I tagged it with dispute inline), is a blend of two versions—the Behar version which contains extra language and no lettered lines, and the Senn version which has lettered lines and no extra language— and keeps the |author= parameter which mentions the 1991 version from the Management Series ("9 March 1972 RA ", which now it doesn't match). That's a lot of contradicting. So, yeah, the quotation is currently incorrect regardless of which source version you go with (Senn or Behar), and now stands as WP:SYNTH... and is also WP:OVERCITEd.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are implicitly claiming, without actually coming out and saying so, that Richard Behar and the extensive fact-checking team at TIME manufactured a quote. There is zero chance of this. The editors anticipated the potential of legal action prior to publication. The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power is easily amongst the most heavily litigated pieces of journalism in history. All the cases against the author and various publishers were dismissed.
 * You claim Senn 1990 is cited, and it contradicts Passos, Behar, and Harman.
 * It doesn’t contradict them. There are ellipses in the quote in Senn and in the others. Neither Senn, Passos, Beit-Hallahmi, Harman nor Behar claim to be giving a complete version of the document. In fact their use of ellipsis indictes explicitly that they are quoting it in part.
 * It is currently a synthesis, but only because you inappropriately altered it so it no longer matches the Behar and Passos sources cited. Complaining about the problem you introduced is a waste of time: we can simply go back to before you created the problem.
 * You claim, erroneously, to have presented evidence that the 1972 Hubbard version [is] published in book form in 1976, which is a reprint of the 1974 first edition. There is no evidence of this, and you’ve presented nothing to indicate as much. The original is an internal letter to subordinate Scientology staff. The books titled Management Series are works marketed by Hubbard as a secular management principles guide – "all an executive need know on the subject of how to manage an organization."
 * You have given no evidence this is a complete and unaltered version of the original bulletin/letter. The books are explicit that they are altered from one edition to the next, and one can see that the version of this document changes from one edition to the next. Looking at the differences it’s clear this includes removal of whole sections of text. There is no reason to believe the version in Management Series is a complete reproduction of the original, and every reason to believe it is a partial version, inclding that the Management Series was intended for a public audience, while the bulletin/letter was only for internal use.
 * You ask “what is the likelihood that Behar in 1991 would have been looking at the original bulletin/letter? He gives an extensive quote from it, so given how reliable TIME is as a source, I’d say 99.8-100%. Certainly, given how this website works,  reliable enough to be included here. There are numerous holdings in private collections and university libraries of boxes of Scientology documents used by researchers.
 * How this website works is to report on the content of reliable secondary sources. What we don’t do is to find a different, later version of a document, the original of which is quoted by a secondary source - this later version of the document produced for an entirely different purpose and scrubbed for optics and public consumption - and then to claim on zero evidence, and in spite of evidence to the contrary, that it’s identical to the document referred to by the reliable secondary source, and that the reliable secondary source is lying. <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> 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't twist the basic facts. My one single edit fixed the quote to match two of the three cited sources: Senn and Beit-Hallahmi (and Hubbard). Then you made 5 edits in a row resulting in the current SYNTH. So don't sit here and accuse me now of being the one who created the current state of the quote in the article. While doing your 5 edits, you snarked through the edit summaries: "this is part of the quote", "restore sourced text", "removed text not present in any of four cited sources", and "adding unsourced text to quotes is not 'correcting' it"—followed by you posting on the talk page: This usually goes without saying, but a reminder that quotes require high-quality sourcing. Please don't add text to quotes that is not in the cited reliable secondary sources. Even after that snarkfest, I still tried to explain why and how I decided to make that one single edit. But that wasn't good enough for you. Since then, you've dragged this thread into the weeds, called me a liar numerous times, and even complained that I used bolding for godsake (*facepalm*). This is all just worthless noise. All I had tried to do was correct what I saw as an incorrect quotation that didn't match the extant sources cited. Well maybe you like all this arguing, but I don't.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Refrain from fabricating accusations, such as twist[ing] the basic facts and you snarked through the edit summaries. Your edit did not "fix" the quote, because a. it had no need of fixing and b. you added unsourced material. I have not called you a liar, and because I haven't, you are unable to produce any evidence that I have. You are being rude and uncivil.
 * The version immediately prior to your disruptive edit contains a quotation that is entirely supported by citations to Time and to a peer-reviewed academic paper. None of the citations (nor any other source) deny this is an accurate quotation. So it's simply a fact that you are the one who created the current state of the quote in the article.
 * In reality, the edit summary texts you quote are not "snarked through" but statements of fact. It is part of the quote. The edit did restore sourced text. The edit did remove text not present in any of the four cited sources. The addition of text that is not in the sources is adding unsourced text, and it isn't correcting the quote.
 * Your argument boils down to the view that the highly regarded news publication Time manufactured a quote. Your evidence for this is that the organisation that produced the internal bulletin, from which this quote is taken, later published a book on management principles which does not contain this quote. It's a very weak argument, and your original research on this is not persuasive and certainly does not suggest to a reasonable person that Time and Richard Behar invented a quote. <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> 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024
Scientology describes itself as a religion that was founded in the 1950s by L. Ron Hubbard. At the core of Scientology is a belief that each human has a reactive mind that responds to life's traumas, clouding the analytic mind and keeping us from experiencing reality. Vikas nalage (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would need strong sourcing. While that being a belief, a far reaching statement making it a singular item and, "at the core" is quite a stretch, and treating "scientology" as a monolith. Also, since Scientology is so many different things, it would probably need calibration e.g. "at the core of it's teachings" or something like that.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Things like a sect, a cult, a company, an organisation of organised criminality. Things like that. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not disputing what you wrote but it's not really useful for this edit request.   Actually I was just discussing the contents of the edit request.   The more specific appropriate response is that of M.Bitton below.      Edit requests need to be very specific as described below.  Not just a general idea that somebody else needs to develop a specific edit for.   If anyone wants to discuss general ideas/suggestions, that is welcome in article talk, an edit request is not the place to do it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)