User:Gitz6666/sandbox3

Definition and classification

Scientology's self-definition

Scientology presents itself as a religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s. Hubbard described Scientology as "all-denominational", and members of the Church are not prohibited from active involvement in other faiths. Scholar of religion Donald Westbrook encountered members who also practiced Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and the Nation of Islam; one was a Baptist minister. In practice, however, Westbrook noted that most members consider Scientology to be their only commitment, and the deeper their involvement became, the less likely they were to continue practicing other traditions.

Scholar of religion Hugh Urban notes that Scientology combines elements from Asian religions, Western esotericism, self-help psychology, mid-20th-century therapeutic culture, and science-fiction cosmology, forming what he describes as a "complex", "syncretistic" and "multifaceted" movement. The ceremonies, structure of the prayers, and minister attire suggested by Hubbard reflect his own Protestant traditions.

Scientology has experienced multiple schisms during its history. While the Church of Scientology was the original promoter of the movement, various factions have split off to form independent Scientology groups – so-called "Free Zone" or "Independent Scientology". Referring to these "different types of Scientology", the scholar of religion Aled Thomas suggests it was appropriate to talk about "Scientologies".

Anti-cult and other critical perspectives

Anti-cult organizations and critics, former member testimonies, as well as government inquiries, media investigative reports, superior court judgements and parliamentary debates variously referred to Scientology as a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business. Reports of aggressive recruitment, litigation, hostility toward critics, and financial exploitation are central to this framing.

Public opinion

Public opinion polling in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries consistently shows that **majorities of the general population do not regard Scientology as a real religion**. Across surveys, recognition rates typically remain in the single or low-double digits, with large majorities expressing skepticism or rejecting its religious status outright.

National governments and international organizations

Governmental assessments vary by country. France has formally labelled Scientology a "dangerous sect", Germany monitors it as an "anti-democratic organization", while other jurisdictions have treated it primarily as a commercial enterprise.

In 1979, several executives of the organization were convicted and imprisoned for multiple offenses by a U.S. Federal Court. The Church of Scientology itself was convicted of fraud by a French court in 2009, a decision upheld by the supreme Court of Cassation in 2013. The German government classifies Scientology as an unconstitutional sect. In France, it has been classified as a dangerous cult. In some countries, it has attained legal recognition as a religion.

Academic perspectives

Within the academic study of new religious movements – an interdisciplinary field including sociologists, anthropologists, historians of religion, and scholars of contemporary religion – the majority position is that Scientology is a religion and one of the most prominent "American-born new religious movements".

NRM scholarship routinely treats Scientology as...

overview: a religion or devotional cult,, new religious movement,, a "psychotherapeutically oriented religion", a "modern, rationalized religion", a "postmodern or post-religious New Age religion",, a "religio-scientific movement", or a "progressive-knowledge religion".

Leading NRM scholars who classify Scientology as a religion include Bryan R. Wilson, J. Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, Mikael Rothstein, Aled Thomas, Hugh Urban, and Donald Westbrook, among others.

Some scholars argue that Scientology fits certain scholarly definitions of religion but remains socially marginal, legally contested, or organizationally unusual. These works describe it as...

overview: a "quasi-religious organization", a "multifaceted organization" that cannot be easily classified within established categories, or a "postmodern therapeutic religion". These analysts treat Scientology's religious claims as partially persuasive under academic criteria, while noting the movement's corporate structure, controversies, and complex public reception.

A small number of scholars, most prominently Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, argue that Scientology should not be classified as a religion. These authors emphasize its commercial structure and profit-oriented operations, its history of aggressive legal and organizational behavior, and the lack of theological or devotional characteristics as they define them. Beit-Hallahmi acknowledges that this position contradicts the scholarly consensus that developed within NRM studies in the 1980s and afterward, and accuses mainstream NRM scholars of "collaborationism" with the cults.

Some scholars within psychology and critical social science similarly argue that Scientology functions primarily as a "profit-oriented organization" or "multi-faceted transnational corporation" in which the religious component is only one element among several. Professor of psychology and cult-critic Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi rejects the classification of Scientology as a religion, describing it instead as a "business", a "criminal enterprise", and a "cult", and criticizing what he regards as "collaborationism" with the cults among NRM scholars who classify Scientology as a religion.

Sources on Scientology's religious status

Sources on Scientology's religious status

Academic works claiming or implying that Scientology is a religion

• Black 1997: For the reasons given in the preceding analysis, I consider that Scientology is rightly regarded as a religion
• Burke Rochford 2007: Among the more established new religions
• Lewis 2012: The Church of Scientology is a psychotherapeutically oriented religion founded in the mid twentieth century by L. Ron Hubbard ... Many critics, including certain national governments, have rejected Scientology’s status as a religion ... Once the "goodness" issue is set aside, it is obvious that Scientology is a religion
• Lewis 2015: for a number of different reasons, it is clear that Scientology actually is a religion parading as science, rather than, as Hubbard imagined, a science parading as religion
• Melton 2009: Birth of a Religion (article title) one major focus of the ongoing controversy on new religions
• Rothstein 2016: At first glance, Scientology is a religion of the intellect ... In this sense, Scientology is a rather ritualistic religion ... is a collective devotional cult aimed at the ultimate adoration of Hubbard
• Urban 2011: A History of a New Religion (book title) the world's most controversial new religion
• Westbrook 2018: one of the most recognizable American-born new religious movements
• Willms 2009: this claim [being a religion] seems to be supported by the majority of the (mainly Anglo-Saxon) scientific community ... Scientology's claim of being a religion can hardly be denied from a scientific point of view ... a very rationalized or modern religion
• Wilson 1990: even if it could be conclusively shown that Scientology took the title of ‘church’ specifically to secure protection at law as a religion, that would say nothing about the status of the belief-system

Academic works with mixed/articulate views

• Barker 2016: like many other new religious movements ..., it cannot rely on long standing legal and community acceptance ... The Church of Scientology is one such religion [operating at the margins of the legal definition of religion]
• Bromley 2009: a quasi-religious organization ... a prophetic, contractual religion
• Grünschloß 2009: a multifaceted international organization that cannot be labeled easily within established categories ... [There is not] a ?final solution to the question of whether Scientology can be regarded as "religion" in the proper sense of the word ... One problem with the application of the label "religion" to Scientology seems to be the misunderstanding that once the label is granted to Scientology, then somehow one has approved of its basic goodness ... Is Scientology a New Age religion? It certainly is the technological religion of a fully disenchanted industrial world—or, to put it the other way round, a reenchanted therapeutic endeavor, a reenchanted secular technology ... Scientology can rightly be perceived not only as a postmodern, but also as a postreligious New Age religion
• Kent 2009: Although some social scientists insist that Scientology is a religion, the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components

Academic works denying that Scientology is a religion

• Beit-Hallahmi 2025: Scientology cannot be classified as a religion. Because Scientology is a profit-oriented organization (Beit-Hallahmi describes the view that Scientology is a business, and a criminal one, as found in media sources, some government reports, and numerous court decisions, while the opposite view is espoused by the majority of NRM scholars; he acknowledges that his views on NRM challenges the consensus developed during the 1980s among NRM scholars, and accuses them of collaborationism with the cults)
• Shermer 2020: In my opinion, if Scientology is not a cult, then nothing is a cult and the term has no meaning ... most of us do not consider Scientology a religion, at least not a religion that resembles in the slightest the world’s major faiths ... the UCLA historian of religions Jean E. Rosenfeld ... reproached me for concluding that Scientology is a cult and not a religion.2 Her reasonable point is that all religions start out as cults ... Fine. I recognize the difference between scholarly and popular usages of language, and the difference between scholars who want to understand and activists who want to bring about change. (I vacillate between the two ...) But the point in distinguishing between religions and cults is not their ideas so much as what people do with those ideas – how they act on their beliefs – and after binge watching ex-Scientologist Leah Remini’s A&E series Scientology and the Aftermath ... I conclude that anyone who would join a Fair Play for Scientology Committee is either delusional or an academic historian who willingly and knowingly turns a blind eye to reality

Encyclopedias of religion featuring Scientology entries

• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions: religio-scientific movement
• Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: The creation of L. Ron Hubbard, who ... developed a religious philosophy which was then incorporated into the Church of Scientology.
• Sage Encyclopedia of Religion in America: new religious movement
• Lion Encyclopedia of New Religions: new religious movements
• Routledge Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements: Scientology began not as a new religion but as a new system of mental therapy ... Continuing his research Hubbard had by 1952 developed his religious philosophy in relation to mental health problems ... In 1954 the first Scientology Church was established in Los Angeles ... A controversial movement throughout its history (by Peter B. Clarke)
• ARDA Religion Dictionary: A new religious movement, founded in 1953 by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists believe that suffering is caused by ingrained records of past experiences ("engrams"). Scientologists aim to remove these "engrams" and become "Clears."
• Brill Handbook of UFO Religions: The Church of Scientology is not exactly a “UFO religion” in quite the same sense as [other churches] ... is a complex mixture of self-help therapy, modern esoteric and occult currents, Asian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and elements of Hubbard’s own active science fiction imagination ... However, Scientology did emerge out of the same general Cold War context of alternative religions, nuclear anxieties, and space exploration that helped give birth to many other UFO movements of the mid-twentieth century ... Scientology also developed an elaborate cosmology and history of the universe ... As such, Scientology should be considered a key part of the larger alternative spiritual milieu that was both shaped by and helped shape other more explicit UFO religions (by Hugh B. Urban)
• Brill Encyclopedia of Christianity Online: noting that Its status as a religion or a church is vigorously disputed
• Religion Past and Present Online: noting that the self-proclaimed title church emphasizes its claim to be a religion. Critics have reconstructed motives that are primarily economic...

Encyclopedias of religion not featuring Scientology entries

• Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (yet discussing scientology in the article on "Alternative Religious Movements and Race in America")

Other encyclopedias featuring Scientology (sample)

• Oxford World Encyclopedia: Religion founded (1954) by L. Ron Hubbard in California, USA. It attracts criticism over its methods of recruiting and keeping members.
• Oxford Dictionary of Public Health: A belief system founded by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) that is described as a religion, the Church of Scientology. Its leaders assert that their teachings and practices enhance mental health and physical vitality and expect their followers to adhere to somewhat rigid conduct
• Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History: a new religious movement

English online dictionaries

• Cambridge Dictionary: a religious system created by the American author L. Ron Hubbard that is based on a search for self-knowledge by following a course of study and training
• Chambers Dictionary: a religious system which claims to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of its adherents by scientific means
• Collins Dictionary: the philosophy of the Church of Scientology, a nondenominational movement founded in the US in the 1950s, which emphasizes self-knowledge as a means of realizing full spiritual potential
• Oxford Dictionary of English: a religious system based on the seeking of self-knowledge and spiritual fulfilment through graded courses of study and training. It was founded by American science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955

Yes, it is (in some sense) a religion

• Barker - "Scientology: The Test Case Religion" (2015)* Treats Scientology explicitly as "one such religion" operating at the margins of legal/religious definitions and uses it as a paradigmatic religion for testing how courts and states define religion. Emphasis is legal-institutional rather than theological.
• Lewis - "Scientology: Religion or Sect?" / "Scientology: Sect, Science, or Scam?" (2009, 2015)* In the 2009 chapter in Scientology and the 2015 Numen article, Lewis argues that, whatever one thinks of Hubbard's sincerity or organizational abuses, the evidence (especially Free Zone Scientologists) shows that many adherents sincerely live Scientology as their religion, so it qualifies as a "genuine religion" in at least that experiential/functional sense.
• Melton - "Birth of a Religion" (2009)* Frames Scientology's historical development precisely as the birth of a religion: describes the shift from Dianetics to a self-conscious religious movement, with members by the mid-1950s treating Scientology as their religion. Strongly "new religion" framing, not merely therapy/business.
• Rochford - "The Sociology of New Religious Movements" (2007)* The chapter is about new religious movements; Scientology is treated as part of that field (building on Wallis and others, who classify Scientology as a world-affirming religion). He doesn't pause to debate its religiousness; he just treats it as one "new religion" among others.
• Handbook of Scientology* (Lewis & Hellesøy, 2017) Overall yes. The volume's framing and most contributions treat Scientology as a new religion / religious movement, while emphasizing corporatism, "corporate religion," world-affirming religion, secularization, etc. Some chapters foreground its corporate and neoliberal aspects, but the default analytical category is still "religion."
• Edge - "Scientology" in Legal Responses to Religious Differences (2002)* Uses Scientology as a case in comparative law over definitions of religion; discusses how English law, the Charity Commission, and courts have treated Scientology's religious claims. The analysis is about whether (and how) the law can or should recognize it as a religion-implicitly treating it as a religious-claims-making body.
• Urban - The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (2011)* Sub-title already frames it as "a new religion." Urban analyses Scientology as "the world's most controversial new religion," and is interested in how and why it has sought recognition as a religion, even while stressing its corporate and esoteric dimensions.
• Willms - "Scientology: 'Modern Religion' or 'Religion of Modernity'?" (2009)* Argues that Scientology is best understood as a paradigmatically modern religion - highly rationalized, world-affirming, and aligned with modern notions of self-optimization - hence firmly classed as religion, though of a very specific type.
• Rothstein - work on Scientology in the context of NRMs and law (2009)* Treats Scientology as a religion in the broader family of new religious movements when discussing registration, legal status, and religious freedom. Focus is less on "is it really a religion?" and more on how states manage such movements. No, it is (primarily) not a religion
• Kent - "Scientology - Is This a Religion?" (1999)* After reviewing its activities, Kent argues that "the more appropriate position" is to regard Scientology as a multi-faceted transnational corporation in which religion is only one component. He questions granting it religious recognition and treats the religious label as strategically deployed rather than essential.
• Kent - "Brainwashing Programs in The Family/Children of God and Scientology" (2001)* Compares Scientology to another controversial group and focuses on coercive control and "brainwashing" programs. While not a pure classification essay, it underpins Kent's broader position that Scientology is better understood as a coercive organization (corporate/therapeutic/cultic) than as a religion.
• Beit-Hallahmi 2025 - Academic Advocacy for New Religious Movements - Scientology (2003)* Explicitly concludes that Scientology "cannot be classified as a religion," characterizing it instead as a profit-oriented psychotherapy/self-improvement system that sometimes masquerades as a religion. Critiques NRM scholars for "advocacy" and for ignoring evidence of fraud and commercialism.
• Shermer - "The Curious Case of Scientology: Is It a Religion or a Cult?" / related essays (2011, 2020)* In his Skeptic/Scientific American-type writing (2011, later reprinted as a 2020 book chapter), Shermer argues that Scientology fits standard sociological and psychological criteria for a cult rather than a religion, emphasizing authoritarian control, secrecy, and financial exploitation.
• Behar - "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" (1991)* The famous Time magazine cover story portrays Scientology as a dangerous, exploitative cult and commercial enterprise. It treats the Church's religious claims as primarily a legal and PR strategy.
• Anderson Report - Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology (1965)* The Australian Anderson report famously described Scientology as "a dangerous medical cult." It treated Scientology as a manipulative, harmful movement masquerading as religion/therapy rather than as a legitimate faith.
• Hunt, de Puig & Espersen - European Parliamentary Assembly debates on Scientology (1992)* Council of Europe/EP debates and reports in the early 1990s often characterized Scientology as a cult or sect raising serious human-rights and consumer-protection concerns, rather than as a straightforward religion. Inconclusive / mixed / descriptive rather than taking a side
• Bigliardi - "New Religious Movements, Technology, and Science: The Conceptualization of the E-Meter in Scientology Teachings" (2016)* Describes Scientology as a new religious movement and reports that it is not recognized as a religion in most countries and is criticized over its "status as a religion." The article focuses on scientific/pseudoscientific rhetoric and technology (the e-meter), and reports the controversy rather than deciding whether it "really is" a religion.
• Bromley - "Making Sense of Scientology: Prophetic, Contractual Religion" (2009)* Sociologically categorises Scientology as a prophetic, contractual religion, a "quasi-religious organization": a religious movement structured through corporate, contractual relations with members. The chapter's whole analytical frame assumes it's a religion, albeit of a distinctive, corporate type.
• Grünschloß - "Scientology, a 'New Age' Religion?" (2009)* A very unusual "postreligious" / New Age-style religion. Stresses both religious features (mythology, soteriology, paranormal powers, thetan, etc.) and secular/technological rhetoric. Concludes that Scientology can be understood as a (postmodern, secularized) New Age religion, even though it often presents itself as "technology" or "applied philosophy." Quote: "Scientology can best be viewed as a mixture of therapeutic, technological, and evolutionary fantasies, incorporating some neo-gnostic myths about world and man, and spreading, selling itself according to latecapitalistic marketing strategies. With older strands of theosophical and esoteric movements it shares certain anthropological elements, conspiracy theories, belief in reincarnation (“past lives”), and a special reverence to Buddhism (akin to Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine), as well as the hope for an approaching “New Age” with a new fantastic synthesis of science/technology and religion at hands to solve mankind’s ultimate riddles"
• Rochford - "The Sociology of New Religious Movements" (2007)* Where Scientology appears, it is folded into general discussions of NRMs and world-affirming groups (via Wallis, etc.) without an explicit argument over its religious nature. The implied stance is "yes, it's one of the new religions," but the chapter is analytic, not classificatory.
• Some individual chapters within the Handbook of Scientology (2017)* Chapters on corporatism, neoliberalism, or "corporate religion" emphasize economics, organization, or law and treat the question of "real religion or not?" as background or already settled by other literature; they don't re-argue it.
• Urban - New Age, Neopagan, and New Religious Movements: Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America (2015)* Places Scientology alongside other NRMs, emphasizing its controversial status and multifaceted nature. Acknowledges its religious claims and practices but also the corporate and legal battles; more descriptive than verdict-giving.
• Westbrook - "The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century" (2018)* Analyses Scientology's media and PR campaigns to legitimate itself as a religion. Treats its religious identity as something actively constructed and contested, rather than simply accepted or denied.
• Halupka - "The Church of Scientology: Legitimacy through Perception Management" (2014)* Examines how Scientology uses political and PR strategies to secure recognition (including tax-exempt religious status). Shows that "religion" here is a strategic category shaped by perception management; does not itself resolve "is it really a religion?" Other sources in the footnote and related scholarship (with dates and how they classify it)
• Supporting "religion" (or at least "new religion")*
• Wallis - The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology (1976/1977)* Classic sociological monograph treating Scientology as a world-affirming new religion, even while stressing deviance, control, and controversy.
• Whitehead - Renunciation and Reformulation: A Study of Conversion in an American Sect (1987)* Ethnographic study of conversion in a Scientology-related group; implicitly treats Scientology as a sect/new religion and analyses conversion in religious terms.
• Lewis - "Free Zone Scientology and Other Movement Milieus: A Preliminary Characterization" (2013)* Shows that Free Zone/independent Scientologists retain core religious beliefs and practices. Used by Lewis (2015) to argue that these sincerely-held beliefs are strong evidence that Scientology is a religion in a legal/functional sense.
• Edge - Legal Responses to Religious Differences (2002, ch. on Scientology)* Treats Scientology as a religion-claiming body and analyzes how legal systems have accepted or rejected that claim; supports the view that, at least in some jurisdictions, it functions as a religion in law.
• Lewis - Scientology (edited volume, 2009)* By framing Scientology in the context of "new religions" and assembling chapters like Melton's and Bromley's, the volume overall leans toward classifying it as a religion, albeit controversial and corporatized.
• Supporting "cult"/dangerous movement*
• Kent - "Brainwashing Programs in The Family/Children of God and Scientology" (2001)* Treats Scientology as comparable to another controversial group in terms of coercive control and "brainwashing," reinforcing Kent's view of it as a dangerous cultic organization.
• Anderson Report (1965)* As above: explicitly calls Scientology "a dangerous medical cult."
• Halupka - "The Church of Scientology: Legitimacy through Perception Management" (2014)* While analytically neutral in tone, it documents how state actors and critics often frame Scientology as a dangerous or illegitimate group whose religious claims require skepticism.
• Behar - "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" (1991)* Strongly frames Scientology as a cult organized around greed and manipulation.
• Supporting "business/therapy/scam" framings*
• Kent - "Scientology - Is This a Religion?" (1999)* Argues it is primarily a multi-faceted transnational corporation using religion as one component.
• Beit-Hallahmi - Academic Advocacy for New Religious Movements - Scientology (2003)* Classifies Scientology as a profit-oriented psychotherapy/self-help system that adopts religious trappings for legal and PR reasons.
• IRS decisions on Scientology's tax-exempt status (1967 revocation; 1993 recognition)* Show a long legal battle over whether Scientology is a bona fide religion or a commercial enterprise. The 1967 decision treated it essentially as a commercial operation; the 1993 settlement reversed course for legal-administrative reasons, not because the IRS adjudicated metaphysical truth.
• European and national reports/laws on "sects" and "cults" (1990s-2000s, incl. France and Germany)* Frequently classify Scientology as a "secte" or cult and highlight its commercial/therapeutic and political aspects more than its religious ones.
• Hazen - The Village Enlightenment in America: Popular Religion and Science in the Nineteenth Century and related work (2000)* Cited in discussions of NRMs and "scientific" religions; used in the secondary literature to support the view that movements like Scientology often present themselves as scientific or technological rather than traditionally religious.
• Hammer - "An Introduction to New Religions" (2004)* In the broader NRM context, Hammer notes that some movements (including Scientology) blur boundaries between religion, therapy, and business; often cited to support the "multi-faceted" or "quasi-business" reading.
• Rubin - study of Free Zone Scientologists (2011)* Shows that ex-Church Scientologists in the Free Zone retain core religious beliefs and practices while rejecting the Church's organizational structures, thereby supporting later arguments (e.g. Lewis 2013/2015) that the religion/organization distinction is crucial and that the beliefs themselves are lived as religion.
• Mixed/other*
• Bigliardi - "What would Ron choose from the Islamic basket? Notes on Scientology's construction of Islam" (2015)* Explores Scientology's self-presentation relative to Islam; treats Scientology as a movement making theological claims, not just as a business, but does not debate its ultimate "religious" status.
• European Court of Human Rights - Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia (2007)* Held that Russian authorities violated the right to freedom of religion by refusing to register Scientology, implicitly recognizing its claim to be a religion in the human-rights sense while not pronouncing on its theology.
• High Court of Australia - Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) (1983)* Adopted a broad, functional definition of religion under which Scientology counted as a religion for legal purposes. Often cited as a key legal precedent in favour of recognising Scientology as a religion. So, with dates added:
• "Yes" / religion (functional/sociological/legal terms):** Barker (2015), Lewis (2009, 2013, 2015), Melton (2009), Grünschloß (2009), Bromley (2009), Rochford (2007), Wallis (1976/77), Whitehead (1987), Urban (2011, 2015), Willms (2009), Rothstein (2009), Lewis & Hellesøy (2017), Edge (2002), relevant court decisions (Australia 1983; ECHR 2007).
• "No" / mainly cult, business, or therapy, not truly religious:** Kent (1999, 2001), Beit-Hallahmi (2003), Shermer (2011/2020), Anderson report (1965), Behar (1991), some EP/Council of Europe material (1992).
• Mixed/ambivalent: Bigliardi (2015, 2016), Halupka (2014), Westbrook (2018), various Handbook of Scientology chapters (2017), and legal/administrative sources that emphasize multi-faceted corporate, therapeutic, and religious aspects at once.

While often also criticising it, most scholars describe Scientology as a religion, e.g., Barker 2016, Bromley 2009, Burke Rochford 2007, Lewis 2015, Melton 2009, Rothstein 2016, Urban's 2011 book (see Guardian), Willms 2009, several contributions to the 2017 Handbook (defining it as "New Age religion", "corporate religion", etc.), plus relevant court decisions, such as Australia 1983 and ECHR 2007 (Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia). Its status as religion is denied mainly by Kent 1999 (Stephen A. Kent), who admits that religion is one "component" of Scientology, Beit-Hallahmi 2025 (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi) and Shermer 2020 (Michael Shermer), plus the 1991 Time article by Behar and the 1965 Anderson report. I suggest rephrasing that sentence as follows: "While most scholars consider it to be a new religious movement, some critics, media and government organizations characterize it as a cult, a business or a scam". The overwhelming majority of academic sources criticise scientology vigorously, but also consider it a (new) religion, that is, a New religious movement. See for example, among the sources cited in the article, Bromley 2009 (a quasi-religious organization ... a prophetic, contractual religion), Lewis 2012 (it is obvious that Scientology is a religion, Melton 2009 (one major focus of the ongoing controversy on new religions), Urban 2011 (A History of a New Religion), Willms 2009 (this claim [being a religion] seems to be supported by the majority of the (mainly Anglo-Saxon) scientific community ... Scientology's claim of being a religion can hardly be denied from a scienti?c point of view ... a very rationalized or modern religion; among other scholars, see Barker 2016 (The Church of Scientology is one such religion [operating at the margins], Burke Rochford 2007 (Among the more established new religions), Rothstein 2016 (ritualistic religion ... devotional cult).

Thomas 2022: new religion?

Free Zone Scientology as a New Religion: Q&A with Aled Thomas

• Wolff, Tim (2021). "True Believers? – Sincerity and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights". European Constitutional Law Review. 17 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 259–286. doi:10.1017/s1574019621000171. ISSN 1574-0196.

it has plausibly been argued that L. Ron Hubbard was a swindler who invented the Church of Scientology as an elaborate way to separate gullible people from their money.Footnote 5 However, most Scientologists are clearly true believers, which means Scientology actually does exist as a belief system. It involves a set of connected propositions that some – in the case of Scientology: many – individuals believe to be true. Accordingly, and rightly, Scientology has been recognised by the Court as a belief system within the meaning of Article 9.Footnote 6 The people who are (or were) involved in Scientology for purely fraudulent reasons (such as Hubbard, presumably) on the other hand, are what may be called fake adherents (see the next subsection).

ECtHR 1 October 2009, No. 76836/01, Kymlia and others v Russia; ECtHR 5 April 2007, No. 18147/02, Church of Scientology of Moscow v Russia. It should be noted that the Court in these cases deferred to the judgment of the national authorities and offered no substantive judgment as to whether Scientology meets the criteria for ‘religion’ within the meaning of Art. 9.

• Edge, Peter W. (2006). Religion and Law. London New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-3048-7.

p. 10: "Latey J [a judge] appeared to work on the basis that Scientology itself was undesiderable" pp. 56-57: "In X and Church of Scientology v Sweden (1979) ... the Commission considered whether placing an advertisement for an e-meter, a device central to the core practices of mainstream Scientology, constituted a manifestation of religion. The Commission felt not" p. 122: "Lord Denning saw Scientology as a philosophy"

NPOV issues

The article present some WP:NPOV issues:

1. The world "ridicule/ridiculed" appears twice in the lead (none in the body). It is verifiable as it is supported by the cited sources (including one primary source, VICE article, ridiculing scientology), but sounds harsh and strongly judgemental, and might fails WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:PERSUASIVE.
2. Also in the lead: including public opinion polls on whether something is a real religion strikes me as irrelevant/unencyclopaedic.
3. Some linguistic tricks and framing issues, e.g., Scientology managed to attain legal recognition in some countries, instead of simply "obtained" it.
4. But the main issue is the WP:FALSEBALANCE between viewpoints against Scientology as a religion and viewpoints that describe it as such. Judging by the coverage in Wikipedia, the former appear to prevail in sources, when in fact the opposite is true (see source analysis). So the lead says It is variously defined as a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam (currently being discussed in this thead). While often also criticising it, most scholars describe Scientology as a religion, so I suggest rephrasing that sentence as follows: "Scientology is a new religious movement created by L. Ron Hubbard. Critics have described it as a cult, a business and a scam...".
5. Stuart A. Wright criticises Beit-Hallahmi's 2025 book as an unfortunate tome and an exercise in conspiracy theory (Wright 2025). W. Michael Ashcraft says that has Beit-Hallahmi's anti-cult views have been edged out of mainstream scholarship (Ashcraft 2025). Beit-Hallahmi himself describes his view that Scientology is a business, and a criminal one, as found in media sources, some government reports, and numerous court decisions, while the opposite view that Scientology is a religion is espoused by the majority of NRM scholars. Beit-Hallahmi acknowledges that his views challange the consensus developed during the 1980s among the New Religious Movement (NRM) scholars, whom he accuses of collaborationism with the cults. Yet the article on Scientology contains three verbatim quotations from Beit-Hallahmi's works and cites them 15 times. I suggest we remove or shorten the quotations as they are WP:UNDE.
6. The section "Debates over classification" heavily emphasises "cult / scam / business" framing as if it dominates the academic literature, giving disproportionate space to the 1991 Time article (journalistic), the European Parliament debates (political), Beit-Hallahmi (single scholar, minority view), Shermer (Michael Shermer, scieince writer, not an academic, founder of Skeptic magazine), and government hostility in France and Germany. The article's balance is inverted: minority views are overrepresented over the academic sources classifying Scientology as a new religious movement. The lack of parallel structure between pro- and anti- positions is clearly an issue: the structure gives multiple paragraphs of anti-Scientology classifications (cult, scam, business, fraud), a single paragraph for religious-studies scholars, which is followed immediately by another paragraph undercutting those same scholars via Beit-Hallahmi. Finally, some misleading generalisations or lack of generalisation (e.g. Some scholars of religion have referred to Scientology as a religion).

"his ideas were rejected as nonsense / ridiculed by the scientific community"

• 16 May 2025 edits: [1]. Adding pseudoscientific, ideas rejected as nonsense, recasted to avoid persection

As I noted earlier (here) the lead uses the words "ridiculed/riducule" twice, which I think is unprecedented in any WP article on religions. Cambial Yellowing said that I hadn't cited any WP policies or guidelines to support my criticism, but that's because they're pretty obvious and well-known to everyone here: WP:IMPARTIAL (The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial), WP:VOICE (Prefer nonjudgmental language ... Do not editorialize), WP:TONE (Articles ... should be written in a formal tone), WP:PERSUASIVE (It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything), WP:COLLOQUIAL (excessive emphasis ... loaded words), WP:WTW (Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint).

We don't need to state that Hubbard's ideas "were rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community"; we can say that they were rejected and, if someone also ridiculed them, that was their doing, not that of the entire scientific community. Saying that Scientology's doctrines "have become the subject of popular ridicule" emphasises some people's point of view - those who ridicule Scientology - while in general, the same could be said of many major religions, including Cristianity (example), Hebraism, Islam, not to mention Catholicism, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

To support one of our "ridicule" we cite a primary source ridiculing Scientology (VICE). This is clearly not good WP editing, and should be corrected.

"Government bodies and other institutions maintain that the Scientology organization is a commercial business that falsely claims to be religious, or a form of therapy masquerading as religion"

• Flinn, Frank K. (2009-03-11). "Scientology as Technological Buddhism". Scientology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.003.0011. ISBN 978-0-19-533149-3. Retrieved 2025-12-04.

"Although Dianetics has many transempirical and religious overtones, it falls in the category of a “mind-cure” therapy. Many commentators claim that Scientology is mental therapy masquerading as a religion. The crux of the question, however, is whether one can separate “therapy” from “religion” or even from “philosophy” by a hard-and-fast rule."

• Dericquebourg, Régis (2009-03-11). "How Should We Regard the Religious Ceremonies of the Church of Scientology?". Scientology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.003.0009. ISBN 978-0-19-533149-3. Retrieved 2025-12-04.

"It is diffi?cult to write about Scientology because of the controversies that surround this movement. Those who view Scientology as a religion are labeled as apologists or crypto-Scientologists. For many people, the Church of Scientology is just a business with some religious varnish. For others, it is a dangerous religion or a wicked religion that does not deserve attention or interest."

• Cowan, Douglas E. (2009-03-11). "Researching Scientology: Perceptions, Premises, Promises, and Problematics". Scientology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.003.0004. ISBN 978-0-19-533149-3. Retrieved 2025-12-04.

"In fact, I would suggest that this is one of the most fundamental mistakes made by many in the Christian countercult and secular anticult movements—trying to invalidate a target religious tradition by exposing the alleged €aws in its social origin or foundational mythistory ... “The Church of Scientology is a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion,” writes Anton Hein (2001), a rather notorious Dutch countercultist. And he is hardly alone in his evaluation. Both Stephen Kent (1999a, 1999c) and Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (2003) have published lengthy articles in the Marburg Journal of Religion arguing that Scientology is a multinational business that purports to be a religion only for the purpose of securing the social bene?ts that accrue to “of?cial” religious organizations—most notably, tax relief, but in some countries state recognition and access to educational systems.""

"Many aspects are obscured by layers of secrecy, and by Scientology advocates engaging in lying and obfuscation"

• Urban, Hugh B.. "Chapter 6. The Third Wall of Fire: Scientology and the Study of Secrecy as an Historical Process". Secrecy: Silence, Power, and Religion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021, pp. 165-186. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226746784-008

"A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/ or dissimulation."

13 June 2025 11:49, 13 June 2025 (rewrite as text) 11:51, 13 June 2025 + advocates

"He then recast his ideas as a religion, likely for tax purposes and to avoid prosecution"

• Hellesøy, Kjersti (2014-08-28). "Scientology". Controversial New Religions. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199315314.003.0015. ISBN 978-0-19-931531-4. Retrieved 2025-12-03.

The shift from a science-based movement to a religion came about gradually and was probably an effect of factors from both outside and inside Hubbard’s new movement. He lost the control over the name “Dianetics,” which he sold due to economic problems (he later bought the rights to the name back). Another factor was the interest taken by the FDA and the American Medical Association in his new therapy. These outside critics as well as some people within the Dianetics movement itself were troubled by, among other things, the fact that the auditors had no medical training. Additionally, Hubbard himself became more and more interested in some of the spiritual aspects emerging from auditing, such as out-of-body experiences and reports of reincarnation (Urban 2011: 59).

• Urban, Hugh B. (2011-08-22). The Church of Scientology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14608-9.

However, the transition from Dianetics to Scientology and the birth of a new religion is far too complex to be reduced to a simple money-making or tax-evasion scheme, of which Scientology is so often accused. Hubbard's efforts to redefine Scientology as a “religion,” in fact, began gradually, in fits and starts, and largely in response to internal and external events that made such a redefinition of the movement both expedient and necessary.

Scientology 30 Jun 2019 vs Scientology 27 Nov 2025

a) Lead and short description

2019 version

• Short description: "Group of religious beliefs and practices created by American science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard".

• Lead opens: "Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard ... He then recharacterized the subject as a religion and renamed it Scientology ... Within a year, he regained the rights to Dianetics and retained both subjects under the umbrella of the Church of Scientology". Classification and opposition are mentioned, but not in the first line.

2025 version

• Short description: "Beliefs and practices and associated movement".

• Lead opens: "Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices created by the American author L. Ron Hubbard, and an associated movement. It is variously defined as a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam". Then immediately calls Dianetics "pseudoscientific ideas" and states in Wikipedia's voice that Hubbard recast it as a religion "as a legally pragmatic move to minimize his tax burden and escape the possibility of prosecution".

The 2019 lead foregrounded what Scientology is and how it developed, mentioning that it was recharacterised as a religion and that there is controversy. The current lead foregrounds contested labels (business/cult/scam) and Hubbard's alleged motives, with pseudoscience and tax/prosecution avoidance baked into the first paragraph. So the content has shifted from "descriptive overview + note of controversy later" to "controversy + critical interpretation right from the first sentence".

b) “Definition and classification” vs scattered classification remarks

2019 version

• No dedicated "Definition and classification" section. The "Disputes over legal status" section notes that governments variously classify Scientology as a religion or as a "business, cult, pseudoreligion, or criminal organization", with both positive and negative views mentioned in one place. Classification remarks are included also in its subsections "Scientology as a religion" and "Viewed as a commercial enterprise", and in the "Scientology in religious studies" section

"The Church of Scientology has been described..." fails verification?

The Church of Scientology has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgments as both a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business

The sentence has been in the article since 2020, but after taking a closer look I found that five of the nine cited sources either fail to verify the statement or were misrepresented, so yesterday I removed them [2] and today I removed the whole sentence citing WP:SYNTH and weak/old sources [3]. Cambial Yellowing partially disagreed, restored one source [4] and the whole sentence [5]. They also expanded the list by adding in parliamentary debate together with a new source (UK minister speaking in the House of Lords in 1996).[6]

Here are the sources currently used to support the statement:

1. Behar, Richard (May 6, 1991). "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Time.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) A TIME magazine investigative article stating that Scientology is a hugely profitable global racket and that In various cases judges have labeled the church "schizophrenic and paranoid" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" (see The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power).
2. Anderson, Kevin Victor (1965). "Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology". Government Printer, Melbourne. A 1965 Victorian government Board of Inquiry into Scientology finding that Scientology was a dangerous medical cult. See Anderson Report.
3. Edge, Peter W. (2006). Religion and law: an introduction. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-3048-7. I haven't been able to verify this source yet: see my request at WP:RX.
4. RE B & G (Minors: Custody), F.L.R. 493 (Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 1984). It summarises Latey J's High Court of Justice (Family Division) judgment, which found that Scientology was immoral and socially obnoxious ... dangerous because it sought to capture children and impressionable young people.
5. Hubbard and another v. Vosper and another, 1 All ER 1023 (Court of Appeal (England and Wales) November 19, 1971). Court of Appeal (England and Wales) judgment. Lord Denning refers to Scientology as a cult (see Hubbard v. Vosper). I removed this source [7] and Cambial Yellowing restored it.[8]
6. "Church of Scientology". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. December 17, 1996. col. 1392–1394. UK government minister Emily Blatch, speaking in the House of Lords in 1996, acknowledges potential dangers associated with Scientology and refers to it as a cult. Source added by Cambial Yellowing [9].

Now, unless Edge2006 supports the broad formulation currently in the article, it's clear that the sentence is unverified and is a straightforward case of WP:SYNTH:

• No source states that government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, etc., have described Scientology as both a "dangerous cult" and a "manipulative profit-making business".
• We have no source supporting "international parliamentary bodies".
• Superior courts judgments are not "numerous".

In fact, if we set Edge2006 aside, the remaining three sources support only something along the following lines:

The 1965 Anderson Report, a Victorian government board of inquiry into Scientology, concluded that Scientology was "a dangerous medical cult". A 1984 High Court of Justice (Family Division) judgment by John Latey, described Scientology as "both immoral and socially obnoxious" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". A 1991 TIME magazine investigative cover story characterised Scientology as "a ruthless global scam" and "a hugely profitable global racket". Lord Denning in a 1971 Court of Appeal judgment in Hubbard v. Vosper referred to Scientology as a "cult" and noted evidence suggesting some of its course materials could be dangerous. Also a 1996 House of Lords debate recorded UK government minister Emily Blatch warning of the "potential dangers" of Scientology and referring to it as a "cult".

I know that this text is disappointing and also raises serious WP:UNDUE concerns, but this is what happens when we work with primary sources and avoid WP:SYNTH.

Happy to hear other views, and to adjust the wording if I've missed something. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Alternative text

I've recently found some misrepresented and incorrectly attributed sources in the article lead and body and have removed or corrected them with a series of consecutive edits [10]:

• {{sfn|Hunt|de Puig|Espersen|1992|p=668}} is not "European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements" (which does not mention Scientology) but is a speech by the Denish politician Søren Espersen in a 1992 debate at the CoE Parliamentary Assembly: Espersen, Søren (5 February 1992). "Debate on Recommendation 1178 (1992): Sects and New Religious Movements". Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1992 session. Retrieved 1 December 2025. It is a cool, cynical, manipulating business and nothing else.
• <ref name="auto5"> (Cottrell 1984) is not a finding by an international parliamentary body, but a working paper by one member of the European Parliament.
• <ref name="auto2"> (hansard) is a Home Office minister's comment in a 1996 Lords debate, not a parliamentary inquiry.
• <ref name="auto4"> (Hubbard v Vosper) is a 1971 copyright case that doesn't say anything about Scientology's religious status.

Following this removals, the only sources left supporting the sentence The Church of Scientology has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgments as both a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business are:

• Behar 1991 (The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power). Time article supporting "manipulative profit-making business"; it also says that In various cases judges have labeled the church "schizophrenic and paranoid" and "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" (without attribution) and that a court in Australia revoked the church's status as a religion
• Anderson Report. 1965 official inquiry for the State of Victoria, Australia, written by Kevin Victor Anderson QC: In reality it is a dangerous medical cult
• Edge, Peter W. (2006). Religion and law: an introduction. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-3048-7. Retrieved July 3, 2020.
• RE B & G (Minors: Custody) 1984. Latey J (British judge) calls Scientology a cult ... immoral and socially obnoxious ... corrupt, sinister and dangerous

We also know from the article that the German government classifies Scientology as an unconstitutional sect, and in France it has been classified as a dangerous cult (I have't yet checked the sources, let's assume is correct). If that is so, the current text fails verification and is a case of (bad) WP:SYNTH, unless the book by Edge supports it, which I haven't been able to verify so far. I'm therefore asking Cambial Yellowing, as the author of the two edits that in 2020 introduced the text and the sources ([11] [12]), to provide a verbatim quotation from Edge's book, or otherwise we'll have to remove the text and/or replace it with something along these lines: "Some government inquiries and official bodies, notably in Australia and France, have described Scientology as posing serious dangers and as a "secte dangereuse". A 1991 article on Time described it as a manipulative profit-making business".

Edge on Scientology

• Edge, Peter W. (2006). Religion and Law. Aldershot, England Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 0-7546-3047-1.

Scientology: p. 10, 109, 126-7 X and Church of Schientology v Sweden: 53, 56-57

p. 10: "A good, if extreme, example" of the fact that "a judicial criticism of the impact of a religion on the child can be read as a criticism of that religion" is Re B and G [1985] FLR 493 (UK); noting the "injudicious intemperance of the language used" by Latey J, who "appeared to work on the basis that Scientology itself was undesirable, rather then determining the characteristics of the life the child would lead".

p. 56-57: X and the Church of Scientology v Sweden (1976) 16 DR 68 (ECHR): Scientology qualifies as "belief system" under Article 9 ECHR (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion); yet a commercial advertisement for an e-meter is "more the manifestation of a desired to market goods for practice than the manifestation of a belief in practice"

p. 126-127: Ex parte Segerdal (1970 3 All ER 886 (UK). The Church had sought and failed to register a chapel on their grounds as a place of worship. Lord Denning rejected their claim: “the general tenor is that the Church of Scientology failed baecause they were not a real religion. The other two judges, however, focused on whether Scientology involved 'worship'", and they also rejected the claim.

References

• Cottrell, Richard (1999). Recommendation 1412: Concernant les activités illégales des sectes (Report). Conseil d'Europe.
• Cottrell, Richard (2 April 1984). The Activity of Certain New Religions within the European Community (Working Paper of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport). Working Documents 1984–1985. Strasbourg, France: European Parliament. Document 1984-85 1-0047/84; PE 82.322/fin. certain organizations described as 'new religious movements' ... The Church of Scientology, founded by the American, L. Ron Hubbard, according to a personally-evolved philosophy, charges from £300 to £3,000 for courses at various levels and attracts a world-wide clientele to its centres in the European Commun1ty ... Mr Hubbard's movement has also attracted critics and one correspondent, describing her daughter' involvement, wrote to me to describe large sums of money being borrowed from a bank to "pay for courses" ... At East Grinstead 1 saw people who attested to their happiness and satisfaction with Scientology. Subsequently, however, I was told of people being 'door-stepped' in a London street, invited to take a test involving a piece of apparatus known as the 'E meter' and then offered courses since the results revealed the need for improvement ..."
• "Church of Scientology". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. December 17, 1996. col. 1392–1394.
• Kenneth Robinson, Minister of Health (25 July 1968). "Scientology (Written Answer)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 189–191W. Archived from the original on 1 July 2019. Scientology is a pseudo-philosophical cult ... I considered the practice of Scientology to be potentially harmful to its adherents
• Cottrell, Richard (1984). The Activity of Certain New Religions within the European Community (Report). Strasbourg: European Parliament.
• Conseil d'Europe (1999). European Council, Recommendation 1412: Concernant les activités illégales des sectes (Report). Strasbourg: Conseil d'Europe.
• "Church of Scientology". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. December 17, 1996. col. 1392–1394.</ref>
• Hubbard and another v. Vosper and another, 1 All ER 1023 (Court of Appeal (England and Wales) November 19, 1971).
• Behar, Richard (May 6, 1991). "Scientology: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Time. Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Scientology poses as a religion but is really a ruthless global scam -- and aiming for the mainstream (see The_Thriving_Cult_of_Greed_and_Power. Cited 11 times)
• Anderson, Kevin Victor (1965). "Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology". Government Printer, Melbourne. In reality it is a dangerous medical cult
• Hunt, John; de Puig, Luis; Espersen, Ole (February 5, 1992). European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements (Report). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved June 30, 2019.
• Søren_Espersen (Denish politician, Denmark Democrats) 1992 debate at the CoE Parliamentary Assembly [13]: a cool, cynical, manipulating business and nothing else
• Kenneth Robinson (British politician, Minister of Health, Labour) 1968 Written Answer [14]: a pseudo-philosophical cult introduced into this country some years ago from the United States
• Richard Cottrell (British politician, EMP) 1984 European Parliament working paper "The Activity of Certain New Religions within the European Community"
• Baroness Blatch (British politician, Minister of State for the Home Office, conservative) 1996 debate at the House of Lords [15]: my understanding is that the Church of Scientology chapels do not conform to the legal definition of a church and certainly not a religion
• Latey J (British judge) Court of Appeal judgment in Re B & G (Minors) (Custody) 1984 [16]: calls Scientology a cult ... immoral and socially obnoxious ... corrupt, sinister and dangerous

[17] Adds " It has been variously defined as a cult, a business or a new religious movement" citing Edge, "European Council, Recommendation 1178". [18] Adds "The Church has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgements" citing

Cambial Yellowing ANI draft

I've tried to be as brief as possible, and to select diffs not already covered by Grorp. My concerns relate to 1) WP:CIVIL, 2) WP:DISRUPTIVE, 3) WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:ADVOCACY.

1. As the diffs and quotes provided by Grorg and PARAKANYAA clearly show, WP:CIVIL is a real issue. I was particularly struck by the following episode. I discovered that between 2019 and 2020 Cambial had made a few edits containing WP:SYNTH and misrepresenting sources [19][20][21], and on 1 December 2025, with eight consecutive edits, I removed six sources from Scientology with detailed edit summaries. Cambial reverted only one of my edits, restoring one source, with the rather annoying edit summary Source removed on fabricated grounds [22]. Having managed to verify all but one of the remsining sources used in Cambial's edits, I went to their talk page to highlight the issues and ask them to help me verify the missing one (Edge 2006). A lengthy discussion ensued, during which I repeatedly asked Cambial to provide a quote from Edge (1, 2, 3 and, on the article t/p, 4). They never responded. They could easily have said, "I'm sorry, I don't remember Edge, it's been a long time", or even, "Thank you for correcting my mistakes". Instead they hid behind accusations and long, resentful comments (not only your own groundless opinion, but frankly laughable ... I have no interest in discussing your highly partial personal views ... your failure to grasp fundamental elements of content policy ... your illogical double talk, facetious claims, and pointless sophistry in attempts to defend your misrepresentation of sources) without ever mentioning Edge.
2. Apart from incivility, in the short time I spent on Scientology and Church of Scientology, I noticed two occasions where Cambial deliberately restored misrepresented sources and unsupported text (SYNTH and OR). I say "deliberately" because I had already explained the issue affecting sources and content in detail, either with edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that what follows are not content disputes: this kind of editing clearly falls under WP:DISRUPTIVE.
   • Firstly, this revert [23] restores, along with several outdated primary sources, the source Hunt-de Puig-Espersen 1992, which is incorrectly described as European Council, Recommendation 1178: Sects and New Religious Movements, whereas it's actually a Danish politician (Espersen) giving his views in a 1992 debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I had already highlighted this misrepresentation in my edit summaries [24][25] and then, after Cambial's revert, I opened this thread - to no avail.
   • Secondly, these four consecutive edits [26] restore two misrepresented sources (Flinn 2009 and Urban 2021) and unsupported text/OR (advocates [of Scientology] engaging in lying), while also adding a further misrepresented source (Hammer-Rothstein 2012). Details are provided in this thread, plus verbatim quotations from sources in my sandbox here and here.
3. There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. Some of what follows is borderline, as it touches on genuine content disputes where reasonable disagreement is possible, but overall it reveals, in my view, a case of WP:POVPUSH. The last week is only indicative of long-lasting problems: note how much Scientology has changed and lost balance from the 2019 version prior to Cambial's first edit, to the current version. With 22.6% of the characters and 626 edits, Cambial is the first author of that article.[27]
   • 27 November 2025 restores a business, a cult, a religion, or a scam (instead of "a religion, a cult, a business, or a scam") from the opening paragraph of Scientology. In the edit summary and on the talk page, Cambial explains that the sentence should follow alphabetical order.
   • 27 November 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 28 November 2025: given that the overwhelming majority of NRM scholars classify Scientology as a new religious movement (which is frankly obvious and almost non-controversial), Cambial argues that NRM studies are a relatively insignificant sub-discipline of sociology.
   • 2 December 2025, I had removed a UK minister's anti-Scientology statement from a 1992 House of Lords debate, which was misrepresented as supporting a list of high-level findings. Cambial restores this irrelevant/UNDUE primary source and adds in parliamentary debate to the article.
   • 2 December 2025 restores ridiculed.
   • 2 December 2025 restores nonsense.
   • 2 December 2025 restores invented.
   • Cambial describes Scientology's Dianetics in ways that express animosity and contempt, contributing to a battleground atmosphere and discouraging participation from good-faith editors with differing points of view: pseudoscientific bullshit (31 October 2025); bunk science, hogwash, and systems invented by the mentally ill (22 November 2025); pseudoscience worthy of ridicule (28 November 2025).

"Scientology, which is variously defined as a cult, a business, or a new religious movement"

Added to Church of Scientology on 13:58, 11 March 2020 [28]

It used to be:

The Church of Scientology is a group of interconnected corporate entities and other organizations devoted to the practice, administration and dissemination of Scientology, a new religious movement.

Added on 16:58, 20 July 2014 [29]

It used to be:

The Church of Scientology is a new religious movement devoted to the practice and the promotion of the Scientology belief system.

Sources as of Dec 2025:

{{refn|name=defin|<ref name=timecult2/><ref>{{Cite book |last=Kent |first=Stephen A. |author-link=Stephen A. Kent |title=Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field |title-link=Misunderstanding Cults |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-8020-8188-9 |editor-last=Zablocki |editor-first=Benjamin |editor-link=Benjamin Zablocki |pages=349–58 |language=en |chapter=Brainwashing Programs in The Family/Children of God and Scientology |editor-last2=Robbins |editor-first2=Thomas |editor-link2=Thomas Robbins (sociologist)}}</ref><ref name=Anderson1965/><ref name=Edge2006>{{Cite book |last=Edge |first=Peter W.|title=Religion and law: an introduction |publisher=[[Ashgate Publishing]] |url=https://www.routledge.com/Religion-and-Law-An-Introduction/Edge/p/book/9780754630487|access-date=July 3, 2020|date=2006| isbn=978-0-7546-3048-7}}</ref><ref name="urban2015">{{Cite book | last = Urban | first = Hugh B. | author-link = Hugh Urban | year = 2015 | title = New Age, Neopagan, and New Religious Movements: Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America | publisher = Univ of California Press |isbn = 978-0520281172|page=144}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |last=Cottrell |first=Richard |year=1999 |title=Recommendation 1412: Concernant les activités illégales des sectes |publisher=Conseil d'Europe }}</ref>}}

• Kent, Stephen A. (2001). "Brainwashing Programs in The Family/Children of God and Scientology". In Zablocki, Benjamin; Robbins, Thomas (eds.). Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field. University of Toronto Press. pp. 349–58. ISBN 978-0-8020-8188-9.</ref>
• Anderson Report
• Edge2006
• Urban, Hugh B. (2015). New Age, Neopagan, and New Religious Movements: Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America. Univ of California Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0520281172.
• Cottrell, Richard (1999). Recommendation 1412: Concernant les activités illégales des sectes (Report). Conseil d'Europe.; this should be Cottrell, Richard (2 April 1984). The Activity of Certain New Religions within the European Community (Working Paper of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport). Working Documents 1984–1985. Strasbourg, France: European Parliament. Document 1984-85 1-0047/84; PE 82.322/fin. certain organizations described as 'new religious movements' ... The Church of Scientology, founded by the American, L. Ron Hubbard, according to a personally-evolved philosophy, charges from £300 to £3,000 for courses at various levels and attracts a world-wide clientele to its centres in the European Commun1ty ... Mr Hubbard's movement has also attracted critics and one correspondent, describing her daughter' involvement, wrote to me to describe large sums of money being borrowed from a bank to "pay for courses" ... At East Grinstead 1 saw people who attested to their happiness and satisfaction with Scientology. Subsequently, however, I was told of people being 'door-stepped' in a London street, invited to take a test involving a piece of apparatus known as the 'E meter' and then offered courses since the results revealed the need for improvement ..."