Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#rfc D6D048B

Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia has very little content related to David Miscavige's takeover of power and control of the Church of Scientology after L. Ron Hubbard's death? I also mentioned it at Talk:Pat Broeker § Broeker's role and the power struggle. There is quite a bit of material in several books about the power struggle, including Atack, Lamont, Miller, Reitman and Wright (four of which are available online) and possibly Rinder and Urban.{{r|atack|lamont|miller|reitman|rinder|urban|wright}} Grorp (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

: Also called "the corporate sort-out" (CSO). Here is another source giving tips of this period of corporate reorganization.{{Cite web |title=CST v US 1992 |url=https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irslegal/290692.html |date=June 29, 1992}} Grorp (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:: Today I added some of this information (in summary) into {{Section link|Church of Scientology|History}}... prompted by the auto-archival of this thread.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

::: Still needs doing.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::: Posting another comment here just so this topic doesn't get archived.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk|refs=

{{Cite book |title=A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed |title-link=A Piece of Blue Sky |first=Jon |last=Atack |author-link=Jon Atack |date=1990 |publisher=Lyle Stuart Books |isbn=081840499X |ol=9429654M}}

{{cite book |last=Lamont |first=Stewart |title=Religion Inc. : The Church of Scientology |title-link=Religion Inc. |year=1986 |publisher=Harrap |isbn=0245543341 |ol=2080316M}}

{{cite book |title=Bare-faced Messiah : The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard |title-link=Bare-faced Messiah |first=Russell |last=Miller |author-link=Russell Miller |ol=26305813M |isbn=0805006540 |date=1987 |publisher=Henry Holt and Company }}

{{cite book |last=Reitman |first=Janet |author-link=Janet Reitman |title=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |title-link=Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion |date=2011 |isbn=9780618883028 |ol=24881847M |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt }}

{{cite book |title=A Billion Years: My Escape From a Life in the Highest Ranks of Scientology |first=Mike |last=Rinder |author-link=Mike Rinder |year=2022 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=9781982185763}}

{{cite book|last=Urban|first=Hugh B. |author-link=Hugh Urban |title=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |title-link=The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2011 |isbn=9780691146089}}

{{cite book |last=Wright |first=Lawrence |author-link=Lawrence Wright |title=Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf |year=2013 |isbn=9780307700667 |ol=25424776M |title-link=Going Clear (book)}}

}}

This is a topic worth covering, but an incredibly difficult one to get right. So far as I'm aware, sourcing is entirely from people with very strong biases one way or the other. It's not at all clear whether the "coup" was really a coup or whether a promotion order was forged. Jesse Prince's book argues stronly for the latter option. I'd love there to be an article on this topic, but I don't know how to write it at present.

(Pinging {{ping|GreenLipstickLesbian}} and {{ping|Cambial Yellowing}} as two editors recently involved in categorizing these sorts of articles.)

Over the last two years I have watched several attempts to categorize Hubbard-authored Scientology books (list of books, category) as non-fiction, or fiction, or pseudoscience. The fact is Hubbard intended them as non-fiction. Some others have categorized them as pseudoscience, therefore wanting to categorize the books as fiction as well. I've seen reverts and the same efforts happen again over time. I think it's time we solve the dilemnas.

Checking online about library science (not my wheelhouse) I find that libraries tend to categorize books as fiction or non-fiction based on the publisher's labeling of a book. Since the Church of Scientology has been publishing their own books for decades (they have their own print facility), that doesn't help to classify. Worldcat doesn't seem to mention fiction or non-fiction for the several Hubbard works I checked, so that's no help either.

Other search results yielded firm answers that the author's intention is key. If the author intended it to be entertainment or storytelling, a book is classified as fiction. If the author intended it to be 'the way things are', then it is considered non-fiction even if the material is hokum or pseudoscience. The truth or falsity of the material does not alter the classification.

That said, I checked Wikipedia categorization of other new religion type texts. A lot of those have their own categories which for Scientology would probably get labelled :Category:Scientology texts. By using the word "texts", those other "belief systems" avoid the fiction versus nonfiction dichotomy. I think we should consider this method. That leaves open how we categorize :Category:Scientology texts under parent categories, and avoids the fiction/nonfiction conundrum.

The other question is whether to call them "English" books because though authored originally in English, the Church of Scientology has translated and published each one of them into dozens of languages. I recommend avoiding :Category:English books entirely.

Please discuss.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would love to solve this issue - our books and novels categorizations schemes have a lot of weak points, and this is very clearly one of them. Mind if I cross-post this to WP:BOOKS for some wider input?

:Personally speaking, I am with you that the author's intent and what the book was marketed as is what matters the most. By placing a book in a non-fiction category, I'm not endorsing it, or saying that everything in it is true or objective fact, I'm just saying that it is a book which is primarily meant to deal with the real world. Whether or not it did it successfully is something for the article body to deal with. This means that I've been leaving books promoting pseudoscience and fringe medical claims, books about on alien abductions, and stuff like The Lightning and the Sun in the non-fiction categories. I'm not exactly thrilled about it, obviously, but as far as I know the authors wrote them as non-fiction and marketed them as non-fiction. I do really like the idea of at least moving the Scientology texts into a subcategory of :Category:Religious texts. This could get weird with new religious movement-related texts (For an example, books promoting some alternative medicine might be classified as non-fiction, but also closely connected to Falun Gong, and the books of Jacques Breyer were influential amongst followers of the OTS but I don't believe he was ever a member). Sorry if I'm dragging this too far off the Scientology aspect, I'm just excited that somebody other than me is looking at this and thinking we need a better solution, and I want whatever solution we come up with to be as widely-implementable as possible!

:As for the English-language thing - the :Category:Books by language organization scheme isn't perfect, but generally, a book is categorized by the language it was originally published in. If there is a notable translation which has a stand-alone article, it can go into the new language category. So the Scientology books were originally published in English, as far as I can tell, so that's the most defining language for them. I totally get what you're saying though, about the translations maybe changing things. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Sure, notify WP:BOOKS of this discussion. I tried to find something, anything, in Wikipedia that addressed the fiction/nonfiction topic and couldn't find anything. Maybe the folks at BOOKS have been through this sort of discussion before.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I've left a notification. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#Discussion_related_to_new_religious_movements,_Scientology,_and_book_categorization] GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree we should avoid the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy.

:I see no evidence that the books were {{tq|intended to deal with the real world}}. Hubbard knew he was making it up, and there is no evidence of any effort on his part to make the contents an accurate reflection of reality. The purpose was to sell books and to market his courses. It is true that some of the books were marketed as non-fiction - a different question. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also marketed as non-fiction. For the same reason as Hubbard's works, we do not categorise it as non-fiction. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::Going Clear (film) provides evidence that, yes, he did believe his work to be an accurate reflection of reality and genuinely believed in Scientology. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Even Miscavige acts like he believes it all to be true/non-fiction, as do all the followers (including Freezoners). And I see no evidence that {{tq|Hubbard knew he was making it up}}. And even if he did, he still presented his books as non-fiction.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whether he {{tq|believe[d] his work to be an accurate reflection of reality}} is not the same as, and really has no bearing on, whether he made any effort to make them an accurate reflection of reality. He marketed his work as non-fiction, just as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was marketed as non-fiction. We don't characterise it as such when it's not commonly and consistently held to be so by reliable sources. That said, what is the evidence in Going Clear that he believed his work to be accurate? He was a severely mentally ill pathological liar and fraudster, so we don't put much or any credence in how he perceived his insane ramblings. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}When we use "fiction" or "non-fiction" classifications in Wikipedia, we are referring to the typical scholarly or library concepts, not the common usage of "fiction" meaning "a false report or statement that you pretend is true" (synonymous with lying).

Today I spoke with someone actively employed in the library and information sciences. The person said that Scientology is catalogued under 299.936 in the Dewey Decimal Classification system,{{r|lt299.936|lt-scn}} whether a book is favorable or critical or neutral, or whether the book is authored by Hubbard and published by the Church of Scientology or written and published by others. The 200-numbered series is a non-fiction section for religion.{{r|mds}} Depending on the library, fiction books are either catalogued under a separate section alphabetically by author, or under the 800-numbered series of the Dewey system, all other Dewey numbers are "non-fiction" classifications.{{r|penpad}} The Dewey classification system is used in the libraries of over 135 countries, including the English-speaking countries of UK, IRE, USA, CAN, AUS, & NZ.{{r|countries}}

The person also mentioned that non-fiction doesn't mean it is real, true, workable, or can survive scientific scrutiny. It is a category that includes theories, self-help books, folk tales, poetry, and philosophy, and the label of "non-fiction" doesn't legitimize a subject or mean it is true or real—one shouldn't conflate the nonfiction genre with truth or reality.

An excellent scholarly and detailed writeup that discusses the fiction vs. non-fiction classifications, and reasons why they are that way, is VIII—Fiction as a Genre;{{r|wiley}} which also mentions that fiction and non-fiction are not mutually exclusive categorizations. It's an interesting read which covers all the main points brought up in this discussion thread... including intention and usage... to wit, Hubbard clearly intended his Dianetics and Scientology writings since 1950 to be viewed as non-fiction, and are a completely separate genre from his science fiction and fantasy fiction works, most of which are listed in L. Ron Hubbard bibliography. Hubbard held instruction on his Scientology books as if they are real, as does the contemporary Church of Scientology hold instruction, so their usage then and now is as non-fiction.

Since we at Wikipedia rely on secondary sources such as the codified classification systems of the library sciences, over our own personal conclusions, there should be no further confusion as to whether Hubbard's Scientology and Dianetics books should be classified as "non-fiction" within Wikipedia.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk|refs=

{{Cite web |title=Countries with libraries that use the Dewey Decimal Classification system |url=https://www.oclc.org/en/dewey/resources/countries.html |website=OCLC}}

{{Cite web |url=https://www.librarything.com/mds/299.936 |title=299.936 |website=LibraryThing.com}}

{{Cite web |url=https://www.librarything.com/search.php?search=scientology&searchtype=classification&sortchoice=0 |title=Classification Search > scientology |website=LibraryThing.com}}

{{Cite web |url=https://www.librarything.com/mds |title=Melvil Decimal System |website=LibraryThing.com}}

{{Cite web |title=How to File Fiction in Dewey Decimal |url=https://penandthepad.com/file-fiction-dewey-decimal-12045843.html |first=David |last=Swan |website=Pen & The Pad}}

{{Cite journal |title=VIII—Fiction as a Genre |first=Stacie |last=Friend |date=5 May 2015 |orig-date=6 February 2012 |journal=Wiley |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9264.2012.00331.x}} (Available through WP:The Wikipedia Library)

}}

:I don't see any {{tq|confusion}} to which you allude. To continue the analogy above, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is also placed in a Dewey Decimal classification of "non-fiction". We don't put it in that category. Library classification is not the determinant of categorisation on Wikipedia. A mere library classification is not a RS. The AI-text blog website to which you link makes no mention of Hubbard nor Scientology; the article in the Aristotelian Society also makes no mention of either topic. As there are not reliable sources characterising Hubbard's work as non-fiction, it's not appropriate to categorise them as such. It's quite natural and understandable that instances where an author set out to deceive readers, either to try to disguise and transmit their racism, or to disguise a confidence trick to scam money off people, are not characterised as non-fiction in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{reply|Cambial Yellowing}} I'll address each point.

• The links I provided: My selection of links was to be assistive, not definitive. They were to point to sources which support what I was told by the person in the library sciences industry, a subject-matter expert. I could have provided more or other links, but so too could you have done an online search to discover that what I pointed to was an industry-wide standard, not a one-off.
• {{tq|Mere library classification}}: So you think your opinion should have more weight than an entire industry the world over? Please see NPOV/WEIGHT and WP:OR.
• Zion book: Irrelevant to this conversation. Introducing how some other article is written/edited/categorized/etc. has long been an irrelevant argument in Wikipedia. See WP:WHATABOUT.
• Confused: It was you, {{noping|Cambial Yellowing}}, who on 20 August 2023 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Cambial+Yellowing&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2023-08-20&end=2023-08-20&limit=100 edited 9 Hubbard book articles], adding genre=pseudoscience into the infobox of 6 of them, adding category=pseudoscience to 6, and changing 6 from nonfiction categories to fiction categories. On 7 December 2023, you even overwrote (to pseudoscience) someone else's genre=self-help who had provided [https://archive.org/details/pluralismcomesof0000lipp/page/101/mode/1up?ref=ol&view=theater&q=genre a secondary source] for it. On 23 March 2024, {{u|PARAKANYAA}} removed your genre tag, pointing out that pseudoscience wasn't a genre. And on 3 January 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Cambial+Yellowing&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2025-01-03&end=2025-01-03&limit=100 you made a similar sweep of 7 of these book articles], reverting several edits by {{u|GreenLipstickLesbian}} who was correcting these, which led me to begin this discussion thread.
• Consensus: Throughout the last two years, various editors (not only those mentioned above) have changed these labels away from your editing choices, and as of today all of the genre-labels and most of the categories are gone. Throughout all of these editor interactions, you are the one who insists on tagging these books as fiction and pseudoscience. This editing behavior, plus your comments in this thread, fit WP:Consensus: "{{tq|Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.}}" When your abject hatred of Scientology interferes with your ability to discuss encyclopedia matters rationally, you've crossed the line from collegial to disruptive. If your edits didn't so blatantly exhibit an WP:ADVOCACY on this subject, then I wouldn't push back so hard.

Just so we're clear, I'm not bothered by leaving the genre and categories silent on the subject, but I object to you tagging a book as pseudoscience or fiction when it isn't generally categorized that way by independent sources experienced in such categorization. Do we need to start an RfC to settle this once and for all?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The comment about self-help books made me think of something. As flawed and money-grabbing as the genre is, self-help books are non-fiction, and Dianetics, when it's referred to by a genre, is talked about in RS as a self-help book.{{Cite |last=Perry |first=Seth |title=Scientology and Its Discontents |date=October 2, 2011 |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |id={{ProQuest|897396471}}}}{{Cite book |url=https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/lawrence-wright/going-clear/ |title=GOING CLEAR {{!}} Kirkus Reviews |language=en}}{{Cite news |title=Reporter Janet Reitman Peers 'Inside Scientology' |url=https://www.npr.org/2011/07/23/138475723/reporter-janet-reitman-peers-inside-scientology |access-date=2025-05-09 |work=NPR |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2018-10-26 |title=Sci-fi fans, here's the 'Astounding' history of Campbell, Asimov, Heinlein and Hubbard |url=https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-entertainment/books/2018/10/26/sci-fi-fans-here-s-the-astounding-history-of-campbell-asimov-heinlein-and-hubbard/ |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=Dallas News |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=Scientology Goes NASCAR With Dianetics Race Car |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2044770 |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=ABC News |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2012-07-02 |title=Going Clear: Sky to air controversial Scientology documentary |url=https://theweek.com/people-news/cruise-divorce/47746/who-are-scientologists-and-what-do-they-believe |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=The Week |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2006-03-21 |title=Chef is back on ‘South Park’ |url=https://www.today.com/popculture/chef-back-south-park-wbna11932124 |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=TODAY.com |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Groves |first=Martha |date=1990-10-14 |title=Short Road to Success : Investing: The Feshbach brothers of Palo Alto have made a fortune betting that stocks will go down. But some critics question their short-selling methods. |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-14-fi-3720-story.html |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=Urban |first=Hugh |date=2013-04-13 |title=Understanding Scientology |url=https://reason.com/2013/04/13/understanding-scientology-2/ |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}} Interestingly enough, it's one of the earliest examples of a modern self-help book.{{Cite book |last=Shally-Jensen |first=Michael |title=Alternative Healing in American History: An Encyclopedia from Acupuncture to Yoga |date=2010 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=979-8-216-04482-6 |edition=1st |location=Westport, CT |page=313}}{{Cite web |date=2013-01-24 |title='Going Clear': A New Book Delves Into Scientology |url=https://www.npr.org/transcripts/170010096 |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=NPR |language=en}} Hopefully this can settle the issue for now? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:You write {{tq|So you think your opinion should have more weight than an entire industry the world over}}. Nothing I've written has remotely suggested this. What a ridiculous straw man. Firstly, the "{{tq|entire industry the world over}}" does not state that Hubbard's work is non-fiction. Secondly, I indicate in the thread above that I think we ought to avoid the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy. I'm not suggesting we characterise Hubbard's work as either one, thus my opinion is evidently not at play.

:Contrary to your claim, the analogy to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion helpfully demonstrates why works that set out to deceive people are not characterised as non-fiction. For our purposes, what matters is how secondary reliable sources commonly and consistently characterise something. RS do not generally characterise Hubbard's work as non-fiction, so there is no basis for an encylopaedia to do so.

:Numerous sources, extending from commentary in the relevant literature at the time of publication, to more recent academic work on the nature of Scientology as a phenomenon, characterise Hubbard's writings on Scientology as pseudoscience.{{cite journal |last1=Berger |first1=Albert I. |title=Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind: Science-Fiction Origins of Dianetics |journal=Science Fiction Studies |date=1 July 1989 |volume=16 |issue=Part 2 |pages=123–144 |doi=10.1525/sfs.16.2.123}}{{cite journal |last1=Hayakawa |first1=S.I. |title=Review: From Science-fiction to Fiction-science |journal=ETC Review of General Semantics |date=1951 |volume=8 |issue=4 |page=280-293 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42580983}}{{cite book |last1=Carroll |first1=Robert Todd|title=The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions |date=2003 |publisher=Wiley |location=Hoboken, NJ |chapter=Dianetics|isbn=0-471-27242-6 |page=99}}{{cite book |last1=Gardner |first1=Martin |title=Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science |chapter=Dianetics|pages=230-245|date=1986 |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |isbn=9780486203942 |edition=Fourth}}{{cite book |last1=Hellesøy |first1=Kjersti |title=Controversial New Religions |chapter=Scientology|editor-last=Lewis|editor-last2=Petersen|editor-first1=James R.|editor-first2=Jesper|date=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford; New York |isbn=978-0-19-931531-4 |pages=257-269 |edition=Second}}{{cite book |last1=Bigliardi |first1=Stefano |title=New Religious Movements and Science |date=2023 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-1-009-10839-3 |page=6}} It's probably correct that pseudoscience is not, strictly, a genre, which is why the parameter remains blank. I've no objection to other well-sourced categories, provided there is sufficient coverage to support content in the article body. There is self-help books for DSMH – Category:Self-help books – whereas "non-fiction" would be original research. I note one of the sources GreenLipstickLesbian posted characterises DSMH as a "pseudo-scientific self-help book" which is a fair summary.

:As usual, you have found yourself unable to post without deviating from the topic into wild speculation about other editor's motives. No-one is interested, Grorp. This is not the venue to discuss your unsupported perception of other editor's actions. Take your meritless and childish claims about "{{tq|abject hatred}}" elsewhere – maybe Twitter? Cambial — foliar❧ 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

(invited by the bot but I've also been a regular there) The original question didn't explicitly say what the context was. Is this just (only) about Wikipedia categorization the Wikipedia categorization system? Otherwise the answer could be used also for article text. My general answer is when there are issues like this, to avoid using the one word categorization. Only use it where it can be properly explained. Which means don't put it in the info box. If this is just about Wikipedia categorization in the Wikipedia categorization system, and if making this choice is unavoidable, I'd say go with non-fiction, for the reasons argued above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 25 § Cults, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750122071}}

{{rfc|lang|reli|rfcid=D6D048B}}

This RfC seeks wider community input to obtain a consensus and resolve ongoing disagreements over how Scientology book-articles should generally be categorized within Wikipedia, and how the genre should be listed in an infobox. The options list below has been compiled from suggestions by various editors. There are currently 10 standalone book-articles, which are summarized at {{Section link|Bibliography of Scientology|Books}} (the ones which are wiki-linked).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Cot|title=The 10 book-articles are:}}

• All About Radiation
• Clear Body, Clear Mind
• Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science
• Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
• Have You Lived Before This Life?
• Science of Survival
• Scientology: A History of Man
• The Way to Happiness
• Brain-Washing (book)
• Excalibur (L. Ron Hubbard)

{{Cob}}

Genre question: Which genre or genres are most appropriate for the infoboxes of Scientology book-articles?

• Option G0 - None; should be left blank and not specify any genre in the infobox for the books
• Option G1 - Self-help book
• Option G2 - Non-fiction
• Option G3 - Fiction
• Option G4 - Religious text or Canon (basic principle)
• Option G5 - Pseudoscience
• Option G6 - Something else (please specify what else)

Category question: Which category or categories are most appropriate for the book-articles?

• Option C0 - None; should be left blank and not specify any genre-type categories for the books
• Option C1 - :Category:Self-help books
• Option C2 - :Category:Non-fiction books
• Option C3 - :Category:Fiction books
• Option C4 - :Category:Religious texts
• Option C5 - :Category:Pseudoscience literature
• Option C6 - Something else (please specify what else)

• {{sbb}} G4 and C4. According to higher up on the page, Scientology books are categorized under the Dewey Decimal system as "religious".[https://www.librarything.com/mds/299.936] I'm unconvinced as to why Scientology should be treated differently than other organized religions. The purpose of the religious designation appears to be sidestepping discussions of whether a particular belief system about the supernatural is true or not. I would oppose using the "fiction", "non-fiction", or "pseudoscientific" categorizations for that reason. Many editors would argue the Bible or theology are fictional or pseudoscientific. Others would argue they're non-fiction. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia editors should be making that judgement, since it would violate WP:NPOV by endorsing the truth or untruth of a belief system, and also appears to go against reliable sources that categorize books. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• G0. The template documentation suggests not using both subject and genre, "See literary genre. ... Should not generally be combined with subject/subjects". We should just use subject (Dianetics in most cases). No works I have seen attribute a "Literary genre" to Hubbard's Scientology works, except for the original version of Dianetics which I have seen often referred to as a "Self-help book". Regardless, as I said prior, pseudoscience is not a genre. As for the categories that's less mutually exclusive, several of these categories are part of different trees. In theory we could do religious texts + pseudoscience literature + self-help books + non-fiction books... And the way the trees work, it can be in one but also subcategorize in the others, like it could be in self-help books which is a subcat of non-fiction books, but also be in English-language non-fiction books. So I don't think it's that clear cut. The big divison here was when GLL was diffusing the English-language categories into fiction of non-fiction diffusing his works into non-fiction was objected to - it still has to be in English language books categories, but do we diffuse it to fiction, non-fiction or just leave it in the plain books category? We don't diffuse any of these other categories by language, so that doesn't solve the issue that brought us here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• G0 per @PARAKANYAA -- we can describe it as pseudoscience in the lead. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• G0 Genre: none. as Parakanyaa rightly points out, the template documentation indicates to use one of subject or genre. Subject is undoubtedly the more helpful for the reader.
• C5 Category: Pseudoscience. Article categories require reliable sources. The encyclopaedia does not give to very fringe views categories for which they lack supporting reliable sources. Hubbard's books on the topic are widely characterised in the available literature as pseudoscience.{{cite journal |last1=Berger |first1=Albert I. |title=Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind: Science-Fiction Origins of Dianetics |journal=Science Fiction Studies |date=1 July 1989 |volume=16 |issue=Part 2 |pages=123–144 |doi=10.1525/sfs.16.2.123}} ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239930 jstor link]){{cite journal |last1=Manca |first1=Terra |title=L. Ron Hubbard's Alternative to the Bomb Shelter: Scientology's Emergence as a Pseudo-science During the 1950s |journal=Journal of Religion and Popular Culture|location=Berkeley|publisher=University of California Press|date=March 2012 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=80–96 |doi=10.3138/jrpc.24.1.80}}{{cite journal |last1=Hayakawa |first1=S.I. |title=Review: From Science-fiction to Fiction-science |journal=ETC Review of General Semantics |date=1951 |volume=8 |issue=4 |page=280-293 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42580983}}{{cite book |last1=Carroll |first1=Robert Todd|title=The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions |date=2003 |publisher=Wiley |location=Hoboken, NJ |chapter=Dianetics|isbn=0-471-27242-6 |page=99}}{{cite book |ol=22475247M |last1=Gardner |first1=Martin |title=Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science |chapter=Dianetics|pages=230-245|date=1986 |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |isbn=9780486203942 |edition=Fourth}}{{cite journal |last1=Kent |first1=Stephen A. |last2=Manca |first2=Terra A. |title=A War over Mental Health Professionalism: Scientology versus Psychiatry|doi-access=free |journal=Mental Health, Religion & Culture |date=2014 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=1–23 |doi=10.1080/13674676.2012.737552}}{{cite book |last1=Hellesøy |first1=Kjersti |title=Controversial New Religions |chapter=Scientology: The Making of a Religion |editor-last=Lewis|editor-last2=Petersen|editor-first1=James R.|editor-first2=Jesper|url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/controversial-new-religions-9780199315314?cc=gb&lang=en&|date=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford; New York |isbn=978-0-19-931531-4 |pages=257-269 |edition=Second}} ([https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G93HAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA257&dq=Helles%C3%B8y,+Kjersti+scientology+Controversial+New+Religions&ots=uo7DOHGqxq&sig=RF8CuDl3GCWiOFWO8QdEAPI01ms#v=onepage&q=Helles%C3%B8y%2C%20Kjersti%20scientology%20Controversial%20New%20Religions&f=false googlebooks link]){{cite book |last1=Bigliardi |first1=Stefano |title=New Religious Movements and Science|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/new-religious-movements-and-science/753DD76A39C0FD2D8FEA33B9CB3FB209|date=2023 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-1-009-10839-3 |page=6}}{{cite book |editor-last1=Bould |editor-first1=Mark |editor-last2=Butler|editor-last3=Roberts|editor-last4=Vint|editor-first2=Andrew M.|editor-first3=Adam|editor-first4=Sherryl|title=The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction|last=Luckhurst|first=Roger|chapter=Pseudoscience|date=2009 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-0-415-45378-3 |pages=403–412 |url=https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Companion-to-Science-Fiction/Bould-Butler-Roberts-Vint/p/book/9780415453790}}{{Cite web |title=Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology |url=https://archive.org/details/vparl-1965-66-no-9-recognized/mode/1up?view=theater |first=Kevin Victor |last=Anderson |author-link=Kevin Victor Anderson|pages=10, 11, et passim |year=1965 |publisher=Government Printer|location=Melbourne}} ([https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/andrhome.html alternative link]){{cite journal |last1=Manca |first1=Terra |title=Alternative therapy, Dianetics, and Scientology |journal=Marburg Journal of Religion |date=2010 |volume=15 |issue=1|doi-access=free |doi=10.17192/mjr.2010.15.3423}}{{cite journal |last1=Kent |first1=Stephen |title=The Creation of 'Religious' Scientology|location=Sheffield|publisher=Equinox Publishing |journal=Religious Studies and Theology |date=1999 |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=97–126 |doi=10.1558/rsth.v18i2.97}} Historical overviews of the relationship between Scientology and the mainstream scholarly establishment show that the works were considered pseudoscience by the mainstream from Hubbard's first publications. The sources supporting the category can support further text in the article about the pseudoscientific nature of the books. It's the natural category for an encyclopaedia to place the works on the topic. The categories of "religious" and "non-fiction" for these books lack reliable sources. We don't do original research. Sources characterise Scientology as a business or a confidence trick. Hubbard did not decide to advertise his ideas as a religion until four to five years after the publication of his first four books about "Dianetics". He claims in the books that his ideas are scientific. Sources categorise the book Dianetics as secular.{{cite news |last1=Beyerstein |first1=Lindsay |title=Holy Mess |url=https://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/holy_mess.php |work=Columbia Journalism Review |publisher=Columbia University |date=March 2013 |language=en}} Cambial — foliar❧ 08:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd agree that Cat:Pseudoscience is a helpful addition to all the Dianetics and Scientology articles, but the later works are clearly religious in nature, dealing with past lives, the after life(s), spirits, demons, etc. Scientology might be a "a business or a confidence trick", but even if so, it's a still a religious "business or a confidence trick". Because we associate religions with non-profits, we don't usually think of religions as businesses, but the two concepts are far from being mutually exclusive. Feoffer (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We could discuss at great length the question of the movement's religiosity, whether intent is salient, etc. (and of course many have 🙃). For our purpose here what matters is how RS characterise the books. I'm not seeing a common and consistent characterisation of the books as religious in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• : I checked the first 7 of the 13 sources you listed here, and I did not find them to discuss the 10 books, nor did any call the books pseudoscience (which is what this RfC is about). Two{{r|Hayakawa|Gardner}} of the sources written in the early 1950s plus Kent (2014){{r|KeMa14}} discussed the DMSMH book, but none of the sources I checked even mentioned any of the other 9 books. I predict that if I checked the final 6 sources presented, I wouldn't find those any more pertinent than the first batch. {{pb}}(1) Berger{{r|Berger}} does not discuss the books, and his use of "pseudoscience" was in regards to Hubbard's pre-Dianetics sci-fi articles. (2) Manca{{r|Manca2012}} was not available through Wikipedia Library, and the title suggests it talks about the subject, not the Hubbard books. (3) Hayakawa{{r|Hayakawa}}, written in 1951, only reviews one book, DMSMH, which he considers science fiction from a science fiction writer. (4) Carroll{{r|Carroll}} is not available online. (5) Gardner{{r|Gardner}} is available at Open Library {{OL|22475247M}}. Your page numbers 230-245 don't seem correct. In this version, Chapter 22 Dianetics (pages 263-280) appears to have been written in the 1950s, perhaps unchanged since the book's first edition in 1952, plus an update addenda on pages 346-348. Though he scoffs at Dianetics technique, he doesn't use the term pseudo science (despite using the term 72 times elsewhere in the book!) nor does he cover any of Hubbard's other books. (6) Kent{{r|KeMa14}} discusses how the original Dianetics technique was a pseudoscience, as were psychotherapies at the time, but never gained "cultural legitimacy" that the psychiatry profession did. He calls Scientology a "pseudo-psychiatric profession". He touches on the DMSMH book -- as the tome for Dianetics technique which he evaluates -- but does not discuss any of the other 9 books of this RfC. (7) Hellesøy{{r|He14}} discusses the movement, but not the books, and doesn't use "pseudo" in this source.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Making misleading and inaccurate claims about sources will not serve your apparent aim to persuade editors away from the already-emerging consensus that pseudoscience is an appropriate category. Your claim that {{tq|nor did any call the books pseudoscience }} is not accurate. The reverse is true.
• ::You claim {{tq|Berger does not discuss the books}}. The first sentence of the abstract, which you don't even need a subscription to read:{{bq|L. Ron Hubbard’s widely advertised book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950), describes a popular form of unorthodox psychological “therapy” that purports to offer solutions to personal problems and to point the way to a secure and socially successful life.}}
• ::The first sentence of the article proper {{bq|Many television viewers have seen advertisements for L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics the Moden Science of Mental Health - signs of the times in our narcissistic age...}}
• ::Yet you claim the article {{tq|does not discuss the books}}. Did you think no-one would notice?
• ::Manca. If you can't be bothered to read the source, making claims about it is a waste of time. Manca discusses DMSMH and All About Radiation. The entire article is about the pseudo-science contained therein:{{bq|As a pseudo-science, Scientology offered solutions to nuclear radiation health concerns, which science could not relieve. In 1950, L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986) published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which swept through America as a lay-psychotherapy manual that alleged to relieve countless physical and mental ills... Hubbard positioned himself as a “scientist” who, like many scientists of his time, claimed to make health risks visible to the public. I demonstrate that Hubbard, by critiquing orthodox science, positioned his pseudo-science as the legitimate response to this problem, and further used this to access resources and power}}
• ::Hayakawa {{tq|only reviews one book}}. Correct. So what? It's one of the pseudoscience books you listed. Isn't this what you wanted to discuss? Or is your RfC not going how you hoped?
• ::{{tq|Carroll is not available online}}. If a book is unavailable online you can look it up in a library. But in fact you're wrong, the entire book has been available online since Carroll's death (albeit in a slightly different edition) at [https://www.skepdic.com/]. On Dianetics:{{bq|He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.}}
• ::The page numbers are correct for the 1986 edition quoted. Gardner gives a description that explains the exact nature of the book DMSMH as falsely scientific, which is what pseudoscience means, but it's true that Gardner does not use the term pseudoscience. He writes:{{bq|That word "invariable" is not a typographical mistake. "Dianetics is an exact science," Hubbard writes, "and its application is on the order of, but simpler than, engineering. Its axioms should not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist as natural laws hitherto undiscovered"....Dianetics is a book of impressive thickness, written in a repetitious, immature style...Nothing in the book remotely resembles a scientific report. The case histories are written largely out of Hubbard's memory and imagination.}}
• ::Kent indeed only discusses DMSMH. So what? A reminder again that that's one of the books you posted. You opted to combine a discussion of ten different articles into one. It's rather silly to complain now that sources do not discuss every single one of them individually.
• ::Hellesøy discusses the book, contrary to your claim:{{bq|The first report on Hubbard’s discovery of Dianetics was published in May 1950 in an issue of Astounding Science Fiction. Later that same year, an expanded version of the article was printed in book form under the title Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. This new science was said to be as important as “the discovery of fire and superior to the wheel and arch”...When Hubbard first published his Dianetics article in 1950, he reached out to the American Medical Association and the American Psychology Association, but his new science was dismissed as pseudoscience.}}
• ::Take care not to misrepresent the content of sources when trying to defend a subject you love. We're just here to build an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• It's complicated. For students of FRINGE, Hubbard is without doubt one of the most fascinating individuals in his era. The two Dianetics are clearly in the self-help genre (indeed, they ignited the genre, that's sourceable) while also certianly belonging in Cat:Pseudoscience. Science of Survival and What to Audit/History of Man are transitional works, no longer "self-help", probably best described as genre pseudoscience. The post 1952 Scientology writings are all genre Religion but also Cat:Pseudoscience. For brainwashing manual, I'd put literary forgery as the genre. The text of Excalibur has never been publicly released, so we'd have to list its genre as Unknown or blank. Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move this comment if it is in the wrong place in this discussion. Interesting question and no simple solution I think. I looked at some misc books and it seems to vary how they have been listed. A Bigfoot book had no genre but the category was non-fiction. Dianetics had no genre but category had pseudoscience. The Satanic Scriptures was a blank genre and non-fiction category. The Church of Satan was listed as a biography. Quran was blank genre and nothing much concerning this question on the category. Bhagavad Gita was blank for genre and religious text in category. Worlds in Collision had a subject area in the inbox and listed mythology and pseudoastronomy. Prometheus Rising had new age, occult, self help in the info box, and pseudoscience and nonfiction in the category.

: So no clear decision from the random books I looked at. I think most are leaving the info box alone and using various categories from non-fiction to pseudoscience in the categories. I have no clear opinion other than I wish there was something decided that applied to all books of this sort. But it depends on the specific book I guess, some are bios, some might be self-help AND pseudoscience. I suppose if the sources call the book pseudoscience, then that is fair game at least in the category. Is there no discussion of this already, seems like whatever has been decided will make someone upset, so either list all the different possibilities or list nothing. Sorry not sure if this was of help. Sgerbic (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Sgerbic}} Earlier discussion is above at Open discussion about categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{reply|PARAKANYAA}} Thank you for pointing out "subject v genre" in {{tl|Infobox book}}. We already know most of which books are subject=Dianetics and which are subject=Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• In re prior sections about "did Hubbard believe in it or not"? All indication are that it's both! Apparently he knew that people left Scientology not because they failed to confess sins (Missed Overts?) but because they didn't like or believe in Scientology anymore (ARC breaks?). But also apparently, he really did believe in auditing, reincarnation, magick, Xenu, etc. By 1954, it is a religion -- even if it's other things too. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{talk-reflist}}