The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientology, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.
Scientology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
Frommer's Britain For Free uses parts of the lead and beliefs section of this article, apparently copied some time in 2009, without attribution Ultimate Truth, Book 1: Description of Scientologist beliefs is largely plagiarised from this article
@ModernDaySlavery: What problem are you trying to solve by adding "by experts" at the end of the second sentence? Each 'label' is described in more detail in the first section "Definition and classification" and even more discussed in its subsection "Debates over classification". Per MOS:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Could you further explain your thinking about why you consider "by experts" an important addition? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I've missed anything, but is anyone able to point to any of the given (academic) references that support the "scam" label for Scientology? I've had trouble accessing a few, but none of the given references I've been able to check contain this term. Cult, business, religion, sect, "scheme" and "racket" – but not "scam". GhostOfNoMan22:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your claim, Behar 1991 – the first citation – and Beit-Hallahmi 2003, both of which are cited immediately following that sentence, use either that word or an exact synonym of it. Cambial — foliar❧07:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first, an article in Time magazine, doesn't describe Scientology as a scam; rather, it accuses the group's members of engaging in financial scams, which is quite different. But you're right – that one does at least contain the word "scam", contrary to what I said. (I wasn't able to access the full text of Beit-Hallahmi 2003, I only noted "racket" in the abstract.) I'll see if I can find further references. GhostOfNoMan09:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Beit-Hallahmi is perfect actually, now that I've been able to read the full text. I thought "racket" was a mention in passing, going by the abstract, but it's actually the exact sort of reference I hadn't been able to locate. Clearly supports the "scam" label. My fault for not digging further initially. Thanks. GhostOfNoMan09:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Much basic information about the Scientology belief system is kept secret from most practitioners."
This is straight-up untrue. While some things are hidden unless you pay for it, all of their churches have a library which contains most of their books, and you can look at them for free. BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is now attributed directly to the quoted scholars rather than stated as fact. Inclusion of the free libraries would be an improvement but it'd require a reliable source. Feoffer (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is reported as fact by three expert academics published by two of the most highly-regarded university presses. Are there secondary reliable sources of a similar calibre that dispute this statement about information being kept secret? In the absence of scholarly sources disputing this, a neutral framing avoids stating as opinion material that the most reliable sources give as fact. Urban devotes an entire chapter of his book on religion and secrecy to Scientology. Cambial — foliar❧14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Thanks for pointing it out. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)