Talk:List of Scientologists/Archive 2

Contradictary sources should warrant removal

In the event that Sources contradict each other people should be taken off the list or put in the new category. In the instance Jada Pinkett Smith- I find sources that claim she denies she is a scientologist.

• http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/03/18/2008-03-18_will_smith_and_jada_dont_know_much_scien.html
• http://www.newser.com/story/31264/so-what-if-will-smiths-school-preaches-scientology.html

Will Smith denies he and wife Jada Pinkett-Smith are Scientologists but the school they founded will use the Church's teaching methods. (AP Photo/Peter Kramer)

This is an instance of someone being on the record as denying they are scientologists. Why do we insist on including them as scientologists? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith isn't on this list.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

whoops, sorry about that, just found her.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

in this case, I think we should apply the same use of sources as we did to Chaka Khan. To avoid WP:SYNTH we should make sure the sources are in chronological order and make sure the contrary sources are accurately quoted. This will avoid edit wars where some people add the individuals while others delete both quoting different WP:RS, as well as give individuals who have read that she is a Scientologist access to the additional sources rather than just wondering why we have not added her.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Coffeepusher. We should document what is said in secondary sources, in chronological order in each entry. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I propose we start a section for disputed cases. --JN466 13:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, and moved Khan and Pinkett-Smith to that section. --JN466 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am skeptical of a new section because it comes close to WP:SYNTH in that it requires the melding of two separate sources to validate the claim, as well as what qualifies for a dispute? is it just two contrary sources, or does it have to be self denial (in which case smith would not qualify since it is her husband who has been quoted in all the sources, she remains silent). What about the case of...that guy who started the self help movement...can't think of it right now... whose followers deny he was ever a member, but he himself always seems to sidestep the issue. I think this new section requires more interpretation of a synthesis of sources rather than following the suggestions contained in WP:V which suggests that we do what we have been doing.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

She denies it too: Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion -- until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know." I think having this section is better than listing people who have clearly said they are not Scientologists as members. My preference would be to delete both entries, and leave a comment in the article explaining why they should not be listed. --JN466 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote added to her entry. --JN466 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good quote. so your proposal is that in order to be admitted into this section the person in question specifically has to deny scientology. none of this "Oh well I study lots of religion" sidestepping.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also add the qualification that in order to be moved from the former section they have to deny ever having been a scientologist.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

The Tilman Hausherr alt.religion.scientology link has been re-introduced, along with Operation Clambake. As self-published sites, neither is up to WP:BLP standards. Recommend removal. --JN466 13:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --JN466 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Guardian list

The Guardian list (ref 67) is a clear case of WP:CIRCULAR. The complete text of the Guardian piece in their G2 supplement was,

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

Kirstie Alley

Beck

Sonny Bono

William Burroughs (reformed)

Nancy Cartwright

Leonard Cohen (reformed)

Tom Cruise

Jenna Elfman

Doug E Fresh

Gloria Gaynor (reformed)

Isaac Hayes

Katie Holmes

Chaka Khan

Juliette Lewis

Charles Manson (reformed)

Priscilla Presley

Lisa Marie Presley

Kelly Preston

Mimi Rogers

Jerry Seinfeld (reformed)

Sharon Stone (reformed)

John Travolta

Van Morrison (reformed)

It was copied from this version of this article. Propose deletion of this ref. Also propose deletion of Gloria Gaynor from this list; this source, which was cited here in 2006, does not satisfy WP:BLP. --JN466 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A bare, unsourced list cannot be a reliable source anyway. Now it even looks like a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Worthless. The whole idea of this wikipedia list of random adherents seems rather doubtful anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Gaynor. --JN466 15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it was copied from the former version of the article. since it is not a direct copy (the wikipedia article contains 80+ names, the gardian only has 20 or so)...additionally all of these listings in the Guardian article have sources independent from the guardian which also list these names. I am far from convinced that it is circular. I will need a lot more evidence than the fact that one list of 20 people happens to have all 20 on a similar list four times that size.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Every single one of the Guardian names is in the 2006 Wikipedia list. Every single name marked "reformed" in the Guardian list is in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of the 2006 Wikipedia list. The Guardian list contains no text whatsoever, only the names. We have no alternative source for Gaynor. The original source for Gaynor in the 2006 list does not meet BLP policy. --JN466 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I've taken Gaynor out again; I am not comfortable with this sourcing for such a contentious issue. Let's look if there are any other sources commenting on her former membership (after the World Cup final is over), and then we can revisit. --JN466 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

your logic does not justify circular though. that classification is specifically used to avoid mirror sites, and while yes in a list of scientologists that contains 80+ names 20 of those names are reproduced on the guardian list of scientologists along with a few former scientologists classified as "reformed" that alone does not demonstrate that they sourced the wikipedia article...if all 80 names appeared in the same formating you may have a case, but only 20 of the more prominent names appeared (which as it is pointed out only one of those names so far doesn't have additional sourcing). how many names need to appear on both lists to be circular? if I have a list with 5 names which appear on wikipedia is that circular? 10? obviously you believe that 20 classifies that wikipedia can be the only source but I believe that based on this it appears that the guardian did their research and listed individuals who are or were scientologists. without any other evidence this argument appears to be pure speculation. now Gaynor is on this list, and if every other name is supported by secondary sources, and the guardian is considered a reliable source, and no additional evidence can be brought up demonstrating that they used wikipedia...then the Gaynor reference on this list is supported by a reliable source, namely that of the Guardian. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

CIRCULAR says, "Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia." All the names in the Guardian list match the status of this Wikipedia article on the day the Guardian published this, and every "reformed" note corresponds to the relevant name being listed in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of the October 2006 article. Also note that the Guardian list appeared in the G2 supplement under "Diversions" -- that means "fun stuff". It is not a serious source. Sorry. Let's make an effort to see if we can source Gaynor with a reference that passes muster under WP:BLP. --JN466 20:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) and are listed as reformed in other sources as well. Again, there is no evidence that this list originated from wikipedia. They are listed as reformed because they are...reformed scientologists. Wikipedia didn't classify them as such and then it was true, that happens to be their relationship to scientology which both the guardian, wikipedia, and other sources have noticed. I also fail to see how being in the "diversions" (or "lifestyles" as the common US classification of that section is usually named) makes it lose it's credibility. In Europe do they suddenly falsify information in the entertainment section? do they fail to back up their research when looking at entertainment related news? just because it is news related to "fun stuff" doesn't make it less credible in the least. the fact that every person on that list is a scientologist or reformed scientologist based on other sources and that the guardian is a credible source under wikipedia WP:RS guidelines, demonstrates that the fun stuff section is credible as well.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that The Guardian source is "circular". Only the personal opinion of a Wikipedia user... -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian does not give a source, just a bare list in one of the less serious sections of the newspaper. Definitely not based on the paper's own research, most likely from wikipedia. The reference should go. It is totally worthless. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_Scientologists_--_Gloria_Gaynor. --JN466 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk · contribs) made a good point at WP:BLPN. In addition to the source, The Guardian, I will do some further research, and add in material from other WP:RS sources as well. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added two additional sources. Still in process of research for further sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While The Guardian itself is a reliable source, using an unsigned list from the jokey "Diversions" section formerly published in the G2 supplement would be shaky for an uncontroversial topic. For BLP content on a contentious topic, it's beyond weak. And as if that didn't matter, The Guardian is not even stating that these people are scientologists, but that they have been listed as scientologists. It's fun filler for a newspaper supplement. I would suggest taking this to Reliable Sources but as related issues are under discussion [[1]] and [[2]] it's probably premature.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

But again, they listed scientologists... accurately...even Gaynor is associated with the church to the degree that her association appears in several secondary sources, while as of yet the Guardian is the only one that listed her as a scientologist, that classification is not without research or merit. So your argument that it is all in good humor and not to be taken as fact falls in the face of all the scientologists printed on that list.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to go all Wiki 101 on you, but the question is not whether the list is accurate but whether it can be used to verify the claims made in the article. That's where the list's unsigned, non-news, jokey filler status is an issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

let's be proud of this list

I understand that this list is controversial, but I personally think that it is the most well laid out and sourced list on wikipedia. we should all be proud of this list, it is quite an accomplishment. and if the only contentious entry is the Gloria entry which currently has several sources attached to it then it is a testament to collaborative exercise. do we actually have a list that is almost at the point of a critical mass of point of view and BLP violations because of the Guardian's list of scientologists (which is now being discussed on three different message boards, possibly four...for some reason...), or do we actually have a stable list which follows wikipedia's WP:RS WP:BLP and WP:V rules more faithfully than any other list on wikipedia? please question if you actually think something is wrong, but I do fail to understand the point of the discussion that has gone on for the last two days since whatever viewpoint wins out, we are essentially fighting over one entry in a list of over 150. we aren't the Catholic church, we don't have to worry about establishing doctrine.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I might be persuaded to agree with you, having a mostly correct list is no excuse for including an entry with sources that, on net and quite clearly, most clearly establish that Gloria Gaynor is not a former member of the Church of Scientology. She should be omitted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

as I said above, I realized how pointless this entire controversy was. I am going to delete the entry myself. But we do have something that is really good.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now also removed all other references to this list in the Guardian; it says more about the "Diversion" section in the Guardian than about the people on the list; a very poor source for biographic information. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the section below, and from related BLP policy discussions, that this is not just about Gloria Gaynor but about the precedent of introducing contentious statements about living persons, denied on the record, through the use of a "disputed" category on a list page. Extended beyond the example of scientology, it seems to run against the spirit, if not yet the letter, of the approach to BLPs. I only mention it here, because it's not just about Gloria Gaynor, nor about the undisputed sections of the list.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

which contentious statements? we have a list of reliable sources which all identify individuals as scientologists and followed WP:V in both the sourcing and how to deal with conflicting information coming from either different sources or from living individuals straight out of WP:BLP. I will say that after reading the wikipedia review page, this entire fiasco appears to be more of a meat puppet vendetta against an editor than a discussion on BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? Statements which list someone as a scientologist despite clear denials. The secondary point is entirely ad hominem. You can't judge the merits of an argument by the fact the topic is being discussed elsewhere.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

the additional argument informs on both the editors in question as well as the reasons for such strong opinions in this case...and also shows why so many new faces are suddently conserned with this page, which evidently is a long standing vendetta against another editor rather than a genuine concern for BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed entries

Removed entries and subsections:

1. Course participants = removed.
2. Disputed = removed.
3. Werner Erhard = removed.

In talk page discussions, above and at other locations including WT:BLP and WP:BLPN, does not appear to be consensus supporting inclusion of this material. I removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

based on the discussions in multiple sections I think that this removal is an accurate portrayal of community consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

I have moved the entry for Werner Erhard to the 'Disputed' section, as there is no doubt that this most accurately reflects his position.

However, I would suggest that it would be most appropriate to delete this entire section and all of the names that it contains. Surely anyone for whom there is a reliable source stating that they have never been a Scientologist (and especially where that reports a direct personal declaration to that effect) should not be featured here at all? Perhaps one of those editors who are so passionate to include such entries could explain why such inclusions serve the interests of Wikpedia and its readers? DaveApter (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship about issues of faith is never a cut-and-dry matter. There are degrees of certainty and uncertainty. This list exhibits a greater acknowledgment of those shades of gray than most lists, and that's commendable. Readers can see for themselves exactly what evidence there is for each inclusion. There is far more concern for the core policies in this list than in the lists of Unitarians, Confucianists, occultists, or Bahá'ís. The fact that there is a "disputed" section in this list is a good thing. More lists should have them.   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

the requirements for inclusion into the deputed section are that Erhard himself has to have been recorded as saying "I was never a scientologist". where is the personal declaration to that effect?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Erhard has stated to the opposite - When Erhard was sent a letter in August 1969 by Scientology saying he had reached the level of "Grade II" within the organization, he sent a letter back saying he had reached "Grade IV". -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Erhard's statement that he had been a lifelong Episcopalean occurs to me as a clear denial that he had been a Scientologist, as the two are mutually incompatible.
2. The retraction in le Matin stating "Mr Erhard ... has never been a Scientologist" would also seem to corroborate this.
3. I couldn't find the allegation that he wrote that in the reference you supplied, either on the pages you indicated (25-26 & 30-31) or anywhere else on pages listed in the index for Scientology.
4. Even if Pressman did claim that, is this a sufficiently reliable source for a controversial allegation relating to a WP:BLP? Pressman's book contains no references to allow researches to double-check the asertions he makes. It appears to be compiled from off-the-record unattributable conversations, almost entirely with people hostile to Erhard. It also clearly follows an agenda of dramatising allegations showing Erhard in a negative light and ignoring any material which might portray any positive characteristics.
5. Finally, even if he did write that to the CoS, is it an unambiguous admission of Church membership? It stikes me as rather the opposite. Suppose for example the Pope were to write to me welcoming me as a member of the congregtion and I wrote back saying "No, actually I'm an archbishop", would that count as an admission that I considered myself a serious Catholic? DaveApter (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the last point = yes. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for clarifying your opinion on that; but how about answers to the other (perhaps more serious) questions? DaveApter (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientology repeatedly states one can be a member of their organization while still practicing a religion. The relevant material is on page 26 of the book, which is a WP:RS source, published by St. Martin's Press, a reputable publisher. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite your repeated argument to the contrary, no purportedly factual book which provides no references or citations to back up its claims can seriously be regarded as a [[WP:RS], especially one such as this which is so unashamedly partisan. DaveApter (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale to discount a WP:RS source. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Pressman book is a reliable source by WP's loose standards; but there are reliable sources stating the opposite too, which makes the claim evidently disputed. I don't like the disputed section, but that's clearly where he should be if anywhere.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Update:  Done, removed. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding reliability of sources

Thank you Cirt and Coffeepusher for your prompt and courteous concession to the consensus view established in discussions here.

However, I feel that I must respond to your remark about my comments on the reliablity of Pressman's book as a source. The policy you refered to, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, actually relates to non-valid arguments to advance in article deletion debates, and so has nothing to do with acceptability of sources. But presumably your point was that you assume that I don't like Pressman's book (correct as it happens), and that this is my rationale for questioning its admissablity as a source of material (incorrect).

The reasons I object to reliance on it are that (as stated above) I do not consider that it meets the critera laid down in the WP:RS and WP:V, especially for contentious and controversial material about a living person. In particular, the complete absense of source citations means that there is no way, even in principle, for anyone to verify the assertions made in the book. Pressman doesn't even observe the conventions of including qualifying phrases such as "it has been claimed that..." etc, much less give any indication of who made the allegations to him. We simply have to take it on trust that Pressman's informants (a) were genuinely in a position to have knowledge of the events described, (b) accurately remembered the incidents, (c) gave Pressman an honest account of their recollections, and (d) were accurately transcribed into Pressman's narrative.

The reliance on the book on the grounds that it was "published by St. Martin's Press, a reputable publisher" also seems pretty shaky. WP:RS states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Does St Martin's Press have such a reputation? The majority of its output appears not to be non-fiction at all but racy novels such as Sizzling Sixteen, Finger Lickin' Fifteen, Love In The Afternoon, and Fighter Pilot.

In view of the extensive use of this book as a source in a large number of Wikipedia articles, I suggest we should also bear in mind the caveat in WP:RS: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount; the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."

Outrageous Betrayal fails on all these grounds; virtually nothing in the book is cited to a primary source; secondary sources (which in general are not even identified) do not give any indication of a primary source; and it clearly lacks neutral corroboration. Whether it is partisan or not is of course a matter of opinion. Perhaps we could have straw poll amongst editors fmiliar with the work? DaveApter (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It may well be a poor source in reality, but St Martin's is an imprint of MacMillan, and I don't think WP:RS requires or even permits editors to second-guess editorial decisions by an established publishing house. WP:V applies to the possibility of verifying statements made on Wikipedia, not verifying statements made in the sources Wikipedia uses. Also, I believe "original source" means the book or journal where the quote first appeared, not the individual to whom it's attributed. If Pressman was quoting from other books it might be a problem, but we aren't required to check with his sources (even if we could). If it was a vanity press or a self-published book it would be different. As I said, the policy is a loose one, but this is not the place to amend it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, agree with this comment, by KD Tries Again (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting and important discussion, and in the light of the comments by these two editors I'll be mulling over these issues. In a day or two I'll be offline for a few weeks so I may be out of the debate for a while. What I'm feeling at the moment is that we are slightly at cross-purposes. To take the specific case in point (which may not be the best exemplar, but let's work with it):

• It's stated as a fact that Werner Erhard wrote to the CoS claiming that he had reached Level IV (whatever that means).
• The source for that is that it is written in a book Outrageous Betrayal by Steven Pressman, and that the book was published by St Martin's Press, which is a subsidiary of MacMillan, which is a reputable publishing house.
• Is the fact asserted in the Wikpedia article that

(A) "Werner Erhard wrote to the CoS claiming that he had reached Level IV", or is it that (B) "Steven Pressman asserted in his book that Werner Erhard had written to the CoS claiming that he had reached Level IV" ?

I suggest that we undoubtedly have a reliable source for statement (B).

I cannot see that we have a reliable source for statement (A) according to WP:RS and WP:V, since there is no path to trace back from Pressman's claims; we just have to take them on trust. DaveApter (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Werner Erhard entry was removed from this list page. Not sure how this above discussion, initiated and prolonged by DaveApter (talk · contribs), pertains to material currently on this list page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I agree that it is no longer relevant to discussion of this particular article now that the Werner Erhard entry has been removed. I was responding to your comment in the above paragraph, and I do think that the reliability of this book is an important issue bearing in mind the extent to which it is cited in multiple articles. Probably the Reliable Sources is a more appropriate place for any debate. DaveApter (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley Out of Scientology

It looks like she's out of the Church as of last year http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=13106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.215.162 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

so my not wanting to sift through 12 pages of formpost speculation motivates me to ask, are there any WP:RS backing this up?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

MC Lyte

MC Lyte (real name: Lana Moorer), a Scientologist since 2003, appears on the Scientology Service Completions list and has appeared on the cover of Celebrity Magazine: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/l/lana-moorer.html--24.15.215.162 (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC) http://scientologist.blogspot.com/2008/11/mc-lyte-featured-in-celebrity-magazine.html

as always, do you have any WP:RS that back this up?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

http://myscientology.blogspot.com/2008/11/mc-lyte-talks-about-scientology.html--24.15.215.162 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

blogs aren't reliable sourcesCoffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

Weight-loss guru Kevin Trudeau is a Scientologist, according to documents revealed by the Smoking Gun.com: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/revealed-sht-my-ceo-says http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/kevin-trudeau-memos?page=11 http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/15/kevin_trudeau_was_born_in_1963.php--24.15.215.162 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

is there a reliable sourcebacking this up?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Created new list page, List of Scientology officials, using material from this page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT

Please let's clean this list's sourcing up so it is in line with policy. Per WP:BLPCAT, inclusion of any name in this and any similar list requires self-identification by the individual in a reliable source.

• This can be a self-identifying statement made by the individual in a reliably published interview (example: [3]).
• It can also be a self-published source published by the subject, provided there is no reasonable doubt that it is published by the subject (example: Meskimen's blog cited for Meskimen).
• I would suggest that officials of Scientology can be assumed to have self-identified by presenting themselves as official representatives.

For every person included in this list, their being a Scientologist should be of relevance to their notability, so there should be substantial third-party coverage of their being Scientologists. If there isn't, or if self-identification is not sourceable, they should be removed. --JN466 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Van Morrison has never identified himself as a Scientologist but only took courses in it as he also investigated many other religions per this interview: "Yeah. I find things but they don't necessarily give you satisfaction. It's usually the opposite. At one point I took a courses in Scientology over a period of 18 months but I'm not a joiner, I don't join things. I've done rolfing, it's a bit like shiatsu. I've also investigated Buddhism, Hinduism . . . various forms of Christianity, mystical Christianity, esoteric Christianity . . . I don't believe in myths anymore. If I could find a religion that worked . . ."[4] Agadant (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed. --JN466 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

spinoff of List of Scientology officials

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scientology officials to discuss whether it's appropriate to have List of Scientology officials, which is spun off this article. --Rob (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Marie not getting help from Scientology

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20462040,00.html --98.226.9.223 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removals and referencing fixes

[5] and [6] - tried to clean up some referencing issues, removed some entries that were redlinked, and removed some broken refs. Please feel free to change it. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition - remove it

The whole "Definition" section should be removed. A discussion of what the CoS defines as a Scientologist and how it produces its stats belongs in an article like Scientology. But, we're not using their definition. We don't list everyone who just took a course. So, there's no reason to go into detail about their approach here. This is supposed to just be a list. --Rob (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --JN466 03:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to moving that material to Scientology, as suggested?   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's presently covered in Scientology#Membership_statistics and Church_of_Scientology#Membership_statistics. Porting the material that was present here in toto to either of these articles would be too much, but the most interesting statements and sources could be included in these two articles. Do you want to have a go? --JN466 03:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld

• Seinfeld is an actor and comedian, and a former Scientologist. He became an adherent of Scientology in 1977. Seinfeld self-identified as a Scientologist to his friends. He attempted to recruit those he knew to become active with the organization. He attempted to reach the Scientology level of "Clear". When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism". Listed by The Globe and Mail among "ex-members" of the Church of Scientology, in a 2009 article.

This entry was deleted with the comment, "WP:BLP, see also WP:RS, WP:PSTS".[7] Is the HarperCollins biography of Seinfeld a bad source? I checked the WaPo article, in which Seinfeld confirms that he participated in Scientology.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Being discussed at Talk:Jerry Seinfeld#Scientology.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Seinfeld is a Scientologist, he just does not publicize it like Van Morrison, whose 1983 album "inarticulate speech of the heart" even credits L Ron Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.186.139 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

List entry size and dead members

A couple of observations after watching recent editor activity:

• If a member dies, rather than move him to 'ex-members' (and have it immediately reverted back to 'members') shouldn't the name simply be stricken from the list? Discuss among ourselves.
• Some of the entries have expanded - from a few words to define who the member is, plus the cite that establishes that they were indeed a member, to a paragraph that includes opinions and/or actions about their adherence to Scientology. I feel these should be trimmed back down to a single sentence and cite. Discuss. →StaniStani  04:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of alumni, members of religions and other groups, and residents of settlements are [not] generally limited only to living people. Other than lists of the current holders of offices or positions, I'm not aware of any comparable list that deletes people after their deaths. As for the length of the entries here, if we have details about their participation then it's appropriate to add a brief account. Some of those details are better in an article like this than they'd be in the biographies, where they might represent undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some other lists to see how they handled entry size and format; I looked at lists of generals in the US Civil War and saw that the entries had common fields for service dates - almost all entries were a sentence or less, even of prominent members. I'd like more feedback from other editors on whether to shorten these list entries and remove the deceased. I am encouraged that you include lists of 'members of religions' as 'limited only to living people.' That is one of my points. →StaniStani  16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My error - I accidentally omitted the word "not" (now added above). I don't think you'll find any comparable list which deletes people upon their death.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to mull on a standard set of fields we could use to build the list entries so we won't get little sloppy mini-essays. Oh, and you can have backsies on your comment. You're not running for President. →StaniStani  06:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "backsies". ;)

What's the intrinsic problem with well-sourced entries, even if they're longer?   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the intrinsic problem with well-organized entries, even if they're shorter? →StaniStani  19:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If the information is consistent then a table format is suitable. But if different entries have different kinds of information then creating pigeon holes for each becomes difficult.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the ways you can tell a list from an omelet is that it's better organized and contains data in fields. One of the fields should not be: 'Misc. info. found on the Internet' - well, I'm not going to be editing Wikipedia the next four days, so we'll pick this discussion up then. I hope we can make this list sleek and trim by the time we're done, a model for other lists of people on Wikipedia. *waves a bitty Wikipe-tan flag* Until then, Ganbatte! →StaniStani  23:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My omelets are well-organized (at least they are when they turn out right). The best way to tell them apart from lists is that omelets are made with eggs, while lists are not. Bad analogy.

Is there a problem with material found on the Internet? I find things in high quality books using Internet tools like Google Books. That seems like a red herring. Material that concerns the involvement of a person in Scientology seems relevant for a list like this, not miscellaneous.

As long as the material is well-sourced and relevant to the topic I don't see a problem with longer entries. The point of an encyclopedia is to store and communicate information. Having more information helps fulfill that goal.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not to say I'm defending any particular entry or text in this article. I'm just discussing the format.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see all of the entries trimmed down to just their "job title." For example, being "(mother of Scientology spokesperson Tommy Davis)", "Ceberano is a third-generation-Scientologist; her grandmother worked as a governess for the children of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard", "raised Scientologist", "(raised Catholic), introduced to Scientology by Tom Cruise while they were dating" are all unrelated to the core issue which is "List of Scientologists#List of members." --Marc Kupper|talk 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what I wrote and believe a better course would be that each entry have a short paragraph that summarizes the sources with a specific emphasis on addressing the two main points raised in WP:BLPCAT. Specifically, we need reliably sourced documentation for "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" and also "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life." If we don't have sources for both of those points then their name simply can't be on this list. I saw that this article already has an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Scientologists which starts out with "This list is subject to the WP:BLPCAT policy and the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Former Members part is more complex as you have people that quietly walked away from active participation on to some whose sole reason for notability seems result from their fervent anti-Scientology beliefs. --Marc Kupper|talk

Some entries like the one on Leonard Cohen do feel a bit like flotsam or jetsam and could be trimmed a bit. The history of this list has been contentious, so I know how the long entries came about, but perhaps we can make them a bit more elegant now. (I am happy to be invited for an omelette any time, by the way. ;) ) --JN466 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about dead members, can see it both ways. Are there any comparable lists? --JN466 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I'm not aware of any lists of members, followers, residents, alumni, etc which delete entries of deceased people. The only ones I know of which delete people are lists of officeholders, in which the offices become vacant on the deaths.

There are people like Seinfeld who commonly appear on lists of former Scientologists. Perhaps it'd make sense to have a section for "non-members" - those who have taken classes and been accused or alleged to be members, but who have denied it. Otherwise readers would likely assume we left off the names accidentally.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We had such a section once, and deleted it after substantial discussion because of the obvious BLP implications. It might help to add hidden comments for some names to prevent them being re-added time and again by well-meaning casual editors unfamiliar with WP:BLPCAT. --JN466 11:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What are the BLP implications of saying that someone is not a Scientologist, when they are commonly and mistakenly described that way? On Wikiquote, we list common misquotes to correct the record. Can you recall where the discussion you're referring to took place?   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be like saying someone is not gay. It's an attempt to smear someone by associating their name with something they are not. WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear. If someone can't be reliably sourced that the person has publicly self-identified regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation or those beliefs/orientation are are relevant to their notable activities or public life then we flat out don't mention the belief/sexual orientation issue on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is like saying someone is not gay. Some people have been the subjects of repeated questions about their sexuality. When it has become so prominent that it merited mention we've handled it by including coverage of the questions and their denials. That's the responsible way of handling the issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with automatically classifying that as "the responsible way" as it's also giving traction to conspiracy theories and tabloid style reporting. I looked around and found that WP:WELLKNOWN allows for including mention of denials in some cases. A good place to research WP:WELLKNOWN would be to search Talk:Barack Obama. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is providing this information in an article titled "List of Scientologists". Where the speculation is a legitimate issue for discussion, it is discussed in the BLP. The discussions were summarised here on this talk page. --JN466 00:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As Will Beback noted, we generally do not remove people from lists or categories at their death unless one can only be in a particular list/category when one is alive.. For example, look at the bottom of John Muir. At present he's included in 39 categories even though he died nearly 100 years ago. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: listing deceased Scientologists under "Former Members" creates the impression that they left the group whilst they were alive. Put them on the other list or create a third list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.119.25 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The notion that Isaac Hayes was a "former member" is highly misleading. Besides that, the "members" list still has people who died some time ago. 67.166.176.70 (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Self-identification

Self-identification is the decisive criterion of WP:BLPCAT, which is prima facie missing from some entries. I'm going to trim the list reviewing the sources. Let me know if I remove properly sourced material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a job that was long overdue. --JN466 00:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am really glad to see that there is finally agreement for the Self-idendification criteria. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

married in church <> married to church

Currently we include include Jennifer Aspen based on this source, which says that she married David O'Donnell in a Scientology ceremony. For some reason, we use this to include her, but not him. Both probably are Scientologists, but the source doesn't say that. Maybe just one is. I think this it is a bad precedent, to say that we'll identify somebody's religion soley on where they were married, even if it works most of the time. --Rob (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that particular marriage announcement is a poor source for determining if someone should be listed as a Scientologist on Wikipedia.

The Jennifer Aspen article mentions Scientology and sources this which should be satisfactory for WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE. I've added that source to this article.

The David O'Donnell article does not mention Scientology at all meaning we'd be starting at ground zero. There is a David O'Donnell involved with Scientology but we don't know if it's the same person. The page http://www.our-home.org/davidodonnell/ is not dated and was written by someone who was 18 at the time. The actor is now 36 meaning if it's the same person this was written in around 1993. David O'Donnell on truthaboutscientology.com lines up nicely with this but we still don't know if it's the same person. Google News only finds three articles about the wedding, none of which indicate if either person is a Scientologist. As there's no reliable evidence David O'Donnell satisfies WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE I would not include him on the list nor mention Scientology on his article. I have copied this to Talk:David O'Donnell in case someone wants to do more research.

This does bring up the issue that the www.whatisscientology.org and www.our-home.org may not be satisfactory as reliable sources. If the our-home.org page is for the same David O'Donnell then it reflects what an 18 year old decided to say in 1993. The only reason we don't immediately discard it is that there is a David O'Donnell engaged in Scientology courses/auditing from 1993 to at least 2008. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Grant Cardone

I do not really know how to edit Wikipedia (I mean, using references etc.), but there is presently some documentation in the Village Voice that Grant Cardone is a Scientologist.

• Grant Cardone, NatGeo's 'Turnaround King': Doing Scientology's Dirty Work?
• Milton Katselas Pleads With Scientology After Grant Cardone's Attack: A Church Jihad?

71.202.127.216 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Talk:Grant Cardone#Does he self-identify as a Scientologist?, where I brought up the question of whether there is a suitable source that adequately reports Cardone identifying himself as being a Scientologist (a policy requirement for listing someone in a religious category per WP:BLPCAT, I'm not 100% sure if it applies to a list page). The Hollywood Sentinel article already cited as a source for Cardone's inclusion in this list seems to me to be pretty close to a reliable self-identification, but given the touchy nature of this topic, I would prefer to see a consensus to that effect before either adding [[Category:Scientologists]] to his bio page on the one hand, or removing him from this list page as inadequately documented on the other. There doesn't appear to be any serious doubt that Cardone is a Scientologist, as far as I can tell, but the policies surrounding BLP's require us to be extra-cautious (as I'm sure most people reading this already know). Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I re-read WP:BLPCAT, it does say that "these principles apply equally to lists . . . that are based on religious beliefs". So I guess the remaining question is whether the existing source is, in fact, sufficient to document self-identification. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman: Former Scientologist

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/4885/a_peek_inside_the_onion_of_scientology/--98.226.9.223 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley: Now a former Scientolgist

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/04/scientology_lisa_marie_presley_aint_seen_nothin.php http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/05/lisa_marie_presley_says_so_long_to_scientology.php--68.51.87.188 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

both of those sources are blogs, hence not reliable sources. do you have any WP:RS to back up your statement?Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/05/26/lisa-marie-presley-signals-a-break-with-scientology/-- 68.51.87.188 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/05/are-list-scientologist-scandals-hurting-church-in-hollywood/--68.51.87.188 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/07/10/paul-haggis-jeffrey-tambor-and-more-ex-scientologists-photos.html#slide5--68.51.87.188 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, you should add these sources to my edit. There's no doubt she's broken with scientology anymore. Just look at the lyrics of that song, it's 100% about scientology, nothing else. Colliric (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Doesn't she qualify as active or former member?

Neither, she never really joined to begin with... she might have studied it, but that doesn't mean she accepted it. Same with Nicole Kidman.Colliric (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Chaka Kahn

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/tom_cruise_and_stacy_francis_scientology.php

http://www.adherents.com/people/pk/Chaka_Khan.html

--Über-Blick (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Former members vs deceased members

The list would make more sense if it listed both alive and dead Scientologists who stayed with the church as "members", and people who later left, both alive and dead, as "former members", instead of putting the all the dead ones as former members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.63.41.252 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Marc Headly is not almost 70. 72.93.85.195 (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley & rumormongering

As if it needs to even be said, unless there is verifiable evidence from a reliable source indicating that a person is or isn't a Scientologist or has renounced their membership in Scientology, then such speculations and rumormongering have no place here. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid blog. So long as Lisa Marie Presley does not acknowledge such rumors, they don't even have a place here on Wikipedia, and not a single reliable source out there has ever stated that she has left the organization or renounced her membership.

Again, to those who keep insisting on pushing this angle, please read WP:V and WP:RS carefully. Laval (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Boyd

The inclusion of Stephen Boyd as a Scientologist based on a single source (Malko) is rather shaky. Do we have any sources where he actually identifies himself as a Scientologist, or that he had a long-term association with the group? Laval (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong wiki link

Robert Duggan's name should go to Robert Duggan (venture capitalist). I don't know how to correct this the way the article is formatted. BayShrimp (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Scientologists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/07/scientology-walking-dead

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Charles Manson

Just adding a note to point out that Charles Manson is now deceased (November 2017) so his entry on this page should be modified. Jimbo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F00C:DC00:6444:48C9:643:C1AB (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lifetime"

The word "lifetime" seems odd here in the table column for birth year and death year. I would suggest removing the column, or replacing the info with date of birth, since all deceased persons have their own section. Matuko (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld

I believe that Jerry Seinfeld briefly dabbled in Scientology for like a month but NEVER officially join. Can someone provide proof and references that he was a member because as far as I am aware he's always held on to his Jewish beliefs and faith. If there is no credible references I'm going to remove him from the list.That Business Insider article as a reference is not credible because it does not give any proof that Seinfeld was actually involved in Scientology, they just wrote it and BOOM its suppose to be fact, well it isn't fact, we need to have concreate evidence/proof that Jerry Seinfeld studied and was officially affiliated with Scientology in some way shape or form. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This list should not be promotional

LISTN requires that reliable sources discuss the list as a group. The only sources to do so are clickbait chumbox websites. The closest to an RS discussing something in the subject area is a Rolling Stone article about celebrities who have left the Scientology organisation. Not the same thing (in fact, its polar opposite).

To be completely clear - I don't think this should be deleted, as folks are bound to search for subjects mentioned in chumbucket articles on WP. But that is not the criteria for creating lists in the encyclopaedia, which requires reliable sources to discuss the list as a list. This should be retained, redirecting to the article Scientology and celebrities, where the article subject has a basis in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirection of this page. To continue to unilaterally redirect it would likely constitute edit warring. I would suggest instead that a merge/redirect discussion be held so that consensus could be gathered on the notability of "scientologists" as a group. Keep in mind that via WP:LISTN, the question here is whether "scientologists" are notable, not the "Church of Scientology" or "Scientology" itself, and also not "List of Scientologists" the question is: is the concept of "scientologists" notable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NLIST, we need a reliable source discussing the set. Reliable sources discussing the set of notable people (well, celebrities) that are scientologists and/or ex-scientologists include [8] (a photo gallery) [9] (another photo gallery) and [10]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Russ; hadn't seen those on a google (I get Rolling Stone articles exclusively about former Scientologists and various UK-based chumbucket or tabloid listicles). Shibboleth, I'll open a MR. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Several other sources worth considering:

• Reitman, Janet (8 February 2011). "Inside Scientology". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  • "There are 8,300 or so Scientologists living and working in Clearwater — more than in any other city in the world outside of Los Angeles. Scientologists own more than 200 businesses in Clearwater. Members of the church run schools and private tutoring programs, day-care centers and a drug-rehab clinic. They sit on the boards of the Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce and the Boy Scouts."
• Slater, Jack (20 September 2020). "What is Scientology and which celebrities are Scientologists?". Metro. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  • "Scientology might not be for everyone, but it got a huge platform thanks to many of the stars who have been attached to the Church." Probably unreliable given its Metro, but worth considering. Also goes into famous current and former scientologists in greater depth.
• Jones, Eileen. "Why So Many Celebrities Are Scientologists: Going Clear, Revealing New HBO Doc, Holds Clues". In These Times. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  • "Speculation about who’s a Scientologist among successful Hollywood actors has long been a luridly enjoyable source of gossip. Google ​“celebrity Scientologists” and you’ll find multiple online sites listing who’s reportedly in (or in and then out again.) It is no mystery why Scientology wants to attract celebrities, but it is an ongoing mystery to the general public why the rich and famous, presumably the most free and autonomous individuals in a capitalist society, would tie themselves to a highly controversial and controlling religion."
• Ortega, Tony (4 July 2011). "Scientologists: How Many Of Them Are There, Anyway?". The Village Voice. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  • That question came up again this week when the Associated Press, reporting on an interesting development in Russia*, happened to mention that Scientology claims 10 million members worldwide. If that number were true, Scientology would be a little smaller than Judaism around the world, and well ahead of the Baha’i faith. And if you think that’s true, we have a lovely bridge here in New York City that you might be interested to hear is for sale…"

Scholarly sources:

• Andersen, Peter B.; Wellendorf, Rie (2009). Scientology - "Community in Scientology and among Scientologists". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 151-210. ISBN 9780199715954.
• Westbrook, Donald A. (2019). Among the Scientologists : history, theology, and praxis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190664985.
• Klippenstein, Kristian (2020). "Revisiting Jonestown: An Interdisciplinary Study of Cults by Domenico A. Nesci (review)". Nova Religio. 23 (3): 112–114. ISSN 1541-8480. Retrieved 14 June 2022. (reviewing and commenting on Westbrook's piece above, but also discussing the relationship between "Scientologists" and sociology) (PRIMARY)
• Máté-Tóth, András (2016). "Scientologists in Germany: a sociological study". Religion in Society. 4. University of Szeged. (PRIMARY)

All of these are sources which discuss the overall group of "Scientologists" as a somewhat separate topic from their religion and one worthy of study and note. I would say this probably qualifies for LISTN, but would require some expansion of the lede of this article to discuss the group, its connections to celebrity, obsession with prestigious members and recruiting them, secrecy, mental health denial, etc. Would be happy to help expand that to improve the article.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with the various scholars, journalists, judges and other experts that state Scientology is not a religion (or not primarily a religion – its religious aspect merely a marketing function of the business), if we are comparing to actual religious groups, it's worth noting that there are articles for Christianity and Christians; Islam and Muslims; Hinduism and Hindus; Judaism and Jews, etc. Scientology has no such corollary (2). I doubt that such an article could be supported (Donald Westbrook's excruciatingly dull and extremely naive book notwithstanding). It's odd to have a "list of X" but no article about "X". The closest we have is Scientology and celebrities which is more about how the organisation has specifically sought to recruit entertainment industry families into the group, and then gives a few representative examples. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think cult is a subset of religion, personally, and that many organized religions are more business than church at this point (e.g. Catholicism). I would say the question is not about other articles, LISTN is distinct in and of itself. For demonstration's sake, we have List of Jains but Jains redirects to Jainism. We have List of atheists but Atheists redirects to Atheism. We have List of bahais but Bahai is a DAB. We have List of Pagans but Pagans is a DAB. We have List of Rastafarians but Rastafarians redirects to Rastafari.

We probably could have an article titled "Scientologists" per the existence of these sources. That's all that matters. Even if such an article were a perma-stub, DAB, or redirect. If it's notable enough, then it qualifies for LISTN, even if such an article has not been created. I would also say that this list serves an informational and navigational purpose, in that users would happily navigate among and between articles of notable current and former scientologists. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Table Coloring

The table is unreadable in the Wikipedia mobile app with dark mode on 2603:8080:2C06:47E9:5D2D:7925:B5E3:8B9A (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Charles Manson Deletion from former members

The source that he called it "too crazy" appears to come solely from a tabloid article with no additional sourcing. Find a better source or change his listing to deceased members. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:25FB:CEB9:E31F:B6DC (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

addtl sources added, quote removed as not supported enough — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Should Jeff Conway be on the list?

I know he took some Scientology courses to help with his drug problems but I don't think he actually became a member at least I couldn't find any evidence that he was Bob3458 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"John [Travolta] and I stayed friends but he couldn't watch me going down the tubes...he gave me a whole library of Scientology books and he's given me an auditor who comes almost every day." [11] Grorp (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Still doesn't prove he was a member Bob3458 (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bob3458: Both words "prove" and "member" are irrelevant. First, in Wikipedia we write based on other reliable sources, not what your opinion or "conclusion" is about someone. Wikipedians don't need to "prove it"; this is not a court of law. Second, inclusion criteria is clearly stated at the top of the list-article: "A Scientologist is an adherent of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology." There's nothing about "membership". Anyone who is getting "daily auditing" would be considered a scientologist. If you're requiring nothing less than a public declaration by the person himself that was published in an independent reliable source, well that's stretching the rules of Wikipedia WP:VERIFY beyond what it was intended to be. Grorp (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved from user talk page per WP:TALK (was List of Scientologists)

Hi Grorp, I'm writing to follow up on my removal of content [12] from the List of Scientologists article, per WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:BLPREMOVE. To follow up on your first edit summary restoring the information [13], statements by family members do not appear sufficient to support this information, and these seem to be the only available sources. From my view, it seems most appropriate per BLP policy to not include the information at this time. Per your second edit summary restoring the content [14], even though the Guardian is reliable, it still relies on an interview with a family member, which makes it a poor source for a contentious claim about a living person, including for how the claim is presented in the list article.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and we can always ask the BLP Noticeboard for additional input. I am sorry you continued to restore the disputed content instead of discussing it (I was composing this note to you after I removed the content again), but I encourage you to review the applicable policies, consider the sources, and at least remove the disputed content until there is consensus to include it.

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Whoops! I am striking some of my comment above. It is past my bedtime, and I will plan on posting something on the article Talk page tomorrow. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thread was moved here from my user talk page, per WP:TALK. Grorp (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: I restored the content and added a reliable source, The Guardian. After you deleted it again, and another editor restored it, I added a third reliable source, The Hollywood Reporter. Not to mention there are at least 11 Church of Scientology publications mentioning Kubrick's participation within the Church of Scientology, two of which I have copies of, and I could probably get ahold of more of them. I can confirm the presence of the name "Vivian Kubrick" in Celebrity Magazine issues 357 & 359. I don't think it's within our purview as Wikipedia editors to evaluate whether or not a close family member is lying to the press (or is 'mistaken'). I found many articles describing Vivian Kubrick as "reclusive" so I'm not surprised we don't find anything showing her saying to the press that she's a Scientologist. Grorp (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Grorp. I don't think there's anything in WP:BLP about where the information came from prior to it appearing in the fact-checked reliable source like the Guardian. We aren't a courtroom and there's no rules about "hearsay" or whatever. I think with the current available sourcing, the content should be included. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

From my view, WP:BLPGOSSIP is one of the policies that prevents us from relying on statements from estranged family members. We need to be careful with how we present information about living people, which is why I deleted it per WP:BLPREMOVE. There is no indication the 2010 Guardian interview fact-checked her mother's statements.

Also, the WP:DAILYBEAST entry at WP:RS/P includes Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons and the 2010 Daily Beast interview with her step-sister includes no indication of fact-checking, and The Hollywood Reporter is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, and in its 2016 report appears to rely on "family members who have spoken with the media" (i.e. the 2009 Guardian interview and 2010 Daily Beast interview) because "THR made several attempts to question Vivian about her Scientology connections following its initial interview with her. She has not responded to any of them, nor has the Church of Scientology nor GoFundMe responded to a request to comment for this story."

As Grorp notes, there does not appear to be anything showing her saying to the press that she is a Scientologist, which appears to support not including contentious information based only on statements from estranged family members. Also, even if it was appropriate to speculate for the purposes of inclusion in a list this broad, she has not exactly been a recluse, e.g. she was reported on several times in 2016 and 2019, including for her statements about Shelley Duvall (e.g. The Telegraph, 2019; Buzzfeed News, 2019). Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as WP:BLPGOSSIP, it doesn't apply because 1) it's not an anonymous source, 2) we have independent verification from multiple independent reports (the mother, the gofundme, the church), 3) we have Scientology publications themselves referencing VK as a member (so it's not just from estranged family members), 4) there's no weasel words being employed here, these sources are very clear, and 5) it literally does not get much more reliable than the Guardian, as far as newspapers go. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPGOSSIP applies because it is gossip, and we don't appear to have independent and reliable verification - her estranged mother is not independent, appears to use weasel words, and there is no indication the Guardian did any fact-checking in its interview, despite it otherwise being a reliable publication. The gofundme does not appear connected to Scientology nor reported as such, and the church did not go on record when The Hollywood Reporter sought comment. And reliance on "The Truth of Scientology" website, created by blogger Kristi Wachter, appears insufficient to support a contentious claim about a living person. There appears to be poor sourcing available to support inclusion on a list this broad, so removal appears supported per WP:BLP policy generally and WP:BLPREMOVE. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What about peer reviewed book chapters? "Kubrick loved his own daughters Katharina, Anya,
and Vivian, and resisted their growing up and away from him. However, Eyes Wide Shut was created against the background of Kubrick’s loss of Vivian to Scientology." [15] Or published biographies from Yale University Press: "Vivian had joined the Church of Scientology in 1995, though the Kubrick family didn't know this until Stanley's funeral four years later" [16]

You cannot simply say that no one has done fact checking simply because you believe it to be true. These are many dozens of publications known for fact checking, plus academic scholarship, plus mainstream press books from reputable publishers. These are how we define reality on Wikipedia. Not our opinions.

Also, you say "The gofundme does not appear connected to Scientology nor reported as such" but this isn't true. The GoFundMe was based out of Clearwater, FL, and eschewed all reliance on formal mental health care. Two things that link directly to Scientology.

In total, we have close to a dozen news sources which back this up, plus academic scholarship, plus mainstream press books from quality publishers, and we have zero evidence to the contrary. That's more than enough to put this claim in wikivoice. It's close to the best possible sourcing on claims like this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My objection has been based on using interviews with estranged family members that do not appear fact-checked, and I do not think we can use speculation based on a GoFundMe that does not appear directly connected to Scientology by an RS. There do not appear to be a dozen independent and reliable news sources backing this claim up, nor academic scholarship (maybe I am missing what you are referring to), but the Yale University Press book source is the first source I have seen that states straightforwardly when she joined. I am not able to access the Routledge source, which seems more vague in its reference, but it may add some support, depending on how it sources this claim. I think the sources based on statements from estranged family members, e.g. The Daily Beast, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Guardian, should be removed, and we should consider whether and how the Yale University Press book supports inclusion in this list. Thank you for conducting additional research. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And fwiw, my analysis of whether or not there is fact-checking in a source is based on experience reviewing sources for independent and secondary content, often at AfD, to determine whether there is clearly information supplied by the reporter, of if the information is provided only from the interview subject. From my view, the news sources listed above do not appear to provide independent secondary content for us to rely on to support contentious claims, which is why I have been objecting to using them. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Bob3458 and Primium because they were also involved in reverting or being reverted (on this matter), and they might not be aware there's a discussion.

@Beccaynr: Re "her estranged mother is not independent": Her mother isn't the one publishing the information, like on a blog or tweet. Where else would an RS author get their information from? We don't know what sort of information the mother and sister had, or what they showed or discussed with reporters. Who knows, maybe there's a handwritten "disconnection letter" signed by Vivian Kubrick and they showed that to the interviewer. The Hollywood Reporter article wrote "Vivian had cut off all communication to the family" and "We’re not allowed to contact her". That sounds just like the family had received a disconnection letter (without calling it that, because non-scientologists wouldn't necessarily know Scientology's disconnection terms or policies).

You can't make me believe that you can read an article published by a reliable source and somehow "divine" what evidence they had available to them when they wrote it; besides, that divination is not verifiable. Your hypothesis might hold some weight if there was zero other evidence showing that Kubrick had any connections with Scientology. But we have information showing a connection. We have the Church of Scientology itself publishing Kubrick's service completions in Scientology. Do you think they just made that up? Picked her name at random and published it in 10 magazines across 19 years? Do you think there is some other "Vivian Kubrick" they meant instead? I checked the Pinellas County public records and there's evidence there that a Vivian V. Kubrick was in Clearwater, FL in 2016. The middle initial "V" makes it even more likely that the "Vivian Kubrick" in Scientology's magazines is the same person we're discussing. I'm not inclined to believe in wild conspiracy theories suggesting such information was simply invented — and invented coincidentally by both the Church of Scientology and the distraught family. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to play private eye to reliable sources. In fact, such "research" is frowned upon. My position on this matter is well expressed in WP:Verifiability, WP:Verifiability, not truth, and WP:Truth, not verifiability. Grorp (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian source is labeled as an interview and appears to only publish information from her mother, without any indication of using additional sources. Per the original research policy, we cannot speculate that there may be other information available if the writer of the article does not refer to it. The Hollywood Reporter is an example of a news source that explains how it tried and failed to verify information, and this is a typical practice of news outlets - they refer to their sources or they explain their unsuccessful attempts to fact check. The original research policy does not allow us to speculate about the existence of a 'disconnection letter' based on a family member statement about being estranged. We also cannot use public records to verify claims (and this part of BLP policy also notes exceptional claims require exceptional sources). With regard to Church of Scientology publications, so far what appears to have been referred to in this discussion is a "Truth about Scientology" website. Per core content policies, we need to be careful with how we add content about living people, and at this point there appears to the Yale University Press source stating when she joined - I would like to be able to review that source in greater depth, beyond the page available in the GBooks preview, but this source appears to be the least vague, as well as the most independent and reliable source identified so far. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I would tell you to review the source, and bring the issue to WP:BLPN if you think it's still insufficient, despite all these high quality sources. I don't think further discussion here is likely to be very productive, all things considered. We have a clear consensus (although slim margin, aided by other reverts on the page) in favor of inclusion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to clean up this article, but I think it is contrary to WP:BLP policy to assume that when a publication is generally reliable and the writer is generally reliable, e.g. for the Guardian interview, that we should not consider the contents of the source to determine compliance with WP:BLP and other content policies. So we discuss it, and continue to research, as has happened here, and there appears to be one source that does not wholly rely on statements from estranged family members and offers some specificity about her membership, which appears necessary to support this claim. I am not surprised that a decent source eventually emerged, I just had not been able to find it in my previous research, and I appreciate you bringing this source to the discussion. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

that we should not consider the contents of the source to determine compliance with WP:BLP and other content policies

This is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of my position. I don't believe what you've attributed to me. I think that the publication in question meets my personal threshold for comfort based on multiple independent agencies finding it acceptable to print, as arising from Multiple sources (mom, sister) and independent facts which help bolster (Clearwater, eschewing mental health care). I have seen no objective evidence showing there was no fact-checking as is typically expected. Scholarly book chapter and Yale press book also verify. all in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. At some point, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, I'm comfortable saying it is, indeed, a duck.

Don't attribute disagreement to the straw-man of what you think my position is. I wouldn't do the same for you. I understand your discomfort, but I disagree with your interpretation. Please respect that. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue of how to assess the Guardian interview was raised by more than one editor (e.g. [17]), and seemed to be recently referred to in your recent edit summary [18], and it is an issue sometimes discussed at AfD, so I was trying to comment on the issue generally (i.e. we should look for objective evidence of fact checking) and in response to how I interpreted your edit summary supporting the inclusion of the Guardian source. I apologize for how my phrasing did not effectively communicate the general intent of my comment, and I hope my clarification helps.

I am also concerned by what appears to be some original research, e.g. independent analysis of location information and positions on mental health care, because this does not appear helpful for determining how to add contentious content about a living person. I think we agree that you have found what appears to be a reasonably-specific, independent and reliable source, and I have repeatedly thanked you for your contribution to this discussion, which helps resolve the overall issue. The BLP area is challenging, and I appreciate your patience and engagement with this discussion, even as we disagree on some issues related to sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My use of other sources was as supportive information, with no intention of using them as mainspace citations, presented predominantly to counter Beccaynr's argument which comfortably could have been translated as "I don't believe the estranged family; I think they were lying [to the press]." I only used truthaboutscientology.com as an index (they don't seem to publish images of their sources). When I said I verified Kubrick's name in two magazine issues, it meant I laid eyes on those two magazines to verify it. I didn't appreciate being disbelieved. If anyone still cares, I put together this marked-up image showing Kubrick's name in the mags (uploaded with a setting to auto-delete after 2 weeks). The court case was a July 2016 eviction with damages, filed by owners who had several rental properties, all within 5 miles of the Church of Scientology's main Scientology service building, the Ft Harrison Hotel. Defendant was listed as "Vivian V Kubrick" with address a UPS Store rental mailbox just one block away from the Ft Harrison. These items should be considered supportive information, strengthening the notion that the RSes weren't simply taking someone's word for (alleged) figments of their imagination. I sincerely hope this will be my final contribution needed re this debate, however, I record it here in case the matter rears its head again. Grorp (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grorp, our standards for sourcing include the quality and type of sources considered acceptable by WP:BLP and WP:OR policies. So especially for contentious claims about living people, we don't use gossip from estranged family members, and we don't synthesize primary sources like court documents. It is not a matter of belief, it is how we build the encyclopedia, so please do not translate my objection into more than a warning about core content policies.

We also have to be careful with websites that lack indications of reliability, such as truthaboutscientology.com, and Kubrick's name in magazines does not tell us a lot about her purported membership, such as when she joined. That is also not a matter of belief, but an assessment of the source. We don't use low-quality websites, primary documents, or gossip to support contentious claims about living people. Beccaynr (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grorp Thanks for pinging me.

Despite being a reliable source, we can only assume here The Guardian reliably and accurately quoted Christiane Kubrick, as there's no indication of fact-checking in the article. As such, it was my mistake for reinstating the reference so readily. I'd be in favour of removing that reference for concerns regarding gossip. @Beccaynr, thank you for your diligence and editing standards. -- Primium (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)