Talk:List of Scientologists/Archive 1

message: Why would wikipedia want to list living Scientologists?  Would you want your religious faith proclaimed to the world without your consent?  Doesn't seem right to me. Terryeo 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the kind of talk that'd make me consider putting this on delete. I don't like Scientology and I think it's harmful. However "to boycott the media offerings wherein fill in the blank appear" is a bad reason to have a list. It's POV and a form of advocacy which is warned against. Besides which I don't think it's fair to punish every individual Scientologist. It's just not the same situation as the KKK. In the case of the KKK most people who sign up know what they are doing and agree with some vile stuff. Many Scientologists are people converted at a low point in their life and kept in the dark or out of the loop about the worst aspects. Once in deep enough they won't believe those aspects exist. Added to that in some cases on the list they abandoned it or were the victims of an element of the Church of Scientology. Punishing unfortunate people like that seems cruelly unfair.(And yes I know they'll reject the characterization, but nothing I've read or dealt with makes me feel otherwise. "Unfortunate people" is really milder then many feel about it)--T. Anthony 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this article 

message: I have removed that she may still be catholic - the "multiple religious denomination" propaganda that the Church tells the public is not true - you cannot be both (Scientologist's don't even believe Jesus existed for crying out loud) - Glen Stollery
:It is plain false to say that Scientologists don't believe in Jesus.  Scientology is about knowing.  Any Scientologist may believe anything they wish to.  I've been a Scientologist for 20 years.  When I found this Jesus stuff on the internet I looked up Scientology references about Jesus.  It says that Jesus produced some miricles, it talks about Jesus causing lame people to be able to walk which is quite opposite of what you are saying.  Actually it gave me more respect for Jesus as a historical figure.  As almost every faith is based on faith except perhaps Buddhism, a person of any faith finds theirs does not conflict. opps, forgot to sign. here: Terryeo 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I didn't say my bit about faith very well.  I mean to say that 2 religions are based on one's ability to know and apply information.  Those are Buddhism and Scientology.  This is my opinion / understanding.  This makes these two "faiths" to be applied religions philosophies rather than purely "faiths" as Christianity and Islam are.  Again, this is my understanding. Terryeo 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie Holmes 

message: We read The following is a list of well-known Scientologists. I haven't heard of most of them. When I click the links to read about them, I soon find that this is hardly my fault. How about something like The following is a list of mostly B-list and American celebs, with a few genuinely well-known people among them, who are Scientologists? -- Hoary 08:34, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
::"Well-known" does not mean "well-known to Hoary".
By the looks of this list you have a mixture of current scientologists (Cruise, Travolta, etc.) and a list of ex-scientologists (Burroughs, Estevez, Van Morrison, etc.). Shouldn't the title of the article reflect this? Or perhaps there should be two lists? (A list and a sub-list??) People who 'dabbled' in Scientology for a few months (a la Oliver Stone) can't really be labelled "Scientologists", can they? Anymore than if I'd 'dabbled' with cannabis for a few months at university 15 years ago could you call me a 'junkie'? Demos99 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well known? 

message: Any comments?!--58.104.4.214 05:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they are of mixed ethenticity.  What would you expect of a Church which directly addresses a spiritual being which is running / motivating / using a human body?  What does the Church of Scientology care what race, religion, or eye color an individual has?  It talks to the spiritual being who is running the body, not to the body itself. Terryeo 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There all of Mixed-Ethnicity! 

message: I've seen lists that included OT levels in the past... do any of these members have verifiable OT levels, or is that stuff kept under wraps too well? Delmonte 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OT levels 

message: Bronson Pinchot's Voice Coach!!! Sign me up for auditing!!206.11.112.251 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronson Pinchot's Voice Coach 

message: Considering there is an "unsourced" tag on this page, why did someone remove the sources I cited for Cruise/Holmes? See List of Catholic American entertainers, for example, for a list by religion that is sourced. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That notice is mainly for the obscure and frequent junk additions that are made to the list. This page is just a simple list with a brief descriptions and there's no point in skewing it off balance with long text on people who don't need references and already have plenty of both on the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes pages. Adding references for the obscure entries first would be better, and I notice on the List of Catholic American entertainers that a comparable figure like Mel Gibson (controversy/celebrity) only gets one line. AndroidCat 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying only the obscure ones should be sourced at all? Or sourced first? Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference links would be a good start on bringing the whole list into shape (even though I think that sourcing Tom and Katie being scientologists falls into "the sky is blue" category). I don't think there's a need to devote more than a screen line on the accompanying text and adding so much more to them will unbalance the list and be a magnet for people to add the latest news and rumour. AndroidCat 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: We need to be extra cautious on these "former members".  What seems likely to happen in a number of cases, is somebody has dealings with one of many Scientology organizations, many of which, at first glance, don't look "religious".  Then, when somebody realizes there's an attempt to change their religion, they reject the attempt.  Those people wouldn't be "scientologist" at any point, and don't belong in an article titled "List of Scientologists".  I beleive in some cases, a person could be involved with an event/organization, not even realizing the church is behind it.  Since there's few sources provided, its hard to tell why certtain people are on this list.  While some people are happy to identify with the church, many would consider it defamatory to say they were.  If a name *truly* belongs, it should be *easy* to give a good source.  The church actively uses famous people to promote itself, and there's excellent documentation on those.  So, I suggest we add reliable source citations where possible, and remove the rest. --Rob 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Nicole Kidman count as former?Sydney Morning Herald on her return to Catholicism--T. Anthony 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former members 

message: I suggest that any uncited redlinks be removed on sight.  If they're notable, they probably have (or should have) an article already.  If there's no article, and no citation, its not easy to find proof they belong.  This is a navigation tool, in a sense, helping people find articles on Scientologists.  Redlinks are great on lists like "List of grammy winners", because we want all those redlinks filled in.  But being a Scientologist, doesn't make one worthy of an article.  --Rob 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If an entry is uncited, of course it has to go: these are potentially libelous unsoured claims about living people. Whether they're redlinked or not, however, shouldn't make a difference, IMHO. There are MANY notable persons, places, and things that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. wikipediatrix 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I considered the uncited redlinks worse, as blue links (like Mary Sue Hubbard as an extreme Blue Sky example) may have cites in their article.  But, if you wish to go further, and remove uncited blue links, I would support you.  I tried doing that at List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, but had to settle for removing mainly redlinks, and keeping blue links (where sources existed in the target article).  It's a compromise approach, that's not ideal, but I'm trying to be more realistic.  I figure the standards for calling a person a Scientologist can't be higher than the standards for calling somebody a prostitute. --Rob 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Additionally, if a name is listed in the CoS's Impact magazine as a patron (see http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/impact/), that means the person donated a significant amount of money to the CoS. I'm not sure, again, how reliable this would be considered; if a person made one donation in 1983, I'd say that's not reason enough to list him/her, but if there have been multiple donations in the 1990s, or any donations since 2000, it seems solid to me. That said, Bryan Zwan has at least 7 Impact citations, the most recent listed in 2003; Jeffrey Scott, at least 11, 2003; Terry Jastrow, 2, 2003; Jeff Pomerantz, 14, 2003; Michael D. Roberts, at least 13, 2003. (Note that the most recent Impact list on the site is from 2003, so there may have been later donations that don't appear.) Candy 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tyler Hynes seems to meet two tests for inclusion: (1) he's well-known enough that he already has a (stub) Wiki article that wasn't created this week. (2) There's a good ref that he is a Scientologist 2006-05-17. His "celebrityness" might be questionable, but we don't have a measurable standard for that other than some wiki editors tossing around who's hot and who's D-List. I'd say add him. For references, just add something like  (Edit the full page rather than the section so that you can see how the ref turned out in Show Preview before saving it. I always forget.) AndroidCat 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited redlinks 

message: I hope that lists like the Notable Names Database (NNDB) are only used in the "sky is blue" obvious cases that will never be challenged. After having looked at the lists on the Internet, I'm not really impressed with any of them (including this one) especially since they frequently cite each other as sources. Adding the ref link is a good thing because (a) it'll hammer home that future additions need references, (b) make it clear that Wikipedia is not a definitive source of "Scientologist or Not" information, especially to the scary number of people out in the wild web quoting this page like it was. AndroidCat 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that nndb should be used for non-disputed cases only.  If there's any doubt about a name sourced to nndb, it should get a proper secondary source, or be removed.  I used nndb, as a way of "checking off names on the list", so we can focus on the rest of the uncited names.  Also, keeping out redlinks will also help us maintain the list better.  --Rob 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: CoS has been know to continue promoting celebrities as Scientologists after they've left (Lou Rawls). However Sofia Milos' official site is loaded with links to Scientology organizations, and even flogs copies of The Way to Happiness to fans. That would be unlikely for anyone who has broken with the organization. AndroidCat 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see the problem with relying on CoS as a source, and I agree that names shouldn't be blindly copied from CoS websites, but not all mentions by the CoS are the same. A mention in the news section ("So-and-so has a new movie coming out") probably isn't reliable enough, but if someone is interviewed or is shown on a CoS website or publication as being steadily involved with CoS causes (e.g., Narconon, CCHR), and the person is in photos and/or quoted and identified as a Scientologist, that is pretty solid. Candy 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other net lists as references 

message: While personal web sites and blogs can be used as references for that person, exactly how much validation does MySpace do for user signups? Is there any reason that I couldn't sign up as someone else, load it with pictures and personal details for that person and then add a few that are incorrect? As I remember, they've had problems with spoof pages in the past. If these people are well known or famous for some reason, are these the best we can do? (I'd also prefer not to use MySpace because all of the pages I've seen so far are incredibly awful web pages, but that's just me.) AndroidCat 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace as references 

message: Scientologist rediricts here, to the list. Should it not redirect to Scientology? People would want to learn about what Scientology is first before seeing who Scientologists are.--YGagarin 00:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should, and now, it does.  Given there isn't on article at "Scientologist" (like there is for Christian or Muslim), Scientology is the appropriate target.  It's like "American" going to "United States" or "Canadian" going to "Canada", not "List of Canadians".  If an aricle tells readers a person is a scientologist, people need to be able to find out what a scientologist is.  --Rob 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rediriction of Scientologist 

message: Calling L. Ron Hubbard a former scientologist, is like saying Pope John Paul II is a former Catholic.  I propose moving him, and any others (who died while still Scientologists) back.  I suggest we rename "Former members" to "People who chose to leave Scientology" (or something like that).  I further suggest, to deal with Lisa McPherson we have a "Non-celebrity" section, as it made no sense to list her as a celebrity.  --Rob 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we're consistent. A wording change on Former members would be good, and would make it easier to list people who tried "a couple courses" and left without having to dig up their IAS membership. However, I don't agree with seperating Lisa McPherson to another section. Celebrity isn't just in the Hollywood sense of someone who had a part in a TV show. It's someone well known, famous or notable, and while she wasn't that while she was alive, she certainly has become that since. AndroidCat 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of "former" scientologists 

message: I deleted a parenthetical that had been added for Beck ("rarely discusses Scientology, never officially left") primarily because the statements were made without documentation (i.e., what proof does the contributor have regarding how often Beck discusses Scientology and whether he officially left?). But I also deleted it because similar comments are not made for the other people on the list, and the list would quickly grow unwieldy if we tried to quantify how much each person discusses Scientology or mention whether or not each person ever left officially, or even what it was that the person left (Scientology? The Church of Scientology?) and what "officially" means. Candy 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous information 

message: Are we really supposed to list "celebrities" with no wikipedia article? Not that we're an authority on celebrities but a celebritiy that doesn't even get an article on wikipedia doesn't seem very important to me. --Sloane 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who isn't involved in the entertainment industry is less likely to have a wiki page. I've thought it should be "notable" rather than celebrity, or at least have a section for people like Sky Dayton, founder of EarthLink, who aren't really  "celebrities", but deserve a space more than some D-list part-time tv actor. AndroidCat 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities with no wikipedia article 

message: How about it?  This would include Beck, Jason Dohring, Neil Gaiman, Mimi Rogers, Juliette Lewis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.152.12 (talk • contribs) 
:Why not just add a tag to people already on the existing lists? I'd feel uncomfortable listing people who were born into Scientology but aren't already cited and listed as in or out. Keep in mind two Church of Scientology policies: the "crime" of publically leaving Scientology, and Disconnection (even by family members) from Suppressive Persons. If someone is out on the quiet, they might be doing a careful balancing act with the church and family members who are still in. AndroidCat 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed that some of the Scientologists now have the notation that they were raised as Scientologists, but it seems spotty; it's noted for Beck and the Ribisis but not for, say, the Mastersons or Juliette Lewis. I came to check the Talk page to see if that had been discussed, and this section is the closest to a relevant discussion I see. I really don't see the point of noting which people were raised as Scientologists, but if it's going to be done, I think it should be done consistently. Any thoughts? Candy 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous people born into Scientology? 

message: I think Beck should be listed as Beck rather than Beck Hansen, yet someone reverted that change.
In Beck's Wikipedia entry he is listed as Beck, not Beck Hansen. For consistency's sake we should then alphabetize him as plain Beck, not by his last name (which I would argue that only his die-hard fans know).
I for one was looking to see if he was really a Scientologist and couldn't find him because he wasn't listed under Beck.
Someone reverted my change last time without any explanation, merely saying "Beck Hansen is fine." That's a George Bush kind of argument, i.e., an assertion not an argument.
I would argue that listing him by his obscure last name merely serves to hide the fact that he's a Scientologist.
Most importantly, it is not consistent with how he's represented elsewhere on WP.
What is the consensus? 
Aroundthewayboy 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the point-of-view of editorial consistency, he should be just Beck. I looked at Wiki articles that mention Beck, such as articles for his albums and for people he's worked with, and the ones I saw referred to him as Beck, not Beck Hansen. That's consistent with the title of his Wikipedia article. I don't see why this list should diverge from his own article and other mentions of him throughout Wiki. Candy 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beck or Beck Hansen? 

message: NNDB is not a reliable source - plenty of errors there. It is a random website that credits no authors and cites no source. I could buy a domain name, call it MJDB (Mad Jack DB!) and put in bios of famous people. That wouldn't make me reliable. Mad Jack 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that using other lists is a bad idea. It leads to recursion where a name spreads through lists quoting each other without a source or hard reference to tie it down. If a list has a citable reference, use that. If it doesn't, it's just an opinion. AndroidCat 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so you're agreeing with me that the NNDB refed-named should be re-cited? Mad Jack 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, NNDB was only used as a stop-gap for undisputed names while converting to a must-cite policy #Other net lists as references. I think that it shouldn't be used for new entries, and the present entries can be changed when someone gets the urge. AndroidCat 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NNDB refs 

message: http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tom.htm
She never converted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.203.173 (talk • contribs) 
:Scientology doesn't have a conversion producedure or ceremony that I've heard of, and they (at least at the start) don't insist that a member drop their previous religion. However, she was widely acknowledged in the press and from Scientology sources to be a Scientologist while married to Tom Cruise. Possibly she said she was at the time, and she should probably go back in, even if she later said that she was just going through the motions. (With a non-Youtube cite.) AndroidCat 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicole Kidman 

message: If there is going to be an article called "List of Scientologist celebrities", shouldn't the list of former Scientologists on this page also have its own article entitled "List of former Scientologist celebrities"? I think this gets back to the question of why this page exists at all. I don't object to its existence, but as it stands now, it makes no sense to call this page "List of Scientologists" when the only list that appears here is a list of former celebrity Scientologists. Candy 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other list was getting very very big, so I split it off.  Smee 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only 22K, it was nowhere near the size that it would start causing problems.  The move, on the other hand, certainly caused problems, as it left at least four entries without references -- the original reference text having been moved to the other article.  I think these lists should be merged back. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't notice the problem with the references. I agree, the list should be moved back. Candy 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for splitting "List of Scientologist celebrities" into new article? 

message: I believe the content of this article should be combined again with List of Scientologist celebrities, because 1. this article, despite its name List of Scientologists, is now primarily a list of former Scientologists and 2. because many of the people on List of Scientologist celebrities aren't celebrities, by any stretch of the imagination. I will most likely perform this merge next week unless there's an outpouring of dissent. wikipediatrix 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good; I think it should be done. Candy 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge 

message: looks like this list is better - suggest merging 58.6.92.252 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops - didn't read properly - but as per post above 58.6.92.252 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spot the difference 

message: This is no vandalism, but I suppressed the link leading to an inexisting French version. I hope that I will be able to translate it as soon as possible. By the way, I would not be offended if someone else did it… — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French link suppressed 

message: Does this article define the category :Category:Scientologists? -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
:I haven't a clue, sorry. The only reason I pay any attention to this article is that it's such a magnet for vandals, pranksters, etc. -- Hoary 21:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why is Lisa McPherson listed under former Scientologists?  It seems obvious she was a Scientologist until the day she died.  The "former" and "famous" lists lack consistency. I would say that Lisa McPherson constitutes a relatively famous or infamous Scientologist. 221.191.211.38 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article define the category? 

message: Discussion threads with zero new posts or activity for over one month will be archived.  Cirt (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started an archive 

message: An unregistered editor moved Medak from current to former Scientologists, stating that Medak is no longer a Scientologist and doesn't want to be listed as one. (See diff.) The editor may well be Medak himself, but how do we know? It may be someone acting for Medak, but is that "good enough," per Wiki standards? If Medak is out and wishes to make the change, I think it should be made, but I think the source cited should be deleted, because it supports him being in, not him leaving. Candy (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source used is an undated Church of Scientology page, and their reliability has always been a problem. Minus that reference and without a better one, I think Peter Medak should be dropped from the list. He can't be added to the ex-Scientologist list without cite that he has actually left. AndroidCat (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Medak 

message: The Van Morrison article claims he was never a scientologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Morrison#1980s), and has a reference to prove this.  He should not be on this list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.63.80 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Scientologists 

message: Here are the entries without references that I trimmed from the article. I know that some of them probably were members, but they need refs before they can go back.
* J. J. Abrams, director and producer
* Candice Bergen, actress
* Leonard Cohen, musician
* Cathy Lee Crosby, actress (took classes in 1979 and 1980)
* Emilio Estevez, actor and director
* Soleil Moon Frye, actress (left the church after converting to Judaism)
* Gloria Gaynor, singer
* Al Jarreau, singer
* Peggy Lipton, actress
* Lou Rawls, singer
* Oliver Stone, director and writer
* Sharon Stone, actress (was a member in the early 1990s before she converted to Buddhism)
* Gloria Swanson, actress
* Patrick Swayze, actor
AndroidCat (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I can provide references verifying that Crosby and Rawls were in, but no references for them being out. So that probably doesn't do much good. :/ Candy (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrefed ex-members 

message: I moved Mike Rinder from the "Former Scientologists" section to "Church officials". Even if he has left the church organization, I haven't seen any sources stating that he has given up Scientology beliefs. Gargile (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He definitely doesn't belong under Church officials. Although the text in the introduction says that this article includes free zone members under Scientologist (even though that's a service mark of RTC), I don't think that there's a single free zone scientologist listed. Perhaps a new section of Former church officials? AndroidCat (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Rinder 

message: Van Morisson is listed under Former Members, but his wiki page clearly states 
"He gave a special thanks to L. Ron Hubbard on his 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart, although he has never been formally associated with Scientology or any other Church. He has described himself as "not a joiner — I don't join things.""
Therefore I think since he's never been a member he shouldn't be listed under Former Members  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2 cites after his entry in this list are to WP:RS/WP:V sources, his Wikipedia page in and of itself is not a satisfactory source.  Cirt (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Morrison 

message: I think we should re-visit the inclusion standards.  I propose we only label people as Scientologists if they personally called themselves Scientologists.  I think we should exclude people, where the only source is the CofS and/or the assorted unreliable web sites (I think we've already gotten ridden of all the other unreliable sources, like nndb).
We should also exclude people who merely "studied" LRH's materials or "took courses".   Calling those people "Scientologists" or "Former Scientologists" is very problematic if they don't want the label.  There are people who have studied scientology doctrine without knowing it's scientology or not realizing scientology is a religion (initially).  There's also obviously people who study multiple religions that they don't belong to.  You wouldn't call somebody a Muslim soley because they studied the Koran.  You wouldn't call somebody Catholic because they went to a Catholic school.  Since there's no equivilent to "baptism" in Scientology, saying "I'm a scientologist" is all there is.  --Rob (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should discuss your above points one at a time. I agree that we should remove those that are only sourced to the Church of Scientology or to unreliable web sites. However, I disagree with you on who to include in this list. I think the standard should be WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should go by WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.  But the question is, when a third-party, reliable source states so-and-so studied LRH teachings, or took courses, but didn't consider themselves a scientologist, does that qualify them for inclusion?  I'm saying it does not.  Can you give an example of somebody you would want to list as a Scientologist, without any evididence they self-identified as such?  --Rob (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not quite follow what  you mean by "didn't consider themselves a scientologist", if you have a specific source for a specific individual, that could be discussed.  Cirt (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Others who took Scientology courses, or who were members - some briefly - according to published reports, include football legend John Brodie, dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov, author William Burroughs; singers Van Morrison, Al Jarreau and Leonard Cohen; actors Emilio Estevez, Rock Hudson, Demi Moore, Candice Bergen, Brad Pitt, Christopher Reeve, Jerry Seinfeld and Patrick Swayze; and O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark. (emphasis added by me)
Mallia is used 16 times, even though it's rather vague about the status of the people it names. It doesn't actually make clear if they considered themselves Scientologist, or if anybody considered them Scientologists. --Rob (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you bring forth another source disputing this one?  Cirt (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing the source.  I'm reading it.  It doesn't say they are Scientologists.  It suggests they might be Scientologists, but they might just have taken courses.  Notice the use of the word "or" in the sentence.  It's also rather ambiguous about whether they are "current" or "former".  Basically this Wikipedia article is misrepresenting what this source says. --Rob (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case perhaps instead of removing these entries or this source, we should simply endeavor to find an additional source for a citation or two.  Cirt (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you disagree with what WP:BLP says, which calls for removal.  Why keep a source which in no way supports inclusion?  What purpose does that serve?  Also, could you clarify that you are actually agreeing with my original point, that merely taking courses, doesn't automatically make somebody a Scientologist?  Also, I've had it with looking up sources for other editors who are too lazy to do so themself.  This article has been badly sourced sinced it's creation.  Repeated requests for improvement have been largely ignored. I've made lots of attempts to improve it, but most sources I find are low quality (CoS or random web sites).  In hindsight, I should have just removed all names without good sources at the start, and then this would be properly sourced by now.     --Rob (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather then make a general statement about an individual that has taken courses, I think we should discuss each individual and source separately. And I actually think the list is looking a lot better sourced than it has been in some time, I don't know if you are referring to me as "lazy", but please note that I have actually been adding lots of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to the article myself. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding sources is only good if the source actually supports the person's inclusion.  However, if it doesn't, then it is misleading.  It's possibly worse then no source.  You seem to think I have to talk about each person, before removal.  Per WP:BLP if something is unsourced or badly sourced (which these were) they must be removed without discussion.  When evalulating sources, you have to first check if the source is actually support the relevant claim.  No matter how reliable a source is generally, it's worthless if it doesn't support the claim you are making.  You can't just invoke a reliable name to support whatever claim you wish.   Mallia is a reliable source if you rename this article to People who took Scientology courses, or who were members - some briefly.   --Rob (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is still a good idea to discuss each source individually, if not also each individual entry. I also would appreciate a more polite/amiable tone in talk page discussion. I will now attempt to find sources for the entries you have removed, per your above request to not be the only one searching for sources.  Cirt (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining scope 

message: I have made several changes to the article to change "Former Scientologists" to "Past Scientologists" as "Former" generally comes with negative impressions, which is not neutral.  I also recommend removing many of the people one the list who never considered themselves Scientologists (like Manson), but are on the list to presumably make it appear as though Scientology is connected to these people.  I have also removed additional comments about people later denouncing Scientology, etc., not because these statements may or may not be accurate, but because this is a list and if snippits about each person's stance on Scientology is going to be made, then it should be done for everyone, not just the "denouncers", etc.  I suggest, instead, doing it for no one, since, as I pointed out, this is a list.  Any additional information can be found in the sources. (Final note: I have revised to my edit until I hear a reason to change back.) -- FreedomFighter4all (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us discuss this here first, before making these major changes against consensus. I also object to the removal of entire entries when they are cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.  Cirt (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then what objections are there?  The people I suggested removing never identified as Scientologists (just "took a course" or "studied a bit"), the "Former" to "Past" terminology is more neutral (less negative slant) and the extra commentary by the past members is also one-sided.  If an article is to be neutral, I suggest we make the changes I have proposed.  What objections are there? -- FreedomFighter4all (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My objection to your reasoning is that even if someone took just a few courses (I don't think it was stated that anyone listed took only one course) or "studied a bit," we don't know whether that person self-identified as a Scientologist at the time or not. For instance, you deleted Jerry Seinfeld, but his biography presents evidence (in the form of interviews with contemporary friends and associates of Seinfeld's) that he did practice Scientology for a period of time. To me, that suggests that he was a Scientologist. If we followed a rule that the only people who should be considered Scientologists are those who are on the record as self-identifying as Scientologists, the list of even current Scientologists would be much shorter. Candy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I take issue with the idea that "former" is inherently negative at all. I'm a former theater technician, a former barista, and a former basketball player. No negative connotations there whatsoever. --GoodDamon 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with GoodDamon. There are former astronauts, former senators, former teachers, and so on ad nauseam. The fact that a person is no longer a certain thing does not in itself cast aspersions on that thing. I would argue the same for "ex-." Candy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: To the above response by , if you dispute any particular citation in particular please identify which citation and which source you dispute, so that we may discuss it individually.  Cirt (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Members & Anti-Scientology Slant 

message: Pending addition of citations to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, I see no problem with removing entries only sourced to primary sources or sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology.  Cirt (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above also applies to personal websites, secondary sources are preferable instead.  Cirt (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if you mean a 3rd party personal website but if a person's own personal website says they are a Scientologist then that is good enough. See WP:SELFPUB. I assume you meant 3rd party sites. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  I just glanced at a few of your edits to the list, which removed people simply because CoS sources were used. That is, in some cases, totally uncalled for, and since I believe your editing is normally well reasoned, I have to assume you are not very familiar with the publications. For instance, one of your edits I just saw was the deletion of Elizabeth Moss, for whom I had provided a citation. The article referred to was in the CoS's Celebrity magazine, and it was an interview with her in which she discussed BEING A SCIENTOLOGIST. I own stacks of these publications, going back decades, and have studied them pretty closely. The CoS doesn't make a habit of tossing around names of celebrities who are unaffiliated with them; the CoS features and sings the praises of Scientologists in good standing. In their articles and testimonials, they quote celebrities (and other practicing Scientologiss) verbatim, and pictures of the celebrities speaking before audiences of Scientologists (on panels, at events) appear in the magazines. If this type of citation is not acceptable evidence that a person is a Scientologist (or was, if the article is a number of years old and no recent appearances can be found), but FOX News is, something is seriously wrong. When newspapers and magazines report that celebrities are Scientologists, they are generally reporting common assumption--they have usually not gone to the celebrity and asked, "Do you consider yourself a Scientologist?" CoS publications are a much more reliable indication that a person is a Scientologist than a mention in the popular press. It was decided here, at some earlier point, that CoS-published lists of the names of people who took courses cannot be used as sources for this article. I believe it has also been decided that CoS-published lists of the names of donors cannot be used. So you are going to have situations in which a person has given interviews in Celebrity magazine, has been listed as taking numerous courses in the back of Celebrity magazine, and has been listed multiple times as a donor in Impact magazine, yet none of that info can be considered reliable for the purposes of this article, when it is actually the most reliable information available, short of a videotape of the person talking about being a Scientologist. But a newspaper or magazine can mention that a person is a Scientologist, and that is acceptable! I am not saying that every time a celebrity's name appears in a CoS publication it is proof that the celebrity is a Scientologist. For instance, when a celebrity simply makes an appearance at a CoS event, that's not proof of anything. But the substance of the appearance in a publication ought to be taken into account, and a distinction made between a mere name mention and an entire interview about how Scientology has improved a person's life. Candy (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am posting an addendum because I just noticed that several people are listed as Scientologists and a supposed "reliable source" is a newspaper article (Eddy, Steve. "People - Scientologists throw a 35th-birthday bash", The Orange County Register, August 10, 2004). That article is all that is used to justify listing the singer Brandy as a Scientologist, though there's actually not much evidence that she considers herself a Scientologist. There isn't a link to the article, and I can't find it on the OC Register site. I would like to know what that article says about Brandy being a Scientologist that is more reliable and authoritative than a cover story/interview in Celebrity magazine with Ernie Reyes, Jr., Elizabeth Moss, etc. Candy (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize if I am violating some Wiki rule that you can't keep replying to yourself like this, but I just noticed that Courtney Love has been included as a current Scientologist based on an article in The Guardian including her in a few names it mentioned as Scientologists. This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. I guarantee you that The Guardian is being sloppy there and accepting some gossipy report. Aside from some random comments from Love herself giving incoherent kudos to Scientology, there is no evidence that she has ever been a member, much less that she is currently a member. Yet the word of the Guardian's writer is accepted. Candy (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry, I don't know what  said on this matter. I've searched this page but don't see it, so I'm guessing it's somewhere else. Could you provide a link or summarize here? That would be helpful, I think, because I am not sure what the objection is to using CoS publications is in this particular way. It's true that I would not trust editorial statements made in CoS publications (e.g., number of members, expansion, Hubbard's accomplishments), but this is quite different. And, in general, doesn't Wikipedia consider primary sources preferrable to secondary sources? Candy (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just reviewed the recent editing history for the article and saw two comments  made that I suspect may be what you're referring to. In one Thivierr wrote, "removed several names dependent on Mallia. Please do read a source before you use it. Taking a course doesn't automatically make somebody a Scientologist," and I can say that yes, I agree re the importance of reading a source before citing it, and I also agree that taking a course does not make a person a Scientologist. But I also think one should read (or at least be familiar with) a source before condemning it. I would never have imagined that I would be arguing that Celebrity magazine is more reliable than The Guardian, and on the face of it, that still sounds laughable to me. But reading both sources should make it clear that one provides a detailed first-person account and the other provides repetition of hearsay. Regarding the other comment Thivierr made, "remove names dependent on whatisscientology.org, which is run by CofS, and therefore not reliable. Feel free to re-add all names with good cites to third party sources," I do not agree that a blanket assumption that no source produced by the CoS is reliable. I would be skeptical about those sources but would withhold judgment until I examined a particular CoS source. Candy (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Candy about the Celebrity magazines in that if the article clearly indicates that the person is (or was) a Scientologist (as opposed to someone merely appearing or speaking at Celebrity Center) then that is good enough. There is absolutely no record of Celebrity being less than reliable in this regard - or in any regard as far as I know. This falls under the category of sources speaking about themselves in that the groups and its members are speaking about themselves. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: We are not talking here of some list of members, we are talking about a published magazine with a Scientology celebrity on the front cover and an interview inside with the celebrity about their successes as a Scientologist. I think that is reliable enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, Rob is Thivierr? Sorry, I did not know that. Rob, I believe your sentence above got a little tangled; what do you mean by "we still have a like the Scientology Celebrity Centre, so  everybody who wants to see the Church's list of its members can do so"? It sounds as though you are suggesting that the CoS maintains a list of its members that it is willing to show anyone who asks, which I don't believe is true. Anyway, to me, it sounds as though you are arguing whether this list should exist at all, which I agree is a valid subject for discussion. But since the list does exist, I think interviews of people in Celebrity magazine in which they talk about being Scientologists should be considered reliable enough to merit their inclusion here. I don't think that is picking and choosing. It's establishing a specific objective criterion: that is, a first-person interview in a primary source is reliable (unless later reliable evidence contradicts it, as in the case of a person who has left the CoS since the interview). Candy (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I meant, is people can follow the CoS link, if they want to read what CoS says about itself.  When we write about the CoS, we don't base our writing on the Church.  I'm not debating existence of the list on Wikipedia.  I want this treated like we would treat a commercial business that claims celebrity customers/investors/endorsers.  To avoid advertising, we should only include those affilliatins that are noted in third-party sources.  So, if "Brand X" shoes claims "Olympic athlete Y" wears their shoes, then we don't mention that, unless it's covered in third-party sources.  As an encyclopedia, we are not a fact dump.  We include notable items.  If nobody independently notes it, it's not notable.  I'm not advocating deletion, since most names on this list now, do in fact, have independent sources.  I'm not actually trying to stop any name from appearing per se.  I'm just asking it be done within policy.  Is there any name you think should be on the list, for which you can't find a third-party source?  --Rob (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is not whether I can find a third-party source, the question is whether I should have to. Right now we are using some sources that, in my opinion, are less reliable than Celebrity magazine interviews. I've already mentioned The Guardian and the OC Register. We also have several people listed as Scientologists solely based on citations of a 1993 Globe and Mail article, one person (Pablo Santos) who was mentioned in a Daily News gossip item, and one (Jeff Conaway) who was mentioned on the Huffington Post. I'm not saying these people are not Scientologists. But what we have here is the absurd situation in which a reporter or gossip columnist can look at Celebrity magazine, read an interview with a celebrity Scientologist, extract the information that yes, that person is a Scientologist, and then write an article mentioning that the person is a Scientologist--and we will consider that article reliable, even though we would not accept the source the writer used. (And we will accept a reporter's blithe reference to a person as a Scientologist, even though that reporter may not have researched the subject.) Furthermore, Cirt has deleted people (e.g., Corin Nemec, Don Pearson, Patrick Renna) because the cited source was their own web page. Granted, those were cookie-cutter Scientology web pages created a few years ago, but they were created by the people themselves. Even though they used a template provided by the Church of Scientology, it is their own content, their own words. Why is that not acceptable? I believe the list as it stands now is less accurate than it was a few days ago, before this wave of edits based on disallowing CoS sources. Chaka Khan, whose status as a Scientologist has been questionable, now merits inclusion simply because The Guardian mentioned her name (as does Courtney Love), while such firmly established Scientologists as David Pomeranz, Patrick Renna, Michael Peña, and Heywood Nelson have been removed. (And these Scientologists are people who it may be difficult to find secondary sources for, because publications like The Guardian don't find them significant enough to mention when they are listing well-known Scientologists.) Candy (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel any name is reliant on an unreliable source, then by all means, do remove the name.  I never said all third-party sources are valid.  I and others, have removed names based on unreliable third-party sources as well.  There are multiple requirements for something to be a reliable source.  Being independent of the subject (a third party) is just one of the requirements.  If we rely solely on reliable third-parties for adding names, it's likely reliable third-parties will also report on the person leaving the Church.  When relying on the CoS (or even the personal web site), we'll have a case of somebody "dropping off" the source web site, but not having any reliable source to say they actually left.  For this list to be neutral it must reflect an honest balance of current and former Scientologists.  --Rob (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  on this, third-party WP:RS/WP:V sources are preferable.  Cirt (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still do not concede, but I believe each of you has more Wiki editing experience than I do (I think  surpassed my total editing experience just in edits to this article over the past few days!), so I admit to being a relative newbie in my experience with the practice of the relevant Wiki policies. I think the possibility  cited of people "dropping off" a website is not relevant in the case of Celebrity magazine (which is not a website but a print publication), but I realize that as time passes, there is a possibility that a person interviewed will leave the CoS. But that's a problem with third-party sources too. If a newspaper stated in 1993 that someone was a Scientologist then, isn't that an awfully long time ago to be considered reliable in 2008? Is there is a Wiki policy regarding citing older sources for current info? About Thivierr's suggestion that I delete names if I feel a source is unreliable, I would assume that my feeling about the source's reliability counts for very little. I know, from personal experience, that I have seen respected newspapers engage in sloppy reporting on this subject. But if a newspaper (or, apparently, even a blog) reports something as fact, my personal knowledge that leads me to question the statement is not good enough, in Wiki editing terms, to justify deleting it. Take Courtney Love--I've come to the conclusion that she has never been a Scientologist from reading Internet postings she made (which have since been deleted) and also from my own observations of where the rumor started and how it spread. If I tried to delete Courtney Love, saying the source was unreliable, I would not be able to defend the deletion by citing a source I deemed reliable, or by suggesting that the source itself--e.g., The Guardian or the OC Register--is not generally trustworthy. So I believe I should simply keep my hands off the entries I believe are suspect. Candy (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that there will ever be a balance of current and former members. Publicly leaving Scientology is a high crime under Scientology's system of ethics and most former members leave quietly to avoid friction or disconnection from current members. For every Jason Beghe, there will be dozens (at least) who stop showing up at the org or Celebrity Centre and drift away, with neither side wanting it to make the news. There will be people for whom there are no current sources that they are active Scientologists, but none that say that they left. In that case, the only thing to do is to drop them off the page completely until some new source surfaces, otherwise listing them either way would be a BLP violation. It's happened before, and will again. AndroidCat (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree w/ removal of entries sourced only to primary source 

message: *
Additional source for definition of term "Scientologist". Will get more on this soon.  Cirt (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional source 

message: I have a first-person, published by a third party, cite that she is an active Scientologist. What I don't have is a cite that she's terribly notable. AndroidCat (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, I saw that one too but it is worse than the Church site as it is user-submitted so I didn't bother trying again to add her here based on that. Personally, I think that if the Church has an article with pics about a person being a Scientologist (there is no history of lying about that) then that is good enough but others don't think so. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you; as you can see I have argued quite a bit that interviews appearing in Celebrity magazine (published by the Church of Scientology) ought to be considered a reliable source. A person's own words in a long interview about practicing Scientology are way more indication that the person is a Scientologist than a passing reference in a non-Scientology publication. Sure, a person might leave Scientology after the interview was published, but that's true of people mentioned in non-CoS publications, too. For instance, if Courtney Love was ever a Scientologist (which I doubt very seriously), it's quite possible she is no longer, even though there is a published reference naming her as one. Candy (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Candy, the best way to solve issues like this is by means of an WP:RFC. They are easy to set up and this would make a decent test case as her only mention as a Scientologist is in a non-ambiguous Church article complete with picture. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a person leaves, probably only a third-party source would potentially report that (CoS wouldn't ever).  If somebody's joining was covered by third-party sources, their departure would also be more likely to be covered.  Though, I concede, there's always a good chance, the departure isn't covered.  For Noelle North, it seems nobody has independently written anything about her, except to list her voice&acting credits.  If you have the notability of a Katie Holmes or Nicole Kidman, you can't leave your house, let alone your religion, without being covered extensively.  As for Courtney Love, maybe we should demand a higher standard, and require a source to give an explanation of why she's deemed a follower (Guardian is reliable, but the particular mentionof her, is merely in a list, with no detail).  If we err, we must error on the side of exclusion.  If we made a mistake on Courtney Love, that doesn't justify softening standards elsewhere.  --Rob (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, I respect your position. I happen to feel otherwise but as this is BLP I agree that any error would be toward more reliable sourcing. I just happen to feel that Celebrity mag is very reliable in this type of thing and if a person is already clearly self-identifying as a Scientologist in such a publication that has zero history of lying about such things then that is fine with me. Anywho, if Candy wants to set up an RFC perhaps we will see if we can get any more opinions. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noelle North 

message: I was pretty dumbstruck when I discovered just yesterday that Manson studied Scientology while in prison, using many of it's rituals later in his recruitment of his "girls." So it's surprising that his name isn't listed here. For those that say "but he didn't really study" there could be note to that effect just so certain panties don't get in a knot. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is listed under the subsection Former Scientologists.  Cirt (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Manson 

message: I know compiling a list of all notable "Scientologists" is Nearly impossible, despite the fact many celebrity "Scientologists" advertise their alignment with the beliefs of Scientology. Is it just me, or am I missing the criteria for being notable. I am most likely missing established criteria, if so please point out my error in thought. But if this is not the case, it is needed to be established that this list is not complete. Just to caution people on the list having that one short coming. And also to disclose that compiling a list of this sort is exceedingly difficult, as reasoning for the incompleteness of this article. Again, If I am wrong, I will gladly admit error, and proceed to familiarize my self with the criteria of being Notable. But also, in the case that I have missed established criteria, we need to include the criteria of notability in the article. A link would do fine in my opinion. I can understand if any one is opposed to this change, because this could mean the inclusion of such a link in many articles consisting of a list of notable people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmirxincx (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a small change to the intro accordingly.  Cirt (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of scientologist needs statement to caution that it is incomplete. 

message: Made a change to a more compact table of contents, using . Cirt (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents 

message: I think it would be a good idea to explain how or why certain people are labeled as "Former" Scientologists. That whole section is kind of ambiguous. 
Subplanar (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the citations to WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources after each entry. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the expression "former Scientologist" needs to be explained.  At the top it says that the CoS considers anyone who has taken one course or more to be a Scientologist.  It looks like there must be another definition going on as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a description as such in a secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be done since the article seems to contradict itself now.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a secondary source satisfying WP:V and WP:RS confirms that an individual was a Scientologist but is no longer a member, then they are placed in the Former Scientologists section. I have explained this repeatedly, above. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But according to the definition given at the top of the page being a Scientologist has nothing to do with being a member of anything. I'm not trying to say what the article should say but just that it makes itself clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the top of the page simply states what the definition is according to the recordkeeping of the Church of Scientology. Read it carefully, it is not a blanket statement, but quite specific. To say anything other than what is represented in secondary sources would be a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I just think the article could be more clear about what a Scientologist really is. How about citing a dictionary?  Steve Dufour (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - any suggestion of a source in particular? Cirt (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be harder than it sounds. The free online dictionaries that I checked didn't list Scientologist, except for Encarta which had an entry for Scientology which used the word Scientologist without defining it.  An up to date print dictionary, which I don't have at home, might have an entry for Scientologist. This one at least mentions the word: http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/ScientologySteve Dufour (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - it is indeed a noun. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the cite. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Here are some sources for the Werner Erhard entry, there are many more out there in WP:RS sources one could easily find:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Will add some more sources soon. Cirt (talk) Cirt (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding  and  by , the above sources are WP:RS, please do not remove this entry. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Please look again at the WP:RS sources, I have included quoted portions of the relevant texts to make it easier to satisfy WP:V. Multiple sources go further, characterizing Werner Erhard as a "former Scientologist", or an "ex-Scientologist", and one source even notes that Erhard himself acknowledged he was a "Grade IV" level in Scientology. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Werner Erhard 

message: William S. Burroughs
is an atheist not a scientologist
omg is ridiculus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.193.103 (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually at one point in time, he was. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  William S. Burroughs 

message: Either the following or something else expressing the same should be added to this and any other, similar listings:
Because the nature of religious convictions are deeply personal as well as the extent to which one may or may not be a participant in the rites, rituals or practice of their chosen religious philosophy, and in combination with religious groups having standards of acceptable behavior to which its members are held in order to retain a position of good standing --such position being subject to change by either the group or the individual without public announcement--  no list of this sort may ever be considered as an accurate and reliable reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sal McGundy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS/WP:V secondary source for this info? Cirt (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to the intro section;  My $.02: 

message: Stanley Clarke, a famous bass player, was a former Scientologist.
Add him to the list of former scientologists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.191.127 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Cirt (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Clarke 

message: On the Sharon Case Wikipedia page, it says she is also a Scientologist, although it isn't cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting info but would need a WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon Case 

message: Source is highly speculative, he should be removed from the list (I cannot since the page is protected). --ProbablyAmbiguous (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete Doherty 

message: See the cited sources. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaka Khan 

message: E! Online. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited as a source 

message: Adding Peaches Geldof as a scientologist. http://www.heatworld.com/Celeb-News/2009/10/Peaches-Geldof-is-a-Scientologist-now-Sigh/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodyblack2010 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would need a better source, see WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps another source better than that one? Cirt (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a YouTube clip of it, but the video and the audio are out of sinc.  Not a good source.  Even if it was in sinc, she could be saying it just to mess with people's heads. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, though, anyone who states that he or she is a Scientologist could be saying it to mess with people's heads. Should we not ever believe anyone when they say they are a Scientologist? I think a person's own statement on the subject should be accepted, unless it is truly clear from the context that the person is not serious. Candy (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that source WP:RS? Do we have a title for the program and author, so as to satisfy WP:V? Cirt (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaches Geldof 

message: I'm concerned that the addition of J. D. Salinger under Former Scientologists isn't backed up by the source. In the source it says, "Ms. Salinger said that her father was pathologically self-centered and abusive toward her mother, and to the homeopathy and food fads she added a long list of other enthusiasms: Zen Buddhism, Vedanta Hinduism, Christian Science, Scientology and acupuncture." Even if Scientology was an enthusiasm, that doesn't necessarily mean he was a Scientologist. And even if one accepts that as a source for Salinger being a Scientologist, it says nothing about him ever ceasing to be one, so I don't think it supports him being listed as "former." (I realize he is no longer a living person, but I still think we want to be accurate.) Candy (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. D. Salinger 

message: For what reason auditors have not been considered  scientologist and every attempt to put the auditors of celebrities on the list results on hostile deletions ???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengiuno (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not contributing the names of notable auditors to the List of Scientologists. You are creating a subsection that discusses a particular auditor and gives a link to his website. That is both spamming and off-topic. Candy (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For what reason 

message: = inappropriate removal of sourced information. Per cited sources, he was a senior official. The source is:
*
The quoted portion of this WP:RS secondary source is "Aaron Saxton, who rose to a senior level in the Sea Org" Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very good at citing policies... but Saxton left Sea Org when he was 21. An inflated description of an individual in the media cannot justify including him in this list with spokesmen, with the founder and his wife, and with others that Scientology itself describes as having held high rank in the organization. I will remove it again. Do no restore it unless you have a source that deals with the organization in general. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Pieter Kuiper that Saxton's name was out of place in the list of officials. He's only come to prominence recently; not as an official or spokesperson of the organisation, but as an ex-member speaking out against it. --JN466 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron Saxton 

message: It seems wierd to me that the main definition at the top of this list is basically that "If Sceintologist, then you are a Scientologist." That is relying on a primary source for the main premise of the article.   By that line of reasoning we should create a list of Now dead people that have been baptized by the Mormons and name it "Dead Mormons".Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems similar to exact same complaints you raised at the page, List of new religious movements. Here, we go by independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A complaint yes, similar yes, not exactly the same. You are ignoring common sense and common sense DOES have a place on Wikipedia.   I noticed an argument you were in with someone about the Aaron Saxon guy, (who ever he is). Arguing that this guy is a high ranking official in Scientology in your case, makes sense because both he and scientology say he was.   There are people on this list who Scientology claims are scientologists but who may have only done some courses.   I went to a christian school and there were muslim students who went there.  In order to get a degree, they needed to take christian theology courses. If my alma mater claimed they were christians, even though they themselves never would, then by the reasoning put forth by you,(regardless of what sources say) they would have to be considered christian. People who only did courses (and do not claim to be scientologists), should not be on this list. Scientology is very controversial and it is understandable that people might not want to be listed as either current or former scientologists. You are essentially saying, that is tough because scientology said so.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed virtually the exact same complaint that this user  has attempted to put forth at List of new religious movements. In both cases, site policies including WP:RS and WP:V should be the standard here, not arbitrary opinions from individual editors. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, people are not on the list simply for doing courses. If an editor tries to add a name based on evidence that the person did a course, it is rejected. Candy 18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Church of Scientology considers anyone who has ever taken a course to be a member of the organization. This is as per multiple WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but Wikipedia (or at least this article in particular) does not accept The Church of Scientology as a source of info. Candy 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  Based on what Candy says here, Christopher Reeves should not be on this list.  According to the statements in the source provided.  Reeves did some course, got skeptical and didn't do anything further.  He doesn't refer to it as his religion, himself as a scientologist or anything like it, but is in fact critical of it and distancing himself from it. I suspect that there are many other people on the list in that category.  Given the controversial nature of Scientology and WP:BLP, people should only be on this list if a reliable source shows them self-identifying as a current or former scientologist. For whom else it to make that determination other than the person themselves?? There are plenty of people on the record as saying "I am a scientologist" or "I am a former scientologist" and those people should be on the list.  I suspect that there are many people who do not say that, but because of some "arbitrary" opinion of a certain editors they are included on the list.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am late to this discussion (sorry), but I would like to point out that the source given at the time Elmmapleoakpine made the above post most certainly did back up the fact that Reeve had been a Scientologist for a time and considered himself one. In his autobiography Nothing Is Impossible he described his involvement with Scientology, and it consisted of more than doing one course. He detailed how he received auditing for a time and finally came to the conclusion that his auditor could easily be fooled into believing he was recounting real past life experiences when he was simply making them up. And that was when he left. Candy (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  makes a good point here. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, the logic against that is for much the same reason that we would not want an entire article about a company or group to only utilize sources from that group. It would be seen as not necessarily the most neutral source, for info about the subject itself. Naturally there would be a tendency for those sources to skew with a bias towards a favorable representation, that might not be entirely historically accurate, or perhaps, even false. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  I don't think that fits in this situation.  I am simply saying that someone who is declared to be a current or former Scientologist needs to be self professed. As I said there are plenty of people on the record as effectively saying "I am a scientologist".  They should be on the list. Again there are plenty of people on this list who have said just that.  There are many who merely profess to have done courses. Stating that people are Scientologist who are only on the record as having done courses, violates WP:NOR. Specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  Beyond that given how controversial Scientology is, it violates WP:BLP to allow many of the people on this list to remain. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eileen Barker writes in New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response that the Church of Scientology, "considers all those who have ever done one of their courses to be a Scientologist".Wilson 1999, p. 18 -- Elmmapleoakpine, are you saying that this is factually inaccurate? -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I am adding additional secondary sources, that also confirm this. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cirt- everything you just added to the definition effectively amounts to primary sourcing.  I am confused because you are the one who has repeatedly reminded myself and others that we should not use primary sources. The secondary sources you have added to the article do not say the definition of scientology, they merely repeat what scientology says is the definition.  It suprises me that you would argue for this. There is a BIG difference between someone who calls themselves a member of this religion and who Scientology calls a member of their religion.   You are effectively attempting to collapse that distinction.   Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely incorrect, everything added was from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not addressing my point.  The "secondary sources" merely parrot what the primary source, Scientology says. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is up to the judgment and determination of the academic scholars analyzing the criteria of what constitutes a definition of membership in the organization, in their discussion in the secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't People's inclusion on this list require that they are self-proclaimed sceintologists 

message: Tweaked subsection names, from "Scientologists" and "Former Scientologists", to "List of members" and "Former members". -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the changes you made to the subsections address the issue in any meaningful way.  Membership in scientology and scientologist are virtually the same and have the same negative connotation. I don't have a suggestion at the moment, but the changes you made don't address the issue one way or another.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be doing some reformatting soon, to address that, more specifically. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Started , . Next will reformat the main section as well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And, . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection names 

message: The structure of the article formatting was modeled after Featured Lists on Wikipedia. Specifically, the subsection of Featured Lists, identified by topic as Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Health_and_medicine. Every single one of the List of people within this section of WP:Featured lists contains the appropriate Notes or Comments column, with proper sourcing. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of article modeled after Featured Lists on Wikipedia 

message: Isn't the Chaka Khan entry a bit of a joke now? We now have, apparently in response to the above discussion mentioning Chaka Khan's assertion that she is not a Scientologist, a dozen sources calling her a Scientologist, but not a single mention of the fact that she herself consistently denies it and responded to the New York Times, when asked if she was a Scientologist, by saying, "I’m not, never was, never will be. I belong to the religion of the Church of Chaka Khan, and I practice it every day. I live my religion, I consider it a personal thing. But I’ve taken some courses in Scientology, and they’ve been very, very helpful through life’s ups and downs." 
I am honestly at a loss trying to understand why editors here are doing this. Is this supposed to reflect the truth, or a neutral point of view, or what? --JN466 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually what you are doing is perfect, you have found an entry which is problematic and brought it up rather than presenting a hypothesis on abstract conditions which may or may not exist in the article (seriously, no sarcasm here I do appreciate concrete examples).  What I believe is that we should make sure that quote is placed in the former list since they qualify based on the list requirements (RS stating they are Scientologists, and have taken classes) but have that as the explanation.  That way individuals who have read the "they are a Scientologist" reliable sources don't come to this page wondering why they aren't there (and create edit wars) but rather get the full story and have access to those other sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this fully follows verifiability and respects BLP by giving the whole story and collecting all articles together rather than silencing one group of sources which would give a one sided view to the reader.  Now I can't help that some people will see "list..." and see a name and not read anything else...but you would have to be a special kind of A.D.D. to run down one side of this article without paying attention to the stuff written right next to it.  that and being part of this list does not appear on that person's page whatsoever, so the only people who are going to read it are people who are looking for "lists of scientologists" and adding the explanation will dispel rumors for the whole truth.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain what you mean by "we should make sure that quote is placed in the former list"? I am not sure what you propose should be done about the Chaka Khan entry. --JN466 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Response: Was first compiling sources to satisfy list inclusion, namely sources satisfying WP:RS that go to verifiability. Next, will indeed add notation of the individual's commentary from secondary sources. This will give the reader a full presentation of the material, as per secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: , by . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the "I'm not, never was, never will be" part of her statement as well.  --JN466 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Giving the reader the full info from the secondary sources is the best way to go here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding , let us please keep this in a straight chronological order. This avoids interpretations of why one is motivated to split up paragraphs in one particular fashion, or another. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Her denial, which is important, is otherwise too buried for the reader to find it. --JN466 19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree. Placing it in any other format than purely chronological, is POV-pushing. Placing the paragraph in a chronological format, allows the reader to see the sequence of events, prior to and after, these comments. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I added a paragraph break, but kept it within a chronological order. Now, it is still in a chronological order, and the subject's comments are also more prominent . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you have done it now combines the best of both worlds; good idea. --JN466 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you. Glad we were able to come to a satisfactory compromise agreement on this. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. :) Nice job on the table formatting too; must have been a lot of work. --JN466 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It was a lot of work. Evidently one other individual does not appreciate that. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaka Khan 

message: We are presently citing a source (The Age) that says "Reeve opted out of becoming a member" as evidence that he became one. We are also citing his autobiography, in which he describes taking a personality test on a whim, and then being talked into doing some expensive auditing. While he says he wanted to give it a chance, he also says he was skeptical. Then his training as an actor took over, and he decided to test the Scientology system. When asked to remember an incident from one of his past lives, he told his auditor a moving story from a Greek myth he had read, as though it had happened to him personally. When the editor with her e-meter could not tell that he was having her on, he lost all interest in Scientology. 
This to me does not sound as though he became a member in any meaningful sense of the word. He tried it out, just like Brandy did (see above), and decided it wasn't for him. We can have a section on "people who flirted with Scientology" or "who tried Scientology courses", if editors wish, but Christopher Reeve should not be listed as a former member. --JN466 17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "A review of the book Nothing is Impossible by Christopher Reeve that ran on Page 6G on Dec. 28th, 2002, incorrectly said that Reeve praised Scientology for part of his recovery process after an accident that left him paralyzed. Reeve wrote that his personal experience with the Church of Scientology was unfulfilling and short lived." 
I am likewise unable to find any passage in Reeve's book that credits Scientology with any improvement in his condition. It seems the reviewer did not even read the book. --JN466 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: , removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Reeve 

message: Mary Bono, the widow of Sonny Bono, who was a Scientologist for some time, is listed as a former member based on a reference that says, "The tellingly titled Scientology magazine, Celebrity, listed both Sonny and Mary Bono as having taken numerous courses, such as one called Marriage. Mary Bono enrolled in at least six in 1989 and '90, including How to Improve and Financial Success." I can't find any RS that describes Bono Mack as a "former Scientologist" or "former member of Scientology", although I note that our BLP describes described her as such, based on the same reference. 
What I can find is sources like USA Today, which says that she "took Scientology courses with Sonny in the early 90s", a statement from a spokesman of hers that her only relationship with Scientology was through her husband, and a statement in the St. Petersburg Times, after her husband died, saying that she is "not keen on Scientology" and that no one should "expect Mary Bono to help the church out in Washington, as her late husband did." Listing her as a former member goes beyond the sources. --JN466 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Bono and Gilbert, Sonny embraced Scientology's self-help courses but rejected it as a religion. "Sonny didn't believe that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet. He told me that Hubbard was a falling-down drunk who drank himself to death," Gilbert says. "Sonny wore a cross and called himself a Catholic." Vinny Argiro, an actor who was close to Sonny, says Sonny used Scientology courses to help him with his marriages and relationships. "When I met Sonny, he was very involved in it," [Mary] Bono says. "And I knew nothing about it. I didn't even know the negative side to it at that point. So I thought, 'This is great,' and I took the courses with him. But as time went on, to put it lightly, I didn't believe it was for me. I thought it was very expensive and far too consuming." --JN466 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: , removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (for both). --JN466 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome. Thank you, for the acknowledgement of my action here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Bono Mack 

message: I've removed three external links per WP:ELNO; they were self-published websites by people who are not, as far as I know, recognized authorities:
* Scientology celebrities FAQ (Tilman Hausherr) – with documentation and references
* Celebrity listing (scientology-kills.org)
* Truth About Scientology Database of people who tried Scientology, from church publications 
The "Scientology Kills" link comes up "404 Not found" at the time of writing. --JN466 05:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth About Scientology = this has repeatedly been consulted (and named directly in text) as a source of information for multiple news articles and other articles on the subject matter. It is relevant, and should remain on the page as an external link. -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Marginal, but okay. --JN466 05:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, some more here. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I removed Courtney Love from the list because the sources provided do not say anything about her being a scientologist. All the sources refer to her thanking Kristy Alley and Narconon on the liner notes of one of her CDs. Further Love and Scientology are on the record as denying her involvement. 
*http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Courtney_Love.html "Courtney Love credits the Scientology-associated group Narconon (a drug rehabilitation organization) in the liner notes of one of her CDs, but her spokeswoman has stated that Courtney Love is not a Scientologist."
*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264375/ "Neither Alley’s nor Love’s spokesman returned calls for comment, and a spokeswoman for the Scientology told The Scoop she had “no idea” why Love thanked the church and Alley."  Based on this, Love should not be on this list in any of the categories. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She acknowledged taking buying books and taking courses and attending the Scientology "Celebrity Centre". Added to subsection, Course participants. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtney Love 

message: The Guardian Article cannot be found online and doesn't appear to be verifiable anywhere else.
- The Guardian staff (October 4, 2006). "Listed Scientologists". The Guardian: p. 29. 
All I could find doing a search for Sharon Stone and Scientology online was this link with the reference to Sharon Stone that I have cut and pasted below: 
 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jjhSrxQ0k38J:www.xs4all.nl/~fishman/fable.doc+milton+keys+satanism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Name:           Sharon Stone
Profession:    actress
Status:         "she is going to courses" (Berliner Zeitung)"out for years, never really in. Dated Jim Rogers, a field group auditor" (F.A.C.T.net & L. Wollersheim)
Achievement:   screaming in movies with Richard Chamberlain, spreading her legs on the silver screen
Source:         "Der Sektenkonzern", "Ich klage an","Berliner Zeitung" 23.7.92.
                 F.A.C.T.net & L. Wollersheim where mentioned
This is probably not a reliable source (and it is the only thing that comes up in searches that ties her to scientology) so I do not think she should be on the list either. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing additional research now. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: , moved to Course participants, pending further research. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Found several additional secondary sources. Moved entry back to subsection, for former members of the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The Guardian is a reliable source. -- Cirt (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon Stone 

message: He is not on the record as calling himself a Scientologist and of the sources provided, they all offer no details. I think this is totally circular set of refrences. - Are we sure that Wikipedia itself isn't actually the original source?  There is one website that lists him as a former member but no actual information of any kinds is given. http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Patrick_Swayze.html  What if infact all we are doing is repeating repeats of repeats of rumors that appeared in hollywood gossip papers? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: your "back to wikipedia" argument needs a lot more evidence, especially since your last format argued that everything on the internet could presumably come back to Wikipedia and now you have extended that argument to six hard sources because you can't find them on the internet.  Without actual evidence of corruption I think this is a great example of a red herring.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added additional references for this entry. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrick Swayze 

message: Their publication of a list with the caviate “listed Scientologist” doesn’t mean anything.  All the paper is doing is saying that a list is out there somewhere.  They are not in fact saying that those people are Scientologists and by saying that people are "listed as Scientologists" they do not have the burden of verifiability.  From the reading I have been doing, more than likely the list they are referring to is Wikipedia. That or one of the dozen or so lists that seem to be direct copies of earlier versions of this article  Even if not, any other list I have found is self-published and would not satisfy WP:RS.  I think anything name on this list that relies on the guardian referene should be removed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing the Guardian article to the list that existed when it was published, there is a difference which shows they did not reproduce the Wikipedia article (in both names present and absent).  That and there are no names that rely exclusively on the guardian article which is a WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coffeepusher- my real point about the issue with the Guardian is that it states "listed scientologists" and does not offer source.  It is merely noting that it was listed somewhere, but they do not have to say where or whether that list was reliable. The list could have been in any number of unreliable sources and the Guardian did not need verify any of it so long as it stated "listed scientologists".  Someone said that the web is an echo chamber and as we have seen with a number of listings on this article, the facts that are oft repeated are not accurate.  My whole point in the RFC about having reliable sources verify that someone is self-identified in these various categories is a simple, sensible way to avoid WP:BLP.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But WP:RS don't follow the same verifiability rules as Wikipedia.  Full disclosure of all sources is not a requirement, because they are held accountable other ways.  Your mostly hypothetical argument that the Guardian is just reproducing Wikipedia's list using the "all roads on the internet lead to wikipedia" argument needs more evidence, especially since it wasn't the list reproduced on Wikipedia at the time of publication. it is a WP:RS and all the entries from the Guardian are backed up by other WP:RS which demonstrates that rather than republishing a random list of people they actually published a list of Scientologists backed up by good research, making them a WP:RS especially for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not seeing anything to back up these spurious assertions regarding the WP:RS source, The Guardian. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guardian Reference Should not be considered reliable. 

message: after reading the tags I fail to understand how they apply to this article.  
*The neutrality tag is used when articles do not represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
:while the first variation of this article, the one that started the dispute, could be argued to violate this, with the addition of the separate sections which clarify how the reliable sources have reported on the individuals participation this article is showing a strong neutral point of view.  additionally when two or more sources are in disagreement that disagreement has been expanded in the section in chronological order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid WP:SYNTH or WP:OR while respecting WP:V
*the WP:BLP tag is used to identify articles that "contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person" 
:this is not an interpretation, it is the letter of WP:BLP which is  verifiability, in other words "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  Where in this article is it un-sourced or poorly sourced?
* Contradicts?
:while some WP:RS do report differently from one another, rather than engage in WP:SYNTH and delete both or prefer one interpretation over the other, both claims are sourced and quoted accordantly.  that discussion can be seen above.
I do not think these tags were appropriately used for their purpose.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The method of dealing with the contradictions among sources within the article come straight out of the WP:NPOV policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: please read the Template:POV Template usage notes.  specifically the last bullet (although I think all the bullets apply).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: ====Comment by Elmmapleoakpine====
Should people meet the requirement of being on record as claiming to be members of this religion in order to be placed on this list.   The definition provided at the top of this list essentially states that Scientology claims that all people who ever did Scientology courses are Scientologists.   Given the controversial nature and reputation of Scientology it doesn't seem appropriate for Scientology to be source of the definition of who is (or was for that matter) a member of their religion.  As an example, I cite instances of Muslim students spending 4 years at a Christian university and being required to take Christian theology classes to graduate. They attended courses, on Christianity and spent four years on a Christian Campus, but no one would consider them Christian or former Christians (including themselves).  I don't know if Scientolgy is even a religion but unless someone is on record as refering to themselves as a member of a religion, or there is some record of them "joining" a church, they should not be listed as a member of that religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: , added material suggested by Astynax, to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: Should people meet the requirement of being on record as claiming to be members of this religion in order to be placed on this list.   The definition provided at the top of this list essentially states that Scientology claims that all people who ever did Scientology courses are Scientologists.   Given the controversial nature and reputation of Scientology it doesn't seem appropriate for Scientology to be source of the definition of who is (or was for that matter) a member of their religion.  As an example, I cite instances of Muslim students spending 4 years at a Christian university and being required to take Christian theology classes to graduate. They attended courses, on Christianity and spent four years on a Christian Campus, but no one would consider them Christian or former Christians (including themselves).  I don't know if Scientolgy is even a religion but unless someone is on record as refering to themselves as a member of a religion, or there is some record of them "joining" a church, they should not be listed as a member of that religion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Elmmapleoakpine

message: ;Scholarly sources, media sources, and Church of Scientology statements confirm definition of membership
*As shown in the sources below, scholarly academic secondary sources, media sources, and Church of Scientology statements from officials and leaders confirm that membership in the organization as a Scientologist is defined as having participated in a Scientology course. 
*This is confirmed by the below WP:RS/WP:V sources. 
*This is the standard that should be used for this article, namely, confirmation in WP:RS sources that individuals have enlisted and completed courses with the Scientology organization, as this is the definition of membership in the organization, per multiple verifiable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: , added material suggested by Astynax, to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Cirt

message: Comment: Official definitions of identity can effectively be anything. For example, everyone in the world is Taoist, because the Dao is everything (I don't know anything about Dao, just a hypothetical). Nobody is a Buddhist, because Buddhism is simply a way of living, not identity. These are the two extremes, which means this question is formally a gray area. At the end of the day, the notion of "self-proclamation" that one is a Scientologist seems appropriate in all cases, unless an outside source says something like "well, he says he's not a Scientologist, but we do know he's taken X classes and volunteers at the church," at which point a footnote is appropriate. I hope this seems rational.
One more comment - saying a person is a Scientologist when they may have only taken a few classes may be considered defamation. Certainly it can prevent them from public service in Germany. Ethically, carelessness here is simply not acceptable. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also reliable sources saying there are no Buddhists, like, for example, a Buddhist priest. That is a conflict of sources and doesn't invalidate my original point of a grey area. Again, if we let every organization define their membership, then we can easily begin effective defamation. For example, if the group Children of Hitler proclaims "all are children of Hitler", can we say Barack Obama is a Child of Hitler citing that as a source? Now consider the possibilities of defamation in calling someone a Scientologist when they would not say so themselves, particularly as I illustrated in Germany (China too, by the way). This is basic editorial ethics, Journalism 101. Finally, what is a legitimate source? If Time looks up someone's tax return and says some celebrity took one Scientology course, can we then list them here as being a Scientologist using Time as a source? Time takes the step of saying they took a course based on extrapolation from a primary source, and we take the step of labeling based on extrapolation from a secondary source - that is a very clear ethical breach. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Note I make distinct arguments based on editorial ethics (extrapolation from secondary sources) and social ethics (defamation or negative impact). Both need to be considered, but if you need more policy-based argument, consider BLP guidelines that would specifically discourage listing arguable or poorly-referenced details on article pages (not limited strictly to the bio page, which means that a "List of Scientologists" had better not include living persons who do not consider themselves Scientologists and have little relevance to the article. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by SamuelRiv

message: When it comes down to it, few of us self-describe ourselves routinely in reliable sources. Hypothetically, we may see footage of Ronald Reagan attending a Lutheran Church, we may read a brief campaign summary prepared by the AP which lists his religion as Lutheran, but it might be harder to find him talking about his Lutheran affiliation. Obviously, we should require suitably reliable sources. If there are borderline cases or complications then we might add an explanatory note. One of the big advantages of a list over a category is that we can add details and other POVs, such as "Smith worked in the Scientology office in Houston for a year, but later wrote that he didn't really believe in it", or "Jones has been a member since 1985, and has donated a money for a training facility".   Will Beback  talk   08:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Will Beback

message: The Catholic church believes that anyone who is baptized within the church is a member, even if they have since been excommunicated or voluntarily quit. "In the eyes of the church, once a Catholic, always a Catholic." (see ) Still, it would be grossly misleading if we used that criterion in a hypothetical List of Catholics. It follows that using a similar or related measure on "list of Scientologists" is equally flawed. *** Crotalus *** 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Crotalus horridus

message: I believe this list is a potential public relations nightmare, and should be scrubbed of anyone who doesn't self-identify or is not notable. A notice should also be placed on the talk page declaring those standards, and the article locked. Would you enjoy being on such a list? →StaniStani  00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Stanistani

message: I wonder if it might be possible to learn more about the borderline cases who would be affected by the outcome of these discussions.  How many are there, and who are they?  Perhaps proponents of different positions could specify names that they think should or shouldn't be on the list.
I ask this because the abstract question leaves me a bit uncertain as to people's positions.  It strikes me as reasonable to say that we should use reliable sources, of course, but the reliable sources ought to say that the person "is a Scientologist" not that they "took a Scientology course at some point".  This is, after all, a "List of Scientologists", not a "List of people who took Scientology courses".  Therefore, the church's own definition of who "is a Scientologist" may not be echoed by reliable sources, and that's what matters.
So it strikes me as possible that those pushing for "reliable sources" and those pushing for "we shouldn't use the church's own definition" may well be talking past each other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Jimbo Wales

message: Of course there should be a reliable source to verify that someone believes themselves to be a Scientologist before adding them to this list (what next, a List of adulterers that includes everyone who has committed adultery in their heart?). Whatever some group might imagine ("if you've done one of our courses, you're a Scientologist for life"), it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to label a person unless there is a good reason to believe the label really applies – there should be an independent, reliable source that has considered the person in depth, including whether they have recanted (although generally a considered and reliable self-proclamation would be satisfactory). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Johnuniq

message: Essentially, Scientology is a set of beliefs, so "being a Scientologist" is the same sort of property as "being a Christian". I think, due to the controversial nature of Scientology, it is best to only add individuals who either committed themselves to Scientology throughout their lives and are deceased, or are alive and currently commit themselves to Scientology. There should be a list of ex-Scientologists for individuals who have recanted their faith. Of course, in all cases, reliable sources are needed per WP:V. Claritas §  10:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Claritas

message: #Regardless of the CoS declaration on the definition of a "Scientologist", the normal everyday understanding would be someone who positively identified themself as such, and actively embraced the beliefs and practices of the Church.
#Therefore it is inappropriate and misleading to include individuals on this list merely on the grounds that a secondary source states that they did some Scientology courses at some time.
#Bearing in mind the general public perception of Scientology, is is potentially embarrassing or possibly even defamatory to describe someone as such if they do not concur with the description.  Thus the WP:BLP restiction on applying categories should logically cover inclusion in Lists.
#Furthermore, it would appear that this List is being used to further an agenda of undermining the reputation of individuals, by editorialising their entry. DaveApter (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Dave Apter

message: Well, using the argument that anybody who took a course offered by a scientologist is a scientologist, I guess it is safe to say that Obama is in fact a Muslim!  Come on, just because a group uses a ludicrious definition of how they define membership, does not make it so.  What percentage of people attend A class and never go back again?  Who walk away thinking, "what a joke?"  
Similarly, think about it this way, would we record that somebody is an athiest or communist because they made some off handed remark or something?  In order for us to include a persons religious views, it needs to be A) self-proclaimed or B) reported by a highly reliable source.  We don't have to have them saying, "I'm a Scientologist" but we do need a source that is very reliable.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Balloonman

message: I want to go on record here to say that it seems inappropriate for someone to be added to this list as a member, or former member, who has not publicly stated that they are members.  If they have publicly stated that they are members and that statement is published in a reliable secondary source, then yes, they should be included here. What one believes and practices in the area of religion is a personal matter, and given the damage to someone's reputation that can be done by being associated with Scientology, it is behooves us to apply rigorous and careful standards.  I echo what Jimbo has to say on the matter, that yes, we should use reliable sources, but that those sources should be required to say that the person has stated that they believe in and follow the doctrines of Scientology. 
I see that there have been improvements and clarifications on this page, and that much thought and care has gone into it, however, the fundamental question of this RfC still remains open - Should people be self proclaimed in order to be included on this list?  As this discussion page itself says above, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons," which states that "material must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".  As religion is inherently a personal and private matter, I strongly believe that as responsible editors we should adhere to the highest of standards for this list, and require that the reliable secondary sources unquestionably state that the person has self identified themselves as a Scientologist.
Furthermore, in reading over the discussion in this section, I see that the majority of the editors who commented  agree that the principle of being self identified is a necessary standard. MLKLewis (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by MLKLewis

message: Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary and tertiary sources, period. This article shouldn't have special conditions on sourcing, any more than any other. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Jayjg

message: We now have a section on course participants who have not been identified as (former) Scientologists; I think this is probably the right way to go here. --JN466 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree.  While I think the the third category is good and certainly addresses something important, it still doesn't address the main problem raised by the question of the RFC. It doesn't matter if it is scientology's definition, or a reliable source calling someone a scientologist. Unless they are on the record as refering to themselves a scientologist or perhaps working for scientology, there is no way for anyone else to presume to know. Otherwise, as Jayen466 pointed out, it is inevitably SYNTH and given the reputation of Scientlogy  WP:BLP issue. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to go here, is to document secondary sources conforming to WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The current breakdown separates the concerns voiced in this RfC specifically without applying a specific definition to a Scientologist with respect to the RS.  Individuals who have sources that state they are current members go in the current member category, those who have secondary sources stating that they once where members go in the former member category, and those who have just taken classes are put in the "taken classes but have not affiliated with scientology."  this avoids speculation or WP:NOR, respects Wikipeida's stance on WP:RS and WP:V, and offers enough of a distinction to allow individuals to see the different types of participants without harping on the stereotype...oh and the rush is it is either that, or read German Philosophy for a paper...you understand :)Coffeepusher (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely positively don't agree. Is this need-to-know self-reported information? If not, it is ethically irresponsible for living persons (like that WP:BLP that we keep ignoring) to be included, for the same reasons it would be irresponsible to make a list of "People who marched in gay-rights parades". Firstly, it has potentially devastating consequences for the individual listed, and secondly, why would we include such a thing anyway? Someone suggested that details could be added in list-format more easily - so do we put an asterisk next to every person who does not self-report? That's just like Fox News reporting a long segment about Muslims in America, then cutting to Barack Obama without missing a beat and noting that it's "interesting that he grew up in Indonesia, a Muslim country". With respect to everyone here, follow WP:BLP and take self-reporting as the only standard, because using anything else in a controversial listing or category is beyond despicable. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: actually if you check the list you will find that we didn't put an asterisk next to every person who does not self identify, we separated the sections into leaders, members, former members, and course participants with an explanation on each header explaining how each person was associated.  It allows people to see all the reliable sources which specifically mention their level of participation and weigh them out accordingly.  This allows someone who "heard" that Brad Pitt was a Scientologist to see that he actually only took two courses and quit, clarifying the record.  It also follows the recommendation for lists of living people which states they only need a reliable source identifying them as such, there is a difference for categories which states that categories have to be self reported.  This list is  verifiable through secondary reliable sources and follows the formating and content recommendations for  Wikipedia lists.  The list itself has been expanded to subsections which some reliable sources do classify as scientologists but the classification is under depute so the subsections clarify those distinctions.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Note: I am having trouble finding where WP:BLP has "self reporting as the only standard" as you claim.  WP:BLP by my read has verifiability classified as the standard.  Now the  category recommendation does ask for self reporting, but this is not because it is a biography of a living person but strictly because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers." Lists do carry disclaimers and modifiers so this recommendation does not apply.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Update