Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 9 June 2010 (→Chaka Khan: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Scientologists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scientology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Aaron Saxton

= inappropriate removal of sourced information. Per cited sources, he was a senior official. The source is:

• Zwartz, Barney (November 21, 2009). "Scientology's dark secrets". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2010-03-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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)

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)

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)

Shouldn't People's inclusion on this list require that they are self-proclaimed sceintologists

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)

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)

A complaint yes, similar yes, not exactly the same. You are ignoring common sense and common sense DOES have a place on Misplaced Pages. 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)

It is indeed virtually the exact same complaint that this user Elmmapleoakpine (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

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)

Right, but Misplaced Pages (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)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

talk:Misscandy (talk · contribs) makes a good point here. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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". -- Elmmapleoakpine, are you saying that this is factually inaccurate? -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am adding additional secondary sources, that also confirm this. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Completely incorrect, everything added was from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

RfC: Should people be self-proclaimed Scientologists in order to be included on this list?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should people be self-proclaimed Scientologists in order to be included on this list? 02:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please keep comments within your own subsection, and do not intersperse and engage in threaded comments, for ease of organization. Thank you. 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

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)

Response to Coffepusher

I am not in a position to say whether Christopher Reeves was or wasn't a Scientologist. I read the source provided and it did not appear to me that he considered himself to be a member of the church. In his own account, he was skeptical, critical and even mocking. I can't say any more. There are plenty of others that I suggest are much less ambiguous. One example is Mary Bono. According to the source provided she did a couple of classes and according to the source, mostly at the behest of her husband Sony Bono. She did not do anything further and she is not on the record as referencing her involvement. She is a member of congress and inflated claims of her association with Scientology could potentially effect the outcome of an election.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to NWlaw63 and Coffepusher

It seems to me that WP:BLP is being applied selectively. In the section that NWlaw63 quotes, it points to the importance of self-identification in the matters of religion and sexual orientation. That is because there are plenty of people in the world who have strong reactions to those topics and those reactions can have real life consequenses for people when they are labeled as such. What is the point to applying this principle of WP:BLP, to categories but not to lists? Just because a person's article doesn't have the category scientologist, doesn't mean it is any more or less true or harmful. All that being said, if this list made a differentiation between "membership" in scientology(whether in the present or the past) and someone who is on record as just having "dabbled" or took classes then WP:BLP would be much less of an issue. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt

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)

Sources confirm Scientology membership defined by course participation

1. Sociologist 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, Bryan R.; Jamie Cresswell (editors) (1999). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 0415200504. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Authors W. W. Zellner, Marc Petrowsky note in the book Sects, Cults, and Spiritual Communities: A Sociological Analysis, "Those who pay for courses are called ordinary members."
   • Zellner, W. W. (1998). Sects, Cults, and Spiritual Communities: A Sociological Analysis. Praeger. pp. 151–152. ISBN 0275958604. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Scientology president Heber Jentzsch stated in a videotaped court deposition that membership statistics for the organization are based on the sum of all individuals that have ever taken any Scientology course since the organization's foundation in 1954.
   • Ortega, Tony (June 24, 2008). "Scientology's Crushing Defeat: A previously unpublished saga of an $8 million check". The Village Voice. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. Retrieved 18 October 2008.
4. In a 1992 appearance on the ABC News program Nightline, Jentzsch admitted that anyone who took one course was considered a member of Scientology, "Because they joined and they came in and they studied Scientology."
   • Sawyer, Forrest (February 14, 1992). "A Conversation with David Miscavige". Nightline. ABC News.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Astynax

@Astynax - I agree with this comment, this is a rational, logical, and well-thought-out idea. I will do some research to try to find a reference for such a statement, to add to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note:  Done, added material suggested by Astynax, to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by SamuelRiv

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)

Response to MartinPoulter

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)

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)

Comment by Astynax

I think the current definition gives enough information to make it self-evident to readers that people who do not continue in, or have left, the religion might have a different view as to their "membership". There do seem to be many good sources which describe "former members"; "non-believing"/"non-practicing" former adherents, "apostate"/"expelled", "non-active" people, and other non-devotees with only a minimal connection. I think the current definition is fine. But because of the references which seem to recognize a class of people who are no longer members in the usual sense of that word, it is would be appropriate to insert a short and referenced sentence pointing out that many people who have taken Scientology courses do not consider themselves to be members. • Astynax 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Another way of dealing with this might be to emphasize even more strongly that Scientology very loosely construes "membership" or "Scientologist", and that not all persons with a connection to Scientology regard themselves as "followers". I also came across this...

How, though, is the concept of membership constructed in Scientology, and how is it deployed as a mechanism of legitimation? Beyond those who are active Scientologists, for example, if membership is construed as comprising every person who has ever signed up for an introductory course in auditing, attended a film presentation or lecture at an org (and left some record of their attendance), purchased Scientological materials, or taken the Oxford Capacity Analysis™ test online, then perhaps ten million is not unreasonable. It is well established in the social scientific literature that religious movements of all types—both established and new—regularly inflate membership and attendance figures, sometimes by an order of magnitude or more. That said, if few of these alleged ten million pursue their Scientological involvement no further than an initial contact, it poses the question of how devout Scientologists, in the Church hierarchy, but especially in the rank-and-file, resolve the contradiction on an ongoing basis.

— Lewis, James R. 2009. Scientology. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 55-56. ISBN 978-0-19-533149-3

So it does seem that a "Scientologist", nominally so only by virtue of Scientology's broad application of that label, might be shocked to find him/herself on the list without some caveat. • Astynax 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by MartinPoulter

Verifiable, reliable secondary sources have to be the standard for Misplaced Pages, for this topic and everything else. This list is *not* a "List of self-proclaimed Scientologists", so the sources only have to show that someone is a Scientologist, not that they describe themselves as such. SamuelRiv's claim that "Nobody is a Buddhist" won't fly because there are reliable sources saying that there are millions of Buddhists. Elmmapleoakpine's analogy with Christians begs the question because "Christian" and "Scientologist" are not defined the same way. Given what Astnyax says, a disclaimer of some sort is warranted, and I see that Cirt has worked on this. Yes, we're making assertions about living people, but that underlines the importance of including statements if they are based on reliable sources and excluding them if they are not. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to SamuelRiv "reliable sources... for example, a Buddhist priest" No. Hearsay or self-published sources are not suitable for Misplaced Pages, according to its core policies. As for journalistic issues, we're not doing journalism. Misplaced Pages is tertiary literature that summarises secondary literature. It's up to the journalists and editors in secondary sources (of which Time is one) to make these decision for us about what is appropriate to publish. The Children of Hitler example is not a good analogy because it wouldn't be based on specific information about the individual. There's a reason we don't put in Barack Obama's article that he's a bipedal mammal, and it's the same reason we'd exclude the Children of Hitler reference in your hypothetical case.

If your concern is about some listings being poorly sourced, then address that directly. This particular RFC is clearly not about that but about a wider principle. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nwlaw63 If it were a list of professional baseball players, we wouldn't accept people who claimed to have played baseball professionally: we'd look for third-party reporting. If it were a list of philanthropists, we wouldn't accept people who self-identified as philanthropists, but look for independent sources saying they had given large sums of money to good causes. If it were a list of serial killers, we wouldn't use self identification... I'm not saying that being a Scientologist is like any of these three things, but you see where it's going: what's the difference about Scientologists that we have to use a different standard? It can't just be that the term can be taken negatively: so can "serial killer". MartinPoulter (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback

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)

Comment by Nwlaw63

The assertion made by Cirt above that scholarly and media sources confirm that a Scientologist is anyone who has taken courses is false. His sources don't say that at all; they simply say that Scientology thinks that someone's a member if they attend any courses. Why would we take Scientology's view about who a Scientologist is, given that they have an interest in stating their membership to be as high as possible? Self-identification is clearly the most reliable indicator of religious affiliation. In our rush to the holy grail of secondary sources, it's easy to forget that primary sources are completely valid when they concern the point of view of the primary source itself. Of course secondary sources can be used, but I don't see how a source can be considered reliable if all it's doing is repeating Scientology's claim or definition of membership. There are real BLP issues in referring to people with what is generally considered to be a negative term, and the sourcing should be rock solid before someone is included, in my opinion. It also points to why 'list of' articles in general are a bad idea for Misplaced Pages - they often create inherent POV issues even when their facts are solid. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to MartinPoulter: this article clearly violates BLP

BLP policy states "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". There doesn't seem to be much confusion here - someone shouldn't be on a 'religious list' unless they publicly say they are a member of said religion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Coffeepusher

I agree with Astynax, Cirt, MartinPoulter, and Will Beback that the current definition based on reliable, verifiable sources provides a good standard for this list (especially since they are the one's not giving hypothetical slippery slope arguments). I think that if they took classes and that event was reported on by reliable sources then that provides a discriminate enough standard to merit inclusion...especially since we have a "former member" section within the list to account for those individuals who no longer affiliate with the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this entire discussion started because the definition for inclusion came from a primary source, that has since been corrected to include secondary sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On the debate of the definition I would like to point out that the criteria we are using here is not if the individuals have taken a Scientology course, but rather if their taking a Scientology course has been reported on by reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. We are not scouring primary source Scientology records for any mention of a name, but if in the due execution of their duties as reporters or journal editors they have found that a person has taken a Scientology course and that fact is significant enough to report on then their name be included on this list under either current or former as the secondary sources indicate. Take note that this criteria is being contrasted with the "self disclosure" criteria, which as it has already been stated is unreliable due to the fact that it would require a person to not only take Scientology courses, view themselves as participants of the religion, but also be significant enough to be interviewed, asked the question about religious affiliation, answer "yes I am a Scientologist in good standing", and have that quote deemed significant enough to be printed. as it stands reliable, verifiable, secondary sources are not out printing lists of names for people who take Scientology courses, the taking of the course has to be significant in light of a newsworthy event. thus while I agree that singling out every person who has taken a course is a broad brush, the brush becomes much more narrow when viewed in the light of where the information comes from, and becomes a good criteria for selection to this list.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Nwlaw63 this is a list not a category, thus does not clearly violate BLP

In response to Nwlaw63 assertion that this is a violations of BLP due to the category statement, this is a list not a category. the difference includes that a list does not show up on that person's page, and that qualifying statements regarding the reliable sources can be inserted into lists and they can not be inserted into categories. I completely agree that a category needs to have self identification as a criteria since it shows up without any explanation on that persons page, but a list is a completely different entity on Misplaced Pages and has more flexable guidelines for the reasons already stated.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

you may want to look at wikipedias suggestions for inclusion on lists which states "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source" rather than self identification.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that pretty much the same people are on both the category and the list article. No one appears to be rushing to remove people from the Category article, even though there's people on it who don't self-identify as Scientologists. I am skeptical of the argument that these BLP concerns should really only apply to category articles and not list articles. And while you're quoting list policy, why not note that criteria are supposed to be both clear and neutral? In the introduction, this article is clearly defining a Scientologist as anyone who has done any classes, because this is the definition Scientology gives. I'm at a loss to see how anyone could argue that this is a neutral definition. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

well this is the list not the catagory. The criteria is clear, if it has been reported in verifiable reliable secondary sources that they are taking or have taken Scientology classes then they can be included on this list. that is clear and Neutral since the qualifications came from secondary sources not just the church of scientology, and not editors. it follows wikipedia list policy to the letter (as quoted above). you will notice we have separated current and former scientologists, something the church of scientology does not do.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Responce to Stanistani

Notability is already established by the fact that this list is composed of individuals who have already qualified based on the sources and requirements. So why should they be self identified? wikipedia is not censored so your call for a PR nightmare is unfounded especially since the current criteria fulfills WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and is backed up by many secondary sources, and thus far no one has been able to identify any clear violations.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

so exactly how does an article talking about wikipedia getting bad publicity for a blatant hoax and BLP violation compare to discussions on if we should use notable, reliable, verifiable, secondary sources which state that the definition of a Scientologist is someone who is or has taken Scientology courses...and if names should be included if verifiable reliable secondary sources report on their participation with Scientology courses based on the suggested criteria of inclusion on to lists??? Personally I think you tried to sell us a steaming load of horse based fertilizer with all the flies, and I am calling it such.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jimbo

While I completely agree that if reliable sources state that a person "is a Scientologist" they should be included on this list, being a Scientologist is the "practice" of Scientology which by both the churches definition and several secondary sources already presented in this article is the taking of Scientology courses. Personally I believe this criteria accurately represents what it means to be a participant in the Church of Scientology, and as I already stated I don't believe that it would allow for abusive practices concerning this list.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jaden

The thing that makes lists different from categories, and which is why they have different qualifications, is the fact that you can add qualifying statements to lists. So the Christopher example, he is already under "former Scientologists" and it can be explained afterward that he took some courses and became critical of the church. the same for your other examples when you have conflicting reliable sources an explanation can be made. I don't think we are suffering from listcraft. Being a scientologist is the practice of taking Scientology sources. This has been backed up in both primary and secondary sources, and no one else has been able to provide a contrary definition cited from secondary sources. While the church of scientology says that you are a Scinetologist for life, we have added a "former" section for those individuals like the one's you mentioned who did practice Scientology (took courses offered by the church...note we are not qualifying the free personality test but the actual paid classes which you have to sign up for and make an appointment) but no longer affiliate with the Church.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No it is not a synth argument, it is an understanding of what Scientology is. Other religions require a admittance of faith because they have a doctrine of beliefs. To be a member of those religions is to believe in a set doctrine. Scientology is not a doctrine of beliefs but rather the practice of Scientology Tech which is the process of taking courses to learn the tech. So it is not synth, but a recognition of the differences between two religious practices. if someone is taking or has taken classes, that is the same as a profession of faith in another religion, and we have secondary sources backing that statement up. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dave

As one of the editors who has contributed to this list, I ask for evidence or an apology for your "furthering an agenda" statement which I take as a direct personal attack, and a "if you don't agree with me you are one of them" rhetorical tactic. I have been accused of working from both sides of the "Scientology" agenda in my tenure working with this project (funny thing is I always support the WP:RS clause, and people always assume that means I am against their agenda) and I am just a little sick and tired of fly by night editors coming in with accusations of an agenda supported exclusively by their own personal views of the subject matter and straw man constructions of the editors participating on the project. so do you have any backing besides an unfounded emotional reaction to support the claims you have made? Which WP:RS on this page are being used to defame the individuals present? Did you even look at the page, or did you rely exclusively on your own personal opinion of Scientologists?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Crotalus horridus

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)

Comment by Stanistani

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)

Response to Coffepusher

All it will take is one entry of a notable person who doesn't want to be on the list, and a media source picking it up to build a controversy, and Misplaced Pages will once again have mud on its face. →StaniStani  03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jimbo Wales

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)

Comment by Johnuniq

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by Claritas

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)

Comment by Jayen466

A reliable source saying that someone has done a Scientology course should not be viewed as a sufficient criterion for including the person in List of Scientologists. The source should at least say that someone is a Scientologist.

A special problem arises in cases like Chaka Khan (included in the list), where reliable sources calling her a Scientologist can be found, but Khan has also denied being a Scientologist in equally reliable sources, such as the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, where she was asked,

"Q: Are you a Scientologist? A: 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."

The situation with Christopher Reeve (included among former members) is also worth looking at. The sources we are citing are his autobiography and two reviews of it. One of the reviews we cite, "Superman Christopher Reeve blasts Scientology", says,

"Christopher has hit out at Scientology, telling how he opted out of becoming a member because he was "skeptical" about its claims."

This specifically states that he did not become a member, yet it is cited here as evidence that he did. I'd say that's wrong.

All the entries in the list should be checked for similar sourcing, and if need be removed. The principle expressed in WP:BLPCAT is, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Perhaps the same reasoning should be applied here, and indeed to "List of ..." articles in general. One could theoretically entertain the idea of an article, or section, called List of people who have done Scientology courses without becoming Scientologists, but I wonder if by that point we are not in danger of entering the realm of obsessive listcruft. --JN466 12:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Coffeepusher: Basically, you are making a WP:SYN argument. Source A says, the Church considers everyone who has taken a paid course a Scientologist. Source B says, individual Z has taken a Scientology course. Ergo, and that is where the original research comes in, Z is a Scientologist. This list has taken this to the point where we are actually citing a source that says "Christopher Reeve opted out of becoming a member" as evidence that he became a member. --JN466 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Coffeepusher: First of all, Scientology clearly does involve some beliefs (life on other planets, soul migration, etc.). Secondly, some of the people who do Scientology courses evidently feel that they do not become Scientologist by dint of doing so. Take this UPI article:

"Brandy reportedly is taking Scientology courses, although the U.S. singer and actress said she has not joined the controversial religion. She told MSNBC: '(Scientology) basically consists of questions that probe really deeply into your life. You are confronting all of your experiences, and I knew if I could confront every experience in my life and be cool with it, then nothing could stop me. They ask the questions, and you provide the answers. I am not a Scientologist ...'"

Likewise here:

"Brandy Studies Scientology. R+B star BRANDY is following in the footsteps of TOM CRUISE and JOHN TRAVOLTA and taking courses in the controversial Church Of Scientology. The singer, who recently got engaged to basketball star QUENTIN RICHARDSON, hasn't yet joined the church - but is taking courses in a bid to improve her life."

Or the Age article on Reeve cited above, which mentions he took some courses but "opted out of becoming a member".

None of these publications followed your logic, proclaiming that these individuals had become Scientologists, or members of Scientology, by virtue of doing courses.

This simply is not something like a routine calculation where there is 100% agreement between all relevant sources. Quite the opposite -- far from being widely accepted, Scientology's method of counting everyone who has ever done a course as a member of their Church is widely criticised as a means to inflate membership statistics. As such it is not the kind of uncontroversial conclusion that would pass muster under WP:SYN. --JN466 16:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Following up on Brandy, what she later was quoted as saying is:

"Someone said, 'There're these classes that you can take that can better you as a person.' I'm like, 'OK, I'll go check it out', but that's all I did, go check it out. I'm not a Scientologist."

By your logic, we would have to describe her as a former Scientologist. Do you really think that is appropriate? --JN466 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dave Apter

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

Subsection names

Tweaked subsection names, from "Scientologists" and "Former Scientologists", to "List of members" and "Former members". -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I will be doing some reformatting soon, to address that, more specifically. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Started , . Next will reformat the main section as well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And,  Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please leave as a list until the RfC process has completed

It seems to me highly inappropriate that editors are racing headlong into major revisions of the structure and content of this article, despite the fact that these issues are being discussed in an RfC on this page, without waiting for a consensus to emerge.

Conventionally, Lists in Misplaced Pages are just that - lists; not compendia of mini-articles. If the editorialising that has been recently added to this page is supported and justified, then the appropriate place for it would be in the actual article on that person or topic, not here.

Therefore I have reverted the List to its state on 7th June, and would urge other editors to wait for a conclusion of the RfC before continuing with this controversial re-fashioning. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It is completely inappropriate and contrary to improvements to this article to revert back to an older version. The version you proposed to revert back to is less well-sourced, with less references, poorer structure, and a bad organizational format. The new structure was modeled after Featured lists currently structured as such on Misplaced Pages. Let us please keep the current format of this article. We can discuss individual complaints, on the talk page. However reverting to an older version due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not the constructive way to go here. DaveApter, what, specifically, do you have a complaint about? -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please also note that the revert by DaveApter (talk · contribs), removed 28 sourced references from this article, with no specific explanation as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

you will note that the "major" revisions are not adding entries into the article, except for those individuals who would be admitted based on reliable sources stating they are Scientologists not that they have just taken classes (which is the contentious part of this RFC). So the RFC is being respected, Thank you for this opportunity to clarify the editorial actions.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Structure of article modeled after Featured Lists on Misplaced Pages

The structure of the article formatting was modeled after Featured Lists on Misplaced Pages. Specifically, the subsection of Featured Lists, identified by topic as Misplaced Pages: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)

Chaka Khan

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done, by Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

• Fine. We now have about 200 words and 14 individually cited sources on Chaka Khan; I think 12 sources are examples of publications describing her as a Scientologist, and 2 are publications quoting her as denying it. I propose we can do better than that. All that is required is that we say two things:
  1. that she is described as a Scientologist in many publications, giving one reference that includes all of the relevant citations, with pertinent quotes included in the citation templates,
  2. that she denies being a Scientologist, again with the two sources in one reference, and the relevant quotes included in the citation templates.
• Thoughts? --JN466 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I disagree. Her denial, which is important, is otherwise too buried for the reader to find it. --JN466 19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

The way you have done it now combines the best of both worlds; good idea. --JN466 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Glad we were able to come to a satisfactory compromise agreement on this. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. :) Nice job on the table formatting too; must have been a lot of work. --JN466 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a lot of work. Evidently one other individual does not appreciate that. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve

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)

Moreover, the Dallas Morning News statement we cite that Reeve "credits both Scientology and extensive physical therapy for his overall improvement." was, according to Rick Ross's cultnews blog, retracted by the paper on February 4th:

"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)

 Done, removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary Bono Mack

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)

Here is a quote from that George article:

"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," 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)

 Done, removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (for both). --JN466 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you, for the acknowledgement of my action here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Wilson 1999, p. 18

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class Scientology articles
• High-importance Scientology articles
• WikiProject Scientology articles
• List-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment