Talk:List of Scientologists/Archive 2

• Seinfeld is an actor and comedian, and a former Scientologist.^[1][2] He became an adherent of Scientology in 1977.^[1] Seinfeld self-identified as a Scientologist to his friends.^[1] He attempted to recruit those he knew to become active with the organization.^[1] He attempted to reach the Scientology level of "Clear".^[1] When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism".^[3] Listed by The Globe and Mail among "ex-members" of the Church of Scientology, in a 2009 article.^[4]

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

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

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

A couple of observations after watching recent editor activity:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the "backsies". ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't she qualify as active or former member?^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several other sources worth considering:

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

Scholarly sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Grorp Thanks for pinging me.

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

The discussion is over. Anyone can read it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Vivian Kubrick. Grorp (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Craig Jensen of Condusiv Technologies should probably be on the list.

• https://www.wired.com/2000/03/scientology-in-the-machine/
• https://craigjensen.com/scientologist/
• https://hubbardcollege.org/craig-jensen/
• https://www.davidmiscavige.org/videos/craig-jensen-video-on-david-miscavige.html

Grorp (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Grorp (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)