Jump to content

Talk:List of Scientologists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gallup (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 16 November 2007 (→‎Ex-member Seinfeld). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What is the purpose of this article

Why would wikipedia want to list living Scientologists? Would you want your religious faith proclaimed to the world without your consent? Doesn't seem right to me. Terryeo 17:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) This page scares me. Presently anyone from anywhere on the planet can change this article gross or subtile and then any newspaper can snapshot the page. Terryeo 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One possible purpose is to boycott the media offerings wherein Scientologists appear. A web search will reveal a lengthy list of attrocities committed against non-Scientologists for anything the Scientologists disagree with. Personally, I don't care if folks wanna' believe that ancient alien spirits inhabit our personna leading to ill effects. But, when an organized group persecutes those disagreeing with them (shades of the Spanish Inquisition) then all bets are off when it comes to anonymizing the members of such a group. Something tells me that the same wonderment at exposing Scientology members would not be applied to, say, Ku Klux Klan members.

That's the kind of talk that'd make me consider putting this on delete. I don't like Scientology and I think it's harmful. However "to boycott the media offerings wherein fill in the blank appear" is a bad reason to have a list. It's POV and a form of advocacy which is warned against. Besides which I don't think it's fair to punish every individual Scientologist. It's just not the same situation as the KKK. In the case of the KKK most people who sign up know what they are doing and agree with some vile stuff. Many Scientologists are people converted at a low point in their life and kept in the dark or out of the loop about the worst aspects. Once in deep enough they won't believe those aspects exist. Added to that in some cases on the list they abandoned it or were the victims of an element of the Church of Scientology. Punishing unfortunate people like that seems cruelly unfair.(And yes I know they'll reject the characterization, but nothing I've read or dealt with makes me feel otherwise. "Unfortunate people" is really milder then many feel about it)--T. Anthony 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


To let me know who not to like --Donatj 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

I have removed that she may still be catholic - the "multiple religious denomination" propaganda that the Church tells the public is not true - you cannot be both (Scientologist's don't even believe Jesus existed for crying out loud) - Glen Stollery

It is plain false to say that Scientologists don't believe in Jesus. Scientology is about knowing. Any Scientologist may believe anything they wish to. I've been a Scientologist for 20 years. When I found this Jesus stuff on the internet I looked up Scientology references about Jesus. It says that Jesus produced some miricles, it talks about Jesus causing lame people to be able to walk which is quite opposite of what you are saying. Actually it gave me more respect for Jesus as a historical figure. As almost every faith is based on faith except perhaps Buddhism, a person of any faith finds theirs does not conflict. opps, forgot to sign. here: Terryeo 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard is quoted as saying,"There is no Christ." As well as,"I have been to heaven. It is filled with..."(HCO "Heaven" communication.) Now, I think that's pretty incompatible with Christianity, if you ask me.


I see I didn't say my bit about faith very well. I mean to say that 2 religions are based on one's ability to know and apply information. Those are Buddhism and Scientology. This is my opinion / understanding. This makes these two "faiths" to be applied religions philosophies rather than purely "faiths" as Christianity and Islam are. Again, this is my understanding. Terryeo 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added Katie Holmes considering her recent anouncement of conversion. --anonymous

a brief explanation of what scientolgist is can be useful. --anon.

See Scientology

Are Nicole Kidman and Kelly Preston members, or just married (or formerly married) to members? -- Zoe

A brief scan through some biographies would indicate that Nicole Kidman at least was a member - but surely not as enthusiastic as her former husband. -- Egil

"Influential"? Whom have they influenced? -- Zoe

An anonymous individual from IP 24.148.56.3 on April 1 deleted the majority of the content of this list, this should be restored.

Well known?

We read The following is a list of well-known Scientologists. I haven't heard of most of them. When I click the links to read about them, I soon find that this is hardly my fault. How about something like The following is a list of mostly B-list and American celebs, with a few genuinely well-known people among them, who are Scientologists? -- Hoary 08:34, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

"Well-known" does not mean "well-known to Hoary".

By the looks of this list you have a mixture of current scientologists (Cruise, Travolta, etc.) and a list of ex-scientologists (Burroughs, Estevez, Van Morrison, etc.). Shouldn't the title of the article reflect this? Or perhaps there should be two lists? (A list and a sub-list??) People who 'dabbled' in Scientology for a few months (a la Oliver Stone) can't really be labelled "Scientologists", can they? Anymore than if I'd 'dabbled' with cannabis for a few months at university 15 years ago could you call me a 'junkie'? Demos99 19:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article define the category?

Does this article define the category Category:Scientologists? -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, sorry. The only reason I pay any attention to this article is that it's such a magnet for vandals, pranksters, etc. -- Hoary 21:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Jordan Crotty, New Jersey Historian"

An anon has repeatedly added this person, or non-person. Googling for "jordan crotty" suggests that no such person exists, unless perhaps the anon means a student. The entry seems to be some private joke. -- Hoary 21:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)




There all of Mixed-Ethnicity!

Any comments?!--58.104.4.214 05:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are of mixed ethenticity. What would you expect of a Church which directly addresses a spiritual being which is running / motivating / using a human body? What does the Church of Scientology care what race, religion, or eye color an individual has? It talks to the spiritual being who is running the body, not to the body itself. Terryeo 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bill Gates really a Scientologist? I think its erraneous.

Is it really appropriate to publically announce people's religion without their consent?

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Unless Wikipedia gets written permission from each individual, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. What next, we list prominent Jews, Christians, Witches, Druids, Sunny and Sheite Muslims, without their permission? Terryeo 00:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should see List of Christians, List of Wiccans, and List of Muslims. You think permission was given in all cases? A religion is a part of people's identity and lists like this give a sense of various religious communities. I am Catholic and fought very hard to save some Catholic lists.--T. Anthony 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obvious to me that this is a list of people who have publically admitted being a Scientologist... therefore, there's no permission necessary, the information is already public. wikipediatrix 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Wikipediatrix. But consider. If your uncle (had you one) ran for public office and were asked, "what is your religion" and he replied. Would he want that broadly disseminated on an international enclycopedia when his office was that of a small town mayor? Terryeo 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rule is essentially "do they want to be associated with this" or "is their association with this important to them." A brief mention they never repeat again would likely not count. If you want to "tighten it up" to limit only to those who say they are Scientologists to national/international news agencies that'd be okay by me.--T. Anthony 09:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "public" I meant admitting it on TV, newspapers, and other media. wikipediatrix 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are these people ashamed or trying to hide the fact that they are Scientologists? One would think that most active members would be proud to be known as what they are. KillerDeathRobot
For many people, religion is a private affair and their own darned business. (Let's not open the "is it a religion" can of worms. For some people it is, and let's leave it at that.) Others might be weighing the results of Tom Cruise being more active and proud over the last year. AndroidCat 12:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name deletion...

Investigation into Beck the musician being Scientologist is yielding no facts. None of the sources on his bio here on Wikipedia yield anything factual, just myth and possibilitise. Until further proof arrives I'm removing his name, because Beck has never publicly said he is a member of the Church. He has acknowledged the church has helped him, as well as his father who is a well known member, but none of this means he's an actual member. If you do re-add his name, please yield facts and free sources, thank you. willsy 15:45 10, February 2006

Sources don't have to be free to be reasonably verifiable, therefore «In an interview with the Irish Sunday Tribune newspaper's i Magazine in June 2005, Beck confirmed this rumor, stating "Yeah, I'm a Scientologist.» pass the test of verifiability. Raymond Hill 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside the above source, you may want to give a look at Beck Campbell - Scientology Service Completions and Bek Campbell - Scientology Service Completions. Raymond Hill 07:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution guys. willsy 8:58, 11 February 2006

OT levels

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

Ex-member Seinfeld

Sources [confirming that he was in Scientology]:

-Seinfeld: The Making of an American Icon by Jerry Oppenheimer
-Playboy 10/93: "I took a couple courses a number of years ago that thought were fabulous. I learned a lot and I had a good experience with it."
-WP [apparently Wasington Post] 16.4.1998: "I think the stuff I learned there really did help me a lot," he said. When reminded then that Time magazine had just run a cover story about Scientology that included charges it was a "thriving cult of greed and power" and a "ruthless global scam," Seinfeld scowled and dismissed the article as "poor journalism."

I have doubts about the date of the last ref since Time's "greed and power" issue came out in 1991, seven years before and not "had just run". Even without that, there's still enough to list him and revert the people who attempt to sneak him off the list of ex-members without discussion. AndroidCat 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review WP:LIVING, where it says "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.". Those source have to be in the article. Also quoted in WP:LIVING is Jimbo saying:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons
There is also this policy on trying to re-add poorly or unsourced negative claims. So, if you add it back, I strong suggest you include a proper citation. Ideally (though its not essential), use of the WP:FOOTNOTE standard would be good. It needs to say he was a member, not just he attended a course. I went to Sunday school at a church which I was never a member (the church or the faith). Lots of people went to Catholic school for their entire formal education, without ever being Catholic. So, Jerry going to a course, proves little by itself. We need to be *very* careful with the bios of living people. --Rob 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Membership is a vague term in Scientology. There is no official ritual for joining Scientology that I know of, and certainly none for leaving especially when publicly leaving the Church of Scientology is an "ethics crime". I believe that the Playboy cite is good enough to re-add Jerry Seinfeld with the notation tha he "took a took a couple courses a number of years ago" (in his own words).
As someone who has been attempting to improve the documentation of this article, I'm curious as to why you're so worked up about this particular entry. There are far more dubious names that I've been weeding out or trying to find some reference for. AndroidCat 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your curiousity, I'm concerned about the whole list. My preference would be to follow policy, and remove all uncited claims. I've learned from experience, that causes a very furious reaction by some people. If I pick a person I haven't heard of to remove from a list, I'll be told "Everybody knows so-and-so is a such-and-such". So, I noticed Seinfeld had already been challenged here, no adequate citation done, he's very famous and there would be good sources if it was true, and I (like most people) is familiar with him and never heard he was ever a Scientologist. So, I picked that as a starting point. Anyhow, if you wish to add Seinfeld back you must give a citation from a reliable source that has somebody (preferable Jerry himself) explicitly say he was a Scientologist. For you to interpret taking a course as being a former Scientologist is original research, which isn't allowed. A reliable source must make that determination. --Rob 18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that Seinfeld has been challeged is incorrect. What there was were periodic drive-by removals with no comment. AndroidCat 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The removal is a legitimate challenge. WP:V puts the burden on the one wishing to include information (not the remover). If Seinfeld said he was an ex-Scientologist, I would of course support inclusion. If somebody other than Seinfeld, said he was an ex-Scientologist, then we could have a meaningful discussion about how reliable the source is (like, are they qualified to make the determination, or are they just gossippers). But it seems nobody has said he was ever a Scientologist, and Wikipedia would be making an original conclusion. If there's a more relevant quote from the Playboy interview (or some reliable source), please mention it. Seinfeld and Scientology are obvously both very famous, if Seinfeld was ever a Scientologist, somebody would have explicitly said so, in a reliable source. --Rob 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am challenging either: inclusion of Seinfeld on this list, or the name of the "Former Scientologist" section of the list ("people who took Scientology classes" sublist?) There is no evidence that Seinfeld was ever a practicing Scientologist, just that he took some courses offered by them. Even if I went to several adult Sunday School classes at a local Catholic church, and felt I learned interesting/useful things, that does not make me a "Former Catholic" after I stop taking the classes if I didn't convert. To be a "former Scientologist" one must first be a "Scientologist." --Gallup 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The certificate for the introductory "comm course" includes the statement that the person can now call themselves a Scientologist. According to the first reference, he did call himself a Scientologist at the time. AndroidCat 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that. No wonder Scientology claims such a high membership count. Still, I think it is misleading to call some people "former Scientologists" without including at least that information, as most people (like me) think of Scientologists as fully buying into all of the nonsense of the organization, instead of people who just took a few courses and signed a certificate. ---- Gallup (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Pinchot's Voice Coach

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

Did he teach him to do Balky? FancyPants 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Considering there is an "unsourced" tag on this page, why did someone remove the sources I cited for Cruise/Holmes? See List of Catholic American entertainers, for example, for a list by religion that is sourced. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Former members

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

Does Nicole Kidman count as former?Sydney Morning Herald on her return to Catholicism--T. Anthony 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that any uncited redlinks be removed on sight. If they're notable, they probably have (or should have) an article already. If there's no article, and no citation, its not easy to find proof they belong. This is a navigation tool, in a sense, helping people find articles on Scientologists. Redlinks are great on lists like "List of grammy winners", because we want all those redlinks filled in. But being a Scientologist, doesn't make one worthy of an article. --Rob 00:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an entry is uncited, of course it has to go: these are potentially libelous unsoured claims about living people. Whether they're redlinked or not, however, shouldn't make a difference, IMHO. There are MANY notable persons, places, and things that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. wikipediatrix 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I considered the uncited redlinks worse, as blue links (like Mary Sue Hubbard as an extreme Blue Sky example) may have cites in their article. But, if you wish to go further, and remove uncited blue links, I would support you. I tried doing that at List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, but had to settle for removing mainly redlinks, and keeping blue links (where sources existed in the target article). It's a compromise approach, that's not ideal, but I'm trying to be more realistic. I figure the standards for calling a person a Scientologist can't be higher than the standards for calling somebody a prostitute. --Rob 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people were deleted as uncited redlinks earlier today who have long records of being Scientologists. I'm not going to add them back in myself because I'm not sure how to cite them and whether the citations I would add are acceptable, so I will outline what I know. Many Scientology course completion lists are at http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/. Granted, a person can take a couple of courses but not be a Scientologist, but if the person has completed a number of courses in the higher levels, that is solid evidence. A search on the site reveals that the following have completed higher-level courses (the number of courses is listed after their names, though not all of those courses are necessarily higher-level): Bryan Zwan, 7; Jeffrey Scott, 6 (has attained the level of OT VII); Terry Jastrow, 17 (OT VI); Cyprien Katsaris, 14 (OT VII); Jeff Pomerantz, 14 (OT VII); Carina Ricco, 17 (OT preparations); Michael D. Roberts, 25 (OT VII). If that isn't good enough documentation to list them, I believe I can find further documentation in issues of Celebrity magazine (published by the Church of Scientology). One other person has some documentation, but it is not very recent so I don't know if it's as solid as the others: Gloria Rusch-Novello, who completed a number of courses through OT V, but none of them were after 1990. Just to make it clear, I am all for taking off people who cannot be documented. A few of the ones deleted return Google hits solely because they appear on lists of Scientologists. In a way it's giving them free publicity, and if they aren't famous enough to generate Google hits on their own, I don't think they belong on a list of celebrities! Candy 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

For reference, here are the names that were removed. (Feel free to edit the list if any are put back in or I missed any.) AndroidCat 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a recent reference on Celebrity Centre's official website to Tyler Hynes being a "lifelong Scientologist." Do we consider that enough documentation to include a person on this list? He also has course completions listed on www.truthaboutscientology.com. So I would think he could be listed. But I am curious to know if the Celebrity Centre mention is enough.Candy 05:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hynes seems to meet two tests for inclusion: (1) he's well-known enough that he already has a (stub) Wiki article that wasn't created this week. (2) There's a good ref that he is a Scientologist 2006-05-17. His "celebrityness" might be questionable, but we don't have a measurable standard for that other than some wiki editors tossing around who's hot and who's D-List. I'd say add him. For references, just add something like <ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.celebritycentre.org:80/articles/603292133181.vm | publisher = Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International | accessdate = 2006-06-19 }}</ref> (Edit the full page rather than the section so that you can see how the ref turned out in Show Preview before saving it. I always forget.) AndroidCat 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to this citation business, and I don't think I'm doing it right. I've tried a couple of different things and I'm pretty sure it's not coming out the way it should. Should I be changing the wavy brackets to square brackets? Anything else I need to do to it? (Thanks for your help!) Candy 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thivierr, you posted, as a note to your recent edit to Bryan Zwan, "I prefer not having redlinks, but if we must, lets not use anti-scientology partisan sites; he qualifies *only* because he says he is a scientologist himself, and for no other reason." I agree with you in principle that a partisan site is not the "best" source, but if the reference is to official Church of Scientology lists that are *published* on an anti-Scientology site, I don't think that means they are unreliable. Just to state my question clearly, would you consider the same information admissable if the direct source were cited? That is, truthaboutscientology.com reprints lists that were published in the Church of Scientology's Celebrity magazine, so would a citation of the actual issues of Celebrity magazine containing those lists be acceptable? And in a related question, if Celebrity, in an article, identifies a person as a Scientologist, is that acceptable? I think it is, even though one could argue that Celebrity is a partisan pro-Scientology magazine, because they are not known to identify people as Scientologists unless they actually are. Also, could you clarify whether your remark about not using anti-Scientology partisan sites applies only to redlinks, or would also it apply to bluelinked names? Candy 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other net lists as references

I hope that lists like the Notable Names Database (NNDB) are only used in the "sky is blue" obvious cases that will never be challenged. After having looked at the lists on the Internet, I'm not really impressed with any of them (including this one) especially since they frequently cite each other as sources. Adding the ref link is a good thing because (a) it'll hammer home that future additions need references, (b) make it clear that Wikipedia is not a definitive source of "Scientologist or Not" information, especially to the scary number of people out in the wild web quoting this page like it was. AndroidCat 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that nndb should be used for non-disputed cases only. If there's any doubt about a name sourced to nndb, it should get a proper secondary source, or be removed. I used nndb, as a way of "checking off names on the list", so we can focus on the rest of the uncited names. Also, keeping out redlinks will also help us maintain the list better. --Rob 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add the adherents.com list as another "list of last resort" for uncontestable names. It uses Tilman Hausherr's "scientology celebrities FAQ" of alt.religion.scientology as a source. That means that this page would be three steps removed from whatever sources Tilman used, and a year behind current events. AndroidCat 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also say, that the Church itself, should only be used for existing, well known "obvious" names. But, it shouldn't be used for contestable names, and ideally, neutrall sources (or the person themself) should be used for future additions. I don't know the Church really would make up a member, but relying on them, sets a bad precedent. I can see some contrvoersial organizations, making false (or exaggerated) claims of membership to bolster their image. I'm fine with leaving Sofia Milos in the list now. However, I don't like the idea of people in the future, just blindly copying names from Church web sites. --Rob 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoS has been know to continue promoting celebrities as Scientologists after they've left (Lou Rawls). However Sofia Milos' official site is loaded with links to Scientology organizations, and even flogs copies of The Way to Happiness to fans. That would be unlikely for anyone who has broken with the organization. AndroidCat 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem with relying on CoS as a source, and I agree that names shouldn't be blindly copied from CoS websites, but not all mentions by the CoS are the same. A mention in the news section ("So-and-so has a new movie coming out") probably isn't reliable enough, but if someone is interviewed or is shown on a CoS website or publication as being steadily involved with CoS causes (e.g., Narconon, CCHR), and the person is in photos and/or quoted and identified as a Scientologist, that is pretty solid. Candy 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld : The Making of an American Icon

I don't have the book, but I went here. I can't read even a whole whole page (you have to be a customer). But, apparently page 115 has Jerry say "I was never in the organization .". Can you give the page and quote where he says he was a Scientologist (and put it in the article). I didn't remove the name again, as I assume it's easy to fix. Thanks. --Rob 02:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the statement "I was never in the organization" isn't the same as saying "I was never a Scientologist." Any Scientologist who was "public" rather than "staff" could say the same thing.
Susan McNabb, page 113. "When he told me he was a Scientologist, I was like – what?" recalled Susan McNabb, Jerry's girlfriend from the mid-80s until the early 90s. "Not long after we became involved he said, ‘Oh, by the way, I am a Scientologist.' I said, ‘Well, that's crazy, you're not a Scientologist, you're Jewish.' He said, ‘Well, you can be a Scientologist and Jewish at the same time. It doesn't really interfere with your religion. It's not like that.'
As well, Mike Costanza, p.109. [1], yada yada yada throughout the chapter. AndroidCat 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. --Rob 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace as references

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

MySpace does no validation for user signups. I've seen multiple pages for some famous people on there. MySpace does take them down occasionally, presumably if they get a complaint; recently I've seen pages of people claiming to be Christopher Walken and Beck Hansen taken down. Sometimes you can tell that the page is really maintained by the person in question--for instance, many musicians do maintain their own pages, particularly if they aren't very well known--but there's no definitive test for determining when that's the case. Candy 12:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rediriction of Scientologist

Scientologist rediricts here, to the list. Should it not redirect to Scientology? People would want to learn about what Scientology is first before seeing who Scientologists are.--YGagarin 00:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should, and now, it does. Given there isn't on article at "Scientologist" (like there is for Christian or Muslim), Scientology is the appropriate target. It's like "American" going to "United States" or "Canadian" going to "Canada", not "List of Canadians". If an aricle tells readers a person is a scientologist, people need to be able to find out what a scientologist is. --Rob 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

status of "former" scientologists

Calling L. Ron Hubbard a former scientologist, is like saying Pope John Paul II is a former Catholic. I propose moving him, and any others (who died while still Scientologists) back. I suggest we rename "Former members" to "People who chose to leave Scientology" (or something like that). I further suggest, to deal with Lisa McPherson we have a "Non-celebrity" section, as it made no sense to list her as a celebrity. --Rob 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as we're consistent. A wording change on Former members would be good, and would make it easier to list people who tried "a couple courses" and left without having to dig up their IAS membership. However, I don't agree with seperating Lisa McPherson to another section. Celebrity isn't just in the Hollywood sense of someone who had a part in a TV show. It's someone well known, famous or notable, and while she wasn't that while she was alive, she certainly has become that since. AndroidCat 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous information

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

Horribly unsourced list

I've removed all the following unsourced celebrities from the list:

General celebrities

People who chose to leave Scientology

Good stuff! It was time to take the final step to go from completely unsourced to cited only. A lot of these names will go back into the list as references are found, so I suggest editors add a strike-through to the names here as they are re-added to save time comparing lists. Is there a stronger tag than {{verify}} that could be used to indicate that additions must be cited? AndroidCat 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is publicly active as a Scientologist--e.g., speaks at Scientology events, appears in current Celebrity magazines, talks about Scientology in the press--or left and spoke publicly about it (like Jesse Prince!), it strikes me as onerous to demand that citations be provided for the person. But if that's the way it has to be, okay. My question is, what if the information is not online? I have stacks of print materials documenting at least half of the people removed from the "current" list, and a handful more for the ones who left. Much of this stuff is not online. Is it possible to cite a print publication as a source without giving a url to back it up? Also, are references to online course-completion lists acceptable? Candy 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have print materials (or go to the library and find them) then they are citable like print publications in any other article, subject to rules like WP:V. Just be sure that the publication is reputable and not just repeating stuff they found on the web (like this article!) AndroidCat 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. How about the course-completion lists? Or IAS donor/patron lists? Candy 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Course-completion lists are tricky. I don't know if there's a specific course that makes someone a Scientologist and there have been people who later said that they "took a few courses but wasn't a Scientologist". IAS membership is, by definition, citable. (As would a Sea Org membership.) AndroidCat 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree course completions are tricky. Sometimes they can indicate, with reasonable certainty, that a person is a Scientologist--say, if it's a recent list and the person has at least attained Clear or OT levels. But then, what if the person completed OTIII in 1993 and hasn't shown up since? So it would be difficult to set a standard of acceptability. I can understand why IAS or Sea Org membership is citable, though I would think the cite should be relatively recent. Candy 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what if the person's WIkipedia entry identifies him or her as a Scientologist? Is that a good enough cite? For example, see Lynsey Bartilson.Candy 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to delete uncited information if I know it to be true. I'll leave that to somebody else. Candy 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy (the singer) was added, but the citation provided specifically stated that she was not a member of the Church of Scientology, which may or may not be true now, but does not serve as documentation of her being a Scientologist. Candy 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted Laura Prepon because the citation provided merely stated that she had performed at a Scientology event. While I do believe that Prepon could well be a Scientologist, non-Scientologists have performed at Scientology events (e.g., Topher Grace), so that isn't proof of being a Scientologist. Candy 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Josh Meyers and Debra Jo Rupp because the citation indicated only that they had performed at a Scientology event, which is not necessarily an indication of membership (see above).

Celebrities with no wikipedia article

Are we really supposed to list "celebrities" with no wikipedia article? Not that we're an authority on celebrities but a celebritiy that doesn't even get an article on wikipedia doesn't seem very important to me. --Peephole 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who isn't involved in the entertainment industry is less likely to have a wiki page. I've thought it should be "notable" rather than celebrity, or at least have a section for people like Sky Dayton, founder of EarthLink, who aren't really "celebrities", but deserve a space more than some D-list part-time tv actor. AndroidCat 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people born into Scientology?

How about it? This would include Beck, Jason Dohring, Neil Gaiman, Mimi Rogers, Juliette Lewis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.152.12 (talk • contribs)

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

Beck or Beck Hansen?

I think Beck should be listed as Beck rather than Beck Hansen, yet someone reverted that change.

In Beck's Wikipedia entry he is listed as Beck, not Beck Hansen. For consistency's sake we should then alphabetize him as plain Beck, not by his last name (which I would argue that only his die-hard fans know).

I for one was looking to see if he was really a Scientologist and couldn't find him because he wasn't listed under Beck.

Someone reverted my change last time without any explanation, merely saying "Beck Hansen is fine." That's a George Bush kind of argument, i.e., an assertion not an argument.

I would argue that listing him by his obscure last name merely serves to hide the fact that he's a Scientologist.

Most importantly, it is not consistent with how he's represented elsewhere on WP.

What is the consensus?

Aroundthewayboy 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in other WP lists he is alphabetized as Beck not Beck Hansen. For example in Recording Artists' Coalition and 1993 in music.

The burden of proof is really on Peephole to explain his vandalism-esque, unexplained reversion.Aroundthewayboy 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vandalism? I'll just let that comment slip for your sake. I think Beck Hansen is fine, his wikipedia article claims it's his name so I don't see the problem. I know his last name and I'm not a fan. Do you see any other names on this list that leave out the person's last name?--Peephole 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the point-of-view of editorial consistency, he should be just Beck. I looked at Wiki articles that mention Beck, such as articles for his albums and for people he's worked with, and the ones I saw referred to him as Beck, not Beck Hansen. That's consistent with the title of his Wikipedia article. I don't see why this list should diverge from his own article and other mentions of him throughout Wiki. Candy 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB refs

NNDB is not a reliable source - plenty of errors there. It is a random website that credits no authors and cites no source. I could buy a domain name, call it MJDB (Mad Jack DB!) and put in bios of famous people. That wouldn't make me reliable. Mad Jack 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using other lists is a bad idea. It leads to recursion where a name spreads through lists quoting each other without a source or hard reference to tie it down. If a list has a citable reference, use that. If it doesn't, it's just an opinion. AndroidCat 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so you're agreeing with me that the NNDB refed-named should be re-cited? Mad Jack 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, NNDB was only used as a stop-gap for undisputed names while converting to a must-cite policy #Other net lists as references. I think that it shouldn't be used for new entries, and the present entries can be changed when someone gets the urge. AndroidCat 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kidman

http://www.lermanet.com/cos/tom.htm

She never converted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.203.173 (talk • contribs)

Scientology doesn't have a conversion producedure or ceremony that I've heard of, and they (at least at the start) don't insist that a member drop their previous religion. However, she was widely acknowledged in the press and from Scientology sources to be a Scientologist while married to Tom Cruise. Possibly she said she was at the time, and she should probably go back in, even if she later said that she was just going through the motions. (With a non-Youtube cite.) AndroidCat 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for splitting "List of Scientologist celebrities" into new article?

If there is going to be an article called "List of Scientologist celebrities", shouldn't the list of former Scientologists on this page also have its own article entitled "List of former Scientologist celebrities"? I think this gets back to the question of why this page exists at all. I don't object to its existence, but as it stands now, it makes no sense to call this page "List of Scientologists" when the only list that appears here is a list of former celebrity Scientologists. Candy 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other list was getting very very big, so I split it off. Smee 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It was only 22K, it was nowhere near the size that it would start causing problems. The move, on the other hand, certainly caused problems, as it left at least four entries without references -- the original reference text having been moved to the other article. I think these lists should be merged back. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the problem with the references. I agree, the list should be moved back. Candy 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

I believe the content of this article should be combined again with List of Scientologist celebrities, because 1. this article, despite its name List of Scientologists, is now primarily a list of former Scientologists and 2. because many of the people on List of Scientologist celebrities aren't celebrities, by any stretch of the imagination. I will most likely perform this merge next week unless there's an outpouring of dissent. wikipediatrix 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good; I think it should be done. Candy 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spot the difference

looks like this list is better - suggest merging 58.6.92.252 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops - didn't read properly - but as per post above 58.6.92.252 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Scientologists

Could this whole section be taken out? It seems to me that there might be privacy concerns, among other problems. In a lot of the cases the person only seems to have taken a few courses, or whatever. It is right to make that a notable issue? How can you define "former Scientologist" anyway? Steve Dufour 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least don't include anyone without a real cite, not just Internet gossip. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. --Theblog 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no definition of Scientologist, the definition of "someone who has tried Scientology but found it wasn't for them and left" is doublely vague. (Note that the name of that section has changed in the past to try and capture that meaning.) However, at the point that someone has taken some courses and definitely services such as auditing, they have signed a membership contract ("Religious Services Enrollment Application/Agreement and General Release") and are considered as an "onlines" Scientologist by the Church of Scientology.
Names which are sourced to archived convenience copies of actual newspaper stories are not "Internet gossip". I feel that calling for deletion of the entire section is time-wasting nonsense. If Steve Dufour has objections to individual entries, he should post them on the Talk page so that the merits can be examined and debated case-by-case. Simply block-removing a number of names with references ranging from poor to very solid is just an invitation for reversion. By the way, Steve's rational could also be applied for deleting List of Scientologist celebrities. Since there is no official definition of Scientologist, there can't be any Scientologist celebrities or former Scientologists. So why don't we just delete both articles and take a half-day holiday? AndroidCat 04:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when a person makes a public declaration that he or she is a Scientologist, in an media interview, public appearance, his or her personal website, or a CoS website, then we can say that he or she is a Scientologist. But an article that just says he or she took some courses, or dabbled with it, or studied it is not enough. Steve Dufour 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Scientologists&oldid=171926335"