Talk:Leah Remini

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

How To Pronounce Her First Name[edit]

What is the correct pronunciation of her first name? 99.149.193.21 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Mae Belle[reply]

Lee-uh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Birth vs. Parents Divorce[edit]

Resolved

The article states that her parents divorced in 1967 and that she was born in 1970. While it is certainly not unusual for this to happen, I think something along the lines of how this happened (if it isn't a typo) could be useful. Especially since she has a full sister and a half sister who seem to both have been born in 1969.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.52.49 (talk • contribs) 22:55, March 18, 2008‎

Her age is obviously still in dispute because it's currently listed as both 1970 and 1973. Can someone please sort this out?139.216.110.231 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I see in the article says 1970. Another editor has changed it to 1973 4 times earlier today, but it was reverted only 3 of those times. Should be ok now. As for "how this happened", we do not have sources discussing this, so we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question ignored warnings, was blocked for the unsourced changes, came back after their block to make the same unsourced change, ignored more warnings and has now been indefinitely blocked. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

I believe that she played on an episode of Cheers one time as Carla's daughter..

She played Serafina Tortelli a couple of times, although I think that Serafina was acctually Carla's daughter in law Djarra 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology[edit]

It is said she is Roman Catholic and later that she is a Scientologist. You can't be both at the same time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck0856 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is said "scientologists Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes." Katie Holmes is not a scientologist. She is a Roman Catholic. *****Lindaige —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.130.131 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Katie Holes claims to have accepted Scientology. And while I have not heard any comments about her practice thereof, I do not think it is fair to deny that she is a Scientologist in favor of Catholicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.52.49 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lisa's husband a scientologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLP, religious affiliation must be self professed in a reliable source. If she chooses to claim both scientology and RC, then that is what the article will reflect.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub/Start status[edit]

Changing status, as references have been added, trivia section removed. clearly not a stub, IMO.-Robotam 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian?[edit]

In what way is she Italian-American, if she was born in New York, and only one of her parents is Italian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.38.46 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is certainly half-Italian but I don't understand why she is labelled as an Italian-American actress in the beginning of the article. Why can't it just say that she's an American actress? 70.51.236.194 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology mention removed?[edit]

On July 1st, an unregistered user SPPTS removed the mention of Leah Remini as a Scientologist, diff [[1]]. The section was well sourced, using Remini herself as source. Why was this removed? Thimbleweed (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to editor who cleaned it up! 31.45.116.138 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half-sister[edit]

User:50.47.210.98 added the name of one of Remini's half-sisters, but I couldn't find any source to verify this. Please feel free to re-add this information when a source is made available. Laval (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations[edit]

It is generally poor form to use Wikipedia to push unverifiable & anonymous allegations posted to self-published blogs and tabloids like the NY Post. But since a couple of people insist on including this particular allegation of Remini leaving Scientology, it is only appropriate to also include an earlier blog post by Ortega on 5 July 2013 where he stated he spoke with Remini's husband, who told Ortega these allegations were incorrect and that his wife is still a Scientologist in good standing.

It would behoove these new editors to read WP:RS, Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources, and WP:V in order to understand what is acceptable and what is not. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soap opera. Laval (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is quite obvious that the New York Post basically copied Ortega's blog post almost word-by-word without proper attribution or credit, which Ortega has criticized in his most recent post, so the NY Post article isn't even an original source, but a copy of Ortega's blog post.

Again, WP:RS, WP:V, Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. Wikipedia simply is not the place to be posting unverifiable allegations, which furthermore Leah Remini herself has not even commented on, in addition to her very own husband stating that these allegations are incorrect and his wife is still a member of the Church. Laval (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Laval and will also remove the content only supported by a blog and the NY Post per WP:BLP. I don't have a problem putting it back in if better sources are found. Bahooka (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Ortega's original blog post has spread like wildfire, with almost every single outlet attributing only the New York Post, which itself copied it's story from Ortega's post. So, at the moment, the only source for Leah's alleged renunciation of Scientology are the unnamed sources quoted by Ortega, which were later copied verbatim by the NY Post. In other words, Tony Ortega is essentially the original source, who a couple days earlier had reported that Remini's husband denied the allegations. The Church has refused to comment, and Remini has yet to speak out on the matter.
I suggest that the article be locked to further editing by unregistered or new editors until solid, verifiable sources pop up clearly confirming or denying the allegations. I suspect Marathon1234, Ardiva, and Headstar are the same person, considering how forcefully they are pushing for the premature inclusion of Remini's alleged departure. Laval (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to remind you to WP:AGF. If you would like to fill out a sockpuppet report be my guest, but I don't think that the evidence you have just presented supports your allegation against the users.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I saw that The Hollywood Reporter confirmed she had left, however I would like to see an official statement from either herself or her publicist. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the New York Post story is perfectly valid. Moreover, I've been told that when sources that are themselves considered reliable quote another source, even that if other source is considered by some to be unreliable, the quotation by the second, more reliable source, makes the inclusion valid. The Los Angeles Times and International Business Times are easily reliable. Even the Hollywood Reporter story mentions the Post. It's ridiculous to think that The Hollywood Reporter is reliable, but that the LA Times and International Business Times are not. The full details and citations should be restored. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several media now says Rimini has confirmed she is leaving the COS, for example the Hollywood gossip: Leah Remini Confirms Scientology Exit, Thanks Fans in Statement [2]. It appears she has released a statement thanking for the support from fans and media. She has not explicitly said she has broken with the group, but I can hardly see her thanking the press if she intended to remain with the COS. I suggest reinstating the section, and adding her thanks to the media. Thimbleweed (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly vs Reportedly[edit]

In reference to leaving the CoS: "Allegedly" is not accurate and is a "weasel word". "Reportedly" is accurate and does not carry the baggage that "allegedly" does. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it has been confirmed by reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed by who? Unnamed "reliable sources" are not reliable sources at Wikipedia. Do you have a link to this "reliable source"? "The Hollywood Reporter" says "is leaving" not "has left" and doesn't quote any named source. Perhaps in due course, Remini will confirm she has made this good-sense decision to leave CoS, but that has not yet happened. At this point, it is still speculation attributed to anonymous sources. I also think we need to aspire to a high standard of what constitutes being confirmed by a "reliable source", and quite frankly, "The Hollywood Reporter" is only marginally better than TMZ. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well the "named source" is Remini herself. "In a statement to THR, the "King of Queens" actress shares her "heartfelt appreciation" for "the overwhelming positive response" she has received since her exit." Now with three sources stating the fact, I think we can remove "reportedly" from the beginning of the section. I'm also a little confused as to how THR is considered not a reliable source.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the statement. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um...that was a cut and paste.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement you are quoting says nothing about CoS at all. You are misquoting it. In fact it says: "I wish to share my sincere and heartfelt appreciation for the overwhelming positive response I have received from the media, my colleagues, and from fans around the world. I am truly grateful and thankful for all your support." Where does she say she quit? Where does it say anything about CoS at all? Of course she quit, but she has not yet said so. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it states that in the opening sentence of the source. "Leah Remini is leaving Scientology after questioning its treatment of church members and the controversial, allegedly autocratic leadership of David Miscavige, The Hollywood Reporter confirms."Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading and lots of searches, Leah herself has implyed, has not directly said anything. I am going to have to change my view and keep like to keep the page on "reportedly", until we get something direct. A biography of a living person is a tricky area, and there should be no speculation in an encyclopedia. Tek022 | Comments? 21:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to note, please make heed of the three revert rule right now. Tek022 | Comments? 21:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to keep it as is until another source comes out. Any chance we can get that strike I asked for User:Johnny Squeaky? Coffeepusher (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Coffee, and I'm all for changing it when Remini makes a more solid statement on the issue. I've edited my comments, though I think my opinion was pretty tame... =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please also review the "three" part of the 3RR rule, you placed a 3RR warning on my talk page after my first revert. This is considered inappropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The record shows that you reverted me twice. Now, it is really quite ironic that you are now "lecturing" me, after you insisted on including unreferenced speculation as fact. In an attempt to be polite to you, I edited my talk comments to please you, and now you "lecture" me when in fact my position was sustained? Wow. By the way, your talk page indecates you have a history of being involved in "edit wars" so perhaps you should heed your own advice? =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no my talk page has a history of users who got banned soon thereafter accusing me of getting into "edit wars." Are you planning on continuing that tradition? So actually the first was not a reversion, it was my initial edit where I started the discussion. But lets say that was a reversion, how does 2=3?22:03, Coffeepusher (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me now? Seriously? =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nope, just stating a fact. I have been accused on my talk page of edit wars by...three? people (you were the one who checked my history so perhaps you could clarify the exact number). All three were banned soon thereafter. Funny thing is that one of them did the exact same thing to me as you did, giving me a 3RR tag in responce to me giving one to him (when I only had 2 reversions). Now you are making the exact same accusation after giving me a 3RR tag after I only reverted once (changed the article twice) in response to me giving you a tag after changing the page four times, reverting three times. So I am just pointing out that just because someone comes to your page and accuses you of edit wars, the community doesn't necessarily agree with those accusations, and I am wondering if you are going to escalate this to the point of getting banned like those other users did.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now just to clarify how you figure 3RR, go to the history page and simply count how many times it says "undid" in the edit summary. notice how you have three and I have one.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, you did not prevail in adding inaccurate speculation, and now you are abusing me for it. Nice. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you abused the 3RR template by placing it on a page after only one reversion which I can understand was something done in the heat of the moment and I am sure in retrospect you aren't going to do that again. You got called out on that, which is what happens when you abuse templates. Now lets get back to finding a source shall we?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You started an edit war with me, and now you have threatened to have me banned. I think you're out of line and I'm done responding to your heavy handed posts. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening you, but I will strike the statement above which asks if you are going to follow suit if that will make you feel better. There, is that better? In the future perhaps you should consider what reaction abusing templates will have before you misuse them.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as for the "you started an edit war with me" I believe that if we look at the "undid" sections of the history it tells a different story.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rattle on. The fact is, you attempted to include speculation as fact. You seem bitter and vindictive going after me for catching it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I also accept your thanks for removing - at your request - my Talk comments that I thought the CoS was a "batshit crazy cult". I removed those comments to accommodate your polite request. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Excuse me, like your ungentlemanly threats to me, I should probably line that comment through. Done! =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok kid, drop the stick. Re-tagging my page is just vindictive. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Kid"? That's a bit of an assumption, yes? And perhaps a subtitle insult? Second, it is not for you to decide unilaterally what is viewable on this Talk Page and what is not. You, sir, are harassing me, and for no other reason than I called you on placing speculation in an article. YOU need to step back, take a deep breath, and work on some other project. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remini's sister speaks out[edit]

Remini's sister Nicole has now spoken at length about recent events in an interview with what appears to be a St Paul, MN radio station - see here. It looks a reliable enough source and it sheds a lot of light on what appears to have gone down here - the whole Remini family seems to have left in a group. Worth adding to the article? Prioryman (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's *very* interesting. It sure does imply she left (maybe more than "imply"). I'm not an "expert" on "reliable sources", but it sure sounds like a confirmation that Leah Remini did in fact depart the CoS... =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Squeaky, you don't not own the Leah Remini article on Wikipedia,so please stop nitpicking. It is obvious Leah has left COS,why else would she thank her fans for standing by her?--98.87.168.173 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "nitpicking". But, Coffeepusher, content in ANY article needs a reliable source. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not me kid, but I understand why you made that conclusion. Looks like you have a fan in Tennessee though. Best of my knowledge I've only driven through that state, and that was pre-wifi.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember, I actually ended up agreeing that we needed a direct source from her before we could add the content. Why would I back out of that like our friend 98.87..... did?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nashville! =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Antioch actually, which is...heck if I know, didn't realize there was an Antioch Tennessee. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is indeed reliable, and the departures are not "implied", they're stated outright. Yes, it is worth adding to the article, as I just did. Thanks, Prioryman. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition, this is relevant to the Disconnection article as well. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail on Scientology[edit]

We are getting into WP:UNDUE coverage of this person and Scientology. She's an actress who, like many people, has not been active in evangelizing her spiritual beliefs. At present the "Personal life" section has a sentence that she got married, a sentence about their child, and then a large amount of text about Scientology with the bulk of it about her leaving. This has pushed the section into being one of the largest in the article which seems like undue coverage. She was never active as a Scientology spokesperson.

I'm interested in see if there's consensus to trimming the part about her leaving down to just the sentence "In July 2013 Leah Remini, her husband, and mother left the Church of Scientology." We can source that to her statement to People Magazine[3] and her sister Nicole's statement to a local radio station.[4]

The rest of the stuff is not well supported by sources that link directly back to Leah Remini. It's other people speculating about why she left. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material inclusion is valid, given its coverage in secondary reliable sources. They do not have to "link back to Remini", since that would suggest a primary source, when most material in Wikipedia articles needs to be supported by secondary sources, which those are. Respective information on the various aspects of a subject's personal life is subject to the amount of information that exists, simply by virtue of the life that each individual subject leads, as well information in available sources. The paragraph in the Personal life section of Matthew Broderick's article regarding the car accident in which he killed two people is larger than those on his family members. That doesn't mean that we arbitrarily gut the relevant details. Remini's religious life has been the subject of much information in secondary sources, so naturally, information relevant to that and to the Church of Scientology is going to be covered in her article. There is no rule or principle that calls for information on a subject's family members to be more copious than that on their religion.
The statement that the material is about "other people speculating about why she left" is wrong, since her sister is described as having explained why both Remini, her sister and their entire family left.
As far as the argument that she has not been active in evangelizing her spiritual beliefs, the fact that she helped promote the gala opening of the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death museum in Hollywood, which was in the article (and which you removed) is indeed a form of active evangelism. Removing all that material, and replacing it with "Remini was a member of the Church of Scientology....In July 2013 Leah Remini, her husband, and mother left the Church of Scientology." is inappropriate, to put it mildly.
And even if one has a legitimate rationale for removing material, it should be done with care, which includes recognizing when some of the citations in the material are ref name citations, the removal of which can result in citation errors appearing in the References section, as occurred here with your edits. Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I'd checked the other deletions for named refs but missed the one in the infobox. I've fixed that by moving the ref body into the body of the article. It has been widely reported that she's quit the CoS.[5][6][7][8][9] There's absolutely no way we can have a WP:BLP that claims in the infobox that's she she's currently involved because "we don't know that she no longer harbors Scientologist beliefs."[10] --Marc Kupper|talk 23:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the Scientology info is relevant and properly sourced, but I wonder if reducing the verbiage might make it more concise? =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've trimmed it a bit. Nightscream (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One bit of trimming I'd encourage is that at present www.mikerindersblog.org is being used as a source. That's a WP:BLPSPS issue. We'll need to see if Mike Rinder's comments have been picked up by mainstream media.
The last sentence of the religion paragraph says "Remini's sister, Nicole and the rest of Remini's family left the Church along with her..." I believe Nicole left long ago. In this interview Nicole says "Meanwhile, when Nicole met a man and moved to Minnesota with him, she made a clean break from Scientology. Because she did not pose a threat to the religion, she still remained connected to her family and other members of Scientology. The same is not true for Leah's recent experience in leaving Scientology." This is why when I made my initial edit I said that Leah, her husband, and mother, had left in July 2013 using this as a source. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Beliefs vs. Church Membership[edit]

I think we need to discuss the issue of the religion field in the Infobox. Putting aside the issue of why that information does not show in the saved article, isn't Scientology a body of beliefs that exists apart from the Church of Scientology, much in the same way that Christianity and the Catholic Church are not the same thing? Just because she left the Church doesn't mean that she no longer harbors Scientologist beliefs.

Marc Kupper removed "Scientologist" from the Infobox, stating "We can't peer inside someone's head and claim she harbors a belief she's stated she's no longer believing". But she hasn't made any "statement" (aside from thanking those who supported her), nor do the sources in question make any indication about her "no longer believing" the tenets of Scientology, only that she left the Church. Keep in mind that the religion and the church have two separate Wikipedia articles.

Should her beliefs and her church membership be regarded in the article as one and the same? Or should we leave "Scientologist" in the Infobox unless/until we acquire a source saying she has abandoned those beliefs, or leave it blank under the idea that we don't know her beliefs either way at this time? Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying: She's left CoS, but does she still believe? That's an interesting question that I don't think she will be telling us about anytime soon. It's a guess, but I would think that the CoS would no longer consider her a Scientologist. But how can we know? I support the idea of removing "Scientologist" from the Info Box. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Biography of living persons guidelines states that we shouldn't label someone a religion unless they have come out in a reliable source and personally declared it, and I think removing someone's religion from the infobox without a source that states otherwise (especially here where she has come out to say she is a scientologist) goes against this policy. Now granted that it is specifically referring to categories but I think we can get some guidance from this rule. If we have a reliable source that states that she believes in the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard I think it should be placed in the info box even if she has left the organization until such time as a source comes out where she renounces those believes or professes others. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting opinion, Coffeepusher, since it was you who first insisted on saying she had left CoS even before there was confirmation. Are you conflicted? Or just overly argumentative? Either she is or is not, which is it? Or is it that you just like to argue inane points? =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in how you chose to frame our former disagreement in this discussion Johnny, don't be a sore winner. Do you have anything to add to this discussion relivant to the points being made? Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I ended up agreeing with your points. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and take into consideration that it appears that you are trying to pick a fight with me personally weeks after the original disagreement. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about a similar thing but have not looked to see if there have been other discussions on Wikipedia. It would seem common enough that someone quits an organization but would not reject the beliefs of technology promoted by that organization. FWIW, Leah Remini appears to now be self identifying as a Catholic.[11] That source does not pass WP:BLPSPS and so we can't use it in the article.
In terms of Wikipedia, and its general readership, I don't think we can start splitting people into those that believe in some aspect of something and declaring that in the infobox. There's the reverse issue where someone claims to to be a member of some religion, but observation of their behavior or communications shows evidence that they don't follow the tenets closely. We'd still list them in the infobox as being a member of that practice. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this qualifies as her admitting that she is no longer with the church. http://tonyortega.org/2013/09/09/leah-remini-on-the-ellen-degeneres-show-fairly-tight-lipped-about-scientology/ Sgerbic (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal[edit]

It's interesting what gets deleted as a "copyright violation" at Wikipedia, and what does not. I guess someone with lawyers griped about the Leah Remini image, because Wikipedia is RIFE with copyrighted images (non-CC) that various "editors" pipe up and pump and "fair use" because there isn't any other or some other similar rationalization bullshit. I could probably look at 20 random articles and find copyrighted images in half of them... But you know, you can't fight entrenched "senior editors" with WP:OWN issues, and in fact, you can't troop through 2 or three articles at random without tripping over "senior editors" and possibly "admin editors" with WP:OWN issues, but that's the way wikipedia is... I'm sure one of these fine folks described above will leave a "nasty-gram" on my Talk Page advising me that they have the right to ban be for these comments, to which I will respond: "Yeah, yeah, typical..." =//= Johnny Squeaky 08:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that you disagree with the practice of copyrighted images being used under a clam of Fair Use? Or do you feel that the Fair Use claims under which those other images were being used were bogus? Can you offer examples of those articles/images? Nightscream (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy for its own sake[edit]

I believe the current sections on "The Talk" and Scientology are too long compared to the rest of the article. Ms. Remini has been a professional performer for twenty five years; it seems that aspect should be more important than a short stint on a TV show and excessive detail of her decision to leave Scientology - which is rather a private matter. It should be enough to say she was involved and then left.Catherinejarvis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a public figure, she discussed this "private matter" with newspapers and on talk shows. It received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Personally, when I need to talk about a "private matter", I call a good friend. I don't write a book about it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have just read her book - which I found accidentally - and you make a good point, SummerPhD.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Celebrity Echo Chamber[edit]

Here is a brief history of various attempts to add unsourced or poorly sourced claims that Remini converted to Roman Catholocism after leaving Scientology.

Keep in mind as you read the following that in Wikipedia articles, religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be referenced unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources, and that we do not allow Twitter as a source involving claims about third parties.

01:43, 16 December 2014, user:95.144.34.29 Claimed that Remini is catholic[12], giving a reference to [ http://iajournal.com/leah-remini-catholic-quitting-church-scientology/ ] a source that actually says that she made "a reference to praying as a Catholic following the tragic death of James Gandolfini" on her twitter account. Even if true (doubtful, see below) saying a prayer in not the same thing as being a member of the Catholic Church.

09:12, 29 March 2015, user:95.144.32.62 claimed that Remini is Catholic,[13] giving a reference to the same source used above.

09:13, 29 March 2015, user:95.144.32.62 added a cite[14] to [ http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/05/has-leah-remini-left-the-church-of-scientology/ ], an anti-scientology blog. Besides being a blog and citing Wikipedia as the source for the "Catholic" claim, this is rather obviously the source that the iajournal.com page was based upon.

20:13, 15 July 2015, user:67.1.223.95 tries to claim[15] that she was a catholic from 1976–2013. No source.

01:32, 7 September 2015, user:2.29.29.22 claims that she it Catholic,[16] citing the notoriously unreliable Daily Mail [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leah_Remini&type=revision&diff=679828374&oldid=678345366 ]. The actual article shows her ten-year-old daughter being baptized as a Catholic (not the same thing as joining the catholic Church) and interprets another ambiguous tweet.

16:23, 8 September 2015, user:2.29.29.22 claims that she is Catholic.[17] No source.

05:11, 1 November 2015 I remove the unsourced claim.[18]

21:59, 16 November 2015 user:95.144.240.52 puts it back.[19]

02:23, 17 November 2015. I remove it again.[20]

20:21, 21 November 2015 user:M.O.X puts it back in,[21] this time citing [ http://www.christianpost.com/news/leah-reminis-daughter-baptized-as-catholic-for-more-spiritual-existence-2-years-after-leaving-scientology-144924/ ] -- another website that is obviously repackaging the Daily Mail article, which in turn repackaged the Italian American Journal article, which in turn relied upon the same tweets as everyone else. This time the claim is "She converted to Catholicism two years after her departure from the Church of Scientology", which is nowhere is the source provided.

23:28, 21 November 2015. I remove it again.[22]

11:32, 23 November 2015, user:M.O.X tries again,[23] this time with the Daily Mail cite.

19:28, 23 November 2015. I remove it again.[24]

So we have a handful of dodgy websites all regurgitating conclusions about a couple of ambiguous tweets (maybe "going home" means literally going back to their house after the event), a second party tweeting "we have always been Catholic" and somehow turning that into "converted to Catholicism two years after leaving Scientology" and a daughter deciding to be baptized as a Catholic. Where is the place where Leah Remini self-identifies as practicing Catholic? Where did that "two years after" figure come from? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is... there are no Catholics on this planet, because no evidence is sufficient to prove them so? 68.3.76.17 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She said she self-identifies as Catholic in an interview with People magazine. I don't care enough to edit the article for you, but your obsessive monitoring of this page comes across as borderline creepy. You Scientologists can't fight over this one any more. [25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:488E:D469:0:11:AE8D:DA01 (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. That People interview certainly counts as a WP:RS on this subject. I will add it! RobP (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Leah Remini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leah Remini. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organize Stalking /Gang Stalking[edit]

Can a section be made about Scientology organize staking ex members? I believe Mike Rinder's organized stalking was documented on tv? It would be nice if the term was used on the tv series. CROSS MY FINGERS. 205.189.94.12 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Billy205.189.94.12 (talk)[reply]

Half Sister from Staten Island.[edit]

Not a bad place to live - Family lived in a middleclass area but Leah claims she was exploited. Wow She had a half sister that lived in Staten Island and went to Csi. - heres the link School of scientogoly could just be made up - leah doesn't seem like she liked her family. [26] 2603:7000:B901:8500:C096:45C2:26CA:7EC4 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leah_Remini&oldid=1207556157"