Talk:List of Scientologists/Archive 1

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

There all of Mixed-Ethnicity!
Any comments?!--58.104.4.214 05:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * By "public" I meant admitting it on TV, newspapers, and other media. wikipediatrix 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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

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)


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

uncited redlinks
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Brent Graber, voice of 'Otis' in movie 'Milo and Otis'
 * Zachary Goertz, actor
 * Terry Jastrow, TV producer and director (married to Anne Archer)
 * Mike Joubert, Bronson Pinchot's voice coach
 * Cyprien Katsaris, musician
 * Jarod Knoten, director
 * Jeff Pomerantz, actor and founder of Hollywood Says No to Drugs
 * Carina Ricco, singer, actress and composer
 * Michael D. Roberts, actor
 * Gloria Rusch-Novello, singer, writer and actress
 * Meghan Schlinder, swimsuit model
 * Kristin Schwing, actress
 * Jeffrey Scott, writer for TV cartoons
 * Bryan Zwan, founder of Digital Lightwave, inventor of fiber-optic testing equipment

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)


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

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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., yada yada yada throughout the chapter. AndroidCat 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Rob 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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. --Sloane 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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 Sloane to explain his vandalism-esque, unexplained reversion.Aroundthewayboy 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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?--Sloane 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * Right, so you're agreeing with me that the NNDB refed-named should be re-cited? Mad Jack 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, NNDB was only used as a stop-gap for undisputed names while converting to a must-cite policy . 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)

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)

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)
 * The other list was getting very very big, so I split it off. Smee 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * I didn't notice the problem with the references. I agree, the list should be moved back. Candy 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)


 * At least don't include anyone without a real cite, not just Internet gossip. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. --Theblog 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

French link suppressed
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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, they don't base their numbers on people who have taken the comm course, they just make up a number a bit larger than the last one. :) Scientology is a tricky one for membership since there is no official requirement to drop previous commitments and no dedication/conversion/commitment ceremony. Publically leaving Scientology is a "high crime", so a lot of people tend to drift in and out. See a bit further down at for a quote. -- AndroidCat (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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


 * List of names removed as a courtesy per WP:BLP - please view the list here. violet/riga (t) 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 that could be used to indicate that additions must be cited? AndroidCat 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Okay. How about the course-completion lists? Or IAS donor/patron lists? Candy 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * No and you should delete the information on the person's article if it isn't cited.--Sloane 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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).

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)

Why is Lisa McPherson listed under former Scientologists? It seems obvious she was a Scientologist until the day she died. The "former" and "famous" lists lack consistency. I would say that Lisa McPherson constitutes a relatively famous or infamous Scientologist. 221.191.211.38 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Susie Coelho should be readded to list -- see attached links she was Sonny Bono's ex-wife and currently married to Scientologist Robert Rounds

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/s/susie-coelho.html

her name was deleted recently 23:20, 24 January 2008 David Fuchs (Talk | contribs) deleted "Susie Coelho" ‎ (uncontested prod; no assertion of notability and only one minor source) her website http://www.susiecoelho.com/ web info on Susie Coelho http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=17898675

information that Robert and Susie Coelho Rounds benefitted from Slatkin Fraud Scheme http://www.slatkinfraud.com/index.php the following was taken from the above site -- Robert & Susie Coelho Rounds 1,790,230 3,563,214  (1,772,984) Susie Coelho Rounds is a Scientologist and Patron of the IAS, and has taken OT levels and the L rundown.

She is a “lifestylist”, according to her webpage and hosts the Home and Garden Television program “Surprise Gardener”. According to “About Susie”, she has been a model, actress, television host and tireless self promoter for many years. Her husband is Bobby Rounds, and her executive assistant is Kathy. She was previously married to Sonny Bono.

Robert “Bobby” Rounds runs this WISE company, which appeared in the 1999 WISE directory: Rounds Capital Management Jetedna (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrefed ex-members
Here are the entries without references that I trimmed from the article. I know that some of them probably were members, but they need refs before they can go back.
 * J. J. Abrams, director and producer
 * Candice Bergen, actress
 * Leonard Cohen, musician
 * Cathy Lee Crosby, actress (took classes in 1979 and 1980)
 * Emilio Estevez, actor and director
 * Soleil Moon Frye, actress (left the church after converting to Judaism)
 * Gloria Gaynor, singer
 * Al Jarreau, singer
 * Peggy Lipton, actress
 * Lou Rawls, singer
 * Oliver Stone, director and writer
 * Sharon Stone, actress (was a member in the early 1990s before she converted to Buddhism)
 * Gloria Swanson, actress
 * Patrick Swayze, actor

AndroidCat (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I can provide references verifying that Crosby and Rawls were in, but no references for them being out. So that probably doesn't do much good. :/ Candy (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Van Morrison
Van Morisson is listed under Former Members, but his wiki page clearly states

"He gave a special thanks to L. Ron Hubbard on his 1983 album, Inarticulate Speech of the Heart, although he has never been formally associated with Scientology or any other Church. He has described himself as "not a joiner — I don't join things.""

Therefore I think since he's never been a member he shouldn't be listed under Former Members —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2 cites after his entry in this list are to WP:RS/WP:V sources, his Wikipedia page in and of itself is not a satisfactory source. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Defining scope
I think we should re-visit the inclusion standards. I propose we only label people as Scientologists if they personally called themselves Scientologists. I think we should exclude people, where the only source is the CofS and/or the assorted unreliable web sites (I think we've already gotten ridden of all the other unreliable sources, like nndb).

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

As one example, we're using the following source, mainly for "Former Scientologists" (see here or here):



To quote Mallia:


 *  Others who took Scientology courses, or who were members - some briefly - according to published reports, include football legend John Brodie, dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov, author William Burroughs; singers Van Morrison, Al Jarreau and Leonard Cohen; actors Emilio Estevez, Rock Hudson, Demi Moore, Candice Bergen, Brad Pitt, Christopher Reeve, Jerry Seinfeld and Patrick Swayze; and O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark. (emphasis added by me)

Mallia is used 16 times, even though it's rather vague about the status of the people it names. It doesn't actually make clear if they considered themselves Scientologist, or if anybody considered them Scientologists. --Rob (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you bring forth another source disputing this one? Cirt (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the source. I'm reading it.  It doesn't say they are Scientologists.  It suggests they might be Scientologists, but they might just have taken courses.  Notice the use of the word "or" in the sentence.  It's also rather ambiguous about whether they are "current" or "former".  Basically this Wikipedia article is misrepresenting what this source says. --Rob (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case perhaps instead of removing these entries or this source, we should simply endeavor to find an additional source for a citation or two. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree with what WP:BLP says, which calls for removal. Why keep a source which in no way supports inclusion?  What purpose does that serve?  Also, could you clarify that you are actually agreeing with my original point, that merely taking courses, doesn't automatically make somebody a Scientologist?  Also, I've had it with looking up sources for other editors who are too lazy to do so themself.  This article has been badly sourced sinced it's creation.  Repeated requests for improvement have been largely ignored. I've made lots of attempts to improve it, but most sources I find are low quality (CoS or random web sites).  In hindsight, I should have just removed all names without good sources at the start, and then this would be properly sourced by now.     --Rob (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather then make a general statement about an individual that has taken courses, I think we should discuss each individual and source separately. And I actually think the list is looking a lot better sourced than it has been in some time, I don't know if you are referring to me as "lazy", but please note that I have actually been adding lots of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to the article myself. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding sources is only good if the source actually supports the person's inclusion. However, if it doesn't, then it is misleading.  It's possibly worse then no source.  You seem to think I have to talk about each person, before removal.  Per WP:BLP if something is unsourced or badly sourced (which these were) they must be removed without discussion.  When evalulating sources, you have to first check if the source is actually support the relevant claim.  No matter how reliable a source is generally, it's worthless if it doesn't support the claim you are making.  You can't just invoke a reliable name to support whatever claim you wish.   Mallia is a reliable source if you rename this article to People who took Scientology courses, or who were members - some briefly.   --Rob (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is still a good idea to discuss each source individually, if not also each individual entry. I also would appreciate a more polite/amiable tone in talk page discussion. I will now attempt to find sources for the entries you have removed, per your above request to not be the only one searching for sources. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Former Members & Anti-Scientology Slant
I have made several changes to the article to change "Former Scientologists" to "Past Scientologists" as "Former" generally comes with negative impressions, which is not neutral. I also recommend removing many of the people one the list who never considered themselves Scientologists (like Manson), but are on the list to presumably make it appear as though Scientology is connected to these people. I have also removed additional comments about people later denouncing Scientology, etc., not because these statements may or may not be accurate, but because this is a list and if snippits about each person's stance on Scientology is going to be made, then it should be done for everyone, not just the "denouncers", etc. I suggest, instead, doing it for no one, since, as I pointed out, this is a list. Any additional information can be found in the sources. (Final note: I have revised to my edit until I hear a reason to change back.) -- FreedomFighter4all (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us discuss this here first, before making these major changes against consensus. I also object to the removal of entire entries when they are cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, then what objections are there? The people I suggested removing never identified as Scientologists (just "took a course" or "studied a bit"), the "Former" to "Past" terminology is more neutral (less negative slant) and the extra commentary by the past members is also one-sided.  If an article is to be neutral, I suggest we make the changes I have proposed.  What objections are there? -- FreedomFighter4all (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection to your reasoning is that even if someone took just a few courses (I don't think it was stated that anyone listed took only one course) or "studied a bit," we don't know whether that person self-identified as a Scientologist at the time or not. For instance, you deleted Jerry Seinfeld, but his biography presents evidence (in the form of interviews with contemporary friends and associates of Seinfeld's) that he did practice Scientology for a period of time. To me, that suggests that he was a Scientologist. If we followed a rule that the only people who should be considered Scientologists are those who are on the record as self-identifying as Scientologists, the list of even current Scientologists would be much shorter. Candy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I take issue with the idea that "former" is inherently negative at all. I'm a former theater technician, a former barista, and a former basketball player. No negative connotations there whatsoever. -- Good Damon 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDamon. There are former astronauts, former senators, former teachers, and so on ad nauseam. The fact that a person is no longer a certain thing does not in itself cast aspersions on that thing. I would argue the same for "ex-." Candy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To the above response by, if you dispute any particular citation in particular please identify which citation and which source you dispute, so that we may discuss it individually. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Former" is fine, "past" sound odd to me. We (Scientologists) are pretty well stuck with Manson because of the extremely open definition of the term "Scientologist". It does not mean "member in good standing" or anything of that sort. One definition according to the Scientology Technical Dictionary is:"SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology. (Aud 73 UK)"So if, for example, GoodDamon felt dizzy while studying and decided to try doing a clay demo to handle it and then felt better, according to that definition he would now be a "Scientologist". If he decided to never do that again then he would quickly be a "former Scientologist". So you can see that it would be very difficult to exclude from this list anyone that is mentioned in conjunction with studying Scientology, whether they were a member of the Church or no. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ removal of entries sourced only to primary source
Pending addition of citations to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, I see no problem with removing entries only sourced to primary sources or sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above also applies to personal websites, secondary sources are preferable instead. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree if you mean a 3rd party personal website but if a person's own personal website says they are a Scientologist then that is good enough. See WP:SELFPUB. I assume you meant 3rd party sites. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at a few of your edits to the list, which removed people simply because CoS sources were used. That is, in some cases, totally uncalled for, and since I believe your editing is normally well reasoned, I have to assume you are not very familiar with the publications. For instance, one of your edits I just saw was the deletion of Elizabeth Moss, for whom I had provided a citation. The article referred to was in the CoS's Celebrity magazine, and it was an interview with her in which she discussed BEING A SCIENTOLOGIST. I own stacks of these publications, going back decades, and have studied them pretty closely. The CoS doesn't make a habit of tossing around names of celebrities who are unaffiliated with them; the CoS features and sings the praises of Scientologists in good standing. In their articles and testimonials, they quote celebrities (and other practicing Scientologiss) verbatim, and pictures of the celebrities speaking before audiences of Scientologists (on panels, at events) appear in the magazines. If this type of citation is not acceptable evidence that a person is a Scientologist (or was, if the article is a number of years old and no recent appearances can be found), but FOX News is, something is seriously wrong. When newspapers and magazines report that celebrities are Scientologists, they are generally reporting common assumption--they have usually not gone to the celebrity and asked, "Do you consider yourself a Scientologist?" CoS publications are a much more reliable indication that a person is a Scientologist than a mention in the popular press. It was decided here, at some earlier point, that CoS-published lists of the names of people who took courses cannot be used as sources for this article. I believe it has also been decided that CoS-published lists of the names of donors cannot be used. So you are going to have situations in which a person has given interviews in Celebrity magazine, has been listed as taking numerous courses in the back of Celebrity magazine, and has been listed multiple times as a donor in Impact magazine, yet none of that info can be considered reliable for the purposes of this article, when it is actually the most reliable information available, short of a videotape of the person talking about being a Scientologist. But a newspaper or magazine can mention that a person is a Scientologist, and that is acceptable! I am not saying that every time a celebrity's name appears in a CoS publication it is proof that the celebrity is a Scientologist. For instance, when a celebrity simply makes an appearance at a CoS event, that's not proof of anything. But the substance of the appearance in a publication ought to be taken into account, and a distinction made between a mere name mention and an entire interview about how Scientology has improved a person's life. Candy (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am posting an addendum because I just noticed that several people are listed as Scientologists and a supposed "reliable source" is a newspaper article (Eddy, Steve. "People - Scientologists throw a 35th-birthday bash", The Orange County Register, August 10, 2004). That article is all that is used to justify listing the singer Brandy as a Scientologist, though there's actually not much evidence that she considers herself a Scientologist. There isn't a link to the article, and I can't find it on the OC Register site. I would like to know what that article says about Brandy being a Scientologist that is more reliable and authoritative than a cover story/interview in Celebrity magazine with Ernie Reyes, Jr., Elizabeth Moss, etc. Candy (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I am violating some Wiki rule that you can't keep replying to yourself like this, but I just noticed that Courtney Love has been included as a current Scientologist based on an article in The Guardian including her in a few names it mentioned as Scientologists. This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. I guarantee you that The Guardian is being sloppy there and accepting some gossipy report. Aside from some random comments from Love herself giving incoherent kudos to Scientology, there is no evidence that she has ever been a member, much less that she is currently a member. Yet the word of the Guardian's writer is accepted. Candy (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will provide quotes from the cited sources you mention above for further verification. However, I do tend to agree with  that secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources are in general preferable. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what said on this matter. I've searched this page but don't see it, so I'm guessing it's somewhere else. Could you provide a link or summarize here? That would be helpful, I think, because I am not sure what the objection is to using CoS publications is in this particular way. It's true that I would not trust editorial statements made in CoS publications (e.g., number of members, expansion, Hubbard's accomplishments), but this is quite different. And, in general, doesn't Wikipedia consider primary sources preferrable to secondary sources? Candy (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the recent editing history for the article and saw two comments made that I suspect may be what you're referring to. In one Thivierr wrote, "removed several names dependent on Mallia. Please do read a source before you use it. Taking a course doesn't automatically make somebody a Scientologist," and I can say that yes, I agree re the importance of reading a source before citing it, and I also agree that taking a course does not make a person a Scientologist. But I also think one should read (or at least be familiar with) a source before condemning it. I would never have imagined that I would be arguing that Celebrity magazine is more reliable than The Guardian, and on the face of it, that still sounds laughable to me. But reading both sources should make it clear that one provides a detailed first-person account and the other provides repetition of hearsay. Regarding the other comment Thivierr made, "remove names dependent on whatisscientology.org, which is run by CofS, and therefore not reliable. Feel free to re-add all names with good cites to third party sources," I do not agree that a blanket assumption that no source produced by the CoS is reliable. I would be skeptical about those sources but would withhold judgment until I examined a particular CoS source. Candy (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Candy about the Celebrity magazines in that if the article clearly indicates that the person is (or was) a Scientologist (as opposed to someone merely appearing or speaking at Celebrity Center) then that is good enough. There is absolutely no record of Celebrity being less than reliable in this regard - or in any regard as far as I know. This falls under the category of sources speaking about themselves in that the groups and its members are speaking about themselves. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The status of being Scientologist is potentially contentious, and per WP:BLP they require a third-party secondary source. That's basic. We can't blindly trust any organization about itself. Picking and chosing which things we trust the CoS about, is non-neutral and original research. Now, if some of the third-party sources are unreliable, then those should also be removed. But, you don't justify bad sources by mentioning worse sources. We're not here to blindly pass on what Scientology says. Aside from reliability, there's an issue of notability. If a fact is truly notable it will be noted by independent sources. This article has lately been improved *massively*. And *many* names have been added back with *excellent* third-party sources (thanks mainly to Cirt). This article sat in a dilapidated stated for a long time, and it's finally getting better (just look at the recent history). Remember, we still have a like the Scientology Celebrity Centre, so everybody who wants to see the Church's list of its members can do so. So, that leaves no possible reason for us to duplicate Scientology's lists. --Rob (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not talking here of some list of members, we are talking about a published magazine with a Scientology celebrity on the front cover and an interview inside with the celebrity about their successes as a Scientologist. I think that is reliable enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Rob is Thivierr? Sorry, I did not know that. Rob, I believe your sentence above got a little tangled; what do you mean by "we still have a like the Scientology Celebrity Centre, so everybody who wants to see the Church's list of its members can do so"? It sounds as though you are suggesting that the CoS maintains a list of its members that it is willing to show anyone who asks, which I don't believe is true. Anyway, to me, it sounds as though you are arguing whether this list should exist at all, which I agree is a valid subject for discussion. But since the list does exist, I think interviews of people in Celebrity magazine in which they talk about being Scientologists should be considered reliable enough to merit their inclusion here. I don't think that is picking and choosing. It's establishing a specific objective criterion: that is, a first-person interview in a primary source is reliable (unless later reliable evidence contradicts it, as in the case of a person who has left the CoS since the interview). Candy (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant, is people can follow the CoS link, if they want to read what CoS says about itself. When we write about the CoS, we don't base our writing on the Church.  I'm not debating existence of the list on Wikipedia.  I want this treated like we would treat a commercial business that claims celebrity customers/investors/endorsers.  To avoid advertising, we should only include those affilliatins that are noted in third-party sources.  So, if "Brand X" shoes claims "Olympic athlete Y" wears their shoes, then we don't mention that, unless it's covered in third-party sources.  As an encyclopedia, we are not a fact dump.  We include notable items.  If nobody independently notes it, it's not notable.  I'm not advocating deletion, since most names on this list now, do in fact, have independent sources.  I'm not actually trying to stop any name from appearing per se.  I'm just asking it be done within policy.  Is there any name you think should be on the list, for which you can't find a third-party source?  --Rob (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether I can find a third-party source, the question is whether I should have to. Right now we are using some sources that, in my opinion, are less reliable than Celebrity magazine interviews. I've already mentioned The Guardian and the OC Register. We also have several people listed as Scientologists solely based on citations of a 1993 Globe and Mail article, one person (Pablo Santos) who was mentioned in a Daily News gossip item, and one (Jeff Conaway) who was mentioned on the Huffington Post. I'm not saying these people are not Scientologists. But what we have here is the absurd situation in which a reporter or gossip columnist can look at Celebrity magazine, read an interview with a celebrity Scientologist, extract the information that yes, that person is a Scientologist, and then write an article mentioning that the person is a Scientologist--and we will consider that article reliable, even though we would not accept the source the writer used. (And we will accept a reporter's blithe reference to a person as a Scientologist, even though that reporter may not have researched the subject.) Furthermore, Cirt has deleted people (e.g., Corin Nemec, Don Pearson, Patrick Renna) because the cited source was their own web page. Granted, those were cookie-cutter Scientology web pages created a few years ago, but they were created by the people themselves. Even though they used a template provided by the Church of Scientology, it is their own content, their own words. Why is that not acceptable? I believe the list as it stands now is less accurate than it was a few days ago, before this wave of edits based on disallowing CoS sources. Chaka Khan, whose status as a Scientologist has been questionable, now merits inclusion simply because The Guardian mentioned her name (as does Courtney Love), while such firmly established Scientologists as David Pomeranz, Patrick Renna, Michael Peña, and Heywood Nelson have been removed. (And these Scientologists are people who it may be difficult to find secondary sources for, because publications like The Guardian don't find them significant enough to mention when they are listing well-known Scientologists.) Candy (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel any name is reliant on an unreliable source, then by all means, do remove the name. I never said all third-party sources are valid.  I and others, have removed names based on unreliable third-party sources as well.  There are multiple requirements for something to be a reliable source.  Being independent of the subject (a third party) is just one of the requirements.  If we rely solely on reliable third-parties for adding names, it's likely reliable third-parties will also report on the person leaving the Church.  When relying on the CoS (or even the personal web site), we'll have a case of somebody "dropping off" the source web site, but not having any reliable source to say they actually left.  For this list to be neutral it must reflect an honest balance of current and former Scientologists.  --Rob (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with on this, third-party WP:RS/WP:V sources are preferable.  Cirt (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do not concede, but I believe each of you has more Wiki editing experience than I do (I think surpassed my total editing experience just in edits to this article over the past few days!), so I admit to being a relative newbie in my experience with the practice of the relevant Wiki policies. I think the possibility  cited of people "dropping off" a website is not relevant in the case of Celebrity magazine (which is not a website but a print publication), but I realize that as time passes, there is a possibility that a person interviewed will leave the CoS. But that's a problem with third-party sources too. If a newspaper stated in 1993 that someone was a Scientologist then, isn't that an awfully long time ago to be considered reliable in 2008? Is there is a Wiki policy regarding citing older sources for current info? About Thivierr's suggestion that I delete names if I feel a source is unreliable, I would assume that my feeling about the source's reliability counts for very little. I know, from personal experience, that I have seen respected newspapers engage in sloppy reporting on this subject. But if a newspaper (or, apparently, even a blog) reports something as fact, my personal knowledge that leads me to question the statement is not good enough, in Wiki editing terms, to justify deleting it. Take Courtney Love--I've come to the conclusion that she has never been a Scientologist from reading Internet postings she made (which have since been deleted) and also from my own observations of where the rumor started and how it spread. If I tried to delete Courtney Love, saying the source was unreliable, I would not be able to defend the deletion by citing a source I deemed reliable, or by suggesting that the source itself--e.g., The Guardian or the OC Register--is not generally trustworthy. So I believe I should simply keep my hands off the entries I believe are suspect. Candy (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there will ever be a balance of current and former members. Publicly leaving Scientology is a high crime under Scientology's system of ethics and most former members leave quietly to avoid friction or disconnection from current members. For every Jason Beghe, there will be dozens (at least) who stop showing up at the org or Celebrity Centre and drift away, with neither side wanting it to make the news. There will be people for whom there are no current sources that they are active Scientologists, but none that say that they left. In that case, the only thing to do is to drop them off the page completely until some new source surfaces, otherwise listing them either way would be a BLP violation. It's happened before, and will again. AndroidCat (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Noelle North
I have a first-person, published by a third party, cite that she is an active Scientologist. What I don't have is a cite that she's terribly notable. AndroidCat (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)




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

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

Request for comment on sourcing standards
RFCbio template wording used in the RfC:

Please check discussions immediately above and recent edit history. Basically, there's a dispute as to what type and level of sourcing is required for inclusion. Some (e.g. me) feel WP:BLP requires that we must reliable have third-party source(s) to include a person. Some feel the Celebrity magazine (a print & online publiction, compelete with pictures, and testimimonials, made by the Church of Scientology) is reliable and useable. I would welcome opinions on all sides. --Rob (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Are we allowed to respond to points people make in their statements, or ask questions, or are the statements supposed to stand on their own? (I'm not referring to the off-topic discussion below; I want to know if it's acceptable to respond to the statements themselves.) Candy (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the time article RfCs are not this formal; it's actually unusual that everyone has segregated headings. Yeah, you should feel free to respond, but if it gets too long, you probably want to put it under a new heading. RfCs are normally intended to solicit outside opinion, and outsiders find it hard to follow a lengthy back-and-forth. For this reason, short opening statements are appropriate. But you could add a bullet point one one of them with a note that says something like "I respond to this argument in another section below." Cool Hand Luke 12:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I had stated previously above, I agree with prior comments about this made by. Preferably all cites used should be to third-party sources that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, and are not from primary-source but rather secondary-source material. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement by Cirt


 * Statement by Candy

To summarize what I said at length above: If Wikipedia standards exclude Church of Scientology sources, the Wiki lists of Scientologists and former Scientologists will be absurdly driven away from reflecting reality. It’s not uncommon for newspapers and magazines to make mistakes when listing Scientologists, yet they are considered acceptable sources. On the other hand, if a person has given recent interviews in the CoS's Celebrity magazine, that is an excellent indication that the person is a Scientologist. Therefore, I think interviews of people in Celebrity magazine in which they talk about being Scientologists should be considered reliable enough to merit their inclusion here (unless reliable evidence with a later date contradicts it, as in the case of a person who has left the CoS since the interview). I also feel that CoS press pieces quoting celebrity members should not be ruled out as reliable sources, since I haven’t seen evidence that celebrities speaking as Scientology spokespersons have been misrepresented as such.

I understand that not all info from CoS sources is reliable. But if they are completely excluded, we’ll have the ridiculous situation where a reporter can look at Celebrity magazine, read an interview with a celebrity Scientologist, and then write an article mentioning that the person is a Scientologist--and Wikipedia will consider that article reliable, even though we would not accept the magazine the writer used as a source.

Regarding the possibility of people leaving the CoS after the article or interview is published, I agree, that’s possible, but then, there is always a possibility that any referenced statement about a presently living individual could change. Candy (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Any self-identification (political party, sexuality, religion, etc..) must be substantiated in one or both of two ways (1) a blatant statement from the person in question, OR (2) a reputable third party that can substantiate the claim. For example, if in a Rolling Stone interveiw someone says "I am a Scientologist" that is proof enough. If their are several reputable sources disputing that claim, that can be mentioned as well, but for WP's purposes, that person is a Scientologist. Also, if People magazine (a reputable celeb mag) says that they have photos of someone regularly coming out of a Scientology Church and observing Scientology rituals/holidays and fellowshiping in the Scientology community then that is a sufficient evidence as well. If Star magazine (an unreputable celeb mag) says it, then all bets are off.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement by Esprit15d
 * I would argue that if a person says, in a Celebrity magazine interview, "I am a Scientologist" (or words that have the same meaning), that is proof enough, too. In the context of a personal interview, Celebrity magazine is no less reliable than Rolling Stone. In fact, it may be more reliable on this particular point, because someone could say it as a joke in Rolling Stone, but there would not even be a Celebrity interview if the person wasn't really a Scientologist! Candy (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved RfC comment: WP:BLP is clear enough. Recent interviews with a CoS magazine might give rise to an inference of membership, but we need an actual source when it comes to living people, especially because membership is so often considered a slur. Candy's view cannot be supported by our policies. Cool Hand Luke 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement by previously uninvolved Cool Hand Luke
 * I think it would help if someone explained why no CoS magazine can be considered an actual source. Is that per Wikipedia policy? Is it stated somewhere, or are we deciding that here? Candy (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't qualify as reliable sources, and they're certainly primary sources, which are to be avoided. -- Good Damon 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with . Cirt (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above. To the extent we consider the magazine a news source, it's unreliable (promotional, ect). To the extent that it's some quasi-official membership list, it's a primary source. We just need independent conformation, which is not too much to ask given the importance of WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I'm a firm proponent of ignoring the rules when it's helpful, but when it comes to biographical information about living people, we could do a lot worse than strict adherence. I don't think this is one of those cases where an exception is justified. -- Good Damon 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: this and this  - I agree with  that his comment is appropriately labeled as "previously uninvolved" in this discussion and should not be changed per WP:TALK except by the original commenter. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that's *not* how he originally labelled it. His original edit (the only one I altered) had a title "Actual RfC opinions", suggesting other comments weren't "Actual RfC opinions".  His subtitle was "Independent RfC comment", as though he's more independent.  Both comments, especially the latter, are offensive and insulting.  As section headings, not prose, they not only label his comments, but imply a label for other comments.  His subsequent edit to "previously uninvolved" is something else entirely.  I never removed the text "previously uninvolved".  Cool Hand's edit summary attacking me personally was dishonest, as it was *him* that was trying to change the meaning of words already written.  Rfc are to encourage newcomers, but all editors are welcome to participate.  Cirt, you say you agree with Cool Hand's comment.  Could you clarify, if you mean his originally heading/sub-heading, his subsequent one, or both.  --Rob (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this thread is getting way too off-topic to the original purpose of the RfC itself and that you should take a breather and a step back and try to assume good faith with regards to the initial intent of 's wording choice. It is quite likely you may simply be reading in to things too much. In any event, it is not appropriate to edit other users' comments on talk pages, especially without asking them first if they might do so themselves. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He said you're not indepedent (like he is), and your Rfc comments aren't actual RFC comment. If that doesn't offend you, that's your choice.  But, I still think it's wrong to let him set his comments apart from others in the way he first attempted to (remember the headings there now aren't what he first tried).  Some constructive refactoring in discussions is allowed.  WP:AGF would be mean assuming everybody is equally capable of being an independent contributor, which is exactly what I assume, and my point here.  --Rob (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to insult the other commentators. I often respond to RfCs, and they're always set up a little differently. Often they take the form of involved users laying out their case, then a subheading for new users to respond. The sections above all seemed to be previously involved; each editor was making a case. From what I could tell, there was not yet a new opinion for the RfC, so I started that heading for users that were new to the dispute. I realize now that it could have been insulting, so I've changed the words for clarity. I would have done the same if you asked me. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of editing his chosen headers yourself, you could have simply asked him to do it, which is more in-line with WP:AGF and WP:TALK. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever criteria for inclusion established, the list should mention this standard to establish the quality. My preference is to include a long low quality list to start, then as it get's too big, improve the quality over time: CITE Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement by ZuluPapa5
 * "include a long low quality list" - seems to go against the grain of WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The list looks plenty long to me, seems like a good time to improve the quality now. As far a WP:BLP there are case-by-case standards that apply to well-known and not well known. see: BLP. So a good question is, should the list follow the general lowest or highest common denominator for the number of sources required?  It may be difficult to apply case-by-case, but this could be considered private info. It might be best to improve the quality case-by-case. Not the easiest but would be the fairest.  Politician's, celebrities and well known business folks 1 source.  All others 2 sources. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further consideration of limited Public Figure, folks that are cited in the context of Scientology events, 1 source. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hill_v._Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto after seeing this case, it clear to me that this List must take greater precautions on a case-by-case basis to prevent privacy violations. Just becasue the church has been expressly involved with these issues before. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with CoS magazine is that they never admit to anyone leaving. The member could have quit Scientology -- and even be involved in active litigation against the organization -- and CoS will still consider them a member. It's standard cult behavior (admitting someone has left suggests there might be a reason to leave). CoS is not above using prior statements by that (former) member in their magazine, since they cultivate celebrities specifically to promote Scientology. CoS is very litigious so it's hard for even a well-off celebrity to get them to cut it out.
 * Statement by (previously uninvolved) Longchenpa

I understand where you're coming from, Candy, but aside from the fact that CoS' magazine is self-published, they don't adhere to professional journalistic standards. Not by any means.

I would use the magazine to find names of active Scientology members and then locate trustworthy news sources to support their inclusion in the list. With public figures, celebrities in particular, trustworthy news sources shouldn't be hard to find. Longchenpa (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the CoS's behavior would make it seem that they are not above using prior statements by former members, but the truth is I do not have specific knowledge that they have actually done this. So it feels a little bit like we are saying "I wouldn't put it past them to do X" and assuming they do X with no proof of it. I certainly think that when their cover interviews are published, you can be sure the subject of the interview is IN.


 * However, I'll once again concede that I am outvoted here. Frankly, my main concern has been the ridiculous situation that can exist when a loyal Scientologist appears frequently in CoS publications, being interviewed, speaking at events, doing courses, etc., but it's never reported by the mainstream press. Knowing these people are dedicated Scientologists but not being able to list them is annoying. But I admit there are just a handful of people like that, so it is not a huge issue. I was also interested in whether we were going to have a consensus of Wikipedia editors categorically stating that Church of Scientology publications are not reliable sources. If that is the consensus, I'm content to go along with it. Candy (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's frustrating. There used to be more published about Scientology and Scientologists on the non-profit Cult Awareness Network which you could have used, but Scientology hit them with 39 separate lawsuits back in the late 90s. Then Scientology bought the Cult Awareness Network's domain name and began masquerading as C.A.N. Dr. Margaret Singer states in her forward of her book on cults that she had to remove all mention of "a particular cult" because they were so litigious that it would have tied up publication.


 * What we do know about Scientology is that they are not even remotely trustworthy. Thus their self-published materials have all the journalistic credibility of science fiction. Hmm. I'm wondering if you can find out where the Cult Awareness Network has gone. They do have some credibility and they used to be the main resource on cults and their activities, covering actions that usually didn't make it to the press. Longchenpa (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, the old Cult Awareness Network is long gone, but the International Cultic Studies Association presents a Dr. Margaret Singer award every year. They're definitely reputable and not a front for Scientology. They might be a jumping off place for more information on Scientology members. Longchenpa (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As you may have discovered, the CoS actually managed to take over the Cult Awareness Network! Candy (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought CoS just nabbed the domain name. Holy hell, they pushed them into bankruptcy and took over the entire thing -- including their records on people who'd contacted CAN! Egad. There have to be organizations that fly under the radar more than CAN did. I heard back in 1996 that bits and pieces of CAN continued online, although I don't know where. I suspect they're probably too circumspect now to publish member lists anyway. Hmm. Valleywag of course would publish this sort of info, although I'm not sure if it's just a blog, or a celebrity mag with an associated website.... Longchenpa (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa and I have this issue elsewhere. I must remind folks that WP:SPS andWP:SELFQUEST are the standards to start with on Wikipedia, with regards to self-published material. It's fair to consider the editorial process, however the context of the content seems to have greater relevance with self-published material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This RfC was started 19 July 2008. It is now 15 August 2008. Shall this RfC go on for a month? I think it is time to close it. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Month-long RfC?


 * No objection here. Candy (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Request for Comment on sourcing standards to use in this list closed on 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC). It ran from 19 July 2008 to 15 August 2008. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Contents
Made a change to a more compact table of contents, using CompactTOC8. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
I think it would be a good idea to explain how or why certain people are labeled as "Former" Scientologists. That whole section is kind of ambiguous.

Subplanar (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the citations to WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources after each entry. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


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

Werner Erhard
Here are some sources for the Werner Erhard entry, there are many more out there in WP:RS sources one could easily find: Will add some more sources soon. Cirt (talk) Cirt (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding and  by, the above sources are WP:RS, please do not remove this entry. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that Werner Erhard studied Scientology. But study does not make one a member. I've studied the stock market, that doesn't make me a broker. The first sentence of the article says "A Scientologist is a follower of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology." None of the references state that Werner meets or ever met that definition.

The article also states: "the Church of Scientology considers any individual who has taken at least one Scientology course to be a Scientologist". This broad definition would seem to be self-serving and designed to give the maximum membership numbers. I personally have taken courses about and even attended church services of Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Mennonite, and Jewish. But taking courses or even attending services does not make me member of any of these, even if the church were to consider me so based on their definition of member.

Do you have any references that show that Werner was ever a member of the Church of Scientology? That is what you are claiming, but none of the references refer to membership, only study. Jvsydney (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look again at the WP:RS sources, I have included quoted portions of the relevant texts to make it easier to satisfy WP:V. Multiple sources go further, characterizing Werner Erhard as a "former Scientologist", or an "ex-Scientologist", and one source even notes that Erhard himself acknowledged he was a "Grade IV" level in Scientology. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Suggested addition to the intro section; My $.02:
Either the following or something else expressing the same should be added to this and any other, similar listings:

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

Was posted at Talk:List of Scientologists/Comments.

It would appear to me that a list of any type would not be separable from tense. Proper tense is a function of language which correctly used separates factual statements from rhetoric and as such fulfills the objective of neutral viewpoint.

By way of example: To which list might Michael Vick most appropriately belong?

Alleged Animal Abusers | Animal Abusers | Convicted Animal Abusers | Former Animal Abusers

With the inclusion of persons not held in good standing by the organization or who have disavowed their association with others of different status there is a connoted relationship between them. Charles Manson is a name of legendary proportion; John Travolta as well. The relationship between the two extends no further than that they are both Caucasian male Homo sapiens and they have both had some amount of involvement with the teachings of the Church of Scientology. There the comparison ends. Any claim to the contrary is intellectually dishonest unless it were to include other banalities such as hair color.

It is clear that there is an underlying purpose to positioning persons in poor-standing with others who are not. That purpose is to malign and impugn. The impetus to this technique can be found in any first-level marketing course. It can also be found in the writings of Joseph Goebbels. The principle to workable advertising and propaganda is identical. The purpose is where they vary.

Mr. Travolta is recognized world-wide as a talented and successful member of the entertainment industry; Mr. Manson is known for being a life-term convict for his role in killing people. Compile and publish a list of dark-haired Caucasian male Homo sapiens and both Travolta and Manson can be correctly included.

The solution is one of the following:

1) Delete the topic outright and forbid its replication in this venue. 2) Publish separate lists which do not prejudice readers through faulty associations and edit the lists accordingly.

I am skeptical that the owners of WP would publish a list of 'Notable Chinese Physicians' and place the name Hu Wanlin alongside Li Shih-Chen. If this skepticism is not unfounded, why then is there a disparate treatment on the topic of Scientology?

Realizing I am at risk of being labeled as singular in my own purpose here as it will likely be some time before I return. I wish to point out however that in every sense of the word I have better things to do with my time than edit wikipedia. As such you will find my contributions to be sporadic at best. Over time you may find an incredible diversity of interest on my part (I have made countless edits previously, mostly of a typographic or grammatical nature and hardly worth the effort of logging-in.) This particular topic struck me as very prejudicial, hence my participation.

I spent a fair bit of time reading up on all the hubbub surrounding this --almost as much as I have in writing these observations, which, are included purely in an effort to improve the intellectual honesty of WP's content. I hope it was not in vain.

One parting word of wisdom to consider before going:

'When you label me you negate me.' --Soren Kierkegaard

THINK about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sal McGundy (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Really?
Must we include officials in the Church of Scientology as part of a list of Scientologists? Isn't that kind of an obvious given? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not obvious actually, and quite useful. All individuals with an existing Wikipedia entry who are Scientologists should be on here. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let it stand because I'm really not in the mood to have a ton of Scientologists arrive and descend upon this thread, but given the nature of privacy which Scientology is well-known for (see the Scientology article for details), it seems QUITE obvious. Kind of hard to find many atheists running for Pope, you know?  Especially in with Scientological religious, political, and financial practices.  Back to your home planet, now. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even sure what that comment is supposed to mean. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I included the "(see the Scientology article for details)" comment.   (Scientology believes human souls were dropped into a volcano by an Alien leader.  No kidding.)  I hope you didn't think I was saying something personal to you, because I was truly only trying to use humor. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the article on Xenu - I helped to improve that article's quality. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great! Then why did you say you're not sure what my comment was supposed to mean (since, as someone who worked on that article, you should know EXACTLY what was meant? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there going to be a comment somewhere down the line towards suggesting an improvement for this page? Cirt (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. That's why I said this38.109.88.194 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (However, I will hope you leave this thread for more than 2 Wikipedians to weigh in. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand, but okay, No worries. On a side note, some interesting reads at Category:FA-Class Scientology articles. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scientology doesn't interest me in the least. I'm interested in correcting Wikipedia from becoming a dated almanac of extensive and forever ongoing lists. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might help to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion to create an account, but there is one good reason why NOT to create an account. If Wikipedia is truly an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I shouldn't need to register.  And indeed I don't.  I'm not a "joiner", usually, but still know that my knowledge about wiki can be pretty valuable.  thnaks for the suggestion anyway, and thanks for letting this post stay up until others voice an opinion...38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to include church officials on the list of Scientologists. I think it could be useful. If someone cares enough to look up a list of Scientologists, they may very well be interested to know the names of high-ranking members. Candy (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree per several subcats of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory . 38.109.88.194 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is not a "directory". It is a list of all notable members of an organization. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * see point 6 on the ref I provided. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not applicable here. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "the intersection of (the fact that these people are Scientologists and also Officials in the Church of Scientology) in some way a culturally significant phenomenon"? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you mean, or how that is relevant. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what wiki is not: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. ..." Are Scientology Church Officials being Scientologists somehow culturally significant or a phenomenon? 38.109.88.194 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to push this anymore. That's why I said this (I'm surprised that I have to remind you about that again.) Archive the discussion if you wish. But let the point remain: if you don't see how including L Ron Hubbard in this list is wholly redundant then you're biased. And the same goes for the list of all the other Church Officials. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists of Christians = includes officials. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're certainly welcome to protest that over there. In the meantime, something being wrong in one area of Wiki doesn't make it right elsewhere,  Isn't that right?
 * PS- I said I'm not pushing this anymore. Don't behave argumentatively when I have acquiesced the argument, even if I'm doing so only because I don't want you trolling every post made on the issue, Cirt. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Both lists are appropriate, that is what I was showing you. :P Cirt (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, both lists are inappropriate, that's what I was showing you. You've won this one.  You've won.  I don't agree, but you've won.  So the very least you, an experienced editor, could do is:     
 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * Avoid personal attacks
 * Be welcoming
 * (None of which your continued posting accomplishes.)

Please stop posting at me so righteously when the matter has already been settled in your favor. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. You can have the last word. :P Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

She made the admission on ITV's 'Fearne and Peaches Geldof' broadcast in Oct 2009 - The daily mail cover the story here -> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1223800/Im-really-quantum-theories-Scientology--power-naps-Inside-world-Peaches-Geldof.html Woodyblack2010 (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another source better than that one? Cirt (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a YouTube clip of it, but the video and the audio are out of sinc. Not a good source.  Even if it was in sinc, she could be saying it just to mess with people's heads. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, though, anyone who states that he or she is a Scientologist could be saying it to mess with people's heads. Should we not ever believe anyone when they say they are a Scientologist? I think a person's own statement on the subject should be accepted, unless it is truly clear from the context that the person is not serious. Candy (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that source WP:RS? Do we have a title for the program and author, so as to satisfy WP:V? Cirt (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: ✅. Added. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Aaron Saxton
= inappropriate removal of sourced information. Per cited sources, he was a senior official. The source is: The quoted portion of this WP:RS secondary source is "Aaron Saxton, who rose to a senior level in the Sea Org" Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are very good at citing policies... but Saxton left Sea Org when he was 21. An inflated description of an individual in the media cannot justify including him in this list with spokesmen, with the founder and his wife, and with others that Scientology itself describes as having held high rank in the organization. I will remove it again. Do no restore it unless you have a source that deals with the organization in general. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Pieter Kuiper that Saxton's name was out of place in the list of officials. He's only come to prominence recently; not as an official or spokesperson of the organisation, but as an ex-member speaking out against it. -- JN 466  13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't People's inclusion on this list require that they are self-proclaimed sceintologists
It seems wierd to me that the main definition at the top of this list is basically that "If Sceintologist, then you are a Scientologist." That is relying on a primary source for the main premise of the article. By that line of reasoning we should create a list of Now dead people that have been baptized by the Mormons and name it "Dead Mormons".Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems similar to exact same complaints you raised at the page, List of new religious movements. Here, we go by independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A complaint yes, similar yes, not exactly the same. You are ignoring common sense and common sense DOES have a place on Wikipedia.  I noticed an argument you were in with someone about the Aaron Saxon guy, (who ever he is). Arguing that this guy is a high ranking official in Scientology in your case, makes sense because both he and scientology say he was.   There are people on this list who Scientology claims are scientologists but who may have only done some courses.   I went to a christian school and there were muslim students who went there.  In order to get a degree, they needed to take christian theology courses. If my alma mater claimed they were christians, even though they themselves never would, then by the reasoning put forth by you,(regardless of what sources say) they would have to be considered christian. People who only did courses (and do not claim to be scientologists), should not be on this list. Scientology is very controversial and it is understandable that people might not want to be listed as either current or former scientologists. You are essentially saying, that is tough because scientology said so.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed virtually the exact same complaint that this user has attempted to put forth at List of new religious movements. In both cases, site policies including WP:RS and WP:V should be the standard here, not arbitrary opinions from individual editors. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, people are not on the list simply for doing courses. If an editor tries to add a name based on evidence that the person did a course, it is rejected. Candy 18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Church of Scientology considers anyone who has ever taken a course to be a member of the organization. This is as per multiple WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but Wikipedia (or at least this article in particular) does not accept The Church of Scientology as a source of info. Candy 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what Candy says here, Christopher Reeves should not be on this list. According to the statements in the source provided.  Reeves did some course, got skeptical and didn't do anything further.  He doesn't refer to it as his religion, himself as a scientologist or anything like it, but is in fact critical of it and distancing himself from it. I suspect that there are many other people on the list in that category.  Given the controversial nature of Scientology and WP:BLP, people should only be on this list if a reliable source shows them self-identifying as a current or former scientologist. For whom else it to make that determination other than the person themselves?? There are plenty of people on the record as saying "I am a scientologist" or "I am a former scientologist" and those people should be on the list.  I suspect that there are many people who do not say that, but because of some "arbitrary" opinion of a certain editors they are included on the list.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am late to this discussion (sorry), but I would like to point out that the source given at the time Elmmapleoakpine made the above post most certainly did back up the fact that Reeve had been a Scientologist for a time and considered himself one. In his autobiography Nothing Is Impossible he described his involvement with Scientology, and it consisted of more than doing one course. He detailed how he received auditing for a time and finally came to the conclusion that his auditor could easily be fooled into believing he was recounting real past life experiences when he was simply making them up. And that was when he left. Candy (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * makes a good point here. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the logic against that is for much the same reason that we would not want an entire article about a company or group to only utilize sources from that group. It would be seen as not necessarily the most neutral source, for info about the subject itself. Naturally there would be a tendency for those sources to skew with a bias towards a favorable representation, that might not be entirely historically accurate, or perhaps, even false. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that fits in this situation. I am simply saying that someone who is declared to be a current or former Scientologist needs to be self professed. As I said there are plenty of people on the record as effectively saying "I am a scientologist".  They should be on the list. Again there are plenty of people on this list who have said just that.  There are many who merely profess to have done courses. Stating that people are Scientologist who are only on the record as having done courses, violates WP:NOR. Specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  Beyond that given how controversial Scientology is, it violates WP:BLP to allow many of the people on this list to remain. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eileen Barker writes in New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response that the Church of Scientology, "considers all those who have ever done one of their courses to be a Scientologist". -- Elmmapleoakpine, are you saying that this is factually inaccurate? -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I am adding additional secondary sources, that also confirm this. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt- everything you just added to the definition effectively amounts to primary sourcing. I am confused because you are the one who has repeatedly reminded myself and others that we should not use primary sources. The secondary sources you have added to the article do not say the definition of scientology, they merely repeat what scientology says is the definition.  It suprises me that you would argue for this. There is a BIG difference between someone who calls themselves a member of this religion and who Scientology calls a member of their religion.   You are effectively attempting to collapse that distinction.   Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely incorrect, everything added was from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing my point. The "secondary sources" merely parrot what the primary source, Scientology says. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is up to the judgment and determination of the academic scholars analyzing the criteria of what constitutes a definition of membership in the organization, in their discussion in the secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Therefore I have reverted the List to its state on 7th June, and would urge other editors to wait for a conclusion of the RfC before continuing with this controversial re-fashioning. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is completely inappropriate and contrary to improvements to this article to revert back to an older version. The version you proposed to revert back to is less well-sourced, with less references, poorer structure, and a bad organizational format. The new structure was modeled after Featured lists currently structured as such on Wikipedia. Let us please keep the current format of this article. We can discuss individual complaints, on the talk page. However reverting to an older version due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not the constructive way to go here. DaveApter, what, specifically, do you have a complaint about? -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Please also note that the revert by, removed 28 sourced references from this article, with no specific explanation as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Cirt and Coffee Pusher, the main question of the RFC is "Should people be on record as self-identified as Scientologist in order to be on this list? That question is by no means settled and the two of you are editing the article as if it is. If you look at the responses in RFC so far there is signficant if not majority support for that being the main criteria. It is simple and unambiguous.  Already, in the research done by Jayen466 there are severalexamples of reliable sources appearing to repeat what amounts to hearsay about people being scientologists.


 * In the last 48 hours, the two of you have made nearly 100 edits on the article, why are you in such a rush??


 * I again assert that the fairest and most WP:BLP compliant way to do this is to have people on the record as self identified as a Scientologists. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: I agree with these comments, by, and . Jayen466 commented on the formatting changes to the article, "Nice job on the table formatting too; must have been a lot of work." Jayen466 commented with regards to an amicable solution, having a subsection on the page for those that participated in courses, "We now have a section on course participants who have not been identified as (former) Scientologists; I think this is probably the right way to go here." This is the best and most logical way forward. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Chaka Khan
Isn't the Chaka Khan entry a bit of a joke now? We now have, apparently in response to the above discussion mentioning Chaka Khan's assertion that she is not a Scientologist, a dozen sources calling her a Scientologist, but not a single mention of the fact that she herself consistently denies it and responded to the New York Times, when asked if she was a Scientologist, by saying, "I’m not, never was, never will be. I belong to the religion of the Church of Chaka Khan, and I practice it every day. I live my religion, I consider it a personal thing. But I’ve taken some courses in Scientology, and they’ve been very, very helpful through life’s ups and downs."

I am honestly at a loss trying to understand why editors here are doing this. Is this supposed to reflect the truth, or a neutral point of view, or what? -- JN 466  15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually what you are doing is perfect, you have found an entry which is problematic and brought it up rather than presenting a hypothesis on abstract conditions which may or may not exist in the article (seriously, no sarcasm here I do appreciate concrete examples). What I believe is that we should make sure that quote is placed in the former list since they qualify based on the list requirements (RS stating they are Scientologists, and have taken classes) but have that as the explanation.  That way individuals who have read the "they are a Scientologist" reliable sources don't come to this page wondering why they aren't there (and create edit wars) but rather get the full story and have access to those other sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this fully follows verifiability and respects BLP by giving the whole story and collecting all articles together rather than silencing one group of sources which would give a one sided view to the reader. Now I can't help that some people will see "list..." and see a name and not read anything else...but you would have to be a special kind of A.D.D. to run down one side of this article without paying attention to the stuff written right next to it.  that and being part of this list does not appear on that person's page whatsoever, so the only people who are going to read it are people who are looking for "lists of scientologists" and adding the explanation will dispel rumors for the whole truth.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "we should make sure that quote is placed in the former list"? I am not sure what you propose should be done about the Chaka Khan entry. -- JN 466  16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Was first compiling sources to satisfy list inclusion, namely sources satisfying WP:RS that go to verifiability. Next, will indeed add notation of the individual's commentary from secondary sources. This will give the reader a full presentation of the material, as per secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, by . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the "I'm not, never was, never will be" part of her statement as well. -- JN  466  16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. We now have about 200 words and 14 individually cited sources on Chaka Khan; I think 12 sources are examples of publications describing her as a Scientologist, and 2 are publications quoting her as denying it. I propose we can do better than that. All that is required is that we say two things:
 * that she is described as a Scientologist in many publications, giving one reference that includes all of the relevant citations, with pertinent quotes included in the citation templates,
 * that she denies being a Scientologist, again with the two sources in one reference, and the relevant quotes included in the citation templates.
 * Thoughts? -- JN 466  17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving the reader the full info from the secondary sources is the best way to go here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding, let us please keep this in a straight chronological order. This avoids interpretations of why one is motivated to split up paragraphs in one particular fashion, or another. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Her denial, which is important, is otherwise too buried for the reader to find it. -- JN 466  19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. Placing it in any other format than purely chronological, is POV-pushing. Placing the paragraph in a chronological format, allows the reader to see the sequence of events, prior to and after, these comments. -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I added a paragraph break, but kept it within a chronological order. Now, it is still in a chronological order, and the subject's comments are also more prominent . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you have done it now combines the best of both worlds; good idea. -- JN 466  19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Glad we were able to come to a satisfactory compromise agreement on this. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. :) Nice job on the table formatting too; must have been a lot of work. -- JN 466  19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was a lot of work. Evidently one other individual does not appreciate that. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Reeve
We are presently citing a source (The Age) that says "Reeve opted out of becoming a member" as evidence that he became one. We are also citing his autobiography, in which he describes taking a personality test on a whim, and then being talked into doing some expensive auditing. While he says he wanted to give it a chance, he also says he was skeptical. Then his training as an actor took over, and he decided to test the Scientology system. When asked to remember an incident from one of his past lives, he told his auditor a moving story from a Greek myth he had read, as though it had happened to him personally. When the editor with her e-meter could not tell that he was having her on, he lost all interest in Scientology.

This to me does not sound as though he became a member in any meaningful sense of the word. He tried it out, just like Brandy did (see above), and decided it wasn't for him. We can have a section on "people who flirted with Scientology" or "who tried Scientology courses", if editors wish, but Christopher Reeve should not be listed as a former member. -- JN 466  17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the Dallas Morning News statement we cite that Reeve "credits both Scientology and extensive physical therapy for his overall improvement." was, according to Rick Ross's cultnews blog, retracted by the paper on February 4th:
 * "A review of the book Nothing is Impossible by Christopher Reeve that ran on Page 6G on Dec. 28th, 2002, incorrectly said that Reeve praised Scientology for part of his recovery process after an accident that left him paralyzed. Reeve wrote that his personal experience with the Church of Scientology was unfulfilling and short lived."

I am likewise unable to find any passage in Reeve's book that credits Scientology with any improvement in his condition. It seems the reviewer did not even read the book. -- JN 466  18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary Bono Mack
Mary Bono, the widow of Sonny Bono, who was a Scientologist for some time, is listed as a former member based on a reference that says, "The tellingly titled Scientology magazine, Celebrity, listed both Sonny and Mary Bono as having taken numerous courses, such as one called Marriage. Mary Bono enrolled in at least six in 1989 and '90, including How to Improve and Financial Success." I can't find any RS that describes Bono Mack as a "former Scientologist" or "former member of Scientology", although I note that our BLP describes described her as such, based on the same reference.

What I can find is sources like USA Today, which says that she "took Scientology courses with Sonny in the early 90s", a statement from a spokesman of hers that her only relationship with Scientology was through her husband, and a statement in the St. Petersburg Times, after her husband died, saying that she is "not keen on Scientology" and that no one should "expect Mary Bono to help the church out in Washington, as her late husband did." Listing her as a former member goes beyond the sources. -- JN 466  17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from that George article:


 * "According to Bono and Gilbert, Sonny embraced Scientology's self-help courses but rejected it as a religion. "Sonny didn't believe that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet. He told me that Hubbard was a falling-down drunk who drank himself to death," Gilbert says. "Sonny wore a cross and called himself a Catholic." Vinny Argiro, an actor who was close to Sonny, says Sonny used Scientology courses to help him with his marriages and relationships. "When I met Sonny, he was very involved in it," [Mary] Bono says. "And I knew nothing about it. I didn't even know the negative side to it at that point. So I thought, 'This is great,' and I took the courses with him. But as time went on, to put it lightly, I didn't believe it was for me. I thought it was very expensive and far too consuming." -- JN 466  18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks (for both). -- JN 466  19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you, for the acknowledgement of my action here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen
We are listing a lot of sources for Leonard Cohen, but I can't find one good one among them that says he was "a Scientologist"; the strongest I was able to verify said he "flirted" or was "briefly involved" in Scientology in 1968. Two of the sources cited (without URL) don't appear to mention Cohen at all, at least not in the versions that are online:,. -- JN 466  06:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And Cirt, are you under some compulsion to always make an edit 5 minutes after I have made one? This has been going on for two days now, and it is getting a bit odd. -- JN 466  06:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been consistently editing this page in order to improve its quality for some time now. That involves frequent edits and addition of sources. -- Cirt (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A look at the editing history suggests otherwise. I know you've put a lot of work into this article and I can understand that you wouldn't someone mucking it up, but you should know by now that I am unlikely to write unsourced rubbish into the article, so please let's try working with a somewhat more collegial rather than competitive spirit. It's possible. ;)
 * As for Malko, the actual quote in Malko that I find is, "Just the same, there was this freaky faddishness to the whole thing, everybody talking about the celebrities getting into it: Leonard Cohen, and Tennessee Williams— prior to his conversion— and William Burroughs". The "involved" wording is from Ratcliff: "we know that Cohen was briefly involved in the Scientology movement in New York in 1968". Or is there another quote in Malko I've missed? At any rate, I think that "briefly" from Ratcliff should be in there. Thanks for the other quotes; some of the sources I can't see. -- JN 466  07:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussions of editors belong on user talk pages, etc, but not here.   Will Beback    talk    06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Jason Beghe weren't Scientology's first celebrity converts. Back in 1968, singer Leonard Cohen had a short but enthusiastic stint. According to biographer Ira Nadel, Cohen phoned Joni Mitchell from New York to say that he had joined the church and they were going to rule the world. But within a few months, he was disenchanted and finding it hard to extricate himself. He left just one trace of Scientology language in a song - the otherwise mysterious line "Did you ever go clear?" in Famous Blue Raincoat.
 * Of sect and science; Scientology - of sect and science MATTHEWS Philip. The Press. Christchurch, New Zealand: Jan 31, 2009. pg. D.1


 * ''The Church of Scientology takes a particular interest in celebrities, and has created a number of so-called Celebrity Centres around the world that "minister primarily to artists and professionals ... in the distraction-free and secure setting ... to improve all aspects of their ability to be a positive influence upon society." These are some of the more famous people who have acknowledged their involvement in Scientology.
 * MEMBERS
 * Kirstie Alley Actor of Cheers fame
 * Anne Archer Actor
 * Beck Musician, raised a Scientologist
 * Tom Cruise Actor
 * Doug E. Fresh Hip-hop musician
 * Paul Haggis Canadian, Academy Award winning writer/director of Crash
 * Katie Holmes Actor, introduced to Scientology by Tom Cruise
 * Chaka Khan Singer
 * Jason Lee Actor starring in My Name is Earl
 * Juliette Lewis Actor
 * Christopher and Danny Masterson Actor brothers raised as Scientologists
 * Priscilla Presley and her daughter, Lisa Marie
 * Kelly Preston Actor and wife of John Travolta
 * Giovanni and Marissa Ribisi Actor twins raised as Scientologists
 * Greta Van Susteren Fox News host
 * EX-MEMBERS
 * William S. Burroughs Deceased poet
 * Leonard Cohen Canadian musician
 * Nicole Kidman Actor and former wife of Tom Cruise
 * Demi Moore Actor
 * Van Morrison Singer
 * Dini Petty Canadian television and radio host
 * Mimi Rogers Actor, introduced ex-husband Tom Cruise to Scientology
 * Jerry Seinfeld Actor
 * Patrick Swayze Actor
 * Seizure killed Travolta's son, death certificate says Zosia Bielski. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 6, 2009. pg. A.3


 * ''Scientology loves its celebrities. Church founder L. Ron Hubbard reportedly started "Project Celebrity," a program that rewarded church members who recruited celebrities to Scientology.
 * Celebrity Centre: The Manor Hotel, built in Hollywood in 1929 and restored in 1992, is the home of the church's Celebrity Centre International. In the 1930s and '40s the hotel was home to, among others, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn and Clark Gable. Today, the church says, the manor at 5930 Franklin Ave. caters to "the artists, politicians, leaders of industry, sports figures and anyone with the power and vision to create a better world."
 * Amy Scobee with Isaac Hayes at a Celebrity Centre International gala event in the early 1990s.
 * Tom Cruise: The actor is probably Scientology's best known, most fervent supporter. In 2004, Miscavige presented Cruise with the church's first Freedom Medal of Valor and called him "the most dedicated Scientologist I know." When Cruise married Katie Holmes in 2006, People magazine said "the best man was Cruise's best friend, David Miscavige." And who audited Tom Cruise? Marty Rathbun says that Miscavige entrusted him with that task.
 * John Travolta: He reportedly attributes his career success in large part to Scientology. After he began auditing sessions in the mid 1970s, he landed a lead role on the TV series Welcome Back, Kotter. He starred in Battlefield Earth, a movie based on a work of science fiction by L. Ron Hubbard. Travolta and his wife, Kelly Preston, come to Clearwater often. In March 2007, hundreds turned out to see the couple at the grand opening of the Scientology Life Improvement Center of St. Petersburg, left.
 * Chick Corea: The pianist posed at the Fort Harrison Hotel before he played at the 2002 Clearwater Jazz Holiday.
 * Anne Archer: Among her many movie roles, Archer played the betrayed housewife in the movie Fatal Attraction. She is a Scientologist, and her son, Tommy Davis, is the church's chief spokesman.
 * Erika Christensen and Beck, both raised Scientologists, at the Celebrity Centre's 36th anniversary gala in 2005.
 * Other famous Scientologists: Kirstie Alley, Jenna Elfman, Doug E. Fresh, Jason Lee, Geoffrey Lewis, Juliette Lewis, Elisabeth Moss, Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, Leah Remini, Giovanni Ribisi, Greta Van Susteren
 * Former Scientologists: Leonard Cohen, Nicole Kidman, Demi Moore, Van Morrison, Dini Petty, Mimi Rogers, Jerry Seinfeld, Patrick Swayze
 * ECCLESIASTICAL JUSTICE; DEFECTORS: LEADER EMPLOYS VIOLENT CONFESSIONALS, DEGRADING RITUALS. SCIENTOLOGY OFFICIALS: WE'RE NOT FOR EVERYONE. THOMAS C TOBIN, JOE CHILDS. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Jun 23, 2009. pg. A.1

And another compendium.  Will Beback   talk    06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Since Travolta became a Scientologist in 1975, he has been joined by other acting heavyweights, including Tom Cruise, Cruise's wife Nicole Kidman, Travolta's wife Kelly Preston, and TV sitcom stars Kirstie Alley ("Cheers" and "Veronica's Closet") and Jenna Elfman ("Dharma & Greg"). All are outspoken church members. [..] Jazzman Chick Corea - a Chelsea native who reportedly hopes to open a nightclub in Massachusetts - leads the church's publicity battle against the German government, which is investigating Scientology for alleged fraud and anti-democratic acts. And locally, musician Isaac Hayes hosted a reception at Roxbury Community College in Boston three years ago that helped local Scientologists bring their World Literacy Crusade learn-to-read program into the Randolph Public Schools and various inner city Boston youth agencies. Other Scientology celebrities include actresses Nancy Cartwright (the voice of Bart on "The Simpsons"), Juliette Lewis ("Natural Born Killers"), Anne Archer ("Fatal Attraction)," and Elvis Presley's widow and daughter Priscilla and Lisa Marie. The musician and congressman, Sonny Bono, who died in January, was a longtime Scientologist. Others who took Scientology courses, or who were members - some briefly - according to published reports, include football legend John Brodie, dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov, author William Burroughs; singers Van Morrison, Al Jarreau and Leonard Cohen; actors Emilio Estevez, Rock Hudson, Demi Moore, Candice Bergen, Brad Pitt, Christopher Reeve, Jerry Seinfeld and Patrick Swayze; and O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark. Also, the Observer newspaper of London recently linked actress Sharon Stone to Scientology.
 * INSIDE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; Church wields celebrity clout JOSEPH MALLIA. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Mar 5, 1998. pg. 030
 * Thanks for these. -- JN 466  07:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that The Guardian says Cohen flirted with Scientology in the 1990s, while Ratcliff, Malko and the others say it was in 1968? -- JN 466  07:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the secondary sources then, he returned to it briefly. -- Cirt (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you are sure that The Guardian isn't in error, then we should perhaps point out that there were two separate periods of involvement. The Nation also describes him as a "former Scientologist", so my earlier reservations about including him in this section are now moot. -- JN 466  07:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad that your concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction. -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your efforts are appreciated. -- JN 466  07:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Thank you for the acknowledgement of my efforts. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Sharon Stone
The Guardian Article cannot be found online and doesn't appear to be verifiable anywhere else. - The Guardian staff (October 4, 2006). "Listed Scientologists". The Guardian: p. 29.

All I could find doing a search for Sharon Stone and Scientology online was this link with the reference to Sharon Stone that I have cut and pasted below: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jjhSrxQ0k38J:www.xs4all.nl/~fishman/fable.doc+milton+keys+satanism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Name:          Sharon Stone Profession:   actress Status:        "she is going to courses" (Berliner Zeitung)"out for years, never really in. Dated Jim Rogers, a field group auditor" (F.A.C.T.net & L. Wollersheim) Achievement:  screaming in movies with Richard Chamberlain, spreading her legs on the silver screen Source:        "Der Sektenkonzern", "Ich klage an","Berliner Zeitung" 23.7.92. F.A.C.T.net & L. Wollersheim where mentioned

This is probably not a reliable source (and it is the only thing that comes up in searches that ties her to scientology) so I do not think she should be on the list either. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing additional research now. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, moved to Course participants, pending further research. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Found several additional secondary sources. Moved entry back to subsection, for former members of the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian reference is not reliable. It says "listed scientologists". All that phrasing does it let the Guardian off the hook for verifiability. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source. -- Cirt (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Swayze
He is not on the record as calling himself a Scientologist and of the sources provided, they all offer no details. I think this is totally circular set of refrences. - Are we sure that Wikipedia itself isn't actually the original source? There is one website that lists him as a former member but no actual information of any kinds is given. http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Patrick_Swayze.html What if infact all we are doing is repeating repeats of repeats of rumors that appeared in hollywood gossip papers? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * your "back to wikipedia" argument needs a lot more evidence, especially since your last format argued that everything on the internet could presumably come back to Wikipedia and now you have extended that argument to six hard sources because you can't find them on the internet. Without actual evidence of corruption I think this is a great example of a red herring.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added additional references for this entry. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian Reference Should not be considered reliable.
Their publication of a list with the caviate “listed Scientologist” doesn’t mean anything. All the paper is doing is saying that a list is out there somewhere. They are not in fact saying that those people are Scientologists and by saying that people are "listed as Scientologists" they do not have the burden of verifiability. From the reading I have been doing, more than likely the list they are referring to is Wikipedia. That or one of the dozen or so lists that seem to be direct copies of earlier versions of this article Even if not, any other list I have found is self-published and would not satisfy WP:RS. I think anything name on this list that relies on the guardian referene should be removed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comparing the Guardian article to the list that existed when it was published, there is a difference which shows they did not reproduce the Wikipedia article (in both names present and absent). That and there are no names that rely exclusively on the guardian article which is a WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Coffeepusher- my real point about the issue with the Guardian is that it states "listed scientologists" and does not offer source. It is merely noting that it was listed somewhere, but they do not have to say where or whether that list was reliable. The list could have been in any number of unreliable sources and the Guardian did not need verify any of it so long as it stated "listed scientologists".  Someone said that the web is an echo chamber and as we have seen with a number of listings on this article, the facts that are oft repeated are not accurate.  My whole point in the RFC about having reliable sources verify that someone is self-identified in these various categories is a simple, sensible way to avoid WP:BLP.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But WP:RS don't follow the same verifiability rules as Wikipedia. Full disclosure of all sources is not a requirement, because they are held accountable other ways.  Your mostly hypothetical argument that the Guardian is just reproducing Wikipedia's list using the "all roads on the internet lead to wikipedia" argument needs more evidence, especially since it wasn't the list reproduced on Wikipedia at the time of publication. it is a WP:RS and all the entries from the Guardian are backed up by other WP:RS which demonstrates that rather than republishing a random list of people they actually published a list of Scientologists backed up by good research, making them a WP:RS especially for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing anything to back up these spurious assertions regarding the WP:RS source, The Guardian. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Werner Erhard
If this article is to remain as it is currently formatted, then Erhard belongs in the Course Participants section, as the references and notes point to him being a student of Scientology. Nothing in the refs in the note say that he ever became a member of Scientology.

His work in life has been to be a thinker about thinking, a philosopher about thought systems. In his early years, he investigated a multitude of disciplines including Zen with Allan Watts, Subud, Vedanta, Christian Perfectionism; behaviorist determinism, Freud, Maslow, Rogers, Perls, Korzybski, Norman Vincent Peale, Napoleon Hill and Maxwell Maltz indeed an amazingly wide variety of disciplines, of which Scientology was one among many. He was a student of thinking and was interested in looking at how the mind operates. While his study of Scientology may have informed him, it did not make him a believer or follower or member, any more than he was a follower of any of the other disciplines he studied. To study something, even in depth, does not preclude that one believes in something.

The quoted piece of the Bartley biography gives only a partial picture of Erhard's relationship with Scientology. A few pages after the quoted sentence, Bartley writes that there are essential differences between Scientology and est (his own system of thought). Erhard says, "As a result of these differences my relationship to Scientology differs from my relationship to Zen. Of all the disciplines that I practiced, studied, learned, Zen was the essential one."

While the secondary sources used at the bottom of the note all refer to him as a former scientologist, they all state it in a very offhanded manner, and none of these sources are actually dealing with or delving into his relationship to Scientology. Rather they are kind of like, oh yeah, other people have called him that so we can too, which does not qualify as a reliable secondary source that attests to someone being a scientologist.

What is documented in a reliable secondary source in regard to his own religious beliefs is found in Dan Wakefield's article "Est in Exile" where he writes: "Asked if he belonged to a denomination, Erhard said, “I was brought up as an Episcopalian, confirmed as an Episcopalian, and I’ve been a member of the Episcopal Church all my life."

There are, in addition, two secondary sources that I have found that specifically state that he was "not a Scientologist"  I will add these sources and work on a few changes to the notes of this article to reflect a more neutral point of view that represents the man more accurately. - MLKLewis (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note the following sources:
 * Erhard is characterized as an "ex-Scientologist" or "former Scientologist", in publications including: The Miami Herald, Ottawa Citizen, Chatelaine magazine, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Mass Control, the Herald Sun, and the academic journal Sociology of Religion.
 * Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that has engaged in removal of sourced information in multiple edits now. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that is not accurate, I have added sourced information and have not removed any references. I did err in omitting the auditing and I see that appropriately added that back. Sorry, it wasn't my intent to remove that wording when I added in the Pressman reference that Erhard stopped taking courses in 1970, (which I think is important to add to clarify the chronology). I am merely trying to represent this entry accurately and in a balanced fashion.  Actually, one could now say that  has removed reliable sourced material, but assuming good faith, it must have been an error. MLKLewis (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you add the references to Bartley and to Pressman, twice? Those citations were already included on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the references indicate that Erhard ever considered himself to be a member of the church. In the end all that the sources reliably say are that he took classes, did some auditing in the late 60's, was respectful of Hubbard and hired a couple of scientologists. Much of what is in the notes, while it may be about his relationship to Scientology, has nothing to do with him ever having been a scientologist.

In regard to his personal religious beliefs, he says:
 * My relationship with what we would call religion has been important to me throughout my life, both in situations that were demanding or difficult and in situations where there was a big opportunity – and just as important where there’s nothing real at stake.  It’s an aspect of being that one cheats oneself of if one’s not open to it.  It’s kind of like closing your eyes at an art gallery.  You can go around and feel the pictures maybe, but you’ve cheated yourself in terms of appreciating life, of experiencing a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment – of joy – and in terms of empowering yourself.” Asked if he belonged to a denomination, Erhard said, “I was brought up as an Episcopalian, confirmed as an Episcopalian, and I’ve been a member of the Episcopal Church all my life.”"  (Dan Wakefield's article "Est in Exile" - Common Boundary 1994)

About Scientology, Erhard's biographer, William Warren Bartley, writes:


 * Werner Erhard is virtually the only consciousness leader, and the only person of distinction in American society, to have stepped outside this childish quarrel between Scientology and society, and to have acknowledged both his indebtedness to Hubbard and his emphatic differences with him. (p 151)


 * He [Erhard] rejected, however, the idea of the thetan, and later characterized the Self in a way that differs markedly from Hubbard’s description of the thetan. (p 157)


 * Although the forms of the est training and Zen training are different, Zen and est come from similar abstractions. By contrast – despite any apparent similarities of form – Scientology and est come from different abstractions.  Scientology sees the world through a well-developed belief system, and its context is survival.  Neither belief systems nor survival are important in est and in Zen. (p 158)

For this article we have defined a Scientologist as "a follower of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology". We have put people who took classes and did auditing in the "Course participants" section and left people who have self identified as Scientologists but who no longer consider themselves to be members in the "Former Members" section. In Erhard's entry, however, none of the sources that are used to categorize him as an ex-scientologist point to him ever having been a "follower of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology". All they point to is that at some time someone called him one, which in no way qualifies as being self-identified.

So on the basis that none of the sources support that Erhard ever said he was a scientologist, and that what he has said about his religion is that he has been a life-long member of the Episcopal church (not scientology), and his statements reveal that while he found value in all the multiple disciplines he investigated during this same time period, he did not believe in Scientology’s tenets, I am moving him to the course participants section. MLKLewis (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * actually as par with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and WP:BLP, it isn't "self identification" but rather identification from WP:RS, and as already stated there are many reliable sources that identify him as a former Scientologist. as you already know the policy we have used is to respect the reliable sources but make sure to identify any conflicting information within the list.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that exactly points out the problem of having a section called "Former members" where a person is included as belonging to a religion they actually didn't belong to only because someone called them that at some time in the past. The sources do not support that he ever was a scientologist, they don't deal with him being a former scientologist at all, they are just name calling, that's it. Two of these sources are in the style sections and are all about a clothing line for goodness sake, and none of the sources are articles about scientology or about Erhard for that matter. According to WP:SOURCE "Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." These sources do not qualify for this list as reliable sources because they are out of context, and all they do is repeat that people said that about him.  They simply do not support that he ever WAS a scientolgist, which they need to do in order to support him being in a section called former scientologists.MLKLewis (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you have a different interpretation of that section from source, because the way I read it is that the sources need to be fairly represented and they are. none of the sources are misquoted and the material as it applies to him is accurately represented, they don't need to primarily be about the topic (or have a certain percentage of the article devoted to the topic matter) provided that the parts that do apply are accurately represented.  So your argument is that someone who wrote an organization and stated that they achieved level IV within the organization and "would you please update your records" is being unjustly classified as a former scientologist by reliable sources because they are just engaging in name calling?Coffeepusher (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the first line from wikipedia's verifiability policy "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." everything on Erhard is accurate according to reliable sources and properly sourced.  I understand that you don't think Erhard was a former Scientologists, however our reliable sources state otherwise.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags
after reading the tags I fail to understand how they apply to this article.
 * The neutrality tag is used when articles do not represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
 * while the first variation of this article, the one that started the dispute, could be argued to violate this, with the addition of the separate sections which clarify how the reliable sources have reported on the individuals participation this article is showing a strong neutral point of view. additionally when two or more sources are in disagreement that disagreement has been expanded in the section in chronological order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid WP:SYNTH or WP:OR while respecting WP:V


 * the WP:BLP tag is used to identify articles that "contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person"
 * this is not an interpretation, it is the letter of WP:BLP which is verifiability, in other words "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  Where in this article is it un-sourced or poorly sourced?


 * Contradicts?
 * while some WP:RS do report differently from one another, rather than engage in WP:SYNTH and delete both or prefer one interpretation over the other, both claims are sourced and quoted accordantly. that discussion can be seen above.

I do not think these tags were appropriately used for their purpose.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The method of dealing with the contradictions among sources within the article come straight out of the WP:NPOV policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * please read the Template:POV Template usage notes. specifically the last bullet (although I think all the bullets apply).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

You keep editing while the RFC is open and I think that we have to account for the distinct possiblity of Wikipedia or some unreliable source being the original source of many of the soures that are used here is very high. I don’t think mentions in articles that are contradicted by an equal or greater number of other locations including the person themselves, should be presented as a fact (ie they are a scientologist). This is again why the the most logical and least controversial thing to do is to have reliable sources that show the person acknowledging their membership themselves. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to Cirt

Comment by Cirt

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


 * Sources confirm Scientology membership defined by course participation
 * 1) Sociologist Eileen Barker writes in New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response that, "the Church of Scientology considers all those who have ever done one of their courses to be a Scientologist".
 * 2) Authors W. W. Zellner, Marc Petrowsky note in the book Sects, Cults, and Spiritual Communities: A Sociological Analysis, "Those who pay for courses are called ordinary members."
 * 3) Scientology president Heber Jentzsch stated in a videotaped court deposition that membership statistics for the organization are based on the sum of all individuals that have ever taken any Scientology course since the organization's foundation in 1954.
 * 4) In a 1992 appearance on the ABC News program Nightline, Jentzsch admitted that anyone who took one course was considered a member of Scientology, "Because they joined and they came in and they studied Scientology."
 * 1) Scientology president Heber Jentzsch stated in a videotaped court deposition that membership statistics for the organization are based on the sum of all individuals that have ever taken any Scientology course since the organization's foundation in 1954.
 * 2) In a 1992 appearance on the ABC News program Nightline, Jentzsch admitted that anyone who took one course was considered a member of Scientology, "Because they joined and they came in and they studied Scientology."
 * 1) In a 1992 appearance on the ABC News program Nightline, Jentzsch admitted that anyone who took one course was considered a member of Scientology, "Because they joined and they came in and they studied Scientology."

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

@Astynax - I agree with this comment, this is a rational, logical, and well-thought-out idea. I will do some research to try to find a reference for such a statement, to add to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Astynax
 * Note: ✅, added material suggested by Astynax, to the Definition subsection of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Updates, reformatted table, subsection for course participants
 * Please see and . Perhaps this RfC can now be resolved, due to these changes. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SamuelRiv
Comment: Official definitions of identity can effectively be anything. For example, everyone in the world is Taoist, because the Dao is everything (I don't know anything about Dao, just a hypothetical). Nobody is a Buddhist, because Buddhism is simply a way of living, not identity. These are the two extremes, which means this question is formally a gray area. At the end of the day, the notion of "self-proclamation" that one is a Scientologist seems appropriate in all cases, unless an outside source says something like "well, he says he's not a Scientologist, but we do know he's taken X classes and volunteers at the church," at which point a footnote is appropriate. I hope this seems rational.

One more comment - saying a person is a Scientologist when they may have only taken a few classes may be considered defamation. Certainly it can prevent them from public service in Germany. Ethically, carelessness here is simply not acceptable. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to MartinPoulter
 * There are also reliable sources saying there are no Buddhists, like, for example, a Buddhist priest. That is a conflict of sources and doesn't invalidate my original point of a grey area. Again, if we let every organization define their membership, then we can easily begin effective defamation. For example, if the group Children of Hitler proclaims "all are children of Hitler", can we say Barack Obama is a Child of Hitler citing that as a source? Now consider the possibilities of defamation in calling someone a Scientologist when they would not say so themselves, particularly as I illustrated in Germany (China too, by the way). This is basic editorial ethics, Journalism 101. Finally, what is a legitimate source? If Time looks up someone's tax return and says some celebrity took one Scientology course, can we then list them here as being a Scientologist using Time as a source? Time takes the step of saying they took a course based on extrapolation from a primary source, and we take the step of labeling based on extrapolation from a secondary source - that is a very clear ethical breach. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


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

Comment by Astynax
I think the current definition gives enough information to make it self-evident to readers that people who do not continue in, or have left, the religion might have a different view as to their "membership". There do seem to be many good sources which describe "former members"; "non-believing"/"non-practicing" former adherents, "apostate"/"expelled", "non-active" people, and other non-devotees with only a minimal connection. I think the current definition is fine. But because of the references which seem to recognize a class of people who are no longer members in the usual sense of that word, it is would be appropriate to insert a short and referenced sentence pointing out that many people who have taken Scientology courses do not consider themselves to be members. &bull; Astynax talk 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another way of dealing with this might be to emphasize even more strongly that Scientology very loosely construes "membership" or "Scientologist", and that not all persons with a connection to Scientology regard themselves as "followers". I also came across this...

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

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


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

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


 * Reply to SamuelRiv "reliable sources... for example, a Buddhist priest" No. Hearsay or self-published sources are not suitable for Wikipedia, according to its core policies. As for journalistic issues, we're not doing journalism. Wikipedia is tertiary literature that summarises secondary literature. It's up to the journalists and editors in secondary sources (of which Time is one) to make these decision for us about what is appropriate to publish. The Children of Hitler example is not a good analogy because it wouldn't be based on specific information about the individual. There's a reason we don't put in Barack Obama's article that he's a bipedal mammal, and it's the same reason we'd exclude the Children of Hitler reference in your hypothetical case.
 * If your concern is about some listings being poorly sourced, then address that directly. This particular RFC is clearly not about that but about a wider principle. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Reply to MartinPoulter: this article clearly violates BLP


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


 * Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Response to Nwlaw63 this is a list not a category, thus does not clearly violate BLP
 * In response to Nwlaw63 assertion that this is a violations of BLP due to the category statement, this is a list not a category. the difference includes that a list does not show up on that person's page, and that qualifying statements regarding the reliable sources can be inserted into lists and they can not be inserted into categories.  I completely agree that a category needs to have self identification as a criteria since it shows up without any explanation on that persons page, but a list is a completely different entity on Wikipedia and has more flexable guidelines for the reasons already stated.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you may want to look at wikipedias suggestions for inclusion on lists which states "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source" rather than self identification.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Response to Jaden


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


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


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

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

Comment by Stanistani
I believe this list is a potential public relations nightmare, and should be scrubbed of anyone who doesn't self-identify or is not notable. A notice should also be placed on the talk page declaring those standards, and the article locked. Would you enjoy being on such a list? &rarr;  Stani Stani  00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC) All it will take is one entry of a notable person who doesn't want to be on the list, and a media source picking it up to build a controversy, and Wikipedia will once again have mud on its face. &rarr;  Stani Stani  03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Coffepusher

Comment by Jimbo Wales
I wonder if it might be possible to learn more about the borderline cases who would be affected by the outcome of these discussions. How many are there, and who are they? Perhaps proponents of different positions could specify names that they think should or shouldn't be on the list.

I ask this because the abstract question leaves me a bit uncertain as to people's positions. It strikes me as reasonable to say that we should use reliable sources, of course, but the reliable sources ought to say that the person "is a Scientologist" not that they "took a Scientology course at some point". This is, after all, a "List of Scientologists", not a "List of people who took Scientology courses". Therefore, the church's own definition of who "is a Scientologist" may not be echoed by reliable sources, and that's what matters.

So it strikes me as possible that those pushing for "reliable sources" and those pushing for "we shouldn't use the church's own definition" may well be talking past each other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by Jayen466
A reliable source saying that someone has done a Scientology course should not be viewed as a sufficient criterion for including the person in List of Scientologists. The source should at least say that someone is a Scientologist.

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


 * "Q: Are you a Scientologist? A: I’m not, never was, never will be. I belong to the religion of the Church of Chaka Khan, and I practice it every day. I live my religion, I consider it a personal thing. But I’ve taken some courses in Scientology, and they’ve been very, very helpful through life’s ups and downs."

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


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

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

All the entries in the list should be checked for similar sourcing, and if need be removed. The principle expressed in WP:BLPCAT is, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Perhaps the same reasoning should be applied here, and indeed to "List of ..." articles in general. One could theoretically entertain the idea of an article, or section, called List of people who have done Scientology courses without becoming Scientologists, but I wonder if by that point we are not in danger of entering the realm of obsessive listcruft. -- JN 466  12:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Coffeepusher: Basically, you are making a WP:SYN argument. Source A says, the Church considers everyone who has taken a paid course a Scientologist. Source B says, individual Z has taken a Scientology course. Ergo, and that is where the original research comes in, Z is a Scientologist. This list has taken this to the point where we are actually citing a source that says "Christopher Reeve opted out of becoming a [Scientology] member" as evidence that he became a member. -- JN 466  01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Coffeepusher: First of all, Scientology clearly does involve some beliefs (life on other planets, soul migration, etc.). Secondly, some of the people who do Scientology courses evidently feel that they do not become Scientologist by dint of doing so. Take this UPI article:
 * "Brandy reportedly is taking Scientology courses, although the U.S. singer and actress said she has not joined the controversial religion. She told MSNBC: '(Scientology) basically consists of questions that probe really deeply into your life. You are confronting all of your experiences, and I knew if I could confront every experience in my life and be cool with it, then nothing could stop me. They ask the questions, and you provide the answers. I am not a Scientologist ...'"
 * Likewise here:
 * "Brandy Studies Scientology. R+B star BRANDY is following in the footsteps of TOM CRUISE and JOHN TRAVOLTA and taking courses in the controversial Church Of Scientology. The singer, who recently got engaged to basketball star QUENTIN RICHARDSON, hasn't yet joined the church - but is taking courses in a bid to improve her life."
 * Or the Age article on Reeve cited above, which mentions he took some courses but "opted out of becoming a member".
 * None of these publications followed your logic, proclaiming that these individuals had become Scientologists, or members of Scientology, by virtue of doing courses.
 * This simply is not something like a routine calculation where there is 100% agreement between all relevant sources. Quite the opposite -- far from being widely accepted, Scientology's method of counting everyone who has ever done a course as a member of their Church is widely criticised as a means to inflate membership statistics. As such it is not the kind of uncontroversial conclusion that would pass muster under WP:SYN. -- JN 466  16:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Following up on Brandy, what she later was quoted as saying is:
 * "Someone said, 'There're these classes that you can take that can better you as a person.' I'm like, 'OK, I'll go check it out', but that's all I did, go check it out. I'm not a Scientologist."
 * By your logic, we would have to describe her as a former Scientologist. Do you really think that is appropriate? -- JN 466  16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dave Apter

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

Comment by Balloonman
Well, using the argument that anybody who took a course offered by a scientologist is a scientologist, I guess it is safe to say that Obama is in fact a Muslim! Come on, just because a group uses a ludicrious definition of how they define membership, does not make it so. What percentage of people attend A class and never go back again? Who walk away thinking, "what a joke?"

Similarly, think about it this way, would we record that somebody is an athiest or communist because they made some off handed remark or something? In order for us to include a persons religious views, it needs to be A) self-proclaimed or B) reported by a highly reliable source. We don't have to have them saying, "I'm a Scientologist" but we do need a source that is very reliable.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by MLKLewis
I want to go on record here to say that it seems inappropriate for someone to be added to this list as a member, or former member, who has not publicly stated that they are members. If they have publicly stated that they are members and that statement is published in a reliable secondary source, then yes, they should be included here. What one believes and practices in the area of religion is a personal matter, and given the damage to someone's reputation that can be done by being associated with Scientology, it is behooves us to apply rigorous and careful standards. I echo what Jimbo has to say on the matter, that yes, we should use reliable sources, but that those sources should be required to say that the person has stated that they believe in and follow the doctrines of Scientology.

I see that there have been improvements and clarifications on this page, and that much thought and care has gone into it, however, the fundamental question of this RfC still remains open - Should people be self proclaimed in order to be included on this list? As this discussion page itself says above, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons," which states that "material must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". As religion is inherently a personal and private matter, I strongly believe that as responsible editors we should adhere to the highest of standards for this list, and require that the reliable secondary sources unquestionably state that the person has self identified themselves as a Scientologist.

Furthermore, in reading over the discussion in this section, I see that the majority of the editors who commented agree that the principle of being self identified is a necessary standard. MLKLewis (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Update
We now have a section on course participants who have not been identified as (former) Scientologists; I think this is probably the right way to go here. -- JN 466  20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. While I think the the third category is good and certainly addresses something important, it still doesn't address the main problem raised by the question of the RFC. It doesn't matter if it is scientology's definition, or a reliable source calling someone a scientologist. Unless they are on the record as refering to themselves a scientologist or perhaps working for scientology, there is no way for anyone else to presume to know. Otherwise, as Jayen466 pointed out, it is inevitably SYNTH and given the reputation of Scientlogy  WP:BLP issue. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to go here, is to document secondary sources conforming to WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current breakdown separates the concerns voiced in this RfC specifically without applying a specific definition to a Scientologist with respect to the RS. Individuals who have sources that state they are current members go in the current member category, those who have secondary sources stating that they once where members go in the former member category, and those who have just taken classes are put in the "taken classes but have not affiliated with scientology."  this avoids speculation or WP:NOR, respects Wikipeida's stance on WP:RS and WP:V, and offers enough of a distinction to allow individuals to see the different types of participants without harping on the stereotype...oh and the rush is it is either that, or read German Philosophy for a paper...you understand :)Coffeepusher (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely positively don't agree. Is this need-to-know  self-reported  information? If not, it is ethically irresponsible for living persons (like that WP:BLP that we keep ignoring) to be included, for the same reasons it would be irresponsible to make a list of "People who marched in gay-rights parades". Firstly, it has potentially devastating consequences for the individual listed, and secondly, why would we include such a thing anyway? Someone suggested that details could be added in list-format more easily - so do we put an asterisk next to every person who does not self-report? That's just like Fox News reporting a long segment about Muslims in America, then cutting to Barack Obama without missing a beat and noting that it's "interesting that he grew up in Indonesia, a Muslim country". With respect to everyone here, follow WP:BLP and take self-reporting as the only standard, because using anything else in a controversial listing or category is beyond despicable. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * actually if you check the list you will find that we didn't put an asterisk next to every person who does not self identify, we separated the sections into leaders, members, former members, and course participants with an explanation on each header explaining how each person was associated. It allows people to see all the reliable sources which specifically mention their level of participation and weigh them out accordingly.  This allows someone who "heard" that Brad Pitt was a Scientologist to see that he actually only took two courses and quit, clarifying the record.  It also follows the recommendation for lists of living people which states they only need a reliable source identifying them as such, there is a difference for categories which states that categories have to be self reported.  This list is  verifiable through secondary reliable sources and follows the formating and content recommendations for  Wikipedia lists.  The list itself has been expanded to subsections which some reliable sources do classify as scientologists but the classification is under depute so the subsections clarify those distinctions.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


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