Talk:Scientology and celebrities/Archive 1

In the begining...
Looks good so far... needs a proper introduction though. wikipediatrix 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...I think this needs a complete re-write...its flimsy and biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.146.148.240 (talk • contribs).
 * Other than the "Scientology benefits for Celebrities" section needing sources, I think it's perfectly fine. Two thirds of it was transferred from the main Scientology article, in fact, and was worked over by many editors there, so the "flimsy and biased" comment is way out in left field. wikipediatrix 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think the anon is right. What was in Scientology (and is hopefully still there) covers multiple POVs and backs up its claims with sources.  This article doesn't do either -- hell, some of the same information is in Scientology, except there it's sourced and here no one could be bothered!  Frankly, if someone nominated this article for AfD I couldn't argue in its defense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I give User:Zeke pbuh benefit of the doubt that he's still in progress on this article and will clean it up and beef it up... if he doesn't soon, I'll dive in. I didn't realize the reference links didn't go anywhere... wikipediatrix 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's difficult to give the benefit of the doubt. The easiest thing to do would have been to start with what already existed in other articles, and then shape it towards the new focus.  Instead, it seems what Zeke did is to take from other articles, and from other unidentified places, only those factoids which supported his favored POV.  My basic sympathy with that POV doesn't stop me from looking at what's been done here and seeing a POV fork.  An article on "Scientology and Celebrities" wouldn't necessarily be one, but that's what this one is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So what do you wanna do? Rehabilitate it, or put it out of its misery? I do think it shouldn't be in the Template while in this condition. wikipediatrix 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what I've wanted to do for quite some time is to repurpose the article List of Scientology references in popular culture as a broader Scientology and popular culture article. Scientology and celebrities would be a natural sub-topic of this.  If at some later point the topic of "Scientology and celebrities"* gets to be large enough to need splitting off, we can do it then.  (*by the way, if we end up keeping this article, we really should move it to Scientology and celebrities in accordance with naming conventions.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My appologies for any oversights. I will be more careful in the future. I thought the main Scientology page was getting too cluttered and should focus on main Scientology information, and thus branched this off. If the discussion/history etc can be moved from the main Scientology section as well, someone please do so, as I don't know how. The few things I added were well sourced, I will check to see where I got it from if I neglected to include links. I do not intend to make any of my Scientology entries POV, though I have trouble finding pro-Scientology info on the internet that is from a 3rd party. I am sorry to say that due to Scientology's secrecy, most sources I find are ant-Scientology. I do try hard, however, to weed out anti-Scientology text and keep my entries as neutral as possible. Scientology appears to focus more on celebrity members than other religious groups (including having a "Celebrity Center," so I believe "Scientology and Celebrities" thus warrents its own section and inclusion on the template. I hope Scientologists do contribute sourced info here, I would like to see their views on this subject. Zeke pbuh 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just to clarify, info doesn't have to be from a third party in order to be acceptable; we can quote Scientology's own claims on the subject (as long, of course, as we correctly describe them as Scientology's claims rather than the final or authoritative word on the matter.) So, for instance, we can definitely report Scientology's claim that the Celebrity Centres were created because "L. Ron Hubbard recognized the importance of the artist to society", and it doesn't have to come from a third party... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Other notable celebrities
im not sure what format to add this, but Katie holmes and Nancy Cartwright should be noted.

nevermind.... a more comprehensive list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists should this go at the start or the end of the article?

And where is John Travolta on this page ?

A source that may be of some use
Tom Cruise and Scientology, published in the LA Times. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another useful one...
"We instinctively revere the great artist, painter or musician and society as a whole looks upon them as not quite ordinary beings. And they are not. They are a cut above man. He who can truly communicate to others is a higher being who builds new worlds." "The States of Existence" by L. Ron Hubbard, courtesy link http://www.celebritycentre.org/en_US/about/presentation/states_existence.html

A Useless Article
As mentioned above, this article is very flimsy and serves no purpose if the content is already covered. I am proposing that this page be terminated. California guy 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Scientologist seem to be over represented among celebrities, as opposed to the general population, and I think that it is important to know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.164.228 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment shifted from article
Scientology's Nashville Celebrity Center appears to have no real "celebrity" members in a city otherwise full of celebs. Contrast this with all of the Hollywood celebrity members listed above and it seems the center's name, as it applies to Music City, is a misnomer. 65.1.218.164 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Church of Scientology can declare one of their Orgs to be a Celebrity Centre by fiat, just like they can say that an Org is now "Saint Hill-sized"—it's their rules, and I doubt they have to promise celebrity entrees from the A and B lists. Short of verifiable references that the location is actually a vacant parking lot, I don't think the article can really say otherwise. Several critics have called the UK CC, "The Tomb of the Unknown Celebrity". Amusing, but I doubt there's any kind of useful (WP:RS cite of that. AndroidCat 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "# 4.2 Scientology as a state-recognised religion"
In Germany, scientology is not only not held as a state-recognised religion, moerover even under surveillance from the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence service).

Quote (as by September 4th, 2006): "The "Scientology Organisation" (SO) is still being monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution. Concrete evidence of activities directed against the free democratic basic order continues to be available. This is why the legal requirement for the organisation to be monitored by the offices for the protection of the constitution is met. Therefore, the relevant decision made in 1997 by the Permanent Conference of the State Ministers of the Interior and the State Senates remains valid." Source: Homepage of the Verfassungsschutz/ english version

First paragraph full of uncited and controversial statements
First paragraph full of uncited and controversial statements - it is. In actual fact, per WP:CITE, it should be pulled and discussed here. "If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.". I am taking a kinder, gentler approach. Oh, just naming a Flag order is not good enough - they, unlike HCOPLs, are not published outside a very limited channel; they are internal to the Sea Org and not available for WP:V purposes.--Justanother 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley; inappropriate biographical material
Below is an exchange I have been having with Antaeus Feldspar regarding the malicious suppositions presented in the article regarding Ms. Presley's marriage to Michael Jackson. Such a statement about her biographical details must be backed up by "high quality references" per WP:BLP. Self-styled speculation, even if accurately reported, does not meet that standard. Therefore I am removing the section in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:CITE, "If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first."

Hi. How is unsupported speculation by Scn critics anything but heresay and gossip? The very article quoted says "Ex-Scientologists Speculate on Why Michael and Lisa Wed". Wiki policy is to be VERY careful about living persons Biographies_of_living_persons. Don't you think that applies? If so, please revert yourself. Thanks--Justanother 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP only applies to unsourced negative material about living persons. The material you removed was sourced.  I'm afraid that you're making a rather common mistake that I term "the transitivity of source prohibitions", which is to assume that even if information is verifiable and from a reliable source, if the process of that reliable source acquiring the information involved anything which would be unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, then the information in question is therefore prohibited from Wikipedia.  This isn't the case, however.  A Wikipedia editor couldn't conduct interviews with eyewitnesses about an event such as a fire or a shooting, and yet a reporter covering a story about such an event for the New York Times would certainly interview any such eyewitnesses.  Does this mean that Wikipedia could never include any of the eyewitness accounts published by the Times? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While that is certainly a nice term, it really has absolutely nothing to do with my objection to the material. I am certain that you are a person that can own up to an error and can see that your statement "WP:BLP only applies to unsourced negative material" is just plain incorrect. Here is what it says "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Speculation by a critic can in no way be considered a "high quality source" relative to Ms. Presley's marriage. It is only of this dubious quality: '"Scientology has been known to tell people to get divorced or married for public relations purposes," says Lawrence Wollersheim'. The critics never even say they are privy to anything relative to Ms. Presley, it is pure speculation.  Does that work for you? Will you please revert your edit? Otherwise wikipedia is no more than a tabloid. Thanks--Justanother 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry, but you still don't seem to quite understand. You seem to be arguing that even though it is verifiable that a reliable source published that former Scientologists believe this to be true, Wikipedia should not include the information that they believe it, because you believe that they are incorrect in believing it.
 * But it is precisely because people make such arguments, that their personal views on what is obviously true or obviously untrue should overrule even the most verifiable statement coming from the most reliable sources, that Wikipedia spells out that "verifiability, not truth", is the criteria we use. Therefore, even if you were saying that you believe it to be untrue that those former Scientologists had even advanced that speculation, that belief does not outweigh the fact that it is verifiably reported by a reliable source.
 * This is, I'm afraid, something you'll have to adjust to if you want to keep on contributing to Wikipedia. One thing that may help you to adjust to it is to remind yourself that you have two roles in relationship to Wikipedia, reader and editor.  The reader in you is completely free to believe or disbelieve anything you read on Wikipedia.  The editor, however, has to answer, not the question "Do I think this is or isn't believable?" "Do I think this is or isn't true?" but "Do I think that this should be presented for other readers to make up their minds, the way I did?"
 * Finally, I really do need to point out that you should be glad Wikipedia has the "verifiability, not truth" policy that it does. If it was ever repealed, how much of what L. Ron Hubbard said would be removed from Wikipedia because it was obviously untrue? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are getting closer but still miss my point. I imagine I can find any number of people that suppose any number of things and those suppositions might be verifibly reported.  Suppose someone speculates that George Bush (or any other public figure for that matter) is an alien pod person and that speculation is reported a NY Times column.  Should we put that in the George Bush bio page? Would it stand? What you would like to include are opinion columns that give voice to random speculation by critics; that is not a source of anything other than that some critics speculate and that has no place in biographical references to Ms. Presley.  You can present those speculations in reference to the Church or LRH but not a living person. My point is bios of living people have special rules (e.g. 3RR does not apply if I decide to pull this). You don't present vague maunderings and speculation no matter how verifiable they are.  I think you are letting your POV color your thinking here. Last time, please self-revert. Thanks--Justanother 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that you don't understand. However, the fact remains that you are trying to take what WP:BLP says about material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and apply it to material that is verifiable and well-sourced, and no, you do not magically become free of the requirements of 3RR merely by claiming that you were applying WP:BLP. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As always, I welcome discussion--Justanother 01:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful and harmful
I am removing this doubtful and harmful statement by a known liar, Jesse Prince. Re his credibility, see my link to SPTimes. If you want to include this statement, then you should also include relevant and well-referenced information about his credibility on the subject.

This is the statement:

According to statements by former Scientologist Jesse Prince, celebrities are secretly being given lucrative compensation for endorsing Scientology. Their Scientology auditing courses are provided free. These courses regularly cost up to $1,000 dollars per hour. According to Mr. Prince, John Travolta alone has had in excess of $100,000 of free services in compensation. 

This is my proposed addition:

It is of note that Mr. Prince's credibility on the subject of Scientology was reportedly called into question in 2003 by the Florida judge presiding over the Lisa McPherson wrongful death suit, later settled out-of-court. Judge Susan Schaeffer, in an order allowing the case to proceed, stated that "One of the estate's key witnesses, Jesse Prince, has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility."Ruling lets Scientology death lawsuit proceed St. Petersburg Times published January 14, 2003 accessed 2006-10-04

I welcome discussion from others--Justanother 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Antaeus last edited the page and I am satisfied with that edit as resolving the pending conflict; please unprotect. Thanks--Justanother 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So because a Judge deemed that a person is un-suitable to appear as a witness he is a "known liar". Sounds like Scientology FUD to me.  They seem to love tracking any bit of dirt they can find on anyone who speaks out against the 'church' and try to link it upto the comments they've made to 'disprove them'.  Please, do elaborate on how this person is a "known liar" due only to a judges opinion.


 * 202.12.233.21 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected because of the reverting. Let me know when you've reached an agreement and want to start editing again, or leave a request on WP:RfPP. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please unprotect; I believe the storm has passed. Thanks--Justanother 22:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of whether the storm has passed, but of whether you will stop reverting. If I have your assurance, I'll unprotect so long as there are no other objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will tell you exactly what I told you the last time. I do not have any intention of continuing to try to remove that material except by consensus or other appropriate remedy. I have also already acknowleged that I misinterpreted the application of WP:BLP as regards well sourced gossip, speculation, and slander. Please do not again read into my words more than what is there and then penalize me when I violate what you, by your own admission, misunderstand me to say.--Justanother 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want another assurance from me I assure you that I will continue to edit in wikipedia in accordance with my understanding of wikipedia policy and if I am shown to be wrong in my understanding then I will make appropriate adjustments.--Justanother 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're doing your wikilawyering thing again, which I can assure you no one tolerates. I'll keep the page protected for now. If anyone else wants to start editing, let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to edit the page. Please unprotect it. Thanks--Justanother 00:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin - If by wikilawyering you mean that I am not willing to accept a condition you have no right to ask of me; i.e. that I "stop reverting" - what does that mean? forever? everywhere? Especially after you already (inappropriately, IMO) punished me by blocking and then reneged on your agreement to unblock me - then YES, I am wikilawyering. If by wikilawyering you mean that I say precisely what I mean and mean precisely what I say then YES, I am wikilawyering. And if by wikilawyering you mean that I refuse to accept some condition by default, i.e. by my silence, but instead spell out specifically what I am willing to accept then YES, I am wikilawyering again there too.
 * But what about you, SlimVirgin, what exactly are YOU doing here? Are you running some back-door ban on me of indefinite (infinite?) duration and no direct appeal process. Is that what you are doing?  Because if you are I would appreciate you taking ownership of that too and letting me know.--Justanother 02:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit history of this article going back a couple of days, and I think that the page protection as a cooling off period for the edit war is a good idea. Justanother, there is no ban on you, indefinite or otherwise. Please understand that page protection is not indicative of a judgment of who is wrong... it is a judgement that the heat of the discussion could perhaps become light if we rest for a day or two. You had a 24 hour block for 3RR, a very minor matter which is now behind us.

Rather than getting into a quarrel with SlimVirgin over the details here, perhaps time could be spent more constructively here on the talk page discussing the article as it stands, and how we might all work together in a spirit of kindness and mutual respect to improve it.--Jimbo Wales 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, thanks for your input. I thought that Antaeus and I had already come to an agreement (I have no problem with his last edit of the disputed material) and that there was no reason at all to protect the page. I did not see SlimVirgin's protection of the page as a general protection to allow for cooling off but specific to ME, i.e. it was MY reverting that was the reason he was protecting the page "It's not a question of whether the storm has passed, but of whether you will stop reverting.") and it was only ME that he would not unprotect for ("I'll keep the page protected for now. If anyone else wants to start editing, let me know.") But perhaps I misinterpreted SlimVirgin.
 * SlimVirgin, please clarify if the above is true. Are you only protecting the page "against" me specifically. If not, then who else?
 * Finally, Jimbo, while I would certainly be most happy to spend my time here editing, I also think it important that I defend myself against egregious actions of sysops and other editors or I will be setting myself up for more of the same given that I am a pro-Scientology editor and have found my edits (and now, my very right to edit) attacked without exception since I arrived here about 6 weeks ago even though I have not evidenced bad faith in my edits, IMO. I think that I have gotten over my initial shock of being attacked and am working to return to a "kinder and gentler" disposition in my dealings with others without, of course, condoning inappropriate bahavior against me personally.--Justanother 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Only minutes after making this post claiming no "bad faith" yet vowing to return to a kinder disposition, JustAnother made this post on Antaeus Feldspar's talk page. wikipediatrix 14:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong wikipediatrix. I made it on MY talk page in response to an ongoing and only tangentially related disagreement (his use of the term falsehood in characterizing something I said in my defense earlier) that we were having wherein Antaeus rejected the olive branch I offered. My reply to that rejection was "whatever", meaning I don't care to continue arguing with him.--Justanother 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it was your talk page, obviously. You responded before I could go back and change my obvious misstatement. Regardless of whose page it was, your comments were unresponsive to his valid questions, just plain rude, and reeking of WP:CABAL-noia ("I am sure some will now take the opportunity to chime in support of you"). wikipediatrix 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Things tend to speak for themselves, wikipdiatrix. Sorry if you were offended. Regarding his questions - we had been going back and forth on it; I offered to put an end to it. I am not interested in arguing the point further with you or Antaeus, it is non-productive.--Justanother 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving on
Justanother, my advice is to move on past who-said-what, and deal with the substantive issues. This is the paragraph in dispute:

"According to statements by former Scientologist Jesse Prince, celebrities are secretly being given lucrative compensation for endorsing Scientology. Their Scientology auditing courses are provided free. These courses regularly cost up to $1,000 dollars per hour. According to Mr. Prince, John Travolta alone has had in excess of $100,000 of free services in compensation. (Prince's credibility on the subject of Scientology has been called into question, for instance by the Florida judge presiding over the Lisa McPherson wrongful death suit who expressed a belief that Prince had extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacked credibility."

Perhaps you could say what you feel is wrong with it; in particular, whether you're saying it's inaccurate or that the sources aren't good enough. If it's the latter, can the editors who want to keep it find better sources? (Note that I can't get involved in the dispute because I protected the page, and protection doesn't imply that I agree with the current version.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I already told you that I am fine with it; there is no dispute; the storm has passed. Please unblock the page.--Justanother 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some discussion of the issues before unprotecting; or are you saying you're fine with the paragraph now? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been saying that repeatedly. I have no objection to the paragraph as it stands. I feel a need to do a bit of wikilawyering here because I feel that if I EVER edit in the paragraph again someone might well throw that statement up in my face. Sorry but that is one of the things that my brief experience editing here has taught me. Right now I am fine with it; I may decide to edit in the paragraph again in the future. That statement is not some sort of bad faith weasel-wording on my part, just how I think it needs to be put.--Justanother 03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I'm happy to unprotect, though I'd like to give the others a chance to weigh in with an opinion in case there's an objection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK--Justanother 03:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page): SlimVirgin; I don't know you except by the dealings we have recently had but I must mention that I do not think that you have been treating me appropriately starting with you reneging on your unblock. My basic sense of fairness alarm is ringing pretty loudly and that is a good indicator to me that something is wrong. I find especially egregious your back-door page ban on me that has lasted quite a few hours. I would like you to respond to me directly on that issue. Thanks--Justanother 02:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently SlimVirgin copied the above over from her talk page. I put it there because I feel that if you have a beef with someone that you have any respect for at all then you put it on the table and go from there.  I don't know SlimVirgin except by her actions with me recently but her position as a sysop counts for something with me in that I assume that she must have evidenced competence and even-handednesss to get that position. I wanted to give her the chance to address my upset over her behaviour. I thought her talk page was the more respectful place to put it.--Justanother 03:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've seen no objections, I'll go ahead and unprotect. Happy editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

X and Y
Can someone tell me what the standards are here for creating an article that puts two concepts together like this? It's true that Scientology puts great importance on its Celebrity Centers, but those are already covered in their own article. This article seems to be primarily someone's private essay comparing and contrasting the two subjects of Scientology and celebrities. To me, it seems very POV to do this. Scientology is connected to almost all fields of human existence in some way, so that one could create any "Scientology and X" article that popped into their head, and probably find proper sources for it too. Highfructosecornsyrup 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV from extremely non-RS source
This statement"'According to statements by former Scientologist Jesse Prince, celebrities are secretly being given lucrative compensation for endorsing Scientology. Their Scientology auditing courses are provided free. These courses regularly cost up to $1,000 dollars per hour. According to Mr. Prince, John Travolta alone has had in excess of $100,000 of free services in compensation.'"has no place in an article on wikipedia. It is a claim made by a single discredited source and only reported on a highly POV website. See this Florida judge for a neutral evaluation of Mr. Prince's credibility ("One of the estate's key witnesses, Jesse Prince, has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility.") Regardless of another editor's opinion, as expressed in his edit summary, it is not "important, well-documented, and balanced information". This is about as far from "well-documented" as you can get if by "well-documented" you mean anything that approaches WP:V and WP:RS. The fact that I previously managed to note that he is a known liar his credibility on the subject of Scientology is well-known to be suspect does not "balance it" either. That was my n00b error in thinking that you would argue against inappropriate material in an article instead of simply removing it. Though I should note that I did get in trouble for trying to remove it as I was not then familiar enough with wikipedia policy to make my case effectively. I hope I can do better now! In brief, unless that statement can be found in RS, it simply does not belong here. Comments, please. --Justanother 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That single sentence in the SP Times doesn't go into enough detail. (Certainly not enough to say that he is "a known liar".) Was the judge speaking in general about Mr. Prince, or on the subject of specific questions in the Lisa McPherson civil case for which he would have been an expert witness? AndroidCat 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the court meant that Jesse Prince wasn't really an independent party, due to him working for the LMT.
 * Lets not forget that scientology wanted to exclude him and argued that he was the former Nr.2, and knew their legal strategy. (Previously they had claimed that he was only a "janitor" :-))--Tilman 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, the main point is that this is unsupported and extreme POV from a non-RS source. It has no place here. We could make a big deal out of investigating every player in this show but what we are really supposed to do is stick to RS. Don't you think? --Justanother 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure why this Factnet article is a non reliable source. It seems to meet all the RS criterion. I'm not sure why it's POV, either. Regardless, if it was POV, it seems to be negated by being prefaced with "According to Jesse Prince..." which clearly informs the reader of the nature of the allegations. What's the problem with this?  . V .  [Talk 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Jesse Prince statement
This Request for Comment is regarding whether the following comment from Jesse Prince, as told to FACTnet is an appropriate inclusion in the article, Scientology and celebrities."'According to statements by former Scientologist Jesse Prince, celebrities are secretly being given lucrative compensation for endorsing Scientology. Their Scientology auditing courses are provided free. These courses regularly cost up to $1,000 dollars per hour. According to Mr. Prince, John Travolta alone has had in excess of $100,000 of free services in compensation.'"

Comments by previously-involved editors

 * Justanother's Comments - This statement has no place in an article on wikipedia. It is a claim made by a single discredited source and only reported on a highly POV website. See this Florida judge for a neutral evaluation of Mr. Prince's credibility"His extreme bias against the Church has been discussed by this court on numerous occasions. I find his credibility, based on his previous testimony, and the testimony before me at the Omnibus Hearing, to be suspect.'" Regarding the bias of FACTnet, I doubt that we will find much in RS either way but I offer this from one academic:"'A good example of the anti-cult mindset is the F.A.C.T.Net  (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network) Home Page [Online]. Available: http://www.factnet.org/index.html. This site was created by former members of  Scientology. although it includes media coverage, it has obvious bias against cults and particularly Scientology.'"This is about as far from "well-documented" as you can get if by "well-documented" you mean anything that approaches WP:V and WP:RS. The fact that I previously managed to note in the article that he is a known liar his credibility on the subject of Scientology is well-known to be suspect does not "balance it" either. That was my n00b error in thinking that you would argue against inappropriate material in an article instead of simply removing it. In brief, unless that statement can be found in RS, it simply does not belong here. Comments, please. --Justanother 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments by non-involved editors

 * Hmm, I didn't even see this RFC when I made my post above. Anyway, I see no real reason to say it's not a reliable source. If a source has a POV, it just needs to be recognized in the article. The problem with POV sources comes along when they're stated as unequivocal fact. I'm not sure if this source is severely POV, however, the section is prefaced with "According to..." which clearly indicates to the reader who is saying it. So I'm not sure if there's any problem regarding this.  . V .  [Talk 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because I just opened the RfC (smile). --Justanother 23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd! The timestamp for the RFC says 3 Feb and the timestamp for the comment I wrote earlier is 4 Feb.  . V .  [Talk 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Copy and paste error. I will fix it now. Thanks for your comments. When you first responded prior to the RfC I had not offered any backup to my claim that FACTnet is biased. That was because I figured that most of the editors here are familiar with all the players. Does the fact that a 3rd party has backed me up affect your opinion at all? --Justanother 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose what I meant was "excess POV." Every source is probably going to have some sort of POV one way or another. But anyway, I think this would fall under the "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" section of WP:NPOV. Because it's attributed, how would it violate policy?  . V .  [Talk 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an unsupported statement by a very dubious source with a history of inventing stories to defame Scientology (see his invented story implicating Miscavige in the Lisa wrongful death suit that prompted that remark from the Florida judge). This goes well beyond presenting controversial views. He could just as well have said that Scientologists eat babies. Statements such as that should have some credibility, i.e. supporting facts, testimony, or evidence, or be presented in RS before bring presented here --Justanother 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an article secondary source about an individual's primary experiences. It doesn't seem that bad to me, but could you provide me with a link to his invented story?  . V .  [Talk 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is extensively discussed in the ruling referenced above with the judge's quote. --Justanother 01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave it a cursory reading and I can't see anywhere that says he invented a story, but rather that his claims were not admissible as evidence. This does not necessarily mean his story is false, only that it cannot be used as evidence (which happens quite a bit in court cases.) Can you direct me to a particular line?  . V .  [Talk 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is in there but all this is not so germane, IMO, to my point about this being an isolated and dubious claim. --Justanother 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your concern and I agree with the concern itself, but I think the manner by which it should be dealt with is different. This Jesse Prince obviously has an anti-Scientology bias. However, I'm not sure this is an isolated claim. Scientology interests me, so I've done quite a bit of research on the topic. As such, I've come across this claim in various places. One is here []. Although it's not exactly what Jesse claims, the line about Travolta/Miscavage/etc using Scientology services for free is essentially the same thing without the money count. But back to the Jesse Prince issue. Like I said, he's got a clear bias (although I must admit, it's hard to find a perfectly neutral source in this field. Scientology is a bit of a polarizing topic.) Anyway, the NPOV policy has a provision for biased sources. It states we are to attribute biased/potentially-biased sources so that the reader can make his own conclusions. This seems like a fine course of action, especially that there's a "disclaimer" about Prince that follows this statement. (Although I think that it needs certain edits: the "for instance", for example, is unduly biased against Prince.)  . V .  [Talk 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine that F.A.C.T.Net by any stretch of the Wikimagination can be considered a reliable source by itself. It seems the arguments being made here for inclusion boil down to "include it because I agree with it." I don't think that substitutes for reliable sourcing, and to the extent that is has been a substitute, it is doing nothing but–sadly although occasionally comically–turning Wikipedia into the tabloid that many have warned against. BabyDweezil 18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why?  . V .  [Talk 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?
As a person with very little exposure to Scientology, I've often wondered what its appeal is to so many people in the entertainment field. Are they looking for a network to help their careers? Do they want help getting off drugs? Does Scientology really have mysterious powers? Or is it something else? Could these kind of questions be addressed in this article? Or at least some theories mentioned? Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the situation is that, early on, Hubbard recognized the advertising power that celebrities had. He made a concerted effort to get them in Scientology, leading to the construction of the "Celebrity Centers" which are more posh and high-brow than the average Scientology org. And celebrities love being treated like that, so they ate it up. It's hard to find a religion that builds separate places of worship for celebrities and the rich, so it's pretty much the celebrity one-stop-shop for high-class religion. For many of these celebs, money is not really an object, so they don't get the hassles that a lower level Scientologist would. Because a bunch of high-profile celebs are Scientologists (Travola, Cruise, etc) this makes it seem trendy and ropes in other lower-level celebs who want to follow in their footsteps. There's quite a bit of information on this subject. I'll see if I can add some.  . V .  [Talk 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed and then restored
I took this paragraph out and then it was put back:


 * More recently, Tom Cruise has confirmed that Katie Holmes, his wife and the mother of his first biological child, has become a Scientologist. She actively embraces the religion, and has been cited with introducing Victoria Beckham to Scientology. However, Katie Holmes' mother (a Roman Catholic), is believed to be greatly unhappy about the matter, which has caused difficulties for the couple.

Some of the problems I have with it include: Can Tom read Katie's mind to know that she is really a believer in Scientology? If not how can he "confirm" this information for us? What does "actively embraces" mean? Who provided the information that Katie introduced Victoria to Scientology? Who is it that believes Katie's mother is greatly unhappy? Can this person read her mind to know for sure? Where does the information about Katie's mom's feelings causing difficulties for the couple come from? Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion or cult
Clearly using the word religion is incorrect, I suggest using the word cult or spiritual movement maybee the later has less negative conotations


 * Hello Anon. In the future, please sign. Now, as to your statement, "cult" falls more along the lines of personal opinion. Even though Italic textpersonallyItalic text would prefer to use that term, in the interest of neutrality one really can not, until some definitive source makes an official declaration as such (for example, theCoS actually labeling itself as a cult, and I do not see that happening...) HOWEVER, calling it a religion is equally as slippery. I personally advocate the use of the word "organization" as any collective body can technically be called as such, whether it be a religion or a cult or something completely different. Technically, however, Scientology itself uses words such as "church" and even relates itself to a "religion," as by techincality alone the term "religion" should be used. Bare in mind that Wikipedia is a "just the facts, ma'am" compendium rather than an Op/Ed piece. Even if you may personally be right, this is not actually the place for "facts that might be" rather it is for "facts as they stand."

John 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "cult" is not a neutral word. In some cases the word "organization" may be fine; I think one could say "...he is a public face for the organization," though "Church of Scientology" may be better there. The CoS describes Scientology as "an applied religious philosophy," so, depending on the context, that might also be used. Candy 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The three examples
I am not sure if examples of Scientology celebrity stories should be given at all. Why should these three people be mentioned and not others? How about just a list of well-known celebrity Scientologists? People can go to their articles to find out more if they are interested. Steve Dufour 11:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about replacing the detail-filled entries with this sentence from the main Scientology article, or something close to it?: " Among the most well-known of these figures are John Travolta, Kirstye Alley, Catherine Bell, Beck, Jason Lee, Isaac Hayes, Tom Cruise, and Katie Holmes."


 * I am going to go ahead and make the change. The way it is now could have problems with neutrality and Wp's living persons policies. Steve Dufour 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of USA
The chilena Writer/Singer Alberto Plaza has recently converted to this cult He is the most important singer of Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.224.17 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities lead charge against Scientology
Celebrities lead charge against Scientology

Cirt (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements section
It has been suggested that I add the section about Churchill's family to this article.

I think there were other occasions where the Church of Scientology was misrepresenting celebrity endorsements. If I find them again Ill expand the section. --Codex01 (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Reference #11 & 12
Hello,

I know this has been discussed previously [] but I really wanted to further discuss the usage of this citation (Reference #12). As has been mentioned before, this source does not stand up to WP:RS by its being "a significant minority view" due to it being listed on a non-reliable and not a significant blog. Additionally, this does not meet requirements for WP:Verifiability as the article appears to be original research and is, in no way, attributable to a reliable, published source.

Related to this, I also propose removal of Reference 11. Upon searching for a valid link of this article in an established and reliable database, no results are returned. As this reference is used in making a claim, albeit an indirect and potentially contentious one, I propose removal of these citations and any subsequent copy. If no one objects, I will go ahead and make the adjustment. Scifilover386 (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. Scifilover386 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave Brubeck was never a scientologist.
In fact, there is no evidence of this and there is an interesting disclaimer at the end of this article:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/celebrity-news/the-tomkat-split-is-hollywood-getting-a-divorce-from-scientology/article4394740/?service=mobile

References to him being interested in Scientology seem to come from the fact that Darius Brubeck, Dave's song was a scientologist:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21633-Top-100-Stupid-Moments-in-Scientology/page205

http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.pieceofbluesky.4.2.htm

90.207.61.41 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Manson
This article is supposed to be about Scientology and its relationship to so-called "celebrities", however which way you want to define that word. Last time I checked, Manson has never been referred to by any reliable source, nor Scientology itself, as a "celebrity." Manson's history with Scientology belongs in an article like Scientology controversies or some other such article, but to claim him as a "celebrity" member, even in a historical context is too much a violation of WP:NPOV. Laval (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientology and celebrities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814160615/http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/07/scientology-walking-dead to http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/07/scientology-walking-dead

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)