Talk:Scientology officials

Notability

This discussion concerned an earlier page title. A change of article title and focus renders the topic moot. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The WP:GNG and specific WP:LISTN criteria are that the topic itself - i.e. Scientology officials as a list or as a group - need to be covered as such in reliable sources. There is no evidence of this at present in the current references, and I don't see such coverage in reliable sources. While some of the individuals on this list are certainly notable (while others are not), that does not translate into notability for this article. We already have a List of Scientologists article, and as has already been pointed out by others on this talk page this article is unsupported overkill. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) You opening sentence was not correct. There is no such requirement..it is mentioned as on option at WP:Notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. There is no, nor should there be, an article for Scientology officials. The group (nor the concept) does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) There is a section of wp:notability which specifically covers lists and you didn't quote from it.North8000 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) The second two sentences (of three) that I quote above reproduce verbatim the first two sentences of the section to which you refer, i.e. WP:LISTN at wp:notability. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, the way that you pieced together selected parts of the guideline as if it was quoting a chunk of the guideline threw me. And you left out the the parts that refute what you are claiming. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) I said the notability criteria are that the topic itself - i.e. Scientology officials as a group or list [the topic of this article] - needs to be covered as such in reliable sources. Pretty basic stuff. That’s what the quotes from WP:notability say. If you think the guideline then goes on to contradict itself I’m sure you’ll quote where you think it does so. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Cambrial, you continue to mis-state what wp:notability says. I'm tired of going around in circles with you. If you are claiming that WP:notability says that "the topic itself - i.e. Scientology officials as a group or list [the topic of this article] - needs to be covered as such in reliable sources" please quote where it says exactly that. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) I’ve already quoted the relevant sections. It’s a basic principle of WP:SIGCOV that a topic requires significant coverage of that topic. You claim I hadn’t quoted from the section about lists, even though I quoted from exactly that section. You claim I “left out the parts that refute” my summary, but fail to indicate what you think they are. In that context it’s reasonable to be sceptical of the possibility of this becoming a productive discussion. The notion that lists are somehow exempt from SIGCOV has no support in the consensus policies on article notability. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) See my previous post which you did not answer, instead you are giving me more of the same evasive mess. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, you spoke of going in circles and then asked me to provide quotes that I already provided in my second post. I’m not disputing that we’re going in circles, only the notion that there’s anything I can do to pull you out of it - doing something I’ve already done won’t help. I’m reasonably familiar with WP:N. In the absence of evidence for parts that refute what [I am] claiming (you’ve made 2 subsequent posts to that unsupported claim with no attempt to give it substance) I’ll continue in the knowledge that they don’t exist. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Still evading actually answering. An instead demanding that someone prove a negative on that incoherent evasive mess that you've been throwing at me. Signing off on this exchange. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Asking that you provide evidence of something you claim exists is the precise opposite of asking someone to prove a negative. No doubt you’ll not allow that obvious a priori truth to trouble you. It’s unfortunate you perceived a simple explanation of the requirement for significant coverage of a topic “incoherent” but I’ve not the time to assist with English comprehension skills. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) @Cambial Yellowing: Asked and answered, so you can now drop the stick, and also knock off with the PAs. Grorp (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Your post does not address North’s unsupported claim of parts that refute SIGCOV at notability. I’m familiar with ~two-thirds of your list of books and articles about Scientology. They don’t contain the “vast” coverage of the group or list that you claim they do, regardless of the thesaurus of verbs you use to describe them. I can see there’s little value in replying here so I’ll address those brief mentions in the deletion/redirect discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Grorp, if you've been continuing to contribute in this area and dealing with this individual, including this evasive pointless illogical logical BS, I'm going to see if they have a "Sainthood" barnstar for you. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Your claim that others are illogical, immediately after your statement that a request for real-world evidence of what you claim exists is a “demand” to prove a negative, injects some light humour into this talk page. Evidently your commitment not to back down from your unsupported claim is a priority; I’ll not stand in its way. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) In this thread, you are inventing lies about what I said and using those as a basis for insults. You are also inventing all kinds of illogical BS using using them in ad hominem denigration against participants. STOP! The core question is your claim that wp:notability says "notability criteria are that the topic itself - i.e. Scientology officials as a group or list [the topic of this article] - needs to be covered as such in reliable sources." (emphasis on "as such" added). If you persist in this claim, please show exactly where it says that. Not all of the evasive illogical, insulting and ad hominem stuff which you filled this section with, just show exactly where it says that. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC) You claim of me that you are inventing lies. You offer no evidence for your claim - Where is it? The answer is that there is none. You know full well that I quoted you verbatim, with ellipsis for brevity - your exact full sentence: An instead demanding that someone prove a negative on that incoherent evasive mess that you've been throwing at me. (diff). Where did I demand someone prove a negative? Or did you make that up, along with your new groundless claim of inventing lies about what [you] said and using those as a basis for insults (diff). The repeated accusations that I'm engaging in the exact practice you employ in your comments look like projection and are not acceptable conduct on this website. I already quoted from wp:notability; it's my position that it supports what I wrote. You call a refusal to give you further quotes on demand "evasive" (diffs 123) - despite that I already quoted the relevant parts of the guideline. I'll not speculate what imaginative framing you put on your total refusal – you've not quoted the guideline – to provide evidence of "parts that refute" what I wrote (diff). Presumably to you that is not evasion. You insult me with claims of being "evasive" and refer to me saying evasive pointless illogical logical bullshit (diff) and that I'm "incoherent" (diff). Given you offer no evidence for your claim of me inventing lies about what [you] said and using those as a basis for insults, I'll assume this is a reference to me implying in my last comment that your claim, that my request for real-world evidence of what you say exists is a “demand” to prove a negative, is an illogical one. It is illogical, so I stand by that. Apparently you believe when you refer to others' as saying evasive pointless illogical logical bullshit that's acceptable, but when others point out illogical claims on your part that's insults. I find that an extraordinary and amusing view. I'll not waste time on it. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Arbitrary break @Cambial Yellowing: Who pointed out ... on this talk page this article is unsupported overkill? Diff or wikilink, please. Grorp (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) see here and here for previous discussion of the duplication of List of Scientologists. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) @Cambial Yellowing: I see. You're referring to a 12 year old discussion and AfD where the 'officials' content was spun out of List of Scientologists and both articles were kept... and where no one used the word unsupported or the hyperbolic overkill. So what's your suggestion? Put 'officials' back into List of Scientologists? Or is that article also on your list of things to delete or challenge? Grorp (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) The age of the discussion is not relevant. I’m not interested in nitpicking about the exact words used in what I summarised. Putting it into List of Scientologists would be appropriate. Other editors convinced me of the value of List of Scientologists without resort to histrionics. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) "Scientology officials" as a group The term "Scientology official" is a non-scientologese catchall term encompassing any Scientology employee or volunteer (the de rigueur term nowadays) who holds any post (position) within the Scientology network of organizations, including those with or without management or executive powers. "Scientology officials" are also known as: staff members executives or execs the Sea Org Sea Org members Messengers Sea Org executives Executive strata Scientology seniors Scientology management Senior management International management Church management Scientology executives or execs Guardian's Office/Guardians/Controllers Watchdog Committee CMO & CMO Int & CLO & Flag Bureaux and many others. (I'll stop listing now.) The term "Scientology official" excludes anyone considered a "member of Scientology"—who are all "junior" to every staff member. Members are covered in the Wikipedia article List of Scientologists. Per WP:LISTN, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. (emphasis is mine) Such "Scientology officials" have repeatedly and frequently been documented, discussed, reported on, covered, announced, described, noted, listed, divulged, published, and publicized ad nauseum, and mentioned as a group or as lists or as categories or as individuals numerous times over an extended period of time by multiple third-party independent reliable sources. Such sources include books, reports and news articles, such as, but not limited to: Books: Atack, Duignan, Lamont, Lewis, Reitman, Rinder, Wright Reports: The Anderson Report, Kent, Stafford, The Truth Rundown @Cambial Yellowing: you are welcome to refer to these sources to see for yourself the vast coverage of the topic of "Scientology officials" by an assortment of writers from different countries spanning 57 years. Grorp (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) References

Requested move 17 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved as proposed – revert of recent undiscussed move. There is no need for a formal RM discussion to justify such a revert. Speedy reverts can be simply executed or requested at WP:RMTR#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. The burden for needing to convince others to rename an article should fall on the person who wants to move an article away from a stable title, not the person who wants it moved back. (non-admin closure) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Church of Scientology officials → Scientology officials – The article should be restored to Scientology officials. A week ago, an editor renamed the article without any prior discussion. I objected to the move, as did another editor. Attempts at dialog have been futile; evidence/reasons have been unconsidered. Article was correctly named and in line with other usage in Wikipedia, including matching the Category:Scientology officials, language used in other wiki articles, alignment with titles of many other wiki articles (ex. List of Scientology organizations, Scientology front groups, Scientology and law, Tax status of Scientology in the United States, and others), alignment with common usage by news agencies and scholars (as mentioned in talk page discussion #Changed without prior discussion to Church of Scientology officials), and several other technical and legal-based arguments for keeping the original name, Scientology officials.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make one unified list

I propose that we should remove the separate subheadings of current/deceased/former in the List of Scientology officials, and make it just one unified list (alphabetical by last name).

Reasons:

• For those in the "Current" section: We won't necessarily know when someone dies, or is kicked off of staff, or leaves Scientology. Thus, maintaining this section to see when someone needs to be moved out of the section is next to impossible.
• For those in the "Deceased" section: Each entry already begins with a year of death, making those entries easy to spot if they were mixed in with live people in a single unified list.
• For those in the "Former" section: Ambiguous; does it mean former scientologist or only former staff/official? By being a separate alphabetical list from the "Current" section, it makes it hard to find someone you're looking for by name, because there are 3 alphabetical lists you have to scroll through. We should be able to include mention in each of these relatively small paragraphs that the person has left Scientology (or left staff) without putting their entry under a separate section. In fact, all but one (Jessica Feshbach) already have such content (mention being former, or leaving, or publishing something only an ex-scientologist would publish) without needing to put them under the heading of "Former".

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a view about current/deceased; these could perhaps go in a sortable table (?)

If living people are no longer associated with Scientology, including them in the same list as current workers in the group presents a problem given BLP policies. It's quite widely considered a derogatory thing to say someone is affiliated with Scientology, even by merely including them on a list. Where we have RS that indicate they are no longer associated with the CoS at all we should keep them separate. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

These paragraphs are not about people's personal lives, nor are we including "anyone and everyone who were ever on staff". These blurbs are about those who hold/held official positions or actions within Scientology while on staff, and may include their related activities after being on staff such as: litigation with Scientology, or writing a book about their time on staff. The individuals on the list are those who are already publicly mentioned in books, news articles or scholarly works, or have made themselves publicly known as being an ex-staff member.

A sortable-table doesn't solve the problem about knowing if someone is no longer an active official. If we have a reliable source about it, we write something about it in their entry in the list; if we don't, then we really can't say they are former staff. Also, tables tend to limit the amount of information you can say about someone and are more appropriate for "few sentence" type content, not paragraphs.

In most cases, these individuals are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. Blurbs here allow us to link to a "mini staff background" from those other articles without having to include their background for context in the other articles. The items here are not meant to cover everything about their life like a standalone BLP might.

Readers wouldn't be coming to this article to find "ex-staff" or "current staff" in general (because this is not a directory). They would instead come here to find out something about a particular individual they are interested in. Perhaps sent here by wikilink from another Wikipedia article which mentions that individual by name. Those who are wiki-notable may also have their own standalone article, but some others (like the Aznarans) are notable enough to mention, but maybe not enough for a standalone article. I would rather such content be put here than make a stub-article.

I made an edit to clean up each of the entries so they would be able to be put into one unified alphabetical list regardless of current/former/deceased status.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right about a table limiting the information (at least without the table becoming too unwieldy to be useful). BLP policy applies to all aspects of living people, not only their personal lives. We thus need to ensure we're not implying something at a glance (i.e. by inclusion on a list) that RS indicate is no longer the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on nesting of subheadings/levels for a list with some subsections

Which style of subheading nesting should be used for the lists of people in this article? (The difference is in the last subheading, "Former officials".)

Option #1

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

== Former officials ==

Option #2

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

=== Former officials ===

Option #3

(Something else, please specify)

Over the last 18 months, the nesting of the list with its subheadings has changed numerous times and has not resolved with talk page discussions, leading to this RfC to try to settle the issue.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Or to put it more simply, should "Former officials" be a level 2 section in its own right, or a level 3 subsection within the "Notable Scientology officials" section? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the question du jour. Personally, I think it should be a single list without any subheadings.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)