Shibbolethink (talk | contribs) m →Moved from user talk page per WP:TALK (was List of Scientologists): edit reply to Grorp (CD) |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
: {{reply|Beccaynr}} I restored the content and added a reliable source, [[WP:RSP#The Guardian|The Guardian]]. After you deleted it again, and another editor restored it, I added a third reliable source, [[WP:THR|The Hollywood Reporter]]. Not to mention there are at least [https://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/v/vivian-kubrick.html 11 Church of Scientology publications] mentioning Kubrick's participation within the Church of Scientology, two of which I have copies of, and I could probably get ahold of more of them. ''I can confirm'' the presence of the name "Vivian Kubrick" in Celebrity Magazine issues 357 & 359. I don't think it's within our purview as Wikipedia editors to evaluate whether or not a close family member is lying to the press (or is 'mistaken'). I found many articles describing Vivian Kubrick as "reclusive" so I'm not surprised we don't find anything showing her saying to the press that she's a Scientologist. [[User:Grorp|Grorp]] ([[User talk:Grorp|talk]]) 05:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
: {{reply|Beccaynr}} I restored the content and added a reliable source, [[WP:RSP#The Guardian|The Guardian]]. After you deleted it again, and another editor restored it, I added a third reliable source, [[WP:THR|The Hollywood Reporter]]. Not to mention there are at least [https://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/v/vivian-kubrick.html 11 Church of Scientology publications] mentioning Kubrick's participation within the Church of Scientology, two of which I have copies of, and I could probably get ahold of more of them. ''I can confirm'' the presence of the name "Vivian Kubrick" in Celebrity Magazine issues 357 & 359. I don't think it's within our purview as Wikipedia editors to evaluate whether or not a close family member is lying to the press (or is 'mistaken'). I found many articles describing Vivian Kubrick as "reclusive" so I'm not surprised we don't find anything showing her saying to the press that she's a Scientologist. [[User:Grorp|Grorp]] ([[User talk:Grorp|talk]]) 05:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I agree with @[[User:Grorp|Grorp]]. I don't think there's anything in [[WP:BLP]] about ''where'' the information came from prior to it appearing in the fact-checked reliable source like ''the Guardian''. We aren't a courtroom and there's no rules about "hearsay" or whatever. I think with the current available sourcing, the content should be included. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
::I agree with @[[User:Grorp|Grorp]]. I don't think there's anything in [[WP:BLP]] about ''where'' the information came from prior to it appearing in the fact-checked reliable source like ''the Guardian''. We aren't a courtroom and there's no rules about "hearsay" or whatever. I think with the current available sourcing, the content should be included. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::From my view, [[WP:BLPGOSSIP]] is one of the policies that prevents us from relying on statements from estranged family members. We need to be careful with how we present information about living people, which is why I deleted it per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]]. There is no indication [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/aug/18/stanley-kubrick-christiane the 2010 ''Guardian'' interview] fact-checked her mother's statements. |
|||
:::Also, the [[WP:DAILYBEAST]] entry at [[WP:RS/P]] includes {{tq|Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons}} and the [https://www.thedailybeast.com/stanley-kubricks-scientologist-daughter-vivian 2010 ''Daily Beast'' interview with her step-sister] includes no indication of fact-checking, and [[WP:THR|The Hollywood Reporter]] is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, and in its [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/scientology-looms-as-kubrick-daughter-scraps-shelley-duvall-crowdfunding-campaign-950012/ 2016 report] appears to rely on "family members who have spoken with the media" (i.e. the 2009 Guardian interview and 2010 Daily Beast interview) because "THR made several attempts to question Vivian about her Scientology connections following its initial interview with her. She has not responded to any of them, nor has the Church of Scientology nor GoFundMe responded to a request to comment for this story." |
|||
:::As {{u|Grorp}} notes, there does not appear to be anything showing her saying to the press that she is a Scientologist, which appears to support not including contentious information based only on statements from estranged family members. Also, even if it was appropriate to speculate for the purposes of inclusion in a list this broad, she has not exactly been a recluse, e.g. she was reported on several times in 2016 and 2019, including for her statements about Shelley Duvall (e.g. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2019/10/30/shelley-duvall-rise-fall-shinings-troubled-star/ The Telegraph], 2019; [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/dr-phil-celebrities-criticism-exploit-mentally-ill-shelley Buzzfeed News], 2019). [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:45, 19 January 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Greg & Janet Deering?
In the page for Deering Banjo Co. you state that Greg & Janet Deering founded that company in 1975. They are scientologists, so should one or both be listed here as CEO status?
- And also maybe Sky Dayton? Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email)
Jerry Seinfeld
I believe that Jerry Seinfeld briefly dabbled in Scientology for like a month but NEVER officially join. Can someone provide proof and references that he was a member because as far as I am aware he's always held on to his Jewish beliefs and faith. If there is no credible references I'm going to remove him from the list.That Business Insider article as a reference is not credible because it does not give any proof that Seinfeld was actually involved in Scientology, they just wrote it and BOOM its suppose to be fact, well it isn't fact, we need to have concreate evidence/proof that Jerry Seinfeld studied and was officially affiliated with Scientology in some way shape or form. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
This list should not be promotional
LISTN requires that reliable sources discuss the list as a group. The only sources to do so are clickbait chumbox websites. The closest to an RS discussing something in the subject area is a Rolling Stone article about celebrities who have left the Scientology organisation. Not the same thing (in fact, its polar opposite).
To be completely clear - I don't think this should be deleted, as folks are bound to search for subjects mentioned in chumbucket articles on WP. But that is not the criteria for creating lists in the encyclopaedia, which requires reliable sources to discuss the list as a list. This should be retained, redirecting to the article Scientology and celebrities, where the article subject has a basis in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted the redirection of this page. To continue to unilaterally redirect it would likely constitute edit warring. I would suggest instead that a merge/redirect discussion be held so that consensus could be gathered on the notability of "scientologists" as a group. Keep in mind that via WP:LISTN, the question here is whether "scientologists" are notable, not the "Church of Scientology" or "Scientology" itself, and also not "List of Scientologists" the question is: is the concept of "scientologists" notable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Several other sources worth considering:
- Reitman, Janet (8 February 2011). "Inside Scientology". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
- "
There are 8,300 or so Scientologists living and working in Clearwater — more than in any other city in the world outside of Los Angeles. Scientologists own more than 200 businesses in Clearwater. Members of the church run schools and private tutoring programs, day-care centers and a drug-rehab clinic. They sit on the boards of the Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce and the Boy Scouts.
"
- "
- Slater, Jack (20 September 2020). "What is Scientology and which celebrities are Scientologists?". Metro. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
- "
Scientology might not be for everyone, but it got a huge platform thanks to many of the stars who have been attached to the Church.
" Probably unreliable given its Metro, but worth considering. Also goes into famous current and former scientologists in greater depth.
- "
- Jones, Eileen. "Why So Many Celebrities Are Scientologists: Going Clear, Revealing New HBO Doc, Holds Clues". In These Times. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
- "
Speculation about who’s a Scientologist among successful Hollywood actors has long been a luridly enjoyable source of gossip. Google “celebrity Scientologists” and you’ll find multiple online sites listing who’s reportedly in (or in and then out again.) It is no mystery why Scientology wants to attract celebrities, but it is an ongoing mystery to the general public why the rich and famous, presumably the most free and autonomous individuals in a capitalist society, would tie themselves to a highly controversial and controlling religion.
"
- "
- Ortega, Tony (4 July 2011). "Scientologists: How Many Of Them Are There, Anyway?". The Village Voice. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
That question came up again this week when the Associated Press, reporting on an interesting development in Russia*, happened to mention that Scientology claims 10 million members worldwide. If that number were true, Scientology would be a little smaller than Judaism around the world, and well ahead of the Baha’i faith. And if you think that’s true, we have a lovely bridge here in New York City that you might be interested to hear is for sale…
"
Scholarly sources:
- Andersen, Peter B.; Wellendorf, Rie (2009). Scientology - "Community in Scientology and among Scientologists". Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 151-210. ISBN 9780199715954.
- Westbrook, Donald A. (2019). Among the Scientologists : history, theology, and praxis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190664985.
- Klippenstein, Kristian (2020). "Revisiting Jonestown: An Interdisciplinary Study of Cults by Domenico A. Nesci (review)". Nova Religio. 23 (3): 112–114. ISSN 1541-8480. Retrieved 14 June 2022. (reviewing and commenting on Westbrook's piece above, but also discussing the relationship between "Scientologists" and sociology) (PRIMARY)
- Máté-Tóth, András (2016). "Scientologists in Germany: a sociological study". Religion in Society. 4. University of Szeged. (PRIMARY)
All of these are sources which discuss the overall group of "Scientologists" as a somewhat separate topic from their religion and one worthy of study and note. I would say this probably qualifies for LISTN, but would require some expansion of the lede of this article to discuss the group, its connections to celebrity, obsession with prestigious members and recruiting them, secrecy, mental health denial, etc. Would be happy to help expand that to improve the article.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I tend to agree with the various scholars, journalists, judges and other experts that state Scientology is not a religion (or not primarily a religion – its religious aspect merely a marketing function of the business), if we are comparing to actual religious groups, it's worth noting that there are articles for Christianity and Christians; Islam and Muslims; Hinduism and Hindus; Judaism and Jews, etc. Scientology has no such corollary (2). I doubt that such an article could be supported (Donald Westbrook's excruciatingly dull and extremely naive book notwithstanding). It's odd to have a "list of X" but no article about "X". The closest we have is Scientology and celebrities which is more about how the organisation has specifically sought to recruit entertainment industry families into the group, and then gives a few representative examples. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think cult is a subset of religion, personally, and that many organized religions are more business than church at this point (e.g. Catholicism). I would say the question is not about other articles, LISTN is distinct in and of itself. For demonstration's sake, we have List of Jains but Jains redirects to Jainism. We have List of atheists but Atheists redirects to Atheism. We have List of bahais but Bahai is a DAB. We have List of Pagans but Pagans is a DAB. We have List of Rastafarians but Rastafarians redirects to Rastafari.We probably could have an article titled "Scientologists" per the existence of these sources. That's all that matters. Even if such an article were a perma-stub, DAB, or redirect. If it's notable enough, then it qualifies for LISTN, even if such an article has not been created. I would also say that this list serves an informational and navigational purpose, in that users would happily navigate among and between articles of notable current and former scientologists. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Table Coloring
The table is unreadable in the Wikipedia mobile app with dark mode on 2603:8080:2C06:47E9:5D2D:7925:B5E3:8B9A (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Charles Manson Deletion from former members
The source that he called it "too crazy" appears to come solely from a tabloid article with no additional sourcing. Find a better source or change his listing to deceased members. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:25FB:CEB9:E31F:B6DC (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- addtl sources added, quote removed as not supported enough — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Should Jeff Conway be on the list?
I know he took some Scientology courses to help with his drug problems but I don't think he actually became a member at least I couldn't find any evidence that he was Bob3458 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- "John [Travolta] and I stayed friends but he couldn't watch me going down the tubes...he gave me a whole library of Scientology books and he's given me an auditor who comes almost every day." [4] Grorp (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Bob3458: Both words "prove" and "member" are irrelevant. First, in Wikipedia we write based on other reliable sources, not what your opinion or "conclusion" is about someone. Wikipedians don't need to "prove it"; this is not a court of law. Second, inclusion criteria is clearly stated at the top of the list-article: "A Scientologist is an adherent of the doctrines and beliefs of Scientology." There's nothing about "membership". Anyone who is getting "daily auditing" would be considered a scientologist. If you're requiring nothing less than a public declaration by the person himself that was published in an independent reliable source, well that's stretching the rules of Wikipedia WP:VERIFY beyond what it was intended to be. Grorp (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Moved from user talk page per WP:TALK (was List of Scientologists)
Hi Grorp, I'm writing to follow up on my removal of content [5] from the List of Scientologists article, per WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:BLPREMOVE. To follow up on your first edit summary restoring the information [6], statements by family members do not appear sufficient to support this information, and these seem to be the only available sources. From my view, it seems most appropriate per BLP policy to not include the information at this time. Per your second edit summary restoring the content [7], even though the Guardian is reliable, it still relies on an interview with a family member, which makes it a poor source for a contentious claim about a living person, including for how the claim is presented in the list article.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and we can always ask the BLP Noticeboard for additional input. I am sorry you continued to restore the disputed content instead of discussing it (I was composing this note to you after I removed the content again), but I encourage you to review the applicable policies, consider the sources, and at least remove the disputed content until there is consensus to include it.
Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whoops! I am striking some of my comment above. It is past my bedtime, and I will plan on posting something on the article Talk page tomorrow. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thread was moved here from my user talk page, per WP:TALK. Grorp (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr: I restored the content and added a reliable source, The Guardian. After you deleted it again, and another editor restored it, I added a third reliable source, The Hollywood Reporter. Not to mention there are at least 11 Church of Scientology publications mentioning Kubrick's participation within the Church of Scientology, two of which I have copies of, and I could probably get ahold of more of them. I can confirm the presence of the name "Vivian Kubrick" in Celebrity Magazine issues 357 & 359. I don't think it's within our purview as Wikipedia editors to evaluate whether or not a close family member is lying to the press (or is 'mistaken'). I found many articles describing Vivian Kubrick as "reclusive" so I'm not surprised we don't find anything showing her saying to the press that she's a Scientologist. Grorp (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with @Grorp. I don't think there's anything in WP:BLP about where the information came from prior to it appearing in the fact-checked reliable source like the Guardian. We aren't a courtroom and there's no rules about "hearsay" or whatever. I think with the current available sourcing, the content should be included. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- From my view, WP:BLPGOSSIP is one of the policies that prevents us from relying on statements from estranged family members. We need to be careful with how we present information about living people, which is why I deleted it per WP:BLPREMOVE. There is no indication the 2010 Guardian interview fact-checked her mother's statements.
- Also, the WP:DAILYBEAST entry at WP:RS/P includes
Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons
and the 2010 Daily Beast interview with her step-sister includes no indication of fact-checking, and The Hollywood Reporter is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, and in its 2016 report appears to rely on "family members who have spoken with the media" (i.e. the 2009 Guardian interview and 2010 Daily Beast interview) because "THR made several attempts to question Vivian about her Scientology connections following its initial interview with her. She has not responded to any of them, nor has the Church of Scientology nor GoFundMe responded to a request to comment for this story." - As Grorp notes, there does not appear to be anything showing her saying to the press that she is a Scientologist, which appears to support not including contentious information based only on statements from estranged family members. Also, even if it was appropriate to speculate for the purposes of inclusion in a list this broad, she has not exactly been a recluse, e.g. she was reported on several times in 2016 and 2019, including for her statements about Shelley Duvall (e.g. The Telegraph, 2019; Buzzfeed News, 2019). Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with @Grorp. I don't think there's anything in WP:BLP about where the information came from prior to it appearing in the fact-checked reliable source like the Guardian. We aren't a courtroom and there's no rules about "hearsay" or whatever. I think with the current available sourcing, the content should be included. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)