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

Proposal: Rename this article to Scientology officials

This article is no longer simply a list. I propose renaming it from List of Scientology officials to Scientology officials. Discuss. Grorp (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What about simply Scientology official? DjembeDrums (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's pretty clearly plural. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed without prior discussion to Church of Scientology officials

Well, it looks like someone unilaterally decided to rename Scientology officials to Church of Scientology officials without any prior discussion or consensus... as if the former name wasn't clear enough. I wonder what kind of "Scientology officials" there are that aren't part of the Church of Scientology?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

An article rename of this magnitude really needs prior discussion. As far as the rename itself, I'm sort of neutral. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also the issue that staff of the Scientology front groups can be, and have been, included in the list but aren't recognizable as "Church of Scientology" officials. Changing the name changes the focus of content. I object to the name change.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean in the list of examples of officials? All of them were employees of the Church of Scientology. The list has the heading “This is a list of current and former officials of the Church of Scientology.” The heading was written by you. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: As is mentioned in this article, as well as Church of Scientology and List of Scientology organizations, the Church of Scientology conglomerate includes many entities that are not named with "Church of Scientology" in their corporate title. (And you know that.) Their commonality is Scientology, authorship, ownership, management, personnel, policies and procedures, and the financial ties that bind them all. Individuals who run the Sea Org, Religious Technology Center, Author Services, or any of the Scientology front groups, are all "Scientology officials", but they are not all "Church of Scientology officials". Scientologists and the public (neither of whom know any better), tend to employ the name "Church of Scientology" to include the entire conglomerate, but it is not technically correct—hence why I tend to add "network" or "conglomerate" after it when I mean to convey "the set of all those organizations" and not just the service organizations which have "Church of Scientology" in their corporate names.

The purpose of that edit of mine, the one you linked to, was intended to fill out a list article into a full article with prose content and context, not be careful about the nuances of "Church of Scientology". Even so, the first several of my mentions of CofS were clearly noted as "Church of Scientology network" (conglomerate), whereas your choice of new name for this article (Church of Scientology officials) doesn't convey the same distinction. The name Church of Scientology officials isn't as broad or all-encompassing as Scientology officials. My change led to the uncontroversial renaming from List of Scientology officials to Scientology officials. Even so, I announced my intent, and no one commented for over 3 months before I went ahead and did the rename (move); not to suggest 3 months is desirable, but to emphasize that no one contested the idea.

Had you started a discussion, or even announced in advance your desire to change the name of this article, these matters would have come to light beforehand. See WP:BEFOREMOVING and WP:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim that Scientologists and the public (neither of whom know any better), tend to employ the name "Church of Scientology" to include the entire conglomerate, but it is not technically correct. I disagree with your claim it is not “technically correct”. The Church of Scientology, per its own article and WP:COMMONNAME, refers to the entire group of interconnected corporate entities, RTC, CST, blah blah. It’s not merely to refer to one specific legal entity. The transparent financial shell game/fraud the organisation likes to play at to try to evade responsibility for its criminal activities, human trafficking etc, is not one we need to pander to here. Scientologists and the public and reliable sources tend to treat the group of corporate entities as all “Church of Scientology”; it’s appropriate for us to do the same. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing You seem to be arguing against the rename that you just did. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t follow your line of thinking. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that. I misread. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm mildly opposed to the rename and more strongly opposed to how it was done. A major change with not a bit of discussion. On the "mildly opposed" a part of my rationale is the same as Grorp's. And I disagree that it is the most commonly used name, which is clearly just "Scientology". Hence the naming of the top level articles. A part of it I would think that you would be sympathetic to.....there are arguments on what it is; amongst the many possibilities is a business and a cult. The move that you made weighs on that argument on the side of it being a religion. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Scientology is usually used to refer to - per our article - the movement/religion/new religious movement/scam/whatever. It's not a physical thing but certain ideas and a few people who follow those ideas to more or less extent. The Church of Scientology is a specific legal entity (or group of entities), which owns buildings, pays water bills, files lawsuits (and how!), publishes books etc. The officials work for those legal entities. As an analogy, in common parlance the pope is referred to as the "head of the Catholic Church", we don't usually say "head of Catholicism". In addition, there's lots of non-CoS splinter groups (the so-called Free Zone) that have their own "officials"; we thus avoid any ambiguity. That's my thought process. I don't consider it a major change; we're still referring to the same officials, merely narrowing the scope of application for clarity and to avoid ambiguity. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that those are some good rationales and analysis for the change that you made. On the second point of my post, IMO changing the name of an article which has active editors is certainly something that should be discussed first. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only is the Free Zone FRINGE, but I haven't once read a news story about a Free Zone "official". The word "Scientology" is trademarked by Religious Technology Center, the keeper of the trademarks and service marks. Even "Scientologist" is a "collective membership mark indicating membership in a church and church membership services of the affiliated Scientology churches and missions" (which excludes all Free Zone activity). [1] Despite the desires of a handful of people who want to practice Scientology outside of the purview of the Church of Scientology network, they have no legal right to use the term. We in Wikipedia don't need to cater to those beyond the periphery of Scientology by covering their freezone or "independent scientology" activities any more than due weight warrants (which is very little). And lastly, there is unlikely to be any ambiguity since this article starts out "The Church of Scientology network..."

If the word "Scientology" only meant the beliefs, then "The Aims of Scientology" written by Hubbard in 1965 wouldn't make any sense. He clearly is using the word "Scientology" to also mean the organization by using "us" and "we", and the context in which Hubbard uses "Scientology". He means the all of it, beliefs, organization, members, staff, everything.

• Excerpt #1: "Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race or nation."
• Excerpt #2: "Scientology does not owe its help. We have done nothing to cause us to propitiate." [2]

I tried to figure out which phrase was most used by news reporters: "Scientology officials" or "Church of Scientology officials". A manual search matched the results of my questioning an AI search engine—which I asked to tell me which phrase is more used by news reporters; it responded that both variations are valid, neither is inherently more accurate, though the shorter version is likely more common. That's what I found in my manual searches.

Searches of "Scientology officials" and "Church of Scientology officials" brought up many news stories. The higher-class of news organization tended to use "Scientology officials" (and infrequently "church officials" mixed in). They did not, however, flip back and forth using "Scientology officials" and "Church of Scientology officials" (they used one form or the other). A search for "Church of Scientology officials" yielded a lesser grade of media, such as The Sun, Pagesix, DailyMail, People, LA Mag, Business Insider. I thought that was interesting.

Those which I found with clear use of "Scientology officials" included: 1997 New York Times, 2001 The News Media & The Law, 2011 The New Yorker, 2013 BBC News, 2013 France24, 2015 New York Times, 2023 AP News, 2023 RollingStone, 2024 Tampa Bay Times, 2024 LA Times

Then there is the usage in Wikipedia. I checked for titles of Wikipedia articles which included "Church of Scientology" versus only "Scientology". Those with "Church of" are few—mostly titled lawsuits, a specific organization name, or part of a book title (none of which can be changed or second-guessed). Examples: Headley v. Church of Scientology International, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Outside of that, there are but two articles named with "Church of Scientology" in the title: Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, List of trademarks owned by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates.

On the other hand, there are numerous articles with just "Scientology" in the title—not specifically meaning "the ideas, the movement", but implying "Church of Scientology" or, rather, the organization(s). As examples, these include: Scientology front groups, Scientology as a business, Scientology controversies, Scientology and law, Scientology status by country, Tax status of Scientology in the United States, Scientology and the Internet, Timeline of Scientology, Scientology and celebrities, Scientology in Germany, Scientology and psychiatry, Scientology ethics and justice, Scientology and sexual orientation, Scientology and abortion, Scientology and gender, and List of Scientology organizations.

To recap: I've covered that "Scientology officials" is more common in news coverage (common parlance), Hubbard intended "Scientology" to also mean the organizations, Wikipedia article titling also intends "Scientology" to mean the organizations, and the Free Zone doesn't hardly matter. That should be enough for today.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE refers to an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views [my emphasis]. In other words, it means a specific view, opinion, claim or idea about a thing. The Free Zone refers to things in the physical world; it doesn't refer merely to a view, opinion, or idea. For the purposes of Wikipedia, and the guideline to which you link, views or claims can be fringe; things that exist, such as people or organisations, are not "fringe". If we were to label things in the world as "fringe", for Wikipedia purposes, because those who are part of them hold fringe views, or are a minority group, every Scientology article on Wikipedia would be considered FRINGE, because 99.999% of the population thinks of Scientology ideas as a ridiculous joke used to entrap the stupid, or, more likely, never thinks of them at all.

I refer to ambiguity in the article title, which is what is at issue. The opening sentence clearing up ambiguity after a link is followed by the reader does not resolve the problem of the ambiguous title. An opening sentence phrased as you point out - "The Church of Scientology network..." - ought to be reflected in the article title.

The Church of Scientology website is an unreliable source. But regardless, whether those who believe in Scientology, but are not part of Church of Scientology, have no legal right to use the term is irrelevant. They do use it.

You claim that [if] the word "Scientology" only meant the beliefs, then "The Aims of Scientology" written by Hubbard in 1965 wouldn't make any sense. Hubbard's writings, being the incoherent ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic, do not make any sense in any circumstances. One's interpretation of his intended meaning for a particular word has no bearing on the reality that he wrote bullshit.

There is no dispute that Hubbard intended Scientology to only ever refer to groups under his control - Church of Scientology. He no doubt never intended external groups to exist, wanting all profits to accrue to him. Hubbard is not a reliable source, including (in fact, especially) about himself and the movement he created. Thankfully, we pay no attention to a dead crackpot's desires in writing Wikipedia.

Boolean name searches are not relevant here. The title of the article is not a specific "name", but rather refers to a topic. Within the subject of Scientology, the topic might be referred to as Church of Scientology...: "executives"; "management"; "leadership"; "high-level employees"; "clergy"; "directors"; "administrators"; "officers"; "agents"; "representatives"; "bureaucrats"; "supervisors" and many other terms. I have no view as to which is preferable; "officials" is fine, if presumptuous. But it does seem important to be clear to what organisation these bureaucrats belong: Church of Scientology. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In Kent 1999, Stephen A. Kent flips back and forth using "Scientology" to mean the idea/religion and to mean the organization(s). Kent never once uses the term "Church of Scientology" except when mentioning a specific corporate entity.

In Urban 2011, Hugh Urban uses "Church of Scientology" and "Scientology" interchangeably to refer to the organizations.

Today, what we call "Scientology" is in reality a remarkably complex network of ostensibly independent but clearly interconnected corporate entities. ... As such, Scientology is perhaps best understood not simply as "a religion" but rather as an extremely complex "multi-faceted transnational organization," of which religion is one—but only one—aspect.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still a weak oppose to the move that was made. On one hand "Scientology" is the common name, and overall it is best titled "Scientology", and it really refers to the amalgamation described in Grorp's last post. On the other hand, from a precision standpoint the specific entity that these people are officials of is the "Church of Scientology" North8000 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Except there is no entity titled "Church of Scientology". Just as you cannot sue the "Sea Org" because it isn't a legal entity, neither can you sue the "Church of Scientology". It doesn't exist in fact (per the law); it only exists as a concept. That idea is that "Church of Scientology" is an alias used to mean the conglomerate of all Scientology corporations and non-corporations. The same can be said of the word "Scientology" without the "Church of". Both are concepts; neither are entities; and both convey the meaning of the conglomeration of all Scientology organizations—lock, stock, and barrel.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology does exist: we define its common meaning at Church of Scientology. The financial shell game played by Scientology lawyers need not concern us. The group of corporate entities that make up the organisation is what the officials that are the subject of this article are officials of. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Grorp, it sounds like I was mistaken. I thought that "Church of Scientology" was a legal entity and their main legal entity. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

North8000, I didn't realize you didn't know that. It is now covered at List of Scientology organizations § The term "Church of Scientology".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that that article existed and now added it to my watchlist. In view of that overwhelming amount of information, I think that I need to plead "temporary ignorance" on that aspect until I can absorb and learn it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not seeing any genuine attempt at neutrally or reasonably engaging in a dialogue to resolve the issue of having renamed this article without any prior discussion, and in spite of the protest of other editors.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

Hugh Urban quotation

@Graywalls: I have reverted your edits related to the Hugh Urban quote. Yes, it is directly supported in the cited source. Here is a photograph of page 131 with the quote circled.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)