Talk:Scientology officials/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Created, using sourced material from page, List of Scientologists. -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed info and sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Per some comments from Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) [1], and wanting to be promptly responsive, I removed sourced info from entry, Jessica Feshbach, and also removed instances of source, Morton 2008. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed entry on Feshbach, diff.
Removed source, Morton 2008, diff.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Saxton

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

This is some kind of fork... As discussed previously at Talk:List of Scientologists/Archive 1#Aaron Saxton, Saxton cannot really have been a "senior official", whatever the sources that want to hype his status say. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is covered in much more detail, at the article Aaron Saxton.
It is backed up to multiple citations, both at this page and at the page on the individual.
Quotations are included in the citations, in order to make it easier to verify to the secondary sources.
He was a member of the Sea Org, a senior organization within the Scientology organization itself. And he was a senior member within the Sea Org, a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization (CMO), a senior organization within Sea Org.

-- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with Gerry Armstrong. These former members do not fit in a list with the founder, official spokespersons, directors, presidents, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

They are all notable officials that served within the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Armstrong (activist) did some archival work - that does not make him an official. How old was he when he in 1980? This list is just inflating the significance of these people, that had been totally unnoticed before they left the cult. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He is noteworthy both for his role in the organization within its elite group the Sea Org - and his actions after exiting the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP issue. You are including Armstrong in a list of Scientology officials, without any source stating that he was any kind of official. All that you have to support their inclusion that these guys were in Sea Org with over 3000 others, for $24 per week as pocket money. That must be way below the pay scale for a cult official. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you attempting to dispute that members of the Sea Org are officials within the organization? -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of "officials" volunteering at sports events. They are not notable for an encyclopedia. Are you claiming that everybody in Sea Org fits in this list? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, only those with existing Wikipedia articles, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

purpose?

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

What was the purpose of spinning off a separate list? This just duplicates List of Scientologists, since all current officials are obviously also Scientologists. By maintaining two separate lists, there's the danger that there's less attention paid to one. --Rob (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed it from List of Scientologists, now it is only here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So, some of the most famous Scientologists aren't listed as such. :( --Rob (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the page, List of Scientologists, as you see fit, adding members directly into the main list itself, now that there is no longer a specific subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This page, however, has been determined by the community to be independently notable and noteworthy of keeping. :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't waste my time editing two redundant overlapping lists. I'll let you and others do that. Eventually the two pages will be merged back together into one, and all such efforts at duplication will have been a total waste. BTW, I'm still waiting for a *single* citation (reliable 3rd party source) that proves a person is a signficant official with teh CoS and not a Scientologist. Just one. --Rob (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Examples" aside, members of a purported belief system and officials of an organization should not be mixed together, as if they were the same thing, when they are not. -- Cirt (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no examples, which is why you're putting them aside. But, I'm glad you're not naming people with contentious claims, without sources, which is a violation of WP:BLP.
Let's for the sake of arguement, assume there are official positions in Scientology which are open to non-Scientologists. If such positions exist (as they do in some religions) then those positions would be an entirely different sort, belonging in an entirely different list. Scientology does have people work on it's behalf who are not Scientologists, such as lawyers, and investigators. Some probably work exclusive for Scientology. I wouldn't consider them "officials", despite they may do "official work". But, whatever you call them, they do not belong with those currently on this page. They are an entirely distinct category of position, that shouldn't be mixed in with what's currently on this page. We could make a List of non-Scientologists working for Scientology (not sure of the name).
Suggesting somebody is an official of a religion for which they don't beleive in, is a potentially defamatory claim, which requires strong sourcing to back it up. You're basically making that claim implicitly, when you list somebody as a Scientology official, but not as a Scientologist. Unfortunately, it's hard to monitor such sourcing, when a claim is made implicitly .
You have to see what people on this page have in common Everyone has actively claimed Scientology to be the truth, and promoted it, officially, publicly. They haven't just performed technical functions for the Church. They didn't just hold an official position, but they held an *important* position of authority in the Church, or they should not be included in this list (they have authority over other in the Church and/or they have authority to speak for the Church). --Rob (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am making no such "claims". Everything on this page is backed up by multiple secondary sources. I have not added any such violations as you suggest, and will not do so. Please do not suggest again that I would, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to what you said on the AFD, which is also covered by the WP:BLP, when you named people, but gave no sources. In that discussion, you indicated the conversation would continue here. I'd quote what you said, but that would be a violation of WP:BLP. Anyways, care to respond to any of the other points raised? Anyhow, were you intending to remove Category:Scientology officials from being a subcategory of Category:Scientologists to be consistant. --Rob (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, I have so removed the category. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Backing off from this page I had created, going to allow others to have some input. I am glad the community consensus was Keep. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Scientology officials. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Scientology officials. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)