Talk:Emily Armstrong

Armstrong's links to Scientology

Seems the reference I linked got removed despite there being photos of Armstrong at the event the article was covering, of her alongside Cedric Bixler-Zavala who was also a member of the Church at the time - although he's since denounced it and previously called Emily out on Instagram for initially defending Danny Masterson. Though that's just an Instagram screenshot so isn't good enough to use as a source, the other should be. It's just difficult to find concrete information from wider sources given how secretive Scientology is, and how Armstrong is fairly quiet about her private life. VampireKilla (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I totally get it; I did a ton of searching to write this article and the only thing I could find about her personal life was that she's a vegetarian. I removed that she was a Scientologist because the reference was from Scientoloy News and we need an independent source. To me, it is contentious. JSFarman (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Have tried a new one from Tony Ortega's website, which mentions her membership of the Church as she was at the trial of Danny Masterson and friends with Cedric while he was a member of the Church. VampireKilla (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the edit before I saw that you removed the Danny Masterson mention. Thanks for that. But we still need a solid source. The ref you used does not qualify. If you can find a source, maybe create a personal life section that states just the facts? JSFarman (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think to credibly list her as a member of Scientology in any capacity, we would need solid sources that answer if she is still a member, or if and when she left. Obviously a Scientology-run website and a photo provided by Scientology to GettyImages are not credible sources at all, but the Ortega page might be. But even then we would have one, somewhat biased source stating that she was a member at that point in her life, which wouldn't answer the other questions. It would also open another can of worms, namely her friendship with Danny Masterson. Which begs the question if that is even relevant for her article. That said, since this is obviously a hot topic, I can see a lot of IPs and reverts on the horizon. Seelentau (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

He would not be biased against her. Yes, he's a critic of the church, but he has no reason to claim she's a scientologist if she's not. 108.4.203.102 (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

He believes that Danny Masterson raped his wife and that she defended him. I'm not saying he's lying, but there's clearly *some* motive for bias. 2601:205:457D:8B80:4508:B37E:5C59:67FE (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The person above is referring to Tony Ortega, not Cedric Bixler-Zavala. UltraHorse19 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You have three different sources —the Scientology article and picture, Cedric's callout and Ortega's article— asserting that she is a member. I believe this is enough to reasonably assume that she's a member, or at least was back in 2013. It's true that there is no clear confirmation, but removing every mention of Scientology from her page doesn't seem appropriate to me. Megaman Distract Legend (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Megaman Distract Legend yes this should be addressed. Otherwise there will be constant edits. Can we get this article temporarily locked due to the random edits? MrWarfaith (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Megaman Distract Legend: Scientology can just claim what they want, that doesn't make it any more or less true. It would be like using Trump's claims he didn't lose the 2020 elections as a source for him really not losing them. Cedric's callout is an LQ screenshot of an instagram comment he himself made, so it's unusuable for Wikipedia. Only Ortega's article I could see as being a viable source, but as I said, even if we use it, we would still need more sources to decide if she was or still is a member. Unless we know the past and current state of her membership, we cannot add it to the page. But of course it's a developing situation, so let's just wait if any reputable source picks all this up, maybe then we can add something of value. Seelentau (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's now doing its rounds in the tabloids including the Daily Mirror, Metro and Bild but I understand none of those are considered reputable for Wikipedia. I believe Clash Music is fine though and they address Cedric's criticism of Armstrong so might include that if I can work out how to work it into the article. VampireKilla (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if that website is sufficient. They ultimately base their whole article on the same set of information that we can't add because it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. And it would also not answer the question if she used to be or still is a member, how long etc. Seelentau (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

EthanRosie2000 added a controversy section, which seems like the best way to handle the subject, at least for now. The controversy itself has been reported by multiple reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, seems like a good way to proceed for the time being. Seelentau (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section disappeared as of 21:26, should that get re-added? Not sure why it got removed. UltraHorse19 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Scientology or Linking Park PR trying to do damage control, or just some overeager fans. SatanicHorse (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apparently the section was removed and re-added in the Linkin Park section, even tho, according to statements further up in the discussion, it was an explicit decision to list it under controversy as its own section. I guess some higher up should make that decision. SatanicHorse (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I support listing it in its own section (controversy). It will make the criticisms more prominent. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It was moved due to WP:CSECTION, seems reasonable to me. Seelentau (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am on the fence, while the criticism obviously became more prominent now wiht the heightened scrutiny, it is only marginally connected to Linkin Park itself contentwise, it is more general criticism of her public stance towards Scientology and Masterson. It therefore seems misplaced in a section titled 'Linkin Park'. SatanicHorse (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved it before I saw this discussion. I agree. I also deleted "One of Masterson's victims, Chrissie Carnell-Bixler, described her as a "hardcore Scientologist" and a "true believer" of L. Ron Hubbard in a post on Instagram" per guidance on balance and because it is the definition of hearsay. "Neither Armstrong or Linkin Park have responded" needs a source, as otherwise we are implying that they were asked to comment and did not. JSFarman (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comments: Additional info for those on the fence, or not in the know. The Church of Scientology has been very tight with security for several decades. No one gets into the Celebrity Centre Gala (where the photo was taken) unless you are a Scientologist (or a local politician they are schmoozing). Emily is mentioned as completing a course in 2007 on the Church of Scientology's ship, the Freewinds. [1] You don't get on the ship unless you are a Scientologist in good standing.
  Celebrities have been staying quiet about their connections with Scientology for a long time because of the controversies that continue to bubble up, so you're probably not going to get any public statements from Emily Armstrong about her stance on the matter. And since she was born to Scientologist parents, you won't get her publicly announcing if she leaves Scientology, because they would all disconnect from her She would instead quietly fade from contact with Scientology while pretending to still continue associations, so as not to get on their bad side... and lose her entire family.
  If Emily did the Purification Rundown with Cedric, then that was in the Celebrity Centre. It involves sitting in a sauna for 5 hours a day with your "twin". Based on Cedric's comment questioning if Emily had been sent in "to safe point me", it sounds like they assigned Emily to be Cedric's twin, which means spending 5 hours a day with someone. Again, not happening unless you are a Scientologist. Keep in mind that in 2009 Cedric married one of Masterson's rape victims, and the Church of Scientology was still keeping that under wraps. They would have known that eventually his wife would tell him the story, and they would be keeping a very close eye on him to ensure he remained loyal and happy with his Scientology connections. That is how they operate.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Since my edit was just reverted by @Binksternet I must seriously ask what counts as viable information in this article. According to the edit note, the response by one of Masterson's victims to Armstrong's hiring and her statement about Masterson is "he said, she said gossip", howver leaving it out essentially lets it appear as if Armstrong's statement was just accepted and stood for itself, when it actually received some backlash from the people immediately affected, and amounts to more than just "he said she said". SatanicHorse (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:BLP material, so the emphasis is on reliable sources and neutral tone. What I removed was a reference to an Instagram post, which cannot be considered a reliable source here. I also removed a misleading cite to a Vulture.com article that was written on September 6, before Armstrong's response. There's no way that something written before Armstrong's response can be used to support a rebuttal to her words. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Also turns out her mother is Gail Armstrong who is really high up in the Church (as of the BBC, although apparently this isn't a reliable enough source), and it's claimed by Mike Rinder that she spent time in The Hole. But that's from a Tony Ortega article so I imagine that won't be allowed here either. VampireKilla (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source. However, the BBC story you referenced says only "her mother is said to be Gail Armstrong," and not "While little is known about her youth, her mother is believed to be Gail Armstrong, a high ranking member of the Church of Scientology's Sea Org." See WP:SYNTHESIS. Re: Tony Ortega and Mike Binder, see WP:RELIABLE. JSFarman (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Found it.

• Ortega, Tony (August 2, 2012). "Scientology's Concentration Camp for Its Executives: The Prisoners, Past and Present". The Village Voice. Prisoners of The Hole ... Gail Armstrong, PR Aide OSA Int, Int Mgmt PR

Translations:

• The Hole = The Hole (Scientology)
• PR Aide = Public Relations Aide
• OSA Int = Office of Special Affairs International
• Int Mgmt PR = International Management Public Relations

This was published in The Village Voice which is considered a reliable source.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OK cool so we can add her mother's role in the Church to the article then. Not me though as it's too late at night for me. VampireKilla (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel that this information is relevant? Serious question. I know very little about Scientology. JSFarman (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the Sea Org is only for the really high ranking members of Scientology, and only the truly elite of the organisation end up in The Hole. If her mother is/was part of the OSA that's pretty noteworthy, as the OSA are akin to their secret police. VampireKilla (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@JSFarman can confirm this information is extremely relevant, as it means her mom was a spokesperson for Scientology and also for someone in Scientology to be in The Hole, it is someone from a high ranking position within the Church. It also should be kept on Emily's page because it is important to distinguish her as someone who was not a willful joiner of Scientology, and even more to establish what her family's connection to the church is, just like if other pages do that with other celebrities, people of notoriety, etc

As for the article, Mike Rinder himself used to be the head of the Office of Special Affairs and was put in The Hole as well, so he'd know who worked at OSA and especially who was in the Hole. Wanderingmusic1295 (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I have now watched the YouTube commentary and read much more about Scientology, and I get it. Still, the takeaway from the article (which was the #1 most popular article last week!) was about controversy rather than music. I just added reviews from last night in the LA Times and Variety. It is early, but thus far reviews have been positive. JSFarman (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@JSFarman appreciate you doing that my friend, glad I and @VampireKilla could educate you on this particular matter. It's one of those that you have to have the necessary info and context for to understand full picture. Wanderingmusic1295 (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wanderingmusic1295 (talk), For years, every time I walked by the Scientology Center here in Los Angeles someone would ask if I wanted to take a personality test. My go-to answer was "Thanks, but I have no personality." That was pretty much my only exprience with Scientology.(I still think the article needs more about the music. Her voice is incredible.) Thank you again for the enlightenment! JSFarman (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

The co-founder of Dead Sara, on September 5, 2024, it was announced that she had joined Linkin Park as a co-lead vocalist (change this next segment “in place of Chester Bennington, who died in 2017.” to “as Chester Bennington, the prior co-lead vocalist died in 2017.”) 73.204.32.244 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Emily Armstrong (musician) → Emily Armstrong – Has the most page views by far of any Emily Armstrong, as pointed out by @Jax 0677:. Emily Armstrong itself already redirects here, so why not just eliminate the middleman? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Emily Armstrong (musician) has over 100 times more views than Emily Armstrong (artistic swimmer), Murder of Emily Armstrong or Emily Armstrong (disambiguation). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support since the destination page is already a redirect to the source page, should be an uncontroversial move. cyberdog958^Talk 01:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Cyberdog958: that's only the case because User:Jax 0677 tried to move it at the end of September but made a mistake [2] and then reverted themselves after objection but then after it was clarified the primary reason for objection was due to the error tried to reintroduce the move but couldn't [3]. I'm not going to comment on whether Jax 0677 was right to make an undiscussed move since there were decent reasons to think it might have been uncontroversial but I don't think the lack of proper objection for ~15 days count much as consensus or an indication it's uncontroversial. I mean even the initial objection due to the mistake did express some skepticism besides simply the mistaken, I assume partly why Jax 0677 tried to revert. I mean as it was the weirdness arising from this stayed in place for those 15 days before anyone really tried to do anything. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ahh, I see that now. I didn't realize is was just a botched page move that created the redirect. I still support the move, though, just because of the pageviews are clear that the musician is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. cyberdog958^Talk 02:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support She in clearly now the primary topic. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Actin' like a maniac!)} 14:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The status quo cannot remain because redirecting Emily Armstrong to Emily Armstrong (musician) is unnecessary disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 20 October 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.