Talk:Scientology officials

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)

• Option 1 If living people are no longer associated with Scientology, including them in the same list as current workers in the group presents a problem. It's quite widely considered a derogatory thing to say someone is affiliated with Scientology. Where we have RS that indicate they are no longer associated with Scientology, we ought to keep them separate. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Everyone should be in a single alphabetical list (whether current, deceased, former, or unknown-status), and we should leave it to the paragraph to describe when we know someone to be dead or having left office. Due to the non-transparency of the organization, we rarely have up-to-date information about whether any particular official is still in office, is imprisoned within the organization, has died, or left the organization — many faded from public mention years ago with no information about their whereabouts or status (a longstanding problem with this organization who recruits people for lifetime work contracts). Therefore, attempts to divide the list into "current" and "former" is fraught with inaccuracy, and all such subcategories/subsections should be removed.
  The list is of notable officials/staff, and not a list of "everyone who is or ever has been an official". These are people who have been mentioned in books or news articles as having had a prominent position in the organization or some key role in the history of the organization. Most have been mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, suggesting we should at least have some mini-bio content to link to so as to describe who they are/were within the organization. This article is the obvious choice for such content, and is the purpose of this list-within-an-article. I disagree with any subdividing of the list.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 No categorization. Explain all of the stuff the text on them. Partly for the reasons described by Grorp. But more importantly, from a policy standpoint, placement of a person in a particular category is a statement that they are in that category (e.g. that they have left the position, that they are currently in the position, that they are still living) and such will often be unsourcable and thus unsourced. Finally, as a minor sidebar, there is some ambiguity in the headings....since all deceased are also "former", does "former" imply that they left the position while alive? (which would be another implied statement) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW I think that Cambial expressed a valid concern. We should find a different way to address it. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Cambial's concern is moot because everyone in the "Former officials" section has either been a public critic (the majority: Armstrong, Aznaran, Hawkins, Headley, Mayo, Rathbun, Rinder, Saxton, Tabayoyon, Young & Brooks) whose former official status granted them the clout to speak out with knowledge and experience on the subject, or was a very public figure when they were still in Scientology such as "official spokesman" (Davis, Feshbach) or were very highly placed in the command structure (such as Broeker, who was named as L. Ron Hubbard's successor, but was ousted by Miscavige in a power struggle). The former group wouldn't object to being on this list, and the latter ones would have no right to object.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

would have no right to object. what? This is not about you’re granting yourself the power to decide who has rights to object to being described in a particular way. It’s about accurately reflecting reliable sources. If reliable sources indicate that a living individual is not a Church of Scientology employee, this website should not suggest, falsely, that they are. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current prose content that states, suggests or infers such people are Church of Scientology employees when sources have indicated they are not.

Cambial, by creating these subcategories and placing people in them, you have stated in wikivoice that they are or are not. Your subcategories ignore the issue of those remaining in the "current" category when we have no sources stating they still hold those positions (or are not also 'former' at this time). I don't see you trying to solve that problem. We can only state what we know (via sources). Pigeonholing people into mutually exclusive categories has more pitfalls than a single alphabetical list with each person being appropriately described (as each one is).

This list is no different than other within-article lists of notable staff except that we are dealing with a non-transparent conglomerate that routinely hides people.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, nothing in the prose content. Were we to place them under a heading saying "notable officials", the heading and their inclusion in the subsequent list would indicate they are notable officials, even though reliable sources state they are not.

You claim you don't see [me] trying to solve that problem. That's not relevant. "We haven't solved this *other* problem, so we may as well introduce a new one" is a bizarre and unproductive approach, to say the least. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Since you won't let me put all the officials in a single alphabetical list, please clarify for readers in the content (not here on the talk page) what is meant by "Former" in Scientology officials § Former officials, and remove or clarify under Scientology officials § Notable Scientology officials where is says "This section contains a select list of some of the current and former officials of Scientology organizations."   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the nudge – shouldn’t have a header without an explanatory preamble. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)