This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology officials article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 claim of me that 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 " You insult me with claims of being "evasive" and refer to me saying 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[edit]@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)
"Scientology officials" as a group[edit]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:
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, 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:
@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
|
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)
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:
▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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 ==
=== Deceased ===
== Former officials ==
Option #2
== Notable Scientology officials ==
=== Deceased ===
=== Former officials ===
Option #3
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)
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)
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or ((efn))
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha))
template or ((notelist))
template (see the help page).