Talk:Scientology officials

Notability

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 of this exchange. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@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