Cirt and 'List of Scientologists', Cirt undermines credibility of people by labelling them as Scientologi Options

[DaveApter]

Does anyone else find Cirt's activity on the 'List of Scientologists' article?

Quite apart from the excessive level of activity (a substantial proportion of the last 500 edits, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history ), he seems to be furthering an agenda of using the article to smear the reputations of people who have done no more than briefly looked into Scientology at some point in the distant past.

Considering the general public perception of Scientologists, many people would find it embarrassing to be identified as one, especially if the accusation is groundless. Unless a person has self-identified as a Scientologist, it would be a violation of the Biography of Living Persons policy to characterise them as such in Wikipedia.

Cirt's justification for doing so by reference to The Church of Scientology's own claim that anyone who has taken any of their courses is automatically a member of the Church seems to me to be a specious piece of Special Pleading?

Any comments?

[Somey]

Cirt's justification for doing so by reference to The Church of Scientology's own claim that anyone who has taken any of their courses is automatically a member of the Church seems to me to be a specious piece of Special Pleading?

More like "open hypocrisy," but that's hardly unusual on Wikipedia...!

This article goes all the way back to 2002, when it was started with just Tom Cruise and John Travolta on the list - and to this day, it mostly consists of entertainment celebrities, along with a list of "officials," many of whom have been added by User:Cirt. I'd certainly question the appropriateness of listing a few of the former members/officials regardless of the number of citations used in any given case, but if the former member/official in question is OK with it, then there's probably not much harm done even if the person isn't obviously a celebrity.

Anyway, to the extent that the list remains focused on figures in the entertainment industry, it's really not as bad as you're probably making it out to be, IMO. Some might even say that it favors Scientology by suggesting how glamorous it all is, what with all the big stars on the roster... However, you're correct in that Mr. (Ms.?) Cirt is unduly focused on the CoS and seeks to portray it in a negative light wherever possible - not a bad thing actually, but the further he/she goes with it, the more difficult it is to treat it as being within the bounds of WP's so-called "neutrality" principles. (If that's even possible at all at this point.)

[A Horse With No Name]

Chaka Khan is a Scientologist? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[HRIP7]

Chaka Khan is a Scientologist? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

The St. Petersburg Times and The Guardian have said she is a Scientologist.

The New York Times quotes her as saying, "I’m not, never was, never will be [a Scientologist]. I belong to the religion of the Church of Chaka Khan, and I practice it every day. I live my religion, I consider it a personal thing. But I’ve taken some courses in Scientology, and they’ve been very, very helpful through life’s ups and downs."

The Telegraph says, "... she doesn't want to discuss her beliefs. She mentions Scientology, but denies being a Scientologist."

[MC10]

Chaka Khan is a Scientologist? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

The St. Petersburg Times and The Guardian have said she is a Scientologist.

The New York Times quotes her as saying, "I’m not, never was, never will be [a Scientologist]. I belong to the religion of the Church of Chaka Khan, and I practice it every day. I live my religion, I consider it a personal thing. But I’ve taken some courses in Scientology, and they’ve been very, very helpful through life’s ups and downs."

The Telegraph says, "... she doesn't want to discuss her beliefs. She mentions Scientology, but denies being a Scientologist."

According to the NYTimes quote, does that mean she isn't a Scientologist? We could cite that and remove her from the list.

[HRIP7]

According to the NYTimes quote, does that mean she isn't a Scientologist? We could cite that and remove her from the list.

Try it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[DaveApter]

I'd certainly question the appropriateness of listing a few of the former members/officials regardless of the number of citations used in any given case, but if the former member/official in question is OK with it, then there's probably not much harm done even if the person isn't obviously a celebrity.

This is my whole point - clearly some people aren't OK with having Wikipedia broadcast that they are "Former Scientologists", even if they did do a course or two with the CoS decades ago and the fact that they did found its way into the public domain somehow.

[Cla68]

I'd certainly question the appropriateness of listing a few of the former members/officials regardless of the number of citations used in any given case, but if the former member/official in question is OK with it, then there's probably not much harm done even if the person isn't obviously a celebrity.

This is my whole point - clearly some people aren't OK with having Wikipedia broadcast that they are "Former Scientologists", even if they did do a course or two with the CoS decades ago and the fact that they did found its way into the public domain somehow.

Based on my own, undesired run-ins with the CoS when I lived in Hollywood, you can have counseling sessions with that organization without actually "joining it." Its counselors appear to love having the work. Perhaps they get a commission when people actually decide to pay them, I don't know. I'm not sure if that "church" has a formal entrance ceremony, such as baptism which many Christian churches practice. As Somey said, the CoS brings the treatment they get in Wikipedia on themselves by acting in such a bullying and disrespectable manner. Wikipedia is probably going a little too far with it, however, and Cirt might should consider backing off a little bit, or eventually its probably going to blow up.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

The Rust Monster

As Somey said, the CoS brings the treatment they get in Wikipedia on themselves by acting in such a bullying and disrespectable manner. Wikipedia is probably going a little too far with it, however, and Cirt might should consider backing off a little bit, or eventually its probably going to blow up.

We now see how that same bullying culture has infected Wikiversity, this time with Ottava Rima reprising the role of the manipulative bully.

JWSchmidt calls it the "Wikipedia Disease" but manipulation and bullying pervades all toxic cults. It's a corrosive practice that, like rust, is damed hard to stop, once it takes root. Rust is self-catalyzing. And in Wikiculture, manipulation and bullying spread in a similar manner.

[HRIP7]

Does anyone else find Cirt's activity on the 'List of Scientologists' article?

Besides Chaka Khan, Cirt also portrayed Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith as Scientologists, compiling lots of references linking them to Scientology, and studiously avoiding any mention of the fact that they both have emphatically said they are not Scientologists (even in the articles Cirt cited).

[HRIP7]

Oh, and Passomouse (T-C-L-K-R-D) pointed out to Cirt that Pinkett-Smith wasn't a Scientologist. Passomouse's talk page looks like this now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[ulsterman]

Besides Chaka Khan, Cirt also portrayed Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith as Scientologists, compiling lots of references linking them to Scientology, and studiously avoiding any mention of the fact that they both have emphatically said they are not Scientologists (even in the articles Cirt cited).

Maybe Cirt is really a crypto-Scientologist. He's making out that lots of well-known and admired people are in fact Scientologists. That makes the cult more respectable, does it not?

And of course references in articles to their denials may be dismissed as undue weight/primary sources as the case may be.

[HRIP7]

Besides Chaka Khan, Cirt also portrayed Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith as Scientologists, compiling lots of references linking them to Scientology, and studiously avoiding any mention of the fact that they both have emphatically said they are not Scientologists (even in the articles Cirt cited).

Maybe Cirt is really a crypto-Scientologist. He's making out that lots of well-known and admired people are in fact Scientologists. That makes the cult more respectable, does it not?

And of course references in articles to their denials may be dismissed as undue weight/primary sources as the case may be.

I think it more likely that Cirt thinks they are lying when they deny being Scientologists, so it's for that reason that she excludes that info. Cirt has never tried to make Scientology look good.

In the case of Smith, though, his saying that he is a Christian, and not a Scientologist, gains credibility from the fact that he gives far more to Christian ministries than to Scientology, and generally gives money to all sorts of religions.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Cirt also portrayed Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith as Scientologists, compiling lots of references linking them to Scientology, and studiously avoiding any mention of the fact that they both have emphatically said they are not Scientologists (even in the articles Cirt cited).

As with the Wikipedia, cults bring upon themselves their nemesis by their own hubris.

It is pretty fair to say that the unifying factor amongst all cults is that,

a) they say, "we are not a cult"
b) they claim that no one has to leave their own religion to join their new religion
c) their adherents present themselves, occupy and are pushed into ambiguous position relating to membership ... as 'membership' has varying degrees of legal rights and responsibilities.

The object of my sporting interests, the Nuclear Powered 'End of the World' spiritualists called the Brahma Kumaris (BK), will regularly claim to have an inflatable 1,000,000 'members'.

Then when one looks are their articles, they clearly state "we have no members" ... as having members would give their adherents some legal and democratic rights.

They don't. It is run by a tiny undemocratic and largely unaccountable 'chosen few'. An elite often not even on the paperwork ... those on the paperwork generally being just dispensable fall guys (or gals). The adherents have no rights ... they are just a resource to be tapped for money, property and free labor on the basis of earning an worldly inheritance for the Golden Age on Earth after the imminent "Destruction" of impure humanity. (Why exactly a cult needs expensive freehold properties when the world is going to end in 2 years is beyond me ...).

Of course, where I am going with this is to draw obvious parallels to the cult-like structure, and religious expansionism, of the Wikipedia.

That the BKs call their supremacist and millenarianist mediumistic ramblings, "The Knowledge" (as do other cults), and so does the Wikipedia appeal to its adherents on the basis of the "sum of all Knowledge", it makes me consider that the world "Knowledge" ... as in Knowlegde is Power ... must have some magical property over the tribes and serfdoms that are attracting to working for cults for free.

Just as the Scientologist look at non-Scientologers as lower class "wogs" (a word laced with racist sentiments), so the BKs call non-BKs "shudras", the lowest Hindu caste (a hate word on a par with 'nigger'). So the Wikipedians have their own derogatory and divisive language which an elite can bandy about, separating them from newcomers.

Given all the Starving Children in Africa® Will Smith's $67,500 to the Scientologists' New York Rescue Workers Detoxication Fund, $50,000 to the Scientologists' Celebrity Center in Hollywood, $5,000 to the Scientologists's ABLE offshoot and also supported of a Scientologists' private school called New Village Academy ... it would hardly seem WP:OR to suggest some kind of affinity.


Oh, yes, cult members lie like hell and are often surprising malicious for "divine beings". It is one of the job requirements when you first go to sign up. They are definitely not reliable source and, especially, should not be allowed to have power on something like the Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Maybe Cirt is really a crypto-Scientologist. He's making out that lots of well-known and admired people are in fact Scientologists. That makes the cult more respectable, does it not?

More likely Cirt is a recovering or former SciTol...a theory which I'm sure has been posited by others here...somewhere.

[Jon Awbrey]

Maybe Cirt is really a crypto-Scientologist. He's making out that lots of well-known and admired people are in fact Scientologists. That makes the cult more respectable, does it not?

More likely Cirt is a recovering or former SciTol … a theory which I'm sure has been posited by others here … somewhere.

Which is worse — Scientologist or Wikipediot?

Trick question — Maybe Cirt is 2 De-Mentias in 1 …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[KD Tries Again]

Weird. So many of the names are supported by a citation to an October 2006 article in The Guardian, which has no byline, and which can't be found in the Guardian archive online. And the title - "Listed Scientologists" - not just "Scientologists." I wonder if anyone editing the WP article has looked at the original Guardian piece, assuming it exists, to see what was meant by "Listed" in that context.

[Jon Awbrey]

Weird. So many of the names are supported by a citation to an October 2006 article in The Guardian, which has no byline, and which can't be found in the Guardian archive online. And the title — "Listed Scientologists" — not just "Scientologists." I wonder if anyone editing the WP article has looked at the original Guardian piece, assuming it exists, to see what was meant by "Listed" in that context.

Probably means "Listed on Wikipedia" …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[ulsterman]

Weird. So many of the names are supported by a citation to an October 2006 article in The Guardian, which has no byline, and which can't be found in the Guardian archive online. And the title - "Listed Scientologists" - not just "Scientologists." I wonder if anyone editing the WP article has looked at the original Guardian piece, assuming it exists, to see what was meant by "Listed" in that context.

I've located the article in a subscription-only service. The full text reads:

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists
The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

Kirstie Alley
Beck
Sonny Bono
William Burroughs (reformed)
Nancy Cartwright
Leonard Cohen (reformed)
Tom Cruise
Jenna Elfman
Doug E Fresh
Gloria Gaynor (reformed)
Isaac Hayes
Katie Holmes
Chaka Khan
Juliette Lewis
Charles Manson (reformed)
Priscilla Presley
Lisa Marie Presley
Kelly Preston
Mimi Rogers
Jerry Seinfeld (reformed)
Sharon Stone (reformed)
John Travolta
Van Morrison (reformed)

So it's a throw-away snippet in the G2 supplement, which is why it isn't in the official archive. it's totally worthless.

[pietkuip]

I've located the article in a subscription-only service. The full text reads:

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists
The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

...
Gloria Gaynor (reformed)
....

So it's a throw-away snippet in the G2 supplement, which is why it isn't in the official archive. it's totally worthless.

I removed this info from Gloria Gaynor (T-H-L-K-D).