Talk:Scientologists

Colored table

I don't see any meaningful reason for the coloration, and no one sorts on birth year. The list is already in alphabetical order, and there's no need for an other-sortable table. A simple bulleted list would suffice, with birth year in parentheses, followed by the notes and citations. It would be easier to read (see recently archived complaint by mobile user in dark mode) and definitely easier to maintain the list. Grorp (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright... I made a change to the format (not the content) so we can see what it would look like without 'tables'. Opinions? Grorp (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave the table of former members, because sorting on 'when left' is at least somewhat interesting and makes having a sortable table worthwhile. Grorp (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was Emily Armstrong, the new lead singer of Linkin Park, removed just now?

She was in the article, it's still cached by google. However now she is neither in the active list nor in the list of those who have left. 2A02:810B:103F:F6B4:946D:9F5B:2DFC:205E (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed her from the list because the source was Scientology News, which is not independent. JSFarman (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge other list

Should the list in Scientology_and_celebrities#List exist? Should it be merged here? Not sure if it is a good idea to have to separate lists of notable people with some overlap. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would not support such a merge. This is a standalone list-class article with a comprehensive list of people. On the other hand, Scientology and celebrities is an article with a list, and that list is a small subset of this one. The two have different purposes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between Wikipedia-notable people and celebrities? To me that distinction is not quite clear. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say the distinction is between ordinary people and those who the Church of Scientology (COS) "uses" to promote Scientology. I expanded the article Scientology and celebrities, though there is much more that could be written about the subject, so you might want to read some of it to get the flavor of how significantly different a "celebrity" is to Scientology, than a regular person. COS publishes the Celebrity magazine; each issue profiles a celebrity who is a Scientologist. If someone gets a mention in Celebrity mag, then they are considered a celebrity by the standards of the Church of Scientology.

I would like to see the person's celebrity "tags" next to each of their names in the list—like Kirstie Alley (actress), Greta Van Susteren (journalist). It looks like someone started to do some of that. We could even go so far as to mention which area of Scientology that celebrity was publicly promoting. Example, I think Kirstie Alley promoted Narconon.

Anyway, go read the new Scientology and celebrities.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2026

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: Moved to the plural form. Scientologists, that is. (non-admin closure) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 11:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

---

List of Scientologists → ScientologistScientologist – The page is no longer a list article. The natural title for this article is the singular "Scientologist". A move (rename) would align the article's title with its actual scope. This should be an uncontroversial rename following a content split, but a formal RM is being opened due to an objection at WP:RM/TR.

Recent work done was a SPLIT, not a CONTENTFORK. The result is a full standalone article on the topic "Scientologist", and no longer simply a list. It should be renamed Scientologist per WP:PRECISION. However, a "move" is not straightforward because the current redirect Scientologist points right back to Scientology, but that is now outdated because the relevant content has been moved here instead.

Per the discussion at Talk:Scientology § Summary style to reduce bloat in the Scientology article, I moved content related to the subject "Scientologist" from Scientology and Church of Scientology per WP:SUBARTICLE and WP:SPLIT, copied it into this article with attribution, and then merged the content and reorganized it. This work is part of the long-running cleanup effort of the Scientology article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Having reviewed the content and history more closely, I no longer have worries about forking. I've two much more minor concerns, though. First, the lists of members and former members are quite long, so it might make sense to maintain those in a standalone list article and create a new article to cover demographics, etc. Secondly, while Wikipedia generally uses singular titles (like Scientologist), there seems to be a precedent to use plurals for religious groups (e.g. Baptists, Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs). I'm unable to find another example where the title is singular, so the target of the proposed move should be Scientologists. pburka (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "Scientologists" might be more a natural title, and am neither attached to, nor opposed to, "Scientologist" versus "Scientologists" as the article topic.

I disagree that the list and the prose-content should be split into two separate articles. The scientology-topic area already has numerous tiny articles fragmenting the topic, thus reducing context for readers. The point of moving the content here is twofold: move stuff out of the bloated main article, and give the list of scientologists some context. I did the same type of expansion in 2023 with List of Scientology officials, now called Scientology officials.

In this article, the word count of the prose+list is only 3400. The prose "preamble" is 1250 (1/3rd), while the list of people (plus a small lead) is 2150 (2/3rd). The large file size is accounted for by the massive amount of citations — only 17% of the bytes are reader-facing. I've seen the same phenomenon on other well-cited list-articles (small amount of reader text, huge byte count). Also, given the contraction of Scientology membership and the trend toward celebrities hiding their involvement, I doubt seriously that the list will grow much in the future.

Looking closer, the prose-preamble has 51 citations, while the lists use the remaining 205. A scan of the list area shows citation overkill; I could probably reduce that to something more manageable.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

This all sounds reasonable to me. Thank you for considering my suggestions. pburka (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

It does look like citations overkill at first glance. I know Scientologists have a reputation for being secretive and not talking openly about their affiliation. Also, I've seen discussions elsewhere about whether it is relevant or appropriate to list a celebrity's religion if it is not a prominent part of their public persona. All that is to say, I can imagine a couple reasons why prior editors felt it necessary to include multiple citations per list entry. It probably is still overkill. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support either plural Scientologists or keeping the list title. I would oppose it being moved to the singular because that seems janky and inconsistent with similar articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Support, maybe plural is betterFirst a thank you to Grorp for being such a hard working and neutral editor on Scientology articles. I thin that a change is in order because it's really not a list article. Singular or plural is OK, I think that plural is better in view of what the content is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Support move to Scientologists as the plural form is better here and more consistent with article titles about groups of people, from Baptists to Australians. Redirect Scientologist to Scientologists and redirect List of Scientologists to Scientologists#Notable Scientologists once the move is complete. If the list is split, it can occupy List of Scientologists. Kudos to @Grorp for all the work on these articles and for the clear, thoughtful nomination here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I have no opinion as to whether the list should be split. Just suggesting that, in the meantime, List of scientologists not be left as a typical {{R from move}} to the top of the article but rather to the actual list section, and noting that the list can always be split off in the future. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes on redirecting List of Scientologists to Scientologists#Notable Scientologists (the plural).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Good catch! Yes, of course I meant redirect List of Scientologists to the plural Scientologists#Notable Scientologists. I've edited my original !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I completely agree that the plural form, Scientologists, should be the new title. I don't know what I was thinking when I started this and suggested the singular form. But all of you are right... plural is better.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Skepticism and WikiProject Religion have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:48, 6 April 2026 (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.

Eddie Deezen

I am restoring Eddie Deezen to the "Notable Scientologists" section (from the "Former Scientologists" section where it was recently moved: diff, diff) because the 2012 presented source is contradicted in 2015 by the Church of Scientology.

In the 2012 article, Deezen admits to being a Scientologist.

This source is based on publications from the Church of Scientology, and lists Deezen completing OT Preps in 2015.

This 2023 article was used in the Eddie Deezen Wikipedia article to assert he was no longer a Scientologist, however the interview doesn't mention Scientology. At the end of the video Deezen asserts as an offhand remark that he's a Catholic, which is completely out of context for the interview and is a typical PR move in Scientology because Scientology promotes itself as being inclusive of other religions. It is SYNTH to assume that he was at that time no longer a Scientologist.

Unless there is a reliable source which definitively mentions he's no longer in Scientology, these sources don't qualify to verify that Deezen is a former Scientologist.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the second source acceptable to use here? How about adding this to Eddie Deezen’s article? ~2026-38910-38 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Here in this article? If you mean a citation formatted like this I don't know if someone would strip out the URL as an unreliable source. I definitely suggest omitting the URL if using it in the Deezen article. If you could find a copy of Advance! issue 231 I'm quite sure you'd find that each name on that webpage is exactly as printed in the magazine because that's how that website operates... from the printed magazine.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we verify the PR move here or would that also fall under WP:SYNTH/Verifiability? ~2026-38910-38 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "can we verify the PR move". I was only mentioning that it's a known behavior pattern you see across Scientology celebrities is to deflect or obscure whether they are or are not a follower/practitioner of Scientology.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I also have a feeling he said he was Catholic in that segment facetiously… ~2026-38910-38 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised... considering he's a comedian.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

References