Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths related to Scientology: Difference between revisions

List of deaths related to Scientology

List of deaths related to Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While some of these deaths are note worthy such as Lisa McPherson, most of these deaths are peripherally related to Scientology. A user on the talk claims that this was created after a CFD discussion on Deaths connected to Scientology where there was consensus for such a list. The Admin who closed the CFD closer indicated no such consensus. The scope is too broad and number of these "Notable death" simply redirect here. There is no reason We cannot put Jeffrey K. Hadden here as he was researcher of Scientology who died. I cant even imagine the out rage if we had death related to Judaism or Islam Which i am sure we could construct with RS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Edit, (cant believe I for got to say this) Also, the "related to scientology" implies guilt and wrong doing on CoS's part thus Violating NPOV. While Lisa Mcpherson is the only person on this list where CoS had any direct involvement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of note which has received significant coverage from multiple WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there was a consensus to listify at that CfD, whether or not the closer actually said so. I also think this list contains a substantial number of reliable sources, and that Wikipedia should tell the complete truth about Scientology. Also, whoever's unfortunate enough to close this case needs to be well aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, wherein it's shown that the Church of Scientology demonstrably maintains a substantial number of accounts on Wikipedia and uses them for COI editing.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you accusing me of being COS editor? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all! I'm saying that COI editors tend to turn up in Scientology-related discussions.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I was unclear what you meant. Cirt who has commented above is obnoxiously good at finding Scientology Socks. I doubt Shutterbug will be a problem. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Knowing Cirt, I should think he'll be admirably vigilant about socking at this AfD. :) But I did feel that Arbcom case was highly relevant to this AfD, and I thought it best if someone who wasn't Cirt mentioned it. (Arbcom found no wrongdoing on Cirt's part, but he was a party to the case.)—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I think the comment "whoever's unfortunate enough to close this case" demonstrates a genuine misconception of the Scientology side of Wikipedia. Up until recently it has been relatively uneventful over here, and AFD's for scientology articles get closed all the time with little to no drama. Even before the Arbcom ruling all the editors involved in the scientology section respected AFD's and while some choice articles have been brought forth several times closing admins have never experienced foul consequences for preforming their duties as admins on the AFD that I know of.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator fails to provide rational for why this article as it stands should be deleted, rather argues that some future version of this article may not uphold standards. Anyone is welcome to read the original CFD discussion on Deaths connected to Scientology where the closer did state "A few editors suggested to listify these subjects as a better alternative". All but 2 the entries in this article are Wikilinked to other articles (and if the nominator has a problem with those entires being there, this is not the format to clean up an article rather that should have been done on the talk page), have at least 2 reliable sources (and a few have 5+ in their list notes) not only backing up the entry but tying the death to Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Deaths related to Scientology" also fulfills the notability criteria for an event in itself. As the intro/lead/lede and background sections demonstrate, this topic has lasting effects, that have global significance(with three continents represented in the article), with 12 reliable sources in the lede and background which demonstrate depth and diverse sources, and re visitation of the theme over time (1980-2008) that indicates duration.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COATRACK is still a WP:COATRACK Even with WP:RS. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not a coat rack. It's about "deaths related to Scientology". Every entry is about a "death related to Scientology" and each entry is backed up by reliable sources that tie the death to the church of Scientology. The lede talks about how this article is about "deaths related to Scientology" and then the background section demonstrates how "deaths related to Scientology" is a significant reoccurring concept, and then those first two sections are backed up by 12 separate reliable sources that talk about "deaths related to Scientology." It's not a coat rack.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals. --JN466 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while I can see the analogy put forth by Jayen466, I have to agree with the better arguments by Coffeepusher. The article/list is clearly notable. It's not obviously a POV fork, and I don't see what else could be wrong with it. Our core readership, high school and college students, would find this information useful and reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare Jewish criminals – there are entire websites dedicated to this – as well as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; there are many, many reliable sources on this too, far more than on this present case. There are also media sources discussing suicides related to sex abuse in the Roman Catholic church. This present article contains a strange mixture of cases, from work accidents to medical neglect to people who were mentally disturbed either before or by their contact with the Church of Scientology. I can see the legitimacy, technically, of having lists like that, based on notability, but they are very POV, based on a particular premiss, and on balance I would rather we did not have them. YMMV – I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me in good faith on this. --JN466 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree to your point about Jewish criminals, but there are no reliable sources suggesting that Judaism caused them to be criminals (although you can find many non-reliable sources making that claim, which is why we have inclusion rules). Every source here is reliable and suggests that their death is directly tied to scientology. Now neutrality here does not mean that we have a pro for every con rather that all sides are represented based on the available reliable sources, which if you read the lede and the background sections I believe that due weight is given based on the available reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Moxon's daughter's death for example directly tied to Scientology? According to the article on it, it was ruled an accident (by the way, operatingthetan.com is not a reliable source for that coroner's report, and even if it were, it would fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's a mess.) --JN466 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • K. bring it up on the talk pageCoffeepusher (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • and yes, Just because there was a ruling stating no malicious actions took place doesn't mean that the death wasn't tied to negligence by the church (which it was). this isn't a "people killed by malicious actions from the church of scientology" page its a deaths related to scientology page.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, the article says (and I don't know if it's correct) that there were some safety violations in the facility, but they were not responsible for that death. I mean, this was a work accident. Would we have a list of deaths at Ford Motor Company? I am also not clear about Havenith. From what I read he drowned in a bathtub in a church-owned hotel. Unless I am missing something here -- this seems like describing someone drowning in his bathtub in the Vatican as a death related to the Roman Catholic Church, with the implication that the Roman Catholic faith is responsible for the man's death. What is the link to the religion here? --JN466 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • K. Bring it up on the talk page, AFD's are not for article cleanup.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Its fundementally flawed article, there is no way to clean it up to NPOV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • nah, its a good article that represents with due weight the various viewpoints coming from reliable sources. Notice Jayen's example of a death that was tied to the church of scientology, broke out into an investigation, but which the church was relieved of all wrongdoing but rather fined for some safety violations. Now a POV article would leave this out because in the end the church is exonerated of wrongdoing, but this article leaves it in because there are reliable sources which initially tied the death to the church, but the conclusion is represented.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It give the impression that CoS is responsible for these deaths. By Lumping seizure, accidents, and murders where scientology had varied levels of involvement makes it Polemical as an article is not good NPOV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I tend to agree with ResidentAnthropologist here. (And note I am not a Scientologist either.) --JN466 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)the reliable sources give the impression that Scientology is responsible for those deaths in some cases, in others the reliable sources state that other people are accusing the church of scientology for those deaths, and in still others the reliable sources state that the deaths were originally attributed to the church by some people but later the church was exonerated. this is all in line with wikipedia's neutral point of view policy which states that due weight must be given in relation to the reliable sources and that those sources must be accurately represented in content. These policies are followed quite well in this article with both examples like Lisa McPherson of which very few sources claim that the church was not responsible either through negligence or abuse, and other examples like the one stated above where the content and weight of the reliable sources are accuratly represented.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete "related to" is weasel wording of the worst order. As said above "lumping seizure, accidents, and murders where scientology had varied levels of involvement makes it Polemical as an article". We know Wikipedians hate Scientology, but that does not excuse attack articles which violated [{WP:NPOV|neutrality]].--Scott Mac 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Scott Mac. "Related to" is so vague... there's a drowning that was (suspiciously?) ruled accidental, there's people who committed suicide, there's people who went off their meds and either died or committed murder, and there's an accidental electrocution which seems to have been caused by negligence and incompetence. And then there's Lisa McPherson. There are enough things for which to criticize Scientology without resorting to intellectually weak clusterings like this. It would be like having a list of "Deaths connected to Nazism" which included Primo Levi and Glenn Miller. DS (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (oh, and in case it's not clear {no pun intended}, that's a delete)[reply]
  • Comment I completely disagree that "related to" in this AFD "present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint" the article actually is "clearly attributed" through reliable sources and provides the reader the opportunity to see where those claims come from. As I said, the lede and background sections of this article demonstrate that "deaths related to scientology" is not a weasel concept (use of obscure language to hide the fact that the source is not given), but rather is attributed to many different reliable sources over a period of 30 years. There are many articles that paint a disturbing picture of a group or organization from which there are two different sides, but those articles are written like this one with due consideration given to weight and neutrality (note that neutrality does not mean that if two sides are present you pick the one that is not critical, rather that you write your article giving equal weight to the reliable sources as they are presented). No one has been able to say that this article skews the reliable sources, only sees one set of reliable sources disregarding other sources on this topic, or provides an undue weight on one set of sources. therefore the article does provide a WP:NPOV. Oh and there is a Deaths related to Nazism article, but I am not sure what the inclusion rules are over there.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeffrey K. Hadden a researcher who provided expert testimony on behalf of Scientology in court died suddenly in 2004. How is this not a "death related to Scientology?" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with "related to" is that it allows for anything - so the inclusion criteria are simply the biases of editors. There is no neutral source from which the criteria can be derived, which makes this a synthesis of published material that advances a position - the position being that Scientology has a causal relationship to death. This is no more neutral that an article List of deaths related to George Bush (which trust me I could write and source each one...although it would be very long). That you've piped "Deaths related to Nazism" to The Holocaust is revealing? Are you trying to write Holocaust (Scientology)?--Scott Mac 16:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the Redirects created with the creation of this article on (may 27) reveal alot more about what this article is really about this such as Killed by scientology, Scientology kills, and a host of other redirects clarify the intentions of this article's existence The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of deaths related to Christianity, List of deaths related to Judaism, List of deaths related to Islam. Hmmm... this is an attack coatrack created by opponents of scientologists, and inclusion criteria is indiscriminate (it's clearly trying to say these deaths were "caused" by Scientology, but that would be highly debatable in the vast majority of instances). The way in X (scientology) is related to y (death) could be used to create all kinds of coatracks.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The redirects pointed to by ResidentAnthropologist above, clearly show that this is being used as a coatrack. It has no other purpose, and that particular redirector has shown itself woefully incapable of understanding causality. Whilst this article exists it will always remain a vehicle for POV pushing. John lilburne (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]