Talk:Chloe Fineman

Scientologist

Like both of her parents, Fineman is a Scientologist. Fineman graduated from The Acting Center, a program with known Scientologist leanings.

References

As far as this content goes:

1. It appears to be verified by the reference.
2. Tonyortega.org appears reliable, judging by what discussions and usage I can find: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_206#Tonyortega.org, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_205#TonyOrtega.org, Lisa Marie Presley, Priscilla Presley, David Miscavige, Jenna Elfman...
3. My concerns with including this information into this article are that it might be undue given the single reference.--Hipal (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to shame someone for their religion? What is wrong with being in the Cult of Scientology? If Judaism is an okay mention so is Scientology. Also noted that you are continuing to stalk my edits after being asked to desist Maravelous (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC or follow the suggestion to take it to WP:ANI.

Do you have any concerns related to content policy? --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm unable to find any reliable references supporting the claims made in the edit summaries where the content was removed. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Both WP:ARBSCI and WP:ARBBLP apply here, so I wouldn't be against removal while we get more discussion. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Given WP:BLOGS "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. ", I'm removing it. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Underground Bunker is a solid site. I am replacing it. There is no shame in being a ScientologistMaravelous (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is required to restore such information. You don't have it.

Are you denying it is self-published? --Hipal (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though his evidence is absolutely correct and she is a scientologist. However yes it is self published. I'm sure some reputable sources will pick it up soon and it can be added DansterTheManster (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Look Hipal already acknowledged that it is a valid source above he is just games playing. An article there yesterday interviewed an old roomie who confirmed that she was a lifelong Scientologist. PS The Content is what you are excluding in order to "level up"Maravelous (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maravelous (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep up this disruption and harassment, and I don't see any outcome other than a block or ban. You're not even engaging in the content dispute at this point. --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I came across this discussion and just wanted to clarify on self-published sources. According to Wikipedia policy, yes, SPS is allowed, but only when it meets certain criteria. TonyOrtega.com does not meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia. Please see below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Using_self-published_sources Acceptable use of self-published works: For certain claims by the author about themselves. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves) The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.(I don't see Tony Ortega being published by reliable third-party publications). A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. (Tony Ortega writes about Scientology and not himself). Unacceptable use of self-published works: Exceptional claims, even when the author is an established expert on the topic cited. (This is an exceptional claim).Coffeebreak80s (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Chloe Fineman uploaded her own picture

Interestingly it seems that Fineman herself has been involved with this page, the photo being uploaded by an account called ChloeFineman. DansterTheManster (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's some COI editing going on here and with related articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, need to watch out, this topic is important DansterTheManster (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given who she is, I expect the biggest problems will be dealing with the fans and anti-fans. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ChloeFineman has since been banned for being among the many sockpuppets used by someone who is, in all likelihood, not Chloe Fineman. Rob T Firefly (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Please add to personal page that Chloe Fineman is a second generation Scientologist. 2603:8081:2603:33F5:2820:F95D:1255:101B (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we stop adding the Scientology sources

Yes it seems that she did attend some Scientology courses in 2014 but they don’t prove that she or her parents are currently or previously members of the Church of Scientology.

Unless something more official comes out, they shouldn’t be on her page. Bob3458 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-addition of the Scientology material. truthaboutscientology.com appears to be a self-published source, and so is not acceptable for BLP content, per WP:BLPSPS. Squeakachu (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've not looked into this matter myself but this edit to List of Scientologists might be of interest here. If the source provided is good then maybe it can be used to reference the same claim here. If it is bad then probably it should be reverted there. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Very late reply here. This seems to be using the same source as the discussion above (tonyortega.org). Spinixster (chat!) 03:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)