Talk:David Miscavige

National Affairs Office opening in Washington D.C.

I've added the update about the Church of Scientology National Affairs Office opening in Washington D.C in the "Current Role in Scientology" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Represent/Claiming to represent

I have undone 98.70.45.172's edit on the Family and Personal Life section about Shelly Miscavige's lawyers. The lawyers clearly represent Mrs. Miscavige and do not merely "claim to represent" her: we can read this clearly on the reliable sources that back up this information.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those so-called reliable sources are a single UK newspaper "correction", with no verification or any other information whatsoever, in a country with one of the strongest libel laws in the world. For the record, I suspect she's in a very bad situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.47.211 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Padova, Italy opening

I have added the Padova, Italy church opening to the "Current role in Scientology" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I have revised the second paragraph of the lede section for NPOV, Due Weight and Accuracy. The old second paragraph gives undue weight to the controversy. The lede paragraph by definition should give an overview of the page, and the information contained within this revision is already found in other sections of the page, including "Negotiations with the IRS" and "Current role in Scientology." This new version includes more information that is balanced, gives a true overview, and does not give excessive space to only one section of the whole page.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nestle, I undid your changes to the lede; as has been well established in discussions here, the public controversies swirling around Miscavige are what he is best known for, and brief description of them certainly belongs high up in the lede. Your additions--about taking the church mainstream, new editions of LRH books, etc.--read like church PR releases, not biographical information. Whitewashing and promotional advertising does not make for balanced or neutral coverage. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, I strongly disagree with many of your points; the revised paragraph I posted fully complies with WP:RS and is backed up by reliable sources. Here are the sources I cited:

Editor Jacob Neusner's World Religions in America http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart4.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1975105.ece http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/scientology-arrives-in-tel-aviv/2012/08/23/e2968380-ed3e-11e1-b09d07d971dee30a_blog.html http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/ http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/headley-scientology-lawsuit-judge-rules-in-favor-of-controversial-sect-78894/ http://www.sptimes.com/News/061300/TampaBay/State_drops_charges_a.shtml

I have also made the best effort to make this section comply with NPOV. If you look closely, the new paragraph does not read like a press release, it simply covers more of the material on the bottom part of the article. There is a whole section about the IRS, which must be represented in the lede. There is also a whole section about Miscavige's involvement in the Church expansion and the opening of new Churches which must be represented in a lede that provides a true overview of the page. Why merely focus on the "media coverage and criticism" section when there exists equally covered material on the page?

Also, it must be clarified that although there have been allegations against Miscavige in the church, none have proven any wrongdoing on the part of Miscavige and the church. The current paragraph gives a false impression that the allegations had actual merit. I have provided resources to back up this clarification.

You say that "the public controversies swirling around Miscavige are what he is best known for." Is this really true? To whom? Those who have made up their mind about Miscavige, and do not know or consider the many great things that he has accomplished in the Church?

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nestle: 1. "Miscavige has brought the Church of Scientology into the mainstream" sure sounds like church promotional material to me. 2. Your edit didn't merely add a mention of the IRS thing, etc., it removed and altered the tone of significant material. 3. I believe that any impartial review of third-party reliable sources that have covered Miscavige will confirm that the "controversies" are usually the central focus of their coverage of him and that virtually all reliable sources (Time Magazine, New Yorker, BBC, Los Angeles Times, St. Petersburg Times, CNN, etc.) that have reported on the many allegations against the church and Miscavige have concluded that many of those accounts are credible. -- BTfromLA (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BTfromLA, Below my response is a revision that takes out the section that you felt was too "promotional." I can concede to the exclusion of the "mainstream" phrase, however, I still stand by the rest of my revised version because I have provided reliable media that show the information about the IRS, LRH'S writings, the church openings, and that the allegations against Miscavige have never been proven. This information is just as important and pivotal to Miscavige's leadership as the controversies. It also represents a balanced and neutral perspective of Miscavige, rather than focusing solely on the allegations. I'd also like to emphasize that I have not excluded the information that mentions the allegations in media so the revised paragraph still covers the significant section of "Media Coverage and Criticism," and still acknowledges the fact that these allegations have been reported in media. I do acknowledge, however, that while media has covered the controversy, none have been proven and are thus baseless allegations and there have been no prosecutions or official investigations.

Proposed edit: Since assuming his leadership position, Miscavige has attained significant progress in his leadership, gaining religion recognition from the IRS in 1993. Since that time he has been working on programs to restore and publish Scientology Founder, L. Ron Hubbard¹s original writings and lectures and to expand the Scientology religion by opening new Churches around the world. Despite allegations of illegal and unethical practices in the press, sourced to expelled Church members, there have been no legal cases or investigations that have proven any wrong doing on the part of Miscavige or the Church. Miscavige along with senior church management and spokespeople have consistently denied the former members' allegations.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made an edit that attempts to incorporate the items you wanted to add in a neutral manner. I can't agree with any of your attempts to "soften" the accounts of criticism of Miscavige, which is already underplayed in the article. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, thank you for the changes you made. I have added a clarifying sentence to the end of the 2nd paragraph of the lede with strong, reliable sources.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your "clarifying sentence. The part about the sources being expelled members is not true (some of the sources of criticism are journalists and scholars who report harrassment, not all quoted ex-scientologists were formally expelled) and the part about how "nothing has been proven" is both vague (what does "proven" mean in this context?) and unnecessary--the lede introduces the issues, and that introduction refers, correctly, to a pattern of allegations. Basically, your addition just reads like pleading on behalf of Miscavige, not an encyclopedic summary. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Padova, Italy opening

Hello BTfromLA, you have removed the information about the Padova, Italy opening from the "Current role in Scientology" section. I fail to see why you see this as PR fluff. David Miscavige had a big role in this opening and it rightfully belongs to his "current role" as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion. The sources are mostly from Italy obviously because of the location of the event. I suggest that we restore this section to keep the readers abreast of Miscavige's current activities. If you find it "fluffy", why not trim it down and revise it rather than remove it completely?NestleNW911 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

personally I find it fluffy because of weight. Miscavige has opened dozens of churches, and every ideal org. So a paragraph statement highlighting one of those which isn't any more significant than any others makes this unsuitable for the article. That being said, I can't speak for BTfromLA but I agree with the removal.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Coffeepusher is correct, there is too much detail about the new buildings as it stands, relative to the rest of the article (the article is about Miscavige, not Scientology's "ideal Org" campaign). That section adds no significant information--it is already clear the church has opened new or remodled facilities in many countries. The qualities of PR puffery in that section and Miscavige's remarks are obvious, aren't they?: "We come to a new inscription on the tablet of Italian history... a pledge to bring our help and the infinite wisdom of L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this region,” etc., plus the long list of Italian dignitaries in attendance. Even with that cut, this section could stand further trimming. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be about David Miscavige, not a list of "orgs" ha has opened. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted a clear case of vandalism.