Talk:David Miscavige

KESQ-TV

• Baca, Nathan (March 18, 2009). "Former Scientologist Recounts Imprisoning Atmosphere at IntBase". KESQ-TV. www.kesq.com. Retrieved 2009-03-25. Video at www.kesq.com

Possible source for use in the article. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I pointed out the existence of that source earlier, at RS/N. It obviously corroborates that Hawkins made the comments. Being hosted on the network's website, its RS status is iron cast. If there is agreement that the allegations are notable enough to deserve their place in the article, we should add it as a secondary ref. Jayen466 10:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

The more often I see this pic of Miscavige we use here, the more I'm becoming convinced that we shouldn't be using such an extremely unflattering image in a BLP. It reminds me of the pictures of Margaret Thatcher that her most strident political opponents used to use in the 1980s to express their disgust with her, usually a still image showing her lips contorted in mid-word. If we haven't got anything better, I'd be in favour of going without picture until we do. Jayen466 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked online for a free photo, but couldn't find one. Lots of photos of Anonymous with Miscavige in the description, though. The Wikimedia Commons category for David Miscavige has some of these protest pictures with garbage descriptions like "It basically means the current cult leader, David Miscavige (DM) is 'altering' scientology, which is supposed to be a big time no-no in the cult." Could ask the Church of Scientology for a better image, but I doubt they would release it under something permissive enough. Wikipedia doesn't seem to allow no derivative works licenses. Cool Hand Luke 03:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a situation that affects many articles, and Miscavige is no different from many other famous people in that regard. Here are some other "unflattering" images in BLPs: Sinbad (entertainer), Dennis Miller, Christopher Guest, Chevy Chase. Any freely licensed image is preferable to a copyrighted image (Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, Images: 12). This image survived a deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons [1] - but we would love to accept a better portrait if David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology chooses to release one. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The people who commented at that deletion discussion were Cirt and AndroidCat and Entheta, who chose his user name to express his stance on Scientology. While some of the other pictures you link may not be the most flattering, none of them gives the appearance of having been selected to make the subject look bad. Btw, as for Entheta's argument in that deletion discussion, the background colour looks like a paint-bucket job to me. Jayen466 12:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, you're rather pushing it with that bad faith link in an action that I'm not even a party to. AndroidCat (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those pictures are of technically better quality too—they have better resolution with the possible exception of Christopher Guest's comparably bad photo. This was a 11kb upload that really does look like a screen capture. Might as well keep it up until it's deemed a copyrightvio or until a better is available—that vote doesn't instill me with confidence though. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, here's some background on the original uploader, Wen Hsing: [2][3]([4]). Jayen466 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

According to deleted contribs, this was the one and only photo he uploaded on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the editor who made the CU request actually had it right. The Tazchook account was created fifteen minutes after HumanProject posted at Talk:Tasmania, and Tazchook's first post another ten minutes later was to reply to Humanproject at Talk:Tasmania. All three accounts collaborated in inserting a "funny" story about Black Bears into United States: Tazchook, Humanproject, Wen Hsing. Humanproject and Wen Hsing shared an "interest" in Lost, Aberdeenshire in early April 2007: [5], [6]. Scientology edits by Tazchook: [7][8]. These look like joke/throwaway accounts of an established user. Jayen466 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken from the OT Summit 2007 video, which is partially on video google and was also leaked to Piratebay a while ago. Miscavige wears the same tie, shirt and hairstyle, and yes, the background was blue. Jayen466 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion as a copyvio at Commons. Jayen466 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) raises some cogent points that I was previously unaware of. I agree with his assessment of the image and its uploader. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, can you clean up the image descriptions for photos you had uploaded? I found some of them to be inappropriate. I was giving you a subtle hint above, but I should be more direct; I don't know enough about the terminology or Wikimedia Commons to adequately translate these. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point, over at Commons admin Túrelio is helping me clean up those image pages - some of them are imported from Flickr using an automated tool, and the tool uses the description page originally given by the image's author. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I brought this to the attention of a Commons admin and recused myself as I had previously participated in a deletion discussion of the image [9]. Another Commons admin deleted the image [10]. I then went ahead and removed it from this article [11]. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyra Banks' is astonishingly bad as she takes photos and looks amazing in all of them but we have one of the worst images imaginable. -- Banjeboi 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I avoid content that relates to Scientology, but this is a matter of copyright. Jayen's points came to my attention today and he may indeed be right: the image metadata lists only the image processing software used; in most cases original digital photography would also include metadata on the camera. Copyvio images lifted from the Internet tend to be deficient in metadata, and although that isn't proof of copyvio in itself, when combined with other evidence it can be convincing. Cirt and Banjeboi are both right that WP often uses low quality photos of living persons for licensing reasons (surprisingly, very few public figures release low resolution professional portraits copyleft), but that issue is secondary to the copyvio issue, which Jayen presents well. Thank you very much, Jayen, for your research in bringing this to light. Now I'll recuse from any other comment or action on this matter; feel free to quote as needed. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it normal keep an image on Wikimedia Commons that looks like a screenshot (in both composition and metadata) on the basis that it hasn't been proven to be a screenshot? I'm not much of a Commonist myself. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you attempting to bait me with leading questions, Luke? I stated very clearly that I am recusing from further involvement, and you follow up with a query that appears to assume very bad faith. Commons has plenty of other administrators. I do as little as possible that relates to Scientology on this project, and endeavor to avoid it entirely on others. It is very proper and reasonable to recuse in light of the mentorship, and I resent your question. There are plenty of other people you could ask; please respect my wish to wash my hands of this. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure if it's a leading question (not one I know the answer to, anyway); I assure you it's in good faith. I have no idea what the norms on Commons are. A lot of users here have complained about m:Copyright paranoia, and I don't know what stance Commons takes. I'll ask someone else then, but this wasn't intended to impugn you or your mentoree. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You understand what an SPA is, presumably? At Commons you are one, and your contributions there pertain to a religion which has come under some of the same criticism as Scientology. This is the second time during this case that, when Cirt has responded cooperatively toward remedying a content problem you raised, you followed up with trout slapping him for not being quite to your expectations. It is interesting that you added the bit about intentions to 'impugn' as an afterthought, not in your original reply. I had refrained from mentioning this before now, but this is exactly the sort of situation where arbitrators normally recuse to avoid the appearance of impropriety. You may wish to consider where the lines ought to be drawn, Luke. Durova^Charge! 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You think I'm an SPA at commons? Cool Hand Luke 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you aren't? Durova^Charge! 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, I'm a Mormon, contributing my Mormon pictures like Commons:File:Cathedral Madeline 1908.jpg and Commons:File:Gallivan Center skating.jpg. The agnostic Mormon is in league with the crazy cultists, I get it. Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not merely what your religion is. I, too, belong to a small religion that sometimes gets marginalized. A few centuries ago people lost careers and even their lives for adhering to it, and it has never been accepted as 'mainstream' or even valid by some individuals who adhere to related faiths. But you would have a very difficult time determining which religion I'm referring to, on the basis of my contributions to this or any other WMF site. If your contributions took a similar diversity we wouldn't be having this conversation. I ask again, where would you draw the lines? Recusal is not about one's inner sense of fairness, but the appearance thereof. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this interesting: have a look at my 50,000+ edits to multiple WMF sites and see if you can guess. The two obvious possibilities would be Judaism and Catholicism; both can be ruled out. I have probably made fewer than 30 edits, ever, that pertain to my own religion. And exactly one edit within the last six months. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

hitting staff members

Funny, now word on that in the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.132.232 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible source - BBC World Service

Quote from former Scientologist Jason Beghe as guest of radio program on BBC World Service:

I think that there are probably things of Scientology that are valuable and that can help people - my main issue is not with Scientology per se, it is with Scientology the organization - it is a corrupt I believe and probably a criminal endeavor, and that has to do with people who are in charge of Scientology mainly David Miscavige who I think is probably a psychopath. I'll give you just an example. I know of people who were very very high up in the Church, and there's countless people corroborating this, countless - that David Miscavige regularly beat them.

• Atkins, Ross (May 26, 2009). "What is scientology?". World: Have Your Say. BBC World Service. Retrieved 2009-05-26.

Possible source for use in the article. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

This:

Personal life

Miscavige served as best man in his friend Tom Cruise's 2006 wedding to Katie Holmes and accompanied the couple on their honeymoon. David Miscavige's wife Shelley did not attend.

is only partially sourced. The source does not say anything about David Miscavige accompanying the Cruises on their honeymoon and does not mention Shelley Miscavige at all. Shutterbug (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)