Jump to content

Talk:David Miscavige

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexJohnTorres12 (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 25 August 2010 (→Adding new subsection: Role in Restoration of Lost Scientology Materials). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tom Cruise confessional files

Added new subsection, [1]. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire subsection was removed, by Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs). Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should say that this is a rumor. At least in biographies involving celebrities, right? I'll look a little deeper. Wobblegenerator (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I understand as appropriate per the guidelines on biographies:
"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." (WP:BLP).
The use of several tabloids with the exact same content in different languages does not change this. The same guideline refers to a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation that clearly notes:
"People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent."[[2]]
I hope this is not the case here but it is obvious that that none of these articles (if my Google translation does not fail me) says anything else than that this is a rumor or accusation by a former member of the church of scientology who is still making "a career" with scientology methods now, the very same ones he criticizes in his blog[3]. This is not made clear at all and I don't understand why this would be left out.
In all, I think the above rule for biographies was seriously violated with the addition of those paragraphs. I propose to change it to the following text as part of the Allegations of Abuse section:
"According to an anonymous former member of the Church of Scientology revealed in a blog statement in May 2010 by former scientologist Mark Rathbun who served as Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center from 1978 to 2004, Miscavige ordered that Tom Cruise's Auditing sessions be secretly videotaped."
The sources for this should not be blogs or tabloids, for example this [4] seems sufficient.
Thoughts? Wobblegenerator (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 11 WP:RS in 4 languages and no statements referenced directly by a blog or tabloid. the reason "this is a rumor or accusation by a former member of the church of scientology who is still making "a career" with scientology methods now" is left out is that it is an enthymeme completed by an ad hominim, and hasn't found it's way into any reliable sources because any reliable source publication's editor worth his weight would recognize that. do you have a WP:RS which you feel bears inclusion?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is something strange about this conversation. Please look at the reference that I recommended. It covers the proposed text in full and it is a reliable source (as I understand the guidelines on the subject). No need to have gossip papers or personal blogs as reference. Taking a very critical perspective we might want to take the word "still" out of my proposal. But otherwise I am not sure what your point is? Wobblegenerator (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) it does appear like we are missing each other. personally I don't think this violates BLP because this story is being actively reported on by reliable sources and the length and detail is appropriate compared to similar topics in this section. Which sources do you believe are not reliable, and what do you believe should be deleted since the source you gave for the most part collaborates everything that is in the section?Coffeepusher (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the exact same story is being reported by several online news and taking the same story in four languages is redundant. Take your pick. All of them report the same story. The one I proposed is a little longer, has more aspects of the story and does not violate the guidelines for biographies of living persons. As noted earlier. That is subject #1. Subject #2 of my proposal is that the added paragraphs are undue in size, repetitive and with their many quotes might belong in an article about Mark Rathbun as he is the main subject of these paragraphs. Look at my proposal and tell me what you think. Here is is again:
"According to an anonymous former member of the Church of Scientology revealed in a blog statement in May 2010 by former scientologist Mark Rathbun who served as Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center from 1978 to 2004 and is now delivering scientology services outside the church, Miscavige ordered that Tom Cruise's Auditing sessions be secretly videotaped."
The sources for this should not be blogs or tabloids, for example this [5] seems sufficient.
The source (ninemsn.com, one of Australia's biggest news networks) does include that Mark Rathbun is some kind of a competitor to the church of scientology so I added it in. Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the source: "Mr Rathbun wrote that a "very reliable witness" told him that Miscavige held meetings where he brought transcripts of the tapes and read them out loud."
Quote 2 from the source: "Since defecting from the Church in 2004, Mr Rathbun has made a career out of providing counselling and auditing services to other former Scientology members."

Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says this: "Rathbun wrote that Miscavige would read out information from the reports about Cruise's auditing sessions, "While sipping scotch whiskey at the end of the night, Miscavige would read Tom’s overts and withholds ... joking and laughing about the content of Tom’s confessions."[33][34]"
Contradictory? I think so. But more to the point it does not even hide that it is gossip and needs to be toned down appropriately to fit biographical requirements. Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs) is incorrect. Per the cited WP:RS secondary sources, Mark Rathbun stated that it was he, himself, who carried out the secret videotape operation. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw that he stopped it. Where did you see that he was the instigator of the action? Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. The proposed text by Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs) is patently factually inaccurate. According to Mark Rathbun, it was Rathbun that conducted the secret videotaping operation, not some other individual. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It says he did the recording after he was ordered to do so. Would you mind to add a link or reference or point out what is wrong with my proposal? Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By order of Miscavige many of those sessions were secretly recorded by a well-concealed video camera and voice recorder system built into the VIP auditing room at Celebrity Center International." -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This does not contradict my proposal that says: "According to an anonymous former member of the Church of Scientology revealed in a blog statement in May 2010 by former scientologist Mark Rathbun who served as Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center from 1978 to 2004 and is now delivering scientology services outside the church, Miscavige ordered that Tom Cruise's Auditing sessions be secretly videotaped.". Any other thoughts? Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again incorrect. Rathbun is stating this himself, not some "anonymous former member". -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. There was something missing in my sentence. Thanks for pointing it out!
"According to an anonymous former member of the Church of Scientology revealed in a blog statement in May 2010 by former scientologist Mark Rathbun who served as Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center from 1978 to 2004 and is now delivering scientology services outside the church, Miscavige would discuss information from Tom Cruise's Auditing sessions that Mark Rathbun secretly videotaped." Better? Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as I already stated Rathbun's profession does not merit inclusion. it is simply setting up a enthymeme and Ad hominim attack which outside those venues is not tied to David's personal use of confessional files. If he left the church and became Joe the Plummer would David Miscavage have acted differently?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rathbun was part of the scheme. He taped and delivered the material to Miscavige (so he says). He was actually doing the auditing interviews that were taped and is still doing these things now. Apart from that this borders to original research. Why not just quoting what the WP:RS says? I am reading the very good guidelines for WP:BLP and still find them violated (as said earlier). On the other hand I am still learning so we might want to invite a professional editor in to give advice. Wobblegenerator (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how does him offering auditing services now have anything to do with statements that David took those files and violating confidentiality with them? As I already said, I don't think the length is a problem, since it offers detailed cometary supported by many WP:RS on what has been described as "some of the most damning statements" against Miscavige, even more significant than the abuse allegations which have a similar length.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this brings some light onto this entire conversation.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA

I was flagged for attempting to add information from the #1 referenced article for this page, the Tobin St. Petersburg Times article. My information was removed by Cirt, at first, as a result of a WP:TRIVIA citation. As you can see in my TALK page, I have attempted to address this removal and how I disagree with it. As I did not hear back from Cirt in this discussion, I went ahead and added this information again yesterday only to find it removed this AM.

As a result of our lack of interaction and few reasons for arbitrary removal, I wanted to engage in discussion on this TALK page. I am trying to integrate information about DM's interests and hobbies. What would be the best way to do this? Was my entry too extensive? Do I need to integrate the information into a new section? Is this information irrelevant?

The cited paragraph I was pulling from is: "During frequent visits to Clearwater, where his mother lives, Miscavige said he spends his nights in Scientology’s staff dormitory, a converted apartment complex on Saturn Avenue. He said he eats in Scientology’s communal dining halls and sometimes gets out to Domenic’s Capri Italian Restaurant on Clearwater Beach. He goes to movies, enjoys trail biking in Hillsborough County, and has been known to ride a water scooter. He said he also plays piano, takes underwater photographs, reads several books a week, exercises daily and keeps a casual eye on his hometown sports teams from Philadelphia."

WP:TRIVIA says of trivia: "lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list." It goes on to say: "Some entries may be speculative or factually incorrect, and should be removed; some may fall outside the scope of the article and should be moved to other articles; and others, such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts, may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether."

My information was regarding DM's interests and hobbies. Listing an individuals' hobbies or interests is not irrelevant and most certainly does not "fall outside Wikipedia's scope." As you can see in the Education section of Thomas Jefferson's Wikipedia page, Jefferson's interests of "his violin" and "love for wines" are clearly cited in the first part of the article. And, as you can see in Winston Churchill's page, there is mention of the relationship he had with his mother: "He was rarely visited by his mother (then known as Lady Randolph Churchill), and wrote letters begging her to either come to the school or to allow him to come home," as well as non-cited mentions of his performance in school: "He earned high marks in English and History and was also the school's fencing champion."

Per WP:TRIVIA: "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. "

I realize Scientology has involvement in Wikipedia and the Internet, but this does not mean that every edit to a Scientology-related page is made by a "drone" of Scientology.

Please help me understand how I might be able to make logical and reasonable edits to this page without preemptive removals. Thank you for your assistance. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first off, how other pages choose to weigh the merits of particular information about a person depends entirely upon that pages community and does not necessarily create a standard for Wikipedia as a whole. I personally believe inserting a bullet point list of his hobbies, Hobbies shared by many people in the US, came without earlier contextualization and is not referenced or elaborated upon later.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coffeepusher. To ensure that I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that, according to you, I would be okay to create a new section for DM's hobbies? I, of course, realize that I would need the rest of this pages' community to jump in and confirm a given strategy. Thanks again. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come up with the sources necessary while avoiding WP:SYNTH to explain those hobbies in an encyclopedic yet non-trivial way (show how those hobbies are necessary to understanding Davie) and we can discuss that then...as it stands no, you don't have nearly enough information to create that section from the source you have provided.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rmv uncited direct quote

Thanks Cirt. I recognize that my edit was removed due to lack of citation. I have inserted the same edit and cited the web source I had taken it from, which is a source that was used in the same category - Public Contact. Thank you. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rmv, seems more spam advert promotional rather than biographical in nature.

Thanks Cirt. With all due respect, I resent my edit that was posted on the "Rise to leadership" category. The statement in question was taken out of http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012137.ece, a credible source that has been cited by other editors. This news article is informational and not commercial in nature -- St. Petersburg Times' journalistic tone is not promotional. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment by BTfromLA (talk · contribs): "Restoring Cirt's last version. These seem to be promotional utterances that add nothing to the biographical article. Please discuss on talk page before restoring those again.". Please do not add this back. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promo material

[6] = yet more promo material being pushed in here. What makes this noteworthy? How is this singular quote significant to this individual's life and biography? -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason for its inclusion, particularly not the non-quote material. Even the quote - "we believe in human rights" etc. - is dubious because redundant, considering Freedom Magazine regularly argues against psychiatry as being against human rights so it obviously stands for what it thinks of as human rights. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though don't want to drive away new editors, I must concur. The recent addition reads like rhetoric from a speech or advertisement, it doesn't add to an encyclopedic description of the subject. BTfromLA (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new subsection: Role in Restoration of Lost Scientology Materials

I am adding a new subsection called "Role in Restoration of Lost Scientology Materials." The transcript of the edit is as follows:

In January 2010, David Miscavige concluded leading an effort to locate, restore and transcribe lost pieces of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writing, audio lectures and films. Hubbard initiated the restoration project prior to his 1986 death.[1] Over 1,000 unreleased recordings of lectures by Hubbard and corresponding writings have been revealed in the culmination of a 25-year project. [2].

The purpose of this edit is to describe Miscavige's involvement in the restoration of the Lost Scientology Materials. This is up-to-date biographical information that shows a significant part of his role as the leader of the Scientology religion. Note: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR have been complied upon in posting this edit.AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ {cite web | last=Castro | first=Tony | title = Scientology unveils lost works | url = http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_14154308 | accessdate = 25 August 2010}}
  2. ^ {cite web | last = Brogan | first = Jim | title = Lost Scientology Materials Restoration Completed |url= http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=179&num=277862%7C accessdate = 25 August 2010}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&oldid=380985206"