Talk:David Miscavige

Removal of sourced info

[1] = sourced info was removed here, please do not simply remove info like this, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It has little to do with Miscavige. Do the cited sources, for the Milan organisation for example, directly relate this material to Miscavige, or his actions? If so, the wording does not make this evident. It might be better to start an article on the Advanced Ability Center, and cover it there. As for Theta International Movement, note Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. As far as we can tell with google, the book we cite is the only source in existence to mention an organisation of such a name. I found that odd, given how much info on every aspect of Scientology there is on the web. --JN466 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There are also web-based sources for it, stating it was ordered put on a "Scientology enemies list". -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there? The only websource I found for it was this Wikipedia article: [2] --JN466 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Try without "movement", and adding, "Scientology": [3] -- Cirt (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Then perhaps we should spell Movement with a lower-case m. :) Let's look at shortening this paragraph though. What Mayo taught, and what happened in 1992 in Italy, is not relevant to Miscavige's BLP – or if it is, the relevance is not apparent. The founding of the AAC is relevant; Nordhausen/Billerbeck (p. 302) relate it to Miscavige's actions at the time, i.e. the RTC's replacing almost the entire upper and middle management of Scientology (which we could also mention, cited to p. 302). --JN466 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened in Italy is relevant. It shows that the movement did not stop in 1984. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the biography of Miscavige. What, if anything, did he have to do with the movement after 1984? Please consider whether we should not create an article on the AAC, and just wikilink it here. Thank you. --JN466 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We can have both. It is only a few sentences. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created the article; I'll leave it to you remove the parts that sources do not directly relate to Miscavige from his biography, as you see fit. --JN466 22:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You created the article Advanced Ability Center out of content from this article. However, you neglected to mention this in your edit summary when creating that other article, and did not mention this in a note on the talk page. This needs to be done in order to conform with copyright. Please do so. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay. --JN466 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Independent review of St. Petersburg Times reporting

I've added some material on the independent review of the SPT's reporting which the Church commissioned after the Truth Rundown series. --JN466 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And that is not too much addition to this page on this BLP individual? Seems to be a totally opposite stance to your position in the subsection, directly above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up of lead

The recent "clean-up" (this edit) removed factual statements that seem to be to be highly important for understanding who Miscavige is. The wording could be made more succinct, but it's important for the article to explain the relation between Miscavige's role and Hubbard's. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the lengthy explanation about "roles" requires good RS sources - which are not given. All that counts is Hubbard is dead, Miscavige isn't, and the theology is not to be altered by Miscavige. All of which does not require the explanation given before (which I found to be less than helpful). Collect (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Hello,

Just wanted to start off by saying that this page seems to have a much more NPOV after the clean up. Good job contributors Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology. In continuing this policy of NPOV, I've noticed a few possible edits:

1) In the “Tom Cruise confessional files” section, given the recent NPOV changes, I recommend retitling this section to simply "Tom Cruise". It presents as much more related to Tom Cruise than any sort of "Confessional Files". Using the words "Confessional Files" carry and connote a tremendous negative skew (especially given all of the YouTube coverage). Additionally, I propose moving this "Tom Cruise" section to the "Family and Personal Life" section as it pertains much more to "Family and Personal Life".

2) In the "Negotiations with IRS" section (1st paragraph), the quotation "(in which IRS tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues because the issues had been resolved prior to review)” may be a direct quote from the NYTimes, but it comes across a bit WP:Undue. Is it possible to remove this and call this situation "contentious" instead? For example: “which led to a contentious two-year review process, and ultimately, recognition as a religion in the U.S. and tax exemption for the Church of Scientology International and its organizations.[4][29]” Seems a bit more neutral.

3) In the "Family and Personal Life" section, prior WP editors inserted firearms and skeet shooting but not other activities. According to other articles, Miscavige also goes to movies, enjoys trail biking in Hillsborough County, has been known to ride a water scooter, plays piano, takes underwater photographs, reads several books a week, exercises daily and keeps a casual eye on his hometown sports teams from Philadelphia. The omission of these with the inclusion of firearms could possibly contribute to a mistaken impression of him.

Would appreciate the feedback in order to make this page a more NPOV. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of those hobbies are notable enough to include in the article, including the firearms. -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to move the Cruise section into Personal life, and I've done so. I slightly prefer leaving the IRS sentence as is, but I wouldn't mind adding a couple more hobbies, maybe the piano playing, photography (we mention earlier photography work in the Early activities section) and interest in films. I hadn't noticed the comments in that SP Times article when I researched this bio previously. --JN466 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, I would like to commend the admin and various editors on the work done to make this page more NPOV. Great collective job so far, glad to see a lot of significant changes.

Would like to make a few points.

1) I’m following up on admin JN466’s positive feedback on adding more of Miscavige’s hobbies. What’s the status on adding more hobbies, such as piano playing, interest in films and photography?

2) Also been doing some in-depth research on the style and format that is expected in BLP’s such as this one. I took a great interest in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section). Seems there’s plenty of points for revision here, where the article doesn’t conform to the Manual of Style. I find it questionable that the first two paragraphs serve as a “concise overview of the article. ” Right after the sentence that ends with “illegal and unethical practices”, we find a factoid that begins with “A 1991 Time Magazine cover story…” Is it noteworthy to include this sentence, when it refers to an interview that was made 20 years ago? It also does not, in anyway, contribute to an encompassing overview of the article.

To recap, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

“While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should NOT "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.”

The lead section currently hints at information that is later presented at the Reports of Abuse section, specifically this portion – “A 2009 series by the St. Petersburg Times details statements by former Scientology executives and parishioners that Miscavige publicly humiliates and physically abuses his staff members.[10] Miscavige and other church spokespeople have denied these allegations, saying the sources quoted in the St. Petersburg Times are "lying".[11][12]”

This full section not only heavily highlights specific information that in no way summarizes the full content of the article, it also skews the article towards non-NPOV.

It makes sense to move the “ A 1991 Time Magazine cover story…” to the Media Coverage section. It doesn’t seem to belong in the lead section. “A 2009 series by the St. Petersburg Times details…” may either be removed from the lead or moved to the Reports of Abuse section.

3) Lastly, I also wanted to suggest removing the quotation marks in “lying” in the sentence “Miscavige and other church spokespeople have denied these allegations, saying the sources quoted in the St. Petersburg Times are "lying". I believe that this also diminishes the NPOV of the article.

Looking forward to responses on these issues. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the mention of the Time Magazine story in the lead, I've long had it in the back of my mind that it was inappropriate -- the story was not mentioned in the body of the article, so it did not belong in the lead. I've moved it per your suggestion. I also agree about removing the quotes from "lying", and have now mentioned a couple of the other hobbies he indicated in his St Petersburg Times interview. --JN466 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words, etc.

From the end of the 3rd paragraph:

Scholars observe, however, that he is portrayed as "a servant of Hubbard's message", rather than a religious leader in his own right.

What scholars? Where do they say this? It's uncited. I don't doubt Scientologists say it, and that there are some among Scientology who might in some sense be called scholars, but as-is this isn't informative. 63.249.96.218 (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)