Talk:David Miscavige

Church openings

David Miscavige's work on opening new churches is of prime importance to his career as the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology and to Scientologists as well. I had earlier proposed an addendum that would contain this information. We've made some good progress and included a bit of this information, but it seems that it was considerably shortened.

To cite an example, Thomas S. Monson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Monson), LDS leader, has an entire section dedicated to "Temple Dedications." The content I am proposing is analogous to this; and if it was accepted as encylopedic in Monson's article, I don’t see a reason why we shouldn't apply due weight to a similar facet of Mr. Miscavige's leadership, the new Church openings.

I propose then a new section, including the text already on the article, and a few additions:

NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

David Miscavige initiated a strategy in 2003 to build new Churches of Scientology in every major city in the world. Since then, twenty-four new Churches have been opened, a number of them in the world's cultural capitals, including Madrid, New York, London, and Berlin.

As Ecclesiastical Leader of the Scientology Religion, David Miscavige has dedicated ten of these new Scientology Churches in the last 18 months alone: Rome, Italy on October 24, 2009; Washington, DC on October 31, 2009; Quebec, Canada on January 30, 2010; Las Vegas, Nevada on February 6, 2010; Los Angeles, California on April 24, 2010; Mexico City, Mexico on July 10, 2010; Pasadena, California on July 18, 2010; Seattle, Washington on July 24, 2010; Melbourne, Australia on January 29, 2011 and Tampa, Florida on March 13, 2011. During the same time, two other Churches where opened in Brussels, Belgium on January 23, 2010 and Moscow, Russia on March 7, 2011.

Another 60 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases, including over a quarter of a million square feet under construction in Tel Aviv, Twin Cities and Inglewood.

Citation: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/#ixzz1KcD863d3

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that sort of list belongs on the Thomas Monson page (in a section labelled "legacy," no less), or here. --BTfromLA (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, every organization has the goal to expand and this growth unusual for a new religion. It is 52 years old and has 7300 missions. compare that to AA which in their 52 year had over 75,000 meetings in over 90 countries (now somewhere in the 150,000 range). Now if he did all of those by hand then it would deserve a place on this page, but being the leader of an organization which expands to major cities seems like good business but not extraordinary. Try on the Scientology page, it may be better placed there.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s. your source is a press release and therefore not a WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Coffeepushers, I think you have a strong point and I did not think of that angle. I will go ahead and propose this edit on the Scientology page but would appreciate you chiming in with your thoughts if I meet resistance. NestleNW911 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, Nestle has made a change to the main Scientology page, which really consists of propaganda. I have made a comment to suggest reversal over there. This leaves the fact that the source of the change in this article is a press release from Scientology. The inaccuracies should be reversed in this article as well, unless Nestle can provide a proper source that 24 churches have been opened in the last few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The change has been reversed on the Scientology page, but contains inaccuracies in Miscavige's page as well. Let's take a closer look. The three sources contain one Scientology press release. I understand, this is not allowed in a biography of a living person. The other two articles are newspaper articles about two church openings. The factual claims made by Nestle are:

• David Miscavige initiated a strategy in 2003 to build new Churches of Scientology in every major city in the world.

This is partially correct. A more accurate statement would be that the aim is to buy a new building (called Ideal Org) for each existing Scientology org. I do think it is appropriate to include a statement of this sort, including the notion that this goes directly against orders out given by Hubbard:

´When buildings get important to us, for God's sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters´

L. Ron Hubbard, Lecture Series: Anatomy of the Human Mind, Tape# 6012C31, The Genus of Scientology, 31 December 1960

• Since then, twenty-four new Churches have been opened,

This statement is not found in Nestle's references.

• Another 60 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases, including over a quarter of a million square feet under construction in Tel Aviv, Twin Cities and Tampa.

This statement is not found in Nestle's references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: layout Startwater (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by acknowledging the fact that Startwater has opened a sockpuppet investigation on my account. Given Startwater's contribution, it appears that this individual's main purpose is to discredit my account. Given my contributions on this page and others, I feel that this apparent bias should be considered in reading Startwater's contributions.

Now, to respond to Startwater. Startwater mentions the following points:

1. Sources cited don't reflect edits made 2. Posted on inappropriate section 3. Promotional

Regarding #2, being posted in inappropriate section, I've taken this to the editors of the David Miscavige and Scientology Wikipedia pages. All editors had the opportunity to suggest another section to place this information in, with no response. Once again, I ask the community, "Does anyone have a recommendation on where this information should go?"

Regarding #3, being overly promotional, these articles are reflected in MAJOR news publications e.g. Fox News, New York Times and Seattle Times. If this content is believed to be overly promotional, then let us come up with a NPOV compromise. Once again, I proposed this edit to the Wikipedia community and no objections were made at that time. (In fact, Coffeepushers encouraged me to move the edit to the Scientology Wikipedia page.)

Regarding #1, sources cited don't reflect edits made, allow me to show specific examples of each:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/#ixzz1KcD863d3:

"Scientology Mexico is the fifth new Ideal Organization of Scientology to open in 2010. On January 23 this year, the Brussels branch of Churches of Scientology for Europe was opened in Belgium; the Church of Scientology of Quebec was dedicated January 30; the Church of Scientology & Celebrity Centre of Las Vegas opened February 6; and the new Church of Scientology of Los Angeles opened April 24. In the past three years, new Churches of Scientology have opened in world cultural centers, including: the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington D.C.; the Church of Scientology of Rome, Italy; the Church of Scientology of Malmo, Sweden; the National Church of Scientology of Spain, in Madrid's Neighborhood of Letters; the Church of Scientology of New York, just off Times Square; the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, in the original historic Transamerica Building; the Church of Scientology of London, at the city's epicenter; the Church of Scientology of Berlin, near the Brandenburg Gate; the Church of Scientology Las Vegas, Nevada; the Church of Scientology Nashville, Tennessee; and the Church of Scientology of Dallas, Texas. Another seven new Churches of Scientology are scheduled for completion before the end of 2010. Worldwide, there are more than 8,500 Scientology Organizations, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012502517_scientology01m.html:

"The expansion of Scientology's presence in Seattle is part of a building push worldwide. Last year, the church opened new or renovated buildings in cities including Rome; Dallas; Washington, D.C.; Nashville; and Malmo, Sweden. About a dozen new churches have opened or are scheduled for completion this year."

"He said total assets and property holdings of the Church of Scientology internationally have doubled since 2004."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/10scientology.html?ref=scientology:

"But the Pasadena project is just one part of a much larger undertaking for the church: the creation of about 50 new centers in 16 countries."

"...seeking to install nearly identical facilities in buildings as distinctive as a resort near Johannesburg, a bank headquarters in Brussels and a hotel in Kaohsiung, Taiwan."

"...he credited David Miscavige, the church’s leader, with driving the project."

"...bringing the price of the current expansion to $500 million"

"In the next year, he said, the church expects to add centers in Minneapolis; Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Sacramento, Inglewood and Santa Ana, Calif.; Tampa, Fla.; Portland, Ore.; Melbourne, Australia; Caracas, Venezuela; and Kaohsiung."

"The new Scientology buildings, he said, “are helping to revitalize the urban landscape.”

Being more direct to my sources, I've tried to revise the below. From what I can see, it is perfectly acceptable to say the following:

"Since 2004, David Miscavige has been credited with an estimated $500 million expansion to build new Churches of Scientology throughout the world. Since then, new Churches have been opened and proposed including Australia, Venezuela, Taiwan, South Africa, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, and many more throughout the United States. All together, 50 Churches are in design, planning or construction phases in 16 different countries.

Worldwide estimates have been made as to Scientology having more than 8,500 Organizations, Missions and affiliated groups in 165 countries. The expansion has included acquisition and renovation of many historical buildings, and has been said to be helping to revitalize the urban landscape. Total assets and property holdings of the Church of Scientology internationally have doubled since 2004." NestleNW911 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Response from Startwater

---

I would suggest the following paragraph:

"Since 2004, David Miscavige has been the driving source behind a significant expansion push to build new Churches of Scientology throughout the world. To date, more than a dozen new churches, including several renovated historical buildings, have opened, doubling the Church property holding against an estimated cost of $500 million. According to Church spokesmen an additional fifty Churches in 16 different countries are are in design, planning or construction phases."

I arrive at this from Nestle's proposal by applying the following changes:

• Nestle's first source is a press release, so if you use material from that source, one has to include a 'spokesmen said' type of statement.
• I have left out the 8500 groups bit, since it is not relevant for Miscavige's bio.
• I have left the list out the of cities. IMO, it really only clutters up the text and makes it less readable.
• I left out the revitalising the urban landscape bit. It smacks of promotion and if it is to be included it should be in the form of: A Church spokesman claimed..'

The rest of Nestle's suggested text should be in there.

Additionally, I´d like to add the following sentence to the paragraph. "However, the building program is not without internal controversy and Scientologists commonly denounce the program as wasteful and not in agreement with Hubbard´s teachings upon leaving the official Church of Scientology."

You will find dozens of examples of this last statement on the internet. The sources below are just five minutes worth of searching and includes one from today. As such, the contorversy is arguably deep enough to warrent mention in Miscavige's bio.

Sources (and like I said, many more can be added if needed):

• http://isene.com/GeirIseneDoubtCoS.pdf
• http://www.friendsoflrh.org/COBvsLRH/print_topic.asp?topic=PHYSICAL%20APPEARANCE%20OF20BUILDINGS&lrhdoc=35Physical_appearance_of_buildings.htm&cobdoc=35Physical_appearance_of_buildings_COB.htm
• http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/there-goes-the-neighborhood/
• http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/ziba-feulner-independent-ot-viii/
• http://www.scientology-cult.com/declarations-of-independence/430-letter-from-garcia.html
• http://www.scientology-cult.com/what-impinges-survey-results.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startwater (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Startwater (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Edit: layout and signing

Startwater, I would be incredibly cautious with those sources. I adamantly object to the reliability of any of these sources as many, in the URL themselves, contain bias against Scientology. The purpose of our efforts on this page should be to improve and better the NPOV of the page, not to further entrench the page with biased information.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage and criticism proposal

I have been trying to brainstorm ways to make this section a bit more NPOV and I didn't want to make the changes prior to having discussed with other editors. Here's what I have so far:

Modify the section to:

Though David Miscavige and the Scientology organization has been the subject of much press attention, Miscavige has rarely spoken directly to the press. Exceptions include a televised 1992 interview by Ted Koppel of ABC News,[40] a 1998 newspaper interview with the St. Petersburg Times,[41] and a 1998 appearance in an A&E Investigative Reports installment called "Inside Scientology." [42]

Since assuming his leadership role, Miscavige has been faced with controversial press accounts including illegal and unethical practices of the Church of Scientology. In an overwhelmingly negative portrayal, a 1991 Time magazine cover story cited defectors who described Miscavige as "ringleader" of a "hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner."[4] The Church of Scientology has consistently denied all allegations.

In a series of articles (collectively titled "Inside Scientology: The Truth Rundown") the St Petersburg Times reported that several former Scientologists, including some of the organization's highest-ranking executives, were coming forward publicly to allege that Miscavige routinely humiliates and physically beats his staff.[9] This article was comprised from four interviews of Scientology defectors including Mike Rinder, former director of the organization's Office of Special Affairs who for years had been the official spokesperson for Scientology, and Mark Rathbun, who worked closely with Miscavige for many years, serving as Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center before leaving the organization in 2004.

Church representatives have consistently denied all such accusations, and maintain that the claims are being brought against Scientology by defectors who, “…failed at their jobs, broke rules and were ethically suspect.” Miscavige labels the sources quoted in the St. Petersburg Times as "lying" after the persons in question had been removed from the organization for "fundamental crimes against the Scientology religion."[10] Church spokespeople have pointed to the fact that Rinder and Rathbun, while still employed by the church, publicly denied the very charges they were now affirming and admitted to physically assaulting members of the Church of Scientology.[31][32]

Miscavige also questioned the professionalism and ethics of the journalists behind the St. Petersburg Times series as he claims he the Times would not schedule an interview with him. The Times countered by saying they have maintained opportunities for him to be interviewed. Both sides maintain their version of the events. "Inside Scientology: The Truth Rundown" was recognized with numerous journalistic honors. [36][37] The series was cited as a basis for subsequent journalistic investigations, including a controversial series hosted on the CNN network by Anderson Cooper.

The Church of Scientology responded to the "Truth Rundown" series with two Freedom magazine articles titled "Merchants of Chaos: Journalistic Double-dealing at the St. Petersburg Times." and "The Bigotry Behind the Times’ Facade of Responsible Journalism." In these articles, Freedom magazine mentioned how “The Truth Rundown” relied too heavily on a small sample of detractors, did not interview David Miscavige directly, avoided documented evidence showcasing unreliability of Scientology detractors, did not reach out to the numerous first-person accounts of Scientologists for corroboration, and reveals their version of events in working with the St. Petersburg Times. [33]

These modifications would make the section a bit more concise and NPOV. Would love to collaborate on this section more, let me know your thoughts. NestleNW911 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting a short follow-up on this proposed edit. If no feedback is received, I will go ahead and apply the change tomorrow.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make this change. I don't have time to run through it in detail, but as far as I can tell at a quick read, your suggestions actually erode the quality of the article and insert things that are not true. For example, you say that Time "cited defectors who described Miscavage as..."" Not so--these phrases were the conclusions of the author of the article, not citations of claims by defectors. Other things, like adding "controversial" to "Miscavige has been faced with controversial press accounts" is both factually dubious (other than the fact that the CoS objects to them, what is controversial about this large group of press reports?) and the opposite of concise prose--it tosses in an unneeded adjective, with the effect of muddying the meaning of the sentence. I am willing to assume good faith on your part, Nestle, but your proposal comes across as interested in blunting the negative reports that have consistently dogged Miscavige and Scientology, and does not seem to be in service of concise, accurate, npov prose. I suggest that if there is something in particular that you object to in the article, you highlight that on the talk page, rather than offering large rewritten sections--you will be more likely to get a reaction and some cooperation from others. --BTfromLA (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough BTfromLA. I am willing to default to you (and others) who have edited the page and been open to discussion on a variety of points and perspectives. As far as a claim of my being "interested". Yes, I most certainly am. I am interested in representing Scientology in a NPOV on Wikipedia (which I think it is fair to say it is not currently), and few are more important than David Miscavige (hence my focus). My apologies if I overreached in this instance.

Though my vocabulary may not have been ideal at certain points of this write up, I do think there is merit to my points. In simplifying my main issues with this section, I believe this section:

- Relies too heavily on the St. Petersburg Times article

- Over-elaborates on St. Petersburg Times article

- Uses too many specific quotations, which seem to reinforce a negative slant against Scientology/David Miscavige within the section

As a result of the above, the Scientology "position" comes across as a bit defensive, which does not lend itself to a NPOV voice within the section. I'm happy to default to your position but it does seem like this section isn't exactly in a "final" state. How would you like to proceed? Would it be easier for you to propose a solution, or would you rather I propose sections one-by-one? NestleNW911 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be that a "a negative slant against Scientology/David Miscavige" is inherent to this section, if by that you mean that most of the content is critical of Miscavige. As far as I know, press coverage of Scientology under Miscavige's control has consistently been characterized by reports of criminal or unethical behavior, mind-control, harassment of critics and abuse of church members. Right? The only article by a credible source (i.e., not some arm of Scientology) that was somewhat sympathetic to Miscavige that I've seen was the profile in the SP Times from 1998. It would be good to mention other sources than the SP Times and Time--LA Times, BBC, ABC News, etc.--but I'm not prepared to spend the time to work out all of the citations. I will go in and see if I can shorten it a bit, though, which may make room for adding a few other issues (I think Lisa McPhearson and "disconnection" have bothe received a lot of press attention and deserve mention here) without seeming to pile on Miscavige with mountains of detail about critical charges. I'll make a stab at a small edit shortly. -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did it, take a look. --BTfromLA (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph in Negotiations with IRS section

In the interest of WP:NOTNEWS and NPOV, and the article's readability and brevity, I move that this paragraph be removed:

A 1994 report in a Scientology publication gave the impression that Miscavige and Rathbun had simply walked into the IRS office and been granted an impromptu meeting with Goldberg; later, in 1997, the church issued a statement saying that Rathbun and Miscavige had entered the building, "been put in touch with the appropriate officials and had met with Mr. Goldberg and other I.R.S. officials approximately one month later".[29] The IRS and Goldberg declined to comment on whether an unscheduled meeting had taken place.[29]

This piece of information would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. " According to the policy, "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The importance of this snippet to the entire BLP is highly questionable, intact, the BLP would stand without it.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed an edit recently posted on the section formerly called Media Coverage and Criticism. Portland Mercury is not a reliable source; it is an Alternative newspaper, which favors "opinionated reviews and columns." Village Voice is an example of an "alternative newspaper", and their related content contains strong bias. Posting this statement from Hawkins does nothing to enhance the article; on the contrary it harms the NPOV of the page by giving too much weight and real estate to a statement that was published in an unreliable source. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

found a WP:RS and reinserted the statement.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the detail about Miscavige's residence -- this is not necessary in a BLP.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Coffeepusher,

Nice to hear from you again! About the edit related to Hawkins; I see that the RS that you supplied is a strong one, but to respect Wikipedia's core content policy of NPOV, it would be fair to explore all sides of this story, if we are set on retaining this edit on the page. In another source from CNN, we are presented with an opposing perspective. Jeff Hawkins' ex-wife live on CNN denied the incident ever occurred and stated he [Jeff] "never mentioned one thing" about any abuse. To balance out this accusation, it would be only fair to include,

Hawkins' ex-wife, Catherine Fraser, said he "never mentioned one thing" about any abuse. "To the contrary, he mentioned to me how much Mr. David Miscavige supported him, how much he believed in him," Fraser said.

Here is the reference: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/31/ex-members-spar-with-scientology-over-beating-allegations/

Additionally, fellow workers who attended the meeting where Hawkins' alleged the incident happened signed sworn affidavits that and also stated this to the St. Petersburg Times.

Here is the reference for this: http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1012575.ece

Can we agree to balance this out with the information above? Alternately, we can also remove the mention completely, as it is lengthy coverage for a detail that actually falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and to give it extensive attention in this BLP with be against WP:UNDUE.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

you know, in my years on wikipedia I keep hearing this argument that in order to have WP:NPOV every statement needs to be contrasted with the opposite point of view, and to this day I have never been able to find that in the policy...in fact WP:WEIGHT says the opposite. Would you be able to quote exactly in wikipedia policy where it states we need to balance out an accusation? Additionally the statement "I have never heard him say that" isn't a refutation rather it means that he never mentioned something to a person. I am sure he hasn't mentioned a lot of things to this person. Now the other people signing affidavits is covered in the next paragraph which gives the church of Scientology's response.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In WP:NPOV we read: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." To add Fraser's conflicting statement would lend a more neutral and "disinterested tone" to this segment. Also, since Miscavige is the main subject on this BLP, then it would only be relevant to include information that sheds light on what is being said about his relationship with Hawkins.

In this light, I think quoting the other side would only be fair in this BLP. Also, nowhere do we see in WP:RS that each and every allegation that can be backed up must be recorded in a BLP. On the contrary based on WP:UNDUE "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Why should we give Hawkins' statement so much weight and how does thismmake the article better overall? I don't believe it does. If we cannot agree on neutralizing this bit of information, I think it is best to restore the article to its previous content and not include it at all.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:

1. I don't know what WP policy is about this, but I can't see why "alternative" newspapers should be disallowed as reliable sources. They make up a significant part of the North American press, and papers like the Village Voice, Chicago Reader and LA Weekly have won many journalism awards over the years for very credible work. The idea that an "alternative" editorial attitude yields everything they publish unreliable makes no sense to me at all, and I suspect that Portland paper is as reliable a source of a quote in a news story as any newspaper.

2. I think the Jeff Hawkins anecdote does improve the article, because it is a specific, first-person claim. The specific is usually to be preferred to the general, and the Hawkins account gives a much more concrete idea of what the complaints are about than general comments that DM "degrades" or is "vicious," which allow for a wide range of interpretation.

3. I think the Hawkins quote is in the wrong place in the article, in the paragraph about similar claims from years ago. Hawkins is part of the more recent story, I believe.

4. If Hawkins is being quoted from the Anderson Cooper CNN series, the solution here might be to create a paragraph explicitly about that series, including quotes from Hawkins, Cooper, the ex-wives put forward to refute the charges, and perhaps others. It was one of the highest profile press accounts ever to focus on Miscavige (and he devoted an issue of Freedom magazine to attacking Cooper for it), so that seems like a reasonable addition to the article (though we should avoid "piling on" with every article or claim about Miscavige--a few well-chosen examples will do). It might make sense to look for some third party discussion of the CNN series, or maybe a comment by Anderson Cooper--we should not leave the impression that the press coverage indicates that the ex-wives put forward to speak on behalf of the church are reliable sources in these matters, as it does not. --BTfromLA (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment on this, BTfromLA. The definition of "reliable sources" always leaves room for discussion, and I am apt to say that there are sources that have a clear bias and harm NPOV for the sake of relying on WP:RS -- thus violating one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

The important thing to discuss however, is the Jeff Hawkins anecdote, a claim that you should allows for a wide range of interpretations. Because of this very fact, it is an edit that must be clarified by an opposing perspective. There are many other witnesses who deny Hawkins' statement, including official church representatives (http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1012575.ece). If you feel uncomfortable relying on "ex-wives' statements" we can include some of the quotes from other witnesses here. If we are to rely on WP:RS as you seem to propose, this addition would be acceptable.

I do not see the relevance of creating a whole section to detail this --it would be a he said, she said since nothing has been proven. It would just make the article awkwardly lengthy, puffed up in some places while some other parts are neglected.NestleNW911 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nestle. You seem to have misunderstood my comment about the Hawkins anecdote--it is much LESS vague and ambiguous than the more general remarks. I'm not suggesting a separate section of the article about the CNN series, but if we are talking about quotes and counter-quotes from that show, it probably deserves its own paragraph. Both the Anderson Cooper series and the New Yorker article were very high-profile press accounts that focused on Scientology under Miscavige, so I think both deserve attention here. The paragraph currently following the Hawkins quote is devoted to Scientology's denial of these claims... I have no objection to including a specific denial of a specific claim, but there's really no point including "Scientology spokespersons say this is a lie" after every account of Miscavige's behavior. They certainly don't do that in teh SP Times article you linked to above. BTfromLA (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to including this specific denial of Hawkin's claim?

Church executive David Bloomberg, Hawkins' senior at the time, who said that he was seated to Hawkins that day, denies this claim. "Mr. Miscavige did not touch Jeff Hawkins," Bloomberg said.

The reference would be the same SP Times article above.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

actually after reading that section I believe a more accurate addition would be "Church executive David Bloomberg stated that it was Hawkins who became belligerent and attacked Miscavidge. In the confrontation Hawkins fell out of his chair and ended up placing Miscavidge in a scissorhold. Bloomberg stated "Mr. Miscavige did not touch Jeff Hawkins."

The reason for this is that both accounts detail that a physical confrontation occurred during the meeting, and they both agree that Hawkins ended up on the ground grappling with Miscavige. they just both point to a different aggressor.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

and I forgot to mention, your quote on the WP:NPOV is in regard to "non-judgemental language"...in otherwords don't call a source or a topic an idiot or genius, use "non disparaging language." It does not apply to contrasting claims.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stretching this section gives undue weight to it, and substantiates a claim that has not even been proven. We cannot record each and every claim that has been made about David Miscavige -- and to give this particular one the attention that we have, is not only undue weight, it also is against NPOV. This is the statement of one person, and has not been corroborated by anybody, but on the contrary many dispute it -- such as church executive David Bloomberg, Hawkins' wife, etcetera. To record this would be a tedious he said, she said, that disturbs the quality of the whole article. Also, Hawkins' statement may have been published online, but he is himself a source that is questionable. We have forgone NPOV in the interest of a faulty application of WP:RS. I move that this section be removed.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Nestle, by adding Bloomberg's take on the incident as you recommended I think both sides have been given a fair say in exactly what happened during a closed meeting, especially since the paragraph afterwards has the official church obligatory "we refute this claim against Miscavige" statement, so in effect the official scientology side has been given more of a say than Hawkings and as such we may need to shave down that next paragraph a bit. Additionally I think that BT makes a good argument to justify the weight of this section.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of shaving down the next paragraph, I have simplified the Scientology side to include only the important part of the statement of Bloomberg, which is the only thing needed to giving both sides a fair say. This is in the interest of straightforwardness and brevity. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I don't agree.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

you see, there is a huge difference between your version in which Bloomberg simply says that "Miscavadge didn't touch Hawkings" and the other version where he says that there was a physical altercation where Hawkings ended up on the ground grappling with Miscavadge but "Miscavige didn't touch Hawkings." The second one is more faithful to the WP:RS and accurately portrays Bloomberg's statement thus more consistent with WP:NPOV and more accurate on both positions. The most important part of the statement is not that Miscavige didn't touch Bloomberg, but that Bloomberg assaulted Miscavige.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

as for weight, this is the only time COB has been assaulted by an SP during a board meeting AND it was confirmed by the representatives of the Church of Scientology. This is a significant event.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You have a typo there. I think you meant "The most important part of the statement is not that Miscavige didn't touch Hawkins, but that Hawkins assaulted Miscavige." That's an important correction, as you might lead readers to think erroneously. Bloomberg was merely a witness and executive of Church of Scientology.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

eh, potato, potato...thanks for catching that.18:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Summoned or attended?

I believe the source says "summoned", not "attended". AFAIK the source does not contain the letter combination "atten". The full sentence is: "Seven days after the exemption was approved, 10,000 Scientologists were summoned to the Los Angeles Sports Arena for what they were told was a big announcement.". Wasbeer 12:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

how is that not attending?Coffeepusher (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/summoned

E.g. I summoned my demonic servants, but they refused. Wasbeer 13:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. Disclaimer: Not a native speaker

so do you have a WP:RS that states they didn't attend or that there was a reduced number of people? Because right now yes, they were summoned and the way the reliable source reads they attended.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed that there was a reduced number of people or that they didn't attend as far as I can remember. Where in the source does it say they attended? Wasbeer 13:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

when the reliable source said they were summonedCoffeepusher (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not understand what you mean. Wasbeer 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: Being summoned is synonymous with attending unless otherwise stated "they were summoned" means that they attended. Usually when someone is summoned you need to specify if they didn't attend otherwise you are saying they attended.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your claims? Wasbeer 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. Please read WP:OR.

I'm sorry but after reading WP:OR I fail to see how explaining the vernacular useage of a english word falls under this catagory? do I need to cite every grammatical and syntactic expression, or possibly cite proper use of english context? Now as I said, in the English language this is the typical way the word summons is used, you have provided no information to dispute thisCoffeepusher (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean you do not have a reliable source? Or does it mean you are unwilling to find one? Wasbeer 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

you seriously want me to find a reliable source that says that using the word "summons" can be synonymous with answering a summons? lets actually start from the beginning when you didn't find a reliable source that said less than 10,000 scientologists attended the event which is your original claim.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can remember I never asked you to find a reliable source that says that <quote>using the word "summons" can be synonymous with answering a summons</quote>. Where did I claim that less than 10,000 scientologists attended the event? Can you please link me to that diff? Thanks in advance, Wasbeer 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ps. it took me 10 seconds http://thesaurus.com/browse/summon Coffeepusher (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

in case you are confused http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assemble. Now where is that WP:RS that says 10,000 people didn't attend?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Thanks! That brightened my day up a bit. In case I am confused.... a link to the word "assemble" in Merriam Webster. Wasbeer 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: "were summoned" and "attended" don't always mean the same thing, but in the context of the source, it is clearly implied that all or most of that number did in fact attend. ( Also, the 10-minute ovation is clearly described as such in the source, though the word "standing" isn't there.) --BTfromLA (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK I am not saying they did not attend. I wasn't there at that moment. Wasbeer 20:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

your first edit summary states "Source says they were summoned, not that they all attended" which means you are making the claim that they did not all attend.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Wasbeer 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

you wrote it.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What is "it"? The editsummary? I wrote the editsummary, that is true. Wasbeer 20:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

yes and the vebage states that you are contesting that everyone showed up...otherwise there would be no reason to delete the section you deleted.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. What is a vebage? Wasbeer 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry, typo, I meant verbiage. Look, this is really a useless argument that I am perpetuating and I am sorry for that. if you are not making that claim, then you are not making that claim...trying to convince you that you are making that claim is kinda a dick move by me and really pointless. Ill cease and desist.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate, good decision. Wasbeer 21:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

outdent: that being said, you have two editors, one of which has provided reliable sources to prove that it isn't original research, here who are saying that in this reliable sources context summoned is synonymous with attended...so please do not revert unless you have evidence to prove that they didn't attend the event.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:3RR. Wasbeer 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is really an odd detail to tussle over. The account of that event at the Sports Arena is one of the rare instances where both journalistic accounts and Scientology's own accounts concur. Here's from the NY Times, March 9, 1997: "On Oct. 8, 1993, 10,000 cheering Scientologists thronged the Los Angeles Sports Arena to celebrate the most important milestone in the church's recent history: victory in its all-out war against the Internal Revenue Service." And the from the SP Times article cited in the article: "The ovation lasted more than 10 minutes." Honestly, Wasbeer, your insistence on changing these is inexplicable to me. --BTfromLA (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BT, would you be willing to add that citation and change it back since the New York times recount of it would satisfy Wasbeer's concern over the single word "summoned." It's probably for the best,i'm at my max of reverts for the day.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@BT: Feel free to add those claims to the article, but please provide the sources. Before you wrote this edit above we did not have a source that confirmed the claims I removed. I do not understand why it is inexplicable to you that people remove unsourced statements on a BLP, especially when the reference that was used does not confirm the claims made in the article. Wasbeer 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to put this to rest, but to clarify: 1. the cited source explicitly stated the ovation was more than 10 minutes. That was not a "figure of speech" that never happened, as you asserted. 2. the cited source did confirm the claim of a crowd of 10,000, even though it did not use the word "attended"; in context, it is reasonable to interpret the intended meaning of the relevant sentences is that a crowd of approximately (not exactly) 10,000 Scientologists (possibly including a few non-scientologists, too) attended this event and cheered Miscavige's announcement for over 10 minutes. 3. Two editors weighed in to specify that in this context, "summoned" could reasonably be re-stated as "attended." 4, The NY Time4s article was cited three times in the sentences just before the part you cut. 5. There are no sources of which I am aware that dispute or doubt any of these claims. 6. The change you proposed is actually very minor, not an inflammatory BLP issue. (Nor, in my view, was it a problem at all, though the article does have real problems, including that garbled Jeff Hawkins business discussed above.) 7.Yet, you dug in and insisted with great vigor and stubborness. At least that's how it looked to me. --BTfromLA (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1. You conveniently forgot to mention the word "standing". 10 is a nice number, we got kind of addicted to it because of the decimal system, but it is not the actual length of time. If we guesstimate an amount of time we use 5 or 10 minutes much more frequently than 6 or 11. The sources contradict eachother, so it is extremely likely that it was a guesstimation.
2. Your own interpretation, reasonable or not, is original research
3. And they were both wrong (and of course we are not a democracy, we need sources not opinions)
4. So what? The reference next to a claim should be the reference that is used as a source.
5. So what? That still does not mean you can make claims and put in a fake reference with a source that does not confirm the claim you made.
6. If you think it is not a problem if the source that is referenced next to a claim does not support that claim then the community disagrees with you.
7. I am stubbornly defending Wikipedia by deleting claims that are not correctly referenced and sourced. Sounds like the kind of thing you get a barnstar for.

I think you underestimate the problems with Coffeepusher's revert of my edit. Please, do what I did, read the source and try to confirm the claims made in the article. Of course you'll find that these claims are not in the source that was used, which is why I removed them. Wasbeer 06:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:STICKCoffeepusher (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

quick fyi to anyone concerned, I just gave Wasbeer a vandalism warning for this edit. He evidently wanted me to tell BT to drop the stick...That was not what I said.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Abusing anti-vandalism tools in a content dispute? Not a smart move Coffeepusher. Wasbeer 14:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

and again...Coffeepusher (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey! Get me out of here.... -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasbeer has been blocked for disruptive editing.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage and Criticism

To revisit the edit related to Hawkins - this entire mention should be removed.

Let's get real, Hawkins makes Miscavige sound like a cross between Bruce Lee and Superman. We have one incident with opposite sides to the story. It is pathetic in a biography of a leader of a world religion we have a fight scene from Enter the Dragon. If you were talking about Bruce Lee, maybe, but come on this is low level, low life copy that does not belong here. It is extremely undue weight.

If we are going to fill this bio with allegations and he said/she said, then it is going to make it a hash, which it starting to become again since that Hawkins entry got added by who knows who. Again, why retain this edit? It should be removed.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

well there was a confrontation, absolutely no one in the room denied it, there have been several accusations of David doing the same thing, with a similar amount of denials which makes this accusation not one incident but rather a sample from a much larger collection of similar accusations. The reliable sources check out, it has been given the correct amount of weight (as shown above) and in this case we have someone who is an executive from the church of Scientology giving us a quote...one which makes the incident even more interesting because it wasn't the stock "nothing happened, nothing to see here" denial but rather gave some interesting details showing that COB was attacked by an SP inside a board meeting. the entire ordeal is reported by multiple sources and sourced from at least two different interviews.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nestle, I think the Hawkins section as it stands is a mess, including Hawkins' ungrammatical quotation. So I'm with you to the extent that I think the status quo needs improvement. Otherwise, though, I don't find much in your comments to agree with. I'll skip the Bruce Lee/Superman bit... I don't think their heroics are any part of the story, and the improbability of the fact that "... in a biography of a leader of a world religion we have a fight scene..." is exactly the reason to include it (or at least one such description, whether it comes from Hawkins or somebody else) in the article. This is very unusual behavior in a religious leader, especially since it seems to be a routine part of his management style. It isn't merely he said/she said gossip... multiple high-profile journalistic sources have investigated the accounts of Miscavige physically abusing his underlings and found them to be credible. Arguably, this material deserves to be weighted even more heavily in the article: I think it is fair to say that Miscavige as a public figure is best known for unflattering allegations, most of which his spokespeople deny--enforced separation of families, physical and emotional abuse of Sea Org members, high-pressure sales on "public" members, harassment of church critics. When he's in the news, it's almost always about that kind of stuff. Look at the article on Warren Jeffs: I'm not saying Miscavige and Jeffs are alike, except in the sense in which press accounts (and in Jeffs' case, legal proceedings) that focus on allegations that followers of each man would deny, justify or relegate to the margins of their story are a dominant part of their lives as public figures. For better or worse, those press accounts shape Wikipedia articles. -- BTfromLA (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA. I agree with you that the Hawkins section is a mess, and does need improvement. I still stand by the fact that I don't see the point in retaining an edit hastily added by a user that is not even registered. If we include all press accounts, the section becomes unnecessarily lengthy. About due weight, the "Media Coverage and criticism" section in itself is comprehensive and is a considerable portion of the whole article. The Hawkins bit does not enhance the section, on the contrary it makes it more convoluted. The point of the section is to provide an overview of press coverage as I see it, and minutia such as the Hawkins edit is not needed.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

From the same source of the edit on the page - Tampabay.com - we can see that Rathbun's credibility as a witness is questionable. First of all, he admits to committing the same crimes that they accuse Miscavige of doing. Furthermore, Rathbun was arrested for "disturbing the peace" and "public intoxication" (http://www.scribd.com/collections/2539740/Marty-Rathbun-Mark-C-Rathbun), clear evidence of his questionable character. It is a moot point whether his statements were published in high profile sources or not, when the ultimate source of the information, Rathbun himself, is not reliable. The portion in the Media Coverage and Criticism section that starts with, "According to Rathbun, Miscavige is.." should be removed as well along with the Hawkins edit, allowing for a greater neutrality, brevity and due weight. Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)