Talk:David Miscavige

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
High traffic

On 14 February 2011, David Miscavige was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

High traffic

On 1 December 2009, David Miscavige was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add to See Also 😀[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini:_Scientology_and_the_Aftermath

The above non-signed suggestion is not a good one, the show itself covers some of David's history and biography however the show is not about David's biography, so it might not be relevant to add a link to the documentary. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So if there was a show about the Catholic Church and it involved the Pope's tenure directly. You wouldn't add it to his Wiki?

This page is a biography of a living person, it is not a page about any any religion. If there were to be a show about Christianity, commentary about the Christian Pope might be added to Wiki pages covering Christianity, assuming it were relevant, however such commentary would not be added to a biography of a living Pope.
If you would, please see WP:BLP for common guidelines for Biographies of Living People. As it is, the A&E Documentary covering the crimes and abuses of the Scientology corporation would belong in pages covering Scientology and the A&E Network as well as on Leah's biography pages covering her career. There are something like 4 dozen people which the A&E Documentary covering Scientology's crimes and abuses and covering Leah's and some 4 dozen other people's histories touches upon, so adding 4 dozen "see alsos" to their BLPs would not be appropriate, either.
I understand the desire to direct people to the A&E Documentary who visit David's BLP, but people coming to Wikipedia for information about David are looking for information about David as a primary research effort, the Documentary which covers the guy's human rights and civil rights abuses and financial crimes et al. would not be relevant.
Please sign your comments, if you would, 4 tildes will sign your comments. Damotclese (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


165.214.11.69 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)ThePunisher

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead modification.[edit]

I've simplified the last paragraph of the lead section according to the references that were provided to support the text and to improve rhetoric and wording. As for the references, they do not back up list of accusations, 8 is dead, 9 does not support passage, 10 does not support passage, 11, coercive fundraising practices refers to the church and not to David MiscavigeWordsculptor2018 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You did not simplify the lead, you expanded it and then removed critical content. Dead links can still be reliable sources, per WP:LINKROT. "Celebrate his accomplishments" is WP:PEACOCKery. The article must be a neutral overview, not a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand LINKROT. The issue is not merely the some of the links being dead - the references do not support every mention in the section I removed. It was as if they were just included for show. What am I basing my edit on is this part of the BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."Wordsculptor2018 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, this was about this edit.
Pablum about "celebrating his accomplishments" and the "restored and corrected" works of LRH are not neutral language ("restored" from what, ancient papyrus? Isn't "correcting" verbal tech?) Who, exactly "considers" him a "servant of Hubbard's message"? Certainly not independent Scientologist! Why would Miscavige's own publicity be a reliable source for this assessment? So who is being quoted? Since this is bland WP:PEACOCK language, this would need some indication of larger significance from a reliable, third-party source to avoid cherry-picking. The line about "His primary role..." was not supported by any source at all, it was merely repeating the claim verbatim inside a ref tag. Also, press releases are absolutely not reliable, neutral sources in any way, and the lone reliable source was from over 20 years ago and predated the Ideal Org and book sales pushes. It also says very little about Miscavige's reception among Scientology as a whole. This was clearly slapped on to provide a superficial veneer of legitimacy to promotional material. In other words, it was "just included for show".
On the other hand, the summary about Miscavige being accused by multiple people of assault is neutral, because it is directly supported by a large number of reliable, third-party sources. The lede sumamrizes the body, even when that content is unflattering. This is not contentious among reliable sources, so calling this "contentious" is misrepresenting the situation. If there is some specific issue, feel free to bring it up for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These text were pre-existent, and I simply restored some of it because the editor who removed it said "removed until sourced." So that I did, found references and restored it. Your comments about these being included just for show, etc., should be directed to the first editor who added it. The discussion I started was simply about the last paragraph, so I'm not sure why there's a discussion about the other text here.Wordsculptor2018 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)