Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Arbitrary section

Deleted the nonsense about David Miscavige accompanying Cruise and Holmes to the Maldives. Unless anyone can show that this actually happened and wasn't paparazzi drivle...

"Chinese School"

Please remember two things: first of all, we have an article now for describing patter drills and the controversy over them. All we need in this article is the fact that Miscavige instituted 'em, a simple description of what they are, the fact that some Scientologists view them as a change to Hubbard's practices, and a simple description of why they think that. All the gory details should be saved for the patter drill article. There, it's good to quote the exact name and date and letter of the various policies cited by various sides as being relevant; here, it's not, because all we need here is a simple summary and a link that can be followed by those who need more details.

Second, please remember that when writing for Wikipedia, you cannot make assumptions that your audience already knows or is involved in the debate. Both sides have been arguing, on the talk page and in the article itself, about whether or not patter drills constitute a clear violation of "Chinese school" and no one seems to have considered that the average reader of the article has no idea what "Chinese school" is supposed to refer to. It's possible to glean from context that it's a policy authored by Hubbard, but that's it. Providing a link to Chinese school does no good, since that links to an article on actual Chinese schools, and not whatever Hubbard thought Chinese schools were like or what he used them as a metaphor for.

In summary, if you want to describe why one particular faction has claimed that patter drills violate "Chinese school" (or that they don't) then 1) do it in Patter drill, not David Miscavige, 2) remember that your audience does not all come to the article already knowing what "Chinese school" means in the context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo is notified to stop his personal attacks. He is on a personal attack probation.--Fahrenheit451 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you have asked around about my above statement, User:Fahrenheit451. Let me assure you, my reference is to a neutral point of view of an article's topic. Widely published to be presented as widely published, while narrowly published (small newspaper, etc.) be presented in like manner; while personal opinion on personal websites does not meet WP:V at all. WP:NPOV directs us, a neutral tone, an infomative style. Terryeo 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections and New Data

"As a result, it appears that MIscavige is now not merely Chairman of the RTC Board, but the sole RTC director. "

Since non-profits by law have some minimum number of directors (more than one), this amounts to an accusation. It would seem to require more verification, though I don't personnally object.

I have modified the language to avaoid making an unfounded accusation. Does RTC publish a list of its officers? BTfromLA 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know about. As a non profit I believe they are required to do so, but for some reason they are immune to investigation. (Source Eric Pham, an FBI agent I didn't believe at the time.)

The IRS investigation and suicide of his mother in law you removed don't really contributed that much--even though she is the worlds only 5 shot suicide.

But the part about Miscavige visiting the IRS in 1993 is just wrong. The visit was in 1991, October I think, and the IRS commissioner he visited resigned by January of 1992, many think as a result of the visit.

Perhaps the story of the IRS and scientology deserves its own web page and just a pointer from here.

There is also recent information that is probably accurate that DM no longer lives at Gold.

What is the source of that? BTfromLA 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In the context of a discussion about a private elevator for DM being added to the super power building in Clearwater, this was posted to the msg board of xenu.net. Keith Henson 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"And speaking of the Main Building at the Complex in Hollywood. Dave could not stand that place and how DB it was. ASI had bought a huge housing complex up the street from where they worked and were going to live there. Dave heard about this and it was set-up for him and his staff instead. It is a luxurious set-up that makes the complex look like the concentration camp that it is. This is where he actually lives for the most part. He hates the Int Base and the staff there and prefers to live up the street from . . . "

This information is not of the class the Wikipedia normally requires, but the other infomation on where DM lives is no better than rumor either. (ASI is Author Services, Inc., and as I recall, they worked out of a building a mile or two to the West of Hwy 101 on Hollywood Blvd.) Keith Henson 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"how DB it was?" Please translate!
Sorry, with "BT" (body thetan) in your name I figured you were up on scientology jargon. DB is "degraded being," short hand here for "low class slum." Keith Henson 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
His living at Gold has been reported by the LA Times and other reputable publishers--hence we can include it. If there's good reason for doubting that it is current, though, the language might be changed to reflect that: "as of 2004..." or whatever. BTfromLA 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How does the Wikipedia report where they live for people such as John Travolta who are known to have several homes? Keith Henson 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Notable people that have multiple residences should have all their primary residences listed in the article (assuming the information is Verifiable). Vivaldi (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The stories about physical abuse have been confirmed by so many people, a good number of them in places where they would know, that it seems hard not to include it. After all, a Wikipedia page about Jim Jones pre Jonestown would be amiss not to indicate that there were stories of abuse from people who got out. If there is some rule against this text, please advise me.

There are rules about what sources Wikipedia draws upon. If these accusations were described in an article published in, say, The New York Times, we could mntion it, citing the article. But when the best sources are newsgroup or message board posts and anecdotal reports on personal websites, it doesn't meet the standard for a "reliable source," especially for an inflammatory claim like that one. BTfromLA 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a statement that DM actually abuses people, just that there are reports. That there *are* reports is both true and easy to verify. Would it be more acceptable to say "postings?" It could also be changed to "abusing" instead of beatings.
Your argument makes sense, but it is a controversial position--since we can't use newsgroup postings as a source of fact, can we simply allow that these posts exist, without making any claim as to their reliability?
That's essentially what was done with the page about Mark Rathbun. (There is no Warren McShane page yet.) True, you can go to scientology's own page and see they are no longer there, but you have to rely on postings or personal recolection, or the Wayback Machine (unreliable since scientology forces so many pages off there) to see that they ever were there. And for reasons I don't understand, the "unpersoning" of these two has never made it into any news story, though it would be major news for top executives to vanish without a trace from any other entity of such a size.
Incidentally, I don't doubt your addition "(Even historical news stories were altered to remove any mention of them.)" but I wonder where this source is? Keith Henson 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently the WayBack Machine at archive.org maintains a version of the RTC.org webpage that lists Rathbun. Of course CoS could have this deleted at any time. Vivaldi (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My sense is that the majority of editors here would say "no," that we can't even report that these rumors exist unless the rumors have already been reported by a credible publisher. (If you are curious about the reasoning behind such a policy, take a look at WP:NOR and WP:V. BTfromLA 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, this information is certainly "not original research" and it sure is as verifiable as apple pie, i.e., any person can follow the links and see it is there. But I see your point. Perhaps there should be a WP:F policy. Keith Henson 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Since October of 2005 there have been persistant reports on alt.religion.scientology and Operation Clambake of Miscavige beating high level officials, particularly Mike Rinder.[1], [2]"

Keith Henson 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Could someone archive the bulk of this page?

Yes I can, you lazy bastard! :) Vivaldi (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IRS deal

The date is wrong, the IRS commissioner involved was gone by 1993. See Fred T. Goldberg, Jr.. There is a lot about this in the NYT article by Douglas Franz, [3]

I don't want to fix it without consensus. Keith Henson 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats with the Category[American autodidacts] thing? does he fit the defintition of an autodidact 70.100.138.217 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)somechooch

Where is Miscavige on "the Bridge"?

Is it known whether Miscavige has completed any or all of the OT levels? Is there reason to believe he may have experienced some of the unreleased teachings (e.g., OT IX)? Is this info available for other Scientology execs? BTfromLA 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Does anybody know if the lad has had all those extraterrestrial-originated "spirits" removed or does he still bear the burden of hauling arounf multi-million-year-old "creatures" deposited upon Earth by that nefarious nogoodnik whose name I can not recall?Obbop 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaced image

I think that the previous image had his face too small in the picture so that it was indistinct. This image is a closer shot.--Fahrenheit451 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert image

Fahrenheit, I see your point on the size of the image, but the one you've selected just doesn't look like him. Plus it's really unflattering and gives almost as much emphasis to an unnamed man to the right of him, who looks really odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borbo (talkcontribs)

I agree too. And those who want to see the face better can click on the image to get the bigger sized version. Entheta 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It does look like him. I have seen d.m. up close, thus I can verify that. It is interesting that Borbo's only edit is the d.m. image and Entheta was the editor who uploaded the original image.--Fahrenheit451 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the other photo too, Fehrenheit451, and I don't see any reason to use the one you selected which looks wierd to me too.Boredwiththehype 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Boredwiththehype

I think the photo with the blue backgrounds was better - the screen capture from ABC looks distorted. Joel-morris 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Joel Morris

I don't think the "game show host" shot is very good. It's flat and most of the detail of his face is lost (even when enlarged). AndroidCat 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot better than the screen capture of the ABC show. I agree with Joel.Grrrilla 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Fahrenheit. I've also had dealings with D.M. and the photo of him was pretty distorted, to say nothing of being copyrighted by ABC. Hypermellow12 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The other picture from What Is Scientology has no fair use rationale and will likely be up for deletion the next time the bots sweep through. It certainly is surprising to see all the new editors popping up at the same time for this obscure issue. AndroidCat 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry, I meant the "This Is Scientology"—game show host image was missing info. AndroidCat 12:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Both images are valid. The ABC image is fair use, low res, screen shot. Why not have both, I have put the Celebrity Center/convention pic in the career section. Smeelgova 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. I still think the photo is inappropriate, and is poor quality. Grrrilla 07:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just how is it inappropriate? And the quality is fine, and voiced so above by other editors. Why not simply have both photos present in the article? Perhaps you would rather have their locations switched, as a compromise? Smeelgova 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Isn't it interesting that the nicks Borbo, Boredwiththehype, Hypermellow12, and Grrrilla come out of nowhere with no user pages to voice opinion about a photo of david miscavige. Coincidence or correlation?--Fahrenheit451 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed, Fahrenheit451. What are your thoughts/comments on the locations/formatting of the two images at present in the article? Smeelgova 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Frankly, I would switch the positions. The gameshow style image of him wearing stage makeup would go in the career section, and the one where he is sitting in court without makeup at the top. --Fahrenheit451 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That is my feeling as well, but I switched the positions to the way they are currently, as an offering of compromise to the "interesting" editors that you mentioned above. You can switch them if you like. Smeelgova 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I think I will indulge myself today!--Fahrenheit451 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Fahrenheit451. With all due respect to your experience in Wikipedia, and acknowledging that I'm a "newby," I don't see that there is consensus on the image you decided to use or its placement on the page. Although I don't expect to reach complete agreement on this, I don't think it's right to simply disregard my views on this or those of others who have participated in this disucssion. To repeat my objection to the photo you have chosen, the colors are strange and the faces are distorted. Grrrilla 07:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then. Grrrilla, I am glad to see that we can discuss this amiably on the talk page, and have reached a compromise/consensus. Smeelgova 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

How Tall?

Does anyone know this guy's actual height? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.58.190.177 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Reverted deleted paragraph

A unregistered user at ip address 69.12.131.206 removed a paragraph that was properly cited, thus verifiable, stating that it was "untrue". I restored that paragraph.--Fahrenheit451 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would, however, delete the "Christ" paragraph. Reason: 1) the SUN is not exactly a reliable source 2) it doesn't sound plausible - it's not the sort of language that scientology uses 3) it has been denied by scientology. --Tilman 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully concur with Tilman. CyberAnth 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Tilman is correct on all counts, additionally the article does not even posit a source at all for the statements allegedly by DM. If you read it carefully it cites a friend close to cruise and this "friend" in fact says nothing at all about what DM might or might not have said. The article is an utter fabrication and it seems content to be a blatantly unclever one at that. Re removing the Christ paragraph. Slightlyright 09:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In a battle between OR and a British publication, the British publication wins. I realize that it's primarily a tabloid, but who else is going to give a crap about what Tom Cruise thinks? Are there any published articles which contradict the claim made by the Sun? Restoring deleted paragraph. - Big Brother 1984 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just "a" tabloid. The SUN is one of the worst. (On the other hand, the New York Post and the New York Daily News have been pretty reliable). Plus, the story has been denied. [4] [5] So either delete it, or add that it has been denied. --Tilman 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If this get reverted again to include the Sun statement I will solicit rapid admin intervention to lock the page, excluding the statement, which they will surely grant because the inclusion is simply on the wrong side of policy. CyberAnth 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is enough of a consensus that six sentences in a tabloid sourced to some unnamed "source close to the actor" isn't a WP:RS, especially with WP:BLP. AndroidCat 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is relevant enough to David Miscavige to be here, anyways. But frankly, I see no reason to spread this story any further and so assist the Church of Scientology, which is probably the one that leaked it to The Sun in the first place. Seriously -- look at the pattern and compare it to history. Tom Cruise announcing his intent to eat the placenta when Katie gave birth, waiting long enough for the report to be published and quickly spread everywhere, and then publicly laughing it off as 'just a joke' -- which the news media should have known was too bizarre to be true, obviously, unlike a silent birth or a private citizen with no medical training buying his own ultrasound machine. Then came the rumors of The Thetan, a film described so as to make it sound like an equal mixture of Scientology doctrine and popcorn action flick cliches, supposedly starring Tom Cruise and Posh Spice -- once again published, quickly spreading everywhere for about a week in which the notoriously publicity-conscious Church of Scientology stayed curiously silent -- and then stepped forward to declare the rumors to be ludicrous. Now it's this "Cruise is the Christ of Scientology" thing. Once again, the rumor gets published, spreads quickly, and receives a curiously late rebuttal from the CoS, which incidentally uses the opportunity to publicize all its dubious claims such as "the largest non-governmental anti-drug governmental program in the world, the largest human rights education program, the largest global emergency response force with over 95,000 strong and has grown more in the last five years than the previous 50 years combined" and to whine about "an utterly fabricated story ... propagated in an effort to marginalize Scientology or make Scientology, its leaders or its members seem strange". Okay, the first report I can find of the "Miscavige called Cruise the Christ of Scientology" story is January 24. The first report I can find of the Church of Scientology denying the story, however, isn't until February 2. ... Are we supposed to believe that the Church of Scientology, image-conscious as it is, couldn't get a rebuttal to a story it didn't like printed until nine days later??
This is just the modern-day Operation Cat. The original Operation Cat was targeted at "the computer, the security services and authority" but the intent is still the same: to "make a mockery and hold up to ridicule", the means being "to plant grossly false information ... for later public retrieval and ridiculing exposure." The target is now the press, a much easier target because it no longer requires the same illegal break-ins. Pick a channel with plausible deniability, and inject your disinformation. Wait until the disinformation has spread and then capitalize on the publicity it generated with a denial and a self-pitying statements about "how low the press has gotten to in order to come up with a story" and how many people are spreading so much false information about Scientology. Wait another month and do it again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that Micavige and the Church don't keep an eye on their own WP articles is an indication of how lame they really are. Hence the week delay in responding to a news story is probably not an indication of a clever plot on their part. Steve Dufour 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientologists equate Cruise w/ Christ?

  • It looks like there are now lots and lots and lots of secondary sources reporting on this incident:
  1. 'Make-believers' find a new 'Christ' in Cruise, Florida Baptist Witness, FL - Feb 7, 2007
  2. Cruise v. Christ, LAist, CA - Jan 28, 2007
  3. It's official - Tom Cruise is divine, January 26, 2007, The Guardian
  4. Tom Cruise a False Christ?, The Conservative Voice, NC - Jan 29, 2007
  5. Tom Cruise hailed as 'Christ' of Scientology, New Zealand Herald (Subscription), New Zealand - Jan 24, 2007
  6. Tom Cruise is 'a Christ', Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - Jan 24, 2007
  7. Tom Cruise compared to Christ, China Daily, China - Jan 23, 2007
  8. Tom Cruise compared to Christ, Hollywood News, UK - Jan 24, 2007
  9. Tom Cruise is Scientology 'Christ', Now Magazine Online, UK - Jan 23, 2007
  10. Tom Cruise is the 'Christ' of Scientology., PR-Inside.com (Pressemitteilung), Austria - Jan 23, 2007
  11. Tom Cruise, Scientology’s New Messiah, Bodog Beat, Costa Rica - Jan 23, 2007
  12. Tom Cruise dubbed Scientology's Jesus, LondonNet, 23/01/07
  • At the very least, worth mentioning in the mainspace of the article... Smee 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I respectfully disagree - all this is still based on the SUN article, although some mention no source at all. It is deplorable that so many papers, even reputable ones, have repeated the story without bothering to research this - just because it is hilarious.
Both Cruise and Miscavige are control freaks. They wouldn't let anyone near them who would call the SUN the next day. And Miscavige doesn't go to parties (to afraid of being served with a lawsuit [6]) where ordinary people could "overhear" something. --Tilman 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Should still be mentioned, put it as a direct quote if you wish along with the source and then you can leave it up to the reader to decide how reputable the source is or is not. 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talkcontribs).

Uncited negative information about a living person?

Although this sentence might very well be true it seems to be uncited, only a statement by a third person on a website, unless there is more:

In early 1983, Miscavige ordered that various materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, even though he knew that the materials in question had long since fallen into the public domain. [7]

Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Even a simple google search reveals a few more sources, most usefully cited among them I think would be these, which corroberate the above link, and represent multiple trivial sources about the same information, each independently confirming it:


"http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/prince1.html"

"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/123249b5cdd90b0c"

Three trivial sources satisfies the reliability requirement for that single sentence, but to prevent an edit war, I'll wait until you confirm that this is satisfactory to restore it. If not, I'll dig for the actual buried court affidavit on some sites about the McPherson trial.

An internal link from the same site goes to A.r.s. and its post of all case information. For the record, the statement -is- true, since a request send to the relevant court office will produce copies of the document under freedom of info. Either way, wouldn't it be simplest to cite the court documents themselves? They seem like the most reliable source. Raeft 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think three websites are enough to accuse someone of a crime on WP. Steve Dufour 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Filing a coipyright registration, even a celarly incorrect one, is not a crime in general. In an extreme case it might be fraud I suppose, but the statement above does not come clsoe to an accusation of fruad. IMO DES (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Restored material backed up by sourced citations. Smee 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Sorry Smee. This is a charge brought by one person. It may be true, however it can not be added to the article as a fact. Please read your own references. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a notice on the living persons noticeboard. I will continue removing the sentence since negative material about living persons is not limited by the 3 revert rule. Steve Dufour 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
VSmee, it would be helpful, if you would READ the affidavit. the statement is not in there. Misou 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the fact that it is in a sworn affidavit does not mean we can repeat it as if that made it true. Steve Dufour 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, the affidavit quite clearly does state that. I suggest you read statements #31-32. I'm putting it back in, with the addition of "according to former Scientologist Jesse Prince" to alert the reader. AndroidCat 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section is question:

31. In early 1983 I attended a meeting at Scientology's ASI office in Los Angeles. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Patricia Brice and Edith Buchele. The meeting concerned Scientology copyrights. In particular, David Miscavige stated that Scientology was "in trouble" concerning the copyright status of the many published materials of founder L Ron Hubbard. Concern was expressed that many of Mr. Hubbard's published materials had become 'public domain"because the materials had not been registered with the United States Copyright office for many years. David Miscavige stated that Scientology had failed to register copyrights for thousands of pages of Scientology material written by Mr. Hubbard. These records included the numerous policy letters and bulletins published by Mr. Hubbard. In particular, Mr. Hubbard published "Policy Letters" (always published in green ink on white paper and intended as administrative directives) LRH ED's (Executive Directives) which are used for various topics, (always issued as blue ink on white paper) and "Technical Bulletins" published with red ink on white paper covering technical aspect of Scientology such as Auditing techniques, Policy and Ethics.
32. At the same meeting in early 1983 David Miscavige specifically ordered Patricia Brice (who at the time was L. Ron Hubbard's personal secretary and an employee of ASI) to begin the process of mass copyright registration filings for all of L. Ron Hubbard's materials. This order was given despite the fact that Mr. Miscavige was already aware that many of the materials in question were already in the public domain. Thus, I know from personal knowledge that in mid 1983 Scientology began a massive program to register Mr. Hubbard's material with the United State's Copyright office.

My understanding of copyright law, I am not a lawyer however, is that copyrights do not have to be renewed at all. Anything Hubbard had published would have certainly be under copyright in 1983. I suspect that the real issue was trademarks, not copyrights. But whatever, this is still just the statement of one person. It is still uncited negative material about a living person. Steve Dufour 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct for works prior to 1988, which is complex. See WP:Public domain#When does copyright expire? and Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States AndroidCat 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked out these sources and it seems that a copyright lasts for at least 50 years after the death of the author. Was there any reason to renew copyrights for his works in 1983? Were they really talking about trademarks? Steve Dufour 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, even long before 1988, there was no requirement to register works with the copyright office, and failure to do so does not make the work public domain. it is and was common practice to register some works many years after they are first published, often only when legal action is contemplated. Note that registering a copyright is quite different from renewing a copyright. Until the copyright law changes in 1988, US copyrights needed to be renewed if they were to extend more than 28 years. (copyrights no longer need to be renewed, or more technically, they are now renewed automatically. Anything published in 1964 or later now gets/got an automatic renewal.) However, prior to the copyright law of changes 1976, anything "published" without a copyright notice was thereby put into the public domain, and subsequent registration or renewal would not cure this. If the affidavit quoted above is accurate, it would appear that some people in the Scientology organization at the time did not properly understand copyright. In any case, sending in delayed copyright registrations is neither illegal nor unethical. Attempting to conceal facts (such as publication without notice) that put a work into the PD might well be considered unethical, and even illegal if attempts are later made to profit by copyright protection thus improperly retained, but what constitutes "publication" is a bit tricky. A good case could be made that distribution of an administrative document within an organization, not intended for the general public, is not "publication" and so omission of a copyright notice has no effect. Thus is is not clear that, even assuming the above affidavit sections are accurate and truthful, they do not (standing alone) support a statement or implication that Miscavige or anyone else had taken any illegal or unethical action. Note that prior to the copyright law revisions (which started in 1976, and were mostly finished in 1988) copyright in the US lasted for a fixed term, or rather for an initial term of 28 years, and a longer renewal term granted if renewal papers were filed (the length of the renewal term changed several times). Under current law, copyright is mostly for life of the author plus 70 years. DES (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Note also that (in the 1970s and 1980s) the only ways for things to "fall into the public domain" is 1) for the copyright to expire, either through failure to renew (after 28 years) or complete lapse of time (I think this would have been after 56 years in 1983); or 2) for thm to be "publsiehd" wiht no copyright notice at all, or a fatally defective notice (bUt not all distribution would be "publication" for this purpose); or 3) for them to be published outside the US without being published in the US or registered promptly. It is ahrd to see how any of these would apply to Hubbard's writings as of 1983, except perhaps failure to renew (for works published prior to 1955) or ommission of notice. But the 1976 act had already made the notice optional on anything published after that date, and the 1988 act removed ommision of notice as a reason for public domain status on anythign published in 1964 or later. One suspects that someone involved did not understand copyright any too well, or else that the affidavit is not entirely accurate on what was said. DES (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See the line on the chart that says "1923 through 1963 Published with notice but copyright was not renewed7 In the public domain". It has been established in court that a number of Hubbard works like the "Manual of Justice" are now in the public domain. AndroidCat 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that chart -- I refer to it a lot over on Distributed Proofreaders. But late renewal is no cure, unless the original publication date is falsified. Note also that "publication" is a term of art in this connection. Filing renewals on content already in the PD would have had no effect (although i suppose people might have thought that it would), unless the renewal documents falsely state a publication date of 28 years prior when the actual pub date was longer ago (Note also that an early renewal, if early by more than one year, was ineffective and was simply ignored by the copyright office.) DES (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point a bit. The cited affidavit appears to imply that Miscavige and others were doing something illegal and/or unethical that would result in writings of Howard that were legally PD improperly receiving copyright protection. But how could this have been the case? If the materials had been published more than 28 years previously (that is prior to 1955, since the affidavit describes events in 1983) and had not been renewed, filing a late renewal would have no effect unless the renewal papers falsely stated the publication to be 28 years prior to the filing. If the materials had been published without a copyright notice (prior to 1978), filing a registration would have no effect unless the registration falsely claimed that the material had been published with a notice. If the materials had been published without a notice in or after 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 copyright act) then registration would have preserved copyright protection, and this would be a perfectly legal and proper thing to do. Considering all of this, I can only conclude that filing any registration or renewal papers with the copyright office in 1983 would either 1) have had no legal effect at all, if the matériel was already PD and the papers filed were truthful and accurate; or 2) legally and properly have established and preserved copyright (if it was a renewal of material from circa 1955, or a registration of material published without notice after 1977, or an optional registration of material that was NOT already in the PD); or 3) have been improper but effective if and only if the papers filed with the copyright office were materially false, either misstating the dates of publication, or concealing publication without a proper notice. But the affidavit sections quoted above do not state or even clearly imply that false statements of fact were to be included in "mass copyright registration filings", and I don't think such an imputation drawn without more than conjecture (unless it is stated elsewhere in the affidavit) is well sourced. In short, it is unclear what improper or illegal action the maker of the affidavit is claiming Miscavige made. Taking the affidavit as literally as possible, it seems as if neither Miscavige nor the author were correctly informed on the requirements of copyright law, and that the materials were either already in the PD (in which case the copyright office filings would have no effect) or still under copyright (in which case registration would slightly increase their protection, but not much, and would be in no way illegal or improper, and quite possibly a waste of time and money by those filing). DES (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I am impressed with the logical trail in your argumentation. It makes very much sense. Thanks also for the documentation. I just uncovered a set of falsified quotes which were "tweaked" to push some anti-Scientology notion. This quote here might be accurate but the content has been "tweaked" to smear Miscavige. CSI LA 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restated the sentence as an allegation. This is not the forum to debate legal merits.--Fahrenheit451 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If we start listing unfounded and paid allegations on this page, it will be even more trashed up than it already is. What sense has it to quote disrelated allegations? COFS 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge your opinion COFS, but you are the one making the allegation of "listing unfounded and paid allegations" in reference to Jesse Prince's affidavit. It is verifiable material, thus can be used in the article. OSA may not like it, but this is not their forum.--Fahrenheit451 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no doubts that Jesse was making that claims even though I never saw the actual legal document but some allegedly OCRed version of it. But it is used to "hint" to "possibly illegal" activities of Miscavige. This is intentionally smearing the reputation of a living person (WP:BLP) and a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is supposedly a biographic article about the leader of Scientology. Biographical articles include some basics, some doings, etc. Now you want to give 2-3% of that article space to an allegation which a) is 24 years old, b) has never resulted in any consequences even though it was checked by the courts, c) was part of a legal - get money out of Scientology - campaign, d) uttered by someone who can only be seen active when he gets paid for it and finally e) might not even be true. This is my viewpoint about it. I have spent a long time looking into what former Scientologists, Freezoners and others have to say, had friendly talks to them, read their materials, checked their accusations and at the end of that all I realized what scam this anti-campaign is and what disgusting motives at least some of the key campaigners have. What a waste of time and energy for everybody and very sad in parts, seeing those making a lot of efforts to do themselves in. I don't know what your motives are, but your behavior will tell. COFS 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And the same accusations that you make can be leveled at the public remarks of spokesmen for the cofs. Which freezoners have you had friendly talks with? I don't believe that statement. Prince's affidavit is verifiable information. OSA may not like it as it goes against their pr line, but again, this is not their forum. I think you will find that most "anti" campaigners get no financial compensation for their speaking out. I think your analysis of the motives of those who disagree with you is rather colored by your association with the Office of Special Affairs. If behavior betrays motives, you have already made yours clear in your vandalism of my user page. --Fahrenheit451 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Second-generation Scientologist?

This expression is used to describe him but it is not clear, to me anyway, what it means. Was he in the second group that joined after Hubbard? Or, I guess this is more likely, does that fact that his parents joined Scientology when he was a child make him "second-generation? I think it would be good if this was made clear in the article. (Note: If a family immigrated to America only the children born in the USA would be second-generation Americans. Miscavige wasn't born into Scientology. This is one thing that makes the sentence unclear to me. Is the Scientology definition of "second-generation" different, or was a mistake made in using this expression?) Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no Scientology definition of "second-generation". But I think he was Generation 2 of Scientologists in his family (Generation 1 would be his parents). So you could call this second-generation. COFS 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the impression I had from the sentence. I might add a note to make the meaning more clear. Except that I couldn't think of any way to put it that wouldn't be a distraction to the readers. Steve Dufour 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it not be worded that his parents became scientologists and he later joined? That makes it very clear.--Fahrenheit451 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-sites more valuable than WP:RS

Tilman, you reverted two changes from POV-sites to the actual cited WP:RS. With the argument that yours POV-sites are "better" and that the new York Times "has changed" their headline/article. Are you somehow joking? Please stop disrupting here without proper talk. Misou 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summaries, the other sites had the complete articles, while the official sites had not. People should be able to read the complete article, when available, so that they can verify that the edits are not misleading. The NYT site had only an abstract and not the article; the TIME site didn't have the part "Mining money in Vancouver" etc. Your term "POV-site" is misleading. I linked to the article, that is all. Btw, one of your changes was from one "POV-site" (your term) to another. --Tilman 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason we can't link to both. wikipediatrix 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind linking to both, and having the official sites first.--Tilman 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I how do you know that the "unofficial" - a.k.a. POV-pushing - do not have "transcription errors" or are otherwise slanted? The sites you are linking to are obvious anti-Scientology sites. Misou 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
What I do know is that the official sites are incomplete - you could have noticed this yourself, e.g. with the NYT site. See also my suggestion above, to put up both.
Yes, these are anti-scientology sites. There are also some scientology sites used as sources on Miscavige. --Tilman 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why mention his siblings?

What is the purpose of this section?

"He has a brother, Ronnie Jr., a twin sister, Denise Gentile (formerly Denise Covington, then Denise Licciardi) and a younger sister, Lori Miscavige Vernuelle. His brother Ronnie Miscavige now sells real estate in Virginia."

To me it seems like it might be an invasion of privacy for these people. Is there any reason that readers would want to know about them? Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It is factual information on a notable individual. They are simply noted here, no other information is even really given about them in great detail. Smee 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
They are not notable. I put a notice on the living persons notice board about this. Steve Dufour 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see no justification for mentioning any personal information like this, which is unsourced. I have removed mention of brothers and sisters. Sam Blacketer 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have commented this out, pending addition of forthcoming sourced citations... Smee 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

About Denise Licciardi - she is quite notable for her involvement in the DIGL scam, [8] this was reported by the press.

Steve, is there some specific reason that you started this activity here? --Tilman 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Added info on Licciardi, backed up by reputable secondary sourced citation. Smee 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Steve, you should also mention Pope Benedict XVI on the BLP board. Someone dared to include his mother and sister, both named Maria Ratzinger, and both not notable. --Tilman 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why family members shouldn't be mentioned if sources exist. This IS a bio, and real bios in real encyclopedias mention such things. wikipediatrix 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is a little bit more important than the President of the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
David Miscavige is not the "President" of the Church of Scientology. The "president" is Heber Jentzsch. David Miscavige is the leader of scientology, the Nr. 1.
Btw, you didn't answer my question. Is there some specific reason (unrelated to Wikipedia policies) that you started this activity here? --Tilman 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Steve, it doesn't matter whether the Pope is more popular or not. Anyone worthy of having a Wikipedia article is obviously popular enough to get a normal bio. wikipediatrix 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone be interested in the married names of his sisters and what his brother does for a living? These facts have nothing to do with his notability and could cause problems for them. Oh, and to answer Tilman's question: I am trying to point out how mean-spirited some of the Scientology coverage here on WP is. This seemed like a good example; uninvolved people's names were dragged in with seemingly no concern for any effect that might have on them. Steve Dufour 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First, you disrupted wikipedia ("I am trying to point out"), despite WP:POINT.
Second, you didn't even make research. Denise Miscavige is notable.
Third, these people aren't "dragged in". They are part of his family, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong in being a part of lil' Dave's family. --Tilman 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't like it if one of my brothers had a WP article and I was mentioned in it. Steve Dufour 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Your argument has nothing to do with my argument. --Tilman 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Tilman, Steve Dufour's statement is irrelevant. I just added brother Ronnie with a citation.--Fahrenheit451 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's more about Ronnie Miscavige notability: A police report about that he was caught for reckless driving. He asked the police officer not to fine him, but to beat him up instead of giving him a ticket. [9] --Tilman 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That is Ron Sr., his father.--Fahrenheit451 03:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs expansion from more citations...

  • Only has 23 citations at present? I bet with a little nifty research we can find double that in reputable sourced material. Here we go... Smee 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Nightline Interview

Most of the controversial statements are well-presented, with both sides. But what about this? 'Miscavige made accusations against specific individuals as well, saying that Time magazine reporter Richard Behar (author of several articles highly critical of Scientology, e.g. The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power) had advocated the kidnapping and deprogramming of Scientologists, and that Vicki Aznaran (Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center, previous to Miscavige) had been "kicked out for trying to bring criminals into the church": "She wanted to bring bad boys into Scientology, her words."'

This only presents one side. Did Behar ever respond to this accusation? Did Aznaran ever deny his accusations? --Gloriamarie 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know.
As a person who worked on two of the rebuttals (the Seattle murder, and the Max Planck thing), the problem with all that is that is too unspecific. Any speculation would be original research.
I found a scientology black PR pack [10] which claims that Behar recommended deprogramming. --Tilman 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Black PR"? Do you say things like that just to bait people or are you incapable of conceiving that the CoS could ever, ever, in a skillion years, be right about anything? Regardless of anyone's feelings about the CoS, a lot of what they say in their own self-defense in that "Fact Vs. Fiction" booklet is actually true: the CoS were never proved to have any responsibility for Lottick's death. Interviewing the old CAN about the CoS is obviously seeking a foregone conclusion, as is eliciting quotes from disgruntled ex-employees. And unlike sleazy groups like Narconon which could indeed qualify as a scam, calling the CCHR a "financial scam" without proof isn't journalism, it's editorializing. Etc., etc., etc. One can be extremely critical of Scientology and still be fair. wikipediatrix 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Proven to be responsible for someones death" is a matter of opinion, unless scientology physically pushed him out of the window. The Lottick parents are entitled to their opinion. I met them and I believe them, and I met scientologists and I don't believe them. And considering the record of scientology (e.g. the suicide conviction in France, or the personality test evaluators who often tell people that they would suicide), it is highly likely that they DID contribute to his death. Sadly, this is not a crime in the US. --Tilman 11:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There you go again. I'm talking about what can be proven as facts and you're talking about what you believe. wikipediatrix 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits and Reversions

I went through the David Miscavige article yesterday to clean it up. I started at the top, made quite a few edits explaining each one as I went. By and large, the edits were to improve clarity (such as deleting undefined Scientology jargon that did not contribute to an improved understanding. There were also grammar and punctuation errors, and certain sections including that were questionable and/or sounded pejorative where no such tenor was necessary, particularly in light of the living persons biography guidelines. Tilman is now asking [User:COFS|COFS] to "explain your "PR" changes (or rather, those by SuJada) on the talk page." Every change I made was explained as I went along.Su-Jada 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What you didn't wasn't just grammar. You added long disproven scientology PR, e.g. that the GO was independent, Miscavige the hero, etc. You also deleted stuff from the well sourced "mission holders" segment (which has been tried for weeks now). Someone also shuffled paragraphs around to make it harder to notice the changes. No way. I'll revert it again later or tomorrow, but wait first what the others think about this issue. --Tilman 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it is not my job to show why I revert, I'll show some examples:

...in keeping with Church policy on not employing persons with a history of criminal acts or criminal records. Hey, scientology itself shows Jesse Prince "criminal history" on RFW, and before his scientology career. Yet he became Nr.2 at the RTC. And L. Ron Hubbard himself has a long criminal record, so...? --Tilman 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Hubbard never made such an allegation herself. That is original research. You could as well write Mrs. Hubbard has no history of being a lesbian. --Tilman 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The rude analogy aside, A statement is made that someone who knew Mary Sue Hubbard made a claim about how she felt about something. MSH herself never stated this. I'd be happy to remove the entire section as I don't think it is needed, but if it is left in it needs this clarification.Su-Jada 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A "clarification" must be sourced. And obviously, the fact that MSH did write something is sourced. And, a source can't say that "MSH herself never stated this", unless he observed MSG 24/7 and found out, that she never did write (while in jail) that letter to her husband-in-hiding. --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1991 Miscavige went to.... The "new" para does not even mention that scientology got the tax exemption 1993 ! --Tilman 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tilman. After insisting that COFS use the edit page to explain my edits in this article, I logged in to explain them, although I explained each edit in the edit summary as I went along. You have now posted 3 snide and combative comments, in violation of Wikipedia's AGF and Harassment. Su-Jada 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained them. You used generalities. I, however, explained in detail what was wrong. I did not harass you. AGF does not mean that disagreement is not allowed. And there's also no AGF when you try to delete something that has been explained weeks before with many sources (the mission holders segment). --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If no one else restores the NPOV version, I'll revert as soon as I am "safe from 3RR". --Tilman 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. I've however made a slight change, put "source" instead of "sources", since it one book only. However it is a pretty good source; scientology sued him, but never about that, despite that MSH was alive and has sued an ex-scientologist in the past for invading her "privacy". (She lost, of course) --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you have to log in? Did you work under another account? Wikipedia doesn't require login after its done once. Only every few weeks when the server crashes. --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia doesn't require login" - not true. If you do not check "remember me" and if you close the browser then you have to log in each time you open the browser. Personally, my general policy is to not leave lingering cookies and I have to log in every time I open the browser. A bit less "detective work" would probably be a good idea. --Justanother 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That would even confirm my theory - closing the browser everytime is something for an office environment. Makes me think about WP:MEAT. --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a very strange statement, especially in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS... Smee 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
The least I'd say is that its a single purpose account. --Tilman 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh bollox! I see these comments as off-the-wall, unfounded, undocumented and specious accusations leveled at a fairly new editor; the use of inuendo in an attempt to discredit perfectly legitimate edits for lack of any legitimate way to call them into question. Sorry if you find this rude, but I am quite incensed by these remarks.Su-Jada 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for your upsets, but there is more. The very first talk edit did not have the common newbie error of not signing: [11] In your 5th edit, you already knew about "ref": [12]. You're either a really quick learner, or you did have an account before. But I'm waiting for other opinions before doing a checkuser request. --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"The least I'd say is that its a single purpose account" - And?? Can you please expound on what the consequences of that condition might be? --Justanother 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPA --Tilman 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, I know what the policy is and I know how I would apply it. You brought it up so I am asking how you would apply it. How would you apply WP:SPA to Su-Jada? --Justanother 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I welcome any suggestions. --Tilman 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are just going to point out, in a somewhat accusatory tone, that Su-Jada appears to be an SPA without telling us what means in this context? Why bother mentioning it at all then? --Justanother 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I pointed to the policy: WP:SPA. That tells what it means. --Tilman 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE then and we will leave it at that. (But you already knew where I was going with this one, didn't you, Herr Hausherr?) --Justanother 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't know this. I edit a wide variety of topics, not just scientology. Most are cult related, but not all. I also edit in other topics. --Tilman 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
". . . or a small range of often-related articles." --Justanother 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist has 356 entries. Hardly a "small range". --Tilman 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DM's sole RTC listing

The references conform to primary sources as Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, and "the connotation that miscavige kinda took over is WP:OR" is a personal opinion of COFS, and is beyond the scope of this article to adjust. (Since DM is in charge as COB, he had no need to "kinda take over".) The paragraph confines itself to a simple statement of verifiable fact and has no speculation about why two key officials were suddenly "unpersons", and the failure to announce replacements as part of standard hatting procedure. AndroidCat 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. What significance has this section other than random data of the order of "there are 17 people with the name David Miscavige in the Los Angeles County phone book"? COFS 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Cat, do you not think that holding something up for the reader to think about constitutes original research when no reliable source has held up that same issue. Do you not think that we are creating something there if it does not first appear in RS? --Justanother 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You're stretching WP:OR quite a bit. The paragraph states no claims and advances no argument. It's not as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but it's a self-evident and verifiable fact. AndroidCat 05:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hardly a stretch. In fact what is being done there is exactly what WP:OR was designed to prevent:

"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas."

The fact that a number of people on ARS like to speculate about everything Scientology-related does not elevate this above the level of personal theory. --Justanother 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

According to that guy who recently defected, the people around DM are RPFed very often. This could explain why the RTC doesn't bother to put their names on the web page. --Tilman 08:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Even his wife Shelley has been in the RPF for almost a year.--Fahrenheit451 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

bona fide

I removed the "bona fide" wording. This is an expression from scientology PR. Plus, I removed the word "full". According to the IRS agreement: the taxpayers shall be entitled to an allowance of 80 percent of his or her fixed donations in connection with qualified religious services. That is hardly "full". --Tilman 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Piece of Blue Sky citation

There is inadequate documentation in Piece of Blue Sky -- the reference for the statement that Mary Sue Hubbard complained to LRH about being removed by Miscavige and never hearing back from LRH on this. There are several references listed for other statements in the same section of the book in which this statement is found, however this statement itself is not cited. Additionally, in the same section of the book the way one event is described casts suspicion on the factual authenticity of the information. Specifically, just above this section, the confrontation between Mary Sue Hubbard and David Miscavige over her resignation is presented from a fly on the wall perspective, describing a private meeting which was not recorded and in which there were no observers with details of the moods of the participants, the "probable" facial expressions, etc. This would tend to classify at least this section of the book as “fictionalized biography,” described in the Britannica as biographies where "materials are freely invented, scenes and conversations are imagined," and which the Britannica also warns, "often depends almost entirely upon secondary sources and cursory research." The fact of fictionalizing biographies being a common practice in the genre is covered in the Wikipedia article on Biography of living persons. Piece of Blue Sky is not a peer reviewed scholarly work. Including this paragraph, which impugns Miscavige, with no more proof than an undocumented paragraph from such a book therefore fits under the following Wikipedia policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." Therefore, as my suggestion of including that Mary Sue never issued any statement to the effect that she complained about Miscavige to her husband was not acceptable to other editors, the entire section needs to be removed. I am perfectly happy, however, to simply include a balanced statement that this was never corroborated by Ms. Hubbard. I would also like to point out that I have been criticized of late in the talk page of this article for removing points without consensus. I would again like to cite the same Wikipedia policy and point out that this is one case where care not to include poorly sourced information supersedes the Wikipedia ethic of first achieving editor agreement. Based on this policy, please do not revert this edit unless you can first present viable evidence that Ms. Hubbard did in fact make these complaints, such as verbal or written statement by Ms. Hubbard to that effect or any other verifiable documentation.Su-Jada 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statements about sources not being peer-reviewed and scholarly is specious at best. As you know, Wikipedia does not solely use academic publications for sources of information. Wikipedia uses verifiability from reliable sources. Please stop making up policy on the fly to suit your POV. --Fahrenheit451 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be "peer-reviewed" or "scholarly". Scholars don't write about MSH whining, because this isn't a science topic. "Blue Sky" is a secondary source. It has survived lawsuits. It is cited by others (among them, scholars). This is pretty good. --Tilman 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Streissguth's "Scientology Teachers"

I have reverted to the earlier version of the details of Miscavige's handling of Mission Holders. That Streissguth would refer to "Scientology teachers" in the same section where he describes this action shows his research to be very faulty and highly suspect. It is, after all, simply a vingette in a larger work, but nonetheless it is poorly researched. There is no reference in Scientology literature, tapes, policies or books (at least not in the past 40 years--the time period of which I have personal knowledge) of "Scientology teachers." The mission holders certainly were not classed as "teachers." Perhaps he meant "supervisors," the term used to describe those who hold Scientology courses. But that's now what Mission Holders do. Seriously, how could anyone take a statement with such a glaring error as a serious scholarly work? I have, nonetheless, kept the basic concept of what Streissguth describes, removing the pejorative spin he gives it, and for which he presents no citation in his book. I would be perfectly happy to remove the entire section if other editors agree that is a better solution. Su-Jada 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop interjecting your own policy on citable sources. Please stop your POV editing.--Fahrenheit451 06:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
So, you reverted to your own version again (which you, misleadingly, called "the earlier version"), but didn't bother to correct the "teachers" part (I wouldn't mind the "course supervisor" word, although "teacher" is also correct - Delphi "teachers" are also just "course supervisors"). Why? --16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The two books can stay in as sources provided that the statements here are accurate representations of what the books say. The Prince affy does not meet the WP:BLP standard of "high-quality" and must come out. --Justanother 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On the credibility of Prince [13]. The main point being that such a derog needs a better source than an affy by a disgruntled ex-member. --Justanother 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and a similar example of this logic would be: "the holocaust needs better witnesses than a bunch of jews".
In this case, we have two sources. The book of Jon Atack, and the affidavit of Jesse Prince. As far as I know, scientology has not sued him for perjury. --Tilman 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And if was only one Jew? (Not a very PC example but that is what you gave me to work with) --Justanother 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote is: "One of the estate's key witnesses, Jesse Prince, has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility." That is the opinion of One judge in One particular case. Justanother, it seems you are tendentiously editing this article by presuming that a former cofs member must be lying about what he knows because he is an ex-member. Do you see something very illogical in that belief of yours?--Fahrenheit451 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to restore the Prince affidavit as an article citation. I guess we will go into another revert war.--Fahrenheit451 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, you need to be more sensitive to WP:BLP. --Justanother 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, BLP is a policy, but it is not for fixation. I am not going to discount a person just because one judge excluded his testimony in one case, AND the cofs does not like him. --Fahrenheit451 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Small point: The judge ruled that Jesse Prince was not a reliable hostile expert witness, which is a very narrow and specific ruling in that one case. As an expert witness, Jesse Prince would have testified about things that he had not personally witnessed (notification of the upper management about Lisa McPherson), but about what he thought happened according to his expertise on the subject. Obviously judges have to hold expert witnesses (even hostile ones) to a very high standard for what would otherwise by hearsay evidence at best. (IANAL) AndroidCat 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The judge did not say that he's a liar. Plus, this was in another case, not in the Erlich case. --Tilman 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
On 21 June Tilman said, in this same talk page: in keeping with Church policy on not employing persons with a history of criminal acts or criminal records. Hey, scientology itself shows Jesse Prince "criminal history" on RFW. This is the same person we are discussing now. So 5 days ago, that was adequate to revert the edit stating the Miscavige purged the church of crims, but now it doesn't count when we are talking about Prince's lack of credibility as the source for a derrogatory allegation in a biography of a living person. Can't say that I understand that logic....205.227.165.14 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
(The 205.227.165.14 IP seems to be used by many CSI editors in LA. It would be helpful to the rest of us if the people at PAC Base could be sure to login before posting comments. AndroidCat 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
I have not said that Prince has a criminal history. I say that scientology claims so. Yes, the same scientology hired him as RTC #2 - long after the purge. So either Su-Jada came up with this policy from nowhere, or this policy isn't followed, or RFW is lying. --Tilman 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is interesting, Tilman. There are far too many reasons to doubt the veracity of this source (including the affidavit at www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/affi_stacy2_04_29.htm). Su-Jada 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument does say anything about my argument. And you had the opportunity to come up with that mysterious policy of not hiring people with a criminal record. Or to show that RFW is telling the truth. Or not. --Tilman 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I finally got a copy of the Streissguth book. It is far from a scholarly book. It's part of a series called "Profiles" published by Oliver Press, which specializes in books for young-adult readers. It lacks adequate footnoting. And we use this as a source for a biography of a living person? Su-Jada 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Streissguth book is online at google print, so you didn't have to search for it.
Biographies don't have to be "scholarly", I'd say that 99% aren't, since writing a biography is not a science - it is about 1) researching and 2) good writing. Speaking about footnotes, the book by Jon Atack does have them. And finally, the segment has three sources: Atack (ex-scientologist), Lamont (journalist) and Streissguth (writer). When the dispute first came up, I searched for other books by Streissguth to see what kind of guy he is. He has written 102 books, including several biographies.
So what can be done? You might change some wordings, e.g. "teams of spies" isn't really NPOV. Maybe use "investigators", or just "teams", and replace the word "teachers" with "staff" or "course supervisors". You could also find a reliable source that has a different view of what's currently written. --Tilman 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That vandalism thing

I notice that there's a lot of use of the word vandalism back and forth lately. Note that accusing another editor of deliberate bad faith editing is serious stuff and shouldn't be used lightly for just edits that you disagree with (no matter how annoying). Wikipedia:Civility AndroidCat 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Will try. --Tilman 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is completely neutral article. We cannot help it that they do stupid and rediculus things to incriminate themselves. In my line of reasoning they cannot even be considered a religion. To have a religion you have to have a god or gods. Not aliens. Plus basically there form of the christian Bible is a science fiction novel of the 70s. - Robert Livingston

Scientology is definitely not a religion per the dictionary definition. There is no worship of any kind. Hubbard used the loopholes in U.S. law to incorporate it as a religion to acquire certain legal protections and get tax-exemption. --Fahrenheit451 19:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Prince affidavits are "high quality references"

Two recent edits relying upon affidavits of Jesse Prince violate WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...." There has been a fair bit of discussion on the use of Prince as a source in this article. Tilman tries to apply the standard that the Church of Scientology hasn't sued Prince to assert that the information in his affidavit is valid. That's silly. Fahrenheit451 tries to obviate a judge deciding that Prince "has extreme bias" and "lacks credibility," as an expert witness by saying it was only one judge who said this and only about one case, and only about him being an expert. This is a very serious statement and can't simply be discarded. In the Stacy Brooks affidavit of April 29th, 2002, Brooks describes how she and Prince wrote affidavits and testified based on hypothetical scenarios of which they had no knowledge solely as a legal strategy of making unfounded allegations about Miscavige to pressure the Church into paying large sums of money and settling cases. In his affidavit of April 24th, 2002, Robert Minton described Prince affidavits as based on speculation, allegation and innuendo. In the case of a biography of a living person, based on this evidence, a Prince affidavit simply does not qualify as adequate reference. As the policy requires the removal of the poorly sourced contentious material I am removing the statements that use Prince affidavits as citations.Su-Jada 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Su-Jada, you have misquoted me in your own extreme bias. Your own statements here lack credibility. I see no reason why the Prince affidavit is not well-sourced and am restoring that material to the article.--Fahrenheit451 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, do you know how you come across? Misou 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard

I have to bring up again this whole section that quotes "A Piece of Blue Sky" as its source and which states "However, another source wrote Mary Sue later decided she had been tricked by Miscavige and wrote to her husband in complaint, getting no reply." Have you actually read the section of this book referred to? It's online at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/bs6-3.htm. I know it is very popular now to have narrative biographies where authors take the liberty to describe the emotions and even suggest dialogue they could not possibly have heard,in a sort of "fly on the wall" projection of what the events must have been like. There is nothing in this book that infers, suggests or states that there were any witnesses in the room when David Miscavige met with Mary Sue Hubbard and convinced her to step down. Mary Sue Hubbard herself never made any public statement, issued any correspondence, recorded any tapes criticizing Miscavige or stating that she wrote to her husband about Miscavige's actions that day. But as you can see, Piece of Blue Sky is prone to this kind of imaginative narrative, to wit in that same section, Atack projects what he thinks Miscavige's facial expressions and emotions were during hypothetical, undocumented events in the course of that meeting. In what I prefer to call "novelized biographies" of this nature, the author is free to project his hypothetical commentary as long as he states that's what it is, which is what Atack did in this section of his book. Reviewing Atack's footnotes for this (seen at the same link I included above) he is equivocal as to what sources were used to substantiate what information, as opposed to a scholarly work where the footnote follows immediately on the statement as evidence for that given point. I have brought this point up before, but I feel compelled to bring it up again. The inclusion of this sentence violates WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...." Su-Jada 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly is your point? --Tilman 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That is it irresponsible to keep this sentence in the article: "However, another source wrote Mary Sue later decided she had been tricked by Miscavige and wrote to her husband in complaint, getting no reply."Su-Jada 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the fact is high-quality sourced. Plus, as I said before, scientology sued him about all sort of stuff, but not this. --Tilman 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
So we can find truth by looking what is being sued by Scientology (false) and what not (true)? Misou 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You mischaracterize what I said. However, I should add that scientology lost against Atack, except for one single paragraph about Ms Hodkin, which he lost not on the merits, but for a procedural reason. --Tilman 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When an article has to resort to saying "another source wrote..." we are treading on very thin ice in a biography of a living person. The Atack book has citations in various places throughout. There is NO citation to this claim. Stating, as Atack did, that some unnamed "source" had some kind of inside intelligence on how Mary Sue felt although Mary Sue herself never wrote or recorded in any way any statement to this effect is highly suspect. But if some editors still fail to see that this violates WP:BLP I am removing this section based on the following: Atack never claimed that Mary Sue felt Miscavige tricked her. Just that she "had been tricked." Su-Jada 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mission Holders Section

Streissguth's young readers' book (described by the publisher [ http://www.oliverpress.com/pages/writers.html] as intended for 5th to 12th grade students' school libraries) cites Atack and Miller as the only sources for his entire chapter on Scientology. Russel Miller's book does not make any mention of the mission holders' conference. So this interpretation of the events is simply Streisguth's misunderstanding of what Atack wrote in his book. Atack never claimed that "teachers," or "supervisors" for that matter, had anything to do with the mission holders' conference, as they didn't. It involved mission holders exclusively. Atack also never said spies were sent to the missions, and he never said anyone was ordered to security checks if they failed to comply with the orders. But even more importantly, he never said or inferred that David Miscavige ordered any of these actions. Rather, he quoted statements made by various other members of Church managment. The only thing Atack attributed to Miscavige is that he was the MC of the conference and that he stated "The [new] corporate structure assures Scientology being around for eternity." Additionally, Streissguth's use of a source who is patently biased on the subject is poor scholarship, a fact Streissguth would have been hard pressed to have missed since Atack clearly states that he has deliberately and successfully pulled Scientologists out of the Church based on his own upset over the mission holders' conference (stated on the very page that Streissguth used in his research -- the only place the mission holders' conference is mentioned in the book). In summary: Steissguth did minimal research, and relied solely on information from a partisan source which he misquoted, ascribing to David Miscavige actions or statements that were done by others, and/or which were simply invented. On May 6th of this year at 07:50 Smee added a section the the David Miscavige article which simply quoted the Streisguth reference calling it a "reputable secondary sourced citation". It is not. I am deleting this section based on WP:BLP. Unless you can prove that what I am stating about Streissguth is incorrect, don't revert this edit as I will continue to delete it, and the 3 reverts rule does not apply when removing defamatory and poorly sourced information in a biography of a living person, which this most certainly is.Su-Jada 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before already. The segments are properly sourced, and you have not given any sources that contradict them in several weeks/months. Your allegations about the research by Streissguth are your own speculation. He is a source who has used other sources, which is what research is all about. And yes, WP:3RR does apply, and so do the consequences. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you have been argueing without reading the article: the word "spies" isn't even there. While it is true, it isn't NPOV so I removed it some time ago, also in an effort to cool things down here. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's another reputable source: [14]. One might include it and add the stuff about the "finance police" trying to get the money from the mission holders. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another [15] --Tilman 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that Jon Atack isn't a good source is the same logic as alleging that AA isn't a good source about alcohol abuse. --Tilman 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So good "input" on the talk page, so bad revert behavior on the article. Tilman, please find some balance between the two, thanks. You know what a "supervisor" is in Scientology (a trainer) and how wrong it read to use the term in the article context (a controller). Why are you doing that? Misou 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you argument is only about the word, then why did you remove the entire section? You made no argument about it. --Tilman 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't answer the question or what? Misou 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of you are being particularly lucid in your arguments. That said, I think Wikipedia articles lean too heavily on "tell-all exposé" books like Atack's, and people like Tilman are far too quick to imbue such critics with a weight they don't deserve (comparing him to AA is ridiculous). Just as the Frank Sinatra article doesn't depend on Kitty Kelley's tell-all exposé, neither should Scientology articles place so much gravitas on the many tell-all books attacking it. Whether the information in such books is actually true or not isn't the point - it's a matter of undue weight placed on sources that are openly negative and self-confessedly biased. wikipediatrix 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't know what to add to Su-Jadas well-founded and sound argument. She/He's right, the APOBS book is biased and open about it. What's more to say. We wouldn't allow the "Weekly World News" or National Enquirer as a reliable source (or would we?), except for the article on Elvis sightings. Misou 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You are libeling Jon Atack by comparing his book to the "Weekly World News" or National Enquirer. His book survived several court cases - only one single paragraph was removed! Pretty good for someone you claim isn't reliable. --Tilman 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering, please. APOBS is a rant of a former member who has to be right by all means. He says that he is pissed - in the book - and he says he is/was active to get people out of the Church of Scientology. You might think this is a good thing, I don't care. But it shows what APOBS is for and - surprise! - it IS what it is being used for. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not "wikilawyering" - I did not even mention a policy. I just explain that this book survived many lawsuits, and no lawsuit was ever filed against the topic you claim isn't true. If you say that sources that are "being pissed" are not reliable - then I assume you'd agree that www.cchr.org is not a reliable source on psychiatry either, don't you? :-) --Tilman 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It relies on three sources. And I just presented a fourth one this morning. Btw I would certainly also rely on Kitty Kelley, from all I have read about her.
...sources, what sources. None of those give the data you claim is in there. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I did. Maybe you missed a link. It is right in this discussion, around 10 cm above this spot. Press reload on your browser. --Tilman 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it amusing that when people can't really atack a source, they use the "undue weight" argument as the ultimate joker to remove something they don't like.
That's wikipediatrix to answer. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The mission holders conference is an important turning point in scientology, it led to an incredible purge.
So what. This is an article about Miscavige. Not "turning points in Scientology". Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Miscavige is the leader of scientology. He led this purge. Thus it is relevant. He should be proud of it, after all, he took all the profits that the franchise holders were making. After the smoke had cleared, no mission holder would ever make big profits again. This is a neutral fact. Miscavige could be proud of it. Or see it as a dark spot on a white suit. --Tilman 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
However, I wouldn't mind at all using more "positive" sources on Miscavige for the article too, like himself on ABC, in the SPT, etc., if this hasn't already been done. --Tilman 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Not the issue. The issue is WP:RS, WP:BIAS and WP:VERIFY, a little of WP:BATTLE and if pissed off ex-members of whatever group are RS or not. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding something: it isn't important to just cite policies. You must make an argument, and explain how the policies you mention apply to your argument. --Tilman 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may throw my 2 bits in, this might be a good time for a little WP:DR, perhaps WP:RFC. I agree per what I've read on WP:BLP that books written by disaffected members are not very reliable sources. I am a newbie, however, so I can't say for certian if I am interpreting the policy correctly. If wikipedia is built on consenus, then us the right tool to get some.HubcapD 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that at least two of the books referenced qualify as primary sources.HubcapD 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, these are already secondary sources, unless they are about something that they observed themselves. --Tilman 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For a "newbie", you certainly seem to know a lot about wikipedia policy. --Tilman 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have this uncanny ability to read things and actually understand what they say. If Atack was at this conference, and it is the prime reason for his upset (and hence his book), then his book is a primary source.HubcapD 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Your "uncanny ability to read things" might of course be a reason that as a "newbie", you know so much about policy. However, it seems that you didn't use this "uncanny ability to read things" re: Jon Atack's book, since you write about "if...". --Tilman 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tilman continues to undo my edits and dismisses my reasoning. The 3 Reverts rule does not apply to WP:BLP and I will continue to remove poorly sources clearly biased statements in this article, whether Tilman agrees or not (very unlikely in light of his POV on this subject and his self-assumed status as a Scientology-basher, which, unfortunately is preventing his even reading much less understanding the reasoning I have taken care to present here.)Su-Jada 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The segments are based on three reliable sources. I suggest you read WP:BLP instead of using policy names as joker to delete stuff you don't like. --Tilman 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not, at this point, expect Tilman to be able to see this, since he has shown a complete intransigence in this so far, I am reiterating the reasoning I expressed above. The sources used have been misquoted, events ascribed to David Miscavige that the sources do not state are his actions, and the Streissguth book is a very simplistic, badly researched children's book that misquotes the material he cites as having used. Once again, this article is covered by WP:BPL. I am required by that policy to delete sections of the article Tilman continues to try hold onto, and I will continue to delete them as per my reasoning here and above, notwithstanding Tilman's attempted threats at applying the 3 Revert Rule despite WP:BLP clearly stating it does not apply here.Su-Jada 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources have not been "misquoted". To argue this, you'd need to show what, exactly, was misquoted, and how. You never did.
You are not "required to delete" something. And the 3RR rule does apply. This is a content dispute - you simply don't like the segment, despite that it is based on three sources (and more are coming if you continue to make trouble!). --Tilman 05:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like Su-Jada is making up wikipedia policy on the fly to suit POV and engaging in tendentious editing.--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Unlike him, I am following wikipedia policy, so I will have to revert what he deleted again, at a later time. WP:BLP is not a joker argument to remove what I don't like. It is for poorly sourced material.
I suspect that the Hubcap user is a sock puppet. He claims to be a newbie, but the very first day, he was already in the dispute resulotion page! The only question is - which user is it? --Tilman 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR report filed on Su-Jada. --Tilman 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. While I am a newbie in regards to editing, I have been lurking and reading articles on wikipedia for a couple of years. I was through reading some of the Scientology-related websites that I became aware of the editing environment, and specifically the arbitration case on User:COFS. From that, I started reading policies regarding editing wikipedia, and eventually signed up as one. Now, I could get upset with you for making a baseless accusation, but I'm not going to, because I really don't care. Besides, I'll let my actions here speak for me. While I readily admit I agree with Su-Jada's assessment of the situation, I did not "take up the cause" as it were. Instead I suggested that the both of you engage in dispute resolution to resolve the matter.HubcapD 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. --Tilman 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions during hiatus

The David Miscavige blog is a violation of WP:SELFPUB and the Jesse Prince affidavit citation should be included in the bio content.--Fahrenheit451 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that the article is blocked in the Miscavige-rewriting-history-version (aka "the wrong version"), I'd wait to have others bring their arguments and suggestions. I can't do much more than show sources that confirm the text, even if someone else argues the opposite. And if we can't use Jon Atack as a source (who has again and again been proven to be reliable), we could as well give up and let Davie write everything here. --Tilman 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In the external links section there is a blog marked as "Miscavige's blog". However, it is run by someone called Jenny. I think it should be removed, since it is a private website not fitting the WP:SELFPUB exception. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, remove it. This is just a SEO related site. There are many like these. --Tilman 10:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've extended protection for another 24 hours, since there doesn't seem to be any relevant discussion taking place here. If no effort is put forth to settle this now, there's going to be more edit warring after the protection ends. I'll check back tomorrow. Kafziel Talk 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although its blocked in "the wrong version", I don't mind a longer block. It seems that many people with an opinion are on vacation. And sadly, the best researcher of all (Smee), is on a long Wikibreak :-( --Tilman 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
An edit block is not going to force parties to discuss anything. I think it will take a RfC. The block justs puts off the inevitable.--Fahrenheit451 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is a legitimate question of whether such "tell-all" books (and, perforce, other books that rely exclusively on these books for content) reliable secondary sources, or primary sources.HubcapD 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Or violate WP:BLP policyHubcapD 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


With this logic of yours, wikipedia must also remove every autobiography. But Atack's book isn't an autobiography, since much of what he tells has already been told before (e.g. by Miller, Cooper, Kaufmann) and elsewhere. What Atack did is to compile many documents, reference them and arrange them so that it's all in one well referenced and well written, almost scholarly book. Atack's book is, technically, a secondary source. That other books have referenced him, shows that they consider him to be a reliable source. That Atack is a disgruntled member doesn't mean the book is to be discarded - or should we also discard every book on the Holocaust written by a jew? As I've explained several times, his book survived many court challenges (including at least two by the organisation chaired by DM), except for one single paragraph, which is not related to DM. As I've also told before - if you think it didn't happen like explained by Atack, find a source that tells it differently. --Tilman 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tilman you continue to disregard my earlier discussions on this, but I will repeat them here. Perhaps you can read this and understand what I am saying. There is nothing in the Atack book that says Mary Sue thought Miscavige tricked her -- just that "she was tricked" no source given. So putting this on the David Miscavige page is a violation of WP:BLP. I still maintain (and you will still object to my views, I am sure) that with Atack having sourced unknown critics and apostates for these statements on a living person that even if Atack DID say Mary Sue was upset with Miscavige it would not be correct to include. But ATACK DID NOT SAY THAT. It is written in the passive, not in the active tense. In the English language it is very clear that a statement written as he wrote it gives no subject. One can "assume" that Miscavige is the subject. But that is an assumption. You cannot prove that is what he meant. So this statement goes, as it is a projection and not based on any reference. Period. On the mission holders' conference, Streissguth completely alters the information given in his sources. He attributes to Miscavige complete fabrications that are not covered in the sources he cites, and he claims Miscavige took actions at the mission holder conference that other people, not Miscavige, took. The only thing his sources state is that Miscavige was the MC of the conference. Simply because someone has published a book does NOT make it factual. I have the book. It is a simplistic children's book that dumbs down the information found in the sources cited, not just on the subject of Scientology. Fine. Steissbuth is entitled to his freedom of speech for what it's worth. But this is NOT adequate for a biography of a living person. Let's get something straight, Tilman. You keep trying to throw this back at me as my "opinion." Yes. I think this is crap. But I do not edit based on my feelings. I edit based on Wikipedia policy. And by studying the sources being used. These sources are faulty, lack any factual basis, have been misquoted. I "feel" that it has been done intentionally, as I have followed your animus against the Scientology religion for years, and I "feel" you are too limited by your POV to edit analytically on this subject. But my "feelings" have nothing to do with Wikipedia. And these are facts.Su-Jada 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Su-Jada. If this were an article about soup or lawnmowers, it wouldn't matter, but this is an article about a living person and should be treated extremely sensitively. This should be taken up on the BLP Noticeboard if Tilman continues to push the matter. Atack's gossipy unauthorized "tell-all exposé" book is also not specifically about the subject (Miscavige himself) which further weakens its already shaky reliability as a source. If someone has a properly sourced book about David Miscavige that can fastidiously back up any allegations, let them come forward and write it and publish it. But till then, let's keep the "Scientology exposed!" tabloidy stuff to a minimum on Miscavige's own article, shall we? wikipediatrix 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am SO tired of all this libel of a reliable source. Do whatever you want. If nobody else will stop this libel, I won't bother anymore. I'm now deleting this article from my watch list - for now. Put in an edit that Miscavige is the saviour of scientology or whatever. --Tilman 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're done with the hyperbole now, please explain yourself. "Libel" is a legal term, Tilman. It has a very specific meaning. Are you making or inferring a legal threat? Please explain how you think I have "libeled" Jon Atack by stating that I find his book to be gossipy and tabloidy. I've used Atack's book as a source countless times myself in articles, but not in instances where it makes less-than-ironclad allegations about a living person. So you see, Tilman, I'm trying to prevent libel here. I know you're far more concerned about Atack's reputation than Miscavige's, but I'd hoped you might eventually manage to use Wikipedia without bringing your own passionate opinions and grudges to the discussion. This has nothing to do with supporting Miscavige or opposing him, this is about being fair and following WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column

"Miscavige was observed at a July 2007 party held by Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes as silently scanning the crowd and not speaking with anyone except Cruise's mother."

Can someone tell me why on Earth this would be in an encyclopedia? wikipediatrix 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "and not speaking with anyone except the mother of Scientology's Jesus Christ"? Gone now. AndroidCat 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop the petty revert warring!

I have noticed that a few editors are engaged in a petty revert war [16]. Time to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off, knock it off, knock it off, knock it off, knockediknock. Leave a comment on Rookieboys page, I don't think he bothers to read here. Misou 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Prince Allegation

Notwithstanding my personal doubts as to the veracity of Jesse Prince's allegations, it seems to me that it belongs in the "Criticisms and Controversies" Section, and not the "Scientology Career" section. If no one objects, I would like to move it.HubcapD 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as consent.HubcapD 21:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a link

I checked out a reference that's used in this article. The headline used on the article in the website is not the headline the New York Times uses! The actual article title is "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt". I'm trying to buy the article in question so I can confirm the veracity of the article as used in the reference. I'm not sure what to do for the time being.thoughts?HubcapD 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen cases of papers running the same story with title changes between print editions. However, only the "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt" title is listed in the NYT archive (which is pay-only, as you say). AndroidCat 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a St. Petersburg Times editorial of 1997-03-11 "Intimidating the IRS Series: EDITORIALS" which seems to be echoing that NY Times story. (The text is available for free through their archive service[17], but that seems to be down until tomorrow morning.) And editorials aren't always useful as references. Too tired to sift my archive for more right now. AndroidCat 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I found a reference that uses the same title of the article that the NY Times website does and changed it to that reference.HubcapD 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Prince and FACTNet not reliable?

Please recall that in that particular case, Bridge Publications lost its bid for summary judgment and were going to have prove ownership and copyright for some 1,900 documents. Instead Bridge settled. AndroidCat 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix's comment that Jesse Prince is not reliable is very much Her Opinion. She has no survey results and seems to be POV pushing against Prnce's statements.--Fahrenheit451 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, just as I have stated mine. We can take the matter further anytime you want. wikipediatrix 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Go, Trixi, take it where your impulses tell you.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't have a discussion with men who call me condescending and sexist nicknames, sorry. You've disqualified yourself from being able to sit at the table with the grown-ups. wikipediatrix 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I recommend you start behaving like one.--Fahrenheit451 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou, please explain why Jesse Prince is NOT a reliable source. If you cannot demonstrate that, I am reverting. Start.--Fahrenheit451 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually the rulings by the judge in the Lisa McPherson civil suit are taken out of context. The judge ruled that Jesse Prince was not a reliable hostile expert witness, which is a very narrow and specific ruling in that one case. As an expert witness, Jesse Prince would have testified about things that he had not personally witnessed (notification of the upper management about Lisa McPherson), but about what he thought happened according to his expertise on the subject. Obviously judges have to hold expert witnesses (even hostile ones) to a very high standard for what would otherwise by hearsay evidence at best. However, in the Bridge v. FactNet case, not only did federal judge John Kane allow Jesse Prince's testimony to things he had personally witnessed, but ruled that FACTNet successfully had cast doubt on the legal status of the documents.[18] So, no, FactNet and Jesse Prince are not unreliable. AndroidCat 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. There might be additional statements on copyrights in cases involving Joseph Yanny, who had previously been a copyright lawyer for Scientology. AndroidCat 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, AndroidCat, so it looks like we have some OSA POV whitewashing going on with this item. I am reverting.--Fahrenheit451 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* "Misunderstandings" might might have been more polite... AndroidCat 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I call it as I see it. And isn't it interesting that User:Misou refers to discussion of reverts to the talk page, but does not participate in any discussion himself?--Fahrenheit451 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
F451, knock it off. I was typing. You got a cosy agreement party here, haven't you? Anyway, if a judge does think that Jesse is not reliable to be heard as a witness, if Jesse got himself paid for "expert" statements which followed the money trail but not the truth and if all Jesse learned in Scientology is how to get sober fast, then, ladies, this guy is just an irresponsible, corrupt individual, who cannot be cited as reliable. Publicly active apostates are often this way, and Jesse is no exemption. Misou 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Misou, KNOCK IT OFF! You deliberately pervert the facts as stated by AndroidCat. Your "apostate" characterization is simply absurd as the cofs is not a religion, but a business posing as one. The corrupt individual is the criminal running the rtc named David Miscavige. Jesse Prince is reliable.--Fahrenheit451 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the federal judge in this particular case involved for the cited statement thought Jesse Prince was credible, and I remind you that BLP applies to talk pages. AndroidCat 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BPL applies to talk pages? Jesse got a talk page, where? Anyway, Jesse did not testify on copyright stuff. The whole deal here is that F451 wants to spread this guys name and some links, and to spread the insinuation of illegal acts done by Jesse (as Church staff) on behalf of Miscavige. What does this have to do with building an encyclopedia? Nothing, it is just pure anti-Scientology propaganda. F451 knows that, otherwise he would not try to make this a big thing here, something that read like David F451 vs. Goliath OSA, or some such dreams of moral superiority. I don't know why "debates" with F451 always end in a dead end street. F'ing time consuming. F451, let's be flexible here, ok? Misou 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had missed F451's "entheta" burst. F, you got a COI there. Better prove what you scream around here. Ey, and knock it off. Misou 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Misou, it sure looks like you are violating WP:NPA again. Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Misou 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The statement cited was used in Bridge Publications International v. FactNet, which was completely about copyright. AndroidCat 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, but Jesse is not mentioned in there. Misou 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph that was removed was saying "Jesse Prince stated...", so I don't see what is the problem in this paragraph. Isn't Jesse Prince a reliable source for Jesse Prince's views? Given that he was a high-ranking officer in the Church of Scientology organization, his affidavit is worth mentioning I would think. Note that the paragraph was not implying that what Jesse Prince said was fact, it just noted that a former high ranking officer attempted to demonstrate, with exhibits, that many copyrights had expired (then the settlement kicked-in). Raymond Hill 06:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is simply no relation between whatever Jesse allegedly said and Miscavige. Mind you, this is a bio article about David Miscavige, not a "Scientology and Copyrights", "Scientology and drugged ex-members" or the like. Jesse talks about something he says he did. It had no consequences for anyone. He could say that he jay-walked because he thought Miscavige wanted him to. Same significance. Jesse is not a reliable source for information regarding Miscavige. He might be a reliable source for something else, like growing marijuana. Misou 07:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(From the results of the trial where Jesse Prince was found not guilty, that method would seem to be to allow a covert CoS PI to plant evidence. AndroidCat 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. Not to mention Judge Schaeffer stated that Jesse Prince "has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility". [19] In any event, such a serious assertion about Miscavige needs more sources than this guy's hearsay, as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And Judge Schaeffer was making a narrow ruling in a completely different case than Judge Kane. What's your point? AndroidCat 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Extreme bias and lack of credibility are what they are. They don't vanish when one walks out of the courtroom. This is all beside the point anyway, because as I said, "such a serious assertion about Miscavige needs more sources than this guy's hearsay, as per WP:BLP." wikipediatrix 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Misou and Wikipediatrix seem to think that a witness ruling in one case applies to life in general. Prince worked with miscavige and is qualified to comment on his first hand experiences. The "extreme bias and lack of credibility" arguments can be used against testimony by those in the employ of the cofs. --Fahrenheit451 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it? You'd bolster your rebuttal much better if you could point to another judge in another case (particularly in one that has to do with the issue)deciding that Prince's allegations have legitimacy. But it also seems to be a moot point when you take WP:BLP into account.HubcapD 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Another judge in another case that has to do with the issue... That's a toughie! Oh, how about Judge Kane in BPI v. FactNet? AndroidCat 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No need for sarcasm, I am trying to be straight with you on this. That was a summary judgement, which is different than the trial itself. all you have to do to defeat a summary judgement is show that a dispute exists, regardless of the strength of the evidence.HubcapD 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

POV template has been added back to the section under discussion that was removed by User:Misou last night. --Fahrenheit451 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix's "major claims require major proof"

Concerning the removal of "Author Paulette Cooper mentions a murder in the Seattle Org [...]". I strongly disagree. There maybe a case of rephrasing, but certainly not removing this piece of information that provides further insight into D. Miscavige's statement. Wikipediatrix, you claim "major claims require major proof". Complementing D. Miscavige's claim with P. Cooper's passage is not a "major claim", and really, the major claim here would be D. Miscavige's assertion that the APA, AMA, and FDA killed a Scientology officer. Here are the facts: In the Nightline interview, D. Miscavige mentions that the APA, AMA, FDA raided the Church: that would be January 1963. He then went on saying "the following takes place... they killed one of our directors... the FDA hired an informant... his wife was there, he wasn't for Scientology, she was...". Now noting that P. Cooper refers in her book to a September 1963 event, in which an irate husband killed a Scientologist having an affair with his wife in the same org D. Miscavige is referring is not a wild claim. The date and location match. It simply informing the reader what is possibly another account of the event D. Miscavige is talking about. Raymond Hill 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though we both know it's in all likelihood the same event, we don't know that for a 100% fact, and encyclopedias don't deal in "probably"s and "possibly"s. wikipediatrix 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The text you removed wasn't saying it was the same event, it was just noting that a similar event — the shooting of a Scientology officer in the Seattle Org in 1963 — which could be associated with D. Miscavige's claim given the date and location (1963, Seattle Org). How many Scientology executives have been shot in the Seattle Org in 1963? I think it is appropriate to point the reader what is possibly an alternative reporting of the event, he is free to make his own mind beyond that. Raymond Hill 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raymond Hill. Recording the other incideng provides additional context with which the reader can do what he may. Nothing about the statement seems particularly misleading or drawing.(RookZERO 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
"Noting a similar event" which "could be associated" is the very definition of original research, synthesis, wannabe-detective work. I'm sure it IS the same event, but we don't have anything airtight to prove it. I'm fine with leaving both Miscavige and Cooper's comments out since they bring nothing of any great value to the article either way. wikipediatrix 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel strongly about this. We shouldn't remove this important comment from a rare interview of the top representative of the Scientology religion. As complementary information, we need to mention the killing of a Scientology officer in 1963 in the Seattle Org. Since visibly we won't come to an agreement, can we agree on a WP:RFC? Raymond Hill 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so. Or, we could at least rewrite it in such a way that the article doesn't assume the two events are one and the same, and say something like "Paulette Cooper described a similar sounding incident, blah blah blah". It's still going to be OR no matter what, but at least make it more transparent that a synthesis of two discrete pieces of information is being made here. wikipediatrix 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What you suggest here is actually pretty much what you removed. Raymond Hill 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. This is what I removed:

Miscavige also said that the "APA [presumably the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association], AMA, Food and Drug Administration ... were all coordinated" in a five-year campaign against Scientology that included the murder of one of Scientology's executive directors (unnamed): "They literally murdered- the Food and Drug Administration hired an informant to go into our organization in Seattle, Washington, his wife was there [...] Several weeks later, murdered the head of our organization."[1] (Author Paulette Cooper mentions a murder in the Seattle Org committed by the jealous husband of a female Scientologist, who was enraged that the victim, a Scientology Reverend, was having an affair with his wife[2]).

And what I am now suggesting, as the weakest and lamest of all possible compromises, is something like this:

Miscavige also said that the "APA [presumably the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association], AMA, Food and Drug Administration ... were all coordinated" in a five-year campaign against Scientology that included the murder of one of Scientology's executive directors (unnamed): "They literally murdered- the Food and Drug Administration hired an informant to go into our organization in Seattle, Washington, his wife was there [...] Several weeks later, murdered the head of our organization."[1] This may or may not be a reference to a similar-sounding incident reported in 1971 in the book "The Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper. In it, Cooper alleges a murder in the Seattle Org committed by the jealous husband of a female Scientologist, who was enraged that the victim, a Scientology Reverend, was having an affair with his wife[3]).

Only slightly different, but what difference a few key words make. wikipediatrix 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

R. Hill does not seem to understand this. Here is the same logic: Let's assume there is a WP article on Raymond Hill. Here we add the line "A Raymond man charged with his wife in a bizarre torture-slaying case has pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and agreed to cooperate with authorities."[20]. Obviously the murder and Raymond Hill are connected as there are similarities available, namely the word Raymond. How far off can you get? I don't know if this 1963 ref is connected to what David Miscavige says in the 1992 show. Neither does Raymond Hill. Shutterbug 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR Report on RookZERO

I'm sick of this! I've reported you [21]HubcapD 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You and your comrade Misou have been quite active in the revert war as well. You point one finger at RookZERO and three at yourself.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've invited him to discuss the problem he perceives with my edit, as I can see none (particularly since my edit says exactly what the source says!). I suppose technically I did "edit war", but I have put in the diligence to try and work things out. RookZERO, on the other hand, doesn't like to play nice, as is evidenced by his lengthy history of editing Scn-related articles. Basically, I'm trying to work things out, Rook is acting like an ass and just reverting away.HubcapD 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HubcapD, As long as I have edited scientology-related articles, "playing nice" has been as rare as polished diamonds laying in a Skid Row gutter. I think we are going to see many more temporary protections put on such articles until in the remote future when this jihad ends.--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images not allowed in living person articles

Reading guideline Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_uses, #8, the rationale is that the non-free image could be replaced by someone just grabbing a camera and taking a picture. I don't think that's too likely. DM controls his access and only appears at Scientology events (tightly controlled) or rare interviews (tightly controlled). He has appeared (rarely) at major court cases, but I don't know of any of those in the pipeline and it would still depend on the general public being allowed to take pictures in court. Probably the only chance in the open would be at Org opening, but that would probably require professional equipment from a distance and so not likely to result in a free image either. AndroidCat 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An account of a process server in 1993, and I expect that security is much tighter now—especially because of this incident. AndroidCat 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone else comment here (or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 2 here). Are there any completely free images of David Miscavige existing? That aren't owned by CoS/RTC or a media organization? What are my chances if I strolled up to the gates of Int Base with a camera and asked security if I could "plz cn I takes a picture of DM for Wikipedia, tkxs"? AndroidCat 07:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You would be told to go away. Security may even deny that d.m. was there.--Fahrenheit451 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


What about DM's appearance at the L.A. Museum of Contemporary Art with Tom Cruise? Didn't any paparazzi snap any pics? wikipediatrix 00:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a public event. I couldn't find any pictures of David Miscavige even though he was mentioned in a number of the stories. Professional shots wouldn't be free images either. (I suspect, but can't prove, that the only photographers allowed into that event probably had to sign some sort of agreement like the Pat Kingsley-era Cruise interview contracts.) He was Tom Cruise's best man, have any pictures of him from the wedding surfaced (other than the stolen ones)? AndroidCat 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyfraud is not legal in the U.S.

Steve Dufour's recent edit is factual, but violates WP:OR. What Prince states Miscavige did is verifiable, but personally commenting on it in the article is OR. I hope that this settles the revert war, but I doubt it will because many of the editors of this article refuse to pay attention.--Fahrenheit451 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section in question:

"*In 1983, former Scientologist Jesse Prince testified that Miscavige had ordered that various materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office though the materials in question might have had fallen into the public domain.[4]."

Please see the discussion near the top of this page (if it is not already archived). There was nothing illegal in what Miscavige is said to have done. Just putting the statement that someone said he did something creates the impression that something was. I am not a fan of Miscavige, but still the article should be fair. Steve Dufour 11:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a quick review by DES that it usually wouldn't be anything illegal is exactly decisive. If the situation were that clear, Judge Kane would have given summary judgment to Bridge Publications and wouldn't have had to appoint a special master to untangle the issues.[22] I also doubt that Scientology have suddenly settled the suit.[23] (This doesn't mean Prince's allegation was proven in any way by the settlement, just that Scientology weighed the odds and gave up a chance to grind FACTNet and Wollersheim into the dirt.) AndroidCat 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please add more information to the article that explains the importance of the issue. As it is Mr. Prince's statement is just hanging there. Steve Dufour 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, your comment is factual, but it is original research. Not allowed here and you know that. Being "fair" is irrelevant in this case as it violates WP:OR.--Fahrenheit451 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why not remove the whole item? I don't see how it gives the reader any useful information. Steve Dufour 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, is it not useful information that someone would order copyfraud done on a wide scale?--Fahrenheit451 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not if it was legal and no harm was done. If otherwise please include that information in the article. Steve Dufour 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There are no laws against it, but it is highly unethical and is grounds for lawsuits. Including any commentary in the article is original research. That is not happening. --Fahrenheit451 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please include cited information to the article on its being unethical and grounds for lawsuits. I personally don't understand the problem with the CoS wanting to hold the copyrights to Hubbard's writings. Wasn't that Hubbard's intention? Steve Dufour 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is the point of the affidavit, but rather it shows that d.m. will willfully and knowingly engage in copyfraud. This is not a discussion of the validity of Hubbard's copyrights on "religious scriptures".--Fahrenheit451 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It "shows" no such thing, merely alleges it.HubcapD 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I also don't know why you call it "fraud" when what he was said to have done was not illegal. Steve Dufour 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is presently no law AGAINST it. Fraud is the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage. Copyfraud is not legally protected and can be civilly prosecuted. --Fahrenheit451 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you know what you're talking about. wikipediatrix 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Trixi, if you cannot participate in a civil discussion, then don't.--Fahrenheit451 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You can't even post without calling me insulting names like "Trixi". And I still don't think you know what you're talking about. wikipediatrix 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am often referred to as F451 and I do not take that personally. Trixi is much easier to type than Wikipediatrix. Sorry if it bothers you. Please suggest an acceptable abbreviation.--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading the copyright statute, I have found two sections that make it illegal to commit copyfraud. Am adding the prince affidavit reference again.--Fahrenheit451 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a Request for Comment on inclusion of the Prince affidavit about copyfraud from david miscavige

There is a revert war occuring on this point with the cofs editors wanted to exclude it and the many non-cofs editors wanting it included.--Fahrenheit451 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a horse-hooey way of putting it, if for no other reason than wikipediatrix isn't a Scientologist!HubcapD 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Will refactor. We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender. Also your "horse-hooey" adjective is rather uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about putting it in a completely neutral tone, like you're supposed to. "Horse-hooey" was the nicest way I could fine to put what I was thinking.HubcapD 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Still uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the part in question should not refer only to J. Prince, but also mention that the validity of these copyrights was challenged in court, and the Church of Scientology eventually settled if I understand correctly. AndroidCat provided references above for that. Also, mentioning that Jesse Prince was a high ranking officer would make the passage more relevant to the reader. Raymond Hill 01:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that this is the result of the case. Does not look like a settlement or as if Prince's statement had impressed the judge at all. Shutterbug 09:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Hill, would you care to do the edit according to your suggestion?--Fahrenheit451 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request for comment.--Fahrenheit451 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will throw another idea. The article is about D. Miscavige, so I agree that throwing in J. Prince in there looks awkward. On the other hand, the fact that the copyrights might have not been valid at the time is relevant. How about making the J. Prince passage as a foot note? The information will be available to the reader who might wish to look further, but at least it won't look awkward in the middle of the article. Raymond Hill 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that.--Fahrenheit451 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Space for RfC comments on Prince affidavit inclusion

Please place comments in this section.--Fahrenheit451 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 ??? The Prince affidavit is part of the article. Please explain. Shutterbug 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems that what Mr. Prince is saying is too trivial to be mentioned in the article. If I am wrong and it is evidence of some serious wrongdoing by Mr. Miscavige then it also doesn't belong in the article. It would be better to go to the police or the FBI with the evidence. Then if they charge Miscavige with a crime we can mention it in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with that, but it is not prosecutable at this time due to the statute of limitations. It does have a great deal of bearing on the assertion of copyrights by the cst or rtc as it would be copyfraud. --Fahrenheit451 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation case created

I have requested an informal mediation as the edit-warring and resulting issues have gotten far out of hand. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31_David_Miscavige--Fahrenheit451 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good. You might summon some people then. Shutterbug 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected at least once before due to edit-warring. I put out a request for comment, but I just do not see that having an effect on the major and perpetual edit-warring and the cascading animosity that the involved editors have been exhibiting. I started editing election method articles on wikipedia and those were contentious, but nothing like scientology articles and particularly this one.--Fahrenheit451 05:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The only edit warrior around here is RookZERO who has not been exactly communicative about anything, I guess not to give a hint about his identity. His choice, and he might do that. But we will need him for the mediation. One for you to summon. Shutterbug 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There are no summons, mediation is a voluntary process. All the editors will be notified.--Fahrenheit451 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation on this article should be imminent.--Fahrenheit451 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusation by Joseph Yanny

"I and others were told by (Scientology executive) Marty Rathburn that on the orders of David Miscavige, the successor of L. Ron Hubbard as the head of the cult, that the medical records of O'Reilly were to be stolen from the Betty Ford Center, and another location in Santa Barbara, to show that he was using cocaine, discredit him, and possibly blackmail him into easing off on his $30-million verdict now on appeal," Yanny said last summer when questioned by Scientology lawyers.

I'm not sure where the various Yanny cases ended up. Were these statements by lawyer Joseph Yanny ever dismissed or recanted? AndroidCat 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no details, but looks like information that could be included in the article.--Fahrenheit451 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Careful. There was a whole series of law suits that involved Yanny, and I haven't been able to find anything so far that sums up the result. AndroidCat 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I did state "could" rather than "should". Yes, the outcome is important.--Fahrenheit451 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I know. I didn't want someone else just grabbing it and throwing it in the article. AndroidCat 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

a deletable image

Hi. I did this change because Image:Dm0.jpg does not have a proper rationale as of this post. My change was later reverted here. Rather than revert the revert, I'm just posting the information on this talk page. --Rockfang (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Niece of Scientology's leader backs Cruise biography

Someone should incorporate this source into the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is already in the article in two places:

I see. The look of that Other matters section in list format looks bad, it should be converted to prose/paragraph format instead. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Inside Edition, February 5, 2008

http://www.insideedition.com/

Inside Edition, February 5, 2008 will have a program called "Inside Scientology": Exclusive...for the first time on TV...she was a member of Scientology's royal family. She says she knows first hand what it's like growing up Scientologist.

Does anyone know if Inside Edition has something that is text-based, whether it be a transcript of their programs or a report on past programs, which will be citable as a secondary source? If not, does anyone know if their tapes/transcripts of past programs are available upon request? If so, that would satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it, looks like videos are available upon request, here: To obtain a videotape copy of a program please provide the following info:. So that would be verifiable. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Another source

SCIENTOLOGISTS are at war with a member of their own family - the outspoken niece of the church's powerful leader, David Miscavige.

It goes on from there... Cirt (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek

Jenna Hill Miscavige, a niece of church leader David Miscavige who left the fold in 2005, this week came out in support of Morton and slammed the organization for, among other things, its practice of "disconnection--essentially severing contact with family members seen as hostile to the group.

Newsweek, New York Post, Inside Edition...... Cirt (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Miscavige Hill and two friends start website against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, now mentioned in WP:V/WP:RS secondary source

Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet unites, emboldens critics of Scientology

Good source that should be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

New source of info to add to article

Cook, John (March 17, 2008). "Scientology - Cult Friction: After an embarrassing string of high-profile defection and leaked videos, Scientology is under attack from a faceless cabal of online activists. Has America's most controversial religion finally met its match?". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-20.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

See in particular page 3 of 4. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources. Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First Celebrity Defector Reveals Church Secrets

Good sources for some interesting info on David Miscavige, as revealed by celebrity actor and (former) Scientologist, Jason Beghe. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Source, interview discussion about David Miscavige

Haven't had a chance to check this out yet, could be interesting. Cirt (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not an adequate source by a long shot for an accusation of that nature in a WP:BLP article. Please let's not try to have the tail wag the dog. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This was a senior official within the organization, talking on record about his experiences in recorded audio. Doesn't get more of an adequate source than that, IMO. Would be interesting to see what others think though. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is an audio interview hosted on BlogTalkRadio a sufficient source for controversial claims made about the subject of this article? 11:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed - ran from 30 August 2008 - 16 September 2008. Seven users weighed in at the RFC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Statement by Cirt

Since the above interview is not simply text but an actual recorded audio file with the interviewee, this satisfies WP:V and should be able to be used as a source in the article. I am interested to hear comments from others on this and so opening it up to the community for discussion. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justallofthem
  • What we have here is a non-notable person making claims to a blogger. No-one is arguing that the person did not make the claims. That is irrelevant. The claims do not go in here until they have appeared in reliable secondary sources. It does not matter if the claims are made in blog "radio" or blog "print" - either way, not a reliable source and far far below the threshold for including such claims of physical abuse in a WP:BLP article. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What Is BlogTalkRadio?

"BlogTalkRadio is the social radio network that allows users to connect quickly and directly with their audience. Using an ordinary telephone and computer hosts can create free, live, call-in talk shows with unlimited participants that are automatically archived and made available as podcasts. No software download is required. Listeners can subscribe to shows via RSS into iTunes and other feed readers. Our network has produced tens of thousands of episodes since it launched in August of 2006."[24]

In other words, this is about as much a discerning "reliable source" as YouTube or MySpace. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That is quite a stretch to equate blogtalkradio with YouTube or MySpace, the former being a community of media contributions and the latter being nothing more than a social networking website. I cannot blame Justallofthem/Justanother for not knowing this living in an environment where information is highly controlled with restrictions and duress.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your silly personal slur notwithstanding, how about you do a bit of research. You might see this:

"Our streaming and archived shows are produced by anyone that wants to be an internet radio host." (emphasis added)

Anyone, repeat, anyone. Now how does that make BTR more of a reliable source than YouTube?? --Justallofthem (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Not silly and not a slur, Justanother/Justallofthem. You seem to a have fixed view on any of my statements. I wonder why.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think BlogTalkRadio falls under WP:SPS. This is just as reliable a source as 'self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources' Felixmeister (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good call. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You say that because it conforms with your POV. I am very familiar with talk radio and there is no way ANY interviewer can control the statements of those who are interviewed. The hosts of Blogtalkradio programs do not have commercial interests sponsoring them. Any person with some interview and broadcast skills can do a talk radio program. It is naive to believe otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Fahrenheit451
  • It is irrelevant that Headley is non-notable as we are not discussing an article about him.

Blogtalkradio is just a name, perhaps a misnomer, but it is not a weblog, or blog for short. It is a reliable source. The interview meets verifiability and it like a television interview or newspaper article. It is unfortunate that corporate scientology wants to conceal David Miscavige's criminal actions and influence Wikipedia in an attempt to do so.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There is an important difference and that difference speaks to why this is not acceptable in this project: Anyone can stand on a street corner and say anything about anyone. That such non-notable and non-reliable material is then "published" in a blog makes the material neither notable nor reliable. What make a reliable source "reliable" is that they fact-check their material or put themselves at substantial legal risk; they do not publish unsupported allegations of this sort. What is also unfortunate is that experienced editors that should know better are willing, nay eager, to throw out the basic protection of Wikipedia that careful sourcing on WP:BLP articles provides. Makes me wonder where their priorities lie. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to WP:AGF Felixmeister (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this comes down to whether "Glosslip.com"--an online "celebrity gossip" site--satisfies the Reliable Source requirements, including the slightly stricter interpretation of those requirements called for w/r/t potentially inflammatory claims in bios of the living. If Glosslip is judged a "questionable" source, it can't be used. Unless there's a good case that Glosslip meets the journalistic standards for reliability--comparable to "mainstream" TV stations or newspapers--I'd say it belongs in the questionable category in this context, and shouldn't be cited. --BTfromLA (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please keep things civil, chaps. 'Unspoken' accusations are still accusations. For what it's worth, I think we shouldn't be making this claim. However, perhaps a line that 'Critics have accused him of unscrupulous activites, and in some cases physical assault, however no-one has pressed charges, and the claims remain unproven'. Perhaps? And no offence, Justallofthem, but you're bound to oppose any inclusion of this site - the last thing you want is your organisation's leader being accused of things! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. However, inclusion of unsupported claims by a non-notable individual and reported only in blog are far from the standard of inclusion required of any article here, let alone BLP. I could really care less what goes in the articles here provided that it is consistent with reliable sourcing and complies with our policies. This does not and that is my only point. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Good Suggestion Mr RN, and a I agree, until this is in newspapers etc it shouldn't be included 'verbatim', but given the ammount of first hand accounts your suggested line makes a lot of sense. Felixmeister (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem that this interview could be considered a reliable source for information about third parties such as Miscavige. It looks like BlogTalkRadio does not exercise editorial control over the podcast that hosted this interview, so just being on BTR cannot make a program a reliable source. Furthermore, it does not appear that the host is generally known as a reliable journalist (she may in fact be one, but I don't know how that could be established), nor has the interviewee been established as a reliable source on the topic of Miscavige. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no way "editorial control" can be exercised over a person being interviewed. That person makes statements on record. That is true with ANY interview of ANY kind, ANY where. Notability has NOTHING to do with the credibility of a person being interviewed. Statements do not necessarily have to be "supported" by police reports or civil suits. A court of law or a jounalist cares not if a person is notable or not. Supporting evidence does lend greater credibility to statements, but in any interview, a person's statements are just that. Editorial control is not feasible.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Recap

It has been over a week since I started this RFC. (7) users have commented, and it appears that consensus is leaning towards not utilizing the above-listed source as a reference in this article, or either treating it as a WP:SPS, or perhaps an inclusion in the external links section. What do others think? Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Material that is inappropriate for a WP:BLP article should not be "back-doored" in by mean of a WP:EL:

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies." - WP:EL

--Justallofthem (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If the person being interviewed is identifiable and making statements, that person is responsible for those statements. That material is an interview. The source is definitely not questionable in that case. It looks to me that the value of this particular interview is significant and has been corroborated. I think that it should be minimally added as External Links.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Update: FWIW, RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the RFC notice [25], so presumably it is likely that not that many new people will be commenting in this discussion. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed after over a month and a half. There was opposition to use BlogTalkRadio as a source within the article text itself, and most certainly not consensus for it. There was also not consensus to use it as an external link. Pending further discussion, it should not be used in this article text for controversial claims about the subject of the article, and as there is no consensus about adding it in the external links section, it should not be added there either without further discussion and consensus to do so. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hostages?

I read that this guy has the board of Scientology as hostages at some compound, what's the story behind that and why is it all over news websites but not on his page on Wiki? I'd say it's notable? And I'd like to know more. 122.107.56.47 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Which news websites? If they are reliable sources they could be used as cites. Without cites, editors can't just drop in unreferenced text, especially in biographies of living persons. AndroidCat (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Until a court of law finds Miscavige guilty of this, I would be highly hesitant to put anything that could be interpreted as libelous in a biography. Charges of kidnapping would definitely count, and should definitely not be in this article. --GoodDamon 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Until we can see what these "news websites" are, and exactly what they say, it's all pretty moot. AndroidCat (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
you might be referring to Rehabilitation Project Force. i dont know about any hostages, the more appropriate description would be: slaves. but they do not use them for purposes of blackmail, so the word hostage doesnt really seem to fit here.Kurtilein (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the so-called "SP Hall" in Hemet, CA is what you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an error in the Nightline interview...

On one paragraph of the Nightline interview:

"Another of Miscavige's claims was: "Look at the studies that brought about the Holocaust of the Jews, that the Nazis justified killing the Jews, they were done at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Leipzig, Germany." However, the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry has only existed since 1966 (in Munich and not Leipzig); it was the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie that joined the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatric Research in 1924,[30] that was later incorporated into the Max Planck Society in 1954.[31] This association of psychiatry with Nazism remains prominent in the church's materials, including its exhibit Psychiatry: An Industry of Death."

The beginning of this sentence: “However, the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry has only existed since 1966

Is contradicted by the end of the sentence: “(in Munich and not Leipzig); it was the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie that joined the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatric Research in 1924,[30] that was later incorporated into the Max Planck Society in 1954.”

Look at the bold text.

I wasn't sure if this reference should be removed, or this inconsistency should be pointed out in some way. I guess I will remove it, but I am leaving this note here so that it is clear why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabebrooks (talkcontribs)

This information is sourced and should not be removed. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean that "This information is sourced" ?? It is a contradiction to have these two different dates. Just trying to understand since I am a wiki noob.

David Miscavige's Nightline interview: extraterrestrial beliefs

This sentence: "Miscavige said that extraterrestrial beliefs (see Space opera in Scientology doctrine) are not as important as people believe or not important at all." I think that part is kind of misleading, since David Miscavige actually made more than one statement to qualify L. Ron Hubbard's "Van Allen Belt":

  • "pulled out of context items" (further drawing a parallel with the Virgin Mary, a core catholic belief)
  • "that forms no part of current Scientology, none whatsoever"
  • "he's talking about the origins of the universe"
  • "I'd never heard that"

We should find a way to make that clear in the article, and not cherry pick one particular statement he made. Actually, I can't even find that he said "extraterrestrial beliefs ... are not as important." --Raymond Hill (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Media

Media

One or two of the above are existing in the article as already used references - moving here to sort it out. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

I posted to BLPN [26], to try to get some additional attention from other editors on the article. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources ?

Could anyone suggest additional sources to use in the article? I note there are several cites to Religious Technology Center-affiliated websites, but the majority are to news media sources - might provide some fresh info to find some additional sources from books not currently utilized in the article. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The RS I know of are already used in the article. Good job on working to improve the article. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawk Radio?

Although the original uploader presented that podcast as having been broadcast on Hawk Radio (a college station, see site), the host of the podcast has the below on his website:

I am Tom Smith, producer and host of The Edge, formerly a radio program broadcast on WXYB AM in Tampa, Florida out of Hillsborough Community College. My program will shortly reincarnate as a podcast which is more convenient for most of my listeners. (emphasis added)

This raises serious doubts as to whether the reference in question is a podcast or a recorded broadcast. I listened to a bit of it and no call letters or reference to Hawk Radio was mentioned early on as would be expected in a broadcast. I may or may not listen to it all but I think that if one does it will bear our my doubt that there are any of the expected indications of a college radio broadcast such as station identification breaks. For this reason and seeing as it is presenting extremely contentious material in a BLP article, it should be removed. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last 30 seconds, it says: "You're listening to WXYB Indian Rocks Beach, Tampa, 1520 AM" --Raymond Hill (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I am listening to it now and about 1/2 through. OK, then. If someone else wants to raise the question of the suitability of a college station for this sort of material in BLP then they can but I will not. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Clear ID at 35:30. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Have to assume that WXYB runs a reputable station, otherwise its license might be rescinded. Have some doubts about the programming coming from the local community college, "Hawk Radio", but have seen some college newspapers, like the Daily Illinibo, which I think would clearly at least meet RS standards, and have to assume that this community college wouldn't run anything which might get itself in trouble without verifying it first. Maybe not the best source out there, but I would tend to think that it would be counted as reliable, if not necessarily of the highest levels of reputability. I remember having similar discussions about the reliability of boxofficeindia.com elsewhere. What was decided then was basically if the source were cited as a source by another publication which is considered reliable, then it would probably qualify as reliable. That is in fact how boxofficeindia.com was eventually qualified as reliable. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida could provide more direct information regarding the specific source, and maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon could do the same about the Portland Mercury. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Update: I posted notices at the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida and Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:RSN seems to be to remove this particular radio source, so I went ahead and removed it [27]. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

In January 2008, when questioned about the allegation that Tom Cruise was second in command of the Church, Elliot Abelson, general counsel for the Church of Scientology stated: "The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige."[5]

Removed this info sourced to Daily Mail - yes it is a direct interview with a Scientology attorney, but generally even direct interviews in questionable sources should not be used. Feel free to discuss. I would not be opposed to further input from folks from WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This statement is, in fact, worse than tabloid. Here is a short list of reasons that it was POV and UNDUE in this article:
  1. Dubious source. The Daily Mail, as pointed out, is a tabloid. Moreover, it's a tabloid that later serialized the book in question, suggesting that they had an incentive to emphasize the book's claims.
  2. The claim is misleading. The Daily Mail managed to correctly reported a flat denial that Tom Cruise has any leadership in the Church. The statement fails in this regard—the excerpt quoted in the article just says "The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige," implying that Tom Cruise might be #2!
  3. It is not even about Miscavige. In fact, a denial is barely a relevant statement for inclusion in any article, let alone the lead of a BLP who isn't even the subject of the question. Imagine if someone asked a Republican spokesman if Rush Limbaugh was the #2 Republican. Would it make sense to put the subsequent denial into the lead of RNC Chairman Michael Steel? Would it even make sense to put it anywhere in Steel's article? One can perform similar thought experiments with other leaders and controversial members. I think the rational answer is an unambiguous "no."
  4. WP:LEADs are supposed to cover the most important facts of the article. Very rarely would it be important to point out that a third party is not something in relation to the subject.
In my view, this material is not even debatable for the lead. I can imagine discussing his relationship to Tom Cruise in the article, but not in such a misleading and UNDUE manner. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail, for all its faults, is only a tabloid in size - it is not one in the US "National Enquirer" sense, and is considered RS as a rule. The issue of weight to be given an article which has such a quote is discussable, but I suspect that it is pretty much a fact as to operations of the Scientology cirporate decisions. Saying "the only person" actually says that there is not "number two" so that bot does not compute. Collect (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RSN

The Portland Mercury, namely this article [28] is currently used as a source. I posted to WP:RSN [29] to get some thoughts from fresh eyes on using it as a source. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a promotional interview or press release for a book. Neither RS nor non-RS as far as I can tell. Likely citable at most as opinion of the author of the book? Collect (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The RSN seems to have a different read on this altogether pegging this as reliable and the issue more centered on how to treat the content in a BLP in context with others sources. -- Banjeboi 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The reporter seems to only report what the subject said - how can we use it as more than that? Collect (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps quotations marks and applying attribution appropriately. -- Banjeboi 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede image in infobox

That image can be cleaned up a bit at the WP:Image Lab. -- Banjeboi 10:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, posted to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#David_Miscavige. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Benjiboi (talk · contribs) for the suggestion and to Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) for helping out. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

KESQ-TV

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 [30] - 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: [31][32]([33]). 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: [34], [35]. Scientology edits by Tazchook: [36][37]. 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 [38]. Another Commons admin deleted the image [39]. I then went ahead and removed it from this article [40]. 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, DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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? DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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.

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

Inaccuracy (corrected)

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.[6]

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)


(Maybe someone wants to look into that specific passage right now - it appears vandalized. -sk, July 12 2009

Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder in special report on Scientology and David Miscavige

First article in series
Overall report page for multiple articles

Sources to be included in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This story is getting picked up all over. Check google news for more supporting sources. Z00r (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, here are some:
  1. Philadelphia Metro
  2. Associated Press
  3. LiveNews
  4. The Guardian
  5. USA Today
  6. LA Weekly
  7. FOX News
  8. Los Angeles Times
  9. Miami Herald
  10. San Francisco Chronicle
  11. Houston Chronicle

There are probably others as well. These sources seem would seem to satisfy WP:RS, as well as corroborate statements made by others in other WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. For what it's worth, it is my view that the St. Petersburg Times article itself is notable, and deserves a chapter both here and in the Wikipedia 'Scientology' main article. The four ex-members quoted in the article appear to be authentic insider witnesses, and confirm activity previously discussed. Additionally of interest in Wikipedia due to the recent Wiki-ban on some writers. Jusdafax (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree. Combine the recent statements from former high-ranking executives, plus the statements from other former members previously that have said the exact same things, and we begin to see a pattern of corroboration made in multiple WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Good revert yesterday Cirt; the attempt seemed to be to remove some material and add other, giving the edit plausibility. This article on Miscavige will be cutting edge for some time to come, needless to say. It's interesting how Wikipedia, which now almost always comes up in the first few listings in a google search on a given topic, is now itself Ground Zero in 'Perception Wars.' And with an extremely hot-button topic like this, the new 3-part article in the St. Petersburg Time ratchets the pressure. Again, bravo Cirt! Jusdafax (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this quibble notable?

Is the back and forth between Miscavige and St Petersburg Times regarding his availability for an interview in connection with the June 2009 exposé really notable? This seems like a much subordinate sidetrack from the main issue. I suggest we remove. Alternatively, it should be reduced to a brief mention. __meco (talk)

Disagree. My view is that it is highly notable, and as I have previously noted I feel strongly that the 3-part article and circumstances of its publishing are notable indeed, and worthy of their own expanded section. Jusdafax (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jusdafax (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 24 hrs

It appears there's a moderate edit war going on right now - I have semi-protected the article for the next 24 hrs.

Please discuss on the talk page more, and edit the main page back and forth less.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The record shows that I reverted once, the other, IP-named person twice. Other party refuses to discuss on talk page. Since the recent events around this topic, seems obvious to me what's up. Just sayin'. Jusdafax (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

its not just a recent news story either, claims of miscavige's violence have been around for years.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but not what I mean. My fault for not being clear: I refer to the recent Wikipedia actions taken against those editors with an agenda using multiple accounts to mask their identities, etc. Jusdafax (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like i'm blaming anyone who was discussing here - there was plenty of discussion above, but it wasn't both sides.
I would strongly encourage IP editors to participate here too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I got that, and I appreciate your effort to make that clear. As you can see above, I also attempted to have a discussion here on the talk page with the IP-named editor yesterday, but to no avail.

In the meantime the edits made yesterday stand, and new edits are being made to this article by at least two parties. I'm unclear as to what "semi-protected" means exactly under the circumstances, and I will make no attempts to edit or revert until I understand what policy is. Again, the record shows I reverted once, and tried to discuss it with the editor here. If possible, please clarify where we go from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talkcontribs) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that "semi-protected" means that anonymous IP's can't edit, but named accounts can. In other words, you can edit freely (so long as you don't otherwise violate policy, of course). I'm sure someone will jump in to correct me if I'm mistaken. BTfromLA (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly correct. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Strength in their numbers: More Church of Scientology defectors step forward with accounts of abuse

Additional source for use in article. Corroborated with additional accounts from other individuals at [41], as well as multiple other WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here again we see a notable, seemingly cross-referenced article with multiple sources on the topic of Mr. Miscavige's violence and long-term abuse of his power. I again strongly urge the St. Petersburg Times articles be summed up and made into a separate chapter heading, or at least be expounded on in greater detail. I'll give it a shot if no one else steps up. Jusdafax (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For balance in writing up this topic, here is the official Scientology response to the St. Petersburg Times: www.xenutv.com Jusdafax (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of violence

On January 25, 2008, Miscavige's niece and Scientology critic Jenna Miscavige Hill claimed in a letter to Church spokesperson Karin Pouw that disconnection was a current practice within the Church. Hill was responding to recent official statements denying this and other claims made in Andrew Morton's Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography.[7]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Nightline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Paulette Cooper: The Scandal of Scientology, Chapter 2
  3. ^ Paulette Cooper: The Scandal of Scientology, Chapter 2
  4. ^ Jesse Prince affidavit, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Bridge Publications Inc v. Factnet Inc; Lawrence Wollersheim; Robert Penny, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, 1998
  5. ^ Tapper, James (2008-01-07). "Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology'". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2008-11-15. 
  6. ^ "Cruise and Holmes go on honeymoon". BBC News. 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2007-02-10. 
  7. ^ Jacobsen, Jonny (January 28, 2008). "Niece of Scientology's leader backs Cruise biography". AFP. Google News. Retrieved March 11, 2008. 

Deleted paragraph about Jenny Miscavige. The reference source links to an article about the practice of disconnection, which is not relevant to the context of the subheading "Allegations of violence" and does not fit into any other category on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljefferson (talkcontribs) 2009-08-05T17:57:32

Jenna Miscavige Hill is not mentioned on this biog as a result of this passage being removed.
It appears that we have very little information about his family, other than the details in "Early life". His wife Michelle is not mentioned in the body of the article. Maybe those details can become a "Family" section.
The information about disconnection does touch on possible family-life problems which are relevant on this biog, however we should have more neutral sources before going into details about private matters like that. This information is used on "Disconnection" and "Jenna Miscavige Hill".
John Vandenberg (chat) 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Revised and edited the paragraph to include the response about the allegations of violence and included a reference source that leads to another article from the St. Petersburg Times. This is the old version of the paragraph:

In June 2009, St Petersburg Times reported that top former Scientologists Mike Rinder, Mark Rathbun and two other witnesses said Miscavige beats and demoralizes staff.[1] Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis denied these claims and provided witnesses to rebut them.[1] However, Rinder and Rathburn said that violence is a standard occurrence in the church.[2]


This is the new version. No sources have been deleted, only added to include more information regarding the "Allegations of violence" topic. Combined two sentences into one so that the paragraph is easier to read:

In June 2009, St Petersburg Times reported that top former Scientologists Mike Rinder, Mark Rathbun and two other witnesses said Miscavige beats and demoralizes staff.[1] Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis denied these claims and provided witnesses to rebut them.[1] However, Rinder and Rathburn said that violence is a standard occurrence in the church.[3]

Undoing edit

On Aug. 5, 2009 I undid an edit to the David Miscavige article made this same day. A whole paragraph of sourced material is removed by an editor, 170.206.224.50, who has made very few previous edits, yet cites a number of wikipedia rules. With all due respect, this topic is so hot-button on Wikipedia that I feel we need to go slow on deletions of this type by an editor who has little track record.

I invite, welcome and strongly urge further discussion here on the talk page, but undoing my undo will not lead to an edit war, but to an admin who will rule on the situation. Let's not go there. Please assume good faith, and talk over your reasoning for these changes to what is currently one of the most sensitive subjects on Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the IP should identify themselves, especially on a Scientology page, it is obvious that they have previous editing experience.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP-named editor was invited to talk it over and instead is back at it. Admin time. Jusdafax (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been an occasional IP editor for several years and there was never a reason to register. DoingWell (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical info in lede--how to handle it

I know these are dangerous waters, so I'm writing here in search of consensus before editing the article further. It seems to me that David Miscavige's identity as a public figure is linked to a pattern of serious allegations of unethical and even illegal practices as surely as Clint Eastwood's public identity is linked to acting in movies. Thus, in my view, a brief description of this history and some specific examples should be featured in the lede. Of course, we want to avoid turning the encyclopedia article into a hatchet job that dwells on every negative claim we can find. As of this writing, the lede contains a reference to one example of criticism, recent allegations that Miscavige was abusive toward his staff. I think that's misleading... it makes it seem as though we're reporting an isolated current event, rather than a pattern that has held true for most of Miscavige's career. High-profile press criticism of Miscavige, both in terms of his personal behavior and in terms of the practices of the organization he runs, goes back at least to the 1990 five-part series in the LA Times and the 1991 Time magazine cover story that described Miscavige as "ringleader" of a "Mafia-like" organization. Multiple reputable press sources have run articles alleging fraud, extortion, deceptive financial practices, harrassment of critics, destruction of members' families, coerced abortions for staff members and more, including the recent claims that he physically beats up executives. Do we agree that this notoriety is a conspicuous aspect of Miscavige's public identity? If so, how do we summarize this history of allegations in the lede, avoiding both whitewashing their significance or over-emphasizing the criticism? BTfromLA (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that these are dangerous waters: a lot of edgy issues here. As I say below, I want the dust to settle a bit. I'm curious to see what established Wikipedians think about your comments BT, and the ongoing situation here with this topic, which has been in the news quite a bit of late. I also refer to the big yellow box at the top of this page, which was also in the news when the policy was established here. Wikipedia precedent is being established, day by critical day, and the issue has actually moved beyond Mr. Miscavige or Scientology in my opinion. Jusdafax (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and incorporated a bit about the Time magazine article. BTfromLA (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Source fails RS

Regarding [42] - this source fails WP:RS, and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, especially not in a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to Aug. 5 version

I've gone back to where we were 4 days ago, more or less. I want the dust to settle a bit before edits by editors of dubious neutrality become established. I strongly suggest anyone who disagrees with this revert talk it over. Again, I refuse to get into an edit war, which is unseemly... I'll just take it straight to an admin. Jusdafax (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do disagree. even on a Scientology page, which has more restrictions than any other page that I know of, I don't believe that an editor has to be fully established before they can contribute to the page itself. If this edit was due to subversive content, a continuing edit war, or a series of violations I would support it, however I think that this page has been constructivly active in the last 4 days. granted some of the edits needed to be undone while other editors learn what reliable sources are, but those are mistakes I had to learn as a new editor as well and I don't assume any malicious agenda. to do a blanket revert of between 19-28 different versions (I don't know what version from the 5th you used) seems to be a little excessive, and if you just reverted contributions by specific editors (your edit summery reads as if that may be the case) then that would be against what I consider the spirit of Wikipedia. My solution would be to reestablish the former page, and tackle the content that I find questionable point by point...but I am just one editorWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard(talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't a blanket reversion. And my solution is like yours, except 4 days earlier. Nor do I think an editor has to 'fully established'. But let's look at what happened after my edits were effected: exactly ten minutes afterwards, the editor 170.206.224.50 came back, reverted an "external link", and then registered a complaint to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of any attempt whatsoever to talk it over here, despite repeated and varied requests to do so. In my view, that should indicate where this particular editor is coming from.

I feel that the preponderance of the evidence shows that this IP-named editor is operating from an agenda, and rightly or wrongly, given the historical record which shows how focused some Scientologists are on muting, changing, deleting and deflecting all and any "bad press" - which has led to the well-known sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee (itself an historic act which made news headlines earlier this year) - that these recent edits are an attempt to piece by piece, word by word, blunt the reality of the ongoing well-documented reports of executive violence and other authoritarian abuses as much as possible. Jusdafax (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I shared Coffeepusher's concerns when I saw that Justdafax had reverted to an Aug 5 version, but it turns out the problem is limited to the talk-page headline and not his or her edit itself, which does a good job of reconciling the recent edits, and turns out not to be a wholesale reversion at all. I do, however, wonder about the degree of walking-on-eggshells here--how much dust has actually been stirred up? If the issue is a suspicion that the anonymous IP editor is a pro-scientology warrior, we should confront that directly, but it needn't halt progress on the article. If it is something else, please specify. BTfromLA (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BT. I said "more or less" it's a revert to Aug. 5, and thank you for taking the time to notice my work, which considered all edits carefully; indeed, I did in fact attempt to 'reconcile' them, as you are kind enough to observe.

Again, the IP-named editor seems to be unwilling to discuss the issues around his edits here on this page, and the issue of editors with multiple accounts editing Scientology and Scientology-related topics like David Miscavige, himself much in the news of late, lends extreme importance to each and every word change made to these articles. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I feel Wikipedia policy itself is being put in a spotlight by the totality of these events. I think it is highly important to get this right, for the sake of Wikipedia as a whole. Jusdafax (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if the IP editor took the name DoingWell and was promptly banned from Scientology articles. BTfromLA (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I think your changes to the intro or lede today are in the main well-resourced and referenced, though I'm concerned that it is getting a bit long. Still, the fact that Mr. Miscavige was on the cover of Time Magazine was something I didn't know myself, and it should be in there in my view. You don't get any more notable than that. Jusdafax (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion: Miscavige wasn't literally pictured on the cover of Time. The cover feature was "Scientology: the Cult of Greed." (The cover image is a Dianetics-style exploding volcano with octopus tentacles at its base.) Miscavige was in charge of the organization at the time, and he was discussed in the article--it's what led to his doing that interview with Ted Koppel--so I think it's fair to see that Time piece as a prominent part of Miscavige's bio. In addition to the TV interview, there was a years-long lawsuit (ultimately unsuccessful) against Time and a huge anti-Time ad campaign by Scientology, including a magazine that was inserted into copies of USA today. Their argument was that Time smeared Scientology because of their financial ties to Eli Lilly, maker of Prozac. BTfromLA (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: the lede getting too long--I think it could stand to lose the second half of the opening paragraph, starting with "RTC is a separate..." BTfromLA (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again & noted again. I vote to leave the lede as is for now. The portion you suggest moving (I assume not deleting) is accurate, I believe, and describes some of the scope of Mr. Miscavige's involvement with various the organizations under the Scientology tent. Jusdafax (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I do think that chunk of the first paragraph could be removed from the intro section in the interest of keeping it concise. Most of it belongs in the article, but in the intro it seems unnecessary to spend several sentences elaborating on the specifics of his job description, the corporate structure, etc. BTfromLA (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
you have my apologies, I appeared to have misread your edits.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, plus my title was misleading. By the way, to gain some perspective I've been looking at other controversial articles to see how edgy topics are handled in Wikipedia. The answer so far, some better than others. Jusdafax (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New EL added

Not sure about appropriateness of this new WP:EL added by an IP [43]. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

personally I think it has the same credibility as a blog. I can't find out who is keeping the website, or even who are the authors of its contents. I'm not comfortable at all leaving this on a BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the input. I am glad that I took the appropriate actions by removing the link from the article page and then bringing it here to the talk page for discussion. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Accused of vandalism

I've been trying to remove the actionable statements from the bio of a subject who is known to be litigious, and somehow as a result keep getting accused of vandalism, with said article automatically reverting. Please keep in mind that there has never been any proof of the deleted statements; they were only allegations, and inflammatory ones at that. How is my splicing the article to retain its legal integrity considered vandalism? Or is the Wikipedia editorial board actively gunning for a lawsuit? Any explanation beyond vague threats of being banned is welcome, but I must say that the multiple (and seemingly automatic) negative responses that were generated, without apparent reflection or legal justification, reflect poorly on the site and make it appear less credible. The reliability of Wikipedia is already actively criticized; why provoke the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.166.79 (talkcontribs)

The information is supported by independent reliable secondary sources. And please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ABC News Nightline

Source for material for addition to the article. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

insulting David Miscavige

How can Wikipedia tolerate such a gross insult twords David Miscavige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities lead charge against Scientology

Celebrities lead charge against Scientology

talks about David Miscavige. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Slashdot

Heads up: Scientology Charged With Slavery, Human Trafficking. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media

Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology: A History of Violence

See postings at news.turner.com and www.newsonnews.net/cnn

In a special series beginning Monday, March 29th, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° takes a close and revealing look at the leadership of the worldwide church of Scientology. The week-long series, Scientology: A History of Violence, will examine allegations that Scientology leader David Miscavige has for years beaten, kicked and choked top members of the church. These are allegations the church aggressively denies, saying violence from inside came from those making the claim.

This series on the CNN program Anderson Cooper 360 starting March 29, 2010 will have a good deal of WP:RS source material. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, a post from Mr. Anderson Cooper, see [44]. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sources, and addition of unsourced material

[45] = this edit removed sources, and added unsourced material. Let's avoid this behavior please, especially on a WP:BLP page, and especially one within this topic area. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for all of your help. BTfromLA (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Please make sure to back up newly added info to independent reliable secondary sources, using citations. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you consider adequate verification for the existence of the Anderson Cooper series about Miscavige and the specifics about it that I cited? News articles that tout that he will be doing the series? Cooper's own CNN blog posts about the series? Videos of the series on youtube or on the CNN website? I'm not sure whether any third party articles in reputable publications have described each installment of his series in detail, but I should think there's some way to treat material produced by a reputable broadcast news source as equivalent to a print article. As to my removal of sourced material, do you really think that any sensationalistic lawsuit that is brought against someone is suitable for inclusion in an article about them? Though "sourced," that one struck me as below the threshold of responsible editing, particularly, as you say, in this fraught topic area. (If lawsuits are to brought up, they should probably be treated as a group, and more fairly characterized: Miscavige is being accused of human trafficking, not "slavery": those are close, but not identical.) BTfromLA (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest some sources, and we could go from there. As far as your removal of sourced material, perhaps you could put forth on the talk page the sources you feel you wish to remove from the article, and this could also be discussed. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I just did put forward the info I wanted to remove and why. It isn't the source I want to remove, it's the content: somebody files a lawsuit saying Miscavige is guilty of slavery. And I did outline the types of sources that are avaialble for the Anderson Cooper thing, why not answer my question? BTfromLA (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The sources (multiple sources) you removed were WP:RS, and should be discussed as to why they were removed with no discussion. The info you added was unsourced, and we should discuss individual specifc suggested sources, not vague ideas of possible sources. -- Cirt (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, I find your manner here patronizing, hostile and a violation of WP:OWN. I an not inclined to waste my time wrangling with an uncooperative collaborator, so you win: I will make no further attempts to improve the article. BTfromLA (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
All I am asking is that we discuss individual sources, one-at-a-time. And also not add unsourced material to a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You did a wholesale revert of my edit as if it were vandalism. You addressed me as if I were a naughty child. You refused to engage my attempts to address your issues, instead issuing patronizing directives about the form in which I must present my questions before you will deign to consider them. You really need to consider your manners and your tone: if this is typical of you, it makes for poorer articles and a dismal environment in which to collaborate. --BTfromLA (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the edit removed sourced material, and simultaneously added uncited material - to a WP:BLP page. That is indeed quite inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying... I'm not talking about sources, I'm talking about rudeness. Sigh. BTfromLA (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Let us focus on a discussion of content and sources, and avoid discussion of individual contributors please. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Anderson Cooper reports or wife?

How come there is no mention of the week-long AC360 reports? It was covered by the Associated Press[46] and many other articles.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] [57][58] Even the St Petersburg Times discussed the AC report.

Also why is there no discussion of his wife Michelle Miscavige? She was mentioned in articles such as "IRS examined Scientology dollars, not dogma" (St. Petersburg Times; Oct 24, 1993), "Scientologists Report Assets of $400 Million"(New York Times), "Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology'" ("Naturally the work was regularly inspected by David and Shelley Miscavige [his wife], who would ride over to the site on his motorbike" in Daily Mail - Jan 7, 2008), "Growth of Scientology gets big boost from Cruise" ("Shelly Britt, who joined Scientology at 17, said she was at the base for 20" in San Francisco Chronicle - Dec 25, 2005), and "Scientology's Record on Human Rights" (newsblaze.com Mar 2, 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlacjinDH (talkcontribs) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My attempt to add a description of this was unceremoniously reverted for lack of proper sourcing. You might wanty to look back at my edit, add a couple of your sources if they cover that material, and see whether you have better luck than I did adding this important story to the article. --BTfromLA (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
BlacjinDH (talk · contribs) has helpfully suggested some good independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you very much for doing that, and recommending them here on the talk page. This was a most constructive course of action. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Under "Allegations of abuse" a few sentences about the AC360 and the church's response should be added. His wife's name and other details cited above should be added to "Personal life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlacjinDH (talkcontribs) 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Very good suggestions, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add some wording in but the artikle is locked. This what i tried to include from the above sources:

In March 2010, Marty Rathbun, Jeff Hawkins, Tom DeVocht and Amy Scobee again confirmed allegations of abuse by Miscavige to CNN's Anderson Cooper on AC360.[4] The allegations were also reported Associated Press, The New York Times, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today and other outlets.[5]

and

Miscavige is married to Michele "Shelley" Miscavige.[6] According to IRS documents made public in 1993, David earned $62,683 and his wife was paid $31,359 as his assistant by the Church of Scientology in 1991.[7]

Tom Cruise confessional files

Added new subsection, [59]. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire subsection was removed, by Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs). Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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."[[60]]
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[61]. 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 [62] seems sufficient.
Thoughts? Wobblegenerator (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

(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)

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 [63] 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)
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)

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Again incorrect. Rathbun is stating this himself, not some "anonymous former member". -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)