Jump to content

Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Introductory sentences

The recent edit I posted parallels the succinct way that third-party organizations refer to this historical figure, as the “leader of the Scientology religion.” It is extremely important to start the article in a way that rhetorically represents the living person in the most correct way. Case in point, the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, which clearly states all his roles and appropriate titles. The ABC source I initially provided clearly uses this wording and so do other third-party references. It seems odd that the only reference that was left standing was the Scientology.org reference, a primary reference, that based on policy, should not hold as much weight as third-party reliable sources. Ironically, the Scientology.org reference also supports the wording “leader of the Scientology religion,” and it puzzles me why it was changed back to “leader of the Church of Scientology.”

I have changed the text back to the correct wording, one that justly represents the subject of this BLP. Thank you.Skyparkroute101 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. He is the COB of the Church of Scientology, but saying he is the leader of the Scientology religion is like saying the pope is the leader of Christianity. In addition to the structure of the official church being multi-faceted with many elements officially being separate from his leadership, the Scientology religion includes groups like the freezone which has no affiliation.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. In addition to free zone Scientologiest, the Church of Scientology International is (hypothetically) the CoS's mother church, and the head of that org is still Heber Jentzsch. Saying Miscavige is head of the entire religion is inconsistent with the facts. The lead is not the place for such finicky nuances anyway. Saying he is the head of CoS is clearer, less awkward, and entirely adequate for an introduction, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Heber has been struck from the Scientology.ORG web site, Google has indexed the entire Scientology.ORG web site and has indexed exactly zero pages which mention Heber. Because of that I believe we can assume that Heber has been killed, shoved in to The Hole, or otherwise removed from his position as putatively the "President" of the enterprise. Damotclese (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Although his current involvement in the CoS is a mystery, Jentzsch must be assumed to be living, per WP:BLP. As far as I know, the current official leadership of the CoS International is not public knowledge. My point is not that Jentzsch should be considered the leader, my point is that we can't make the assumption that Miscavige is the only leader. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that, Grayfell, yes, and in fact Heber is still listed as the putative holder of a number of copyrights. Lanske and a few other "captive" lawyers also hold various Scientology copyrights and trademarks so they are also considered leaders of the organization. Copyrights and trademarks often trade hands in Scientology, often after felony indictments however Heber held on to his after his arrests in Madrid, Spain and it looks like he's still supposedly in charge of some intellectual assets, if that term has any legitimate meaning here.
Thanks, I see a number of editors doing a very good job keeping the article clean and accurate, volunteer work that makes Wikipedia worth using. Damotclese (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Also Skyparkroute101, David Miscaviage is not an historical figure in any sense of the term. He's just the owner/operator of a financial business, and outside of a few thousand customers and a few thousand ex-customers, law enforcement officers, Judges, and a hand full of politicians, nobody recognizes the name. In the real world he's a nobody.Damotclese (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Grayfell, when you say it’s your opinion, that is correct. That is both yours and Coffeepusher’s corroborated opinion that saying that Miscavige is “the leader of the Scientology religion” is incorrect. Coffeepusher, you have not cited any references to the “facts” that you state, including that “the structure of the official church being multifaceted with many elements being separate from his leadership.” It is based on your interpretation and opinion alone. Grayfell, you say it is “inconsistent with the facts.” I find this statement purely subjective. Last time I checked, it is the reliable sources that carry weight, which I have dutifully provided. The references I provided clearly show that Miscavige is the leader of the Scientology religion. You have not provided any references to back up your statements, and you did not provide adequate explanation for reverting my edit twice. I am adhering to policy, and you appear to be adhering to opinion. Wikipedia policy is supposed to outweigh opinion.Skyparkroute101 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well the first source is the caption on a photo, which is hardly a weighty, reliable source. The second refers to him as A leader of the Scientology religion, which is very different from what you're saying. The third calls him the wikt:Ecclesiastical leader of the religion. Ecclesiastical means 'relating to the church', so linking to the CoS seems like a prudent distinction to make here. The third one does refer to him as leader of the religion, but not before referring to him as leader of the Church, and the whole thing is in a conversational tone that suggests these kinds of distinctions should be weighed with caution. That's actually true for all of these. Most journalists prefer a more approachable style than Wikipedia uses. Saying he is leader of the religion is like saying that the U.S. President is 'Leader of the free world'. It's a phrase that may make sense in some contexts, but it's not automatically 'true' just because it's repeated by sources. A journalist referring to someone in passing as the leader of a religion is reasonable in an newspaper article, but not in a Wikipedia article.
That's not to say that we can't mention that he has been called that. Context matters, and this kind of distinction should be made in the body, not the lead. In the lead, it's just going to get too crowded and too clumsy. If you really need sources saying that the Church is multifaceted, they can easily be provided, but again, this seems like a point that is better explained in the body, not the lead. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Point in fact David Miscavigs is not as the proposed text suggests "the leader of the Scientology religion." He is the head ringleader of an organized criminal enterprise however understandly any such accurate description of the crime boss is going to run afoul of the need to apply neutral verbiage sans reference-capable felony indictments et al. Toward that end I have to agree that the wording "Leader of the Church of Scientology" is far more accurate than the obviously fictitious verbiage "Leader of the Scientology religion" which carries a claim which is grandly and obviously falsified. If there's a desire for accuracy, "Leader of the Church of Scientology" should be adopted, the obviously false "Leader of the Scientology religion" or any verbiage that supposes that Scientology is a religion should be struck. Damotclese (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Grayfell. I’m sorry but I included references to the point, but your response does not cite policy or include references at all. The references I cited are not controversial or obscure references as your assert arbitrarily, but to address your point, I’ve included more references that clearly refer to Miscavige as “the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion.” You say that something is not “automatically ’true’ just because it’s repeated by sources.” Last time I checked, verifiability outweighs “truth” (WP::NOTTRUTH)

Additional references: http://www.tampabay.com/news/david-miscavige-bio-and-bios-of-scientology-officials-who-defected/1012137 http://www.christianpost.com/news/church-of-scientology-building-multimillion-dollar-chapel-in-nycs-east-harlem-103222/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/lapd-dismisses-leah-reminis-missing-person-report-wife/story?id=19912347 http://www.minnpost.com/global-post/2012/09/church-scientology-opens-center-israel

Let me quote the section of the policy that is relevant to our discussion: “Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.”

It seems that your sole reason for reverting the edit is because you disagree with it. Policy clearly states that you “may not remove sources’ views from articles simply because [you] disagree with them.” Based on this alone, my edit must stand: I think I’ve provided enough sources to back it up.Skyparkroute101 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My sole reason for reverting the edit, huh? What do you think I've been trying to discuss here on the talk page, then? Let's not attempt to make this personal. WP:CIVIL and WP:ASSUME might be worth a review, which goes for Damotclese as well. Verifiability is important, but don't side-step a bunch of other policies along the way. As I hope you already know by now, verifiability is not the only criteria for inclusion. As I have already said, the article can say that sources have described him as the leader of the religion, but it is not Wikipedia's place to bestow that title on anyone. Not Jentzsch, not Miscavige, not even the Pope regarding Catholicism. Leader of the Roman Catholic Church? Sure, because Churches are defined organizations. Religions are much, much more personal and fluid, however. Do you see the distinction? If you really want to say that he's been "described" as the leader of the religion (which I'm not saying is a good idea) perhaps you should figure out a way to phrase it so that it's neutral and impartial. I maintain that trying to shoehorn that distinction into the very first sentence is doing a serious disservice to the article. I've also found sources that describe him as an 'usurper', but that sure as hell doesn't belong in the opening. Like I said, just because sources repeat something doesn't mean it's automatically true. If you want to get pedantic, replace 'true' with 'worth including in an article'. The lead is a place to make a clear, simple summary of the body of the article (MOS:LEAD). It's not the place for this kind of silliness. This is clearly a contentious issue about a living person, so restraint is called for. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Grayfell and Damotclese, and I would remind Damotclese that the scientology section of wikipedia is under the strictest sanctions of any section of wikipedia, and it may be a good idea to refrain from WP:POV laden accusations. Now to re-state my point, we can call him the leader of the Church of Scientology, but saying that he is the leader of the scientology religion is a lot more contentious. Ill accept COB of RTC, and even leader of the Church of Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like most editors are in agreement; it was already pointed out that David is not the "Leader of the Scientology religion" which is demonstrably false since he has zero involvement with and control of the Freezone, "Ron's Org," and other various "Indie" groups which freely practice Scientology, Dianetics, and other "clearing technology" which is classed by some people as the "Scientology religion." At the same time it is demonstrably true that David is the leader of the Church of Scientology which is a subset -- currently the largest subset -- of the overall body of practitioners.
And yes, editors. :) I am aware of the history of Wikipedia articles covering Scientology, NPOV guidelines, all that. I let the logobot send me to mediate seemingly endless edit wars where WP:NPOV is hotly contested in extant articles however in Talk:: I find it useful to relax guidelines intended primarily for extant articles. Check Damotclese for my history. Damotclese (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Upon reading through them, I’m afraid you have still failed to provide a substantial, WP policy and reference based argument to support your subjective opinions. Additionally, your allusion to being able to find any reference whatsoever saying anything about Miscavige, i.e., “he’s a usurper,” is not an apples to apples comparison nor analogous to the specific major media outlet and Wikipedia approved references I have thus far provided. (Let us all acknowledge that that type of language, i.e., “usurper,” is not normally used in authoritative publications). At this stage of discussion, I have now provided 7 different authoritative and Wikipedia approved media references (in the initial edit itself, and here at the talk page) that use the phrase being discussed here verbatim and supports the nomenclature “leader of the Scientology religion.” Again, your responses to such seem based solely on subjective opinion and devoid of supportive WP policy and authoritative references. If you can provide WP policy and third-party reference based support for your contention then we can begin to engage in constructive dialogue on this important edit. We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles, especially in the lead, correct. I look forward to working constructively with you on this edit.Skyparkroute101 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are based on WP:CONSENSUS, and compliance with policy is decided through consensus. We have already given you policies, most of which fall under WP:NPOV, but focusing on the letter of one policy to the exclusion of the spirit of the others is not helpful. The point I am trying to make is that this is not a neutrally worded sentence. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a formal tone, and using informally worded sources to support a contentious point in the article is bordering on deceptive. The fact that it is the very first sentence only make it worse.
I'm not sure why 'usurper' is unlikely to be used in authoritative publications. If such a term was used in the article, we'd have to clearly explain who was making that statement, but the word itself doesn't automatically invalidate the source. I'm not saying we should use that term, I'm saying we should be cautious of allowing informal or subjective wording to be used in a BLP. Likewise, I'm also not sure what a 'Wikipedia approved reference' is. From WP:RS: "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context".
Saying that our objections aren't based on policy makes it seem like you've been completely ignoring what we're trying to tell you. Before accusing us of bias, you should attempt to answer some of the counterpoints we've raised: How is this different from The Pope and Catholicism? What about the Free Zone? How about Jentzsch and the CoS International? Many religious scholars balk at calling Scientology a religion at all, wouldn't your proposed wording completely gloss-over their position? Why should this point be made in the first sentence, and not later where it can be given appropriate context? Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem Skyparkroute101, the policy you are asking us for is WP:WEIGHT. A simple search for David Miscavige will find out that a vast amount of reliable sources (I got over 20 just from the St. Petersburg Times, and other sources show that this is the dominant title)refer to him as "leader of the church of scientology" "church leader" "Chairman of the Board" etc. So the current verbiage is both consistent with consensus and reflective of the reliable sources. Damotclese, this conversation isn't about the status of the church of Scientology or your opinions of it as an organization. Introducing those elements into a talk page is divisive, and can be used to argue that a group of people are editing with an agenda. You are welcome to edit with an agenda in mind, but I believe that both User:Grayfell and myself are not interested in supporting a point of view which characterizes the church as a criminal organization or argues that Miscavige is an usurper. More importantly, those arguments have no relevance in this discussion. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Just to make myself absolutely clear, I am not saying we should describe him as an usurper -quite the opposite. The arguments used to call him 'leader of the religion' could just as easily be used to call him 'usurper'. Neither of those are appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Skyparkroute101, you note We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles... People who utilize Wikipedia are looking for accurate, testable, falsifiable information about something and are more interested in the real world realities of what they are researching, they are interested in either concensus in reporting from references and citations, or a preponderance of evidence offered in the references and citations. They are not wanting to find public relations propaganda or demonstrably incorrect textual claims, and it is demonstrably correct that David Miscavige is the leader of the Church of Scientology. All other proposed descriptions or titles are not supported by any testable, legitimate, reliable references.
Remember, this extant article is something of a biography of David Miscavige, editors need to utilize accurate, testable, falsifiable references and citations, and overwhelmingly the glut of real world information about David simply does not support the "leader of the Scientology religion" proposed alteration. Also I think I've offered enough time on this issue. We have a majority concensus and it's likely time to move on to other Wiki pages which need attention. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Time mention

My previously added information to the time mention was reverted because of WP:SYNTH. I've rewritten the information with more detail, with each point backed up by solid references, and made sure I did not synthesize any data. I believe that the Time article should be contextualized against the controversy that surrounded it, and also include how the subject of the page, Miscavige and the Church itself, responded to it.Mickmontez (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted part of it again. Here's the problem, where is the proof about the sales revenue claim? Your source says sales revenue for the drug Prozac was $770 million in 1990, then it says analyst projected sales revenue for 1991 at $1 billion. That's it, were sales for that year (1991) above or below $1 billion? Where is the proof connecting the drop in sales (if it did) with the campaign by Scientology? Dkspartan1 (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Mickmontez if you would please, post the proposed text you offered here in the Talk:: page so we can get a better look at what you proposed to use an as update. I would like to check the references and citations that you offer which show information on revenues for the drug Prozac, and if possible it would be good to see if you have a suitable reference for whether the publication of the Time Magazine article some how drove changes in sales volumes.
It may be that Ely Lilly provides sales data. That would be the best, most weighted source of information. Still, if some how the Time Magazine article altered Prozac sales, that would be very interesting and worth noting provided the source of the information is legitimate. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see in the news that the individual has been officially served legal papers ordering him to appear or answer for numerous crimes he committed as part of Scientology's "Narconon" crimes. Should that fact be added to the "criticism" section? Or should maybe a "legal" section be created? Damotclese (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

as of now I can only find the Tony Ortega site reporting on this, so as per WP:RS and WP:BLP I'm going to say we should not include it on this page until the sources pan out into something which will pass review.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Change

In Family and Personal Life, link #81 is dead. However, the Reuters article is still live at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/entertainment-us-leahremini-scientology-idUSBRE97800Q20130809. I tried to make the change, but don't seem to be doing it right. I invite anyone more competent than I (that would probably be most of you) to update the link.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Military rank in infobox

This edit switched the person infobox for template:infobox officeholder. I like the idea of incorporating the Sea Org rank into the infobox, but the way it was done implied that the Sea Org was a military organization, rather than a paramilitary organization. I don't think there is a simple way to change that, but that infobox is complicated enough that I may be wrong. Unless it can be modified to clearly indicate that he does not hold a rank in any military branch as that term is commonly understood this should not be restored. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

David is neither military nor clergy. I see that someone changed the infobox to "clergy" from "person" which I was going to revert if nobody had objections. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want, but I actually kind of like that one. That infobox, unlike "officeholder" doesn't actually introduce the term clergy to the article. It provides a place to mention the CoS as distinct from Scientology as a whole, which is a subtle but significant point, and mentioning the Sea Org seems... reasonable to me, I guess. The "ordained" field is debatable, and I would rather that be used for Chairman of the Board. Regardless, adding Jenna Miscavige Hill as a relation is a definite plus, but I think that'll work with all infoboxes for people. I could go either way. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it gets in to the whole question about what "ordained" means, and what "clergy" means. One could argue that the Italian Mafia's head ringleaders are "clergy" so I don't want to dive down in to that rabbit hole. Icould wonder if Scientology lawyers would object to the Wikipedia page under-scoring the Captian title, much as they did in the Texas court room. Probably good to leave the text and infobox as it is. Damotclese (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Including Jenna is a very good update, in fact something of a family tree might be interesting though if I'm not mistaken David M. does not have any famous or otherwise significant relations other than Jenna who is only famous for rejecting the whole criminal enterprise. Damotclese (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

Grayfell, I would like to appeal the reversion of my recent edit. I personally think the first few sentences of the media coverage and criticism section add nothing to the section and the deletion of it does not take away from the purpose of the lead. Better to go straight to the point. What do you think?Truegravity (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Copying my response on my talk page for convenience: For longer articles, I think it's useful and appropriate to be a bit redundant with summarizing. Wikipedia's leads are supposed to be (in an ideal world) stand-alone summaries of the articles, but the summarizing a lengthier or complex subsection is also appropriate. Since the section in question is just multiple paragraphs of examples, it makes the article more readable to briefly outline what those examples are getting at before diving into them. Some people dislike that kind of thing, but it's a useful way to accommodate readers who are only looking for specific information, as well as those with different reading styles. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to also suggest that the extant article is improved by retaining the summation information. When I'm doing research on things on line, I will send Wikipedia pages to my Kindle reader, and when I've got time to deep dive after reviewing the initial context, having links up front lets me page deep, back out, and page deep again, following the details as time permits.
One of the things that Wikipedia benefits from increasingly is the ability for mobile devices to harbor stored copies of texts with configurable levels of linkage. With my jail-broken Kindle Fire HD I can download hundreds of pages from a lump-off point by asking the Kindle to retrieve all pages 3, 4 or more links deep, being able to read them off line... Which is useful since I spend a lot of time in muddy ravines in the forest far from Internet access.
The summary paragraphs with suitable links is a very good thing. Many, many Wikipedia pages do it and I find it technologically beneficial. Damotclese (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Powell

I’ve made a few changes to the Family and Personal life section regarding the controversial incident with Powell and Ron Miscavige. TMZ does not comply with WP:RS, it is more widely known as a gossip magazine. Made the source the LA times the main source, the publication that first broke the story and cited by several other sources that re-told the story. Also, for NPOV, I’ve included Scientology response to the issue. Tony Ortega is a good source, but might be construed as a personal blog, so I’ve replaced it with the People magazine source that also includes statement by Scientology’s Pouw in response to the incident. Tightened up some of the wording for better reading. Replaced Ron Sr. with Ronald Sr as that is colloquial.Truegravity (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. That Powell said he had been surveilling Ron Sr. for over a year at significant expense seems important, so I've restored that part. While 'claim' is appropriate in this case since it's contested, per WP:CLAIM, I think just 'said' is more neutral, so I've switched that while I was there. I've restored/fixed the link to the Today show source. It's not offering much new info, but for WP:DUE it's helpful to establish that this was covered by multiple major outlets. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
--heh-- It was almost certainly much more than a year. Mr. Miscavige has almost certainly had his father tailed and followed and his activities faithfully reported back to David for decades, even before the a.r.s-driven exposures started getting significant media and law enforcement attention. Damotclese (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Grayfell. I agree with your points on the Powell entry, the TODAY reference was inaccessible on my end and wouldn't load, and I thought there was some kind of problem with the video. Good to enforce notability, and the time and expense related to Powell is definitely important. I've recently shortened a portion this aforementioned section because it reads in a choppy way (section related to the Tobin and Childs reports on Miscavige allegations). I think the section reads stronger if we just mention what the allegations where without convoluting it with other details.Truegravity (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Truegravity: See WP:LINKROT regarding dead links. This is a tough one. Miscavige has been accused by dozens of people of regularly beating, assaulting, and confining employees and church members. Simply saying "violence" is going to prompt more questions than it answers, but the old phrasing was definitely chunky. The article on The Hole (Scientology) is lengthy and well sourced (it's a good article, even) which suggests that the connection is significant enough to explain in greater details, and a wikilink here is very helpful. There is also problems with WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. As a starting point, every allegation needs to be attributed and supported by reliable, secondary sources, but there's a lot more to it. I believe your version was too watered-down to be ideal, but I'm open to differing opinions. That version failed to clearly indicate exactly what the allegations were in a meaningful way. The allegations are more specific and are severe enough that they should be better contextualized than that. I've tried to rephrase it to include those details while still being easier to read. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, (talk), I saw that and wondered whether it was appropriate to even have in this biography, in part because Miscavige meets the "living persons" guidelines of Wikipedia but mostly because the extant individual's business ethics and behavior in this following of his father around isn't exactly encyclopedia, if you see my meaning.
Look at printed published encyclopedias of history, and none of them would publish such information for any living individual. It's informative, yes, and it helps to describe the core criminality of the man and his fear of having more of his behavior exposed, yet it kind of doesn't belong in any kind of professional encyclopedia... which Wikipedia is not. :) Damotclese (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... I dunno. This is a BLP issue, but these are documented by reliable source, and Miscavige is pretty clearly a public figure (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). No easy answers here. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yucky! Thanks, I should read that whole WP:BPL again, yet that ends up looking a bit tabloid and yellow journalism rather than like a professional encyclopedia. Interesting. I'll read BLP again, because the Robert Minton article needs to be updated a little bit, and I have been working to stop inappropriate updates to the Phil Mason page which is also BLP. Damotclese (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use a blog for living persons, even if the blog claims to be publishing a court document / affidavit

Damotclese (talk · contribs), you reverted my edit with the note, "Court document cited is valid -- let's discuss in Talk: please -- Undid revision 698458747 by Sfarney." My original edit deleted the statement and the source because Tonyortega.com is a blog, and we cannot use a blog for a living person. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. The purported court document may or may not be valid, but it is a primary source. Even worse, it is just a sworn statement, not a court ruling. Anyone can say anything in an affidavit, running only a small risk of penalty for perjury. But worst of all, we have no real basis to believe it is a real court document. It appears on a blog, which is itself not an RS. This is not Wiki quality RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: "Primary sources should almost always be avoided, especially in law. Many court documents are advocacy pieces by one of the lawyers and even the judge's opinion is often overturned several times in appellate courts or ignored in favor of a compromise/settlement after the hearing. There is no way to tell if any particular document represents the final outcome. The press also often mis-reports on legal issues, due to a lack of expertise. The best possible secondary sources would be law journals. This might help. I have no COI with this page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)" [1] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the only source that I can find, but it's the sworn testimony of someone who was one of the most senior members of the church, so I've done the following:
  • Used the version from archive.org (original scanned document instead of blog post)
  • Made it clear in the text that this is what Rathbun claims: I think that covers the issue of it being from a court document.
I don't think it's a particularly controversial or outlandish claim, but it is significant, so I'd like us to use all relevant evidence that we can muster here. --Slashme (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You are right that the fact it supports is not particularly significant. But now that we have removed the blog source, we have no source at all. It's anonymous. How do we know it is an unaltered court document? Because it says it is? In that case, I should tell you am offering for sale at a very reasonable price the deed to a bridge in NY ... That is why we need secondary sources. We are better off just leaving it off. We have other sources to support the statement fact. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made some changes, but the more I look into this the less confident I am of how to include this material. As far as the affidavit goes, this source appears perfectly usable as a reputable publisher of a primary court document, as the Tulsa World is an RS. I'm really not sure we want to include that, though. We have the Janet Reitman book which also supports his rank (the link now works), but that if that book specifically says "captain is the highest rank" I couldn't find it. There's also Debbie Cook, who apparently also rose to the rank of captain at Flag Land Base,[1] which means that captain should not be presented as the highest rank. Is this actually a cause for confusion, or is it just me? As far as I know, nobody is credibly denying that Miscavige is the highest ranking member of, well the entire Church, but how much the title itself matters isn't settled by either source. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&curid=11424955&diff=698558971&oldid=698558104#Universal_Life_Church. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Is that the question? Heck, it's hardly relevant to anything. It may be a monarchy, a triumvirate, a hexumvirate, or anything else. People can't even agree on the rules of football, or the capital of Texas. What happens when they are out of the game for a few years, then try to write a book about it? Bottom line: the information is not reliable. We have the same problem with the E-meter. Many of the RS say Hubbard invented it. Right beside that, Corydon says Hubbard stole if from Mathison, who invented it in the 1940s. Beside that, we have Mathison's own words that he invented it in 1950 after hearing a Hubbard lecture. Hubbard agrees. The sources on much of this material are not good. They are ordinary people, not scholars or memory magicians. They are the same people who can't remember the color of the car that came out of the left lane or right lane, or something, and they give their sworn evidence in court contradicting each other. Particularly, memories are most often bad about an emotionally uncomfortable experience, and that is how those ex-member describe their histories. Allow me to suggest that where we have contradictory information, neither source is reliable. We find a better source or we drop the statement. Or if the point is important, we cite the contradiction. That is the way any good historian handles the problem. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Janet Reitman is a journalist who currently writes for Rolling Stone. Are you saying her book isn't reliable? Is there any problem with using that source to say that Miscavige is the Captain of the Sea Org, and that he is the highest ranked member of the Sea Org? The affidavit is just too weak for this point, even being repeated by a RS, so we really only have the one source, as far as I can see. If two reliable sources disagree, which happens all the time, then they aren't automatically treated as unreliable, they are presented in proportion to their WP:DUE weight, but I don't see any sources saying that Miscavige isn't the highest ranking person in the Sea Org, and that seems unlikely. Grayfell (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The questions here are:

  1. Is Miscavige the leader of the Sea Org?
  2. Does he hold the rank of captain?
  3. Is he the only permanent captain?
  4. Does he appoint temporary captains to obfuscate his role?

I don't think anyone is seriously denying the first two points, and we have a book source and a sworn statement from Marty Rathburn, a very senior ex-member of the organisation, now reported in a reliable news source, so I think those are OK.

As for points 3 and 4, we only have the court testimony, which is probably true because of the source, but it's certainly a primary source, so shouldn't stand on its own to support anything contentious. I think it's probably best to leave those two items out for now. --Slashme (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The questions are irrelevant to anything of substance. The Church of Scientology may or may not have a "single highest ranking" official. Some organizations are not monolithic. The Church of Scientology seems to have one organization within another -- the Sea Org with its own ranking system, of which the members staff a number of church organizations, each with its own ranking system, independent of the Sea Org rank. And Miscavige's RTC is only one of those organizations. If the question were important, we could examine the corporate legal papers -- which should be public -- but that would answer the question for only the RTC, not necessarily any of the churches. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority reliable, independent sources state that he is the leader of the entire Church of Scientology as an organization including the Sea Org, of which he is also a member, but as Grammar says, that only sometimes matches with the Church's own description of his role. The very few exceptions in usable sources point to people like Heber Jentzsch as counter examples, but again, most sources also describe Scientology's legal structure as deliberately convoluted. Trying to make a single coherent sentence from all these sources is asking for WP:SYNTH, so keeping it simple seems like the way to go. Corporate legal papers are exactly the kind of primary sources we should't be using without outside commentary or analysis. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Heehee! Ain't that the truth? The one set of documents that might settle the question are off-limits to our work. Our critics might say, "The rules of Wikipedia are as Byzantine as the Church of Scientology." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Sometimes I think they might be right. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Still, it's not as if we're chucking out sources just because there's some arbitrary rule that says so. This whole discussion has been around the concept of whether we are summarising what reliable sources are saying about the subject, and not just picking any sources that fit some convenient narrative. If we allow questionable sources, then we'll have questionable conclusions in our articles, and we'll be susceptible to POV-pushing. The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing. --Slashme (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's frustrating because "I know I read is somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it was reliable" is the thought that pops up, but of course, that's never going to work, for many very good reasons. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but I get why so many editors think it is. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing. -- well said, Slashme (talk · contribs). That is a lean&mean statement of my work in the last few days, pruning these contentious articles of blogs and other wobbly sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Early life

A book on the Legendary Locals of Willingboro by Josh Bernstein reveals greater detail on Miscavige's early life, and I added a few that weren't included here to further enrich the section and inject greater continuity. Such details are hard to find on the web, and I think it will do a service to readers to include these details from Bernstein's book. Thanks.Truegravity (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been mentioned in an obscure local book is not, itself, worth mentioning. Calling someone "award winning" without explaining the award is specifically cited as an example at WP:PEACOCK. "Suited up" is too cutesy, and that exact phrase has been added and removed before, suggesting that it comes from Miscavige or his publicists. This level of extreme minutia would need context explaining why it's encyclopedically significant. He's a religious figure, not an athlete. Why is having played football for an indeterminate amount of time as a young child any more informative than his "love of scrapple" or other transparently PR-minded tidbits that have been included in the past? Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Listing 10,000 people in attendance

Actual numbers were around 1,000 customers according to photographs, however the proposed commentary about the incident also does not qualify to be added to a biography of a living person. When David goes to a grocery store and buys something, we don't add commentary about it to Wikipedia. :) Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Ultimatorr -- Single Purpose Account

We should probably get User:Ultimatorr blocked now to avoid waste of editor volunteer time. He/She is obviously a WP:SPA and is likely the same editor who has been banned from vandalizing R2-45. Let's not get dragged in to another lengthy "Dev-T" fiasco and block this person immediately. Damotclese (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Contributions/Ultimatorr -- recommend immediate ban. Damotclese (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Damotclese, I’ve only recently started editing and it just so happens that I started with the David Miscavige page. I looked into the policy on single-purpose accounts and I am not a single-purpose account and have created this account with the intention of contributing to other Wikipedia pages. My edit history is too young for you to be making such an accusation. I also have no knowledge of the R2-45 issue that you mentioned, and I doubt that you have any technical evidence to prove your claim, because I am not connected to it at all.Ultimatorr (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been many, many SPAs and socks involved in Scientology, and so there is plenty of reasons to be skeptical for this page, and the larger topic in general (we should WP:AGF, but that's not a suicide WP:PACT).
Because there have been many of them, tying any one editor to any one sock/farm is tricky. Sometimes they get blocked, but SPI is unpredictable, so I've only been bothering when they become disruptive. Often a knowledgeable admin will steps in before that, anyway. Either way, Ultimatorr, if you are serious about editing other areas, there's no time like the present. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientology Media Productions

The media production facility has no shortage of coverage in the media, I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. It has been called "Scientology's CNN." I have also replaced the reference with a much better source to support the text, a credible news publication that mentions numbers and includes quotes. Here are some links prior to event anticipating it. Thank you. http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.movienewsguide.com/tom-cruise-puts-scientology-media-productions-plans-movies-related-scientology/75478 http://www.inquisitr.com/2255501/tom-cruise-renews-his-dedication-to-scientology-with-a-global-agenda/ http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/57963/20150716/tom-cruise-scientology-global-domination-new-church-studios-brainwashing-recruitment.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156464/Inside-Tom-Cruise-s-Scientology-CNN-TV-news-network-set-launched-new-Hollywood-50-million-studio-bigger-Paramount.html Ultimatorr (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This claim to significance is WP:OR. The quote from Miscavige is far too promotional to be included based on one source by a Sydney-based reporter who almost certainly didn't even attend the event. All of those additional sources you link predate this one event, which makes this WP:SYNTH. Redbook, MovieNewsGuide, Inquisitr (which is not a WP:RS), and China Topix, don't mention Miscavige at all. The Daily Mail one (which is a tabloid, and should only be used with caution per WP:GOSSIP) mentions Miscavige, but it's mostly concerned with Tom Cruise (who apparently wasn't even at the opening). That article also quotes several people who claim that the studio is a waste of time/boondoggle/publicity stunt, since it's redundant with facilities at Gold Base. Even if this one opening were worth mentioning, it would need to be presented neutrally. Do not restore this content without first discussing it here. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Public relations web sites are not legitimate references or citations. Also the photographs of the PR event proves that Scientology's PR claims are lies. Damotclese (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Damotclese, the site I used was not a PR site. It was www.news.com.au and a news blog called Australian Women’s Weekly. A third reference is Christian Examiner. (http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) These are credible news sources.Ultimatorr (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I understand your points. If you would like to post a different version, one that you would deem more neutral, what would you recommend? I propose something that goes simply like this: "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages."Ultimatorr (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure you do understand my points. You haven't explained why this should be included at all. Miscavige does events like this all the time, and has for years as part of his job. You would need to find a better source explaining why this one specific event was biographically significant, not just that it happened. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The notability of Scientology Media Productions, and the fact that it has been awaited by media, non-members and church members alike as seen in the media speculation and coverage around it is enough. There are three major news sources that reported on the opening, Australian Women’s Weekly, News.com.au and just recently, Christian Examiner (http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) Miscavige’s speeches aren’t always reported by media and based on the reports and the lengthy inclusion of his speech, he played a big part in the opening of the media production facility. The restoration of the media facility has been covered by media ever since the church acquired KCET studios in 2011. Less newsworthy and noteworthy things have been posted on Wikipedia. Since this happened under Miscavige’s leadership, it would only make sense to post it here.Ultimatorr (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I foresee that it will be difficult for us to come to a consensus and I've researched an alternative. I have posted straightforward information based on several credible sources regarding Scientology Media Productions in a section that I've found where it better belongs, the production facilities section of the Church of Scientology page.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Production_Facilities). Two other facilities are already mentioned there. Thank you.Ultimatorr (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, this is obviously a Scientology owner/operator/customer who has created a WP:SPA and is engaged in WP:NOTHERE who needs to be banned. This is probably the same individual who wasted a month worth of volunteer time in R2-45 who is being sanctioned. This sock puppet account needs to be banned and the abusive individual's IP needs to be blocked. Damotclese (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimatorr, did you actually read the Christian Examiner source? It's specifically about the CoS's press release about the event opening. The very first paragraph makes the claim that ...the cult and its leaders have revamped the church's media strategy as an attempt at deflecting negative attention. Do you really want to incorporate content from that source into this article? C'mon now, get real. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, I think it's time to revisit the inclusion of Miscavige's inauguration of the media production center. Several new, and unquestionably credible sources have covered the opening, all of them mentioning Miscavige's role and excerpts of his speech in the opening event. I reiterate what I've said before about why this should be included here, and these new sources should be sufficient to fulfill Wikipedia's reliable source policy. We could simply say "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." See references below: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/21/church-scientology-opens-50-million-media-production-complex-hollywood/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#5ba245cb62af https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/church-of-scientology-opens-film-studio-complex-hollywood https://www.rt.com/usa/347840-scientology-propaganda-network-launched/Ultimatorr (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Content from Forbes' "contributors" is not the same as content from their journalists, and isn't usually considered reliable. Breitbart.com is absolutely not a reliable source for factual statements. The RT article is tabloid nonsense which shouldn't be included either. That leaves the Guardian piece. It only mentions Miscavige twice by name as "organisation's controversial leader" and gives some direct quotes from his speech as context for the event. It's the same quotes as the News.com.au source, which means it's just talking points from a prepared speech, and indicates that this was again, not written by a journalist who attended the event. Nothing about this seems worth commenting on.
Why do you even want to add this here? Is this the Church of Scientology's new media center, or is this David Miscavige's personal media center? If you have sources saying the latter, then I'm all ears, but until then, this is, at most, worth a brief mention somewhere else, such as Church of Scientology, but not here. Oh, and don't consider that an endorsement of any such content being added, merely that sources are overwhelmingly about the Church's new media center, with Miscavige depicted as a spokesperson for the Church. Several sources have suggested that the PR blitz surrounding the media center is intended to deflect attention away from Scientology and Miscavige's many controversies and PR troubles. Since this is supported by sources, it would be inappropriate to include mention of the media center without also mentioning that part, but I don't see any benefit to either. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
At core is the need to ensure that the article does not get public relations propaganda added to it, either from David Miscavige's employees themselves or spoon-fed propaganda fed to in effect transcription services like Forbes which will publish anything they are paid to publish. And yeah, Breightbart is flat-out propaganda, basically a spoof web site that something around a third of the U. S. populace believes is some how legitimate.
The article here is about David Miscavige, a WP:BLP and not about the various failed business offices he's had his customers buy for him. Damotclese (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New discussion

Grayfell. I took your feedback to the other editor and I researched the event of the opening of the media production facility but I still cannot understand why you would say this event is not biographically significant. Miscavige does not do events like this all the time as far as I could find, as you claimed, and this facility as far as I can research, isn’t a church, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I found, plus the opening of the broadcast location, which I read was previously inhabited by public broadcasting network KCIT, as far as I could research, is a first for them and Miscavige.

Now, you’re the admin, and I’m new, so trying to learn, but as far as I can tell, I’ve used Reuters, a source that is valid and credible to Wikipedia, no? Please correct if wrong. The talk page discussion with the other editor questioned the references he used, but I’ve used a different reference, so this is a different case, no?Bluefishwarp (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The Reuters piece is four paragraphs, only one of which mentions Miscavige, and only in passing as the leader of the church. The source doesn't even clearly say that he attended the opening. It also doesn't directly quote him, only a paraphrase, which you misrepresented as a direct quote. This studio is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it's lasting relevance to Miscavige has not been established by any sources I've seen so far.
What was originally merely my suspicion has becoming increasingly undeniable: Miscavige is attempting to get this trivial event mentioned in this article for some silly reason. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. If you really are a totally neutral editor who just happened to stumble on this issue (which, at this point, is unlikely) then you should know that past history, such as Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, means that edits will be scrutinized more closely and patience for advocacy will be very thin. Doing a handful of simple gnome edits doesn't completely eliminate the concerns that come with being single purpose account. I strongly advise you to get some experience editing elsewhere for a while before tackling this topic. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yet also these Real Estate purchases and "openings" don't have anything to do with actual biography. If any of these property purchases and "openings" were to be covered for any reason in this biography, editors would also need to cover the inevitable closing and sale of these empty business offices. Buying and selling property for profit is not something that is biographical. Damotclese (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were an admin. I believe you are creating the burden of various references being able to explicitly show the relevance of Miscavige to the event. Even if the source doesn’t say that he attended the event, the other sources that have been mentioned here clearly says so. I wasn’t misrepresenting that quote but included the quotation marks to include what the article said verbatim and avoid plagiarism. Reuters is only one reference, but as other references show, the fact that he is mentioned time and again, he is relevant to the opening. A few publications even mention that it’s the church’s CNN. Here are some references pointing to the fact: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#49d0469f62af http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629275/Scientology-s-50million-Hollywood-studio-opens-religion-promises-reach-virtually-person-Earth.html http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/07/tom_cruise_scientology_studio_movies_tv_network_cnn.html

It’s the first time in the history of his leadership that he’s built and launched something that references have said is the church’s CNN, and that in itself makes it pretty noteworthy and major. I can't see how this is not neutral as it is based on a strong reference. And as for what you seem to be accusing me of, I did not come to Wikipedia to promote anybody’s interests, but thought this would be a relevant and timely addition given the coverage about it. Yes, I did stumble upon it, and I’m particularly interested in controversial topics such as this. I am learning as I go, and opened up this discussion to come up with an agreement and amicably compare notes. I’m looking at your edit history and it seems that you have an interest in this topic and have a history of rejecting edits on related pages. It seems that you are determined to keep this content off the page, so I’m going to move on.

Damotclese, this is your personal opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t see that rule anywhere in Wikipedia.Bluefishwarp (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please move on. Not everything which is "the first time in the history of his leadership" is notable, or even close to notable. I'm sure at some point he, for the first time in the history of his leadership, did some business in Texas, or Visited Taiwan, or wore a pink tie with burgundy socks. That doesn't mean it's notable. "The Church's CNN"? That's a press-blurb which nobody is taking seriously. Has anyone said that since it was opened, or was that just part of the press-packet that's otherwise now forgotten? This is just PR nonsense. Actually, has any source said anything about Miscavige's connection to this opening since it happened at all? If so, maybe we can discuss it, but I seriously doubt it.
Many Scientology articles get slow-burned by conspicuously new editors who add very obscure, borderline trivial items based on equally obscure sources. The end result, which is painfully obvious to all neutral observers, is that articles get flooded with good or at least boringly neutral content which drowns-out all the unflattering controversy. This isn't to say that Wikipedia's coverage is otherwise sterling, but this isn't a viable solution to that problem, and it just makes everyone look worse in the long-run.
Wikipedia covers topics in proportion to WP:DUE weight of reliable sources. The Church of Scientology has maybe 50,000* active members internationally, but I've lost track of how many articles are about the religion. Why? Why is there so much lengthy, trivial coverage of every WP:FART for such a small church? I have my own theories, but maybe I've been at this too long, so as an impartial observer who just happened to stumble on to this topic, I'd love to hear your explanation for this phenomenon. Grayfell (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluefishwarp (talk) for commenting again, from my perspective Wikipedia has guidelines rather than hard-fast carved-in-stone rules, certain there are tens of thousands of articles now which exceed what many people consider to be rules.  :) I look at things as guidelines rather than rules since editors deviate for good and for bad reasons.
In this particular case, we are looking at a biography of a living person WP:BLP which kind of suggests that mundane Real Estate purchases isn't exactly biographical, and also as Grayfell (talk) notes, is rather Undue Weight. Editors could list every property purchase that Miscavige does using his customer's money, yet editors would need to also list every sale or go back and remove the text covering purchases... Which is rather tedious but also which is not done for any other public figure I'm aware of. Damotclese (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed blow-job vandalism

I removed this, as amusing as it is:

When not humiliating people, Miscavige fellates space aliens.[1][2]

Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Joe Childs, Thomas C. Tobin (June 23, 2009). "The Truth Run Down". St Petersburg Times. Retrieved June 23, 2009.
  2. ^ Joe Childs, Thomas C. Tobin (June 23, 2009). "Inside Scientology: A Times Investigation". St Petersburg Times. Retrieved January 21, 2012.

List of cults classification

A suggested edit for List of cults was reverted. It seems to me that the classification is a valid one so I reverted it to restore the classification. What are other editor's opinion on this? Damotclese (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Also the link to the Wikipedia page for list of "new religious movements" does in fact include Scientology so the classification appears to be solid. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Since that's a redirect to List of new religious movements I've changed it. Looking at its history, the redirect is itself mildly controversial, and I have a feeling an article titled 'List of cults' would get deleted pretty quickly. (At one point it redirected to what's now Governmental lists of cults and sects, which looks interesting, but seems like way too much of a stretch for this article.) Its inclusion here looks like a round-about way of applying a subjective label to the Church of Scientology, which isn't going to work, per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks a lot cleaner. Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Miscairrage = Myszkiewicz.

Miscairrage was originally spelt Myszkiewicz. It's a Polish name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.216.160 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mvaldemar why did you remove that detailed information?

Mvaldemar, what is your explanation for removing that information? I'm looking at reverting your removal. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Please add to See Also 😀

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

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

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

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


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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Lead modification.

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018

ther is a "on June 2018" hat should b "in June 2018" 2605:E000:9149:A600:60D1:B731:8D72:2CF6 (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Distance from Philadelphia

Listen guys, as a long time resident of South Jersey and living across the River from good old Bristol, I can tell you its not 115 miles away from Philly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:c380:5d40:8de7:e13d:e8fb:dc9f (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. And? Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the Sea Org

As the highest ranking officer in the Sea Org, is there a reason why this is not mentioned in the lead? He is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology in his position as Chairman of the Board RTC, which grants him ecclesiastical authority over all Scientologists, both public, civilian staff, and Sea Org, but at the same time he is also the Captain of the Sea Org, which gives him absolute authority over the Sea Org command structure and all Sea Org orgs. Was this discussed at all previously? Laval (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

Should it be mentioned that he is a high school drop out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.95.191 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bias in the article

The article includes elements such as "church representative". To me this is a problem because I do not see the scientology corporation as a church, so the content is problematic; possibly for others too. By calling the scientology corporation a church, you lend credibility to the claim of it being a religion - for people without a confession this is problematic.

Ideally the article could be rewritten in a more objective, facts-first manner. I don't know what other terms could be used that are more neutral; the term "corporation" may also be problematic due to legal status of scientology in the USA. A more objective term may be "organization", since that does not imply as much as either "religion" (what the ...) or "church" or corporation.

You may wonder why I made this comment? Ideally wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, at all times, based on facts, with as little bias as possible. I do not like the scientology corporation and the sooner it is disbanded, the better - but I also dislike reading content that insinuates that there is a "church representative", since that would imply that scientology is a church/religion, which it clearly is not (at the least not to people outside of the USA; it is not recognized in Europe as religion, for instance, so it CAN NOT legally be called a "church" there). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:419C:5734:36D4:E382 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Rosita Šorytė, who is quoted in the Covid section, works for a Scientology front group (ORLIR, the International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees), and the publishers of her book, FoRB.PRESS, are another Scientology front group, with the general mission of having Scientology recognized as a religion in Europe. Her apologia for Miscavige's Covid comments shouldn't be presented as a neutral source. 172.113.46.119 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

"Official Church of Scientoloy biographies describe Miscavige" There is a typo in this part of the lead. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:F5B1:8E41:2FD0:A86 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Evasion of service

Is it worth mentioning in the article that Miscavige has for some reason been evading service for the human trafficking lawsuit between April and September 2022 (Scientology staff members telling process servers that "he doesn't work here and doesn't live here" at whatever building at which they try to find him)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Where has this been reported? —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done Yes, it's worth mentioning in the relevant section. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige/Archive_4&oldid=1227942610"