Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 3

rmv uncited direct quote

Thanks Cirt. I recognize that my edit was removed due to lack of citation. I have inserted the same edit and cited the web source I had taken it from, which is a source that was used in the same category - Public Contact. Thank you. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

rmv, seems more spam advert promotional rather than biographical in nature.

Thanks Cirt. With all due respect, I resent my edit that was posted on the "Rise to leadership" category. The statement in question was taken out of http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012137.ece, a credible source that has been cited by other editors. This news article is informational and not commercial in nature -- St. Petersburg Times' journalistic tone is not promotional. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by BTfromLA (talk · contribs): "Restoring Cirt's last version. These seem to be promotional utterances that add nothing to the biographical article. Please discuss on talk page before restoring those again.". Please do not add this back. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Promo material

[1] = yet more promo material being pushed in here. What makes this noteworthy? How is this singular quote significant to this individual's life and biography? -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no reason for its inclusion, particularly not the non-quote material. Even the quote - "we believe in human rights" etc. - is dubious because redundant, considering Freedom Magazine regularly argues against psychiatry as being against human rights so it obviously stands for what it thinks of as human rights. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Though don't want to drive away new editors, I must concur. The recent addition reads like rhetoric from a speech or advertisement, it doesn't add to an encyclopedic description of the subject. BTfromLA (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding new subsection: Role in Restoration of Lost Scientology Materials

I am adding a new subsection called "Role in Restoration of Lost Scientology Materials." The transcript of the edit is as follows:

In January 2010, David Miscavige concluded leading an effort to locate, restore and transcribe lost pieces of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writing, audio lectures and films. Hubbard initiated the restoration project prior to his 1986 death. Over 1,000 unreleased recordings of lectures by Hubbard and corresponding writings have been revealed in the culmination of a 25-year project. .

The purpose of this edit is to describe Miscavige's involvement in the restoration of the Lost Scientology Materials. This is up-to-date biographical information that shows a significant part of his role as the leader of the Scientology religion. Note: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR have been complied upon in posting this edit.AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I have one nitpicking question about the use of the word "revealed" in "revealed in the culmination of a 25-year project," because I'm not entirely sure what it was that was "revealed" and to whom. If that could be a bit clearer that would be great, unless the source itself is sort of vague on this point. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Appreciate your feedback. I have returned to the source to explore the posted question and found -- yes, the source itself is vague on this point, but it is assumed that the works were "revealed" to the general public.AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is again yet more promotional POV pushing by the account AlexJohnTorres12 (talk · contribs), quite likely yet another sockpuppet of indef-blocked Shutterbug (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cirt is right that the tone sounds like pure CoS advertising copy, and doesn't belong here. It does seem that it would be legit, though, to mention this and other Miscavige intiatives (Golden Age of Tech, Ideal Orgs, etc.), if that can be done in a more distanced, reportorial manner. Cirt, do you have evidence for your accusation of sockpuppetry? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Cirt. With all due respect, I have complied with guidelines and taken to the talk page before posting the edit. Wikipedia administrator John Carter approved my edit before I posted it. (See above) How is this promotional, when it is significant information on David Miscavige's role as the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology? I have complied with all Wikipedia guidelines regarding BLP. It seems that you are labeling most of my edits as "promotional" when I am simply adding more information in the interest of producing a well-balanced biography. I am unsure why I am being accused of being a Shutterbug "sock puppet", when I was never aware of this case until you recently mentioned it. There is no evidence that can be presented to prove your claim. This comes across as provocative and is not what I would expect after reading WP:AGF AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, thank you for your intervention. Perhaps you can suggest a revision that would be much more acceptable? AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

well the fact that the language mirrors (to the point of plagiarism) "Scientology Today's" report of Davies work makes it appear more than just promotional in nature. Coffeepusher (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

oh and it appears there is some evidence to you being a sock of Shutterbug, possibly the checkuser. Besides this entire conversation has an oddly familiar tone, see the conversation with the other sock above Coffeepusher (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

family?

does he have a wife or kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.156.232 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wife, no kids. Perhaps you could suggest some WP:RS sources for this. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

[2], BLPN. --JN466 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored it. It goes directly to context of info in the subsection. It does indeed deal directly with Miscavige. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph myself, save for one sentence noting Rathbun ceased the practice himself [3]. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Camera-Shy Miscavige

During the CNN weeklong segment on 'Scientology: a history of Voilence', Miscavige appeared to be terrified of having to appear on camera. In fact, he has only appeared on camera once. This is very unusual. He often sends spokesman Tommy Davis Zoara2010 (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is perhaps a contributing factor to why there is no free-use image of the individual available yet, for use on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Image found on Flickr now on commons and added The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) added an image to Commons under an inappropriate Flickr license, and it has been tagged for speedy deletion at Commons. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

its all clearly labeled there Please discuss on talk page there. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC) nevermind i thought that was too easy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism"

[4] this seems to be an arbitrary distinction by Jayen466 (talk · contribs). These are events that were reported in secondary sources. The label and pushing them down the page calling them "Criticism", is an WP:OR characterization by a single Wikipedia user. The article should be presented in a straight and matter-of-fact chronological format. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right; I considered it at one point, but found myself inwardly nodding to your revert and agree it works better the way we have it now. --JN466 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Chrono order

Please, keep things in chrono order. This move change of text is inappropriate, as it moves events out of chronological order. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; again, I agreed with you once I had checked the dates. (Did you notice there was a 2005 source in with that? Must have ended up there accidentally.) --JN466 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

EL

I removed one EL; it didn't meet BLP policy. --JN466 01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

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

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

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

Are there? The only websource I found for it was this Wikipedia article: [6] --JN466 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Try without "movement", and adding, "Scientology": [7] -- Cirt (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent review of St. Petersburg Times reporting

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

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

Clean-up of lead

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

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

Proposed Edits

Hello,

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

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

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

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

The new New Yorker article states that "According to Rinder and Brousseau, in June, 2006, while Miscavige was away from the Gold Base, his wife, Shelly, filled several job vacancies without her husband’s permission. Soon afterward, she disappeared. Her current status is unknown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.205.118 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Would like to make a few points.

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

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

To recap, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weasel words, etc.

From the end of the 3rd paragraph:

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

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

Clearly a fairly obvious opinion, however. How Scientologists "portray" him seems to be the sense of the statement. It does not say "Scholars say he is a servant of LRH's message" after all. Collect (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong point about statement: "Scholars observe, however, that he is portrayed as "a servant of Hubbard's message," rather than a religious leader in his own right. This assertion is actually backed up by two very good references. May I suggest to cite these two references: "Controversial new religions" By James R. Lewis, Jesper Aagaard Petersen, page 247, and "The invention of sacred tradition" By James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer, page 36. The statement above is clearly supported by information in these books. Hope this helps. Comments and feedback welcome. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Education

The article seems to indicate that Mr. Miscavige's education ended at the age of 16. Is this correct? No high school diploma or university degree? 109.228.169.205 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

that is correct, he left school to join the Sea Org.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete section

The article currently says: "In 2009, Miscavige was named as a defendant in a lawsuit for slavery and child labor by a former Scientologist." This section is incomplete as the case (of a Headley couple) was dismissed later on. In August 2010, a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer, dismissed Marc and Claire Headley's lawsuits before they made it to trial with a judgment that read: “With the arguments having been presented and fully considered, the issues having been heard, and a decision having been rendered, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff [Headley] take nothing, that his claims be dismissed on their merits and with prejudice...” I saw that the judge took it a step further by ordering the Headleys to pay the Church court costs totaling more than $40,000.

I therefore propose to either take out the the 2009 sentence or add the following:

"In August 2010, a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer, dismissed the lawsuits before they came to trial. The judgment says: “With the arguments having been presented and fully considered, the issues having been heard, and a decision having been rendered, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff [Headley] take nothing, that his claims be dismissed on their merits and with prejudice...”[8].NestleNW911 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up on this request. Also wanted to add that I've derived this information from these references: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/PDFs/scientology080510.pdf http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/judge-dismisses-two-lawsuits-aimed-at-scientology/1113544 http://newscastmedia.com/blog/2010/08/06/lawsuits-filed-against-scientology-tossed-out-by-judge

Thank you. Looking forward to feedback and action.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the given ref, you can see that the case referred to is John Lindstein's and not the Headleys'. The above refs are irrelevant to whether that point should be present in the article. I'm going to restore it. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I was somehow referring to a different case. But still the Lindstein case you mention has been dismissed in December 2010 (Los Angeles County Superior Court register, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil ,Case#BC426872) so the article text is moot since months and should be removed. Additionally, according to WP:NOTNEWS, The report about the court case was a "news item" in 2009 but is not anymore in 2011, as proven by the fact that the case was dismissed in December 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NestleNW911 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Court records do show the case was dismissed. --JN466 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JN466, I appreciate your acknowledgement. I have also revised the last statement on the 2nd paragraph of the "Reports of Abuse" section. Based on WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and NPOV that says Wikipedia editors must "ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view": I have revised it to acknowledge Rathbun's conflicting statements about the issue, as well as Rinder's.

I have cited the following references: http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart3.html http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012139.ece

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits: Sidebar

About the entries in the sidebar: Miscavige's residence is not Hemet, California but in Los Angeles, where the location of RTC's headquarters is. Also because of the nature of the RTC (Religious Technology Center) the word "Employer" is inappropriate. All RTC staff are volunteers and members of Scientology's religious order - the Sea Organization. Furthermore, I have done some research on pages of similar religious leaders like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Monson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II and I have not found the terminology used in any of those pages. I propose to to change "employer" to a more appropriate word.KWcrew1983 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, KWcrew1983. Very good points - being a Scientologist, I can confirm this. Perhaps replace "employer" with "organization" or remove the mention altogether?NestleNW911 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, removing it might be better. Thanks for the input.KWcrew1983 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Scientology and Dianetics Materials

Regarding the following sentence: "In 2009, Scientology officials told the St. Petersburg Times that Miscavige was managing a "renaissance" of new releases of Scientology books by Hubbard, and working on an expansion of the organization":

The mentioned "renaissance" spans 25 years and is a significant milestone in the life and leadership of David Miscavige. Such an important event needs due coverage in order to maintain the NPOV of the page. WP:BLP also states that "if an incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article."

I therefore propose to expand the above sentence with the following information:

"As ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion, David Miscavige has devoted himself to making the Scripture of the Scientology religion accessible to all. For a quarter century, he ceaselessly advanced L. Ron Hubbard's intention to provide the writings and lectures on Dianetics and Scientology in all languages worldwide. With Hubbard's works on the mind and spirit comprising 18 million written words and 2,500 recorded lectures, the codification, restoration, translation and publishing of these works was daunting. But by the close of 2009, the 25-year undertaking to restore all Dianetics and Scientology materials was completed and for the first time the entire body of Scientology Scripture is available in the exact chronology in which the material was originally delivered by Hubbard."

Reference citations: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-01-11-scientology-dianetics_N.htm http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/01/08/scientology-claims-lost-hubbard-works-restored#ixzz1IocLGhxM

Thanks.

Hello! With no response from admins, I have expanded the "Media Coverage" section with the above information. Thank you. NestleNW911 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Fairly new in these discussions, but I have just recently joined several religious WikiProjects and am immersed in academic research. I always find relevant things to add to religion/spirituality themed pages.

I found this article by Brian R. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at Oxford University about apostates and apostasy and thought this might shed a little light on Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, figures that commonly surface in this article. Based on neutrality, the personalities of Rathbun and Rinder should be illuminated, so readers can read the allegations in a more circumspect light and not make assumptions. It also reduces the libelous effects of these mentioned allegations.

Based on these sources: [Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p.19.] http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/

May I insert this after "Rinder in 2007 similarly stated to BBC's Panorama the allegations of abuse were, absolutely not true and were "rubbish."

"Rathbun and Rinder are by definition apostates. This type of apostasy, especially those expelled or excommunicated by members of a religion, has been the subject of several studies. Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus at Oxford University and former President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion, did such a study and found that apostates are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations and his own transgressions while part of the religion and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an 'atrocity story' to explain how he remained within an organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or tabloid media."

Thank you.

KWcrew1983 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Reports of Abuse -NPOV

The "Reports of Abuse" section still heavily lacks NPOV despite recent changes towards the neutral direction. I was concerned about the Undue Weight given to Stacy Young's statement on the first paragraph of "Reports of Abuse". The inclusion of three sentences from a 1995 interview doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the article, also in the light of NOTNEWS.

Perhaps we can balance it out by providing more info about Young, thus giving more neutrality to the paragraph. I propose we add this:

Mrs. Young made these statements after she joined a Scientology Hate Group and moved in with millionaire Bob Minton, while still married to Vaughn Young. Bob Minton at the time was funding an anti-Scientology campaign. Minton stopped his campaign in the early 2000s after the case he was funding against Scientology was won by the Church.

The following are my references to be cited: http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp979.htm http://www.docstoc.com/docs/65392473/Affidavit-Letter-of-Non-Operation

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the use of statement "hate group" WP:PEACOCK non specific and non encyclopedic.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

additionally sources are not reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ideal Orgs

Upon closer examination of the page, I found that there's a lot more on the controversy surrounding David Miscavige rather than information about him and his work as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion. In the interest of NPOV, UNDUE WEIGHT and BLP, the addition of a segment that would address his work as a leader especially is long overdue, especially his work in building Churches or what Scientologists call "Ideal Orgs". Apart from providing NPOV material to properly situate negative events, it is also my interest to provide informative and constructive material based on reliable sources.

After the statement "Miscavige uses church publications as well as videos of professionally produced gala events, at which he acts as master of ceremonies, to communicate with Scientologists worldwide" which is in the "Role Today" section, I propose that we add the following:

"To meet the skyrocketing demand for Dianetics and Scientology services and social betterment programs throughout the world, and utilizing the technological advances of the 21st century, David Miscavige launched the Ideal Org (short for “organization”) strategy to transform all Scientology Churches into Ideal Churches and accomplish the goal L. Ron Hubbard set for Scientologists—to one day create Churches that were the physical embodiment of Scientology technology to help all beings attain spiritual freedom.

An Ideal Org is a Church configured to provide the full services of the Scientology religion to its parishioners and to the community. “Ideal” encompasses both the physical facilities and the types of services ministered to parishioners and the community. These Churches house extensive public information multimedia displays describing all aspects of Dianetics and Scientology, Founder L. Ron Hubbard, and the Church's social betterment and community outreach programs. Religious services are provided in distraction-free and aesthetic course rooms and spiritual counseling rooms. There are also libraries, bookstores, film and seminar rooms and expansive Chapels for Sunday services, weddings, naming ceremonies and other congregational gatherings. From 2003 through the beginning of 2011, twenty-four Ideal Churches have arisen, including those in the world's cultural capitals—the National Church of Scientology of Spain in Madrid's Neighborhood of Letters; the Church of Scientology of New York, just off Times Square; the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, California, in the original historic Transamerica Building; the Church of Scientology of London, England, located in the epicenter of the city; and the Church of Scientology of Berlin, Germany, near the Brandenburg Gate.

Fourteen new Churches have been opened since April 2009. In April, David Miscavige dedicated three Ideal Churches—in Malmö, Sweden; Dallas, Texas; and Nashville, Tennessee. In October 2009, he dedicated Ideal Churches in Rome and Washington, DC, and in January and February 2010, he opened Churches in Québec and Las Vegas while overseeing the opening of the Churches of Scientology for Europe in Brussels. Two months later, in April 2010, Miscavige presided over the opening of the new Los Angeles Church. While in July 2010, he cut the ribbon on another three new Ideal Churches: in Mexico City; Pasadena, California; and Seattle, Washington. More recently, in January 2011, Mr. Miscavige presided over the Grand Opening of Australia's first Ideal Church of Scientology in Melbourne and on March 13th 2011 he opened the new Church of Scientology in Ybor City in Tampa Florida.

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

The following are my references to be cited:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/14/151041/scientologists-open-restored-ybor-square-in-tampa/news-breaking/ http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/182651/8/Scientologists-open-new-church-in-Ybor http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/church-of-scientology-restores-factory-032111 http://www.thestreet.com/story/11043829/1/church-of-scientology-of-tampa-expands-into-new-historic-landmark-ybor-square-home.html http://www.worldbookandnews.com/news/daily-news/250434-Church-of-Scientology-of-Tampa-Expands-Into-New-Historic-Landmark-Ybor-Square-Home.html http://www.facetsofreligion.com/News/church-of-scientology-of-tampa-expands-into-new-historic-landmark-ybor.html http://religionprnews.com/religion_articles/2011/03/church-of-scientology-of-tampa-expands-into-new-historic-landmark-ybor-square-home-203841.htm http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110309/bs_prweb/prweb8189002 http://www.8newsnow.com/story/11968115/new-church-of-scientology-opens-in-las-vegas?redirected=true http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/155460 http://thesop.org/story/20110131/scientology-has-gone-down-under.html

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

a quick google search demonstrates well the problem with this addition. Please see WP:COPYPASTE.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 I've posted a revision of the text to comply with this policy and cited proper references. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher. You are so kind with all your helpful suggestions. I have entirely re-written this against WP:COPYPASTE with specifics that are all cited from sources that provide the details of the churches massive expansion. So again, thank you for your helpful direction.NestleNW911 (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rise to Leadership section

In the "rise to leadership" section we find a mention of Hubbard's denial of an allegation. The text reads: "Hubbard denied this in a written statement, saying that his business affairs were being well managed by Author Services Inc., of which Miscavige was the Chairman of the Board. The case was dismissed on June 27, 1983." In WP: NPOV, we find, "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." In the interest of NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT, I believe there is a need to substantiate this "written statement" in order to "fairly represent" this significant viewpoint. Furthermore, the statement preceding the one above in the article is potentially defamatory and could be neutralized with additional information.

In light of this, I propose to add the following after the sentence starting with "Hubbard denied this in a written statement..." and before "The case was dismissed...":

"In the same document L. Ron Hubbard called David Miscavige a "trusted associate" and "good friend" who had kept Hubbard's affairs in good order. A judge ruled the statement was authentic."

Reference to be cited: http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart3.html

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Following up on my proposed edit. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!NestleNW911 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

With no response from any admins in the time given, I have applied this edit. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoration section

I have re-posted the information on the Restoration of Scientology materials under the Media Coverage section with full compliance to WP:COPYPASTE. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NestleNW911, whatever "full compliance" you've exercised, your recent edits added paragraph after paragraph of straight-up publicity materials for Miscavige and Scientology. That's completely inappropriate here. I've reverted the edit, which as far as I can tell, has no support from the other editors here. --BTfromLA (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the text and shortened it considerably to make it more encyclopedic and non-partisan, based on the references: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/national/main6071296.shtml and http://www.managingautomation.com/maonline/magazine/read/view/High_Achiever_Business_Model_Mastery_Bridge_Publications_Inc_249924. The essence of this text is David Miscavige's recent achievement as a leader, is well-documented, and has a place in a BLP. Kindly review my revised proposed text for the media coverage section. This is to be posted right after " So, yes: We believe in human rights and are doing something to make them an everyday fact.":

In 2009, Scientology officials told the St. Petersburg Times that Miscavige was working on an expansion of the organization In 2010, after a 25-year project to locate, restore and transcribe lost pieces of L. Ron Hubbard’s work, David Miscavige led a renaissance and release of more than 1,000 unreleased recordings of lectures by L. Ron Hubbard, the Basic books of Dianetics and Scientology as well as corresponding writings from 1950 to 1961, which included the fundamental of Dianetics and Scientology and how L. Ron Hubbard arrived at these principles--everything from decision-making to personal responsibility. Many of these materials were released in 50 languages.

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That still seems like puffed-up publicity material: the peacock terms should go (which would include that whole paragraph with the "we believe in human rights..." quote, and several other paragraphs in the article, which seems to have become overwhelmed by that sort of stuff). I think all of this could be covered in one or two sentences, something along the lines of "Within Scientology, Miscavige has spearheaded a large-scale campaign to expand and upgrade Scientology facilities and an extensive program devoted to issuing expanded and corrected editions of Hubbard's books and lectures. In 2009, Scientology officials told the St. Petersburg Times that Miscavige was managing a "renaissance" of new releases of Scientology materials." --BTfromLA (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion BTfromLA. I just have a few additions in order to better adhere to source. If the below works, I'll add it to the section:

"Within Scientology, Miscavige has spearheaded a large-scale, 25 year campaign to expand and upgrade Scientology facilities and an extensive program devoted to issuing unreleased, expanded and corrected editions of Hubbard's books and lectures including translating many works to other languages. Miscavige's work has been described as a renaissance of Scientology materials." NestleNW911 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

there is a distinct difference between "Miscavige's work has been described..." and "Scientology officials told the St. Petersburg times that..." because the second shows that the description of Miscavige's work as a "renaissance" is in fact an internal rhetoric specific to Scientologists and more accurately portrays that rhetoric.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, Coffeepusher. I have revised the bit with both your and BTfromLA's feedback in mind, citing the same sources:

"Within Scientology, Miscavige has spearheaded and devoted himself a large-scale, 25 year project of issuing unreleased, expanded and corrected editions of Hubbard's books and lectures including translating many works to other languages. Miscavige's work has been described by Scientologists to bringing about a renaissance of Scientology materials."

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I wanted to follow up on this edit. If there are no comments by June 6th, I’ll go ahead and make this change. Thanks. NestleNW911 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've made an attempt to edit parts of the article, with an eye toward reducing the CoS press release tone, and to keeping the presentation even-handed. I added a mention of the "Freedom" magazine response to the SP Times articles, but Wikipedia blocked me from linking to the freedommag web site, which has evidently been blackballed. --BTfromLA (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Given recent edits on the Page, the age of this information, editors on this page pushing for more neutrality and the presentation of positive Miscavige when compared to negative information on the BLP, it makes sense to make "Reports of Abuse" a bit more concise (to avoid WP: UNDUE). In this effort, I would love feedback from a few of the editors prior to changing the section, but here would be what I would consider to be a relatively fair first step:

The first three paragraphs of this section are rather redundant and overly specific, which leads to a questioning of WP:UNDUE. (For example, in the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section, it is already mentioned: "Numerous former Scientologists have alleged that Miscavige has engaged in a pattern of physical and emotional abuse of his subordinates, including high-ranking Church executives.") Additionally, the quotes substantiate a point already made. This creates a lengthy and redundant counterpoint. I propose making this section more WP:NPOV by making the section a bit more general (and better focused on the existing information within the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section and removing a significant portion of the "Reports of Abuse" section). I've retained the information found in Mr. Miscavige's letter to the St. Petersburg Times, along with The Times response, as this is pivotal to the whole issue:

MEDIA COVERAGE AND CRITICISM:

Despite Miscavige and Scientology officials regularly contesting such allegations and accusations, Miscavige has been faced with press accounts regarding reported unethical practices of the Church of Scientology. A 1991 Time magazine cover story on the Church described Miscavige as "ringleader" of a "hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner."[3] A dozen former Scientologists have alleged that Miscavige has engaged in a pattern of physical and emotional abuse of his subordinates, including former high-ranking Church executives. who were removed from the Church by Miscavige. This information was also reported on in The St Petersburg Times series of articles (collectively titled "Inside Scientology: The Truth Rundown"). In that same issue senior Church executives stated and sent signed affidavits that the allegations where completely false and those making the allegations were the ones that had abused staff and were removed from the Church for this and their other maleficence. Miscavige also wrote a letter to the St. Petersburg times one day prior to the first story, saying: "I have been advised that you have decided to move forward with your story without my interview. This, despite the fact confirmed more than three weeks ago that I would make myself available on a date certain (6 July), after you spoke to other relevant Church personnel and toured Church facilities, and that I would provide information annihilating the credibility of your sources including the fundamental crimes against the Scientology religion that were the reasons for their removal from post. I am at a loss to comprehend how the St. Petersburg Times can publish a story about me and the religion I lead without accepting the offer to speak with me, on the pretense that you cannot wait until after I have fulfilled my religious commitments."[10] The editors replied: "The Times first requested an interview with Mr. Miscavige on May 13, and offered to meet with him in person, or interview him by telephone at any time since."

"Inside Scientology: The Truth Rundown" was recognized with journalistic honors, including the 2010 Gold Medal for Public Service award from the Florida Society of News Editors,[40] [41] and was a finalist for the 2010 National Headliner Awards in the category of investigative reporting.[42] [43] The series was cited as a basis for subsequent journalistic investigations, including a weeklong series hosted on the CNN network by Anderson Cooper. In both cases, Miscavige and the Church of Scientology executives cite unreliable sources being used for the articles, sources who had admitted lying to the St. Petersburg Times and BBC.

Though the Scientology organization have been the subject of much press attention, Miscavige has rarely spoken directly to the press. Exceptions include a televised 1992 interview by Ted Koppel of ABC News, for which Koppel won an Emmy Award. In 1998, Miscavige gave his sole newspaper interview to the St. Petersburg Times.[30] The St. Petersburg Times reported, "Miscavige says he plans to step forward now and take a central role in trying to end differences with those who still oppose Scientology,"[30] describing Clearwater, Florida, as the scene of ³possibly the last long-running conflict² for Scientology. [31] Later that year, he appeared in an A&E Investigative Reports installment called "Inside Scientology" which aired in December.[32]

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is based on WP:WEIGHT. If a person has more press from WP:RS that is of a negative tone than positive tone than the tone of the article will reflect that, otherwise it won't be WP:NPOV but rather an article that is weighted unduly to the positive.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Coffeepusher: strive for a neutral presentation, yes, but to offer as a goal more "presentation of positive Miscavige when compared to negative information" (assuming I'm interpreting your intended meaning accurately) is inappropriate. The truth, so far as I know, is that the great majority of independent journalism published in WP:RS that has focused on Miscavige (or Scientology under his leadership) has raised questions about Scientology or Miscavige himself being engaged in illegal and unethical practices--and this has consistently been the case, since at least 1990. For heaven's sake, Time magazine ran a cover feature on how he runs a "Mafia-like" "cult," and innumerable sources have published similarly damning reports--this is extraordinary, hardly the sort of press coverage typical for corporate or religious leaders, and that fact needs to be reflected here. (There is another strain of articles of the "kooky celebrities practicing wacky religion" type, which I think we can all agree is of little relevance here.) On the other hand (please correct me if I'm wrong), the great majority of the "presentation of positive Miscavige" seems to have emanated from sources that Miscavige himself directly influences. (While I don't know the ins and outs of wikipedia policy on this, a newspaper or website reprinting a press release does not suddenly makes the claims in that release reliable in the same way that fact-checked independent journalism or scholarship is.) --BTfromLA (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher and BTfromLA. Thank you for your feedback.The version I uploaded does not in any way violate WP:UNDUE, if you care to examine it closely. I represent both sides in my revision. More importantly, I am not only arguing on the basis of Undue Weight, but good old article concision and brevity. For example, the idea behind "Numerous former Scientologists have alleged that Miscavige has engaged in a pattern of physical and emotional abuse of his subordinates, including high-ranking Church executives" is repeated in the first sentence of the "reports of abuse" section. This is to continue to "clean-up" initiated by BTfromLA. IMHO, we don't need two sections that reflect the same ideas. How do you think we CAN make this section better? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I made another edit of the "Media..." section with your concerns in mind. --BTfromLA (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I think the change you made makes this section much better. I still think that certain sections carry a bit too much weight but for now, I think we can leave this section alone. Thank you so much for your contributions, you are truly making this page better. NestleNW911 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cruise section

Another proposition:

In the "Tom Cruise" section we find:

"In May 2010, Mark Rathbun stated in press interviews that Miscavige had ordered that Cruise's auditing sessions. According to Rathbun, Miscavige would read out information from the reports about Cruise's auditing sessions. Another former high-ranking Scientologist, Amy Scobee, when asked about Tom Cruise's confessional files, stated it was Miscavige's habit to discuss celebrity confessionals with anyone who happened to be around including herself. Rathbun said he ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical. The Church of Scientology has stated that taping of such auditing sessions is done openly, for monitoring and training purposes, and that the confidentiality of anything discussed in them is "sacrosanct"."

According to WP:3PARTY:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.

Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional material

The cited sources below cannot be deemed reliable third-party sources because they are all based on Rathbun's blog: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/david-miscavige-violates-tom-cruises-confessional. These sources do not measure up to the "standards of peer review and fact-checking" and is an example of "self-published material" of Rathbun. Furthermore "The Village Voice" and "Popeater" are both entertainment tabloids and are in no way reliable publications.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1050399/tom-cruise-ridiculed-at-scientology-parties http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/blog.aspx?blogentryid=644319&showcomments=true http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/tom_cruise_was_1.php http://www.popeater.com/2010/05/13/amy-scobee-scientology

I therefore propose that this whole section above be removed based on WP:3PARTY.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! With no response from admins, I have removed the second paragraph of the "Tom Cruise" section.

Based on WP:BLP, the references mentioned above are "poorly sourced material", and it do not conform to WP:3PARTY. (Sources based on a personal blog- please see previous talk page entry as well). WP:BLP also states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate."

actually just because they are "entertainment" tabloids means that they deal with the entertainment industry, not that their statements are not reliable. Now if you cited The Onion that would be an entertainment publication that should be removed on sight.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher, thank you for your response. WP:BURDEN says "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The reasons you have provided for restoring this portion are not sufficient. The fact that they deal with the entertainment industry is a moot point because based on reliable WP:IRS, we still cannot say that the statements from these sites are reliable. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources: we find, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I wouldn't say that Village Voice and PopEater have a reputation for fact-checking, especially in this context.

Furthermore, on WP:NOTGOSSIP we find, "Wikipedia is not the place<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP> for passing along gossip and rumors." These allegations never made it to any deliberative processes and remain to be gossip and hearsay. Nothing further has been heard about this matter and it has never been confirmed by any source. This is amplified by the fact that the main source of all these news by Marty Rathbun's personal blog. This is against WP:SPS -  "self-published media are largely not acceptable."

I remain firm that this section should be removed. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

why don't they have a reputation for fact-checking. I don't think you are disputing that their facts are wrong. In fact I don't think anyone is disputing that Mark Rathburn has made these claims which is exactly what was reported. The sources are not only reliable but faithfully reproduced according to WP:V.

as for Gossip, it was reported in three different languages across several continents and news agency's with varying political affiliation (I saw one populous newspaper while another is owned by Murdock). A degree of deliberative process is not the touchstone for wither something is gossip. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the claims were made, but I am disputing the fact that the claims are moot and inconsequential. Anybody can claim that something happened on a self-published source such as a personal blog. Even if these claims were reported widely, it does not change the fact that they are empty claims and gossip. Furthermore, not every allegation made against a person needs to be recorded in Wikipedia, especially allegations that can have potential libelous consequences. See WP:LIBEL. What is the purpose of this addition and how does it add to an encyclopedic article?NestleNW911 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not received feedback about my proposal to remove this section. I remain firm that the 2nd paragraph of the Tom Cruise section in this article has no place in a BLP article faithful to NPOV. I reinstate my proposition to have this section removed for the reasons cited above. Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the lag in feedback, real life demanded my attention. I disagree that this is either gossip or Libel. First off it is widely reported in many WP:RS which makes it more than a self published claim. Ultimately everything that is published originates with one person's claim, but when that claim is reproduced by reliable sources which are responsible for fact checking then it becomes admissible for wikipedia. It is not Libel, if it was I am sure Davie would have already sent some lawyers to straighten it out (the church has a reputation for dealing with legal matters efficiently). And it is not Gossip because it has a source, that source has been checked out by the reliable sources and they have chosen to report on it. Additionally it has world wide reproduction (published in several languages) so it is also not inconsequential, it is a widely reported story which has such an impact both Davie and the church responded to it and has consequence for both organizations.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let us examine the sources that this information comes from, and carefully determine if they do comply withWP:RS.

Apparently, this is not the first time that the issue of what reliable source is has come up. Even the reputability of FOX news as a basis in Wikipedia articles has been questioned.  FOX news, a huge media organization, has published false reports on Obama's birthplace for example.  Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. If FOX can be questioned, I question more firmly that the sources cited here are weak and do not comply with WP:RS. I question your unfounded assertion that these sources are “reliable.”

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/FAQ, we find that the reliability of a resource is dependent upon the context.   “Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

"No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."

Can we still claim that the sources for this paragraph are “reliable” based upon the context? Let me break down the context for you. 1) It was sourced from a personal blog. 2) The claims were made by a person who is pushing a particular point of view. 3) It was published in tabloid-like fashion by sources that have not proven their ownfact-checking – in fact, they all publish the news story as an unfounded claim.

On WP:SPS we read, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.   The fact that these sources all originate from Marty Rathbun's personal blog already makes it a direct violation of WP:RS. Marty Rathbun's blog is a self-published source, and this is not changed by the fact that his claims werepublished by these third-party resources.   Furthermore, about questionable sources we read:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generallyunsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."   Also, in WP:NOTGOSSIP, we read, Opinion pieces: Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

The Village Voice is a tabloid, and Tony Ortega is a tabloid writer that consistently writes opinion articles on the topic of Scientology. One of the main sources for this paragraph is http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/tom_cruise_was_1.php, an article whose title ends in question mark.  Tony Ortega has a history with writing about Scientology – and he consistently pushes the opposing point-of-view, every single time.  In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources  we read, “Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.” Tony Ortega represents only one point of view, the anti-Scientology one, and that cannot be considered NPOV.  Please see a source stating that he is “no friend of Scientology” -- http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23164/scientology-74.

Also, I cannot agree with theidea that he has a reputation for “fact-checking.” Please check out these links that shows the instances where village voice was forced to retract published stories because the source fabricated the information:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/village-voice-plagiarism-scandal_n_806010.html

http://www.observer.com/2011/media/village-voice-retracts-columbia-j-school-students-story-made-sources

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/07/village-voice-editor-tony-ortega-gets-what-he-pays-for.aspx

http://community.elearners.com/all_blogs/the_elearners_news_blog/b/elearnersnews/archive/2011/01/10/phony-article-slamming-for-profit-universities-is-retracted.aspx  

On WP:NEWSORG, we read,

News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting occasionally contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.   The main sources for this paragraph - Village Voice, MSN Entertainment New Zealand, Popeater, ninemsn - are all opinion, tabloid news sources. What was published was Marty Rathbun’s opinion, and unfounded allegation.  Please see a discussion here on Wikipedia’s stance on tabloid journalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Using_Edit_filter_to_catch_tabloid_journalism   The ninemsn source admits the unverifiability of their own report:  “Marty Rathbun, who used to be a high-level member of Scientology, claimed on his personal blog that members of the Church secretly recorded Cruise while he underwent private counselling.”

I'd like to echo what another editor has stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, a long winded discussion on what it means to have a verifiable, reliable source:

 "The reliability and verifiability of sources depends onWikipedia's trust of news agencies policies of fact-checking, reliability, and accuracy. Thus Wikipedia should follow/trust the conclusion of news sources about the reliability of their own articles and statements. If an agency alerts readers that a certain article or conjecture is not reliable, or does not meet its standards of verifiability, I don't think it should meet Wikipedia's standards of "verifiability" despite its publication by a reliable source. EMbargo145 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)"

As another example, please check out this link from Gossipcop.com which shows just how many times Popeater was busted for publishing gossip with little or no fact-checking:

http://www.gossipcop.com/?s=popeater. Also, they have quite a number of articles about Scientology as well that was deemed false: http://www.gossipcop.com/page/3/?s=Scientology   I also do not know your basis for saying that just because no legal action has been taken, something cannot be construed as “libel.”

With all this being said, how is this claim is still “admissible” for Wikipedia?

Based on all of this, I remain firm that this section must be removed.

Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Every single news organization has been accused of inaccuracies in reports. WP:RS is not "WP:INFALLIBILITY" and WP:TRUTH is a big issue for some editors. All WP requires is that, for sensational and contentious claims especially, that the claim be well-sourced. The new "gossipcop.com" site has no record at RS/N for obvious reasons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Contextually they are all reporting accurately. This section states that the claim was made, not that it absolutely happened. That claim became newsworthy in three different languages, all of the sources accurately reporting that the claim was made. So WP:RS is not only maintained in this section but it isn't an issue here.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher. Thank you for your response. Based on WP:SELFPUB, we cannot assume that they are "reporting accurately." It was based on a "self-serving blog", there is great "reasonable doubt" on its authenticity. Furthermore, the material is contentious and has great potential to damage the person in this BLP. Also, based on WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability> of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Furthemore, based on WP:SOAP, "Articles and content about living people<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP> are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LIBEL> or infringe the subjects' right to privacy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy>. Articles should not be written purely to attack<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATP> the reputation of another person.

It has to be mentioned as well that Rathbun, aside from having strong personal feelings against the church, has issued conflicting statements about Mr. Miscavige as evident in a section in this article:

Rathbun said, "It's becoming chaos because ... there's no form of organization. Nobody's respected because he's constantly denigrating and beating on people."[9] Similar allegations had been raised before, which was previously vigorously denied by Rathbun. In a St. Petersburg Times article entitled "The Man Behind Scientology" a profile on David Miscavige, Rathbun said he has never known Miscavige in 20 years to hit anyone. "That's not his temperament. He's got enough personal horsepower that he doesn't need to resort to things like that."[36]

Furthermore, his strong opposition to the church would naturally result in biased statements, which he publishes in his personal blog.

Collect, thank you for your response as well. There has been extensive discussion on similar subjects, I've found. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP I see that you support the "excision of any unsourced or insufficiently sourced material which, if false, could conceivably be harmful to a person, or "contentious material.." Another admin said in the same discussion that "Definition of "contentious material" is "material that would likely be defamatory if false." I believe that this section is contentious and poorly sourced, and must be removed. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is about using self published sources as the source for wikipedia. It has nothing to do with where the WP:RS get their information. And as you have just shown, these allegations of violence have been reported by more than just Rathbun, including the St. Petersburg Times article "The Man Behind Scientology" which reported these allegations of violance and had no connection to Rathbun's later blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten a bit off track. What I'm really trying to communicate is twofold: one, that this section is not neutral (WP:NPOV); two, that each of these articles, Tony Ortega to the International publications are citing a biased personal blog, written by an unreliable source that has a personal agenda (WP:BLPREMOVE).

Let me emphasize this portion of WP:BLP which shows exactly why this section must be removed:

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP; or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability."

I'd also like to bring up a third point: this section is of ephemeral or marginal interest. It is an insignificant allegation that was made at some point in time, never proven, and has little consequence to David Miscavige as a religious leader and as a man.

Let me cite the Wikimedia Foundation's related resolution on BLP's: The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people.

At this point, the responses to this issue have been unsatisfactory.

I am therefore taking this section down.

If there are any more contentions to this matter, I will present it to the Wikimedia board for resolution.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, BTfromLA. In response to "deleting a section without consensus" - I respond with a quote from the Wikipedia BLP page: "Contentious material about living persons 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." (WP:BLP) We have still brought up this issue on the talk page, and have gotten unsatisfactory responses with weakly founded arguments. I also moved forward because, as WP:BOLD says, "Just do it!"

I have also brought this matter to the Wikimedia Foundation for quick resolution.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are three editors here who are saying that your arguments are weak and unsatisfactory.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that this conversation has me a bit heated over the claims presented, and I fear I have brought this discussion to a most unfortunate standstill. My sincere apologies for that.

I’d much rather work toward collaboration with the editors, particularly Coffeepushers and BTfromLA. This said, I hope we can all agree that this section is, at a minimum, not NPOV. Given that I am in the apparent minority on this, does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can better adhere to Wikipedia policy for this section?

I maintain that this section is not neutral, is based off of, albeit initially, sources that are biased, and its’ relevance is in question in general on the Page.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it this weekend if time permits. --BTfromLA (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've eliminated the section heading for Tom Cruise, and rewritten the personal life section to be more concise and strictly limited to personal connections. If any of the stuff that was controversial here is to make it's way back into the article, I think it should go into the section about media accounts of Miscavige. I'm not clear whether the sources for the accounts of DM misusing Cruise's confessional files pass muster here. I think the New Yorker accounts of Miscavige using unpaid Sea Org labor to do favors for Cruise easily meets that threshold, though. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a much better representation of NPOV on the page, and I agree that many of these sources do not really "pass muster". Good work BTfromLA. NestleNW911 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nestle. Just to clarify: when I said that "I'm not clear whether the sources... pass muster," I meant only that. I don't know the current state of Wikipedia standards in a case like this well enough to say whether those sources are sufficient, and hope others who are more knowledgeable will step in to clarify that. I'm just saying that I don't know; I'm not saying the sources don't qualify. -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Miscavige Lead

Hi Editors,

In the Miscavige lead, the 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit biased and out of context based on the St. Petersburg Times article. Can we work together to improve this section?

My suggestion would be to change the paragraph to the below, as focusing on a single article might result in WP:GEVAL, starts off the article in a non-balanced manner, and is redundant based on this information being heavily cited in the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section:

“Miscavige was an assistant to Hubbard (a "Commodore's messenger") while ateenager.[2] He rose to a leadership position within the organization by the early 1980s and was named Chairman of the Board of RTC.[8] Since assuming that role, Miscavige has been faced with controversial press accounts."

This seems to be a bit more neutral to me, what do you think? NestleNW911 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I know everyone has lives outside of here, but if I don't hear back by tomorrow, I'll assume making this change is okay. NestleNW911 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned, that change is not OK. Miscavige as a public figure--as judged by independent press accounts--is known for being embroiled in charges of impropriety. That is not a marginal or trivial aspect of his biography, it's a major one. I'd say this needs to be set out more clearly in the lead, not toned down as you suggest. I also don't see it as problem if the intro section summarizes things that are explained more fully later on--that is what it should do, stand as a brief synopsis of the key elements of his bio. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that I’m toning the lead down. I am just trying to have the lead be a bit more NPOV and less specific per Wiki Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section.

The article focuses excessively on the 2009 St. Petersburg Times article when there are a number of other accounts in the press (and articles described in the BLP itself further down the page). The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. Moreover, readers should not be dropped into the middle of a subject from the first word; they should be eased into the subject. It is my opinion that this section of the lead does not satisfy these Wikipedia requirements.

How do you propose we collaborate to better adhere this lead to Wikipedia policy? NestleNW911 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the St. Petersburg Times article doesn't belong in the lede according to policy. That being said the allegations of impropriety have not been limited to that one article and need to be included according to WP:LEDE since they are significantly represented in the body of the article. I propose the following.

Miscavige was an assistant to Hubbard (a "Commodore's messenger") while a teenager. He rose to a leadership position within the organization by the early 1980s and was named Chairman of the Board of RTC. Since assuming that role, Miscavige has been faced with press accounts regarding reported illegal and unethical practices, abuse of authority, and abuse of church members. Miscavige and other church spokespeople have repeatedly denied these allegations .

Coffeepusher (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we adopt Coffeepusher's version, with two additional changes: break it into two paragraphs (New para starts with "Since assuming that role...") and delete the existing third paragraph which is inessential stuff otherwise covered in the article. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit in hopes of moving this forward... it's more concise, though I don't think the intro is finished just yet. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BTfromLA and Coffeepushers. I agree with BT, looking better but not yet done. Also, I cleaned up the spacing a bit on your last edit BT. NestleNW911 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage and criticism proposal

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

Modify the section to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Relies too heavily on the St. Petersburg Times article

- Over-elaborates on St. Petersburg Times article

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

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

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

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

Paragraph in Negotiations with IRS section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Coffeepusher,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts on this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church openings

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

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

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

NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement is not found in Nestle's references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Response from Startwater

---

I would suggest the following paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the obove sources can hardly be said to be against Scientology, as both Mark Rathbuns cite and Scientology-cult is run by Scientologists. They are biased against the Church of Scientology, but they are pro-Scientology as such. Starwater suggested using it as a source for those leaving the Church being critical, and when citing thr crtics oppinion the critics are the relevant sources. Whith that said, I would suggest finding better sources than web-cites. I believe this has been stated in several news articles. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

this conversation is almost 7 months dead, if you would like to relate it to the current content of the page I would be glad to discuss it with youCoffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Botched on seeing which topic was active. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Summoned or attended?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of adverse findings, internal or external

Start by not suppressing knowledge that there's never been any findings or sanctions upon the man, and that numerous people are acknowledged to have made liars and hypocrites of themselves (sometimes with prior directly controverted sworn statements) with utterances coming from their mouths in their estrangement. It's the attempt to bring that balance and fairness to a living subject. A problem?SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well please address the policy of WP:WEIGHT and WP:VCoffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also it appears this is not your first account with wikipidea, have you edited here before.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Against your belief that there is zero weight to the acknowledged fact that M Rathbun confesses to the same abusive conduct that he blames on his former boss, and there there is zero weight to, say, M Rinder, earlier denying what he later alleges as serious criminal conduct - I say that that there is nonzero weight. Both are beyond dispute as facts. And that being so, while it stands let's get some more views.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

actually this isn't against my view, it is against the WP:RS. The rewording you are proposing goes against WP:NPOV as it does not accurately reflect the tone of the reliable sources. What other account have you used here?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom Magazine has written extensively about the bio subj highlighting that there's no court or police or judicial findings of any kind whatsoever adverse upon him, and no public record heretofore produced in any way has assailed that important conclusion. Not important? What if it was you being innuendoed?SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom Magazine isn't a WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Last I checked it's right there as one of the acknowledged references to the article, & not because I had anything to do with having it put there. Further, examining our article on the publication itself, we don't find it having attacted and reputation for unreliability in relating aspects of the biographical subject's activities which, after all, ranks as the sole focus our task on cleaning up the trash out of his entry here.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

you should probably read WP:RS again.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

take your own advice. It implores "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person". It is not contentious that sources Rathbun and Rinder have made past thorough denials of Miscavige having assaulted people, or that Rathbun is an agent of the asserted culture of abuse which he later makes a mission of denouncing. It's public domain on video. Liars and hypocrites bigtime. Nor is it contentious that David has never been subject of any finding of unlawful or unprofessional conduct, either internally or externally, by any competent authority ever. Evidence would dissuade. None of that detectable from you.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to argue for changes in the article, may I suggest that effort would be better served on the article's talk page than on your personal page? -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He's responsible to a board and shareholders. They've received every complaint, none has stood up, and the Board has never founded cause to discipline or reprimand him in any way. Absolutely no case to answer. That would warrant coverage in his bio to balance all the unproved, untested smears and malignings. Why ever not? I've noticed an integrity lack in responding to this and similar challenges.

Have at it. Transclude this there. I've met my onus.SternComradeLoyalFascist (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubbarddianetik (talk • contribs)

Above conversation posted by two socks of User:DavidYork71Coffeepusher (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He's responsible to a board and shareholders. They've received every complaint, none has stood up, and the Board has never founded cause to discipline or reprimand him in any way. Absolutely no case to answer. That would warrant coverage in his bio to balance all the unproved, untested smears and malignings. Why ever not? I've noticed an integrity lack in responding to this and similar challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetaryClearingMission (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Coverage and Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nestle, you were the one who suggested that edit, not an IPCoffeepusher (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Coffeepusher. Just wanted to clarify, I wasn't the one who initiated the information about Hawkins. It was Scoutstr295. The transcript of the edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miscavige&diff=460094257&oldid=460093368. I merely added the information about Bloomberg's counter statement. It is still my stance though, that the page would be better off without the mention entirely. It looks cluttered and hard to read. The page read good enough without that piece of information, I don't see why we need to add it now.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

my mistake. Well out of the several times David has been accused of assaulting employees within WP:RS the Hawkings section stands as one of the most credible since it is the one time members of the church said something other than "this never happened" and instead said that a fight actually did break out, so it is the example that should be elaborated upon.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

That is a textbook Ad hominem if I ever saw one.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added an update to the Current Role in Scientology section, regarding the newly opened Ideal Orgs. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not find support for the claim of thirty new churches in any of the cited sources. Can you help pinpoint a reference fior this, or ammend the text? Thimbleweed (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the text to the correct number - five ideal orgs. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Press accounts and IRS section

About the "press accounts" on Miscavige mentioned in the lead of this BLP. I saw that a mention of this in the "Current role in Scientology" was reverted, because it was already mentioned the Media Criticism and Coverage page. I have similar thoughts on the mention of this on the lead. It seems pretty repetitive and works against the brevity and concision of the page. My first proposition would be to remove the mention of the press accounts (second paragraph) from the lead and push the "Early Life" section to the second paragraph of the lead. Or, alternately we could move the second paragraph of the lead to the first paragraph of the "Media Coverage" section, replacing what is there.

Also, much work still needs still needs to be done on this page when it comes to establishing true neutrality. There is problem with the NPOV of the IRS section. While I understand that the statements here are backed up with sources, only the critical parts of the source: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-journey-from-tax-rebel-to-tax-exempt.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm are included. If one reads the article that this segment is sourced from, one will find that both the IRS and the church clearly affirming that the ruling was based on a two-year intensive inquiry into the church. I propose then to add: " In interviews however, senior Scientology officials and the I.R.S affirmed that the ruling was based on a two-year inquiry and voluminous documents that showed the church was qualified for the exemptions." It is only right to provide a wholistic perspective. Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the more correct wording would be "senior Scientology officials and the I.R.S later issued a statement that the ruling was based on a two-year inquiry and voluminous documents that showed the church was qualified for the exemptions". Or perhaps claimed is a better expression. As the legal war the Church of Scientology was waging on the IRS is very well documented, the joint statement do sound a bit puzzling. Thimbleweed (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: the idea of removing the "press accounts" paragraph from the lede: this is an outrageous suggestion, Nestle, that seems to confirm the opinion of those who have criticized you as being a POV warrior. The highly publicized controversies about Scientology in general and Miscavige's behavior in particular are the most notable thing about Miscavige (that's why all virtually all press accounts that feature Miscavige--other than press releases coming from the church and its affiliates--focus on those issues). The current lede is very restrained in terms of how much of that information is included. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thimbleweed, I have added the statement based on your comment. BTfromLA, your point is taken, but how do we reconcile the fact that these ideas seem to be very repetitive in the article? How would you solve this issue? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How are you saying they are repetitive? would you be able to give us a clearer idea of what you mean?.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do answer Coffeepusher's question. As far as I can tell, the repetition is limited to the "media coverage" section, which is where those press accounts are outlined in more detail than the two sentences in the first paragraph. Parts of that could and should be better written, but if anything I think the article understates the press accounts of Miscavige--little or nothing about the Time and LA Times exposés in the early 90s, the BBC Panorama shows, 60 minutes on the Cult Awareness Network takeover under Miscavige, the Australian lawsuits and television coverage of Sea Org children held prisoner, Debbie Cook's recent testimony about Miscavige's physical and mental abuses, the details about MIscavige in the books by ex-members including Jefferson Hawkins, Amy Scobee and Marc Headley, etc. I'm all for presenting the story in a neutral, factually accurate and appropriately weighted manner, but in terms of "critical" material, I think it may actually be underrepresented in the article at this point. Interested ion your perspective Nestle, as well as that of Coffeeepusher and anyone else who has followed the press about David Miscavige. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that we hold back quite a bit on this page because it is a WP:BLP but the material in the article goes much further in the positive direction than WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV actually require. The points that BT have made do actually demonstrate that we are actually violating WP:WEIGHT, one of the fundamental concepts of WP:NPOV because we are not proportionally representing the critical view of Miscavige. Balance on wikipedia does not mean that each side is given equal proportion, rather that each side is given a proportion equal to the proportion of coverage that they receive. For example today even after we have taken out all the press releases, and blogs and confine a simple news search to just reliable sources we do not come up with a single positive source, and that includes the Romanian and German papers. My experience is that a majority of the conversations held in reliable sources concerning David consist of mismanagement of his staff, and criticism of the church. That being said, this is a WP:BLP so we do need to be careful that we strictly adhere to WP:RS and make sure that it is in fact fairly representing those sources. I do understand that there is a significant view, that being the view of the scientologists, which mostly shows up in primary sources etc. which is why we should make sure that when a positive account does come to light that we give it some extra leniency in regard to WP:WEIGHT but that does not mean reducing or downplaying the number of critical entries if they are fair to the reliable source.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Coffeepusher and BTfromLA. Thank you for your feedback. What I'm saying is pretty simple -- the second paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section are written with a similar meaning and tone. The first sentence of both paragraphs are almost identical, they just diverge into different ideas and are ended differently.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

since the lede is a summary of the criticism section I don't see a problem if the first sentences are the same and cover similar topics with the lede being briefer.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Coffeepusher again. It might be nice to reword things for stylistic reasons, but it sounds as if you are critical of the lede for doing exactly what it is supposed to do: introduce the subject by summarizing key points of the article to follow. As I laid out above, the critical press accounts certainly count as a key aspect of his biography. -- BTfromLA (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stacy Brooks

All in the interest of NPOV, there is also a need to trim down this section, especially on the part of publishing Stacy and Robert Vaughn Young's statements. Stacy Young, now called Stacy Brooks, has recanted her testimony and has admitted that she has been paid to lie about David Miscavige. In the following reference, she is said to have committed perjury: "Apparently, pressures to maintain the viability of the organization for which she worked led her to commit perjury, thereby destroying her credibility" (see Brooks, 2002). (See here: http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/the-history-of-credibility-attacks-against-former-cult-members/) Our main reference would be "Brooks, Stacy. 2002. ³Affidavit Recanting Testimony of Stacy Brooks.² Church of Scientology, Flag Service Organization, Inc., vs. Dell Liebreich, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, Robert Minton, and the Lisa McPherson Trust. Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida. Case No. 00-0027570-CI-20; Available on-line." A link to the scholarly paper about Brooks' perjury and credibility as a witness can be found here: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~skent/cults.html

The first option is to correct this defamatory statement and acknowledge that she did in fact, retract her statements. After the sentence that begins with "In a 1995 interview for ITV, Stacy YoungŠ" we can add, "Stacy Young has since recanted her testimony. Apparently, pressures to maintain the viability of the organization for which she worked led her to commit perjury, thereby destroying her credibility."

Second option is to let the statement and the retraction cancel itself out and remove the whole mention all together. This might be a more viable option considering the unnecessary length of this section.

We cannot ignore these glaring contradictions and simply let these controversial statements sit in the article, when, they have in fact been retracted, especially that this page is a BLP. If as editors, we list the claims and allegations, we should be responsible to update the page as well, when new counter-claims have come up regarding them.

All for the continued improvement of this page. Thanks. NestleNW911 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly what Stacy Young recanted before editing. It seems her earlier statements stand. In the other hand, this is mostly of historical interest, as there's now any number of stories covering Miscavige's aledged violence and degrading of his staff, notably the trail of Debbie Cook: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108460/Debbie-Cook-Top-Scientologist-repeats-claims-beaten-tortured-imprisoned-7-weeks-desert.html I say we can replace the whole Stacy Young afidative and only retain the Stacy Young material for historical reference. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stacy Brooks is quoted only for historical perspective: an example to illustrate that the recent allegations about Miscavige go way back. I think it makes sense to have some such example, whether it is coming from Brooks or somebody else. I looked up her recantation--it has nothing to do with her accounts of life inside scientology. She did NOT recant the statement in our article, or anything related to it. Evidently she had testified that she didn't know about certain business arrangements in her post-scientology life running the "Lisa McPherson Trust," and she recanted that testimony, admitting that she did know about those things--an agreement about where proceeds from a lawsuit would be donated, a question about whether phone calls were made from a lawyer's office. That's it. BTfromLA (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking up her recantation! I'd say we keep the section much as it is, though we could perhaps put in some newer references (thhe Cook's trail) for good measure. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BTfromLA and Thimbleweed. I need to review the references further.I will get back to you on what I find and collaborate on the best way we can edit this section.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can simply put the title of what you describe above as "our main reference" into Google, and you can easily find the affidavit in full. -- BTfromLA (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thimbleweed and BTfromLA. These were Stacy Brooks' words in the affidavit: "We were paid by these attorneys through 1997 to provide testimony and advice on litigation tactics. This was my primary source of income. ... This pattern of anti-Scientology litigation that I authored is now in use in this wrongful death case and has been used in a number of other cases, some of which are still ongoing today." She also said, "I was being paid to provide anti-Scientology testimony and strategy to these attorneys."This affidavit was released in 2002, which means that she recanted her statements through 1997, up until 2002.

So if you want to retain this for historical reference, the best thing to do is to add her statement here, that she has admitted to being a paid witness, to the current text. I revised it to reflect the affidavit more closely: "Stacy Young has testified that she was paid by attorneys to provide anti-Scientology testimony and strategy. Apparently, pressures to maintain the viability of the organization for which she worked led her to commit perjury, thereby destroying her credibility."

Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see anything like that on the Stacy Brooks affidavit I found with a google search [9]. What is your source for this quote? -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one of my sources. http://www.lermanet2.com/reference//mcpherson/stacydandar Thanks. What is your input on my suggested change?NestleNW911 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely a different affidavit than the one I found! Assuming it's real, it does cast a pall on Brooks' credibility, although upon a quick skim, nothing seems to recant the quotes in the article, where she is testifying about what she personally witnessed. (I confess, I didn't read the entire thing yet.) The recantation seems to be about testifying as an expert about things of which she did not have first hand experience. That said, the affidavit (again, assuming it is genuine) does seem to compromise her credibility. There are lots of others who have testified to Miscavige's sadistic treatment of his underlings, so at this point I wouldn't object to pulling her out of the article and looking for a substitute to document how long such charges have been raised. Anybody else have a thought on this? -- BTfromLA (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

again, a quick read I can't find anything where she recants the stuff already in the article. I would say that this is outside the scope of existing edits and unless she recants the testimony we have used we shouldn't modify the articleCoffeepusher (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the mention of Brooks should be removed, as she is not a credible witness.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that if someone has exaggerated one claim that everything they have ever said about said topic is null and void.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, Coffeepusher. But the particular mention on the page becomes questionable in the light of the posted information above in the affidavit. BTfromLA, care to comment? I believe we should remove this.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that that whole section needs to be rewritten and expanded as I discussed elsewhere on the talkpage. Alas, the combination of Wikipedia's citation procedures and my work schedule mean that I'm probably not the one to do it. The Jeff Hawkins part is garbled, and there is little or nothing about many witnesses who have come forward to testify about Miscavige's physical abuses--hasn't Mike Rinder said that Miscavige hit him on more than fifty occasions?. The article is also missing some very big news stories about Miscavige, including the Debbie Cook email/lawsuit/court testimony and Lawrence Wright's New Yorker article. The Stacy Brooks line, which is basically there to demonstrate that people have been alleging that Miscavige is abusive for many years, seems pretty minor, so I don't feel strongly either way about preserving it, but I think that decision should come as part of a larger rewrite. -- BTfromLA (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree. I'll be happy to help out with a rewrite. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New Ideal Orgs

I've added information on the New Ideal Orgs. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Nestle, but I cut all of that material plus some more: there is simply no justification for listing every single new church in his biographical article. It just reads like promotional material, and really doesn't tell us anything about Miscavige to know that an "ideal org" opened in Cincinnati. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, I've added the following quote in lieu of the section that you removed:

"In the rededication of the new Ideal Org in Orange County in June 2012, Miscavige declared, "We come to the first momentous page of this church's new history. Needless to say, it's not a tide of history on which one merrily floats. On the contrary, it must be a history unlike any ever told before, a history of supreme competence, great passion and perfect adherence to our technology."

Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/jul/08/profile-david-miscavige-scientology

I acknowledge your point that the mention of Ideal Org openings does not give us direct information on Miscavige himself. I would like to note though that Ideal Orgs openings are important events in Scientology as a church, and in David Miscavige's leadership. He is fully engaged and instrumental in these events, and if we remove the mere mention of the Ideal Org openings because there is no explicit connection to Miscavige, we must also acknowledge the progressive work that he has spearheaded by including information on his direct involvement on these openings. I've added this edit because it mentions an important Org opening and highlights Miscavige's direct involvement in it. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We could perhaps ad a bit on the critique that has been raised against the Ideal Org scheme? Like NestleNW911 says, it seems to be an important part of Miscaviges strategy for the COS, and as such we should report all relevant aspects. Thimbleweed (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am restoring the section that lists the Ideal Orgs that Miscavige rededicated. The removal of the section on the new Ideal Orgs opening is a move against the overall NPOV of the page. Ideal Orgs openings are important events in David Miscavige's leadership. He is fully engaged and primarily instrumental in these events. Also, a comparable BLP, that of Thomas S. Monson, has a whole section dedicated to his role in dedicating LDS churches. Both Miscavige and Monson are religious leaders, and church dedications are important to both. Why would we allow the listing of the dedication of LDS churches on Monson's page, yet remove it in Miscavige's page? Thus, I have posted a revised version of this section along with additional third-party references.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepushers revert. While his opening of orgs should be mentioned, they don't need to be detaild here. This article is about Miscavige, not about the orgs. Thimbleweed (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Coffeepusher. Your argument comparing the Ideal Org openings to the Pope's church visits is moot and completely misses the mark. The Catholic church hasn't listed church openings because it has been closing churches recently and the papal visits are not as major a project for the Pope as Ideal org openings and dedications are to David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology. The example that is truly analogous to the Ideal Org openings is the church dedications of the LDS church, which are promptly recorded on Thomas S. Monson's BLP. Ideal Org openings are one of the most important initiatives of David Miscavige and should be recorded in his Wikipedia page as such. To say that this is not an article about the Ideal Orgs is also a moot point. I am not suggesting that the whole article be about the Ideal Orgs, only to acknowledge the Ideal Orgs in the mentioned section because it is directly related and wholly important to David Miscavige as a church leader. As I said, if church openings in the Mormon church are important enough to be listed in Thomas Monson's profile, then it MUST be listed in Miscavige's BLP. I stand by my proposition to include the full information about the Ideal Orgs on this page. Would also like to solicit the comment of other editors on this matter as well. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Thimbleweed and Coffeepusher--there's no value in having that long list of cities in this article. It is not as though the ideal org initiative is being removed from the article: currently, it plainly states that twenty nine new churches have been opened, and gives examples of several cities in which they occur. (By the way, is it misleading to call these "new churches"?--many of them are just remodeled premises for existing "orgs," such as the one in Los Angeles.) If there is some content of great import about the ideal org program that is missing in the article, please propose it, but the list just takes up space and distracts from the readability of the article. (I'd cut some of those dedications on the Thomas Monson page, too, were I interested in that article.) Basically, I think the ideal org coverage we have now is fine, though very basic. If someone wants to wade into the claims and counter-claims that revolve around them, as was suggested earlier in the discussion, that could add to the depth, but I worry about getting lost in a flurry of is-so is-not with these scientology public relations disputes. Same is true of "the Basics" and The Golden Age of Tech. The most conspicuous omission here is the Super Power Building, which has been a centerpiece of Miscavige's campaigns within Scientology for a decade or more, hasn't it? We don't mention that at all. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, BTfromLA. I acknowledge that you have added the information about "The Super Power Building." Thank you for this, you are right, it has been a glaring omission to exclude this and must be added. I have posted a different version, one that is more reflective of reliable sources. Nowhere do I see the detail that you inserted on the source you cited (The Tampabay article): " it has been the centerpiece of Church of Scientology fundraising campaigns for more than a decade, having reportedly attracted donations in excess of 147 million dollars" so I am taking it off. I have added a couple more details, like the fact that it is called the "Mecca" of Scientology and that ribbon-cutting and dedication ceremony are planned later this year, as the St. Pete Times reports.

I would have to disagree however, that there is "no value" in having the list of newly opened or dedicated Ideal Orgs in this article. The list of ideal orgs highlights the continuous growth and expansion of the church and gives the reader an idea of the places where a church is present. The ideal org coverage is basic, yes, but it should be expanded. The space dedicated to the subject of ideal orgs should be directly proportional to its value to David Miscavige's leadership and the church. I don't think it would hurt to include the list; on the other hand, I believe it would enhance the article. The editors at Monson's page have not objected to the list of church dedications because its inclusion in the page is not objectionable. I don't understand why you would be staunchly against the inclusion of ideal orgs openings and redidications on this page, but be quite okay that a similar list exists on another page. There is a bias present there; and if I am right, such bias works against the neutrality that we all strive for as editors. Also, removing the ideal orgs list works against WP:DUE WEIGHT. There are plenty of reliable sources that contain information about Ideal Orgs openings. It is written in Wikipedia: "The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion." Are your saying that we should ignore all the reliable sources that report on these church openings? That doesn't make sense.

I do understand your hesitation to include the full list of Ideal Orgs, however, and this is why I am suggesting a compromise that is reflected in my edit. For the sake of timeliness I think it is only right to include churches that have been built in the last 2 years. I mention some of these churches that David Miscavige has been instrumental in opening or rededicating in my revision.

My goal is to edit this BLP in the fairest way possible. It is my hope that we will come to an agreement. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Like BT and Coffeepusher, I find the list of cities distracts from the topic. There's a lot to be said about the Ideal Org initiative, but listing openings by Miscavige like now distracts from it. The lists also has the effect of giving the impression that the COS is expanding (a claim the COS frequently makes), but one that can not be substantiated from independent sources. As far as I know, membership mumbers have dropped or at least stabelized the last 10 years or so. In this light, the Ideal Org openigs are quite interesting, though I don't know how relevant it is for this article.

The sentence has a funny wording, starting with " Miscavige has spearheaded church openings...". What does "spearhead" mean in this context? Wold not "lead" or "officiated at" or something similar be more descreptive? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll change the wording if no-one objects. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(this comment is updated below) "Spearhead" seems like exactly the right word, I don't understand the problem. It means, to use the American Heritage dictionary definition, "to lead an organized effort or activity." -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I see what the problem is--it's a bunch of edits that garbled that section of the article. [10] Sorry, I don't have time at the moment to sift through this, but I think we should more-or-less revert that group of changes. You're right, "spearheaded church openings" is awkward, but the earlier "spearheaded a long-term project of issuing unreleased, etc." was perfectly lucid. Apologies to Thimbleweed that I didn't recognize the use of the word had been altered.

No problems mate, we're all here to make Wikipedia better! I still don't like the word "spearhead", because it is a very imprecise term. It can mean a lot of things. Moreover, it is used twice in the same section of text. In the second instance I feel the term is warranted, but I still don't feel it is a good choice of word for the openings. Thimbleweed (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification - Shelly Miscavige

Added update to the status of Shelly Miscavige from Telegraph. This is just to clarify and make this section current.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The status of Shelly Miscavige needs some TLC too. The current text reads (quote): "Shelly" Miscavige, who, according to Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker, "disappeared" in 2006, and "her current status is unknown." This makes it sound like Wright is the only one who is missing Mrs. Miscavige. Her absence has been noted by a number of Scientologists too, see Village Voice article. Several other news media has also mentioned her, e.g. the Telegraph, the Radar.online, Business Insider and celibrety rags like US Weekly and the Frisky. I think we could reword it to "Shelly" Miscavige, who has not been seen in public since 2006, and her current status is unknown. or something like that, followed by the COS's layers statement like now. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the status of Shelly Miscavige: there has been much speculation about this -- but that's all it is, speculation. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsay and speculation. Based on WP:SPECULATION, every instance of such doesn't need to be recorded in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable."

An official statement from her lawyer has been published, proving that these speculations are not verifiable. This unequivocal statement should put all speculation to rest. Please see source here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html. (I have posted it as a counterstatement to better this section) In the interest of neutrality, brevity and based on WP:SPECULATION, I therefore propose that the whole section about Shelly Miscavige being "missing" be removed from this BLP. It doesn't enrich this BLP -- it is irrelevant. Although the previously posted counterstatement certainly helps, the article would be better off without the mention at all.NestleNW911 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that no-one seems to have seen the wife of the head of COS for many years. Considering his frequent public appearances that is hard to ignore. The statement from the COS' lawyers do not explain this very startling phenomenon, it merely says that someone (presumably Miscavige himself and some of his closest staff) know where she is (i.e. she is not "missing" as such), and that she is presumably alive (though the peculiarities if Scientology beliefs do not dictate that anyone is alive in the vernacular sense to work hard for the cause, e.g. Hubbard’s "journey" to "target two"). Her whereabouts and health are all speculations, but the fact that she is (in normal parlance) missing, is not. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you actually read the source that I provided. Let me share the exact text of the telegraph bit here: "In our article on Katie Holmes and Scientology (5 July), we stated that renewed attention has been paid to the whereabouts of Mr David Miscavige’s wife, Shelly. Mrs Shelly Miscavige’s lawyer has categorically confirmed that she is not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology. We are happy to make this clear."

There is no speculation about the fact that is "missing" or her health and whereabouts. The statement above says explicitly and categorically that she is "not missing" and "devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." This is confirmed by her lawyer. To attribute a different meaning to what was categorically stated is inference and original research. What is the confusion there? That is the main reason why this bit should be removed; it causes confusion and false speculation on the part of the reader.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With no response to this discussion, I have removed the section in question. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On the reinstatement of Lawrence Wright's statement on Shelly Miscavige: I find this confusing and questionable. This is now what falls under speculation, and as established Wikipedia is not a record of speculations. The cited source (The New Yorker) was applicable up to the moment that it was updated with more recent policy-adhering information from telegraph.co.uk that Shelly Miscavige's status is NOT unknown, and she is "not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." There is no point then in recording this speculation on this BLP. I pursue my proposition to take this section down. I've got additional resource that confirms that she is not missing -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2179035/Clarifications--corrections.html.NestleNW911 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because a Scientology lawyer says someone is not missing (or is not dead) does not mean that this person is not missing. After all, Scientology was responsible for Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.39.60 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Ability Center

Posted an update to the info about the Advanced Ability Center.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

1998 SPT interview

I've added information about the 1998 St. Petersburg Times interview of Miscavige at the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section. It is a glaring omission to leave out this interview as it is Miscavige's first-ever newspaper interview. I've also noticed that the data here is presented chronologically. There is a big gap between the first mentioned story by Time on 1991 and the 2009 article by SPT, thus the insertion. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Thimbleweed (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Shelly Miscavige reported missing, inclusion?

(moved from my talk page) Hi Ultra Venia. This is regarding the edit on the David Miscavige page. I have posted an explanation as to why I removed this section on the DM talk page. I actually posted three separate times. I am pasting this below:

Regarding the status of Shelly Miscavige: there has been much speculation about this -- but that's all it is, speculation. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsay and speculation. Based on WP:SPECULATION, every instance of such doesn't need to be recorded in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable."

An official statement from her lawyer has been published, proving that these speculations are not verifiable. This unequivocal statement should put all speculation to rest. Please see source here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html. (I have posted it as a counterstatement to better this section) In the interest of neutrality, brevity and based on WP:SPECULATION, I therefore propose that the whole section about Shelly Miscavige being "missing" be removed from this BLP. It doesn't enrich this BLP -- it is irrelevant. Although the previously posted counterstatement certainly helps, the article would be better off without the mention at all.NestleNW911 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you actually read the source that I provided. Let me share the exact text of the telegraph bit here: "In our article on Katie Holmes and Scientology (5 July), we stated that renewed attention has been paid to the whereabouts of Mr David Miscavige’s wife, Shelly. Mrs Shelly Miscavige’s lawyer has categorically confirmed that she is not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology. We are happy to make this clear."

There is no speculation about the fact that is "missing" or her health and whereabouts. The statement above says explicitly and categorically that she is "not missing" and "devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." This is confirmed by her lawyer. To attribute a different meaning to what was categorically stated is inference and original research. What is the confusion there? That is the main reason why this bit should be removed; it causes confusion and false speculation on the part of the reader.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With no response to this discussion, I have removed the section in question. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On the reinstatement of Lawrence Wright's statement on Shelly Miscavige: I disagree with this - it is confusing and questionable. This is now what falls under speculation, and as established Wikipedia is not a record of speculations. The cited source (The New Yorker) was applicable up to the moment that it was updated with more recent policy-adhering information from telegraph.co.uk that Shelly Miscavige's status is NOT unknown, and she is "not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." There is no point then in recording this speculation on this BLP.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Both statements are sourced, both can stay. The way to say one is not missing is through a statement signed by her, or maybe even appearing in public. Until then, she hasn't been seen, which is sourced and completely accurate. We also have a statement by a man who claims to be her lawyer, that's it. No statement from her at all. No appearance from her at all. I think the fact that she has not been seen has been verified and removing it is a whitewash. Please direct other comments to the talk page of the article. If you have a problem with it, you can always ask BLP noticeboard and try to get some consensus there, but I won't remove RS material. Ultra Venia (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"What is your reference regarding the idea that a person missing can only be verified as not missing "through a statement signed by her, or maybe appearing in public"? That she is not missing was categorically confirmed by her lawyer, and this fact is published in two Reliable Sources: Telegraph and DailyMail. Here are my two sources: : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2179035/Clarifications--corrections.html. My point is that even if its been speculated that she's been missing in RS, these sources are now moot, in the light of the new information contained in Telegraph and DailyMail.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that she's been reported missing and the comment from her lawyer can stay since they are sourced. It's a balanced statement. I feel removing this RSed info would stink of a whitewash. Ultra Venia (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the section that says "her current status is unknown." This piece of information is sourced from an article that is dated February 4, 2011. Her status is no longer unknown because her lawyer has confirmed on July 31 2012 that "she is not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." This is the most recent update. Again, the source is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. All we know about her status is that the CoS' lawyer says she's "not missing". As the article in the Village Voice, the Scientology Leader David Miscavige's Disappeared Wife Shelly: What We Know (quoted) puts it: "Note the word missing. No, it's pretty plain that the church knows exactly where she is." Her status on theother hand remains unknown. The current text of the article remains true to the sources. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Good job. I support Thimbleweed's decision. This is sourced information of interest to a wide readership. It improves the article and is faithful to our BLP standards. Jusdafax 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is questionable to say that "multiple sources" have alleged Shelly Miscavige's disappearance when in fact, this edit only points to one source. Wouldn't it be proper to revert to "Allegedly, her disappearance occurred.." Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Lawrence Wright quote names two sources--what are you looking at? If we must, we can cite several others who have discussed this, too. But there is no reason for that. This detail has been haggled over excessively: an unambiguous majority of editors do not see a problem here, and you keep trying (and failing) to invent one. I suggest you let this matter go. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Shelly Miscaviges mysterious absence was reported in multiple papers, some national and some foreign. "Multiple" is not at all questionable, even "numerous" would be true. The fact of the matter is that Shelly Miscavige has not been reported seen for close to a decade, and that multiple sources has reported as much. Try google "Were is Shelly Miscavige?" if you wish to see multiple sources at first hand. Thimbleweed (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

National Affairs Office opening in Washington D.C.

I've added the update about the Church of Scientology National Affairs Office opening in Washington D.C in the "Current Role in Scientology" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Represent/Claiming to represent

I have undone 98.70.45.172's edit on the Family and Personal Life section about Shelly Miscavige's lawyers. The lawyers clearly represent Mrs. Miscavige and do not merely "claim to represent" her: we can read this clearly on the reliable sources that back up this information.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those so-called reliable sources are a single UK newspaper "correction", with no verification or any other information whatsoever, in a country with one of the strongest libel laws in the world. For the record, I suspect she's in a very bad situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.47.211 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Padova, Italy opening

I have added the Padova, Italy church opening to the "Current role in Scientology" section.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I have revised the second paragraph of the lede section for NPOV, Due Weight and Accuracy. The old second paragraph gives undue weight to the controversy. The lede paragraph by definition should give an overview of the page, and the information contained within this revision is already found in other sections of the page, including "Negotiations with the IRS" and "Current role in Scientology." This new version includes more information that is balanced, gives a true overview, and does not give excessive space to only one section of the whole page.NestleNW911 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nestle, I undid your changes to the lede; as has been well established in discussions here, the public controversies swirling around Miscavige are what he is best known for, and brief description of them certainly belongs high up in the lede. Your additions--about taking the church mainstream, new editions of LRH books, etc.--read like church PR releases, not biographical information. Whitewashing and promotional advertising does not make for balanced or neutral coverage. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, I strongly disagree with many of your points; the revised paragraph I posted fully complies with WP:RS and is backed up by reliable sources. Here are the sources I cited:

Editor Jacob Neusner's World Religions in America http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart4.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1975105.ece http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/scientology-arrives-in-tel-aviv/2012/08/23/e2968380-ed3e-11e1-b09d07d971dee30a_blog.html http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/ http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/headley-scientology-lawsuit-judge-rules-in-favor-of-controversial-sect-78894/ http://www.sptimes.com/News/061300/TampaBay/State_drops_charges_a.shtml

I have also made the best effort to make this section comply with NPOV. If you look closely, the new paragraph does not read like a press release, it simply covers more of the material on the bottom part of the article. There is a whole section about the IRS, which must be represented in the lede. There is also a whole section about Miscavige's involvement in the Church expansion and the opening of new Churches which must be represented in a lede that provides a true overview of the page. Why merely focus on the "media coverage and criticism" section when there exists equally covered material on the page?

Also, it must be clarified that although there have been allegations against Miscavige in the church, none have proven any wrongdoing on the part of Miscavige and the church. The current paragraph gives a false impression that the allegations had actual merit. I have provided resources to back up this clarification.

You say that "the public controversies swirling around Miscavige are what he is best known for." Is this really true? To whom? Those who have made up their mind about Miscavige, and do not know or consider the many great things that he has accomplished in the Church?

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nestle: 1. "Miscavige has brought the Church of Scientology into the mainstream" sure sounds like church promotional material to me. 2. Your edit didn't merely add a mention of the IRS thing, etc., it removed and altered the tone of significant material. 3. I believe that any impartial review of third-party reliable sources that have covered Miscavige will confirm that the "controversies" are usually the central focus of their coverage of him and that virtually all reliable sources (Time Magazine, New Yorker, BBC, Los Angeles Times, St. Petersburg Times, CNN, etc.) that have reported on the many allegations against the church and Miscavige have concluded that many of those accounts are credible. -- BTfromLA (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BTfromLA, Below my response is a revision that takes out the section that you felt was too "promotional." I can concede to the exclusion of the "mainstream" phrase, however, I still stand by the rest of my revised version because I have provided reliable media that show the information about the IRS, LRH'S writings, the church openings, and that the allegations against Miscavige have never been proven. This information is just as important and pivotal to Miscavige's leadership as the controversies. It also represents a balanced and neutral perspective of Miscavige, rather than focusing solely on the allegations. I'd also like to emphasize that I have not excluded the information that mentions the allegations in media so the revised paragraph still covers the significant section of "Media Coverage and Criticism," and still acknowledges the fact that these allegations have been reported in media. I do acknowledge, however, that while media has covered the controversy, none have been proven and are thus baseless allegations and there have been no prosecutions or official investigations.

Proposed edit: Since assuming his leadership position, Miscavige has attained significant progress in his leadership, gaining religion recognition from the IRS in 1993. Since that time he has been working on programs to restore and publish Scientology Founder, L. Ron Hubbard¹s original writings and lectures and to expand the Scientology religion by opening new Churches around the world. Despite allegations of illegal and unethical practices in the press, sourced to expelled Church members, there have been no legal cases or investigations that have proven any wrong doing on the part of Miscavige or the Church. Miscavige along with senior church management and spokespeople have consistently denied the former members' allegations.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made an edit that attempts to incorporate the items you wanted to add in a neutral manner. I can't agree with any of your attempts to "soften" the accounts of criticism of Miscavige, which is already underplayed in the article. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA, thank you for the changes you made. I have added a clarifying sentence to the end of the 2nd paragraph of the lede with strong, reliable sources.NestleNW911 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your "clarifying sentence. The part about the sources being expelled members is not true (some of the sources of criticism are journalists and scholars who report harrassment, not all quoted ex-scientologists were formally expelled) and the part about how "nothing has been proven" is both vague (what does "proven" mean in this context?) and unnecessary--the lede introduces the issues, and that introduction refers, correctly, to a pattern of allegations. Basically, your addition just reads like pleading on behalf of Miscavige, not an encyclopedic summary. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Padova, Italy opening

Hello BTfromLA, you have removed the information about the Padova, Italy opening from the "Current role in Scientology" section. I fail to see why you see this as PR fluff. David Miscavige had a big role in this opening and it rightfully belongs to his "current role" as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion. The sources are mostly from Italy obviously because of the location of the event. I suggest that we restore this section to keep the readers abreast of Miscavige's current activities. If you find it "fluffy", why not trim it down and revise it rather than remove it completely?NestleNW911 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

personally I find it fluffy because of weight. Miscavige has opened dozens of churches, and every ideal org. So a paragraph statement highlighting one of those which isn't any more significant than any others makes this unsuitable for the article. That being said, I can't speak for BTfromLA but I agree with the removal.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Coffeepusher is correct, there is too much detail about the new buildings as it stands, relative to the rest of the article (the article is about Miscavige, not Scientology's "ideal Org" campaign). That section adds no significant information--it is already clear the church has opened new or remodled facilities in many countries. The qualities of PR puffery in that section and Miscavige's remarks are obvious, aren't they?: "We come to a new inscription on the tablet of Italian history... a pledge to bring our help and the infinite wisdom of L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this region,” etc., plus the long list of Italian dignitaries in attendance. Even with that cut, this section could stand further trimming. -- BTfromLA (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be about David Miscavige, not a list of "orgs" ha has opened. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted a clear case of vandalism.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good. If it's really vandalism (as that was), I don't think you need to post about it on the talk page--everybody will see that it needed to be reverted, we don't really need to talk about it, unless it's to the point that editing the page needs to be restricted somehow. Happy new year. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. that sounds an awful lot like "I am personally vested in the image of David Miscavige and I'd appreciate you not documenting a corrected vandalism because I don't want other people to see what it was." Jersey John (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

please see WP:AGF. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"potentially this cause some later friction"

User:Colliric wants to add the following [11] to the article. I have two problems with this, first off I don't think this qualifies as having enough significant coverage to warrant inclusion, anything that starts with "potentially this..." really is more gossip than anything else. Additionally I think that it borders on WP:BLP violations as naming him a potential reason for a high profile divorce. This is also categorically denied by all parties, and the controversy isn't significant enough to warrant inclusion. As of now I have kept it in.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted a notice on the Biography of living person's noticeboard. The editors there so far feel this inclusion violates several policies and one of those editors has reverted the entry.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ALLEGED, concur, remove this. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have other sources not referenced some of which are from 2006. I will put further references. The fact is IT DID OCCUR, and a short search of Google's news archive would attest to this, including this 2006 article at http://www.crushable.com/2006/11/20/entertainment/tom-cruises-best-man-comes-on-honeymoon/.Colliric (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? It is trash, tabloid gossip-mongering and the source that you link above is not a reliable source, it's just an online vomit-bag of celebrity gossip trash, look me in the eye and tell me that a website with articles such as "Did Justin Bieber Hook Up With Prostitutes While He Was Smoking Weed In Amsterdam Over The Weekend?"[12] should be a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am glad we have had this conversation on the talk page, because it was an obvious omission in the article anyway, so the fact it has been discussed here is actually important. Perhaps in the article I should have put it "It was reported by various sources" to make sure I didn't leave an opening for that particular user to challenge it, He has been accused of Edit-warring by multiple editors in the past 2 months alone(on his talk page I count at least 4 to 5 accusations including my own). News LTD is obviously a reputable source, but I have to admit the fact is they own The Sun(from what I believe) so it was a little lazy of me not to go to one of the other sources that wasn't "internal", I also found it reported more extensively and critically in the Herald Sun(but once again another News LTD source). Also another obvious omission on this page is the published accusation that Cruise auditioned his wife. That appeared in multiple valid sources including Wright's recent book(here it is from the Daily Mail:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261680/Tom-Cruises-wife-auditions-Top-female-stars-took-screen-tests-actually-intended-pick-new-partner-claims-Scientology-book.html). As I said I am happy it has been placed into the talk page, and perhaps it could be reconsidered at a later date with other source. I believe it was also reported in Lawrence Wright's new book, but I have not read that book for myself yet so can't confirm. Frankly, a denial by the Church Of Scientology and Miscavige or Cruise should just plain be ignored, after all they all deny the Xenu doctrines as well. Colliric (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Nightline statements

I would like to contest the removal of my edit on the quote from David Miscavige from the Nightline interview. The inclusion of his statement on the definition of Scientology is not being "overly detailed," the addition enhances the article and lends more balance to the Media Coverage and Criticism section. Miscavige seldom appeared in media, and I would think that his direct statements to the media, being so rare, is of prime importance in a biographical article.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement itself doesn't say anything new about Miscavige, which is the point of this article. I didn't remove the quote, but I agree that it added overly detailed information to the article that didn't tell us anything new about Miscavige. Now I am not sure how this added balance to the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Coffeepusher. The quote didn't add anything substantive, it seemed more like PR puffery. There's a similar quote ending the "Media Coverage and Criticism" section: perhaps that one should go, as well. "Balance" doesn't mean tossing in something boosterish to counter criticism. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

It would be inaccurate to say that he's the leader of the Church of Scientology -- officially & legally, he has no position in the Church of Scientology International or any of its affiliated organizations. In reality, according to all sources concerned, he wields control over all Scientology organizations, as is relayed throughout the rest of the article. But for the first sentence, for the sake of NPOV, it should state his official position, which is "leader of the Scientology religion" rather than "leader of the Church of Scientology" -- in reality, this may be true, but legally, he has no position in the Church itself. Laval (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Head of Scientology?

Paging @Laval: about this edit. Isn't describing DM as the leader of Scientology like describing the Pope as leader of Christianity? He and his followers may well regard him as the leader of Scientology, but there are other people who regard themselves as Scientologists but don't regard him as their leader. Would it not be more accurate and neutral to describe him as the leader of the Church of Scientology, as the text originally said? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies: I wrote the above before I noticed your message above where you address this issue. The leader of a church might be described by followers of that church as "God's representative on Earth", but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should describe them as such. You have a good point in that DM does not have an official role in Church of Scientology International, but as Chairman of the board of a controlling body that controls the trademarks he is the leader of a global group of organisations, but that group of organisations is not all there is to Scientology. "He wields control over all Scientology organisations" is not strictly correct, as there are and have been Scientology organisations which are nothing to do with the Church of Scientology or its affiliates. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The organization makes what should be a simple issue rather complicated, but according to his official biography and other Scientology publications, he's the "ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion" -- every Church sources describes him in that way since at least the mid-1990s. Laval (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This could all be easily resolved by describing Miscavige as the leader of the Church of Scientology. Thimbleweed (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But there's a dispute here about which we should be neutral: CoS would say the independent Scientologists are not "true" Scientologists. Non-CoS scientologists would say that the present incarnation of the CoS, led by Miscavige, has strayed from "true" Scientology. Compare it to the leader of a particular Christian church saying that he is the leader of all truly saved Christians: that might be true in his belief system, but not as a neutral summary for an encyclopedia. User:Thimbleweed is right: the text was better with "Church of" included. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, he is the head of the Church of Scientology. That is established by reliable sources, whereas it gets messy to say that he's the head of a religion. Andrew³²⁷ 16:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that saying he is the leader of the Church of Scientology and affiliated organizations (rather than the specific reference to the sea org) is a more accurate statement. I'll make the change. I'm going to leave the rest of Laval's edit, if someone has any other problems with the rest of the edit then I'll let the concerned parties make the changes.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree with the "affiliated organizations" part -- I won't push the matter, but just to illustrate, this implies Miscavige is not only the leader of the Church of Scientology, but also of Applied Scholastrics, Narconon, CCHR, etc. Legally he has nothing to do with those organizations, even though they are obviously affiliates of the Church. I would also argue that the "leader" bit should be clarified per official sources to "ecclesiastical leader", for reasons already explained. Laval (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Legally, you have a point, however there are numerous sources unambiguously stating these groups are parts of the Church of Scientology. Among the most obvious sources is the fact that all these are tax exempt in the US as part of the 1993 dealt between the COS and IRS. As Miscavige is the head of the COS, he is also de facto the head of ABLE int, which again own all the above mentioned organizations. I am against adding the "... and affiliated organizations" though, as it might be taken to include the various FreeZone and Indie groups. If we want to ad anything about COS' groups, it should be something to the effect of "... and groups under the COS' control" or something to that effect. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Laval:, I question your reliance on "official" Church of Scientology pages on issues on which Wikipedia must remain neutral. Of course CoS will describe Miscavige as an eccelesiastical leader, and prefer a religious framing to a corporate framing. This doesn't mean that we should rely on that "official" framing. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. According to Inside Scientology and Going Clear, Miscavige exercises influence if not outright control over many of the organizations under the Scientology umbrella. Also, the most common use of "ecclesiastical" in secondary sources is mockery of a Scientology ad that briefly ran on The Atlantic. Andrew³²⁷ 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Current Criminal and Civil Indictments?

It might be difficult to impossible to maintain WP:NPOV when covering the putative head of an organized crime syndicate however would it be worth the effort to attempt to maintain a partial list of some of the criminal indictments and some of the civil lawsuits against David and his frauds? Maybe just enumerating some of the most notable outstanding indictments and civil cases would be worth the effort though that might be difficult since indictments come and go and there is a priority need to remain encyclopedic.

NarCONon Fraud Class Action Names Scientology Ringleader David Miscavige is one of the latest series of civil cases which names the supposed "Chairman Of The Board," and the Federal Raids Suspended details have never been completed, the no knock raids against the criminal enterprise that will hopefully put Miscavige in prison are still pending and might never actually be completed.

So there's the problem of completeness, obsoletion, and WP:NPOV involved in adding a section covering current indictments, pending raids, civil lawsuits, and everything else against the syndicate, but at the same time the Wikipedia entry is lacking such contemporary information which might benefit readers/researchers who get the majority of their info from WP. Damotclese (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

do you have any reliable sources? Right now the sources you have provided don't seem to qualify and therefore we would not be able to add this information to the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CoffeePusher. If you find articles through a scholarly source or even a quality news publication, post the sources here and we will discuss whether or not to include them. Andrew³²⁷ 21:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

True, though there's enough mainstream news coverage of recent FBI raids against Scientology's "Narconon" business offices in the past 2 months to offer a short beginning on crimnial indictments, only the Village Voice has been covering the postponed raid at The Hole at the syndicate's fortified compount at Gilman Hot Springs, and none of the criminal indictments have Miscavige named as a co-defendant, so that's true, the criminal indictments would not be very encyclopedic.

The civil law suits against Scientology and it's many umbrella onion-layer fake fronts (ABEL, WISE, RTC et al) do include DM as a named defendant, so maybe the civil cases would be the only ones that would be relevant.

* Class Action Lawsuit International Business Times

* Class Action Lawsuit, Huffington Post

* The Hole FBI Investigation, Tampa Bay Times

The Village Voice's Tony Ortega is the only legitimate source covering the FBI raids against Gilman stalled by L. A. County Sheriff Lee Baca (who is a Scientology customer himself.) Lacking actual raids, though, we're left only with the question of whether any of the civil lawsuits against David Miscavige should be in a new section. I'm going to send an inquiry to the Village Voice and see if I can get any testable, verifiable reference for the stalled FBI raid against Hemet. Damotclese (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. Right now this is very recent and therefore it is difficult to establish WP:WEIGHT. The fact that someone filed a lawsuit, and the speculation surrounding that lawsuit, isn't in of itself noteworthy enough. Now if the lawsuit results in significant coverage then we will be able to include it.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - Photo

The caption on this photo is an example of gossip and scandal mongering, which Wikipedia is not. The caption is not NPOV and assumes the truth of an allegation, and not true to the tone of the original "The Hole" Wikipedia page, which shows the location as "reportedly" existing. This addition does not belong to the page because it is not framed as an allegation that has been denied and misleads the reader.Merrymoo112 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the claim of solitary confinement, and you're welcome to change the caption further using content from the article on The Hole. I'm not completely convinced that the picture should be in the article, although Miscavige is closely linked to several notable events there. Andrew³²⁷ 22:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Official Link - violation of Wiki Policy

I am baffled as to why a link to David Miscavige's "Social Betterment Campaigns" on the Scientology.org page does not qualify for inclusion based on WP:ELNO. The explanation of the policy actually shows that the removal of the link is a violation of the policy. Let me show you what I mean: the section starts with "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject.." This exception to official pages is more clearly explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links. The section reads: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided.." So why wouldn't we include this link? It also fulfills both criteria mentioned in the section:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Can someone please address this concern? Thanks.Merrymoo112 (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

well for starters,

1. it isn't controlled by the subject of the article (which is David Miscavige) it is controlled by Scientology's PR efforts.
2. David Miscavige isn't primarily known for the "Social betterment campaign" but rather for being the leader of Scientology (with all the controversy that comes with that), and the social betterment campaign is a small portion of his responsibility.
3. the website is promotional in nature rather than informative.
4. we should only link to outside sources when it contains extensive informative (rather than promotional content) which can not otherwise be covered in the article.
5. wikipedia isn't a collection of links, and information from external resources should be vetted against wikipedia's policies and included inside the article IF it comes from reliable sources. it should only be linked under the circumstances listed in #4 above
6. David Miscavidge's relationship to the social betterment campaign is not notable, as of now the only source that ties David Miscavidge to the social betterment campaign is the link you have provided and I can not find any other reliable source. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

also if you keep reading that section it states clearly "Normally, only one official link is included." Right now I count three, which I am going to look at and see if we can bring it back to one.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

cut the links down to the Scientology.org bio. The human rights link is not loading and the RTC link doesn't provide any additional information from the Scientology.org link. While the RTC bio is probably more concise, I think the Scientology.org provides more information, although promotional in nature. If someone wants to switch them out I won't complain. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued POV issues

Third paragraph of intro is pure WP:UNDUE as unproven allegations, and as with Michele Miscavige, these articles have essentially become attack pages and flagrantly violating WP:BLP, which is not being taken seriously on the most important articles related to management personas in the Scientology organization. The fact that the article also lists Miscavige as the "leader of the Church of Scientology" when his official title is "ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion" is also a major issue. Laval (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Laval. If I may, I would like to address this particular issue of whether Miscavige is a "leader of the COS" as opposed to an "ecclesiastical leader" of the supposed religion.

Factually neither suggested title is true. Judicially, Miscavige has been recognized as the driving individual for virtually all criminal activities committed by the Scientology corporation where ever Scientology still has business offices, and as we see in the extant civil Garcia and Rathbun cases and with the extant Scientology "Narconon" criminal indictments, more Judicial rulings finding to that effect are being added to the available criminal and civil case law record. Indeed, Judicially we have found that Miscavige's titles are irrelevant.

As a volunteer editor you're aware that Wikipedia charter covers the need to be encyclopedic and accurate while also maintaining, as you note, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE among other guidelines, however what matters most is accuracy, not routinely-verified-false claims by corporate public relations entities. Editors have a duty to remain factual, to provide testable citations for their textual edits, and to follow various guidelines for neutrality and rhetoric, however the extant article is about the top leader of an organized crime ring:

Of the two different titles you note, the "leader of the COS" is far more accurate than "ecclesiastical leader" as you suggest. If I may "word clear" the term "ecclesiastical" the primary definition is "of or relating to a church especially as an established institution" which obviously does not apply to criminal enterprises -- which is why the OP editor almost certainly selected the more accurate title that you noted.

If you feel strongly for the need to select a different title for Mr. Miscavige, you might ask for volunteers to suggest which is the more accurate. May I suggest you ask for a third party opinion and see if other editors might care to comment? If you feel strongly about the current Wikipedia title. Damotclese (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, as with Michele Miscavige, there continues to be a huge amount of undue weight being given to rumors and speculations about Miscavige's alleged "disappearance" -- considering the fact that Miscavige's wife has been proven to not be "missing" and has made clear that she has a right to privacy, not sure why there is still a continued insistence to keep inserting allegations -- as has been demonstrated on other articles, WP:BLP is quite strict and this policy is absolutely being violated here and at Michele Miscavige as with numerous other Scientology figures. Laval (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, the article needs to be updated to remove text covering the alleged disappearance of Mr. Miscavige's wife. Why don't you update the text to correct that? If you wish, I will do so, let me know if you would like to update the text or if I should. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mystery of Shelly Miscavige

I think it's important that the article point out that nothing is known about Shelly Miscavige's current condition. According to all sources I was able to find online, neither Scientology or the LAPD will answer any questions about her present situation, other than that she is not deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitzer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Laval that the coverage on Michele Miscavige is undue weight and there is no need to keep inserting allegations. It was alleged that she disappeared and now that has been clearly disproven. The text about her alleged disappearance should be removed. I am leaving this to the concerned editors, but might need to take action if there is no movement.

Additionally, I am reverting the recent edit including the LAPD and Tony Ortega. It simply reads as an unnecessary detail, and more importantly, it does not comply with WP:RS, it is based on a personal blog.Merrymoo112 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that my most recent edit was promptly removed by the apparent Scientologist Merrymoo112. While it's good that Scientologists keep track of articles mentioning their leader, I think it's necessary in the interest of neutrality to point out that absolutely NOTHING is known about Shelly Miscavige's current condition, except for the fact that she is not dead. I'm not claiming in the article she's brainwashed or kept incommunicado, merely that her status is a black hole. It's easily verifiable through the link deleted by Merrymoo112 (http://tonyortega.org/2013/08/24/tonight-scientologys-hollywood-celebrity-center-gala-will-shelly-be-there/) and elsewhere that the LAPD undeniably refused to answer any questions about their meeting with Shelly Miscavige. Nothing whatsoever is known about her living conditions. Scientology hasn't revealed anything. tonyortega.org is not a personal blog, but a serious journalistic effort, in a time when many print journalists are willing to give Scientology a free pass. He has written online about Scientology for many years, and has thousands of critical readers per day. I don't see why Tony Ortega would lie about the LAPD refusing to answer his questions, which is the only claim for the link source deleted by Merrymoo112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitzer (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Until there has been some more feedback, I am restoring the fact that the LAPD has refused to answer any questions about Shelly Miscavige's condition, but not adding the link to tonyortega.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitzer (talk • contribs) 06:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to include this, we should be very careful about phrasing. I have added a source, which is important per WP:BLP. That part isn't negotiable. Adding controversial material about living people (and Miscavige is both living and controversial) requires extra care and attention, and needs to be backed up by reliable sources. The point about the LAPD, relatively minor though it is, falls under this policy. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the statements about Shelly Miscavidge aren't WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP violations. Those statements are given significant coverage by WP:RS over a large extent of time, and are WP:NOTE. Please keep in mind that notability doesn't expire, and significant events are not erased after the fact. The controversy over David's wife has played a significant role in the media coverage about COB, and therefore doesn't violate weight or POV.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

After looking over the sources, I agree. His wife's lack of a public appearance is certainly better documented and more significant than his fondness for "Philly cheesesteaks, scrapple and perogies," which shares the same section. If Ortega's blog doesn't meet WP:RS than it appears there's several news outlets covering the same topic that could be used instead. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• We should probably attempt to discuss the issue of the missing wife who remains missing despite the assurances of the LAPD which merely stated that they spoke with the woman, the issue is that she has disappeared but that there is no suspected homicide or gangland killing, nothing like that. The actual text of the article needs to be updated to reflect that fact least anyone checking Wikipedia as a primary source walk away believing that there is something nefarious.

After all, people are allowed to disappear in the United States, and while she's apparently still alive and apparently not being held against her will, the text should reflect that the LAPD has confirmed that she lives; we don't want people checking Wikipedia to derive the belief that she's dead or kidnapped or in "The Hole" with the others.

Merrymoo112, if there remains deviation from WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT that concerned you then let's discuss ways to alleviate those issues in the Talk: section. We can look at the existing text and offer some proposed updates which address inaccuracies or notes that are not supported by testable citations. At the same time I'll check the test concerning the "invisible" wife and propose an update here in Talk: Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bucks County or Philadelphia?

"David Miscavige was born in 1960 in Bucks County[13] in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" Since the City of Philadelphia is entirely within Philadelphia County both of these statements cannot be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.160.82 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. According to google books, the source attached to him being from Philly said nothing about his birth place. I have removed the line. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

U.K. Supreme Court recognition.

User Skyparkroute101 has added a line about the recent issue of religious recognition for marriages in the U.K.. I don't think this belongs here. WP:WEIGHT is one reason, but also the connection to Miscavige himself is not made clear by any sources, so it seems like puffy WP:OR to give him credit for this. I removed the line, but Skyparkroute101 re-added it with additional sources. One of the sources is WP:PRIMARY that barely even mentions the decision, and doesn't address the weight issue. One is almost certainly a WP:COPYVIO and should not be re-inserted at all, ever, per WP:ELNEVER. The other additional sources mention Miscavige, but fail to make any clear connection between him and the recent decision. One specifically suggests that the decision was more about the U.K.'s marriage laws than Miscavige's leadership. [13] The whole thing is already covered in Scientology in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. I do not think this should be included here without much better sources explicitly making Miscavige's role clear. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the line pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unverifiable content

I have removed the following text, because all the references supporting it are either inaccessible or does not support the text: "David Miscavige works primarily from Scientology's Gold Base near Hemet, California.[16][32][33] Scientologists often refer to him as "DM", or "C.O.B.", for chairman of the board.[23][34]"

The following lists the references used to support removed text and my findings:

Times Staff Writer (June 20, 2009). "David Miscavige bio, and bios of Scientology officials who defected". St. Petersburg Times - doesn’t say precisely that he works out of Gold Base

Reitman, Janet (March 9, 2006). "Inside Scientology". Rolling Stone(www.rollingstone.com) (995): 57. Retrieved 2010-10-12. - article is inaccessible

^ Streeter, Michael (2008). Behind Closed Doors. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd. p. 230. ISBN 1-84537-937-3.-Specific page number in book is inaccessible

Sappell, Joel; Welkos, Robert W. (June 24, 1990). "The Man In Control". Los Angeles Times. p. A41:4. Retrieved 2006-06-06. - Reference doesn’t say exactly that he is called such by Scientologists

^ Frenschkowski, Marco (2010-01-01). "Researching Scientology: Some Observations on Recent Literature, English and German". Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review (Academic Publishing) 1 (1): 36–37.ISSN 1946-0538. Retrieved 2011-01-13. - article is inaccessible

Thank you.Skyparkroute101 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your edit because your complaint that you can't access materials online isn't a valid reason to remove references. We need to avoid an electronic bias and accept both electronic and print sources. you are correct that several of the links have expired, do you have any evidence that the information cited is incorrect based on the print sources?

I have also removed the POV tag. Tags are used to direct editors to specific issues within an article. please note that the tag itself states "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." If there isn't an active discussion, then the tag is removed. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher and hope you continue using the talk page. Talk pages are much more helpful for the overall progress of an article than unilaterally making controversial edits. For what it's worth, if you disagree with Coffeepusher or me, you can ask for more help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but I'm pretty sure they'd agree with us. Andrew³²⁷ 08:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- Keeping It Clean

Thanks to the editors that are keeping the article clean of obvious vandalism. Factual information assists people currently handing their money to David Miscavige decide to walk away, overblown rhetoric and obviously false information only serves to seat Scientologists inability to accept that Scientology is an unworkable fraud, so keeping the article clean is a plus plus plus. Damotclese (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)