![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The recent edit I posted parallels the succinct way that third-party organizations refer to this historical figure, as the “leader of the Scientology religion.” It is extremely important to start the article in a way that rhetorically represents the living person in the most correct way. Case in point, the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, which clearly states all his roles and appropriate titles. The ABC source I initially provided clearly uses this wording and so do other third-party references. It seems odd that the only reference that was left standing was the Scientology.org reference, a primary reference, that based on policy, should not hold as much weight as third-party reliable sources. Ironically, the Scientology.org reference also supports the wording “leader of the Scientology religion,” and it puzzles me why it was changed back to “leader of the Church of Scientology.”
I have changed the text back to the correct wording, one that justly represents the subject of this BLP. Thank you. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Grayfell, when you say it’s your opinion, that is correct. That is both yours and Coffeepusher’s corroborated opinion that saying that Miscavige is “the leader of the Scientology religion” is incorrect. Coffeepusher, you have not cited any references to the “facts” that you state, including that “the structure of the official church being multifaceted with many elements being separate from his leadership.” It is based on your interpretation and opinion alone. Grayfell, you say it is “inconsistent with the facts.” I find this statement purely subjective. Last time I checked, it is the reliable sources that carry weight, which I have dutifully provided. The references I provided clearly show that Miscavige is the leader of the Scientology religion. You have not provided any references to back up your statements, and you did not provide adequate explanation for reverting my edit twice. I am adhering to policy, and you appear to be adhering to opinion. Wikipedia policy is supposed to outweigh opinion. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. I’m sorry but I included references to the point, but your response does not cite policy or include references at all. The references I cited are not controversial or obscure references as your assert arbitrarily, but to address your point, I’ve included more references that clearly refer to Miscavige as “the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion.” You say that something is not “automatically ’true’ just because it’s repeated by sources.” Last time I checked, verifiability outweighs “truth” (WP::NOTTRUTH)
Additional references: http://www.tampabay.com/news/david-miscavige-bio-and-bios-of-scientology-officials-who-defected/1012137 http://www.christianpost.com/news/church-of-scientology-building-multimillion-dollar-chapel-in-nycs-east-harlem-103222/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/lapd-dismisses-leah-reminis-missing-person-report-wife/story?id=19912347 http://www.minnpost.com/global-post/2012/09/church-scientology-opens-center-israel
Let me quote the section of the policy that is relevant to our discussion: “Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.”
It seems that your sole reason for reverting the edit is because you disagree with it. Policy clearly states that you “may not remove sources’ views from articles simply because [you] disagree with them.” Based on this alone, my edit must stand: I think I’ve provided enough sources to back it up. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. Upon reading through them, I’m afraid you have still failed to provide a substantial, WP policy and reference based argument to support your subjective opinions. Additionally, your allusion to being able to find any reference whatsoever saying anything about Miscavige, i.e., “he’s a usurper,” is not an apples to apples comparison nor analogous to the specific major media outlet and Wikipedia approved references I have thus far provided. (Let us all acknowledge that that type of language, i.e., “usurper,” is not normally used in authoritative publications). At this stage of discussion, I have now provided 7 different authoritative and Wikipedia approved media references (in the initial edit itself, and here at the talk page) that use the phrase being discussed here verbatim and supports the nomenclature “leader of the Scientology religion.” Again, your responses to such seem based solely on subjective opinion and devoid of supportive WP policy and authoritative references. If you can provide WP policy and third-party reference based support for your contention then we can begin to engage in constructive dialogue on this important edit. We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles, especially in the lead, correct. I look forward to working constructively with you on this edit. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
My previously added information to the time mention was reverted because of WP:SYNTH. I've rewritten the information with more detail, with each point backed up by solid references, and made sure I did not synthesize any data. I believe that the Time article should be contextualized against the controversy that surrounded it, and also include how the subject of the page, Miscavige and the Church itself, responded to it. Mickmontez ( talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see in the news that the individual has been officially served legal papers ordering him to appear or answer for numerous crimes he committed as part of Scientology's " Narconon" crimes. Should that fact be added to the "criticism" section? Or should maybe a "legal" section be created? Damotclese ( talk) 20:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In Family and Personal Life, link #81 is dead. However, the Reuters article is still live at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/entertainment-us-leahremini-scientology-idUSBRE97800Q20130809. I tried to make the change, but don't seem to be doing it right. I invite anyone more competent than I (that would probably be most of you) to update the link.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit switched the person infobox for template:infobox officeholder. I like the idea of incorporating the Sea Org rank into the infobox, but the way it was done implied that the Sea Org was a military organization, rather than a paramilitary organization. I don't think there is a simple way to change that, but that infobox is complicated enough that I may be wrong. Unless it can be modified to clearly indicate that he does not hold a rank in any military branch as that term is commonly understood this should not be restored. Grayfell ( talk) 03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Grayfell, I would like to appeal the reversion of my recent edit. I personally think the first few sentences of the media coverage and criticism section add nothing to the section and the deletion of it does not take away from the purpose of the lead. Better to go straight to the point. What do you think? Truegravity ( talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I’ve made a few changes to the Family and Personal life section regarding the controversial incident with Powell and Ron Miscavige. TMZ does not comply with WP:RS, it is more widely known as a gossip magazine. Made the source the LA times the main source, the publication that first broke the story and cited by several other sources that re-told the story. Also, for NPOV, I’ve included Scientology response to the issue. Tony Ortega is a good source, but might be construed as a personal blog, so I’ve replaced it with the People magazine source that also includes statement by Scientology’s Pouw in response to the incident. Tightened up some of the wording for better reading. Replaced Ron Sr. with Ronald Sr as that is colloquial. Truegravity ( talk) 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Grayfell. I agree with your points on the Powell entry, the TODAY reference was inaccessible on my end and wouldn't load, and I thought there was some kind of problem with the video. Good to enforce notability, and the time and expense related to Powell is definitely important. I've recently shortened a portion this aforementioned section because it reads in a choppy way (section related to the Tobin and Childs reports on Miscavige allegations). I think the section reads stronger if we just mention what the allegations where without convoluting it with other details. Truegravity ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Damotclese ( talk · contribs), you reverted my edit with the note, "Court document cited is valid -- let's discuss in Talk: please -- Undid revision 698458747 by Sfarney." My original edit deleted the statement and the source because Tonyortega.com is a blog, and we cannot use a blog for a living person. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. The purported court document may or may not be valid, but it is a primary source. Even worse, it is just a sworn statement, not a court ruling. Anyone can say anything in an affidavit, running only a small risk of penalty for perjury. But worst of all, we have no real basis to believe it is a real court document. It appears on a blog, which is itself not an RS. This is not Wiki quality RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: "Primary sources should almost always be avoided, especially in law. Many court documents are advocacy pieces by one of the lawyers and even the judge's opinion is often overturned several times in appellate courts or ignored in favor of a compromise/settlement after the hearing. There is no way to tell if any particular document represents the final outcome. The press also often mis-reports on legal issues, due to a lack of expertise. The best possible secondary sources would be law journals. This might help. I have no COI with this page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)" [1] Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The questions here are:
I don't think anyone is seriously denying the first two points, and we have a book source and a sworn statement from Marty Rathburn, a very senior ex-member of the organisation, now reported in a reliable news source, so I think those are OK.
As for points 3 and 4, we only have the court testimony, which is probably true because of the source, but it's certainly a primary source, so shouldn't stand on its own to support anything contentious. I think it's probably best to leave those two items out for now. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority reliable, independent sources state that he is the leader of the entire Church of Scientology as an organization including the Sea Org, of which he is also a member, but as Grammar says, that only sometimes matches with the Church's own description of his role. The very few exceptions in usable sources point to people like Heber Jentzsch as counter examples, but again, most sources also describe Scientology's legal structure as deliberately convoluted. Trying to make a single coherent sentence from all these sources is asking for WP:SYNTH, so keeping it simple seems like the way to go. Corporate legal papers are exactly the kind of primary sources we should't be using without outside commentary or analysis. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Still, it's not as if we're chucking out sources just because there's some arbitrary rule that says so. This whole discussion has been around the concept of whether we are summarising what reliable sources are saying about the subject, and not just picking any sources that fit some convenient narrative. If we allow questionable sources, then we'll have questionable conclusions in our articles, and we'll be susceptible to POV-pushing. The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing. -- Slashme ( talk) 23:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
A book on the Legendary Locals of Willingboro by Josh Bernstein reveals greater detail on Miscavige's early life, and I added a few that weren't included here to further enrich the section and inject greater continuity. Such details are hard to find on the web, and I think it will do a service to readers to include these details from Bernstein's book. Thanks. Truegravity ( talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Actual numbers were around 1,000 customers according to photographs, however the proposed commentary about the incident also does not qualify to be added to a biography of a living person. When David goes to a grocery store and buys something, we don't add commentary about it to Wikipedia. :) Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
We should probably get User:Ultimatorr blocked now to avoid waste of editor volunteer time. He/She is obviously a WP:SPA and is likely the same editor who has been banned from vandalizing R2-45. Let's not get dragged in to another lengthy "Dev-T" fiasco and block this person immediately. Damotclese ( talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Damotclese, I’ve only recently started editing and it just so happens that I started with the David Miscavige page. I looked into the policy on single-purpose accounts and I am not a single-purpose account and have created this account with the intention of contributing to other Wikipedia pages. My edit history is too young for you to be making such an accusation. I also have no knowledge of the R2-45 issue that you mentioned, and I doubt that you have any technical evidence to prove your claim, because I am not connected to it at all. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The media production facility has no shortage of coverage in the media, I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. It has been called "Scientology's CNN." I have also replaced the reference with a much better source to support the text, a credible news publication that mentions numbers and includes quotes. Here are some links prior to event anticipating it. Thank you. http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.movienewsguide.com/tom-cruise-puts-scientology-media-productions-plans-movies-related-scientology/75478 http://www.inquisitr.com/2255501/tom-cruise-renews-his-dedication-to-scientology-with-a-global-agenda/ http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/57963/20150716/tom-cruise-scientology-global-domination-new-church-studios-brainwashing-recruitment.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156464/Inside-Tom-Cruise-s-Scientology-CNN-TV-news-network-set-launched-new-Hollywood-50-million-studio-bigger-Paramount.html Ultimatorr ( talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Damotclese, the site I used was not a PR site. It was www.news.com.au and a news blog called Australian Women’s Weekly. A third reference is Christian Examiner. ( http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) These are credible news sources. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I understand your points. If you would like to post a different version, one that you would deem more neutral, what would you recommend? I propose something that goes simply like this: "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." Ultimatorr ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The notability of Scientology Media Productions, and the fact that it has been awaited by media, non-members and church members alike as seen in the media speculation and coverage around it is enough. There are three major news sources that reported on the opening, Australian Women’s Weekly, News.com.au and just recently, Christian Examiner ( http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) Miscavige’s speeches aren’t always reported by media and based on the reports and the lengthy inclusion of his speech, he played a big part in the opening of the media production facility. The restoration of the media facility has been covered by media ever since the church acquired KCET studios in 2011. Less newsworthy and noteworthy things have been posted on Wikipedia. Since this happened under Miscavige’s leadership, it would only make sense to post it here. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I foresee that it will be difficult for us to come to a consensus and I've researched an alternative. I have posted straightforward information based on several credible sources regarding Scientology Media Productions in a section that I've found where it better belongs, the production facilities section of the Church of Scientology page.( /info/en/?search=Church_of_Scientology#Production_Facilities). Two other facilities are already mentioned there. Thank you. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, this is obviously a Scientology owner/operator/customer who has created a WP:SPA and is engaged in WP:NOTHERE who needs to be banned. This is probably the same individual who wasted a month worth of volunteer time in R2-45 who is being sanctioned. This sock puppet account needs to be banned and the abusive individual's IP needs to be blocked. Damotclese ( talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
...the cult and its leaders have revamped the church's media strategyas an attempt at deflecting negative attention. Do you really want to incorporate content from that source into this article? C'mon now, get real. Grayfell ( talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I think it's time to revisit the inclusion of Miscavige's inauguration of the media production center. Several new, and unquestionably credible sources have covered the opening, all of them mentioning Miscavige's role and excerpts of his speech in the opening event. I reiterate what I've said before about why this should be included here, and these new sources should be sufficient to fulfill Wikipedia's reliable source policy. We could simply say "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." See references below: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/21/church-scientology-opens-50-million-media-production-complex-hollywood/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#5ba245cb62af https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/church-of-scientology-opens-film-studio-complex-hollywood https://www.rt.com/usa/347840-scientology-propaganda-network-launched/ Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell. I took your feedback to the other editor and I researched the event of the opening of the media production facility but I still cannot understand why you would say this event is not biographically significant. Miscavige does not do events like this all the time as far as I could find, as you claimed, and this facility as far as I can research, isn’t a church, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I found, plus the opening of the broadcast location, which I read was previously inhabited by public broadcasting network KCIT, as far as I could research, is a first for them and Miscavige.
Now, you’re the admin, and I’m new, so trying to learn, but as far as I can tell, I’ve used Reuters, a source that is valid and credible to Wikipedia, no? Please correct if wrong. The talk page discussion with the other editor questioned the references he used, but I’ve used a different reference, so this is a different case, no? Bluefishwarp ( talk) 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought you were an admin. I believe you are creating the burden of various references being able to explicitly show the relevance of Miscavige to the event. Even if the source doesn’t say that he attended the event, the other sources that have been mentioned here clearly says so. I wasn’t misrepresenting that quote but included the quotation marks to include what the article said verbatim and avoid plagiarism. Reuters is only one reference, but as other references show, the fact that he is mentioned time and again, he is relevant to the opening. A few publications even mention that it’s the church’s CNN. Here are some references pointing to the fact: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#49d0469f62af http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629275/Scientology-s-50million-Hollywood-studio-opens-religion-promises-reach-virtually-person-Earth.html http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/07/tom_cruise_scientology_studio_movies_tv_network_cnn.html
It’s the first time in the history of his leadership that he’s built and launched something that references have said is the church’s CNN, and that in itself makes it pretty noteworthy and major. I can't see how this is not neutral as it is based on a strong reference. And as for what you seem to be accusing me of, I did not come to Wikipedia to promote anybody’s interests, but thought this would be a relevant and timely addition given the coverage about it. Yes, I did stumble upon it, and I’m particularly interested in controversial topics such as this. I am learning as I go, and opened up this discussion to come up with an agreement and amicably compare notes. I’m looking at your edit history and it seems that you have an interest in this topic and have a history of rejecting edits on related pages. It seems that you are determined to keep this content off the page, so I’m going to move on.
Damotclese, this is your personal opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t see that rule anywhere in Wikipedia. Bluefishwarp ( talk) 00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed this, as amusing as it is:
When not humiliating people, Miscavige fellates space aliens. [1] [2]
Thanks. Damotclese ( talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
References
A suggested edit for List of cults was reverted. It seems to me that the classification is a valid one so I reverted it to restore the classification. What are other editor's opinion on this? Damotclese ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Miscairrage was originally spelt Myszkiewicz. It's a Polish name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.216.160 ( talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Mvaldemar, what is your explanation for removing that information? I'm looking at reverting your removal. Thanks. Damotclese ( talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini:_Scientology_and_the_Aftermath
So if there was a show about the Catholic Church and it involved the Pope's tenure directly. You wouldn't add it to his Wiki?
165.214.11.69 (
talk)
10:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)ThePunisher
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've simplified the last paragraph of the lead section according to the references that were provided to support the text and to improve rhetoric and wording. As for the references, they do not back up list of accusations, 8 is dead, 9 does not support passage, 10 does not support passage, 11, coercive fundraising practices refers to the church and not to David Miscavige Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand LINKROT. The issue is not merely the some of the links being dead - the references do not support every mention in the section I removed. It was as if they were just included for show. What am I basing my edit on is this part of the BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
These text were pre-existent, and I simply restored some of it because the editor who removed it said "removed until sourced." So that I did, found references and restored it. Your comments about these being included just for show, etc., should be directed to the first editor who added it. The discussion I started was simply about the last paragraph, so I'm not sure why there's a discussion about the other text here. Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
David Miscavige has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ther is a "on June 2018" hat should b "in June 2018" 2605:E000:9149:A600:60D1:B731:8D72:2CF6 ( talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Listen guys, as a long time resident of South Jersey and living across the River from good old Bristol, I can tell you its not 115 miles away from Philly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:c380:5d40:8de7:e13d:e8fb:dc9f ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As the highest ranking officer in the Sea Org, is there a reason why this is not mentioned in the lead? He is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology in his position as Chairman of the Board RTC, which grants him ecclesiastical authority over all Scientologists, both public, civilian staff, and Sea Org, but at the same time he is also the Captain of the Sea Org, which gives him absolute authority over the Sea Org command structure and all Sea Org orgs. Was this discussed at all previously? Laval ( talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that he is a high school drop out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.95.191 ( talk) 06:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The article includes elements such as "church representative". To me this is a problem because I do not see the scientology corporation as a church, so the content is problematic; possibly for others too. By calling the scientology corporation a church, you lend credibility to the claim of it being a religion - for people without a confession this is problematic.
Ideally the article could be rewritten in a more objective, facts-first manner. I don't know what other terms could be used that are more neutral; the term "corporation" may also be problematic due to legal status of scientology in the USA. A more objective term may be "organization", since that does not imply as much as either "religion" (what the ...) or "church" or corporation.
You may wonder why I made this comment? Ideally wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, at all times, based on facts, with as little bias as possible. I do not like the scientology corporation and the sooner it is disbanded, the better - but I also dislike reading content that insinuates that there is a "church representative", since that would imply that scientology is a church/religion, which it clearly is not (at the least not to people outside of the USA; it is not recognized in Europe as religion, for instance, so it CAN NOT legally be called a "church" there). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:419C:5734:36D4:E382 ( talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Rosita Šorytė, who is quoted in the Covid section, works for a Scientology front group (ORLIR, the International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees), and the publishers of her book, FoRB.PRESS, are another Scientology front group, with the general mission of having Scientology recognized as a religion in Europe. Her apologia for Miscavige's Covid comments shouldn't be presented as a neutral source. 172.113.46.119 ( talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
David Miscavige has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Official Church of Scientoloy biographies describe Miscavige" There is a typo in this part of the lead. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:F5B1:8E41:2FD0:A86 ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article that Miscavige has for some reason been evading service for the human trafficking lawsuit between April and September 2022 (Scientology staff members telling process servers that "he doesn't work here and doesn't live here" at whatever building at which they try to find him)? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The recent edit I posted parallels the succinct way that third-party organizations refer to this historical figure, as the “leader of the Scientology religion.” It is extremely important to start the article in a way that rhetorically represents the living person in the most correct way. Case in point, the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, which clearly states all his roles and appropriate titles. The ABC source I initially provided clearly uses this wording and so do other third-party references. It seems odd that the only reference that was left standing was the Scientology.org reference, a primary reference, that based on policy, should not hold as much weight as third-party reliable sources. Ironically, the Scientology.org reference also supports the wording “leader of the Scientology religion,” and it puzzles me why it was changed back to “leader of the Church of Scientology.”
I have changed the text back to the correct wording, one that justly represents the subject of this BLP. Thank you. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Grayfell, when you say it’s your opinion, that is correct. That is both yours and Coffeepusher’s corroborated opinion that saying that Miscavige is “the leader of the Scientology religion” is incorrect. Coffeepusher, you have not cited any references to the “facts” that you state, including that “the structure of the official church being multifaceted with many elements being separate from his leadership.” It is based on your interpretation and opinion alone. Grayfell, you say it is “inconsistent with the facts.” I find this statement purely subjective. Last time I checked, it is the reliable sources that carry weight, which I have dutifully provided. The references I provided clearly show that Miscavige is the leader of the Scientology religion. You have not provided any references to back up your statements, and you did not provide adequate explanation for reverting my edit twice. I am adhering to policy, and you appear to be adhering to opinion. Wikipedia policy is supposed to outweigh opinion. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Grayfell. I’m sorry but I included references to the point, but your response does not cite policy or include references at all. The references I cited are not controversial or obscure references as your assert arbitrarily, but to address your point, I’ve included more references that clearly refer to Miscavige as “the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion.” You say that something is not “automatically ’true’ just because it’s repeated by sources.” Last time I checked, verifiability outweighs “truth” (WP::NOTTRUTH)
Additional references: http://www.tampabay.com/news/david-miscavige-bio-and-bios-of-scientology-officials-who-defected/1012137 http://www.christianpost.com/news/church-of-scientology-building-multimillion-dollar-chapel-in-nycs-east-harlem-103222/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/lapd-dismisses-leah-reminis-missing-person-report-wife/story?id=19912347 http://www.minnpost.com/global-post/2012/09/church-scientology-opens-center-israel
Let me quote the section of the policy that is relevant to our discussion: “Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.”
It seems that your sole reason for reverting the edit is because you disagree with it. Policy clearly states that you “may not remove sources’ views from articles simply because [you] disagree with them.” Based on this alone, my edit must stand: I think I’ve provided enough sources to back it up. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. Upon reading through them, I’m afraid you have still failed to provide a substantial, WP policy and reference based argument to support your subjective opinions. Additionally, your allusion to being able to find any reference whatsoever saying anything about Miscavige, i.e., “he’s a usurper,” is not an apples to apples comparison nor analogous to the specific major media outlet and Wikipedia approved references I have thus far provided. (Let us all acknowledge that that type of language, i.e., “usurper,” is not normally used in authoritative publications). At this stage of discussion, I have now provided 7 different authoritative and Wikipedia approved media references (in the initial edit itself, and here at the talk page) that use the phrase being discussed here verbatim and supports the nomenclature “leader of the Scientology religion.” Again, your responses to such seem based solely on subjective opinion and devoid of supportive WP policy and authoritative references. If you can provide WP policy and third-party reference based support for your contention then we can begin to engage in constructive dialogue on this important edit. We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles, especially in the lead, correct. I look forward to working constructively with you on this edit. Skyparkroute101 ( talk) 00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
My previously added information to the time mention was reverted because of WP:SYNTH. I've rewritten the information with more detail, with each point backed up by solid references, and made sure I did not synthesize any data. I believe that the Time article should be contextualized against the controversy that surrounded it, and also include how the subject of the page, Miscavige and the Church itself, responded to it. Mickmontez ( talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see in the news that the individual has been officially served legal papers ordering him to appear or answer for numerous crimes he committed as part of Scientology's " Narconon" crimes. Should that fact be added to the "criticism" section? Or should maybe a "legal" section be created? Damotclese ( talk) 20:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In Family and Personal Life, link #81 is dead. However, the Reuters article is still live at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/entertainment-us-leahremini-scientology-idUSBRE97800Q20130809. I tried to make the change, but don't seem to be doing it right. I invite anyone more competent than I (that would probably be most of you) to update the link.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit switched the person infobox for template:infobox officeholder. I like the idea of incorporating the Sea Org rank into the infobox, but the way it was done implied that the Sea Org was a military organization, rather than a paramilitary organization. I don't think there is a simple way to change that, but that infobox is complicated enough that I may be wrong. Unless it can be modified to clearly indicate that he does not hold a rank in any military branch as that term is commonly understood this should not be restored. Grayfell ( talk) 03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Grayfell, I would like to appeal the reversion of my recent edit. I personally think the first few sentences of the media coverage and criticism section add nothing to the section and the deletion of it does not take away from the purpose of the lead. Better to go straight to the point. What do you think? Truegravity ( talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I’ve made a few changes to the Family and Personal life section regarding the controversial incident with Powell and Ron Miscavige. TMZ does not comply with WP:RS, it is more widely known as a gossip magazine. Made the source the LA times the main source, the publication that first broke the story and cited by several other sources that re-told the story. Also, for NPOV, I’ve included Scientology response to the issue. Tony Ortega is a good source, but might be construed as a personal blog, so I’ve replaced it with the People magazine source that also includes statement by Scientology’s Pouw in response to the incident. Tightened up some of the wording for better reading. Replaced Ron Sr. with Ronald Sr as that is colloquial. Truegravity ( talk) 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Grayfell. I agree with your points on the Powell entry, the TODAY reference was inaccessible on my end and wouldn't load, and I thought there was some kind of problem with the video. Good to enforce notability, and the time and expense related to Powell is definitely important. I've recently shortened a portion this aforementioned section because it reads in a choppy way (section related to the Tobin and Childs reports on Miscavige allegations). I think the section reads stronger if we just mention what the allegations where without convoluting it with other details. Truegravity ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Damotclese ( talk · contribs), you reverted my edit with the note, "Court document cited is valid -- let's discuss in Talk: please -- Undid revision 698458747 by Sfarney." My original edit deleted the statement and the source because Tonyortega.com is a blog, and we cannot use a blog for a living person. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. The purported court document may or may not be valid, but it is a primary source. Even worse, it is just a sworn statement, not a court ruling. Anyone can say anything in an affidavit, running only a small risk of penalty for perjury. But worst of all, we have no real basis to believe it is a real court document. It appears on a blog, which is itself not an RS. This is not Wiki quality RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: "Primary sources should almost always be avoided, especially in law. Many court documents are advocacy pieces by one of the lawyers and even the judge's opinion is often overturned several times in appellate courts or ignored in favor of a compromise/settlement after the hearing. There is no way to tell if any particular document represents the final outcome. The press also often mis-reports on legal issues, due to a lack of expertise. The best possible secondary sources would be law journals. This might help. I have no COI with this page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)" [1] Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The questions here are:
I don't think anyone is seriously denying the first two points, and we have a book source and a sworn statement from Marty Rathburn, a very senior ex-member of the organisation, now reported in a reliable news source, so I think those are OK.
As for points 3 and 4, we only have the court testimony, which is probably true because of the source, but it's certainly a primary source, so shouldn't stand on its own to support anything contentious. I think it's probably best to leave those two items out for now. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority reliable, independent sources state that he is the leader of the entire Church of Scientology as an organization including the Sea Org, of which he is also a member, but as Grammar says, that only sometimes matches with the Church's own description of his role. The very few exceptions in usable sources point to people like Heber Jentzsch as counter examples, but again, most sources also describe Scientology's legal structure as deliberately convoluted. Trying to make a single coherent sentence from all these sources is asking for WP:SYNTH, so keeping it simple seems like the way to go. Corporate legal papers are exactly the kind of primary sources we should't be using without outside commentary or analysis. Grayfell ( talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Still, it's not as if we're chucking out sources just because there's some arbitrary rule that says so. This whole discussion has been around the concept of whether we are summarising what reliable sources are saying about the subject, and not just picking any sources that fit some convenient narrative. If we allow questionable sources, then we'll have questionable conclusions in our articles, and we'll be susceptible to POV-pushing. The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing. -- Slashme ( talk) 23:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
A book on the Legendary Locals of Willingboro by Josh Bernstein reveals greater detail on Miscavige's early life, and I added a few that weren't included here to further enrich the section and inject greater continuity. Such details are hard to find on the web, and I think it will do a service to readers to include these details from Bernstein's book. Thanks. Truegravity ( talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Actual numbers were around 1,000 customers according to photographs, however the proposed commentary about the incident also does not qualify to be added to a biography of a living person. When David goes to a grocery store and buys something, we don't add commentary about it to Wikipedia. :) Thanks! Damotclese ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
We should probably get User:Ultimatorr blocked now to avoid waste of editor volunteer time. He/She is obviously a WP:SPA and is likely the same editor who has been banned from vandalizing R2-45. Let's not get dragged in to another lengthy "Dev-T" fiasco and block this person immediately. Damotclese ( talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Damotclese, I’ve only recently started editing and it just so happens that I started with the David Miscavige page. I looked into the policy on single-purpose accounts and I am not a single-purpose account and have created this account with the intention of contributing to other Wikipedia pages. My edit history is too young for you to be making such an accusation. I also have no knowledge of the R2-45 issue that you mentioned, and I doubt that you have any technical evidence to prove your claim, because I am not connected to it at all. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The media production facility has no shortage of coverage in the media, I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. It has been called "Scientology's CNN." I have also replaced the reference with a much better source to support the text, a credible news publication that mentions numbers and includes quotes. Here are some links prior to event anticipating it. Thank you. http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.movienewsguide.com/tom-cruise-puts-scientology-media-productions-plans-movies-related-scientology/75478 http://www.inquisitr.com/2255501/tom-cruise-renews-his-dedication-to-scientology-with-a-global-agenda/ http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/57963/20150716/tom-cruise-scientology-global-domination-new-church-studios-brainwashing-recruitment.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156464/Inside-Tom-Cruise-s-Scientology-CNN-TV-news-network-set-launched-new-Hollywood-50-million-studio-bigger-Paramount.html Ultimatorr ( talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Damotclese, the site I used was not a PR site. It was www.news.com.au and a news blog called Australian Women’s Weekly. A third reference is Christian Examiner. ( http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) These are credible news sources. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I understand your points. If you would like to post a different version, one that you would deem more neutral, what would you recommend? I propose something that goes simply like this: "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." Ultimatorr ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The notability of Scientology Media Productions, and the fact that it has been awaited by media, non-members and church members alike as seen in the media speculation and coverage around it is enough. There are three major news sources that reported on the opening, Australian Women’s Weekly, News.com.au and just recently, Christian Examiner ( http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm) Miscavige’s speeches aren’t always reported by media and based on the reports and the lengthy inclusion of his speech, he played a big part in the opening of the media production facility. The restoration of the media facility has been covered by media ever since the church acquired KCET studios in 2011. Less newsworthy and noteworthy things have been posted on Wikipedia. Since this happened under Miscavige’s leadership, it would only make sense to post it here. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I foresee that it will be difficult for us to come to a consensus and I've researched an alternative. I have posted straightforward information based on several credible sources regarding Scientology Media Productions in a section that I've found where it better belongs, the production facilities section of the Church of Scientology page.( /info/en/?search=Church_of_Scientology#Production_Facilities). Two other facilities are already mentioned there. Thank you. Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, this is obviously a Scientology owner/operator/customer who has created a WP:SPA and is engaged in WP:NOTHERE who needs to be banned. This is probably the same individual who wasted a month worth of volunteer time in R2-45 who is being sanctioned. This sock puppet account needs to be banned and the abusive individual's IP needs to be blocked. Damotclese ( talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
...the cult and its leaders have revamped the church's media strategyas an attempt at deflecting negative attention. Do you really want to incorporate content from that source into this article? C'mon now, get real. Grayfell ( talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, I think it's time to revisit the inclusion of Miscavige's inauguration of the media production center. Several new, and unquestionably credible sources have covered the opening, all of them mentioning Miscavige's role and excerpts of his speech in the opening event. I reiterate what I've said before about why this should be included here, and these new sources should be sufficient to fulfill Wikipedia's reliable source policy. We could simply say "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." See references below: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/21/church-scientology-opens-50-million-media-production-complex-hollywood/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#5ba245cb62af https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/church-of-scientology-opens-film-studio-complex-hollywood https://www.rt.com/usa/347840-scientology-propaganda-network-launched/ Ultimatorr ( talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell. I took your feedback to the other editor and I researched the event of the opening of the media production facility but I still cannot understand why you would say this event is not biographically significant. Miscavige does not do events like this all the time as far as I could find, as you claimed, and this facility as far as I can research, isn’t a church, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I found, plus the opening of the broadcast location, which I read was previously inhabited by public broadcasting network KCIT, as far as I could research, is a first for them and Miscavige.
Now, you’re the admin, and I’m new, so trying to learn, but as far as I can tell, I’ve used Reuters, a source that is valid and credible to Wikipedia, no? Please correct if wrong. The talk page discussion with the other editor questioned the references he used, but I’ve used a different reference, so this is a different case, no? Bluefishwarp ( talk) 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought you were an admin. I believe you are creating the burden of various references being able to explicitly show the relevance of Miscavige to the event. Even if the source doesn’t say that he attended the event, the other sources that have been mentioned here clearly says so. I wasn’t misrepresenting that quote but included the quotation marks to include what the article said verbatim and avoid plagiarism. Reuters is only one reference, but as other references show, the fact that he is mentioned time and again, he is relevant to the opening. A few publications even mention that it’s the church’s CNN. Here are some references pointing to the fact: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#49d0469f62af http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629275/Scientology-s-50million-Hollywood-studio-opens-religion-promises-reach-virtually-person-Earth.html http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/ http://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/07/tom_cruise_scientology_studio_movies_tv_network_cnn.html
It’s the first time in the history of his leadership that he’s built and launched something that references have said is the church’s CNN, and that in itself makes it pretty noteworthy and major. I can't see how this is not neutral as it is based on a strong reference. And as for what you seem to be accusing me of, I did not come to Wikipedia to promote anybody’s interests, but thought this would be a relevant and timely addition given the coverage about it. Yes, I did stumble upon it, and I’m particularly interested in controversial topics such as this. I am learning as I go, and opened up this discussion to come up with an agreement and amicably compare notes. I’m looking at your edit history and it seems that you have an interest in this topic and have a history of rejecting edits on related pages. It seems that you are determined to keep this content off the page, so I’m going to move on.
Damotclese, this is your personal opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t see that rule anywhere in Wikipedia. Bluefishwarp ( talk) 00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed this, as amusing as it is:
When not humiliating people, Miscavige fellates space aliens. [1] [2]
Thanks. Damotclese ( talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
References
A suggested edit for List of cults was reverted. It seems to me that the classification is a valid one so I reverted it to restore the classification. What are other editor's opinion on this? Damotclese ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Miscairrage was originally spelt Myszkiewicz. It's a Polish name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.216.160 ( talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Mvaldemar, what is your explanation for removing that information? I'm looking at reverting your removal. Thanks. Damotclese ( talk) 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini:_Scientology_and_the_Aftermath
So if there was a show about the Catholic Church and it involved the Pope's tenure directly. You wouldn't add it to his Wiki?
165.214.11.69 (
talk)
10:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)ThePunisher
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've simplified the last paragraph of the lead section according to the references that were provided to support the text and to improve rhetoric and wording. As for the references, they do not back up list of accusations, 8 is dead, 9 does not support passage, 10 does not support passage, 11, coercive fundraising practices refers to the church and not to David Miscavige Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand LINKROT. The issue is not merely the some of the links being dead - the references do not support every mention in the section I removed. It was as if they were just included for show. What am I basing my edit on is this part of the BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
These text were pre-existent, and I simply restored some of it because the editor who removed it said "removed until sourced." So that I did, found references and restored it. Your comments about these being included just for show, etc., should be directed to the first editor who added it. The discussion I started was simply about the last paragraph, so I'm not sure why there's a discussion about the other text here. Wordsculptor2018 ( talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
David Miscavige has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ther is a "on June 2018" hat should b "in June 2018" 2605:E000:9149:A600:60D1:B731:8D72:2CF6 ( talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Listen guys, as a long time resident of South Jersey and living across the River from good old Bristol, I can tell you its not 115 miles away from Philly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:c380:5d40:8de7:e13d:e8fb:dc9f ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As the highest ranking officer in the Sea Org, is there a reason why this is not mentioned in the lead? He is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology in his position as Chairman of the Board RTC, which grants him ecclesiastical authority over all Scientologists, both public, civilian staff, and Sea Org, but at the same time he is also the Captain of the Sea Org, which gives him absolute authority over the Sea Org command structure and all Sea Org orgs. Was this discussed at all previously? Laval ( talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that he is a high school drop out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.95.191 ( talk) 06:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The article includes elements such as "church representative". To me this is a problem because I do not see the scientology corporation as a church, so the content is problematic; possibly for others too. By calling the scientology corporation a church, you lend credibility to the claim of it being a religion - for people without a confession this is problematic.
Ideally the article could be rewritten in a more objective, facts-first manner. I don't know what other terms could be used that are more neutral; the term "corporation" may also be problematic due to legal status of scientology in the USA. A more objective term may be "organization", since that does not imply as much as either "religion" (what the ...) or "church" or corporation.
You may wonder why I made this comment? Ideally wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, at all times, based on facts, with as little bias as possible. I do not like the scientology corporation and the sooner it is disbanded, the better - but I also dislike reading content that insinuates that there is a "church representative", since that would imply that scientology is a church/religion, which it clearly is not (at the least not to people outside of the USA; it is not recognized in Europe as religion, for instance, so it CAN NOT legally be called a "church" there). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:419C:5734:36D4:E382 ( talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Rosita Šorytė, who is quoted in the Covid section, works for a Scientology front group (ORLIR, the International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees), and the publishers of her book, FoRB.PRESS, are another Scientology front group, with the general mission of having Scientology recognized as a religion in Europe. Her apologia for Miscavige's Covid comments shouldn't be presented as a neutral source. 172.113.46.119 ( talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
David Miscavige has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Official Church of Scientoloy biographies describe Miscavige" There is a typo in this part of the lead. 2601:901:4300:1CF0:F5B1:8E41:2FD0:A86 ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article that Miscavige has for some reason been evading service for the human trafficking lawsuit between April and September 2022 (Scientology staff members telling process servers that "he doesn't work here and doesn't live here" at whatever building at which they try to find him)? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)