Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tilman (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 23 June 2007 (→Recent Edits and Reversions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

24 April 2005 - 25 May 2006 May 2006 - January 2007

Reverted deleted paragraph

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

I would, however, delete the "Christ" paragraph. Reason: 1) the SUN is not exactly a reliable source 2) it doesn't sound plausible - it's not the sort of language that scientology uses 3) it has been denied by scientology. --Tilman 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully concur with Tilman. CyberAnth 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman is correct on all counts, additionally the article does not even posit a source at all for the statements allegedly by DM. If you read it carefully it cites a friend close to cruise and this "friend" in fact says nothing at all about what DM might or might not have said. The article is an utter fabrication and it seems content to be a blatantly unclever one at that. Re removing the Christ paragraph. Slightlyright 09:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

This isn't just "a" tabloid. The SUN is one of the worst. (On the other hand, the New York Post and the New York Daily News have been pretty reliable). Plus, the story has been denied. So either delete it, or add that it has been denied. --Tilman 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If this get reverted again to include the Sun statement I will solicit rapid admin intervention to lock the page, excluding the statement, which they will surely grant because the inclusion is simply on the wrong side of policy. CyberAnth 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is enough of a consensus that six sentences in a tabloid sourced to some unnamed "source close to the actor" isn't a WP:RS, especially with WP:BLP. AndroidCat 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is relevant enough to David Miscavige to be here, anyways. But frankly, I see no reason to spread this story any further and so assist the Church of Scientology, which is probably the one that leaked it to The Sun in the first place. Seriously -- look at the pattern and compare it to history. Tom Cruise announcing his intent to eat the placenta when Katie gave birth, waiting long enough for the report to be published and quickly spread everywhere, and then publicly laughing it off as 'just a joke' -- which the news media should have known was too bizarre to be true, obviously, unlike a silent birth or a private citizen with no medical training buying his own ultrasound machine. Then came the rumors of The Thetan, a film described so as to make it sound like an equal mixture of Scientology doctrine and popcorn action flick cliches, supposedly starring Tom Cruise and Posh Spice -- once again published, quickly spreading everywhere for about a week in which the notoriously publicity-conscious Church of Scientology stayed curiously silent -- and then stepped forward to declare the rumors to be ludicrous. Now it's this "Cruise is the Christ of Scientology" thing. Once again, the rumor gets published, spreads quickly, and receives a curiously late rebuttal from the CoS, which incidentally uses the opportunity to publicize all its dubious claims such as "the largest non-governmental anti-drug governmental program in the world, the largest human rights education program, the largest global emergency response force with over 95,000 strong and has grown more in the last five years than the previous 50 years combined" and to whine about "an utterly fabricated story ... propagated in an effort to marginalize Scientology or make Scientology, its leaders or its members seem strange". Okay, the first report I can find of the "Miscavige called Cruise the Christ of Scientology" story is January 24. The first report I can find of the Church of Scientology denying the story, however, isn't until February 2. ... Are we supposed to believe that the Church of Scientology, image-conscious as it is, couldn't get a rebuttal to a story it didn't like printed until nine days later??

This is just the modern-day Operation Cat. The original Operation Cat was targeted at "the computer, the security services and authority" but the intent is still the same: to "make a mockery and hold up to ridicule", the means being "to plant grossly false information ... for later public retrieval and ridiculing exposure." The target is now the press, a much easier target because it no longer requires the same illegal break-ins. Pick a channel with plausible deniability, and inject your disinformation. Wait until the disinformation has spread and then capitalize on the publicity it generated with a denial and a self-pitying statements about "how low the press has gotten to in order to come up with a story" and how many people are spreading so much false information about Scientology. Wait another month and do it again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that Micavige and the Church don't keep an eye on their own WP articles is an indication of how lame they really are. Hence the week delay in responding to a news story is probably not an indication of a clever plot on their part. Steve Dufour 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientologists equate Cruise w/ Christ?

• It looks like there are now lots and lots and lots of secondary sources reporting on this incident:

1. 'Make-believers' find a new 'Christ' in Cruise, Florida Baptist Witness, FL - Feb 7, 2007
2. Cruise v. Christ, LAist, CA - Jan 28, 2007
3. It's official - Tom Cruise is divine, January 26, 2007, The Guardian
4. Tom Cruise a False Christ?, The Conservative Voice, NC - Jan 29, 2007
5. Tom Cruise hailed as 'Christ' of Scientology, New Zealand Herald (Subscription), New Zealand - Jan 24, 2007
6. Tom Cruise is 'a Christ', Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - Jan 24, 2007
7. Tom Cruise compared to Christ, China Daily, China - Jan 23, 2007
8. Tom Cruise compared to Christ, Hollywood News, UK - Jan 24, 2007
9. Tom Cruise is Scientology 'Christ', Now Magazine Online, UK - Jan 23, 2007
10. Tom Cruise is the 'Christ' of Scientology., PR-Inside.com (Pressemitteilung), Austria - Jan 23, 2007
11. Tom Cruise, Scientology’s New Messiah, Bodog Beat, Costa Rica - Jan 23, 2007
12. Tom Cruise dubbed Scientology's Jesus, LondonNet, 23/01/07

• At the very least, worth mentioning in the mainspace of the article... Smee 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I respectfully disagree - all this is still based on the SUN article, although some mention no source at all. It is deplorable that so many papers, even reputable ones, have repeated the story without bothering to research this - just because it is hilarious.

Both Cruise and Miscavige are control freaks. They wouldn't let anyone near them who would call the SUN the next day. And Miscavige doesn't go to parties (to afraid of being served with a lawsuit ) where ordinary people could "overhear" something. --Tilman 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Should still be mentioned, put it as a direct quote if you wish along with the source and then you can leave it up to the reader to decide how reputable the source is or is not. 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs).

Uncited negative information about a living person?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think three websites are enough to accuse someone of a crime on WP. Steve Dufour 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Filing a coipyright registration, even a celarly incorrect one, is not a crime in general. In an extreme case it might be fraud I suppose, but the statement above does not come clsoe to an accusation of fruad. IMO DES 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restored material backed up by sourced citations. Smee 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry Smee. This is a charge brought by one person. It may be true, however it can not be added to the article as a fact. Please read your own references. Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

VSmee, it would be helpful, if you would READ the affidavit. the statement is not in there. Misou 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the fact that it is in a sworn affidavit does not mean we can repeat it as if that made it true. Steve Dufour 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Misou, the affidavit quite clearly does state that. I suggest you read statements #31-32. I'm putting it back in, with the addition of "according to former Scientologist Jesse Prince" to alert the reader. AndroidCat 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section is question:

31. In early 1983 I attended a meeting at Scientology's ASI office in Los Angeles. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Patricia Brice and Edith Buchele. The meeting concerned Scientology copyrights. In particular, David Miscavige stated that Scientology was "in trouble" concerning the copyright status of the many published materials of founder L Ron Hubbard. Concern was expressed that many of Mr. Hubbard's published materials had become 'public domain"because the materials had not been registered with the United States Copyright office for many years. David Miscavige stated that Scientology had failed to register copyrights for thousands of pages of Scientology material written by Mr. Hubbard. These records included the numerous policy letters and bulletins published by Mr. Hubbard. In particular, Mr. Hubbard published "Policy Letters" (always published in green ink on white paper and intended as administrative directives) LRH ED's (Executive Directives) which are used for various topics, (always issued as blue ink on white paper) and "Technical Bulletins" published with red ink on white paper covering technical aspect of Scientology such as Auditing techniques, Policy and Ethics.

32. At the same meeting in early 1983 David Miscavige specifically ordered Patricia Brice (who at the time was L. Ron Hubbard's personal secretary and an employee of ASI) to begin the process of mass copyright registration filings for all of L. Ron Hubbard's materials. This order was given despite the fact that Mr. Miscavige was already aware that many of the materials in question were already in the public domain. Thus, I know from personal knowledge that in mid 1983 Scientology began a massive program to register Mr. Hubbard's material with the United State's Copyright office.

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

Your understanding is not correct for works prior to 1988, which is complex. See WP:Public domain#When does copyright expire? and Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States AndroidCat 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked out these sources and it seems that a copyright lasts for at least 50 years after the death of the author. Was there any reason to renew copyrights for his works in 1983? Were they really talking about trademarks? Steve Dufour 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, even long before 1988, there was no requirement to register works with the copyright office, and failure to do so does not make the work public domain. it is and was common practice to register some works many years after they are first published, often only when legal action is contemplated. Note that registering a copyright is quite different from renewing a copyright. Until the copyright law changes in 1988, US copyrights needed to be renewed if they were to extend more than 28 years. (copyrights no longer need to be renewed, or more technically, they are now renewed automatically. Anything published in 1964 or later now gets/got an automatic renewal.) However, prior to the copyright law of changes 1976, anything "published" without a copyright notice was thereby put into the public domain, and subsequent registration or renewal would not cure this. If the affidavit quoted above is accurate, it would appear that some people in the Scientology organization at the time did not properly understand copyright. In any case, sending in delayed copyright registrations is neither illegal nor unethical. Attempting to conceal facts (such as publication without notice) that put a work into the PD might well be considered unethical, and even illegal if attempts are later made to profit by copyright protection thus improperly retained, but what constitutes "publication" is a bit tricky. A good case could be made that distribution of an administrative document within an organization, not intended for the general public, is not "publication" and so omission of a copyright notice has no effect. Thus is is not clear that, even assuming the above affidavit sections are accurate and truthful, they do not (standing alone) support a statement or implication that Miscavige or anyone else had taken any illegal or unethical action. Note that prior to the copyright law revisions (which started in 1976, and were mostly finished in 1988) copyright in the US lasted for a fixed term, or rather for an initial term of 28 years, and a longer renewal term granted if renewal papers were filed (the length of the renewal term changed several times). Under current law, copyright is mostly for life of the author plus 70 years. DES 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that (in the 1970s and 1980s) the only ways for things to "fall into the public domain" is 1) for the copyright to expire, either through failure to renew (after 28 years) or complete lapse of time (I think this would have been after 56 years in 1983); or 2) for thm to be "publsiehd" wiht no copyright notice at all, or a fatally defective notice (bUt not all distribution would be "publication" for this purpose); or 3) for them to be published outside the US without being published in the US or registered promptly. It is ahrd to see how any of these would apply to Hubbard's writings as of 1983, except perhaps failure to renew (for works published prior to 1955) or ommission of notice. But the 1976 act had already made the notice optional on anything published after that date, and the 1988 act removed ommision of notice as a reason for public domain status on anythign published in 1964 or later. One suspects that someone involved did not understand copyright any too well, or else that the affidavit is not entirely accurate on what was said. DES 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See the line on the chart that says "1923 through 1963 Published with notice but copyright was not renewed7 In the public domain". It has been established in court that a number of Hubbard works like the "Manual of Justice" are now in the public domain. AndroidCat 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that chart -- I refer to it a lot over on Distributed Proofreaders. But late renewal is no cure, unless the original publication date is falsified. Note also that "publication" is a term of art in this connection. Filing renewals on content already in the PD would have had no effect (although i suppose people might have thought that it would), unless the renewal documents falsely state a publication date of 28 years prior when the actual pub date was longer ago (Note also that an early renewal, if early by more than one year, was ineffective and was simply ignored by the copyright office.) DES 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point a bit. The cited affidavit appears to imply that Miscavige and others were doing something illegal and/or unethical that would result in writings of Howard that were legally PD improperly receiving copyright protection. But how could this have been the case? If the materials had been published more than 28 years previously (that is prior to 1955, since the affidavit describes events in 1983) and had not been renewed, filing a late renewal would have no effect unless the renewal papers falsely stated the publication to be 28 years prior to the filing. If the materials had been published without a copyright notice (prior to 1978), filing a registration would have no effect unless the registration falsely claimed that the material had been published with a notice. If the materials had been published without a notice in or after 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 copyright act) then registration would have preserved copyright protection, and this would be a perfectly legal and proper thing to do. Considering all of this, I can only conclude that filing any registration or renewal papers with the copyright office in 1983 would either 1) have had no legal effect at all, if the matériel was already PD and the papers filed were truthful and accurate; or 2) legally and properly have established and preserved copyright (if it was a renewal of material from circa 1955, or a registration of material published without notice after 1977, or an optional registration of material that was NOT already in the PD); or 3) have been improper but effective if and only if the papers filed with the copyright office were materially false, either misstating the dates of publication, or concealing publication without a proper notice. But the affidavit sections quoted above do not state or even clearly imply that false statements of fact were to be included in "mass copyright registration filings", and I don't think such an imputation drawn without more than conjecture (unless it is stated elsewhere in the affidavit) is well sourced. In short, it is unclear what improper or illegal action the maker of the affidavit is claiming Miscavige made. Taking the affidavit as literally as possible, it seems as if neither Miscavige nor the author were correctly informed on the requirements of copyright law, and that the materials were either already in the PD (in which case the copyright office filings would have no effect) or still under copyright (in which case registration would slightly increase their protection, but not much, and would be in no way illegal or improper, and quite possibly a waste of time and money by those filing). DES 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed with the logical trail in your argumentation. It makes very much sense. Thanks also for the documentation. I just uncovered a set of falsified quotes which were "tweaked" to push some anti-Scientology notion. This quote here might be accurate but the content has been "tweaked" to smear Miscavige. CSI LA 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Second-generation Scientologist?

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

No, there is no Scientology definition of "second-generation". But I think he was Generation 2 of Scientologists in his family (Generation 1 would be his parents). So you could call this second-generation. COFS 22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the impression I had from the sentence. I might add a note to make the meaning more clear. Except that I couldn't think of any way to put it that wouldn't be a distraction to the readers. Steve Dufour 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

POV-sites more valuable than WP:RS

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

As I explained in the edit summaries, the other sites had the complete articles, while the official sites had not. People should be able to read the complete article, when available, so that they can verify that the edits are not misleading. The NYT site had only an abstract and not the article; the TIME site didn't have the part "Mining money in Vancouver" etc. Your term "POV-site" is misleading. I linked to the article, that is all. Btw, one of your changes was from one "POV-site" (your term) to another. --Tilman 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't link to both. wikipediatrix 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind linking to both, and having the official sites first.--Tilman 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I how do you know that the "unofficial" - a.k.a. POV-pushing - do not have "transcription errors" or are otherwise slanted? The sites you are linking to are obvious anti-Scientology sites. Misou 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What I do know is that the official sites are incomplete - you could have noticed this yourself, e.g. with the NYT site. See also my suggestion above, to put up both.

Yes, these are anti-scientology sites. There are also some scientology sites used as sources on Miscavige. --Tilman 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why mention his siblings?

What is the purpose of this section?

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

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

• It is factual information on a notable individual. They are simply noted here, no other information is even really given about them in great detail. Smee 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

They are not notable. I put a notice on the living persons notice board about this. Steve Dufour 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see no justification for mentioning any personal information like this, which is unsourced. I have removed mention of brothers and sisters. Sam Blacketer 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have commented this out, pending addition of forthcoming sourced citations... Smee 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

The Pope is a little bit more important than the President of the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige is not the "President" of the Church of Scientology. The "president" is Heber Jentzsch. David Miscavige is the leader of scientology, the Nr. 1.

Btw, you didn't answer my question. Is there some specific reason (unrelated to Misplaced Pages policies) that you started this activity here? --Tilman 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve, it doesn't matter whether the Pope is more popular or not. Anyone worthy of having a Misplaced Pages article is obviously popular enough to get a normal bio. wikipediatrix 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone be interested in the married names of his sisters and what his brother does for a living? These facts have nothing to do with his notability and could cause problems for them. Oh, and to answer Tilman's question: I am trying to point out how mean-spirited some of the Scientology coverage here on WP is. This seemed like a good example; uninvolved people's names were dragged in with seemingly no concern for any effect that might have on them. Steve Dufour 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you disrupted wikipedia ("I am trying to point out"), despite WP:POINT.

Second, you didn't even make research. Denise Miscavige is notable.

Third, these people aren't "dragged in". They are part of his family, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong in being a part of lil' Dave's family. --Tilman 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't like it if one of my brothers had a WP article and I was mentioned in it. Steve Dufour 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument has nothing to do with my argument. --Tilman 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tilman, Steve Dufour's statement is irrelevant. I just added brother Ronnie with a citation.--Fahrenheit451 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's more about Ronnie Miscavige notability: A police report about that he was caught for reckless driving. He asked the police officer not to fine him, but to beat him up instead of giving him a ticket. --Tilman 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That is Ron Sr., his father.--Fahrenheit451 03:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs expansion from more citations...

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

Nightline Interview

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

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

I don't know.

As a person who worked on two of the rebuttals (the Seattle murder, and the Max Planck thing), the problem with all that is that is too unspecific. Any speculation would be original research.

I found a scientology black PR pack which claims that Behar recommended deprogramming. --Tilman 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Black PR"? Do you say things like that just to bait people or are you incapable of conceiving that the CoS could ever, ever, in a skillion years, be right about anything? Regardless of anyone's feelings about the CoS, a lot of what they say in their own self-defense in that "Fact Vs. Fiction" booklet is actually true: the CoS were never proved to have any responsibility for Lottick's death. Interviewing the old CAN about the CoS is obviously seeking a foregone conclusion, as is eliciting quotes from disgruntled ex-employees. And unlike sleazy groups like Narconon which could indeed qualify as a scam, calling the CCHR a "financial scam" without proof isn't journalism, it's editorializing. Etc., etc., etc. One can be extremely critical of Scientology and still be fair. wikipediatrix 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Proven to be responsible for someones death" is a matter of opinion, unless scientology physically pushed him out of the window. The Lottick parents are entitled to their opinion. I met them and I believe them, and I met scientologists and I don't believe them. And considering the record of scientology (e.g. the suicide conviction in France, or the personality test evaluators who often tell people that they would suicide), it is highly likely that they DID contribute to his death. Sadly, this is not a crime in the US. --Tilman 11:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. I'm talking about what can be proven as facts and you're talking about what you believe. wikipediatrix 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits and Reversions

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

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

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

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

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

The rude analogy aside, A statement is made that someone who knew Mary Sue Hubbard made a claim about how she felt about something. MSH herself never stated this. I'd be happy to remove the entire section as I don't think it is needed, but if it is left in it needs this clarification.Su-Jada 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A "clarification" must be sourced. And obviously, the fact that MSH did write something is sourced. And, a source can't say that "MSH herself never stated this", unless he observed MSG 24/7 and found out, that she never did write (while in jail) that letter to her husband-in-hiding. --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You have not explained them. You used generalities. I, however, explained in detail what was wrong. I did not harass you. AGF does not mean that disagreement is not allowed. And there's also no AGF when you try to delete something that has been explained weeks before with many sources (the mission holders segment). --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one else restores the NPOV version, I'll revert as soon as I am "safe from 3RR". --Tilman 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've however made a slight change, put "source" instead of "sources", since it one book only. However it is a pretty good source; scientology sued him, but never about that, despite that MSH was alive and has sued an ex-scientologist in the past for invading her "privacy". (She lost, of course) --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you have to log in? Did you work under another account? Misplaced Pages doesn't require login after its done once. Only every few weeks when the server crashes. --Tilman 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages doesn't require login" - not true. If you do not check "remember me" and if you close the browser then you have to log in each time you open the browser. Personally, my general policy is to not leave lingering cookies and I have to log in every time I open the browser. A bit less "detective work" would probably be a good idea. --Justanother 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That would even confirm my theory - closing the browser everytime is something for an office environment. Makes me think about WP:MEAT. --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very strange statement, especially in light of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS... Smee 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

The least I'd say is that its a single purpose account. --Tilman 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh bollox! I see these comments as off-the-wall, unfounded, undocumented and specious accusations leveled at a fairly new editor; the use of inuendo in an attempt to discredit perfectly legitimate edits for lack of any legitimate way to call them into question. Sorry if you find this rude, but I am quite incensed by these remarks.Su-Jada 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for your upsets, but there is more. The very first talk edit did not have the common newbie error of not signing: In your 5th edit, you already knew about "ref": . You're either a really quick learner, or you did have an account before. But I'm waiting for other opinions before doing a checkuser request. --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"The least I'd say is that its a single purpose account" - And?? Can you please expound on what the consequences of that condition might be? --Justanother 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA --Tilman 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, I know what the policy is and I know how I would apply it. You brought it up so I am asking how you would apply it. How would you apply WP:SPA to Su-Jada? --Justanother 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any suggestions. --Tilman 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are just going to point out, in a somewhat accusatory tone, that Su-Jada appears to be an SPA without telling us what means in this context? Why bother mentioning it at all then? --Justanother 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I pointed to the policy: WP:SPA. That tells what it means. --Tilman 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DM's sole RTC listing

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

Nice try. What significance has this section other than random data of the order of "there are 17 people with the name David Miscavige in the Los Angeles County phone book"? COFS 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cat, do you not think that holding something up for the reader to think about constitutes original research when no reliable source has held up that same issue. Do you not think that we are creating something there if it does not first appear in RS? --Justanother 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

bona fide

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

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles