Talk:David Miscavige

Tom Cruise section

Another proposition:

In the "Tom Cruise" section we find:

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

According to WP:3PARTY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On WP:NEWSORG, we read,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am therefore taking this section down.

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

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

Hello, BTfromLA. In response to "deleting a section without consensus" - I respond with a quote from the Wikipedia BLP page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (WP:BLP) We have still brought up this issue on the talk page, and have gotten unsatisfactory responses with weakly founded arguments. I also moved forward because, as WP:BOLD says, "Just do it!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscavige Lead

Hi Editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church openings

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

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

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

NEW CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement is not found in Nestle's references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Response from Startwater

---

I would suggest the following paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media coverage and criticism proposal

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

Modify the section to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Relies too heavily on the St. Petersburg Times article

- Over-elaborates on St. Petersburg Times article

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

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

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

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

Paragraph in Negotiations with IRS section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Coffeepusher,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts on this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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