Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 2

message: Please remember two things:  first of all, we have an article now for describing patter drills and the controversy over them.  All we need in this article is the fact that Miscavige instituted 'em, a simple description of what they are, the fact that some Scientologists view them as a change to Hubbard's practices, and a simple description of why they think that.  All the gory details should be saved for the patter drill article.  There, it's good to quote the exact name and date and letter of the various policies cited by various sides as being relevant; here, it's not, because all we need here is a simple summary and a link that can be followed by those who need more details.
Second, please remember that when writing for Wikipedia, you cannot make assumptions that your audience already knows or is involved in the debate.  Both sides have been arguing, on the talk page and in the article itself, about whether or not patter drills constitute a clear violation of "Chinese school" and no one seems to have considered that the average reader of the article has no idea what "Chinese school" is supposed to refer to.  It's possible to glean from context that it's a policy authored by Hubbard, but that's it.  Providing a link to Chinese school does no good, since that links to an article on actual Chinese schools, and not whatever Hubbard thought Chinese schools were like or what he used them as a metaphor for.
In summary, if you want to describe why one particular faction has claimed that patter drills violate "Chinese school" (or that they don't) then 1) do it in Patter drill, not David Miscavige, 2) remember that your audience does not all come to the article already knowing what "Chinese school" means in the context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige.  Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today.  Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive.  Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo is notified to stop his personal attacks.  He is on a personal attack probation.--Fahrenheit451 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you have asked around about my above statement, User:Fahrenheit451.  Let me assure you, my reference is to a neutral point of view of an article's topic.  Widely published to be presented as widely published, while narrowly published (small newspaper, etc.) be presented in like manner; while personal opinion on personal websites does not meet WP:V at all.  WP:NPOV directs us, a neutral tone, an infomative style. Terryeo 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chinese School" 

message: The date is wrong, the IRS commissioner involved was gone by 1993.  See Fred T. Goldberg, Jr..  There is a lot about this in the NYT article by Douglas Franz, 
I don't want to fix it without consensus.  Keith Henson 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRS deal 

message: Is it known whether Miscavige has completed any or all of the OT levels?  Is there reason to believe he may have experienced some of the unreleased teachings (e.g., OT IX)? Is this info available for other Scientology execs?  BTfromLA 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Miscavige on "the Bridge"? 

message: I think that the previous image had his face too small in the picture so that it was indistinct.
This image is a closer shot.--Fahrenheit451 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced image 

message: Fahrenheit, I see your point on the size of the image, but the one you've selected just doesn't look like him. Plus it's really unflattering and gives almost as much emphasis to an unnamed man to the right of him, who looks really odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borbo (talk • contribs) 
I agree too. And those who want to see the face better can click on the image to get the bigger sized version. Entheta 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other picture from What Is Scientology has no fair use rationale and will likely be up for deletion the next time the bots sweep through. It certainly is surprising to see all the new editors popping up at the same time for this obscure issue. AndroidCat 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry, I meant the "This Is Scientology"—game show host image was missing info. AndroidCat 12:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Both images are valid.  The ABC image is fair use, low res, screen shot.  Why not have both, I have put the Celebrity Center/convention pic in the career section.  Smeelgova 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just how is it inappropriate?  And the quality is fine, and voiced so above by other editors.  Why not simply have both photos present in the article?  Perhaps you would rather have their locations switched, as a compromise?  Smeelgova 07:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting indeed, Fahrenheit451.  What are your thoughts/comments on the locations/formatting of the two images at present in the article?  Smeelgova 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I would switch the positions.  The gameshow style image of him wearing stage makeup would go in the career section, and the one where he is sitting in court without makeup at the top.  --Fahrenheit451 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my feeling as well, but I switched the positions to the way they are currently, as an offering of compromise to the "interesting" editors that you mentioned above.  You can switch them if you like.  Smeelgova 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Fahrenheit451.  With all due respect to your experience in Wikipedia, and acknowledging that I'm a "newby," I don't see that there is consensus on the image you decided to use or its placement on the page. Although I don't expect to reach complete agreement on this, I don't think it's right to simply disregard my views on this or those of others who have participated in this disucssion. To repeat my objection to the photo you have chosen, the colors are strange and the faces are distorted. Grrrilla 07:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then.  Grrrilla, I am glad to see that we can discuss this amiably on the talk page, and have reached a compromise/consensus.  Smeelgova 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert image 

message: Does anyone know this guy's actual height? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.58.190.177 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Tall? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second-generation Scientologist? 

message: *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)
thread_title:  This article needs expansion from more citations... 

message: 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 [User:COFS|COFS] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Yes, that is a very strange statement, especially in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS...  Smee 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The least I'd say is that its a single purpose account. --Tilman 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: WP:SPA --Tilman 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I welcome any suggestions. --Tilman 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I pointed to the policy: WP:SPA. That tells what it means. --Tilman 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:KETTLE then and we will leave it at that. (But you already knew where I was going with this one, didn't you, Herr Hausherr?) --Justanother 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't know this. I edit a wide variety of topics, not just scientology. Most are cult related, but not all. I also edit in other topics. --Tilman 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ". . . or a small range of often-related articles." --Justanother 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My watchlist has 356 entries. Hardly a "small range". --Tilman 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits and Reversions 

message: The references conform to primary sources as Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're stretching WP:OR quite a bit. The paragraph states no claims and advances no argument. It's not as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but it's a self-evident and verifiable fact. AndroidCat 05:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a stretch. In fact what is being done there is exactly what WP:OR was designed to prevent:"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas."The fact that a number of people on ARS like to speculate about everything Scientology-related does not elevate this above the level of personal theory. --Justanother 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DM's sole RTC listing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  bona fide 

message: There is inadequate documentation in Piece of Blue Sky -- the reference for the statement that Mary Sue Hubbard complained to LRH about being removed by Miscavige and never hearing back from LRH on this.  There are several references listed for other statements in the same section of the book in which this statement is found, however this statement itself is not cited.  Additionally, in the same section of the book the way one event is described casts suspicion on the factual authenticity of the information.  Specifically, just above this section, the confrontation between Mary Sue Hubbard and David Miscavige over her resignation is presented from a fly on the wall perspective, describing a private meeting which was not recorded and in which there were no observers with details of the moods of the participants, the "probable" facial expressions, etc. This would tend to classify at least this section of the book as “fictionalized biography,” described in the Britannica as biographies where "materials are freely invented, scenes and conversations are imagined," and which the Britannica also warns, "often depends almost entirely upon secondary sources and cursory research."  The fact of fictionalizing biographies being a common practice in the genre is covered in the Wikipedia article on  Biography of living persons.  Piece of Blue Sky is not a peer reviewed scholarly work.  Including this paragraph, which impugns Miscavige, with no more proof than an undocumented paragraph from such a book therefore fits under the following  Wikipedia policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles."  Therefore, as my suggestion of including that Mary Sue never issued any statement to the effect that she complained about Miscavige to her husband was not acceptable to other editors, the entire section needs to be removed.  I am perfectly happy, however, to simply include a balanced statement that this was never corroborated by Ms. Hubbard. I would also like to point out that I have been criticized of late in the talk page of this article for removing points without consensus.   I would again like to cite the same Wikipedia policy and point out that this is one case where care not to include poorly sourced information supersedes the Wikipedia ethic of first achieving editor agreement.  Based on this policy, please do not revert this edit unless you can first present viable evidence that Ms. Hubbard did in fact make these complaints, such as verbal or written statement by Ms. Hubbard to that effect or any other verifiable documentation.Su-Jada 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statements about sources not being peer-reviewed and scholarly is specious at best. As you know, Wikipedia does not solely use academic publications for sources of information.  Wikipedia uses verifiability from reliable sources.  Please stop making up policy on the fly to suit your POV.  --Fahrenheit451 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't have to be "peer-reviewed" or "scholarly". Scholars don't write about MSH whining, because this isn't a science topic. "Blue Sky" is a secondary source. It has survived lawsuits. It is cited by others (among them, scholars). This is pretty good. --Tilman 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Piece of Blue Sky'' citation 

message: I notice that there's a lot of use of the word vandalism back and forth lately. Note that accusing another editor of deliberate bad faith editing is serious stuff and shouldn't be used lightly for just edits that you disagree with (no matter how annoying). Wikipedia:Civility AndroidCat 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try. --Tilman 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That vandalism thing 

message: Two recent edits relying upon affidavits of Jesse Prince violate WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...."  There has been a fair bit of discussion on the use of Prince as a source in this article.  Tilman tries to apply the standard that the Church of Scientology hasn't sued Prince to assert that the information in his affidavit is valid.  That's silly.  Fahrenheit451 tries to obviate a judge deciding that Prince "has extreme bias" and "lacks credibility," as an expert witness by saying it was only one judge who said this and only about one case, and only about him being an expert. This is a very serious statement and can't simply be discarded.  In the Stacy Brooks affidavit of April 29th, 2002, Brooks describes how she and Prince wrote affidavits and testified based on hypothetical scenarios of which they had no knowledge solely as a legal strategy of making unfounded allegations about Miscavige to pressure the Church into paying large sums of money and settling cases. In his affidavit of April 24th, 2002, Robert Minton described Prince affidavits as based on speculation, allegation and innuendo. In the case of a biography of a living person, based on this evidence, a Prince affidavit simply does not qualify as adequate reference.  As the policy requires the removal of the poorly sourced contentious material I am removing the statements that use Prince affidavits as citations.Su-Jada 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F451, do you know how you come across? Misou 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse Prince affidavits are "high quality references" 

message: I have to bring up again this whole section that quotes "A Piece of Blue Sky" as its source and which states "However, another source wrote Mary Sue later decided she had been tricked by Miscavige and wrote to her husband in complaint, getting no reply."  Have you actually read the section of this book referred to?  It's online at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/bs6-3.htm.  I know it is very popular now to have narrative biographies where authors take the liberty to describe the  emotions and even suggest dialogue they could not possibly have heard,in a sort of "fly on the wall" projection of what the events must have been like.  There is nothing in this book that infers, suggests or states that there were any witnesses in the room when David Miscavige met with Mary Sue Hubbard and convinced her to step down.  Mary Sue Hubbard herself never made any public statement, issued any correspondence, recorded any tapes criticizing Miscavige or stating that she wrote to her husband about Miscavige's actions that day.  But as you can see, Piece of Blue Sky is prone to this kind of imaginative narrative, to wit in that same section, Atack projects what he thinks Miscavige's facial expressions and emotions were during hypothetical, undocumented events in the course of that meeting.  In what I prefer to call "novelized biographies" of this nature, the author is free to project his hypothetical commentary as long as he states that's what it is, which is what Atack did in this section of his book.  Reviewing Atack's footnotes for this (seen at the same link I included above) he is equivocal as to what sources were used to substantiate what information, as opposed to a scholarly work where the footnote follows immediately on the statement as evidence for that given point. I have brought this point up before, but I feel compelled to bring it up again.  The inclusion of this sentence violates WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...." Su-Jada 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly is your point? --Tilman 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is it irresponsible to keep this sentence in the article: "However, another source wrote Mary Sue later decided she had been tricked by Miscavige and wrote to her husband in complaint, getting no reply."Su-Jada 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact is high-quality sourced. Plus, as I said before, scientology sued him about all sort of stuff, but not this. --Tilman 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we can find truth by looking what is being sued by Scientology (false) and what not (true)? Misou 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mischaracterize what I said. However, I should add that scientology lost against Atack, except for one single paragraph about Ms Hodkin, which he lost not on the merits, but for a procedural reason. --Tilman 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Sue Hubbard 

message: The David Miscavige blog is a violation of WP:SELFPUB and the Jesse Prince affidavit citation should be included in the bio content.--Fahrenheit451 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the external links section there is a blog marked as "Miscavige's blog". However, it is run by someone called Jenny. I think it should be removed, since it is a private website not fitting the WP:SELFPUB exception. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remove it. This is just a SEO related site. There are many like these. --Tilman 10:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although its blocked in "the wrong version", I don't mind a longer block. It seems that many people with an opinion are on vacation. And sadly, the best researcher of all (Smee), is on a long Wikibreak :-( --Tilman 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit block is not going to force parties to discuss anything.  I think it will take a RfC.  The block justs puts off the inevitable.--Fahrenheit451 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is a legitimate question of whether such "tell-all" books (and, perforce, other books that rely exclusively on these books for content) reliable secondary sources, or primary sources.HubcapD 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Or violate WP:BLP policyHubcapD 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have to agree with Su-Jada. If this were an article about soup or lawnmowers, it wouldn't matter, but this is an article about a living person and should be treated extremely sensitively. This should be taken up on the BLP Noticeboard if Tilman continues to push the matter. Atack's gossipy unauthorized "tell-all exposé" book is also not specifically about the subject (Miscavige himself) which further weakens its already shaky reliability as a source. If someone has a properly sourced book about David Miscavige that can fastidiously back up any allegations, let them come forward and write it and publish it. But till then, let's keep the "Scientology exposed!" tabloidy stuff to a minimum on Miscavige's own article, shall we? wikipediatrix 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you're done with the hyperbole now, please explain yourself. "Libel" is a legal term, Tilman. It has a very specific meaning. Are you making or inferring a legal threat? Please explain how you think I have "libeled" Jon Atack by stating that I find his book to be gossipy and tabloidy. I've used Atack's book as a source countless times myself in articles, but not in instances where it makes less-than-ironclad allegations about a living person. So you see, Tilman, I'm trying to prevent libel here. I know you're far more concerned about Atack's reputation than Miscavige's, but I'd hoped you might eventually manage to use Wikipedia without bringing your own passionate opinions and grudges to the discussion. This has nothing to do with supporting Miscavige or opposing him, this is about being fair and following WP:BLP.  wikipediatrix 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions during hiatus 

message: "Miscavige was observed at a July 2007 party held by Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes as silently scanning the crowd and not speaking with anyone except Cruise's mother." 
Can someone tell me why on Earth this would be in an encyclopedia? wikipediatrix 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be "and not speaking with anyone except the mother of Scientology's Jesus Christ"? Gone now. AndroidCat 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a gossip column 

message: I have noticed that a few editors are engaged in a petty revert war .  Time to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock it off, knock it off, knock it off, knock it off, knockediknock. Leave a comment on Rookieboys page, I don't think he bothers to read here. Misou 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the petty revert warring! 

message: Notwithstanding my personal doubts as to the veracity of Jesse Prince's allegations, it seems to me that it belongs in the "Criticisms and Controversies" Section, and not the "Scientology Career" section. If no one objects, I would like to move it.HubcapD 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse Prince Allegation 

message: I checked out a reference that's used in this article. The headline used on the article in the website is not the headline the New York Times uses! The actual article title is "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt". I'm trying to buy the article in question so I can confirm the veracity of the article as used in the reference. I'm not sure what to do for the time being.thoughts?HubcapD 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen cases of papers running the same story with title changes between print editions. However, only the "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt" title is listed in the NYT archive (which is pay-only, as you say). AndroidCat 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a St. Petersburg Times editorial of 1997-03-11 "Intimidating the IRS Series: EDITORIALS" which seems to be echoing that NY Times story. (The text is available for free through their archive service, but that seems to be down until tomorrow morning.) And editorials aren't always useful as references. Too tired to sift my archive for more right now. AndroidCat 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference that uses the same title of the article that the NY Times website does and changed it to that reference.HubcapD 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with a link 

message: Please recall that in that particular case, Bridge Publications lost its bid for summary judgment and were going to have prove ownership and copyright for some 1,900 documents. Instead Bridge settled. AndroidCat 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipediatrix's comment that Jesse Prince is not reliable is very much Her Opinion. She has no survey results and seems to be POV pushing against Prnce's statements.--Fahrenheit451 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion, just as I have stated mine. We can take the matter further anytime you want. wikipediatrix 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go, Trixi, take it where your impulses tell you.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't have a discussion with men who call me condescending and sexist nicknames, sorry. You've disqualified yourself from being able to sit at the table with the grown-ups. wikipediatrix 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend you start behaving like one.--Fahrenheit451 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Usually the rulings by the judge in the Lisa McPherson civil suit are taken out of context. The judge ruled that Jesse Prince was not a reliable hostile expert witness, which is a very narrow and specific ruling in that one case. As an expert witness, Jesse Prince would have testified about things that he had not personally witnessed (notification of the upper management about Lisa McPherson), but about what he thought happened according to his expertise on the subject. Obviously judges have to hold expert witnesses (even hostile ones) to a very high standard for what would otherwise by hearsay evidence at best. However, in the Bridge v. FactNet case, not only did federal judge John Kane allow Jesse Prince's testimony to things he had personally witnessed, but ruled that FACTNet successfully had cast doubt on the legal status of the documents. So, no, FactNet and Jesse Prince are not unreliable. AndroidCat 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, AndroidCat, so it looks like we have some OSA POV whitewashing going on with this item. I am reverting.--Fahrenheit451 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* "Misunderstandings" might might have been more polite... AndroidCat 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I call it as I see it. And isn't it interesting that User:Misou refers to discussion of reverts to the talk page, but does not participate in any discussion himself?--Fahrenheit451 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: F451, knock it off. I was typing. You got a cosy agreement party here, haven't you? Anyway, if a judge does think that Jesse is not reliable to be heard as a witness, if Jesse got himself paid for "expert" statements which followed the money trail but not the truth and if all Jesse learned in Scientology is how to get sober fast, then, ladies, this guy is just an irresponsible, corrupt individual, who cannot be cited as reliable. Publicly active apostates are often this way, and Jesse is no exemption. Misou 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misou, KNOCK IT OFF! You deliberately pervert the facts as stated by AndroidCat. Your "apostate" characterization is simply absurd as the cofs is not a religion, but a business posing as one. The corrupt individual is the criminal running the rtc named David Miscavige. Jesse Prince is reliable.--Fahrenheit451 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the federal judge in this particular case involved for the cited statement thought Jesse Prince was credible, and I remind you that BLP applies to talk pages. AndroidCat 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BPL applies to talk pages? Jesse got a talk page, where? Anyway, Jesse did not testify on copyright stuff. The whole deal here is that F451 wants to spread this guys name and some links, and to spread the insinuation of illegal acts done by Jesse (as Church staff) on behalf of Miscavige. What does this have to do with building an encyclopedia? Nothing, it is just pure anti-Scientology propaganda. F451 knows that, otherwise he would not try to make this a big thing here, something that read like David F451 vs. Goliath OSA, or some such dreams of moral superiority. I don't know why "debates" with F451 always end in a dead end street. F'ing time consuming. F451, let's be flexible here, ok? Misou 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had missed F451's "entheta" burst. F, you got a COI there. Better prove what you scream around here. Ey, and knock it off. Misou 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Misou, it sure looks like you are violating WP:NPA again.  Knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, cool. Misou 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement cited was used in Bridge Publications International v. FactNet, which was completely about copyright. AndroidCat 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, but Jesse is not mentioned in there. Misou 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The paragraph that was removed was saying "Jesse Prince stated...", so I don't see what is the problem in this paragraph. Isn't Jesse Prince a reliable source for Jesse Prince's views? Given that he was a high-ranking officer in the Church of Scientology organization, his affidavit is worth mentioning I would think. Note that the paragraph was not implying that what Jesse Prince said was fact, it just noted that a former high ranking officer attempted to demonstrate, with exhibits, that many copyrights had expired (then the settlement kicked-in). Raymond Hill 06:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is simply no relation between whatever Jesse allegedly said and Miscavige. Mind you, this is a bio article about David Miscavige, not a "Scientology and Copyrights", "Scientology and drugged ex-members" or the like. Jesse talks about something he says he did. It had no consequences for anyone. He could say that he jay-walked because he thought Miscavige wanted him to. Same significance. Jesse is not a reliable source for information regarding Miscavige. He might be a reliable source for something else, like growing marijuana. Misou 07:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (From the results of the trial where Jesse Prince was found not guilty, that method would seem to be to allow a covert CoS PI to plant evidence. AndroidCat 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Not to mention Judge Schaeffer stated that Jesse Prince "has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility".   In any event, such a serious assertion about Miscavige needs more sources than this guy's hearsay, as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Judge Schaeffer was making a narrow ruling in a completely different case than Judge Kane. What's your point? AndroidCat 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extreme bias and lack of credibility are what they are. They don't vanish when one walks out of the courtroom. This is all beside the point anyway, because as I said, "such a serious assertion about Miscavige needs more sources than this guy's hearsay, as per WP:BLP." wikipediatrix 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can't it? You'd bolster your rebuttal much better if you could point to another judge in another case (particularly in one that has to do with the issue)deciding that Prince's allegations have legitimacy. But it also seems to be a moot point when you take WP:BLP into account.HubcapD 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another judge in another case that has to do with the issue... That's a toughie! Oh, how about Judge Kane in BPI v. FactNet? AndroidCat 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for sarcasm, I am trying to be straight with you on this. That was a summary judgement, which is different than the trial itself. all you have to do to defeat a summary judgement is show that a dispute exists, regardless of the strength of the evidence.HubcapD 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse Prince and FACTNet not reliable? 

message: Concerning the removal of "Author Paulette Cooper mentions a murder in the Seattle Org [...]". I strongly disagree. There maybe a case of rephrasing, but certainly not removing this piece of information that provides further insight into D. Miscavige's statement. Wikipediatrix, you claim "major claims require major proof". Complementing D. Miscavige's claim with P. Cooper's passage is not a "major claim", and really, the major claim here would be D. Miscavige's assertion that the APA, AMA, and FDA killed a Scientology officer. Here are the facts: In the Nightline interview, D. Miscavige mentions that the APA, AMA, FDA raided the Church: that would be January 1963. He then went on saying "the following takes place... they killed one of our directors... the FDA hired an informant... his wife was there, he wasn't for Scientology, she was...". Now noting that P. Cooper refers in her book to a September 1963 event, in which an irate husband killed a Scientologist having an affair with his wife in the same org D. Miscavige is referring is not a wild claim. The date and location match. It simply informing the reader what is possibly another account of the event D. Miscavige is talking about. Raymond Hill 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though we both know it's in all likelihood the same event, we don't know that for a 100% fact, and encyclopedias don't deal in "probably"s and "possibly"s. wikipediatrix 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you removed wasn't saying it was the same event, it was just noting that a similar event — the shooting of a Scientology officer in the Seattle Org in 1963 — which could be associated with D. Miscavige's claim given the date and location (1963, Seattle Org). How many Scientology executives have been shot in the Seattle Org in 1963? I think it is appropriate to point the reader what is possibly an alternative reporting of the event, he is free to make his own mind beyond that. Raymond Hill 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Raymond Hill.  Recording the other incideng provides additional context with which the reader can do what he may.  Nothing about the statement seems particularly misleading or drawing.(RookZERO 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Noting a similar event" which "could be associated" is the very definition of original research, synthesis, wannabe-detective work. I'm sure it IS the same event, but we don't have anything airtight to prove it. I'm fine with leaving both Miscavige and Cooper's comments out since they bring nothing of any great value to the article either way. wikipediatrix 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel strongly about this. We shouldn't remove this important comment from a rare interview of the top representative of the Scientology religion. As complementary information, we need to mention the killing of a Scientology officer in 1963 in the Seattle Org. Since visibly we won't come to an agreement, can we agree on a WP:RFC? Raymond Hill 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so. Or, we could at least rewrite it in such a way that the article doesn't assume the two events are one and the same, and say something like "Paulette Cooper described a similar sounding incident, blah blah blah". It's still going to be OR no matter what, but at least make it more transparent that a synthesis of two discrete pieces of information is being made here. wikipediatrix 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you suggest here is actually pretty much what you removed. Raymond Hill 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: R. Hill does not seem to understand this. Here is the same logic: Let's assume there is a WP article on Raymond Hill. Here we add the line "A Raymond man charged with his wife in a bizarre torture-slaying case has pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and agreed to cooperate with authorities.". Obviously the murder and Raymond Hill are connected as there are similarities available, namely the word Raymond. How far off can you get? I don't know if this 1963 ref is connected to what David Miscavige says in the 1992 show. Neither does Raymond Hill. Shutterbug 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Wikipediatrix]]'s "major claims require major proof" 

message: I'm sick of this! I've reported you HubcapD 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Report on RookZERO 

message: Reading guideline Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_uses, #8, the rationale is that the non-free image could be replaced by someone just grabbing a camera and taking a picture. I don't think that's too likely. DM controls his access and only appears at Scientology events (tightly controlled) or rare interviews (tightly controlled). He has appeared (rarely) at major court cases, but I don't know of any of those in the pipeline and it would still depend on the general public being allowed to take pictures in court. Probably the only chance in the open would be at Org opening, but that would probably require professional equipment from a distance and so not likely to result in a free image either. AndroidCat 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An account of a process server in 1993, and I expect that security is much tighter now—especially because of this incident. AndroidCat 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone else comment here (or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 2 here). Are there any completely free images of David Miscavige existing? That aren't owned by CoS/RTC or a media organization? What are my chances if I strolled up to the gates of Int Base with a camera and asked security if I could "plz cn I takes a picture of DM for Wikipedia, tkxs"? AndroidCat 07:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You would be told to go away.  Security may even deny that d.m. was there.--Fahrenheit451 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a public event. I couldn't find any pictures of David Miscavige even though he was mentioned in a number of the stories. Professional shots wouldn't be free images either. (I suspect, but can't prove, that the only photographers allowed into that event probably had to sign some sort of agreement like the Pat Kingsley-era Cruise interview contracts.) He was Tom Cruise's best man, have any pictures of him from the wedding surfaced (other than the stolen ones)? AndroidCat 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonfree images not allowed in living person articles 

message: Steve Dufour's recent edit is factual, but violates WP:OR.  What Prince states Miscavige did is verifiable, but personally commenting on it in the article is OR.  I hope that this settles the revert war, but I doubt it will because many of the editors of this article refuse to pay attention.--Fahrenheit451 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "*In 1983, former Scientologist Jesse Prince testified that Miscavige had ordered that various materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office though the materials in question might have had fallen into the public domain. Jesse Prince affidavit, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Bridge Publications Inc v. Factnet Inc; Lawrence Wollersheim; Robert Penny, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, 1998."
Please see the discussion near the top of this page (if it is not already archived).  There was nothing illegal in what Miscavige is said to have done.  Just putting the statement that someone said he did something creates the impression that something was.   I am not a fan of Miscavige, but still the article should be fair. Steve Dufour 11:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that a quick review by DES that it usually wouldn't be anything illegal is exactly decisive. If the situation were that clear, Judge Kane would have given summary judgment to Bridge Publications and wouldn't have had to appoint a special master to untangle the issues. I also doubt that Scientology have suddenly settled the suit. (This doesn't mean Prince's allegation was proven in any way by the settlement, just that Scientology weighed the odds and gave up a chance to grind FACTNet and Wollersheim into the dirt.) AndroidCat 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add more information to the article that explains the importance of the issue. As it is Mr. Prince's statement is just hanging there. Steve Dufour 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve, your comment is factual, but it is original research.  Not allowed here and you know that.  Being "fair" is irrelevant in this case as it violates WP:OR.--Fahrenheit451 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not remove the whole item?  I don't see how it gives the reader any useful information. Steve Dufour 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, is it not useful information that someone would order copyfraud done on a wide scale?--Fahrenheit451 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it was legal and no harm was done. If otherwise please include that information in the article. Steve Dufour 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no laws against it, but it is highly unethical and is grounds for lawsuits. Including any commentary in the article is original research. That is not happening. --Fahrenheit451 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include cited information to the article on its being unethical and grounds for lawsuits.   I personally don't understand the  problem with the CoS wanting to hold the copyrights to Hubbard's writings.  Wasn't that Hubbard's intention? Steve Dufour 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that is the point of the affidavit, but rather it shows that d.m. will willfully and knowingly engage in copyfraud.  This is not a discussion of the validity of Hubbard's copyrights on "religious scriptures".--Fahrenheit451 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It "shows" no such thing, merely alleges it.HubcapD 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't know why you call it "fraud" when what he was said to have done was not illegal. Steve Dufour 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is presently no law AGAINST it.  Fraud is the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage. Copyfraud is not legally protected and can be civilly prosecuted. --Fahrenheit451 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you know what you're talking about. wikipediatrix 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Trixi, if you cannot participate in a civil discussion, then don't.--Fahrenheit451 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't even post without calling me insulting names like "Trixi". And I still don't think you know what you're talking about. wikipediatrix 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am often referred to as F451 and I do not take that personally. Trixi is much easier to type than Wikipediatrix. Sorry if it bothers you.  Please suggest an acceptable abbreviation.--Fahrenheit451 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading the copyright statute, I have found two sections that make it illegal to commit copyfraud.  Am adding the prince affidavit reference again.--Fahrenheit451 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Copyfraud]] is not legal in the U.S. 

message: There is a revert war occuring on this point with the cofs editors wanted to exclude it and the many non-cofs editors wanting it included.--Fahrenheit451 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting it in a completely neutral tone, like you're supposed to. "Horse-hooey" was the nicest way I could fine to put what I was thinking.HubcapD 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the part in question should not refer only to J. Prince, but also mention that the validity of these copyrights was challenged in court, and the Church of Scientology eventually settled if I understand correctly. AndroidCat provided references above for that. Also, mentioning that Jesse Prince was a high ranking officer would make the passage more relevant to the reader. Raymond Hill 01:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this is the result of the case. Does not look like a settlement or as if Prince's statement had impressed the judge at all. Shutterbug 09:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I will throw another idea. The article is about D. Miscavige, so I agree that throwing in J. Prince in there looks awkward. On the other hand, the fact that the copyrights might have not been valid at the time is relevant. How about making the J. Prince passage as a foot note? The information will be available to the reader who might wish to look further, but at least it won't look awkward in the middle of the article. Raymond Hill 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a Request for Comment on inclusion of the Prince affidavit about copyfraud from david miscavige 

message: Please place comments in this section.--Fahrenheit451 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? The Prince affidavit is part of the article. Please explain. Shutterbug 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To me it seems that what Mr. Prince is saying is too trivial to be mentioned in the article.  If I am wrong and it is evidence of some serious wrongdoing by Mr. Miscavige then it also doesn't belong in the article. It would be better to go to the police or the FBI with the evidence. Then if they charge Miscavige with a crime we can mention it in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with that, but it is not prosecutable at this time due to the statute of limitations. It does have a great deal of bearing on the assertion of copyrights by the cst or rtc as it would be copyfraud. --Fahrenheit451 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space for RfC comments on Prince affidavit inclusion 

message: I have requested an informal mediation as the edit-warring and resulting issues have gotten far out of hand. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31_David_Miscavige--Fahrenheit451 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. You might summon some people then. Shutterbug 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only edit warrior around here is RookZERO who has not been exactly communicative about anything, I guess not to give a hint about his identity. His choice, and he might do that. But we will need him for the mediation. One for you to summon. Shutterbug 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no summons, mediation is a voluntary process.  All the editors will be notified.--Fahrenheit451 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal mediation case created 

message: *
I'm not sure where the various Yanny cases ended up. Were these statements by lawyer Joseph Yanny ever dismissed or recanted? AndroidCat 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no details, but looks like information that could be included in the article.--Fahrenheit451 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful. There was a whole series of law suits that involved Yanny, and I haven't been able to find anything so far that sums up the result. AndroidCat 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I did state "could" rather than "should". Yes, the outcome is important.--Fahrenheit451 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I didn't want someone else just grabbing it and throwing it in the article. AndroidCat 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation by Joseph Yanny 

message: Hi.  I did this change because :Image:Dm0.jpg does not have a proper rationale as of this post.  My change was later reverted here.  Rather than revert the revert, I'm just posting the information on this talk page. --Rockfang (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a deletable image 

message: *
:Someone should incorporate this source into the article.  Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  The look of that Other matters section in list format looks bad, it should be converted to prose/paragraph format instead.  Cirt (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niece of Scientology's leader backs Cruise biography 

message: http://www.insideedition.com/
Inside Edition, February 5, 2008 will have a program called "Inside Scientology": Exclusive...for the first time on TV...she was a member of Scientology's royal family. She says she knows first hand what it's like growing up Scientologist.
Does anyone know if Inside Edition has something that is text-based, whether it be a transcript of their programs or a report on past programs, which will be citable as a secondary source?  If not, does anyone know if their tapes/transcripts of past programs are available upon request?  If so, that would satisfy WP:V.  Cirt (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, looks like videos are available upon request, here: To obtain a videotape copy of a program please provide the following info:.  So that would be verifiable.  Cirt (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside Edition, February 5, 2008 

message: ;Good source, should be added to article
*
A very interesting development, indeed.  Cirt (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenna Miscavige Hill and two friends start website against Scientology 

message: :See in particular page 3 of 4.  Cirt (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source of info to add to article 

message: It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources.  Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources.  Cirt (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: *
*
:Good sources for some interesting info on David Miscavige, as revealed by celebrity actor and (former) Scientologist, Jason Beghe.  Cirt (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Celebrity Defector Reveals Church Secrets 

message: *
:Haven't had a chance to check this out yet, could be interesting.  Cirt (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite a stretch to equate blogtalkradio with YouTube or MySpace, the former being a community of media contributions and the latter being nothing more than a social networking website.  I cannot blame Justallofthem/Justanother for not knowing this living in an environment where information is highly controlled with restrictions and duress.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your silly personal slur notwithstanding, how about you do a bit of research. You might see this:"Our streaming and archived shows are produced by anyone that wants to be an internet radio host." (emphasis added)Anyone, repeat, anyone. Now how does that make BTR more of a reliable source than YouTube?? --Justallofthem (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not silly and not a slur, Justanother/Justallofthem.  You seem to a have fixed view on any of my statements. I wonder why.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think BlogTalkRadio falls under WP:SPS. This is just as reliable a source as 'self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources' Felixmeister (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Good call. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You say that because it conforms with your POV. I am very familiar with talk radio and there is no way ANY interviewer can control the statements of those who are interviewed. The hosts of Blogtalkradio programs do not have commercial interests sponsoring them.  Any person with some interview and broadcast skills can do a talk radio program. It is naive to believe otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *There is an important difference and that difference speaks to why this is not acceptable in this project: Anyone can stand on a street corner and say anything about anyone. That such non-notable and non-reliable material is then "published" in a blog makes the material neither notable nor reliable. What make a reliable source "reliable" is that they fact-check their material or put themselves at substantial legal risk; they do not publish unsupported allegations of this sort. What is also unfortunate is that experienced editors that should know better are willing, nay eager, to throw out the basic protection of Wikipedia that careful sourcing on WP:BLP articles provides. Makes me wonder where their priorities lie. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to WP:AGF  Felixmeister (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think this comes down to whether "Glosslip.com"--an online "celebrity gossip" site--satisfies the Reliable Source requirements, including the slightly stricter interpretation of those requirements called for w/r/t potentially inflammatory claims in bios of the living.  If Glosslip is judged a "questionable" source, it can't be used.  Unless there's a good case that Glosslip meets the journalistic standards for reliability--comparable to "mainstream" TV stations or newspapers--I'd say it belongs in the questionable category in this context, and shouldn't be cited. --BTfromLA (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep things civil, chaps. 'Unspoken' accusations are still accusations. For what it's worth, I think we shouldn't be making this claim. However, perhaps a line that 'Critics have accused him of unscrupulous activites, and in some cases physical assault, however no-one has pressed charges, and the claims remain unproven'. Perhaps? And no offence, Justallofthem, but you're bound to oppose any inclusion of this site - the last thing you want is your organisation's leader being accused of things! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. However, inclusion of unsupported claims by a non-notable individual and reported only in blog are far from the standard of inclusion required of any article here, let alone BLP. I could really care less what goes in the articles here provided that it is consistent with reliable sourcing and complies with our policies. This does not and that is my only point. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Good Suggestion Mr RN, and a I agree, until this is in newspapers etc it shouldn't be included 'verbatim', but given the ammount of first hand accounts your suggested line makes a lot of sense. Felixmeister (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Material that is inappropriate for a WP:BLP article should not be "back-doored" in by mean of a WP:EL:"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies." - WP:EL--Justallofthem (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source, interview discussion about David Miscavige 

message: Is an audio interview hosted on BlogTalkRadio a sufficient source for controversial claims made about the subject of this article? 11:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite a stretch to equate blogtalkradio with YouTube or MySpace, the former being a community of media contributions and the latter being nothing more than a social networking website.  I cannot blame Justallofthem/Justanother for not knowing this living in an environment where information is highly controlled with restrictions and duress.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your silly personal slur notwithstanding, how about you do a bit of research. You might see this:"Our streaming and archived shows are produced by anyone that wants to be an internet radio host." (emphasis added)Anyone, repeat, anyone. Now how does that make BTR more of a reliable source than YouTube?? --Justallofthem (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not silly and not a slur, Justanother/Justallofthem.  You seem to a have fixed view on any of my statements. I wonder why.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think BlogTalkRadio falls under WP:SPS. This is just as reliable a source as 'self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources' Felixmeister (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Good call. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You say that because it conforms with your POV. I am very familiar with talk radio and there is no way ANY interviewer can control the statements of those who are interviewed. The hosts of Blogtalkradio programs do not have commercial interests sponsoring them.  Any person with some interview and broadcast skills can do a talk radio program. It is naive to believe otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *There is an important difference and that difference speaks to why this is not acceptable in this project: Anyone can stand on a street corner and say anything about anyone. That such non-notable and non-reliable material is then "published" in a blog makes the material neither notable nor reliable. What make a reliable source "reliable" is that they fact-check their material or put themselves at substantial legal risk; they do not publish unsupported allegations of this sort. What is also unfortunate is that experienced editors that should know better are willing, nay eager, to throw out the basic protection of Wikipedia that careful sourcing on WP:BLP articles provides. Makes me wonder where their priorities lie. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to WP:AGF  Felixmeister (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think this comes down to whether "Glosslip.com"--an online "celebrity gossip" site--satisfies the Reliable Source requirements, including the slightly stricter interpretation of those requirements called for w/r/t potentially inflammatory claims in bios of the living.  If Glosslip is judged a "questionable" source, it can't be used.  Unless there's a good case that Glosslip meets the journalistic standards for reliability--comparable to "mainstream" TV stations or newspapers--I'd say it belongs in the questionable category in this context, and shouldn't be cited. --BTfromLA (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep things civil, chaps. 'Unspoken' accusations are still accusations. For what it's worth, I think we shouldn't be making this claim. However, perhaps a line that 'Critics have accused him of unscrupulous activites, and in some cases physical assault, however no-one has pressed charges, and the claims remain unproven'. Perhaps? And no offence, Justallofthem, but you're bound to oppose any inclusion of this site - the last thing you want is your organisation's leader being accused of things! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. However, inclusion of unsupported claims by a non-notable individual and reported only in blog are far from the standard of inclusion required of any article here, let alone BLP. I could really care less what goes in the articles here provided that it is consistent with reliable sourcing and complies with our policies. This does not and that is my only point. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Good Suggestion Mr RN, and a I agree, until this is in newspapers etc it shouldn't be included 'verbatim', but given the ammount of first hand accounts your suggested line makes a lot of sense. Felixmeister (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Material that is inappropriate for a WP:BLP article should not be "back-doored" in by mean of a WP:EL:"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies." - WP:EL--Justallofthem (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: I read that this guy has the board of Scientology as hostages at some compound, what's the story behind that and why is it all over news websites but not on his page on Wiki?  I'd say it's notable?  And I'd like to know more.  122.107.56.47 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh? Which news websites? If they are reliable sources they could be used as cites. Without cites, editors can't just drop in unreferenced text, especially in biographies of living persons. AndroidCat (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Until a court of law finds Miscavige guilty of this, I would be highly hesitant to put anything that could be interpreted as libelous in a biography. Charges of kidnapping would definitely count, and should definitely not be in this article. --GoodDamon 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we can see what these "news websites" are, and exactly what they say, it's all pretty moot. AndroidCat (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: you might be referring to Rehabilitation Project Force. i dont know about any hostages, the more appropriate description would be: slaves. but they do not use them for purposes of blackmail, so the word hostage doesnt really seem to fit here.Kurtilein (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the so-called "SP Hall" in Hemet, CA is what you are looking for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostages? 

message: On one paragraph of the Nightline interview:
"Another of Miscavige's claims was: "Look at the studies that brought about the Holocaust of the Jews, that the Nazis justified killing the Jews, they were done at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Leipzig, Germany." However, the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry has only existed since 1966 (in Munich and not Leipzig); it was the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie that joined the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatric Research in 1924,[30] that was later incorporated into the Max Planck Society in 1954.[31] This association of psychiatry with Nazism remains prominent in the church's materials, including its exhibit Psychiatry: An Industry of Death."
The beginning of this sentence:
“However, the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry has only existed since 1966”
Is contradicted by the end of the sentence:
“(in Munich and not Leipzig); it was the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie that joined the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatric Research in 1924,[30] that was later incorporated into the Max Planck Society in 1954.”
Look at the bold text.
I wasn't sure if this reference should be removed, or this inconsistency should be pointed out in some way. I guess I will remove it, but I am leaving this note here so that it is clear why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabebrooks (talk • contribs) 
:This information is sourced and should not be removed. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There seems to be an error in the Nightline interview... 

message: This sentence: "Miscavige said that extraterrestrial beliefs (see Space opera in Scientology doctrine) are not as important as people believe or not important at all." I think that part is kind of misleading, since David Miscavige actually made more than one statement to qualify L. Ron Hubbard's "Van Allen Belt":
* "pulled out of context items" (further drawing a parallel with the Virgin Mary, a core catholic belief)
* "that forms no part of current Scientology, none whatsoever"
* "he's talking about the origins of the universe"
* "I'd never heard that"
We should find a way to make that clear in the article, and not cherry pick one particular statement he made. Actually, I can't even find that he said "extraterrestrial beliefs ... are not as important." --Raymond Hill (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Miscavige's Nightline interview: extraterrestrial beliefs 

message: ;Media
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
----
One or two of the above are existing in the article as already used references - moving here to sort it out. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: I posted to BLPN , to try to get some additional attention from other editors on the article. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLPN 

message: Could anyone suggest additional sources to use in the article? I note there are several cites to Religious Technology Center-affiliated websites, but the majority are to news media sources - might provide some fresh info to find some additional sources from books not currently utilized in the article. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The RS I know of are already used in the article. Good job on working to improve the article. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources ? 

message: Although the original uploader presented that podcast as having been broadcast on Hawk Radio (a college station, see site), the host of the podcast has the below on his website:I am Tom Smith, producer and host of The Edge, formerly a radio program broadcast on WXYB AM in Tampa, Florida out of Hillsborough Community College.  My program will shortly reincarnate as a podcast which is more convenient for most of my listeners. (emphasis added)This raises serious doubts as to whether the reference in question is a podcast or a recorded broadcast. I listened to a bit of it and no call letters or reference to Hawk Radio was mentioned early on as would be expected in a broadcast. I may or may not listen to it all but I think that if one does it will bear our my doubt that there are any of the expected indications of a college radio broadcast such as station identification breaks. For this reason and seeing as it is presenting extremely contentious material in a BLP article, it should be removed. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last 30 seconds, it says: "You're listening to WXYB Indian Rocks Beach, Tampa, 1520 AM" --Raymond Hill (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I am listening to it now and about 1/2 through. OK, then. If someone else wants to raise the question of the suitability of a college station for this sort of material in BLP then they can but I will not. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear ID at 35:30. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to assume that WXYB runs a reputable station, otherwise its license might be rescinded. Have some doubts about the programming coming from the local community college, "Hawk Radio", but have seen some college newspapers, like the Daily Illinibo, which I think would clearly at least meet RS standards, and have to assume that this community college wouldn't run anything which might get itself in trouble without verifying it first. Maybe not the best source out there, but I would tend to think that it would be counted as reliable, if not necessarily of the highest levels of reputability. I remember having similar discussions about the reliability of boxofficeindia.com elsewhere. What was decided then was basically if the source were cited as a source by another publication which is considered reliable, then it would probably qualify as reliable. That is in fact how boxofficeindia.com was eventually qualified as reliable. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida could provide more direct information regarding the specific source, and maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon could do the same about the Portland Mercury. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I posted notices at the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida and Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawk Radio? 

message: The Portland Mercury, namely this article  is currently used as a source. I posted to WP:RSN  to get some thoughts from fresh eyes on using it as a source. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a promotional interview or press release for a book.   Neither RS nor non-RS as far as I can tell. Likely citable at most as opinion of the author of the book? Collect (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSN seems to have a different read on this altogether pegging this as reliable and the issue more centered on how to treat the content in a BLP in context with others sources.  -- Banjeboi 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reporter seems to only report what the subject said - how can we use it as more than that? Collect (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps quotations marks and applying attribution appropriately.  -- Banjeboi 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSN 

message: That image can be cleaned up a bit at the WP:Image Lab.  -- Banjeboi 10:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, posted to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#David_Miscavige. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to  for the suggestion and to  for helping out. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede image in infobox 

message: * Video at www.kesq.com
Possible source for use in the article. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KESQ-TV 

message: The more often I see this pic of Miscavige we use here, the more I'm becoming convinced that we shouldn't be using such an extremely unflattering image in a BLP. It reminds me of the pictures of Margaret Thatcher that her most strident political opponents used to use in the 1980s to express their disgust with her, usually a still image showing her lips contorted in mid-word. If we haven't got anything better, I'd be in favour of going without picture until we do. Jayen466 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked online for a free photo, but couldn't find one. Lots of photos of Anonymous with Miscavige in the description, though. The Wikimedia Commons category for David Miscavige has some of these protest pictures with garbage descriptions like "It basically means the current cult leader, David Miscavige (DM) is 'altering' scientology, which is supposed to be a big time no-no in the cult." Could ask the Church of Scientology for a better image, but I doubt they would release it under something permissive enough. Wikipedia doesn't seem to allow no derivative works licenses. Cool Hand Luke 03:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a situation that affects many articles, and Miscavige is no different from many other famous people in that regard. Here are some other "unflattering" images in BLPs: Sinbad (entertainer), Dennis Miller, Christopher Guest, Chevy Chase. Any freely licensed image is preferable to a copyrighted image (Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, Images: 12). This image survived a deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons  - but we would love to accept a better portrait if David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology chooses to release one. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who commented at that deletion discussion were Cirt and AndroidCat and Entheta, who chose his user name to express his stance on Scientology. While some of the other pictures you link may not be the most flattering, none of them gives the appearance of having been selected to make the subject look bad. Btw, as for Entheta's argument in that deletion discussion, the background colour looks like a paint-bucket job to me. Jayen466 12:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayen466, you're rather pushing it with that bad faith link in an action that I'm not even a party to. AndroidCat (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Those pictures are of technically better quality too—they have better resolution with the possible exception of Christopher Guest's comparably bad photo. This was a 11kb upload that really does look like a screen capture. Might as well keep it up until it's deemed a copyrightvio or until a better is available—that vote doesn't instill me with confidence though. Cool Hand Luke 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, here's some background on the original uploader, Wen Hsing: (). Jayen466 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to deleted contribs, this was the one and only photo he uploaded on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the editor who made the CU request actually had it right. The Tazchook account was created fifteen minutes after HumanProject posted at Talk:Tasmania, and Tazchook's first post another ten minutes later was to reply to Humanproject at Talk:Tasmania. All three accounts collaborated in inserting a "funny" story about Black Bears into United States: Tazchook, Humanproject, Wen Hsing. Humanproject and Wen Hsing shared an "interest" in Lost, Aberdeenshire in early April 2007: , . Scientology edits by Tazchook: . These look like joke/throwaway accounts of an established user. Jayen466 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The image was taken from the OT Summit 2007 video, which is partially on video google and was also leaked to Piratebay a while ago. Miscavige wears the same tie, shirt and hairstyle, and yes, the background was blue. Jayen466 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've nominated it for deletion as a copyvio at Commons. Jayen466 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  raises some cogent points that I was previously unaware of. I agree with his assessment of the image and its uploader. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, can you clean up the image descriptions for photos you had uploaded? I found some of them to be inappropriate. I was giving you a subtle hint above, but I should be more direct; I don't know enough about the terminology or Wikimedia Commons to adequately translate these. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is a good point, over at Commons admin Túrelio is helping me clean up those image pages - some of them are imported from Flickr using an automated tool, and the tool uses the description page originally given by the image's author. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I brought this to the attention of a Commons admin and recused myself as I had previously participated in a deletion discussion of the image . Another Commons admin deleted the image . I then went ahead and removed it from this article . Cirt (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Tyra Banks' is astonishingly bad as she takes photos and looks amazing in all of them but we have one of the worst images imaginable.  -- Banjeboi 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Is it normal keep an image on Wikimedia Commons that looks like a screenshot (in both composition and metadata) on the basis that it hasn't been proven to be a screenshot? I'm not much of a Commonist myself. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you attempting to bait me with leading questions, Luke?  I stated very clearly that I am recusing from further involvement, and you follow up with a query that appears to assume very bad faith.  Commons has plenty of other administrators.  I do as little as possible that relates to Scientology on this project, and endeavor to avoid it entirely on others.  It is very proper and reasonable to recuse in light of the mentorship, and I resent your question.  There are plenty of other people you could ask; please respect my wish to wash my hands of this. DurovaCharge! 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not sure if it's a leading question (not one I know the answer to, anyway); I assure you it's in good faith. I have no idea what the norms on Commons are. A lot of users here have complained about m:Copyright paranoia, and I don't know what stance Commons takes. I'll ask someone else then, but this wasn't intended to impugn you or your mentoree. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand what an SPA is, presumably?  At Commons you are one, and your contributions there pertain to a religion which has come under some of the same criticism as Scientology.  This is the second time during this case that, when Cirt has responded cooperatively toward remedying a content problem you raised, you followed up with trout slapping him for not being quite to your expectations.  It is interesting that you added the bit about intentions to 'impugn' as an afterthought, not in your original reply.  I had refrained from mentioning this before now, but this is exactly the sort of situation where arbitrators normally recuse to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  You may wish to consider where the lines ought to be drawn, Luke. DurovaCharge! 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You think I'm an SPA at commons? Cool Hand Luke 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think you aren't? DurovaCharge! 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, I get it, I'm a Mormon, contributing my Mormon pictures like  and . The agnostic Mormon is in league with the crazy cultists, I get it. Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not merely what your religion is.  I, too, belong to a small religion that sometimes gets marginalized.  A few centuries ago people lost careers and even their lives for adhering to it, and it has never been accepted as 'mainstream' or even valid by some individuals who adhere to related faiths.  But you would have a very difficult time determining which religion I'm referring to, on the basis of my contributions to this or any other WMF site.  If your contributions took a similar diversity we wouldn't be having this conversation.  I ask again, where would you draw the lines?  Recusal is not about one's inner sense of fairness, but the appearance thereof. DurovaCharge! 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's make this interesting: have a look at my 50,000+ edits to multiple WMF sites and see if you can guess.  The two obvious possibilities would be Judaism and Catholicism; both can be ruled out.  I have probably made fewer than 30 edits, ever, that pertain to my own religion.  And exactly one edit within the last six months. DurovaCharge! 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Funny, now word on that in the whole article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.132.232 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hitting staff members 

message: Quote from former Scientologist Jason Beghe as guest of radio program on BBC World Service:
I think that there are probably things of Scientology that are valuable and that can help people - my main issue is not with Scientology per se, it is with Scientology the organization - it is a corrupt I believe and probably a criminal endeavor, and that has to do with people who are in charge of Scientology mainly David Miscavige who I think is probably a psychopath. I'll give you just an example. I know of people who were very very high up in the Church, and there's countless people corroborating this, countless - that David Miscavige regularly beat them.
*
Possible source for use in the article. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source - [[BBC World Service]] 

message: This: 
===Personal life===
Miscavige served as best man in his friend Tom Cruise's 2006 wedding to Katie Holmes and accompanied the couple on their honeymoon.  David Miscavige's wife Shelley did not attend.
is only partially sourced. The source does not say anything about David Miscavige accompanying the Cruises on their honeymoon and does not mention Shelley Miscavige at all. Shutterbug (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy (corrected) 

message: Miscavige served as best man in his friend Tom Cruise's 2006 wedding to Katie Holmes and accompanied the couple on their honeymoon.  David Miscavige's wife Shelley did not attend.
is only partially sourced. The source does not say anything about David Miscavige accompanying the Cruises on their honeymoon and does not mention Shelley Miscavige at all. Shutterbug (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life

message: ;First article in series
*
;Overall report page for multiple articles
*
Sources to be included in this article. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This story is getting picked up all over. Check google news for more supporting sources. Z00r (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, here are some:
#Philadelphia Metro
#Associated Press
#LiveNews
#The Guardian
#USA Today
#LA Weekly
#FOX News
#Los Angeles Times
#Miami Herald
#San Francisco Chronicle
#Houston Chronicle
There are probably others as well. These sources seem would seem to satisfy WP:RS, as well as corroborate statements made by others in other WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree. For what it's worth, it is my view that the St. Petersburg Times article itself is notable, and deserves a chapter both here and in the Wikipedia 'Scientology' main article.  The four ex-members quoted in the article appear to be authentic insider witnesses, and confirm activity previously discussed.  Additionally of interest in Wikipedia due to the recent Wiki-ban on some writers. Jusdafax (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. Combine the recent statements from former high-ranking executives, plus the statements from other former members previously that have said the exact same things, and we begin to see a pattern of corroboration made in multiple WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good revert yesterday Cirt; the attempt seemed to be to remove some material and add other, giving the edit plausibility.  This article on Miscavige will be cutting edge for some time to come, needless to say.  It's interesting how Wikipedia, which now almost always comes up in the first few listings in a google search on a given topic, is now itself Ground Zero in 'Perception Wars.'  And with an extremely hot-button topic like this, the new 3-part article in the St. Petersburg Time ratchets the pressure.  Again, bravo Cirt! Jusdafax (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder in special report on Scientology and David Miscavige 

message: Is the back and forth between Miscavige and St Petersburg Times regarding his availability for an interview in connection with the June 2009 exposé really notable? This seems like a much subordinate sidetrack from the main issue. I suggest we remove. Alternatively, it should be reduced to a brief mention. __meco (talk)
:Disagree. My view is that it is highly notable, and as I have previously noted I feel strongly that the 3-part article and circumstances of its publishing are notable indeed, and worthy of their own expanded section.  Jusdafax (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with . Cirt (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this quibble notable? 

message: On January 25, 2008, Miscavige's niece and Scientology critic Jenna Miscavige Hill claimed in a letter to Church spokesperson Karin Pouw that disconnection was a current practice within the Church. Hill was responding to recent official statements denying this and other claims made in Andrew Morton's Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography.
:::
Deleted paragraph about Jenny Miscavige. The reference source links to an article about the practice of disconnection, which is not relevant to the context of the subheading "Allegations of violence" and does not fit into any other category on the page.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljefferson  (talk • contribs) 2009-08-05T17:57:32
:Jenna Miscavige Hill is not  mentioned on this biog as a result of this passage being removed.
:It appears that we have very little information about his family, other than the details in "Early life".  His wife Michelle is not mentioned in the body of the article.  Maybe those details can become a "Family" section. 
:The information about disconnection does touch on possible family-life problems which are relevant on this biog, however we should have more neutral sources before going into details about private matters like that.  This information is used on "Disconnection" and "Jenna Miscavige Hill".
:John Vandenberg (chat) 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of violence

message: On Aug. 5, 2009 I undid an edit to the David Miscavige article made this same day. A whole paragraph of sourced material is removed by an editor, 170.206.224.50, who has made very few previous edits, yet cites a number of wikipedia rules.  With all due respect, this topic is so hot-button on Wikipedia that I feel we need to go slow on deletions of this type by an editor who has little track record. 
I invite, welcome and strongly urge further discussion here on the talk page, but undoing my undo will not lead to an edit war, but to an admin who will rule on the situation.  Let's not go there. Please assume good faith, and talk over your reasoning for these changes to what is currently one of the most sensitive subjects on Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the IP should identify themselves, especially on a Scientology page, it is obvious that they have previous editing experience.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have been an occasional IP editor for several years and there was never a reason to register. DoingWell (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing edit

message: I know these are dangerous waters, so I'm writing here in search of consensus before editing the article further.  It seems to me that David Miscavige's identity as a public figure is linked to a pattern of serious allegations of unethical and even illegal practices as surely as Clint Eastwood's public identity is linked to acting in movies.  Thus, in my view, a brief description of this history and some specific examples should be featured in the lede.  Of course, we want to avoid turning the encyclopedia article into a hatchet job that dwells on every negative claim we can find. As of this writing, the lede contains a reference to one example of criticism, recent allegations that Miscavige was abusive toward his staff.  I think that's misleading... it makes it seem as though we're reporting an isolated current event, rather than a pattern that has held true for most of Miscavige's career. High-profile press criticism of Miscavige, both in terms of his personal behavior and in terms of the practices of the organization he runs, goes back at least to the 1990 five-part series in the LA Times and the 1991 Time magazine cover story that described Miscavige as "ringleader" of a "Mafia-like" organization.  Multiple reputable press sources have run articles alleging fraud, extortion, deceptive financial practices, harrassment of critics, destruction of members' families, coerced abortions for staff members and more, including the recent claims that he physically beats up executives.  Do we agree that this notoriety is a conspicuous aspect of Miscavige's public identity?  If so, how do we summarize this history of allegations in the lede, avoiding both whitewashing their significance or over-emphasizing the criticism?  BTfromLA (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that these are dangerous waters: a lot of edgy issues here.  As I say below, I want the dust to settle a bit.  I'm curious to see what established Wikipedians think about your comments BT, and the ongoing situation here with this topic, which has been in the news quite a bit of late. I also refer to the big yellow box at the top of this page, which was also in the news when the policy was established here.   Wikipedia precedent is being established, day by critical day, and the issue has actually moved beyond Mr. Miscavige or Scientology in my opinion. Jusdafax (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and incorporated a bit about the Time magazine article.  BTfromLA (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical info in lede--how to handle it 

message: Regarding  - this source fails WP:RS, and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, especially not in a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source fails RS 

message: I've gone back to where we were 4 days ago, more or less.  I want the dust to settle a bit before edits by editors of dubious neutrality become established.  I strongly suggest anyone who disagrees with this revert talk it over.  Again, I refuse to get into an edit war, which is unseemly... I'll just take it straight to an admin. Jusdafax (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do disagree.  even on a Scientology page, which has more restrictions than any other page that I know of, I don't believe that an editor has to be fully established before they can contribute to the page itself.  If this edit was due to subversive content, a continuing edit war, or a series of violations I would support it, however I think that this page has been constructivly active in the last 4 days.  granted some of the edits needed to be undone while other editors learn what reliable sources are, but those are mistakes I had to learn as a new editor as well and I don't assume any malicious agenda.  to do a blanket revert of between 19-28 different versions (I don't know what version from the 5th you used) seems to be a little excessive, and if you just reverted contributions by specific editors (your edit summery reads as if that may be the case) then that would be against what I consider the spirit of Wikipedia.  My solution would be to reestablish the former page, and tackle the content that I find questionable point by point...but I am just one editorWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard(talk) 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I shared Coffeepusher's concerns when I saw that Justdafax had reverted to an Aug 5 version, but it turns out the problem is limited to the talk-page headline and not  his or her edit itself, which does a good job of reconciling the recent edits, and turns out not to be a wholesale reversion at all.  I do, however, wonder about the degree of walking-on-eggshells here--how much dust has actually been stirred up?  If the issue is a suspicion that the anonymous IP editor is a pro-scientology warrior, we should confront that directly, but it needn't halt progress on the article.  If it is something else, please specify.  BTfromLA (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It looks as if the IP editor took the name DoingWell and was promptly banned from Scientology articles.  BTfromLA (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: To avoid any confusion:  Miscavige wasn't literally pictured on the cover of Time.  The cover feature was "Scientology: the Cult of Greed."  (The cover image is a Dianetics-style exploding volcano with octopus tentacles at its base.) Miscavige was in charge of the organization at the time, and he was discussed in the article--it's what led to his doing that interview with Ted Koppel--so I think it's fair to see that Time piece as a prominent part of Miscavige's bio.  In addition to the TV interview, there was a years-long lawsuit (ultimately unsuccessful) against Time and a huge anti-Time ad campaign by Scientology, including a magazine that was inserted into copies of USA today.   Their argument was that Time smeared Scientology because of their financial ties to Eli Lilly, maker of Prozac.  BTfromLA (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: the lede getting too long--I think it could stand to lose the second half of the opening paragraph, starting with "RTC is a separate..."   BTfromLA (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Fine by me.  I do think that chunk of the first paragraph could be removed from the intro section in the interest of keeping it concise.  Most of it belongs in the article, but in the intro it seems unnecessary to spend several sentences elaborating on the specifics of his job description, the corporate structure, etc.  BTfromLA (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: you have my apologies, I appeared to have misread your edits.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to Aug. 5 version 

message: Not sure about appropriateness of this new WP:EL added by an IP . Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: personally I think it has the same credibility as a blog.  I can't find out who is keeping the website, or even who are the authors of its contents.  I'm not comfortable at all leaving this on a BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks for the input. I am glad that I took the appropriate actions by removing the link from the article page and then bringing it here to the talk page for discussion. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New EL added 

message: I've been trying to remove the actionable statements from the bio of a subject who is known to be litigious, and somehow as a result keep getting accused of vandalism, with said article automatically reverting. Please keep in mind that there has never been any proof of the deleted statements; they were only allegations, and inflammatory ones at that. How is my splicing the article to retain its legal integrity considered vandalism? Or is the Wikipedia editorial board actively gunning for a lawsuit? Any explanation beyond vague threats of being banned is welcome, but I must say that the multiple (and seemingly automatic) negative responses that were generated, without apparent reflection or legal justification, reflect poorly on the site and make it appear less credible. The reliability of Wikipedia is already actively criticized; why provoke the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.166.79 (talk • contribs) 
:The information is supported by independent  reliable secondary sources. And please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused of vandalism 

message: *
Source for material for addition to the article. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC News Nightline 

message: How can Wikipedia tolerate such a gross insult twords David Miscavige.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  insulting David Miscavige 

message: Celebrities lead charge against Scientology
talks about David Miscavige. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities lead charge against Scientology 

message: Heads up: Scientology Charged With Slavery, Human Trafficking. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot 

message: *
:Hugh B. Urban is a professor of religious studies at Ohio State University. This article is a good source of info on multiple topics. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rundown Truth: Scientology Changes Strategy in War with Media 

message: See postings at news.turner.com and www.newsonnews.net/cnn
In a special series beginning Monday, March 29th, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° takes a close and revealing look at the leadership of the worldwide church of Scientology. The week-long series, Scientology: A History of Violence, will examine allegations that Scientology leader David Miscavige has for years beaten, kicked and choked top members of the church. These are allegations the church aggressively denies, saying violence from inside came from those making the claim.
This series on the CNN program Anderson Cooper 360 starting March 29, 2010 will have a good deal of WP:RS source material. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, a post from Mr. Anderson Cooper, see . -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology: A History of Violence 

message: = this edit removed sources, and added unsourced material. Let's avoid this behavior please, especially on a WP:BLP page, and especially one within this topic area. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, thanks for all of your help.  BTfromLA (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make sure to back up newly added info to independent reliable secondary sources, using citations. -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you consider adequate verification for the existence of the Anderson Cooper series about Miscavige and the specifics about it that I cited?  News articles that tout that he will be doing the series?  Cooper's own CNN blog posts about the series?  Videos of the series on youtube or on the CNN website?  I'm not sure whether any third party articles in reputable publications have described each installment of his series in detail, but I should think there's some way to treat material produced by a reputable broadcast news source as equivalent to a print article.  As to my removal of sourced material, do you really think that any sensationalistic lawsuit that is brought against someone is suitable for inclusion in an article about them?  Though "sourced," that one struck me as below the threshold of responsible editing, particularly, as you say, in this fraught topic area.  (If lawsuits are to brought up, they should probably be treated as a group, and more fairly characterized: Miscavige is being accused of human trafficking, not "slavery": those are close, but not identical.) BTfromLA (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could suggest some sources, and we could go from there. As far as your removal of sourced material, perhaps you could put forth on the talk page the sources you feel you wish to remove from the article, and this could also be discussed. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I just did put forward the info I wanted to remove and why.  It isn't the source I want to remove, it's the content: somebody files a lawsuit saying Miscavige is guilty of slavery.  And I did outline the types of sources that are avaialble for the Anderson Cooper thing, why not answer my question?  BTfromLA (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources (multiple sources) you removed were WP:RS, and should be discussed as to why they were removed with no discussion. The info you added was unsourced, and we should discuss individual specifc suggested sources, not vague ideas of possible sources. -- Cirt (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cirt, I find your manner here patronizing, hostile and a violation of WP:OWN.  I an not inclined to waste my time wrangling with an uncooperative collaborator, so you win: I will make no further attempts to improve the article.  BTfromLA (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am asking is that we discuss individual sources, one-at-a-time. And also not add unsourced material to a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a wholesale revert of my edit as if it were vandalism.  You addressed me as if I were a naughty child.  You refused to engage my attempts to address your issues, instead issuing patronizing directives about the form in which I must present my questions before you will deign to consider them.  You really need to consider your manners and your tone: if this is typical of you, it makes for poorer articles and a dismal environment in which to collaborate.   --BTfromLA (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the edit removed sourced material, and simultaneously added uncited material - to a WP:BLP page. That is indeed quite inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand what I'm saying... I'm not talking about sources, I'm talking about rudeness.  Sigh. BTfromLA (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us focus on a discussion of content and sources, and avoid discussion of individual contributors please. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sources, and addition of unsourced material 

message: How come there is no mention of the week-long AC360 reports? It was covered by the Associated Press and many other articles.  Even the St Petersburg Times discussed the AC report. 
Also why is there no discussion of his wife Michelle Miscavige? She was mentioned in articles such as "IRS examined Scientology dollars, not dogma" (St. Petersburg Times; Oct 24, 1993), "Scientologists Report Assets of $400 Million"(New York Times), "Diana author names Tom Cruise as 'World Number Two in Scientology'" ("Naturally the work was regularly inspected by David and Shelley Miscavige [his wife], who would ride over to the site on his motorbike" in Daily Mail - Jan 7, 2008), "Growth of Scientology gets big boost from Cruise" ("Shelly Britt, who joined Scientology at 17, said she was at the base for 20" in San Francisco Chronicle - Dec 25, 2005), and "Scientology's Record on Human Rights" (newsblaze.com Mar 2, 2007).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlacjinDH (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My attempt to add a description of this was unceremoniously reverted for lack of proper sourcing.  You might wanty to look back at my edit, add a couple of your sources if they cover that material, and see whether you have better luck than I did adding this important story to the article. --BTfromLA (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  has helpfully suggested some good independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you very much for doing that, and recommending them here on the talk page. This was a most constructive course of action. -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under "Allegations of abuse" a few sentences about the AC360 and the church's response should be added. His wife's name and other details cited above should be added to "Personal life."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlacjinDH (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good suggestions, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Anderson Cooper reports or wife? 

message: I was flagged for attempting to add information from the #1 referenced article for this page, the Tobin St. Petersburg Times article.  My information was removed by Cirt, at first, as a result of a WP:TRIVIA citation.  As you can see in my TALK page, I have attempted to address this removal and how I disagree with it.  As I did not hear back from Cirt in this discussion, I went ahead and added this information again yesterday only to find it removed this AM.
As a result of our lack of interaction and few reasons for arbitrary removal, I wanted to engage in discussion on this TALK page.  I am trying to integrate information about DM's interests and hobbies.  What would be the best way to do this?  Was my entry too extensive?  Do I need to integrate the information into a new section?  Is this information irrelevant?
The cited paragraph I was pulling from is: "During frequent visits to Clearwater, where his mother lives, Miscavige said he spends his nights in Scientology’s staff dormitory, a converted apartment complex on Saturn Avenue. He said he eats in Scientology’s communal dining halls and sometimes gets out to Domenic’s Capri Italian Restaurant on Clearwater Beach. He goes to movies, enjoys trail biking in Hillsborough County, and has been known to ride a water scooter. He said he also plays piano, takes underwater photographs, reads several books a week, exercises daily and keeps a casual eye on his hometown sports teams from Philadelphia."
WP:TRIVIA says of trivia: "lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list."  It goes on to say: "Some entries may be speculative or factually incorrect, and should be removed; some may fall outside the scope of the article and should be moved to other articles; and others, such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts, may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether."
My information was regarding DM's interests and hobbies.  Listing an individuals' hobbies or interests is not irrelevant and most certainly does not "fall outside Wikipedia's scope."  As you can see in the Education section of Thomas Jefferson's Wikipedia page, Jefferson's interests of "his violin" and "love for wines" are clearly cited in the first part of the article.  And, as you can see in Winston Churchill's page, there is mention of the relationship he had with his mother: "He was rarely visited by his mother (then known as Lady Randolph Churchill), and wrote letters begging her to either come to the school or to allow him to come home," as well as non-cited mentions of his performance in school: "He earned high marks in English and History and was also the school's fencing champion."
Per WP:TRIVIA: "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. " 
I realize Scientology has involvement in Wikipedia and the Internet, but this does not mean that every edit to a Scientology-related page is made by a "drone" of Scientology.
Please help me understand how I might be able to make logical and reasonable edits to this page without preemptive removals.  Thank you for your assistance. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: first off, how other pages choose to weigh the merits of particular information about a person depends entirely upon that pages community and does not necessarily create a standard for Wikipedia as a whole.  I personally believe inserting a bullet point list of his hobbies, Hobbies shared by many people in the US, came without earlier contextualization and is not referenced or elaborated upon later.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: come up with the sources necessary while avoiding WP:SYNTH to explain those hobbies in an encyclopedic yet non-trivial way (show how those hobbies are necessary to understanding Davie) and we can discuss that then...as it stands no, you don't have nearly enough information to create that section from the source you have provided.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:TRIVIA