Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 1

message: He goes by acronymns?  Good gosh.  Hey!  DM! (sounds like a bowel movement)  COB!  (sounds like a logging head of staff out in the woods)  How about defining a symbol when it is first used, guys?  People might, sometimes be addressed by their job title but "goes by the acronymn" isn't accurate.  Do you have someone in your life whom you acronymnize?  Maybe a pet or something but c'mon, that's no way to write an encyclopedic sort of article. Terryeo 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're talking ! Definitions allow understanding, cool, Fahrenheit451.  As a point of information, have you witnessed Mr Miscaviage being acronymically addressed? Or did you read that somewhere?  If you read it somewhere, wouldn't you like to point to the source of information so others can read it too?Terryeo 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the sentence states, "People refer to him as .." but it does not cite any source.  It does not say, "The New York Times, in an article 29 Feb 77, "People talking about Miscaviage" states: John Smith, referring to Miscaviage, said "That COB might withdraw that darn policy!"  Do you follow?  No instance of anyone referring to Miscaviage by the acronymically concise phrase, DM or COB has been quoted, thus the information is not vaild.  If the information to be presented is: "Miscaviage holds the positions which are abbreviated DM and COB", then that information should be presented.  Else we are learning how to talk about Mr. Miscaviage when he is not present. Terryeo 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an article about Scientology terminology. Feel free to improve it. (Entheta 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DM

message: This article appears to copy some text directly from the David Miscaige web page. Davidstrauss 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch.  Yes, it does -- there's only one paragraph there that doesn't appear here.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: copied source

message: This SCREAMS for an NPOV dispute.  "accidentally" exposed to Dianetics and all his allergies went away?  I call bias.
: I have tried to edit this some using sources it listed and my own research. I worry though I'm just countering the bias the original writer I had with my own. Still I think it is a bit more neutral now or in least mentions criticism. --T. Anthony 05:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting edits. I doubt this version could be seen as too biased for him. They might even be a tad too harsh or in least unverified. (And I think Scientology is basically nuts, but there is still a gossippy quality to the writing of new edits that slightly concerns me)--T. Anthony 06:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your reasons but agree with your conclusions.  Saying "the truth is Mr. Miscavige is very respected by both staff and parishioners" runs into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy -- there are plenty of former Scientologists who saw Miscavige's actions as their proof that the Church no longer adhered to Scientology as Hubbard defined it and actually left the Church on that basis -- so saying that staff and parishioners respect Miscavige is like a business saying "All our customers are satisfied customers -- because those who weren't satisfied are no longer customers."  But the comment that you removed tried to "jump in the jury box" inappropriately, so it's better removed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: User:Runeartisem has uploaded an image of miscavige that infringes on a copyright and has twice put the image in the article.  I have removed it for the second time.  An admin needs to delete the image. --Fahrenheit451 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could have sworn I selected "Screenshot" from the pulldown menu.... the image is a screenshot from the video of the RTC 2000 New Year's address, taken from www.verfassungsschutz-bw.de/ so/so_hubbard.htm . wikipediatrix 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. "you saw exactly what you uploaded and as that differed from the alleged screenshot"? What does this mean? Please translate for me. What I uploaded WAS the "alleged screenshot" of Miscavige at the podium. Using language like "your attempt to change the subject to the "pulldown menu" nonsense excuse" is COMPLETELY insulting, uncivil, and bad faith. And you STILL haven't explained what was wrong with the image. You say it's not fair use and I say it is. I'm citing Wikipedia's own upload-image page for my position, what are you citing for yours?wikipediatrix 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Pot, kettle, black. What did I say that was an attack?? Quote me. And yes, I know I accidentally omitted the licensing status, I said that from the very beginning and you got all condescending and cranky about it, insisting that my answer was a "nonsense excuse" and that "I should have known better". Thanks for being SO constructive and helpful. wikipediatrix 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problems

message: Which is quite a surprise when compared to most of the Scientology related articles.  Its pleasent too, to see this discussion page fruitfully used.  Have a nice day. Terryeo 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit fluffy. I don't think it has to be full of attacks, but some of the criticisms taken out were the kind many other religious leaders articles would have. I might put a few back in, but state that they are just criticisms for balance.--T. Anthony 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So as to do this subject justice I have started a new Golden Age of Tech page, giving a description of it so users have some idea what is being talked about.  So expanding and moving this paragraph over. Nuview 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as of this moment it reads as an informative article that a person can understand.  It doesn't have off the wall stuff but reads right along.  Terryeo 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay for now. I tried not to be too negative and looked for things in the Koppel interview that were less bad. I admit though I had difficulty with that as in most interviews of him I find almost everything he says strikes me as overly intense to the point of paranoia. The SP Times one was a bit better, so I might switch to that if what he said on Koppel about himself is too offensive.--T. Anthony 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I wondered how long it'd take for the sourced things by him to be taken out. Quicker than I expected though, I'll be honest. If you check you'll find the NPOV dispute in this case was that it had gone too far the other way to become a fluff promotional piece. I tried to put back some criticism, but only ones he acknowledges with sources cited, and it's "not clean." We have an entire article of criticism of Pope John Paul II, and criticism in his article, so what you say there is basically invalid.--T. Anthony 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reads as a nice, clean article right now

message: I put criticism in a separate section and tried to make the rest more positive. This is in line with Pope John Paul II#Criticism, Sun Myung Moon#General criticism, etc. As some of the criticism he faces is a bit outlandish I indicated skepticism on many claims. I know this won't be acceptable, as in many respects the criticism Catholics get here is unacceptable to me, but hopefully it'll in least be tolerable with a little work--T. Anthony 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terryeo removed the "bullying" paragraph and said, quote: "Removed an falsey cited, probably untrue paragraph" in the edit summary. I reinstated it for now, until further discussion. The article doesn't hold forth that the statement is necessarily true, it simply states that Miscavige's critics say this, and provides a source link. Not sure what Terryeo means by "falsely cited". wikipediatrix 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least you actually talk about it Wikipediatrix.  I removed that statement because I read the link.  The link does not mention things about him shooting albums with a gun.  Further that link does not mention some of the other things that were in the paragraph I removed.  It appeared the person (T.Anthony I think) had found a critical link, posted it, and then posted other informations which he just felt like posting.  In keeping with Wiki Policy I therefore removed the paragraph and link here, for discussion.  Apparently Wikipediatrix, you did not choose to read the link but relied on your confidence that T.Anthony knew what he was talking about and reverted my edit. Terryeo 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the link One recalled the time that Miscavige became enraged with the performances of Scientology staffers on a church record album. He propped its cover against an embankment outside his Riverside County, office and shot it repeatedly with a .45-caliber pistol, said the associate. So to say I made this up is disingenuous and insulting. I tried to make clear that I was reporting the opinion of critics. I did not say I think these are valid and in fact I had a disclaimer indicating they were likely spurious. However he deals with criticism just as the Popes of my religion do. Why can't we mention this and say what those critics say?--T. Anthony 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: His critics have also described him as a "bully." They state that he has a volatile temperament that leads him to curse out his subordinates and use his gun on an album he found unsatisfactory. Added to this they charge him with leading a purge of the organization in the 1980s. It should be mentioned he has never faced any charges and those who know him dismiss all of this. They acknowledge his intensity and devotion to his work, but consider the allegations to be spurious.
This is wrongly cited, some of those statements do no appear at that link. Terryeo 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't checked the link yet myself, but if what you say is true, why would you delete the entire paragraph rather than tweaking and correcting the statements you say aren't in the link?? wikipediatrix 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph as it stands now does not diverge from the article at all. That said this fact.net article cited seems a bit more excessive to me as it looks like it's the allegations of one guy who "heard stuff from people who know them." The article I cited is one I don't necessarily believe, but these are allegations I've in least seen referenced in many other places as critical views.--T. Anthony 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the link is a pretty long, sort of convoluted, difficult to read series of pages.  At the very least it doesn't boldly present the information it pupports to present. Terryeo 08:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is gone now and as Fahrenheit 451 removed it I agree it's likely valid that it's gone.--T. Anthony 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph to here for discussion and citing

message: I think this paragraph In mid-1995, Miscavige announced the findings of an evaluation he made of education in the Church of Scientology: He stated that "the blind are leading the blind." After this, he introduced "Patter drills" onto most courses that neither comply with Hubbard's policy on practical drills, called "Drills, Allowed" or Hubbard's policy on theory drills, called 'Chinese School". caused some flack before, but seems to be back. I don't have a problem with it, but it maybe needs to be sourced to avoid another revert war. Just a suggestion.--T. Anthony 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OKAY, I'll spell it out once again. The document which spells out practical drills and disallows no further practical drills relies on the word "practical."  Picking up the red Tech Dictionary and reading its definition of "practical" presents this information: "Practical, the drills which permit the student to associate and coordinate theory with the actual items and objects to which the theory applies."  Patter Drills have no objects, Patter Drills have no items.  Patter Drills are not Practical Drills and use only "patter" (spoken words).  Yes, they are generally done facing a wall for practice and their end result is to be able to say the patter of the drill to a person.  Either to a twin or to a supervisor or to some qualified person.  So, while it is practice to a wall, the result of a patter drilling is to speak to a person.  This is not chinese drilling which involves a group of persons speaking aloud together, but an individual drill which results in a person being able to speak aloud a predefined "patter."  Again I'll use the example of being able to say the alaphabet aloud, all in one breath, to demonstrate a proficiency.  This is the sort of "patter" a "patter drill" is about, though it is the simplest example I can think of. Terryeo 09:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand what you are saying, Fahrenheit, Patter Drills are either "practical drills" (I think we arrived at consensus already?) or they are a violation of "Chinese School Drilling".  Chinese School Drilling is done by (at least 2) people.  But Patter Drills are single indivduals, drilling to a wall (the main action a person would observe when watching a patter drill).  Well, in a course it is one person doing one patter drill because everyone is doing different courses at different times.  It wouldn't make sense to have to wait for someone else to "Chinese Drill" with you, when you got to the place in the course.  Chinese Drilling serves another purpose (bunch of people together) and done in different circumstances. Terryeo 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: Removing from across the Scientology related pages.  This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview 11:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)
:: I have my own misgivings about the template, too: mainly that as it grows, it will soon be longer than many of the articles it encompasses. But in the meantime, the template does exist and should be discussed in the appropriate places before removing it from articles. wikipediatrix 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series Template

message: I fixed a couple of points of bad English and deleted some others.  Incomplete sentences, pronouns that are not defined, in addition to no reliable source of any kind.  Recent edits have been written in a confusing manner – can we keep the editorial standards high please.Nuview 11:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be specific, please. Name some sentences whose lack of sources concern you the most and I'll provide sources where possible. wikipediatrix 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted some (but not all) of your deletions. Like Terryeo, you have an unusual habit of deleting entire paragraphs because they contained a grammatical typo, rather than simply fixing the error. I also have to question why you chose to delete the External links to critical pages from clambake.org and Skeptic Tank. I reverted your deletion of the "patter drills" paragraph but added three sources to it so presumably everything is hunky-dory now. wikipediatrix 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patter Drills.  Schoolchildren saing "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" is a drill, is it not?  Children chanting "2 times 2 is four" is likewises a drill.  I have edited  to exactly spell out how patter drills are not off practical drill policy and are not against chinese drill policy and given additional examples.  Its very obvious.  A person wants to learn some things well, such as an alaphabet, or even an alaphabet backwards.  Patter drills lend themselves to it.  Terryeo 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hi Fahrenheit451, nice to resond to you.  L. Ron Hubbard created no Patter Drills that I know of and there is some reality to your second statement and to your third statement. However Chinese School is a group of people whom recite together from some stimulus.  One person reciting before a wall can't, obviously, be Chinese School.  But more to the point, how does a person learn the alaphabet forewards and backwards, easily all in one breath?  You perhaps have a better method ?  I am saying it is not counter to Hubbard's many policies, you are saying it is Chinese School even though one (1) person is doing it. :) What I can tell you easily is that it fills a gradient step which is kind of too big.  A person can develop the same certainty of the 10 ways a word can be misunderstood by reading the bulletin many times.  But a patter drill is more efficient and produces a certainty in a shorter period of time.  Besides which, it is easily checked by having the person state aloud the "patter drill" to a twin.  Why am I defending policy, I don't mean to.  What I do mean to do is to reply to those statements which are in articles which are not verifiable.  When someone puts up an HCOPL or HCOB source which states "students shall not drill to a wall" then I'll leave that sucker in place. heh !  Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reliable source is to be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources but of course, Fahrenheit451, if you know better why, simply bend Wikipedia to your will! Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a problem I have with the patter drill section is I'm not quite sure it's of broader interest. Apparently both of you are/were connected to Scientology in some way so it's of strong interest to both of you. However as someone who's never been connected to Scientology, and only knew one who was essentially non-observant, I don't quite get why as a reader I should care.--T. Anthony 13:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree T. Anthony.  Patter Drilling is a specialized educational technique used in courses in Scientology.  I would leave the area completely out of these sorts of articles altogether but I didn't feel justified in deleting cited sources and so felt I had to appropriately reply within the context of Citing Sources. Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm not really comfortable with Terryeo siding with me and in general I lean more toward your side. I'm just saying as a never-Scientologist I don't quite get it. It seems a bit too "inside the faith." If it's so important maybe it just needs a bit of clarification.--T. Anthony 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Clarify "Patter Drills."  They are an educational technique, introduced some years after Hubbard's death.  Where the idea for them came from I don't know.  Today in any Church of Scientology, most of the courses beyond the basic public courses, such as "how to use a dictionary" are books of "Patter Drills."  They are an educational technique.  Possibly the most simple patter drill would be a student sitting facing a wall and repeating the alaphabet backwards until the student could say it aloud, easily, to his partner.  I'm perfectly willing that patter drills not be mentioned in the article at all.  But if Fahrenheit451 insists they be mentioned then isn't it appropriate that his verifications are in good order?  Shouldn't it be Fahrenheit451's duty to present good information in the first place?  If he has reason for saying outright or implying that Miscaviage has degraded Scientology Policy or Technology in some way then he should simply cite his source of information, that's Wiki Policy, after all.  Terryeo 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has sites for verification. I was more interested in what the heck it is and why a non-Scientologist interested in this topic should care. What you say explains that a bit better. (I would feel the same if an article on the President of the Mormons started saying how he introduced some practice or other without any explanation what the practice does or why it matters)--T. Anthony 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I'm coming in a bit late on this, but I "side" with the idea (T. Anthony) that the fine points of argument as to whether this or that is or is not "standard" Scientology practice are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article.  Fahrenheit451's position is generally that certain persons are no longer in the church because of disagreements with changes wrought by the new central figure.  Historically, this could be a valid point to address - on a par with people defecting from or being kicked out of the early Christian church because of its new "standard" stance that gnosticism was heresy.  In histories of Christianity, this early schism often gets prominent mention.  However, such mention does not go into the details of gnosticism, try to cite scripture as to which side was right, expound upon the differences between one body of belief and the other, etc.  If one wants to delve into the details of the dispute, one needs to take up their own independent study.  The claim, properly documented, that certain persons left or were kicked out because of disagreements with the leadership which immediately followed the passing of the founder is arguably of encyclopedic interest.  The internal details of exactly what the doctrinal arguments are on each side of that divide are not.  References to specifics of internal doctrinal disputes might properly be contained in citations, but the specifics themselves should be removed from the article as not of general public interest.66.82.197.94 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you might be surpirsed  at  the  depth  which wikipedia  covers  such debates . While I think it's probably outside of the scope of *this* particular article to go into depth on Chinese school, and Patter drills, for the sake of making the subject accessable to lay readers, it would be really nice to have some articles on the subject(s) and controversy, just so readers could understand what it is, and why it matters. As the article currently reads, there's no context for somebody to understand what the heck is being discussed, or even why it matters. Ronabop 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fahrenheit451 is stating something about Miscaviage.  He has been using "patter drills," introduced during Miscaviage's tenure as an example of how today's Church of Scientology is not fulfilling Hubbard's technology and diviating from Hubbard's technology.  I am pointing out that Fahrenheit's objections to "patter drills" are not contrary to those specific Hubbard policies he has pointed out.  Okay, I'll spell it out once again. The document Fahrenheit mentions about practical drills disallows any practical drill Hubbard did not spell out.  Practical means: "the drills which permit the student to associate and coordinate theory with the actual items and objects to which the theory applies." (from the Scientology technical dictionary). Patter Drills have no objects, Patter Drills have no items. Patter Drills are not Practical Drills.  Patter drills use only spoken words. Yes, they are generally done facing a wall for practice but their end result is to be able to say the patter of the drill to a person. The person spoken to is either a fellow student or a supervisor. So, the student practices to a wall and then speaks the patter to a person.  This is not chinese drilling which involves a group of persons speaking aloud together, but an individual drill which results in a person being able to speak aloud a predefined "patter." Again I'll use the example of being able to say the alaphabet aloud, all in one breath, to demonstrate a proficiency. This is a simple patter drill example.
Fahrenheit451, I have been watching this go back and forth, so looked into it.  I check out these links, don't understand the nomenclature but looks like someone has an ax to grind.  The Scientologists don't seem to agree and this paragraph seems to be one of these web site owners POV.  There is not even any controversy, just a POV statement and a "Do you still beat your wife?" type statement.  Bad editing form I'm afraid.  POV is coming out. handiman 19:59, 15 Feb 2006 (UTC)

text: After wading through all the discussion on this point, I agree with T. Anthony, this dispute needs to be laid to rest.  From what I can see the consensus leans more to getting rid of this paragraph for the same reason I noted, it is confusing and it does nothing to improve the page –from any POV.  I sure couldn’t figure how to rewrite it so it makes any sense and as Fahrenheit451 seems to be the only one that actually has a problem, it should just go.  Now, before anyone just automatically hits the revert button, please take a step back and look at this from the reader’s perspective and I think you’ll see what I mean.  Editorially yours. handiman 15:45, 17 Feb 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, handiman, but I think that when you removed a link to the transcript of an interview with Miscavige because it was "excessive negative" -- when that link was in fact verifying the claims it followed -- it indicated that you don't really have a good handle yet on when it's appropriate to remove material and when it's not.  As a matter of fact, the section on patter drills does something very important.  Every controversial article should ideally explain what the major POVs and significant minor POVs on the subject are, and why the people who hold those POVs hold them.  Including the material about the patter drills explains why many Scientologists hold the POV that Miscavige has squirreled Hubbard's tech instead of preserving it intact.  Now it might be that the passage would be improved by rewriting; it might be that you "sure couldn’t figure how to rewrite it".  It doesn't follow that the article is therefore improved by your cutting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I still maintain that this is confusing, and I'm removing it as there is nothing to be gained by leaving it in.  Please do not revert this out of hand but discuss it here first.handiman 20:16, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still maintain that we already have too much of a problem with saying "I pretend that to me, this phrase means <really horribly tortuous twisting> and if it means that then such-and-such policy justifies removing it".  If we allowed any editor to remove a claim just because they assert they find it "confusing" nothing would remain in most articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we get this page up to a Wiki standard of editing

message: Is there ANY hint of why this statment might be true?
"In 1981 events concerning Mary Sue Hubbard began to cause the group substantial difficulties. Although only 21 at the time, Miscavige claims to have been significant in persuading her to resign."  Is there any hint, any slighest published rumor, any slanderous, biased statement by Xenu or Clambake or a disgruntled scientologist that the statement is true?  Are we to to swollow original slander when much, richer, full-blown slander is available in every newspaper?  Where is the citation for that? Terryeo 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the SP Times interview. I've noticed though that what he says about himself is not considered particularly reliable by you. I don't entirely disagree, but whatever. I initially had links to all such statements, but was told they are in the links section so this is clutter. In any event this was not really a criticism. If Ratzinger at 21 had confronted a Cardinal arrested for say money laundering, and persuaded him to resign, I'd consider this a positive for him. Granted the situation is a poor analogy, but Pope's don't have wives so a better one is not occuring to me.--T. Anthony 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terryeo, I completely agree with you that if a citation for such a claim cannot be found, the statement should not be allowed to stand. I am looking for a source now, and if I cannot find one within 24 hours, I will remove or alter the language. wikipediatrix 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, Terryeo, you really need to cure yourself of the bad habit of slathering on the sarcasm regarding statements that you don't want to be true.  You used that sort of sarcasm at Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White asking "Will someone kindly find some indication, somewhere, somehow, that this title was created by the CoS?" and "Some evidence, however remote, that the CoS referred to it as Snow White" and then you just looked kind of foolish when the evidence turned out to be not remote at all and "somewhere, somehow" turned out to be something you could have verified yourself with Google in two minutes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an increasingly common problem with Terryeo, and his recent edit to Scientology beliefs and practices, in which he criticized other editors in the course of the article itself, was reprehensible. wikipediatrix 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I did use sarcasm though it might not be immediately apparent.  Miscaviage chose to take responsibility about Mrs. Hubbard resignation?  How interesting.  Certainly it must follow that Miscaviage is either greater or lesser for having done that.  I suppose.  And, after all, perhaps it is an important thing to know about Mr. Miscaviage.  :)  But in general people, I know you see me as holding the torch or something. HA ! My position is, I hope to have the articles communicate what they pupport to communicate.  Dig up your dirt, put it in the basket, but cite your sources.  Per Wikipedia Policy, citing sources, it is up to the reader to judge the quality of sources and the quality of information from a source.  Good articles which inform are my interest.  Have fun, Heh! Terryeo 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't really dirt. It was just an example of an important thing he says he did for the organization in his early adulthood. If there are Scientologists who still love Mrs. Hubbard and would consider that story as a slam on Miscavige I'm not sure what to say. I got the story from his statements and tried to edit it to conform more to them. As for dirt in general Wikipedia is disproportionately secularist. Check out any page on any modern Pope, or Mother Theresa, and you'll find more dirt than in any mainstream encyclopedia. It's not just Catholics either. Check out the page for Gerald B. Kieschnick of Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for example.--T. Anthony 02:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that's a good cite! I don't agree it was appropriately quoted.  Therefore, while leaving the link in there I rewrote the article slightly so that the newspaper article's quote is exactly included in the article, in quotes.  I think this is per WP:CITE Terryeo 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I'm coming in a bit late on this, but I "side" with the idea (T. Anthony) that the fine points of argument as to whether this or that is or is not "standard" Scientology practice are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article.  Fahrenheit451's position is generally that certain persons are no longer in the church because of disagreements with changes wrought by the new central figure.  Historically, this could be a valid point to address - on a par with people defecting from or being kicked out of the early Christian church because of its new "standard" stance that gnosticism was heresy.  In histories of Christianity, this early schism often gets prominent mention.  However, such mention does not go into the details of gnosticism, try to cite scripture as to which side was right, expound upon the differences between one body of belief and the other, etc.  If one wants to delve into the details of the dispute, one needs to take up their own independent study.  The claim, properly documented, that certain persons left or were kicked out because of disagreements with the leadership which immediately followed the passing of the founder is arguably of encyclopedic interest.  The internal details of exactly what the doctrinal arguments are on each side of that divide are not.  References to specifics of internal doctrinal disputes might properly be contained in citations, but the specifics themselves should be removed from the article as not of general public interest.66.82.197.94 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: The article as it stands refers to Miscavige improving Scientology's "clout", and Terryeo prefers it to say "popularity". I think these are two very different things, and I think "clout" is much more appropriate for what Miscavige's financially-savvy enhancements have done for the Church.  Far from being an uncomplimentary term, "clout" is what we generally describe powerful businesses as having, as well as celebrities, moguls, movers and shakers, etc. An example of clout over popularity would be the way the CoS bought up copies of the Battlefield Earth novel in order to keep it high on the NYT bestseller list. (This is neither illegal nor even unethical, it's simply a business/PR ploy that many businesses use, not just the CoS.)  The book did not have the "popularity" that the book-hoarding project created the illusion of, but in a shrewd business sense, it did carry "clout". wikipediatrix 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they are very different things.  I would agree that Miscaviage has done both, actually. If "clout" is the more important and if "popularity" should not be mentioned in so brief an article, then okay.  fine. good. Terryeo 02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clout" 

message: I've cut the following from the article because the citations contradict the claim:
"In his defense psychiatrists were among the first to criticize Dianetics as pseudoscience. (e.g., Rebi, 1951;Stearns, 1951; Gardner, 1951 and 1957; Carroll, n.d.). "  I don't recall who Stearns is, but the others are definitely not psychiatrists: Rebi was a Nobel-prize winning physiscist, Gardner is a mathematician and essayist, Carroll a philosopher.  BTfromLA 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience claims 

message: Mr. Miscaviage was the top man in the Church of Scientology when Patter Drills came into force.  They are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages altogether.  While it is my understanding they were created by the agreement amongst a group of management officials, this is a minor point.  The real point is:  Is there a source of information which states what this cut portion states is real? 
:  After this, he introduced "Patter drills" onto most courses that neither comply with Hubbard's policy on practical drills, called "Drills, Allowed" or Hubbard's policy on theory drills, called "Chinese School".    There are those who claim that patter drills are not practical drills, but theory drills, which is covered by chinese school.  In any case, Hubbard never authorized drilling by recitation to a wall.
::Those three links are somewhat germane, but they don't say what the source of "the blind leading the blind" is, except that they say that Miscaviage said it.  Well, when did he say it?  Was in in writing, was it verbally?  Was it a passing comment?  Was it the start of a huge project?  What?  In no case is the source of the phrase, "the blind leading the blind" cited, though it is always attributed to Miscaviage.  Its a rumor until a source of the information is cited.  It is original reseach until some published source of that information is cited.  Those links do not attribute a source, those links repeat a rumor without citing a source.Terryeo 04:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is way too unilateral of you. You aren't the boss of this article. If you are insistent it stays make a case for it and explain why anyone reading should care. Until you can do that effectively, here or in the article, I'm taking it out.--T. Anthony 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On rereading you've explained it a bit better than you had before. I still think it's a bit irrelevant for most readers of this article, but I moved it and the links to criticism rather than deleting it outright. I'll make a bit of style alterations to improve the move.--T. Anthony 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, Fahrenheit451, its interesting that you can quote a cite from memory, but can you also quote the URL so others can enlighten themselves too?  We've talked quite a lot about "Miscaviage changed Scientology in an off-hubbard way here.  Why don't you get involved in the discussion too?  I really don't understand how anyone can misunderstand the idea of patter drills.  Sure, part of the learning curve involves speaking to a wall, but that isn't the actual drill.  How does a child learn to repeat the alaphbet?  Its the same concept. Terryeo 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Scn Axiom 28: "The mind is concerned wholly with the estimation of effort."  That's an interesting illistration because then the mind doesn't really know how much effort will be required to be able to say the alaphabet backwards (one example) while drilling to a wall.  Then, eventually the mind learns but only after the person has drilled enough so they can say the alaphabet backwards (same example).Terryeo 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm to get back to it what about the issue of non-scientologist who may read this article? Maybe they came from the links at List of religious leaders in 2005 or List of ex-Roman Catholics or  Tom Cruise or something. Why should we, the never Scientologists, care here? I'm willing to see criticism on this guy, but if it's a bunch of stuff that's inexplicable to non-members I don't see the point. The links might explain it, but a bit of what it is and why it matters in the article would be good. (If it must be kept at all and I've noticed you are insistent it must be)--T. Anthony 13:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that, let's take that patter drill criticism right out.  For one thing there is no citation for patter drills and then there is nothing which directly attributes it to Miscaviage and then there is nothing which supports members objecting to patter drills and then there is nothing that supports the Church coming down on members who have spoken within the Church against patter drills or even against Miscaviage.  Its like a rumor and not up to encyclopedic standards at all.  Patter drills are an educational thing, a specialized tech (if you will), why include that stuff here in a biography? Terryeo 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am stepping in here as while Terryeo has every right to ask for citations for content, this has gotten out of hand and now the argument regarding the “patter drills” paragraph has become the focus of the page.  The result is duplicate links, which in many cases still are not credible (how can a parody/negative POV site like Lermanet be considered “reliable” as a reference?).  There are other similar examples.  We don’t need a Notes section with links and then an additional External Links section. One of these is superfluous.  So, let’s do away with the external links, and keep the reference section – this seems more useful. I am going ahead and cleaning this up. Nuview 00:25, 27 February 2006 (PST)
Nuview is back at advocating the non-existent policy of "reliable source" to justify Nuview's POV.  Let's retain the external links as that is proper wikipedia form.--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cut portion pasted here for citation and verification 

message: If Patter drills are to be moved off of this page, why not to an over-all "tech alterations" page? At least then the confusing aspects of patter drills can be in good company . AndroidCat 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  I can see pro- and con- points to that idea.  Pro is that most people who would be interested in patter drills at all are interested because of the question of whether it's an alteration of tech, and tech alterations by themselves are a subject of interest.  Con is that since there's such dispute over whether patter drills are an alteration of tech, there would be a big outcry if the only place that patter drills were referenced were on a page called tech alterations.  I can't say that the outcry would be entirely unjustified, either, though I'm not sure if it's something that a change to the proposed name would settle. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not recommending that we eliminate all mention of patter drills from this article.  However, I am suggesting that perhaps we should condense mention of it here to "Miscavige authorized the introduction of 'patter drills', in which blah-blah-blah not more than about sixteen words.  Some Scientologists feel that these patter drills are an alteration of Hubbard's tech." and then move all the arguments about whether they are an alteration of the tech or not to Patter drill.  Or are you saying that there's another Scientology article besides this one that covers patter drills? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A few questions about Dianetics Today that I'm passing on: Is it still in print?  As well, who was the author and which courses is it used on? AndroidCat 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the book, Dianetics Today, might answer some of those questions... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is about an individual, right?  If an editor thinks the individual has poorly managed (altered tech or something), then the thing to do would be to mention that in this article and link to an "altered tech" (or some such title).  I don't think people who want to read about Miscavage want to spend 1/4 of the article with a specific educational technique. Terryeo 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's indeed the proper procedure.  Why did you instead, when the details had been moved to a different article, try to remove any link to that article or any mention of the controversy?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinning Patter drills

message: "An event that incites controversy among Scientologists is the issue of patter drills."  This sentence is not cited.  What Scientologists?  What inciting?  What controversy?  No citations appear, but the sentence appears.  Where does the sentence come from?  Where has it been published.  If it is not published then it is Original Research and WP:NOR applies.  Besides, we have talked extensively about this subject before. "Patter Drills" are verbal words, spoken "to the wall" toward a student getting it about certain sequences of information.  For example, "abcdefghijklmnopqurstuvwxyz" might be spoken to a wall until the student could easily do it in a breath.  And likewise (and this is done too) "zyxwvutsruqpomnlkjihgfedcba", done until the student can do it easily in a breath.  This is the idea of Patter Drills.  It is not quite a "memorization" but in earlier times and in other situations it has been called by other sources, "memorization".  It is an educational technique.  It involves the voice and involves no body motions nor implements.  It is therefore called a "patter drill".  "Practical Drills"  (notice the similarity, both have 'drill' and both start with 'P'?) are another situation.  Some practical thing is drilled.  For example, a practical drill is "how to ask a question" and a standard question is asked, the procedure for asking, the "how to get your question over to the other guy", all of that is drilled.  That is a "Practical Drill".  Notice a difference?  Scientology Tech spells out the difference and drills the two things differently, but both are educational actions. Terryeo 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invective sentence for citing 

message: There appears to be a paragraph missing between the current first and second para of 'Scientology Career'.  The section goes from talking to Hubbard's wife leaving Scientology straight into Mr. Miscavige talking to the IRS about getting tax-exempt status.  MilesVorkosigan 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing paragraph 

message: Substituted at 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment