Talk:David Miscavige: Difference between revisions

Reverted deleted paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't just "a" tabloid. The SUN is one of the worst. (On the other hand, the New York Post and the New York Daily News have been pretty reliable). Plus, the story has been denied. [1] [2] So either delete it, or add that it has been denied. --Tilman 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Scientologists equate Cruise w/ Christ?

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

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

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

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

Both Cruise and Miscavige are control freaks. They wouldn't let anyone near them who would call the SUN the next day. And Miscavige doesn't go to parties (to afraid of being served with a lawsuit [3]) where ordinary people could "overhear" something. --Tilman 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Uncited negative information about a living person?

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

In early 1983, Miscavige ordered that various materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, even though he knew that the materials in question had long since fallen into the public domain. [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the section is question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second-generation Scientologist?

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

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

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

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

POV-sites more valuable than WP:RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why mention his siblings?

What is the purpose of this section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Denise Licciardi - she is quite notable for her involvement in the DIGL scam, [5] this was reported by the press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's more about Ronnie Miscavige notability: A police report about that he was caught for reckless driving. He asked the police officer not to fine him, but to beat him up instead of giving him a ticket. [6] --Tilman 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This article needs expansion from more citations...

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

Nightline Interview

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

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

I don't know.

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

I found a scientology black PR pack [7] which claims that Behar recommended deprogramming. --Tilman 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent Edits and Reversions

I went through the David Miscavige article yesterday to clean it up. I started at the top, made quite a few edits explaining each one as I went. By and large, the edits were to improve clarity (such as deleting undefined Scientology jargon that did not contribute to an improved understanding. There were also grammar and punctuation errors, and certain sections including that were questionable and/or sounded pejorative where no such tenor was necessary, particularly in light of the living persons biography guidelines. Tilman is now asking [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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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

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

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

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

Sorry for your upsets, but there is more. The very first talk edit did not have the common newbie error of not signing: [8] In your 5th edit, you already knew about "ref": [9]. You're either a really quick learner, or you did have an account before. But I'm waiting for other opinions before doing a checkuser request. --Tilman 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

". . . or a small range of often-related articles." --Justanother 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My watchlist has 356 entries. Hardly a "small range". --Tilman 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DM's sole RTC listing

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

Even his wife Shelley has been in the RPF for almost a year.--Fahrenheit451 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

bona fide

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

Piece of Blue Sky citation

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)

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)

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)

Streissguth's "Scientology Teachers"

I have reverted to the earlier version of the details of Miscavige's handling of Mission Holders. That Streissguth would refer to "Scientology teachers" in the same section where he describes this action shows his research to be very faulty and highly suspect. It is, after all, simply a vingette in a larger work, but nonetheless it is poorly researched. There is no reference in Scientology literature, tapes, policies or books (at least not in the past 40 years--the time period of which I have personal knowledge) of "Scientology teachers." The mission holders certainly were not classed as "teachers." Perhaps he meant "supervisors," the term used to describe those who hold Scientology courses. But that's now what Mission Holders do. Seriously, how could anyone take a statement with such a glaring error as a serious scholarly work? I have, nonetheless, kept the basic concept of what Streissguth describes, removing the pejorative spin he gives it, and for which he presents no citation in his book. I would be perfectly happy to remove the entire section if other editors agree that is a better solution. Su-Jada 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop interjecting your own policy on citable sources. Please stop your POV editing.--Fahrenheit451 06:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you reverted to your own version again (which you, misleadingly, called "the earlier version"), but didn't bother to correct the "teachers" part (I wouldn't mind the "course supervisor" word, although "teacher" is also correct - Delphi "teachers" are also just "course supervisors"). Why? --16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The two books can stay in as sources provided that the statements here are accurate representations of what the books say. The Prince affy does not meet the WP:BLP standard of "high-quality" and must come out. --Justanother 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On the credibility of Prince [10]. The main point being that such a derog needs a better source than an affy by a disgruntled ex-member. --Justanother 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and a similar example of this logic would be: "the holocaust needs better witnesses than a bunch of jews".

In this case, we have two sources. The book of Jon Atack, and the affidavit of Jesse Prince. As far as I know, scientology has not sued him for perjury. --Tilman 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And if was only one Jew? (Not a very PC example but that is what you gave me to work with) --Justanother 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact quote is: "One of the estate's key witnesses, Jesse Prince, has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility." That is the opinion of One judge in One particular case. Justanother, it seems you are tendentiously editing this article by presuming that a former cofs member must be lying about what he knows because he is an ex-member. Do you see something very illogical in that belief of yours?--Fahrenheit451 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to restore the Prince affidavit as an article citation. I guess we will go into another revert war.--Fahrenheit451 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

F451, you need to be more sensitive to WP:BLP. --Justanother 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, BLP is a policy, but it is not for fixation. I am not going to discount a person just because one judge excluded his testimony in one case, AND the cofs does not like him. --Fahrenheit451 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Small point: 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. (IANAL) AndroidCat 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The judge did not say that he's a liar. Plus, this was in another case, not in the Erlich case. --Tilman 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

On 21 June Tilman said, in this same talk page: in keeping with Church policy on not employing persons with a history of criminal acts or criminal records. Hey, scientology itself shows Jesse Prince "criminal history" on RFW. This is the same person we are discussing now. So 5 days ago, that was adequate to revert the edit stating the Miscavige purged the church of crims, but now it doesn't count when we are talking about Prince's lack of credibility as the source for a derrogatory allegation in a biography of a living person. Can't say that I understand that logic....205.227.165.14 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(The 205.227.165.14 IP seems to be used by many CSI editors in LA. It would be helpful to the rest of us if the people at PAC Base could be sure to login before posting comments. AndroidCat 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I have not said that Prince has a criminal history. I say that scientology claims so. Yes, the same scientology hired him as RTC #2 - long after the purge. So either Su-Jada came up with this policy from nowhere, or this policy isn't followed, or RFW is lying. --Tilman 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is interesting, Tilman. There are far too many reasons to doubt the veracity of this source (including the affidavit at www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/affi_stacy2_04_29.htm). Su-Jada 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument does say anything about my argument. And you had the opportunity to come up with that mysterious policy of not hiring people with a criminal record. Or to show that RFW is telling the truth. Or not. --Tilman 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I finally got a copy of the Streissguth book. It is far from a scholarly book. It's part of a series called "Profiles" published by Oliver Press, which specializes in books for young-adult readers. It lacks adequate footnoting. And we use this as a source for a biography of a living person? Su-Jada 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Streissguth book is online at google print, so you didn't have to search for it.

Biographies don't have to be "scholarly", I'd say that 99% aren't, since writing a biography is not a science - it is about 1) researching and 2) good writing. Speaking about footnotes, the book by Jon Atack does have them. And finally, the segment has three sources: Atack (ex-scientologist), Lamont (journalist) and Streissguth (writer). When the dispute first came up, I searched for other books by Streissguth to see what kind of guy he is. He has written 102 books, including several biographies.

So what can be done? You might change some wordings, e.g. "teams of spies" isn't really NPOV. Maybe use "investigators", or just "teams", and replace the word "teachers" with "staff" or "course supervisors". You could also find a reliable source that has a different view of what's currently written. --Tilman 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That vandalism thing

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)

Will try. --Tilman 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is completely neutral article. We cannot help it that they do stupid and rediculus things to incriminate themselves. In my line of reasoning they cannot even be considered a religion. To have a religion you have to have a god or gods. Not aliens. Plus basically there form of the christian Bible is a science fiction novel of the 70s. - Robert Livingston

Scientology is definitely not a religion per the dictionary definition. There is no worship of any kind. Hubbard used the loopholes in U.S. law to incorporate it as a religion to acquire certain legal protections and get tax-exemption. --Fahrenheit451 19:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Prince affidavits are "high quality references"

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)

Su-Jada, you have misquoted me in your own extreme bias. Your own statements here lack credibility. I see no reason why the Prince affidavit is not well-sourced and am restoring that material to the article.--Fahrenheit451 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, do you know how you come across? Misou 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Sue Hubbard

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)

What, exactly is your point? --Tilman 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

When an article has to resort to saying "another source wrote..." we are treading on very thin ice in a biography of a living person. The Atack book has citations in various places throughout. There is NO citation to this claim. Stating, as Atack did, that some unnamed "source" had some kind of inside intelligence on how Mary Sue felt although Mary Sue herself never wrote or recorded in any way any statement to this effect is highly suspect. But if some editors still fail to see that this violates WP:BLP I am removing this section based on the following: Atack never claimed that Mary Sue felt Miscavige tricked her. Just that she "had been tricked." Su-Jada 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mission Holders Section

Streissguth's young readers' book (described by the publisher [ http://www.oliverpress.com/pages/writers.html] as intended for 5th to 12th grade students' school libraries) cites Atack and Miller as the only sources for his entire chapter on Scientology. Russel Miller's book does not make any mention of the mission holders' conference. So this interpretation of the events is simply Streisguth's misunderstanding of what Atack wrote in his book. Atack never claimed that "teachers," or "supervisors" for that matter, had anything to do with the mission holders' conference, as they didn't. It involved mission holders exclusively. Atack also never said spies were sent to the missions, and he never said anyone was ordered to security checks if they failed to comply with the orders. But even more importantly, he never said or inferred that David Miscavige ordered any of these actions. Rather, he quoted statements made by various other members of Church managment. The only thing Atack attributed to Miscavige is that he was the MC of the conference and that he stated "The [new] corporate structure assures Scientology being around for eternity." Additionally, Streissguth's use of a source who is patently biased on the subject is poor scholarship, a fact Streissguth would have been hard pressed to have missed since Atack clearly states that he has deliberately and successfully pulled Scientologists out of the Church based on his own upset over the mission holders' conference (stated on the very page that Streissguth used in his research -- the only place the mission holders' conference is mentioned in the book). In summary: Steissguth did minimal research, and relied solely on information from a partisan source which he misquoted, ascribing to David Miscavige actions or statements that were done by others, and/or which were simply invented. On May 6th of this year at 07:50 Smee added a section the the David Miscavige article which simply quoted the Streisguth reference calling it a "reputable secondary sourced citation". It is not. I am deleting this section based on WP:BLP. Unless you can prove that what I am stating about Streissguth is incorrect, don't revert this edit as I will continue to delete it, and the 3 reverts rule does not apply when removing defamatory and poorly sourced information in a biography of a living person, which this most certainly is.Su-Jada 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before already. The segments are properly sourced, and you have not given any sources that contradict them in several weeks/months. Your allegations about the research by Streissguth are your own speculation. He is a source who has used other sources, which is what research is all about. And yes, WP:3RR does apply, and so do the consequences. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have been argueing without reading the article: the word "spies" isn't even there. While it is true, it isn't NPOV so I removed it some time ago, also in an effort to cool things down here. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's another reputable source: [11]. One might include it and add the stuff about the "finance police" trying to get the money from the mission holders. --Tilman 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another [12] --Tilman 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that Jon Atack isn't a good source is the same logic as alleging that AA isn't a good source about alcohol abuse. --Tilman 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So good "input" on the talk page, so bad revert behavior on the article. Tilman, please find some balance between the two, thanks. You know what a "supervisor" is in Scientology (a trainer) and how wrong it read to use the term in the article context (a controller). Why are you doing that? Misou 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you argument is only about the word, then why did you remove the entire section? You made no argument about it. --Tilman 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't answer the question or what? Misou 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you are being particularly lucid in your arguments. That said, I think Wikipedia articles lean too heavily on "tell-all exposé" books like Atack's, and people like Tilman are far too quick to imbue such critics with a weight they don't deserve (comparing him to AA is ridiculous). Just as the Frank Sinatra article doesn't depend on Kitty Kelley's tell-all exposé, neither should Scientology articles place so much gravitas on the many tell-all books attacking it. Whether the information in such books is actually true or not isn't the point - it's a matter of undue weight placed on sources that are openly negative and self-confessedly biased. wikipediatrix 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what to add to Su-Jadas well-founded and sound argument. She/He's right, the APOBS book is biased and open about it. What's more to say. We wouldn't allow the "Weekly World News" or National Enquirer as a reliable source (or would we?), except for the article on Elvis sightings. Misou 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are libeling Jon Atack by comparing his book to the "Weekly World News" or National Enquirer. His book survived several court cases - only one single paragraph was removed! Pretty good for someone you claim isn't reliable. --Tilman 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering, please. APOBS is a rant of a former member who has to be right by all means. He says that he is pissed - in the book - and he says he is/was active to get people out of the Church of Scientology. You might think this is a good thing, I don't care. But it shows what APOBS is for and - surprise! - it IS what it is being used for. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not "wikilawyering" - I did not even mention a policy. I just explain that this book survived many lawsuits, and no lawsuit was ever filed against the topic you claim isn't true. If you say that sources that are "being pissed" are not reliable - then I assume you'd agree that www.cchr.org is not a reliable source on psychiatry either, don't you? :-) --Tilman 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It relies on three sources. And I just presented a fourth one this morning. Btw I would certainly also rely on Kitty Kelley, from all I have read about her.

...sources, what sources. None of those give the data you claim is in there. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. Maybe you missed a link. It is right in this discussion, around 10 cm above this spot. Press reload on your browser. --Tilman 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that when people can't really atack a source, they use the "undue weight" argument as the ultimate joker to remove something they don't like.

That's wikipediatrix to answer. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The mission holders conference is an important turning point in scientology, it led to an incredible purge.

So what. This is an article about Miscavige. Not "turning points in Scientology". Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscavige is the leader of scientology. He led this purge. Thus it is relevant. He should be proud of it, after all, he took all the profits that the franchise holders were making. After the smoke had cleared, no mission holder would ever make big profits again. This is a neutral fact. Miscavige could be proud of it. Or see it as a dark spot on a white suit. --Tilman 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I wouldn't mind at all using more "positive" sources on Miscavige for the article too, like himself on ABC, in the SPT, etc., if this hasn't already been done. --Tilman 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the issue. The issue is WP:RS, WP:BIAS and WP:VERIFY, a little of WP:BATTLE and if pissed off ex-members of whatever group are RS or not. Misou 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding something: it isn't important to just cite policies. You must make an argument, and explain how the policies you mention apply to your argument. --Tilman 05:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may throw my 2 bits in, this might be a good time for a little WP:DR, perhaps WP:RFC. I agree per what I've read on WP:BLP that books written by disaffected members are not very reliable sources. I am a newbie, however, so I can't say for certian if I am interpreting the policy correctly. If wikipedia is built on consenus, then us the right tool to get some.HubcapD 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that at least two of the books referenced qualify as primary sources.HubcapD 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, these are already secondary sources, unless they are about something that they observed themselves. --Tilman 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For a "newbie", you certainly seem to know a lot about wikipedia policy. --Tilman 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have this uncanny ability to read things and actually understand what they say. If Atack was at this conference, and it is the prime reason for his upset (and hence his book), then his book is a primary source.HubcapD 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "uncanny ability to read things" might of course be a reason that as a "newbie", you know so much about policy. However, it seems that you didn't use this "uncanny ability to read things" re: Jon Atack's book, since you write about "if...". --Tilman 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tilman continues to undo my edits and dismisses my reasoning. The 3 Reverts rule does not apply to WP:BLP and I will continue to remove poorly sources clearly biased statements in this article, whether Tilman agrees or not (very unlikely in light of his POV on this subject and his self-assumed status as a Scientology-basher, which, unfortunately is preventing his even reading much less understanding the reasoning I have taken care to present here.)Su-Jada 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The segments are based on three reliable sources. I suggest you read WP:BLP instead of using policy names as joker to delete stuff you don't like. --Tilman 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not, at this point, expect Tilman to be able to see this, since he has shown a complete intransigence in this so far, I am reiterating the reasoning I expressed above. The sources used have been misquoted, events ascribed to David Miscavige that the sources do not state are his actions, and the Streissguth book is a very simplistic, badly researched children's book that misquotes the material he cites as having used. Once again, this article is covered by WP:BPL. I am required by that policy to delete sections of the article Tilman continues to try hold onto, and I will continue to delete them as per my reasoning here and above, notwithstanding Tilman's attempted threats at applying the 3 Revert Rule despite WP:BLP clearly stating it does not apply here.Su-Jada 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources have not been "misquoted". To argue this, you'd need to show what, exactly, was misquoted, and how. You never did.

You are not "required to delete" something. And the 3RR rule does apply. This is a content dispute - you simply don't like the segment, despite that it is based on three sources (and more are coming if you continue to make trouble!). --Tilman 05:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like Su-Jada is making up wikipedia policy on the fly to suit POV and engaging in tendentious editing.--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike him, I am following wikipedia policy, so I will have to revert what he deleted again, at a later time. WP:BLP is not a joker argument to remove what I don't like. It is for poorly sourced material.

I suspect that the Hubcap user is a sock puppet. He claims to be a newbie, but the very first day, he was already in the dispute resulotion page! The only question is - which user is it? --Tilman 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report filed on Su-Jada. --Tilman 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. While I am a newbie in regards to editing, I have been lurking and reading articles on wikipedia for a couple of years. I was through reading some of the Scientology-related websites that I became aware of the editing environment, and specifically the arbitration case on User:COFS. From that, I started reading policies regarding editing wikipedia, and eventually signed up as one. Now, I could get upset with you for making a baseless accusation, but I'm not going to, because I really don't care. Besides, I'll let my actions here speak for me. While I readily admit I agree with Su-Jada's assessment of the situation, I did not "take up the cause" as it were. Instead I suggested that the both of you engage in dispute resolution to resolve the matter.HubcapD 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. --Tilman 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions during hiatus

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)

Now that the article is blocked in the Miscavige-rewriting-history-version (aka "the wrong version"), I'd wait to have others bring their arguments and suggestions. I can't do much more than show sources that confirm the text, even if someone else argues the opposite. And if we can't use Jon Atack as a source (who has again and again been proven to be reliable), we could as well give up and let Davie write everything here. --Tilman 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes, remove it. This is just a SEO related site. There are many like these. --Tilman 10:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've extended protection for another 24 hours, since there doesn't seem to be any relevant discussion taking place here. If no effort is put forth to settle this now, there's going to be more edit warring after the protection ends. I'll check back tomorrow. Kafziel ^Talk 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

With this logic of yours, wikipedia must also remove every autobiography. But Atack's book isn't an autobiography, since much of what he tells has already been told before (e.g. by Miller, Cooper, Kaufmann) and elsewhere. What Atack did is to compile many documents, reference them and arrange them so that it's all in one well referenced and well written, almost scholarly book. Atack's book is, technically, a secondary source. That other books have referenced him, shows that they consider him to be a reliable source. That Atack is a disgruntled member doesn't mean the book is to be discarded - or should we also discard every book on the Holocaust written by a jew? As I've explained several times, his book survived many court challenges (including at least two by the organisation chaired by DM), except for one single paragraph, which is not related to DM. As I've also told before - if you think it didn't happen like explained by Atack, find a source that tells it differently. --Tilman 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tilman you continue to disregard my earlier discussions on this, but I will repeat them here. Perhaps you can read this and understand what I am saying. There is nothing in the Atack book that says Mary Sue thought Miscavige tricked her -- just that "she was tricked" no source given. So putting this on the David Miscavige page is a violation of WP:BLP. I still maintain (and you will still object to my views, I am sure) that with Atack having sourced unknown critics and apostates for these statements on a living person that even if Atack DID say Mary Sue was upset with Miscavige it would not be correct to include. But ATACK DID NOT SAY THAT. It is written in the passive, not in the active tense. In the English language it is very clear that a statement written as he wrote it gives no subject. One can "assume" that Miscavige is the subject. But that is an assumption. You cannot prove that is what he meant. So this statement goes, as it is a projection and not based on any reference. Period. On the mission holders' conference, Streissguth completely alters the information given in his sources. He attributes to Miscavige complete fabrications that are not covered in the sources he cites, and he claims Miscavige took actions at the mission holder conference that other people, not Miscavige, took. The only thing his sources state is that Miscavige was the MC of the conference. Simply because someone has published a book does NOT make it factual. I have the book. It is a simplistic children's book that dumbs down the information found in the sources cited, not just on the subject of Scientology. Fine. Steissbuth is entitled to his freedom of speech for what it's worth. But this is NOT adequate for a biography of a living person. Let's get something straight, Tilman. You keep trying to throw this back at me as my "opinion." Yes. I think this is crap. But I do not edit based on my feelings. I edit based on Wikipedia policy. And by studying the sources being used. These sources are faulty, lack any factual basis, have been misquoted. I "feel" that it has been done intentionally, as I have followed your animus against the Scientology religion for years, and I "feel" you are too limited by your POV to edit analytically on this subject. But my "feelings" have nothing to do with Wikipedia. And these are facts.Su-Jada 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am SO tired of all this libel of a reliable source. Do whatever you want. If nobody else will stop this libel, I won't bother anymore. I'm now deleting this article from my watch list - for now. Put in an edit that Miscavige is the saviour of scientology or whatever. --Tilman 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia is not a gossip column

"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)

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)

Stop the petty revert warring!

I have noticed that a few editors are engaged in a petty revert war [13]. Time to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Jesse Prince Allegation

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)

I'll take the silence as consent.HubcapD 21:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a link

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)

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)

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[14], 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)

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)

Jesse Prince and FACTNet not reliable?

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)

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)

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)

Go, Trixi, take it where your impulses tell you.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Misou, please explain why Jesse Prince is NOT a reliable source. If you cannot demonstrate that, I am reverting. Start.--Fahrenheit451 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.[15] So, no, FactNet and Jesse Prince are not unreliable. AndroidCat 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. There might be additional statements on copyrights in cases involving Joseph Yanny, who had previously been a copyright lawyer for Scientology. AndroidCat 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

*sigh* "Misunderstandings" might might have been more polite... AndroidCat 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Ok, cool. Misou 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement cited was used in Bridge Publications International v. FactNet, which was completely about copyright. AndroidCat 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but Jesse is not mentioned in there. Misou 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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))

Agreed. Not to mention Judge Schaeffer stated that Jesse Prince "has extreme bias and, in her opinion, lacks credibility". [16] 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)

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)

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)

Misou and Wikipediatrix seem to think that a witness ruling in one case applies to life in general. Prince worked with miscavige and is qualified to comment on his first hand experiences. The "extreme bias and lack of credibility" arguments can be used against testimony by those in the employ of the cofs. --Fahrenheit451 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

POV template has been added back to the section under discussion that was removed by User:Misou last night. --Fahrenheit451 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix's "major claims require major proof"

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)

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)

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)

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))

"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)

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)

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)

What you suggest here is actually pretty much what you removed. Raymond Hill 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. This is what I removed:

Miscavige also said that the "APA [presumably the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association], AMA, Food and Drug Administration ... were all coordinated" in a five-year campaign against Scientology that included the murder of one of Scientology's executive directors (unnamed): "They literally murdered- the Food and Drug Administration hired an informant to go into our organization in Seattle, Washington, his wife was there [...] Several weeks later, murdered the head of our organization." (Author Paulette Cooper mentions a murder in the Seattle Org committed by the jealous husband of a female Scientologist, who was enraged that the victim, a Scientology Reverend, was having an affair with his wife).

And what I am now suggesting, as the weakest and lamest of all possible compromises, is something like this:

Miscavige also said that the "APA [presumably the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association], AMA, Food and Drug Administration ... were all coordinated" in a five-year campaign against Scientology that included the murder of one of Scientology's executive directors (unnamed): "They literally murdered- the Food and Drug Administration hired an informant to go into our organization in Seattle, Washington, his wife was there [...] Several weeks later, murdered the head of our organization." This may or may not be a reference to a similar-sounding incident reported in 1971 in the book "The Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper. In it, Cooper alleges a murder in the Seattle Org committed by the jealous husband of a female Scientologist, who was enraged that the victim, a Scientology Reverend, was having an affair with his wife).

Only slightly different, but what difference a few key words make. wikipediatrix 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Report on RookZERO

I'm sick of this! I've reported you [17]HubcapD 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You and your comrade Misou have been quite active in the revert war as well. You point one finger at RookZERO and three at yourself.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've invited him to discuss the problem he perceives with my edit, as I can see none (particularly since my edit says exactly what the source says!). I suppose technically I did "edit war", but I have put in the diligence to try and work things out. RookZERO, on the other hand, doesn't like to play nice, as is evidenced by his lengthy history of editing Scn-related articles. Basically, I'm trying to work things out, Rook is acting like an ass and just reverting away.HubcapD 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HubcapD, As long as I have edited scientology-related articles, "playing nice" has been as rare as polished diamonds laying in a Skid Row gutter. I think we are going to see many more temporary protections put on such articles until in the remote future when this jihad ends.--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images not allowed in living person articles

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)

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)

Copyfraud is legal

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)

Here is the section in question:

"*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.."

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)

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.[18] I also doubt that Scientology have suddenly settled the suit.[19] (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)

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)

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)

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)

Steve, is it not useful information that someone would order copyfraud done on a wide scale?--Fahrenheit451 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It "shows" no such thing, merely alleges it.HubcapD 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't think you know what you're talking about. wikipediatrix 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Trixi, if you cannot participate in a civil discussion, then don't.--Fahrenheit451 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)