Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.227.165.11 (talk) at 16:46, 3 January 2006 (→reads as a nice, clean article right now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DM

He goes by acronymns? Good gosh. Hey! DM! (sounds like a bowel movement) COB! (sounds like a logging head of staff out in the woods) How about defining a symbol when it is first used, guys? People might, sometimes be addressed by their job title but "goes by the acronymn" isn't accurate. Do you have someone in your life whom you acronymnize? Maybe a pet or something but c'mon, that's no way to write an encyclopedic sort of article. Terryeo 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He sure does. I put them in with definitions so you won't be baffled when you read it.--Fahrenheit451 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're talking ! Definitions allow understanding, cool, Fahrenheit451. As a point of information, have you witnessed Mr Miscaviage being acronymically addressed? Or did you read that somewhere? If you read it somewhere, wouldn't you like to point to the source of information so others can read it too?Terryeo 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Views concerning psychiatry

I remove from that piece of the article and post here those slyly stated original researches which were in the article. Misplaced Pages allows no conclusion from editors because it allows no original research. See: Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Additionally, whomever created that paragraph didn't realize that after a period you place two spaces. Here are the removed portions, feel free to cite them and we can put them back into the article then:

His faith's view of psychiatry has at times been a focus of interest just as the view of Christian Science on medicine is of interest to non-members of that faith.

That is not a verifiable datum but an introduction of another subject. If you wish to deliniate how Christian Science parallells Scientology you will have to use another venue than a biography to do it, it doesn't belong here.

Poor choice of words. Still you honestly think your faith's view of psychiatry isn't a subject of interest? In the article on Pope Benedict XVI I'm fairly certain there is some on his faith's view of birth control or homosexuality.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

faced unwanted attention on their beliefs concerning psychiatry because of the Lisa McPherson case

How do you know it was unwanted, what CoS quote says so?

I would assume facing a lawsuit is unwanted and I had quotes by him from an interview.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

. . but as a leading figure it is plausible to assume they effected his own life as a leading figure of the organization.

Your assumption is not encylopedic fact. Verify it, then post it.

It was verified with quoted by him. Look I don't deny I have biases on your faith, but what I added was the kind of stuff that would be in any bio of a religious leader. I'm Catholic, were you aware that there is an entire article on Criticism of Pope John Paul II? I'm really trying hard not to "pick on" your guy in anyway. I'm just putting in things he had to respond to and did respond to. I admit the Lisa McPherson case was maybe a low blow, so I'll not bring it back in, but some of the things I had sourced I put back. Before you remove them again I'd like you to talk about it.--T. Anthony 01:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Only thing I could object to about that was that I'd like sources that the Lisa lawsuite had any personal effects on his views on psychiatry, which sounds like speculation. (Entheta 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

copied source

This article appears to copy some text directly from the David Miscaige web page. Davidstrauss 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes, it does -- there's only one paragraph there that doesn't appear here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias

This SCREAMS for an NPOV dispute. "accidentally" exposed to Dianetics and all his allergies went away? I call bias.

I have tried to edit this some using sources it listed and my own research. I worry though I'm just countering the bias the original writer I had with my own. Still I think it is a bit more neutral now or in least mentions criticism. --T. Anthony 05:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting edits. I doubt this version could be seen as too biased for him. They might even be a tad too harsh or in least unverified. (And I think Scientology is basically nuts, but there is still a gossippy quality to the writing of new edits that slightly concerns me)--T. Anthony 06:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am changing the closing comment on this page, the reason being obvious supposition. The truth is Mr. Miscavige is very respected by both staff and parishioners. Of course, critics make him out to be some kind of ogre. But, as the leader of the Church, whether people agree with the Church or not, this kind of comment is not NPOV, so rather than making it pro-him (which I am sure someone will then accuse me of not being NPOV) I am just taking it out. --Nuview 11:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Image copyright problems

User:Runeartisem has uploaded an image of miscavige that infringes on a copyright and has twice put the image in the article. I have removed it for the second time. An admin needs to delete the image. --Fahrenheit451 22:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another editor has added an image of miscavige without copyright information. I am removing it until the ownership status is clarified.--Fahrenheit451 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

An editor just beat me to the removal.--Fahrenheit451 19:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I could have sworn I selected "Screenshot" from the pulldown menu.... the image is a screenshot from the video of the RTC 2000 New Year's address, taken from www.verfassungsschutz-bw.de/ so/so_hubbard.htm . wikipediatrix 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is illogical: We were discussing copyright infringement, which you committed, then you attempt to change the subject to the "pulldown menu" nonsense excuse.--Fahrenheit451 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Wow, whatever happened to "no personal attacks" and "good faith"? Let me make it simpler for you, please follow along if you are able:
  • The image I posted was a screenshot from a German TV program's airing of footage from the RTC 2000 New Year's address.
  • I was under the impression that screenshots were not copyright violations. There are words to that effect on the Misplaced Pages upload-image page.
  • There is a pulldown menu from which one must select a type of image when uploading. As I already indicated, I could have sworn I selected "Screenshot" but apparently I did not. wikipediatrix 03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you saw exactly what you uploaded and as that differed from the alleged screenshot, you should have known it did not go as intended. I have assumed good faith and did not personally attack you. I censured you for uploading a copyrighted image when you should have known better.--Fahrenheit451 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. "you saw exactly what you uploaded and as that differed from the alleged screenshot"? What does this mean? Please translate for me. What I uploaded WAS the "alleged screenshot" of Miscavige at the podium. Using language like "your attempt to change the subject to the "pulldown menu" nonsense excuse" is COMPLETELY insulting, uncivil, and bad faith. And you STILL haven't explained what was wrong with the image. You say it's not fair use and I say it is. I'm citing Misplaced Pages's own upload-image page for my position, what are you citing for yours?wikipediatrix 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not apply the upload image policy: You omitted adding the licensing status of the image. After the image is uploaded, you see it. So you knew what it should have looked like. There is no evidence that the image you uploaded is fair use. It actually links from a scientology website that does have copyright notices on the pages. I suggest you take responsibility and knock off your attacks and justifications.--Fahrenheit451 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Referencing

This article needs hard-arsed referencing, on the paragraph and sentencing level. This will be actual work. Anyone want to have a go? - David Gerard 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

- Good point, David. I started to fact check this article. So much was unverifiable, it should actually be classified as original research. I decided it would just be easier to start from scratch. So, that’s what I did. There is plenty of material in places like the St. Petersburg Times. Check out the new, verified article. Have a Merry Xmas!

Unfortunately, this new, "from scratch" article contains a great deal of verbatim copying from its "references", which we cannot accept. Please try to work with what came before you, rather than deciding that you have the ability and the mandate to single-handedly replace it all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the quotes. (I’m just getting the hang of this.) Have removed same. I will see what can be salvaged from the prior version (it’s quite opinionated, but we’ll see) – Independentmike 16:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it back. The new version read like an Scientolgoy promotional brochure about DM (Entheta 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

I worry that this article has some factual holes – especially given the recent flurry. So I fixed an inaccuracy. RTC only owns trademarks. I noticed this in the Los Angeles Times article last weekend. (Streamlight 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, I fixed another one. Nuview 20:25, 25 December 2005 (PST)

No source was given for the statement regarding Coale and Van Susteren. Reputable sources, including the NY Times and St. Petersburg Times agree that Miscavige was the driving force behind the IRS recognition.Nuview 22:50, 25 December 2005 (PST)

They don't agree, they report what they have been fed by the osa public relations folks.--Fahrenheit451 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement was added 2 days ago, but editor gave no source for statement. Makes article read like a tabloid. Statement removed because not verifiable. (Streamlight 05:22, 26 December 2005

Statements added without any reference to a source. Without some reputable source, these statements read like original research. Removed as not verifiable. Streamlight 05:55, 26 December 2005

Just like the editor in the Seigenthaler scandal, this is an anonymous editor who makes extreme allegations without any sources. Unverifiable. Streamlight 06:29, 26 December 2005

You are referring to yourself Streamlight, you are anonymous, no user page. Interesting. --Fahrenheit451 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Other items with no source. Deleted as unverifiable. (Streamlight 07:20, 26 December 2005

No source given for this. Published accounts (e.g., St. Petersburg Times) do not support this version, which is clearly a negative POV. (Streamlight 08:02, 26 December 2005

I followed the back and forth today but I feel that this is important to add in. Independentmike 03:05, 26 December 2006

Again, no source given, deleted as unverifiable and replacing improper link. (Streamlight07:16, 26 December 2005

Antaeus Feldspar - Okay. However, this lermanet.com page is over the top, even as a critical site. I am replacing it with a neutral (non-Church, non-critic site) - the NNDB page, which is neither here nor there. Nuview 17.00, 26 December 2005 (PST)

Over the top of what? You are using a generality. The osa pr line is that if a site is critical, it is lying. That is nonsense.--Fahrenheit451 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing this entry about “the blind leading the blind” and referring to “Comm Evs,” the links to incomprehensible web pages show this to be a completely obscure topic, which will only confuse the readers. Nuview 01.40, 27 December 2005 (PST)

I restored it. Your editing is clearly POV. That section was documentable and there to educate[REDACTED] readers about how david miscavige operates.--Fahrenheit451 17:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Just curious Nuview, are Independentmike and Streamlight just other personas (sockpuppets) you use?--Fahrenheit451 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Van Susteren and Coale in fact did initiate the action with Clinton to settle the irs dispute with the cofs. No research, just observation. This was "confidential" data in the cofs, but no more. --Fahrenheit451 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(Re: Fahrenheit451 03:44, 27 December 2005 revision )Reverted as an individual’s “Observation” is not a verifiable source. You can’t remove statements based on a source such as NY Times, and replace with your own original research and unverifiable. Clearly covered in Wiki rules. (Streamlight 6:18 GMT, 27 December 2005

Obviously socializing is not a hobby. Removing POV. (Streamlight11:45 GMT, 27 December 2005

It certainly can be. And it is not POV. I have reverted it. Stop vandalizing this article.--Fahrenheit451 16:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Piano playing was verified in the St. Petersburg times. But I've removed both to settle it. Nuview 12.05, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Does it state that is his hobby or does it state that he has some ability to play it? Two different bodies of data.--Fahrenheit451 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a relevent section of Flo Barnett's autopsy report. I would say she died under very unusual and suspicious circumstances.--Fahrenheit451 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Source documents removed as don't belong in a discussion page.(Streamlight11:45 GMT, 27 December 2005

I agree, there is nothing in this document referencing the subject of the article. No evidence of anything relevant, it was added due to bias only. Nuview 12.05, 27 December 2005 (PST)

There is still no reliable source offered for this part of the entry. The suicide is documented but the rest is not from any source and it states “reportedly,” this isn’t a source. This is a seriously unsubstiated POV. This comes out per FPO and NPOV. (Streamlight17:20 GMT, 27 December 2005

An autopsy report is reliable, and Flo Barnett was shot 5 times with a rifle. Three times in the torso and twice around the head. You demonstrate POV bias for removing it. I am restoring it.--Fahrenheit451 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed a redundant sentence, plus additions and minor corrections. And I still see nothing coming from a reliable source regarding this last paragraph in the “Scientology career” section. A personal email posted on a newsgroup is not a reliable source. At the risk of being repetitive, the two links given do not qualify either, making them irrelevant, so I’m taking both out. Nuview 22.55, 29 December 2005 (PST)

More POV editing/censorship from you again, Nuview. I understand you want to suppress the truth, but not here.--Fahrenheit451 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing, as this “claim” is unsubstantiated hearsay, many things could be “claimed,” but no reliable source. Also moving this to the personal life section as this is a more appropriate section for this entry. Nuview 23.25, 1 January 2006 (PST)

reads as a nice, clean article right now

Which is quite a surprise when compared to most of the Scientology related articles. Its pleasent too, to see this discussion page fruitfully used. Have a nice day. Terryeo 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true, it is POV, not much better than a osa fluff pr piece.--Fahrenheit451 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added the NPOV template to page.--Fahrenheit451 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Fahrenheit - good grief. The last paragraph you keep putting back is completely outside the scope of an encyclcopedia and not in the least scholarly or NPOV. It is obviously nothing more than a platform for personal carping and bias. Please, please give it a rest. If anything neutral, educational or non-damaging is said in a Scientology-related article, it is SO TIRESOME to continually read from the anti's that is is "OSA," "fluff," "PR," etc. Is it y'all's standard that something nasty must be said about the subject of every article in order for it to be NPOV? sheesh.Ayespy 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit fluffy. I don't think it has to be full of attacks, but some of the criticisms taken out were the kind many other religious leaders articles would have. I might put a few back in, but state that they are just criticisms for balance.--T. Anthony 12:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

So as to do this subject justice I have started a new Golden Age of Tech page, giving a description of it so users have some idea what is being talked about. So expanding and moving this paragraph over. Nuview 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayespy - my gosh. I understand your POV opinions. You have a right to them, and a right to fantasize as well. You accuse me of being "anti". I am not. I want the miscavige article to be accurate. It is evidently y'all's standard to presume that if someone disagrees or wants to publish unpleasant facts, then it is "damaging" or "nasty". It is so TIRESOME to continually read the POV editing from the anti-truth crowd. I hope someday you become truly concerned about neutrality and education.--Fahrenheit451 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, as of this moment it reads as an informative article that a person can understand. It doesn't have off the wall stuff but reads right along. Terryeo 08:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's okay for now. I tried not to be too negative and looked for things in the Koppel interview that were less bad. I admit though I had difficulty with that as in most interviews of him I find almost everything he says strikes me as overly intense to the point of paranoia. The SP Times one was a bit better, so I might switch to that if what he said on Koppel about himself is too offensive.--T. Anthony 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where we are going with this page. There are references given in the last section and people can read these if they want the full information. It seems pointless to keep pulling information from those pages, regurgitating them and adding it to this page. Otherwise, we could just put in the whole text of the St. Petersburg Times. My point is, we have the basic information on David Miscavige here, but as bits and pieces get added it starts to lose its coherence. (T. Anthony, I’m not sure what you are trying to achieve – while I appreciate you are attempting to remain somewhat positive, you are constantly changing your mind. Your entry on the discussion page is a discussion with yourself about your misgivings about what you should or shouldn’t include. Rather than using the final page as your *Sandbox, please work out exactly what you want to do ahead of time so you aren’t just reediting your own entries.)

Looking at other pages about religious leaders in Misplaced Pages, I see nice clean, professional articles. I am sure these people have their critics but people aren’t constantly trying to defame them – so can we get this page into some basically settled form, so that only minor tweaks are needed? (Other than new news of course).

On this basis I am reverting back to the version before T. Anthony felt the need to do multiple indecisive edits. And please, this page already has its neutrality disputed – before this page is mangled again, can we agree to discuss any major changes beforehand? Nuview 08:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)