Talk:David Miscavige/Archive 4

1383:

Bottom line: the information is not reliable. We have the same problem with the E-meter. Many of the RS say Hubbard invented it. Right beside that, Corydon says Hubbard stole if from Mathison, who invented it in the 1940s. Beside that, we have Mathison's own words that he invented it in 1950 after hearing a Hubbard lecture. Hubbard agrees. The sources on much of this material are not good. They are ordinary people, not scholars or memory magicians. They are the same people who can't remember the color of the car that came out of the left lane or right lane, or something, and they give their sworn evidence in court contradicting each other. Particularly, memories are most often bad about an emotionally uncomfortable experience, and that is how those ex-member describe their histories. Allow me to suggest that where we have contradictory information, neither source is reliable. We find a better source or we drop the statement. Or if the point is important, we cite the contradiction. That is the way any good historian handles the problem.

506:

i.e., “he’s a usurper,” is not an apples to apples comparison nor analogous to the specific major media outlet and Knowledge approved references I have thus far provided. (Let us all acknowledge that that type of language, i.e., “usurper,” is not normally used in authoritative publications). At this stage of discussion, I have now provided 7 different authoritative and Knowledge approved media references (in the initial edit itself, and here at the talk page) that use the phrase being discussed here verbatim and supports the nomenclature “leader of the Scientology religion.” Again, your responses to such seem based solely on subjective opinion and devoid of supportive WP policy and authoritative references. If you can provide WP policy and third-party reference based support for your contention then we can begin to engage in constructive dialogue on this important edit. We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles, especially in the lead, correct. I look forward to working constructively with you on this edit.

413:

fluid, however. Do you see the distinction? If you really want to say that he's been "described" as the leader of the religion (which I'm not saying is a good idea) perhaps you should figure out a way to phrase it so that it's neutral and impartial. I maintain that trying to shoehorn that distinction into the very first sentence is doing a serious disservice to the article. I've also found sources that describe him as an 'usurper', but that sure as hell doesn't belong in the opening. Like I said, just because sources repeat something doesn't mean it's automatically true. If you want to get pedantic, replace 'true' with 'worth including in an article'. The lead is a place to make a clear, simple summary of the body of the article (

278:

structure of the official church being multifaceted with many elements being separate from his leadership.” It is based on your interpretation and opinion alone. Grayfell, you say it is “inconsistent with the facts.” I find this statement purely subjective. Last time I checked, it is the reliable sources that carry weight, which I have dutifully provided. The references I provided clearly show that Miscavige is the leader of the Scientology religion. You have not provided any references to back up your statements, and you did not provide adequate explanation for reverting my edit twice. I am adhering to policy, and you appear to be adhering to opinion. Knowledge policy is supposed to outweigh opinion.

2322:

accusing me of, I did not come to Knowledge to promote anybody’s interests, but thought this would be a relevant and timely addition given the coverage about it. Yes, I did stumble upon it, and I’m particularly interested in controversial topics such as this. I am learning as I go, and opened up this discussion to come up with an agreement and amicably compare notes. I’m looking at your edit history and it seems that you have an interest in this topic and have a history of rejecting edits on related pages. It seems that you are determined to keep this content off the page, so I’m going to move on.

90:

point, the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, which clearly states all his roles and appropriate titles. The ABC source I initially provided clearly uses this wording and so do other third-party references. It seems odd that the only reference that was left standing was the Scientology.org reference, a primary reference, that based on policy, should not hold as much weight as third-party reliable sources. Ironically, the Scientology.org reference also supports the wording “leader of the Scientology religion,” and it puzzles me why it was changed back to “leader of the Church of Scientology.”

302:

tone that suggests these kinds of distinctions should be weighed with caution. That's actually true for all of these. Most journalists prefer a more approachable style than Knowledge uses. Saying he is leader of the religion is like saying that the U.S. President is 'Leader of the free world'. It's a phrase that may make sense in some contexts, but it's not automatically 'true' just because it's repeated by sources. A journalist referring to someone in passing as the leader of a religion is reasonable in an newspaper article, but not in a Knowledge article.

226:, yes, and in fact Heber is still listed as the putative holder of a number of copyrights. Lanske and a few other "captive" lawyers also hold various Scientology copyrights and trademarks so they are also considered leaders of the organization. Copyrights and trademarks often trade hands in Scientology, often after felony indictments however Heber held on to his after his arrests in Madrid, Spain and it looks like he's still supposedly in charge of some intellectual assets, if that term has any legitimate meaning here. 1096:. As a starting point, every allegation needs to be attributed and supported by reliable, secondary sources, but there's a lot more to it. I believe your version was too watered-down to be ideal, but I'm open to differing opinions. That version failed to clearly indicate exactly what the allegations were in a meaningful way. The allegations are more specific and are severe enough that they should be better contextualized than that. I've tried to rephrase it to include those details while still being easier to read. 1773:. "Suited up" is too cutesy, and that exact phrase has been added and removed before, suggesting that it comes from Miscavige or his publicists. This level of extreme minutia would need context explaining why it's encyclopedically significant. He's a religious figure, not an athlete. Why is having played football for an indeterminate amount of time as a young child any more informative than his "love of scrapple" or other transparently PR-minded tidbits that have been included in the past? 31: 1401:. Are you saying her book isn't reliable? Is there any problem with using that source to say that Miscavige is the Captain of the Sea Org, and that he is the highest ranked member of the Sea Org? The affidavit is just too weak for this point, even being repeated by a RS, so we really only have the one source, as far as I can see. If two reliable sources disagree, which happens all the time, then they aren't automatically treated as unreliable, they are presented in proportion to their 2052:) Miscavige’s speeches aren’t always reported by media and based on the reports and the lengthy inclusion of his speech, he played a big part in the opening of the media production facility. The restoration of the media facility has been covered by media ever since the church acquired KCET studios in 2011. Less newsworthy and noteworthy things have been posted on Knowledge. Since this happened under Miscavige’s leadership, it would only make sense to post it here. 3502: 3293: 989:

and cited by several other sources that re-told the story. Also, for NPOV, I’ve included Scientology response to the issue. Tony Ortega is a good source, but might be construed as a personal blog, so I’ve replaced it with the People magazine source that also includes statement by Scientology’s Pouw in response to the incident. Tightened up some of the wording for better reading. Replaced Ron Sr. with Ronald Sr as that is colloquial.

529:, but focusing on the letter of one policy to the exclusion of the spirit of the others is not helpful. The point I am trying to make is that this is not a neutrally worded sentence. Knowledge articles are supposed to be written in a formal tone, and using informally worded sources to support a contentious point in the article is bordering on deceptive. The fact that it is the very first sentence only make it worse. 1213:. The purported court document may or may not be valid, but it is a primary source. Even worse, it is just a sworn statement, not a court ruling. Anyone can say anything in an affidavit, running only a small risk of penalty for perjury. But worst of all, we have no real basis to believe it is a real court document. It appears on a blog, which is itself not an RS. This is not Wiki quality RS. 567:. A simple search for David Miscavige will find out that a vast amount of reliable sources (I got over 20 just from the St. Petersburg Times, and other sources show that this is the dominant title)refer to him as "leader of the church of scientology" "church leader" "Chairman of the Board" etc. So the current verbiage is both consistent with consensus and reflective of the reliable sources. 3621: 3551: 3341: 940:

is also appropriate. Since the section in question is just multiple paragraphs of examples, it makes the article more readable to briefly outline what those examples are getting at before diving into them. Some people dislike that kind of thing, but it's a useful way to accommodate readers who are only looking for specific information, as well as those with different reading styles.

3241:

not reliable, neutral sources in any way, and the lone reliable source was from over 20 years ago and predated the Ideal Org and book sales pushes. It also says very little about Miscavige's reception among Scientology as a whole. This was clearly slapped on to provide a superficial veneer of legitimacy to promotional material. In other words, it was "just included for show".

1476:

which the members staff a number of church organizations, each with its own ranking system, independent of the Sea Org rank. And Miscavige's RTC is only one of those organizations. If the question were important, we could examine the corporate legal papers -- which should be public -- but that would answer the question for only the RTC, not necessarily any of the churches.

2306:

wasn’t misrepresenting that quote but included the quotation marks to include what the article said verbatim and avoid plagiarism. Reuters is only one reference, but as other references show, the fact that he is mentioned time and again, he is relevant to the opening. A few publications even mention that it’s the church’s CNN. Here are some references pointing to the fact:

2341:

That doesn't mean it's notable. "The Church's CNN"? That's a press-blurb which nobody is taking seriously. Has anyone said that since it was opened, or was that just part of the press-packet that's otherwise now forgotten? This is just PR nonsense. Actually, has any source said anything about Miscavige's connection to this opening since it happened at all? If so,

2135:

said before about why this should be included here, and these new sources should be sufficient to fulfill Knowledge's reliable source policy. We could simply say "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages." See references below:

1118:), I saw that and wondered whether it was appropriate to even have in this biography, in part because Miscavige meets the "living persons" guidelines of Knowledge but mostly because the extant individual's business ethics and behavior in this following of his father around isn't exactly encyclopedia, if you see my meaning. 2386:) for commenting again, from my perspective Knowledge has guidelines rather than hard-fast carved-in-stone rules, certain there are tens of thousands of articles now which exceed what many people consider to be rules. :) I look at things as guidelines rather than rules since editors deviate for good and for bad reasons. 571:, this conversation isn't about the status of the church of Scientology or your opinions of it as an organization. Introducing those elements into a talk page is divisive, and can be used to argue that a group of people are editing with an agenda. You are welcome to edit with an agenda in mind, but I believe that both 1228:

way to tell if any particular document represents the final outcome. The press also often mis-reports on legal issues, due to a lack of expertise. The best possible secondary sources would be law journals. This might help. I have no COI with this page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)"

1053:

important. I've recently shortened a portion this aforementioned section because it reads in a choppy way (section related to the Tobin and Childs reports on Miscavige allegations). I think the section reads stronger if we just mention what the allegations where without convoluting it with other details.

3458:

Ideally the article could be rewritten in a more objective, facts-first manner. I don't know what other terms could be used that are more neutral; the term "corporation" may also be problematic due to legal status of scientology in the USA. A more objective term may be "organization", since that does

3454:

The article includes elements such as "church representative". To me this is a problem because I do not see the scientology corporation as a church, so the content is problematic; possibly for others too. By calling the scientology corporation a church, you lend credibility to the claim of it being a

3010:

for common guidelines for Biographies of Living People. As it is, the A&E Documentary covering the crimes and abuses of the Scientology corporation would belong in pages covering Scientology and the A&E Network as well as on Leah's biography pages covering her career. There are something like

2289:

Yet also these Real Estate purchases and "openings" don't have anything to do with actual biography. If any of these property purchases and "openings" were to be covered for any reason in this biography, editors would also need to cover the inevitable closing and sale of these empty business offices.

2233:

Now, you’re the admin, and I’m new, so trying to learn, but as far as I can tell, I’ve used Reuters, a source that is valid and credible to Knowledge, no? Please correct if wrong. The talk page discussion with the other editor questioned the references he used, but I’ve used a different reference, so

1793:

Actual numbers were around 1,000 customers according to photographs, however the proposed commentary about the incident also does not qualify to be added to a biography of a living person. When David goes to a grocery store and buys something, we don't add commentary about it to Knowledge. :) Thanks!

1382:

Is that the question? Heck, it's hardly relevant to anything. It may be a monarchy, a triumvirate, a hexumvirate, or anything else. People can't even agree on the rules of football, or the capital of Texas. What happens when they are out of the game for a few years, then try to write a book about it?

958:

One of the things that Knowledge benefits from increasingly is the ability for mobile devices to harbor stored copies of texts with configurable levels of linkage. With my jail-broken Kindle Fire HD I can download hundreds of pages from a lump-off point by asking the Kindle to retrieve all pages 3, 4

662:

I've reverted part of it again. Here's the problem, where is the proof about the sales revenue claim? Your source says sales revenue for the drug Prozac was $ 770 million in 1990, then it says analyst projected sales revenue for 1991 at $ 1 billion. That's it, were sales for that year (1991) above or

613:

People who utilize Knowledge are looking for accurate, testable, falsifiable information about something and are more interested in the real world realities of what they are researching, they are interested in either concensus in reporting from references and citations, or a preponderance of evidence

541:

Zone? How about Jentzsch and the CoS International? Many religious scholars balk at calling Scientology a religion at all, wouldn't your proposed wording completely gloss-over their position? Why should this point be made in the first sentence, and not later where it can be given appropriate context?

540:

Saying that our objections aren't based on policy makes it seem like you've been completely ignoring what we're trying to tell you. Before accusing us of bias, you should attempt to answer some of the counterpoints we've raised: How is this different from The Pope and Catholicism? What about the Free

470:

which is demonstrably false since he has zero involvement with and control of the Freezone, "Ron's Org," and other various "Indie" groups which freely practice Scientology, Dianetics, and other "clearing technology" which is classed by some people as the "Scientology religion." At the same time it is

360:

Hello, Grayfell. I’m sorry but I included references to the point, but your response does not cite policy or include references at all. The references I cited are not controversial or obscure references as your assert arbitrarily, but to address your point, I’ve included more references that clearly

277:

Grayfell, when you say it’s your opinion, that is correct. That is both yours and Coffeepusher’s corroborated opinion that saying that Miscavige is “the leader of the Scientology religion” is incorrect. Coffeepusher, you have not cited any references to the “facts” that you state, including that “the

3586:

Is it worth mentioning in the article that Miscavige has for some reason been evading service for the human trafficking lawsuit between April and September 2022 (Scientology staff members telling process servers that "he doesn't work here and doesn't live here" at whatever building at which they try

3408:

As the highest ranking officer in the Sea Org, is there a reason why this is not mentioned in the lead? He is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology in his position as Chairman of the Board RTC, which grants him ecclesiastical authority over all Scientologists, both public, civilian staff, and Sea

3212:

I understand LINKROT. The issue is not merely the some of the links being dead - the references do not support every mention in the section I removed. It was as if they were just included for show. What am I basing my edit on is this part of the BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons

3014:

I understand the desire to direct people to the A&E Documentary who visit David's BLP, but people coming to Knowledge for information about David are looking for information about David as a primary research effort, the Documentary which covers the guy's human rights and civil rights abuses and

2321:

It’s the first time in the history of his leadership that he’s built and launched something that references have said is the church’s CNN, and that in itself makes it pretty noteworthy and major. I can't see how this is not neutral as it is based on a strong reference. And as for what you seem to be

1501:

The overwhelming majority reliable, independent sources state that he is the leader of the entire Church of Scientology as an organization including the Sea Org, of which he is also a member, but as Grammar says, that only sometimes matches with the Church's own description of his role. The very few

1301:

is an RS. I'm really not sure we want to include that, though. We have the Janet Reitman book which also supports his rank (the link now works), but that if that book specifically says "captain is the highest rank" I couldn't find it. There's also Debbie Cook, who apparently also rose to the rank of

939:

Copying my response on my talk page for convenience: For longer articles, I think it's useful and appropriate to be a bit redundant with summarizing. Knowledge's leads are supposed to be (in an ideal world) stand-alone summaries of the articles, but the summarizing a lengthier or complex subsection

157:

Heber has been struck from the Scientology.ORG web site, Google has indexed the entire Scientology.ORG web site and has indexed exactly zero pages which mention Heber. Because of that I believe we can assume that Heber has been killed, shoved in to The Hole, or otherwise removed from his position as

3240:

language, this would need some indication of larger significance from a reliable, third-party source to avoid cherry-picking. The line about "His primary role..." was not supported by any source at all, it was merely repeating the claim verbatim inside a ref tag. Also, press releases are absolutely

2340:

Yes, please move on. Not everything which is "the first time in the history of his leadership" is notable, or even close to notable. I'm sure at some point he, for the first time in the history of his leadership, did some business in Texas, or Visited Taiwan, or wore a pink tie with burgundy socks.

2180:

new media center, with Miscavige depicted as a spokesperson for the Church. Several sources have suggested that the PR blitz surrounding the media center is intended to deflect attention away from Scientology and Miscavige's many controversies and PR troubles. Since this is supported by sources, it

1862:

Damotclese, I’ve only recently started editing and it just so happens that I started with the David Miscavige page. I looked into the policy on single-purpose accounts and I am not a single-purpose account and have created this account with the intention of contributing to other Knowledge pages. My

1268:

You are right that the fact it supports is not particularly significant. But now that we have removed the blog source, we have no source at all. It's anonymous. How do we know it is an unaltered court document? Because it says it is? In that case, I should tell you am offering for sale at a very

1079:

regarding dead links. This is a tough one. Miscavige has been accused by dozens of people of regularly beating, assaulting, and confining employees and church members. Simply saying "violence" is going to prompt more questions than it answers, but the old phrasing was definitely chunky. The article

923:

Grayfell, I would like to appeal the reversion of my recent edit. I personally think the first few sentences of the media coverage and criticism section add nothing to the section and the deletion of it does not take away from the purpose of the lead. Better to go straight to the point. What do you

830:

rank into the infobox, but the way it was done implied that the Sea Org was a military organization, rather than a paramilitary organization. I don't think there is a simple way to change that, but that infobox is complicated enough that I may be wrong. Unless it can be modified to clearly indicate

680:

if you would please, post the proposed text you offered here in the Talk:: page so we can get a better look at what you proposed to use an as update. I would like to check the references and citations that you offer which show information on revenues for the drug Prozac, and if possible it would be

625:

Remember, this extant article is something of a biography of David Miscavige, editors need to utilize accurate, testable, falsifiable references and citations, and overwhelmingly the glut of real world information about David simply does not support the "leader of the Scientology religion" proposed

532:

I'm not sure why 'usurper' is unlikely to be used in authoritative publications. If such a term was used in the article, we'd have to clearly explain who was making that statement, but the word itself doesn't automatically invalidate the source. I'm not saying we should use that term, I'm saying we

505:

Thank you for your responses. Upon reading through them, I’m afraid you have still failed to provide a substantial, WP policy and reference based argument to support your subjective opinions. Additionally, your allusion to being able to find any reference whatsoever saying anything about Miscavige,

407:

might be worth a review, which goes for Damotclese as well. Verifiability is important, but don't side-step a bunch of other policies along the way. As I hope you already know by now, verifiability is not the only criteria for inclusion. As I have already said, the article can say that sources have

3235:

Pablum about "celebrating his accomplishments" and the "restored and corrected" works of LRH are not neutral language ("restored" from what, ancient papyrus? Isn't "correcting" verbal tech?) Who, exactly "considers" him a "servant of Hubbard's message"? Certainly not independent Scientologist! Why

2229:

Grayfell. I took your feedback to the other editor and I researched the event of the opening of the media production facility but I still cannot understand why you would say this event is not biographically significant. Miscavige does not do events like this all the time as far as I could find, as

2134:

Grayfell, I think it's time to revisit the inclusion of Miscavige's inauguration of the media production center. Several new, and unquestionably credible sources have covered the opening, all of them mentioning Miscavige's role and excerpts of his speech in the opening event. I reiterate what I've

1475:

The questions are irrelevant to anything of substance. The Church of Scientology may or may not have a "single highest ranking" official. Some organizations are not monolithic. The Church of Scientology seems to have one organization within another -- the Sea Org with its own ranking system, of

1227:

Note: "Primary sources should almost always be avoided, especially in law. Many court documents are advocacy pieces by one of the lawyers and even the judge's opinion is often overturned several times in appellate courts or ignored in favor of a compromise/settlement after the hearing. There is no

988:

I’ve made a few changes to the Family and Personal life section regarding the controversial incident with Powell and Ron Miscavige. TMZ does not comply with WP:RS, it is more widely known as a gossip magazine. Made the source the LA times the main source, the publication that first broke the story

412:

him as the leader of the religion, but it is not Knowledge's place to bestow that title on anyone. Not Jentzsch, not Miscavige, not even the Pope regarding Catholicism. Leader of the Roman Catholic Church? Sure, because Churches are defined organizations. Religions are much, much more personal and

301:

leader of the religion. Ecclesiastical means 'relating to the church', so linking to the CoS seems like a prudent distinction to make here. The third one does refer to him as leader of the religion, but not before referring to him as leader of the Church, and the whole thing is in a conversational

3462:

You may wonder why I made this comment? Ideally wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, at all times, based on facts, with as little bias as possible. I do not like the scientology corporation and the sooner it is disbanded, the better - but I also dislike reading content that insinuates that

2305:

My mistake, I thought you were an admin. I believe you are creating the burden of various references being able to explicitly show the relevance of Miscavige to the event. Even if the source doesn’t say that he attended the event, the other sources that have been mentioned here clearly says so. I

2253:

is four paragraphs, only one of which mentions Miscavige, and only in passing as the leader of the church. The source doesn't even clearly say that he attended the opening. It also doesn't directly quote him, only a paraphrase, which you misrepresented as a direct quote. This studio is mentioned

2230:

you claimed, and this facility as far as I can research, isn’t a church, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I found, plus the opening of the broadcast location, which I read was previously inhabited by public broadcasting network KCIT, as far as I could research, is a first for them and Miscavige.

2011:

Grayfell, I understand your points. If you would like to post a different version, one that you would deem more neutral, what would you recommend? I propose something that goes simply like this: "On May 28, 2016, Miscavige inaugurated Scientology Media Productions, a media center for the church’s

1913:

The media production facility has no shortage of coverage in the media, I don't see why it wouldn't be worthy of mention. It has been called "Scientology's CNN." I have also replaced the reference with a much better source to support the text, a credible news publication that mentions numbers and

1753:

A book on the Legendary Locals of Willingboro by Josh Bernstein reveals greater detail on Miscavige's early life, and I added a few that weren't included here to further enrich the section and inject greater continuity. Such details are hard to find on the web, and I think it will do a service to

954:

If I may, I'd like to also suggest that the extant article is improved by retaining the summation information. When I'm doing research on things on line, I will send Knowledge pages to my Kindle reader, and when I've got time to deep dive after reviewing the initial context, having links up front

307:

That's not to say that we can't mention that he has been called that. Context matters, and this kind of distinction should be made in the body, not the lead. In the lead, it's just going to get too crowded and too clumsy. If you really need sources saying that the Church is multifaceted, they can

3477:

It's also worth noting that Rosita Šorytė, who is quoted in the Covid section, works for a Scientology front group (ORLIR, the International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees), and the publishers of her book, FoRB.PRESS, are another Scientology front group, with the general mission of

2348:

Many Scientology articles get slow-burned by conspicuously new editors who add very obscure, borderline trivial items based on equally obscure sources. The end result, which is painfully obvious to all neutral observers, is that articles get flooded with good or at least boringly neutral content

2167:

article is tabloid nonsense which shouldn't be included either. That leaves the Guardian piece. It only mentions Miscavige twice by name as "organisation's controversial leader" and gives some direct quotes from his speech as context for the event. It's the same quotes as the News.com.au source,

2066:

Grayfell, I foresee that it will be difficult for us to come to a consensus and I've researched an alternative. I have posted straightforward information based on several credible sources regarding Scientology Media Productions in a section that I've found where it better belongs, the production

1052:

Thank you for your feedback, Grayfell. I agree with your points on the Powell entry, the TODAY reference was inaccessible on my end and wouldn't load, and I thought there was some kind of problem with the video. Good to enforce notability, and the time and expense related to Powell is definitely

89:

The recent edit I posted parallels the succinct way that third-party organizations refer to this historical figure, as the “leader of the Scientology religion.” It is extremely important to start the article in a way that rhetorically represents the living person in the most correct way. Case in

3268:

These text were pre-existent, and I simply restored some of it because the editor who removed it said "removed until sourced." So that I did, found references and restored it. Your comments about these being included just for show, etc., should be directed to the first editor who added it. The

646:

My previously added information to the time mention was reverted because of WP:SYNTH. I've rewritten the information with more detail, with each point backed up by solid references, and made sure I did not synthesize any data. I believe that the Time article should be contextualized against the

3173:

I've simplified the last paragraph of the lead section according to the references that were provided to support the text and to improve rhetoric and wording. As for the references, they do not back up list of accusations, 8 is dead, 9 does not support passage, 10 does not support passage, 11,

1035:--heh-- It was almost certainly much more than a year. Mr. Miscavige has almost certainly had his father tailed and followed and his activities faithfully reported back to David for decades, even before the a.r.s-driven exposures started getting significant media and law enforcement attention. 108:

I disagree. He is the COB of the Church of Scientology, but saying he is the leader of the Scientology religion is like saying the pope is the leader of Christianity. In addition to the structure of the official church being multi-faceted with many elements officially being separate from his

1557:

Still, it's not as if we're chucking out sources just because there's some arbitrary rule that says so. This whole discussion has been around the concept of whether we are summarising what reliable sources are saying about the subject, and not just picking any sources that fit some convenient

860:

If you want, but I actually kind of like that one. That infobox, unlike "officeholder" doesn't actually introduce the term clergy to the article. It provides a place to mention the CoS as distinct from Scientology as a whole, which is a subtle but significant point, and mentioning the Sea Org

379:

Let me quote the section of the policy that is relevant to our discussion: “Knowledge's core sourcing policy, Knowledge:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to

2195:

At core is the need to ensure that the article does not get public relations propaganda added to it, either from David Miscavige's employees themselves or spoon-fed propaganda fed to in effect transcription services like Forbes which will publish anything they are paid to publish. And yeah,

2047:

The notability of Scientology Media Productions, and the fact that it has been awaited by media, non-members and church members alike as seen in the media speculation and coverage around it is enough. There are three major news sources that reported on the opening, Australian Women’s Weekly,

328:

as the proposed text suggests "the leader of the Scientology religion." He is the head ringleader of an organized criminal enterprise however understandly any such accurate description of the crime boss is going to run afoul of the need to apply neutral verbiage sans reference-capable felony

2029:

Sorry, but I'm not sure you do understand my points. You haven't explained why this should be included at all. Miscavige does events like this all the time, and has for years as part of his job. You would need to find a better source explaining why this one specific event was biographically

879:

Yeah, it gets in to the whole question about what "ordained" means, and what "clergy" means. One could argue that the Italian Mafia's head ringleaders are "clergy" so I don't want to dive down in to that rabbit hole. Icould wonder if Scientology lawyers would object to the Knowledge page

383:

It seems that your sole reason for reverting the edit is because you disagree with it. Policy clearly states that you “may not remove sources’ views from articles simply because disagree with them.” Based on this alone, my edit must stand: I think I’ve provided enough sources to back it

3244:

On the other hand, the summary about Miscavige being accused by multiple people of assault is neutral, because it is directly supported by a large number of reliable, third-party sources. The lede sumamrizes the body, even when that content is unflattering. This is not contentious among

1573:

Yes, you're right. It's frustrating because "I know I read is somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it was reliable" is the thought that pops up, but of course, that's never going to work, for many very good reasons. Knowledge is not a bureaucracy, but I get why so many editors think it is.

2171:

Why do you even want to add this here? Is this the Church of Scientology's new media center, or is this David Miscavige's personal media center? If you have sources saying the latter, then I'm all ears, but until then, this is, at most, worth a brief mention somewhere else, such as

3463:

there is a "church representative", since that would imply that scientology is a church/religion, which it clearly is not (at the least not to people outside of the USA; it is not recognized in Europe as religion, for instance, so it CAN NOT legally be called a "church" there).

1161:

again, yet that ends up looking a bit tabloid and yellow journalism rather than like a professional encyclopedia. Interesting. I'll read BLP again, because the Robert Minton article needs to be updated a little bit, and I have been working to stop inappropriate updates to the

898:

Oh, Including Jenna is a very good update, in fact something of a family tree might be interesting though if I'm not mistaken David M. does not have any famous or otherwise significant relations other than Jenna who is only famous for rejecting the whole criminal enterprise.

259:

in any sense of the term. He's just the owner/operator of a financial business, and outside of a few thousand customers and a few thousand ex-customers, law enforcement officers, Judges, and a hand full of politicians, nobody recognizes the name. In the real world he's a

2405:

list every property purchase that Miscavige does using his customer's money, yet editors would need to also list every sale or go back and remove the text covering purchases... Which is rather tedious but also which is not done for any other public figure I'm aware of.

1449:

As for points 3 and 4, we only have the court testimony, which is probably true because of the source, but it's certainly a primary source, so shouldn't stand on its own to support anything contentious. I think it's probably best to leave those two items out for now.

1960:) mentions Miscavige, but it's mostly concerned with Tom Cruise (who apparently wasn't even at the opening). That article also quotes several people who claim that the studio is a waste of time/boondoggle/publicity stunt, since it's redundant with facilities at 590:

Agreed. Just to make myself absolutely clear, I am not saying we should describe him as an usurper -quite the opposite. The arguments used to call him 'leader of the religion' could just as easily be used to call him 'usurper'. Neither of those are appropriate.

1309:

highest rank. Is this actually a cause for confusion, or is it just me? As far as I know, nobody is credibly denying that Miscavige is the highest ranking member of, well the entire Church, but how much the title itself matters isn't settled by either source.

1187: 135:. Saying Miscavige is head of the entire religion is inconsistent with the facts. The lead is not the place for such finicky nuances anyway. Saying he is the head of CoS is clearer, less awkward, and entirely adequate for an introduction, in my opinion. 380:

Knowledge must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.”

1893:, but SPI is unpredictable, so I've only been bothering when they become disruptive. Often a knowledgeable admin will steps in before that, anyway. Either way, Ultimatorr, if you are serious about editing other areas, there's no time like the present. 443:

laden accusations. Now to re-state my point, we can call him the leader of the Church of Scientology, but saying that he is the leader of the scientology religion is a lot more contentious. Ill accept COB of RTC, and even leader of the Church of

1948:. The quote from Miscavige is far too promotional to be included based on one source by a Sydney-based reporter who almost certainly didn't even attend the event. All of those additional sources you link predate this one event, which makes this 1445:

I don't think anyone is seriously denying the first two points, and we have a book source and a sworn statement from Marty Rathburn, a very senior ex-member of the organisation, now reported in a reliable news source, so I think those are OK.

1863:

edit history is too young for you to be making such an accusation. I also have no knowledge of the R2-45 issue that you mentioned, and I doubt that you have any technical evidence to prove your claim, because I am not connected to it at all.

575:

and myself are not interested in supporting a point of view which characterizes the church as a criminal organization or argues that Miscavige is an usurper. More importantly, those arguments have no relevance in this discussion. Cheers!

3011:

4 dozen people which the A&E Documentary covering Scientology's crimes and abuses and covering Leah's and some 4 dozen other people's histories touches upon, so adding 4 dozen "see alsos" to their BLPs would not be appropriate, either.

361:

refer to Miscavige as “the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion.” You say that something is not “automatically ’true’ just because it’s repeated by sources.” Last time I checked, verifiability outweighs “truth” (WP::NOTTRUTH)

2093:

who needs to be banned. This is probably the same individual who wasted a month worth of volunteer time in R2-45 who is being sanctioned. This sock puppet account needs to be banned and the abusive individual's IP needs to be blocked.

188:. As far as I know, the current official leadership of the CoS International is not public knowledge. My point is not that Jentzsch should be considered the leader, my point is that we can't make the assumption that Miscavige is the 2356:

weight of reliable sources. The Church of Scientology has maybe 50,000* active members internationally, but I've lost track of how many articles are about the religion. Why? Why is there so much lengthy, trivial coverage of every

1558:

narrative. If we allow questionable sources, then we'll have questionable conclusions in our articles, and we'll be susceptible to POV-pushing. The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing. --

2570:, which looks interesting, but seems like way too much of a stretch for this article.) Its inclusion here looks like a round-about way of applying a subjective label to the Church of Scientology, which isn't going to work, per 2959:

The above non-signed suggestion is not a good one, the show itself covers some of David's history and biography however the show is not about David's biography, so it might not be relevant to add a link to the documentary.

2349:

which drowns-out all the unflattering controversy. This isn't to say that Knowledge's coverage is otherwise sterling, but this isn't a viable solution to that problem, and it just makes everyone look worse in the long-run.

1125:, yes, and it helps to describe the core criminality of the man and his fear of having more of his behavior exposed, yet it kind of doesn't belong in any kind of professional encyclopedia... which Knowledge is not. :) 3468: 3329: 2565:

I've changed it. Looking at its history, the redirect is itself mildly controversial, and I have a feeling an article titled 'List of cults' would get deleted pretty quickly. (At one point it redirected to what's now

2361:

for such a small church? I have my own theories, but maybe I've been at this too long, so as an impartial observer who just happened to stumble on to this topic, I'd love to hear your explanation for this phenomenon.

3213:(or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." 3538: 3377: 1004:

Looks good. That Powell said he had been surveilling Ron Sr. for over a year at significant expense seems important, so I've restored that part. While 'claim' is appropriate in this case since it's contested, per

1525:

Heehee! Ain't that the truth? The one set of documents that might settle the question are off-limits to our work. Our critics might say, "The rules of Knowledge are as Byzantine as the Church of Scientology."

2162:

Content from Forbes' "contributors" is not the same as content from their journalists, and isn't usually considered reliable. Breitbart.com is absolutely not a reliable source for factual statements. The

1927: 1506:

as counter examples, but again, most sources also describe Scientology's legal structure as deliberately convoluted. Trying to make a single coherent sentence from all these sources is asking for

3409:

Org, but at the same time he is also the Captain of the Sea Org, which gives him absolute authority over the Sea Org command structure and all Sea Org orgs. Was this discussed at all previously?

2168:

which means it's just talking points from a prepared speech, and indicates that this was again, not written by a journalist who attended the event. Nothing about this seems worth commenting on.

2638: 1519: 478:

And yes, editors. :) I am aware of the history of Knowledge articles covering Scientology, NPOV guidelines, all that. I let the logobot send me to mediate seemingly endless edit wars where

3083: 1567: 1459: 1392: 1237: 1222: 3097: 2877: 2702: 2257:

What was originally merely my suspicion has becoming increasingly undeniable: Miscavige is attempting to get this trivial event mentioned in this article for some silly reason. Knowledge

1679: 3542: 3333: 2307: 2139: 622:

correct that David Miscavige is the leader of the Church of Scientology. All other proposed descriptions or titles are not supported by any testable, legitimate, reliable references.

2310: 1769:

Having been mentioned in an obscure local book is not, itself, worth mentioning. Calling someone "award winning" without explaining the award is specifically cited as an example at

1269:

reasonable price the deed to a bridge in NY ... That is why we need secondary sources. We are better off just leaving it off. We have other sources to support the statement fact.

3115: 3111: 2895: 2891: 2720: 2716: 2049: 1994: 1697: 1693: 2819: 3575: 1342: 1878:

There have been many, many SPAs and socks involved in Scientology, and so there is plenty of reasons to be skeptical for this page, and the larger topic in general (we should

3355: 3464: 3325: 1924: 1510:, so keeping it simple seems like the way to go. Corporate legal papers are exactly the kind of primary sources we should't be using without outside commentary or analysis. 2261:. If you really are a totally neutral editor who just happened to stumble on this issue (which, at this point, is unlikely) then you should know that past history, such as 1292: 3397: 714:

I see in the news that the individual has been officially served legal papers ordering him to appear or answer for numerous crimes he committed as part of Scientology's "

3534: 3373: 2999:

This page is a biography of a living person, it is not a page about any any religion. If there were to be a show about Christianity, commentary about the Christian Pope

626:

alteration. Also I think I've offered enough time on this issue. We have a majority concensus and it's likely time to move on to other Wiki pages which need attention.

3483: 3439: 2833: 1928:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156464/Inside-Tom-Cruise-s-Scientology-CNN-TV-news-network-set-launched-new-Hollywood-50-million-studio-bigger-Paramount.html

3381: 1254:

I don't think it's a particularly controversial or outlandish claim, but it is significant, so I'd like us to use all relevant evidence that we can muster here. --

1243:

This is the only source that I can find, but it's the sworn testimony of someone who was one of the most senior members of the church, so I've done the following:

2863: 1993:

Damotclese, the site I used was not a PR site. It was www.news.com.au and a news blog called Australian Women’s Weekly. A third reference is Christian Examiner. (

769:. I tried to make the change, but don't seem to be doing it right. I invite anyone more competent than I (that would probably be most of you) to update the link. 3270: 3214: 3175: 1088:, even) which suggests that the connection is significant enough to explain in greater details, and a wikilink here is very helpful. There is also problems with 399:

My sole reason for reverting the edit, huh? What do you think I've been trying to discuss here on the talk page, then? Let's not attempt to make this personal.

3472: 2152: 2076: 2057: 2017: 2002: 1934: 1868: 560: 507: 385: 279: 94: 2539:

Also the link to the Knowledge page for list of "new religious movements" does in fact include Scientology so the classification appears to be solid. Thanks!

1210: 533:

should be cautious of allowing informal or subjective wording to be used in a BLP. Likewise, I'm also not sure what a 'Knowledge approved reference' is. From

3492: 2522:

was reverted. It seems to me that the classification is a valid one so I reverted it to restore the classification. What are other editor's opinion on this?

1343:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&curid=11424955&diff=698558971&oldid=698558104#Universal_Life_Church

846:

David is neither military nor clergy. I see that someone changed the infobox to "clergy" from "person" which I was going to revert if nobody had objections.

2136: 3366:

Listen guys, as a long time resident of South Jersey and living across the River from good old Bristol, I can tell you its not 115 miles away from Philly.

2639:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120209151228/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/us/scientology.violence_1_marty-rathbun-scientology-david-miscavige?_s=PM:US

1978:

Public relations web sites are not legitimate references or citations. Also the photographs of the PR event proves that Scientology's PR claims are lies.

368: 3283: 3084:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120927051304/http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/12/scientology-opens-new-national-organization-mexico-city-palaces/

2379: 2326: 2235: 1964:. Even if this one opening were worth mentioning, it would need to be presented neutrally. Do not restore this content without first discussing it here. 118: 1872: 1834: 1755: 1070: 1054: 990: 925: 635: 354: 3262: 3206: 861:

seems... reasonable to me, I guess. The "ordained" field is debatable, and I would rather that be used for Chairman of the Board. Regardless, adding

2148: 2072: 2053: 2013: 1998: 1930: 1918: 1864: 1808: 677: 648: 550: 426: 317: 3003:

be added to Wiki pages covering Christianity, assuming it were relevant, however such commentary would not be added to a biography of a living Pope.

2415: 2299: 1209:

by Sfarney." My original edit deleted the statement and the source because Tonyortega.com is a blog, and we cannot use a blog for a living person.

750: 495: 269: 2813: 2316: 2196:

Breightbart is flat-out propaganda, basically a spoof web site that something around a third of the U. S. populace believes is some how legitimate.

2119:

as an attempt at deflecting negative attention. Do you really want to incorporate content from that source into this article? C'mon now, get real.

2642: 2548: 2371: 2311:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629275/Scientology-s-50million-Hollywood-studio-opens-religion-promises-reach-virtually-person-Earth.html

2308:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#49d0469f62af

2282: 2140:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alishagrauso/2016/06/22/tom-cruise-opens-50-million-scientology-movie-and-tv-studio-complex-in-hollywood/#5ba245cb62af

1987: 1854: 1803: 701: 672: 600: 585: 453: 439:

that the scientology section of wikipedia is under the strictest sanctions of any section of wikipedia, and it may be a good idea to refrain from

144: 3087: 1782: 1105: 1026: 949: 229:

Thanks, I see a number of editors doing a very good job keeping the article clean and accurate, volunteer work that makes Knowledge worth using.

3163: 2943: 2768: 2601: 2587: 2216: 2190: 2128: 2039: 1973: 1902: 1175: 1152: 1134: 1044: 975: 908: 893: 874: 855: 475:

that David is the leader of the Church of Scientology which is a subset -- currently the largest subset -- of the overall body of practitioners.

238: 201: 167: 3478:

having Scientology recognized as a religion in Europe. Her apologia for Miscavige's Covid comments shouldn't be presented as a neutral source.

2987: 2050:

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm

1995:

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientologists-launch-massive-studio-to-spread-cult-message-globally-through-movies-tv-radio/50760.htm

808: 2658: 2176:, but not here. Oh, and don't consider that an endorsement of any such content being added, merely that sources are overwhelmingly about the 1890: 1657: 1605:). That is a lean&mean statement of my work in the last few days, pruning these contentious articles of blogs and other wobbly sources. 1583: 1549: 1535: 1414: 1319: 1291:

I've made some changes, but the more I look into this the less confident I am of how to include this material. As far as the affidavit goes,

2793: 2156: 2103: 2080: 2061: 2021: 2006: 1938: 1614: 1485: 1278: 1263: 966:

The summary paragraphs with suitable links is a very good thing. Many, many Knowledge pages do it and I find it technologically beneficial.

692:

article altered Prozac sales, that would be very interesting and worth noting provided the source of the information is legitimate. Thanks!

3042: 2531: 482:

is hotly contested in extant articles however in Talk:: I find it useful to relax guidelines intended primarily for extant articles. Check

2142: 1925:

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/57963/20150716/tom-cruise-scientology-global-domination-new-church-studios-brainwashing-recruitment.htm

766: 515: 393: 365: 287: 102: 3642: 2441: 1921: 1788: 417:). It's not the place for this kind of silliness. This is clearly a contentious issue about a living person, so restraint is called for. 3027: 2969: 2181:

would be inappropriate to include mention of the media center without also mentioning that part, but I don't see any benefit to either.

727: 3278: 3222: 3183: 2668: 2648: 2262: 1743: 3487: 2313: 1915: 1956:), and China Topix, don't mention Miscavige at all. The Daily Mail one (which is a tabloid, and should only be used with caution per 840: 3093:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2873:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1405:

weight, but I don't see any sources saying that Miscavige isn't the highest ranking person in the Sea Org, and that seems unlikely.

1139:

Yeah... I dunno. This is a BLP issue, but these are documented by reliable source, and Miscavige is pretty clearly a public figure (

1121:

Look at printed published encyclopedias of history, and none of them would publish such information for any living individual. It's

371: 688:

It may be that Ely Lilly provides sales data. That would be the best, most weighted source of information. Still, if some how the

3189:

You did not simplify the lead, you expanded it and then removed critical content. Dead links can still be reliable sources, per

2867: 3418: 2864:

https://archive.is/20130118161716/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-12/lifestyle/30618836_1_new-world-building-church

2334: 2243: 2115:

source? It's specifically about the CoS's press release about the event opening. The very first paragraph makes the claim that

647:

controversy that surrounded it, and also include how the subject of the page, Miscavige and the Church itself, responded to it.

293:

Okay, well the first source is the caption on a photo, which is hardly a weighty, reliable source. The second refers to him as

3613: 2995:

So if there was a show about the Catholic Church and it involved the Pope's tenure directly. You wouldn't add it to his Wiki?

793: 3269:

discussion I started was simply about the last paragraph, so I'm not sure why there's a discussion about the other text here.

3073: 2567: 1908: 3443: 2265:, means that edits will be scrutinized more closely and patience for advocacy will be very thin. Doing a handful of simple 1249:

Made it clear in the text that this is what Rathbun claims: I think that covers the issue of it being from a court document.

3596: 3588: 3479: 3435: 2513: 933: 656: 1763: 3571: 3034: 2785: 2254:

elsewhere on Knowledge, but it's lasting relevance to Miscavige has not been established by any sources I've seen so far.

2137:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/21/church-scientology-opens-50-million-media-production-complex-hollywood/

1205:), you reverted my edit with the note, "Court document cited is valid -- let's discuss in Talk: please -- Undid revision 128: 2325:

Damotclese, this is your personal opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t see that rule anywhere in Knowledge.

525:, and compliance with policy is decided through consensus. We have already given you policies, most of which fall under 3361: 2773: 2421: 741:

I'm going to say we should not include it on this page until the sources pan out into something which will pass review.

369:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/church-of-scientology-building-multimillion-dollar-chapel-in-nycs-east-harlem-103222/

3236:

would Miscavige's own publicity be a reliable source for this assessment? So who is being quoted? Since this is bland

1303: 1062: 998: 374: 3048: 2948: 2838: 2613: 831:

that he does not hold a rank in any military branch as that term is commonly understood this should not be restored.

709: 3065: 2855: 2630: 1009:, I think just 'said' is more neutral, so I've switched that while I was there. I've restored/fixed the link to the 1842: 1202: 814: 93:

I have changed the text back to the correct wording, one that justly represents the subject of this BLP. Thank you.

2824:

Mvaldemar, what is your explanation for removing that information? I'm looking at reverting your removal. Thanks.

1919:

http://www.movienewsguide.com/tom-cruise-puts-scientology-media-productions-plans-movies-related-scientology/75478

2562: 2111: 1620: 865:

as a relation is a definite plus, but I think that'll work with all infoboxes for people. I could go either way.

786: 663:

below $ 1 billion? Where is the proof connecting the drop in sales (if it did) with the campaign by Scientology?

3229: 3114:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2894:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2719:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2317:

http://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/07/tom_cruise_scientology_studio_movies_tv_network_cnn.html

1696:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1206: 819: 2643:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/us/scientology.violence_1_marty-rathbun-scientology-david-miscavige?_s=PM:US

84: 69: 64: 59: 3088:

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

1188:

We cannot use a blog for living persons, even if the blog claims to be publishing a court document / affidavit

718:" crimes. Should that fact be added to the "criticism" section? Or should maybe a "legal" section be created? 3403: 1602: 823: 297:

leader of the Scientology religion, which is very different from what you're saying. The third calls him the

3158: 2938: 2763: 308:

easily be provided, but again, this seems like a point that is better explained in the body, not the lead.

2659:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100325023131/http://www.nationalheadlinerawards.com:80/Winners2010Print.html

2273:. I strongly advise you to get some experience editing elsewhere for a while before tackling this topic. 1658:

https://web.archive.org/20080307065203/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ

762: 3636: 3533:"Official Church of Scientoloy biographies describe Miscavige" There is a typo in this part of the lead. 3449: 2145: 3133:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2913:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2738:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1715:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1363: 3274: 3218: 3179: 3168: 3064:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2854:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2629:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2143:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/church-of-scientology-opens-film-studio-complex-hollywood

884:

title, much as they did in the Texas court room. Probably good to leave the text and infobox as it is.

767:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/entertainment-us-leahremini-scientology-idUSBRE97800Q20130809

366:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/david-miscavige-bio-and-bios-of-scientology-officials-who-defected/1012137

38: 1922:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2255501/tom-cruise-renews-his-dedication-to-scientology-with-a-global-agenda/

2789: 511: 389: 283: 184:

Although his current involvement in the CoS is a mystery, Jentzsch must be assumed to be living, per

98: 2669:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090720010151/http://www.tampabay.com:80/specials/2009/reports/project/

2649:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120114150923/http://www.tampabay.com:80/specials/2009/reports/project/

1661: 3592: 2314:

http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/

1916:

http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a38602/tom-cruise-now-wants-scientology-to-take-over-the-world/

756: 2393:

which kind of suggests that mundane Real Estate purchases isn't exactly biographical, and also as

337:

which carries a claim which is grandly and obviously falsified. If there's a desire for accuracy,

3567: 3508: 3299: 3149: 3038: 2929: 2754: 2250: 372:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lapd-dismisses-leah-reminis-missing-person-report-wife/story?id=19912347

3118:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2898:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2723:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1825:. Let's not get dragged in to another lengthy "Dev-T" fiasco and block this person immediately. 1700:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

618:

wanting to find public relations propaganda or demonstrably incorrect textual claims, and it is

109:

leadership, the Scientology religion includes groups like the freezone which has no affiliation.

3630: 3134: 3061: 2914: 2739: 2662: 2383: 2330: 2239: 2224: 1716: 1140: 1081: 746: 581: 449: 114: 466:

It looks like most editors are in agreement; it was already pointed out that David is not the

3581: 3121: 2901: 2868:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-12/lifestyle/30618836_1_new-world-building-church

2726: 2173: 1759: 1735: 1703: 1115: 1058: 994: 929: 3431: 3369: 3141: 3023: 2965: 2921: 2829: 2781: 2746: 2693: 2597: 2544: 2527: 2437: 2411: 2295: 2212: 2099: 1983: 1889:

Because there have been many of them, tying any one editor to any one sock/farm is tricky.

1850: 1830: 1799: 1723: 1196: 1171: 1130: 1040: 971: 904: 889: 862: 851: 723: 697: 668: 652: 641: 631: 491: 350: 265: 234: 163: 47: 17: 3074:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130209040134/http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece

2085:

As you can see, this is obviously a Scientology owner/operator/customer who has created a

8: 3351: 2953: 2672: 2652: 2493: 2488: 2465: 918: 780: 522: 959:

or more links deep, being able to read them off line... Which is useful since I spend a

955:

lets me page deep, back out, and page deep again, following the details as time permits.

298: 3559: 3393: 3258: 3202: 3100:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2880:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2809: 2705:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2583: 2398: 2367: 2278: 2186: 2124: 2035: 1969: 1898: 1778: 1748: 1682:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1579: 1545: 1515: 1410: 1315: 1148: 1101: 1093: 1022: 945: 870: 836: 804: 596: 546: 422: 313: 197: 140: 3140:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2920:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2745:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1722:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1295:

appears perfectly usable as a reputable publisher of a primary court document, as the

3423: 3237: 3194: 3190: 2983: 2090: 2068: 1770: 1639: 1610: 1596: 1563: 1531: 1481: 1455: 1388: 1350: 1274: 1259: 1233: 1218: 1076: 742: 577: 445: 110: 3609: 3249:, so calling this "contentious" is misrepresenting the situation. If there is some 1957: 1731: 1589:

The more contentious the subject, the more conservative I want to be with sourcing.

564: 404: 3459:

not imply as much as either "religion" (what the ...) or "church" or corporation.

3077: 2460: 1246:

Used the version from archive.org (original scanned document instead of blog post)

375:

http://www.minnpost.com/global-post/2012/09/church-scientology-opens-center-israel

3512: 3414: 3303: 3057: 3019: 2961: 2851: 2847: 2825: 2626: 2622: 2593: 2540: 2523: 2433: 2407: 2291: 2266: 2208: 2164: 2095: 1979: 1949: 1846: 1826: 1795: 1647: 1633: 1629: 1507: 1192: 1167: 1126: 1036: 1006: 967: 900: 885: 847: 719: 693: 664: 627: 568: 487: 483: 436: 400: 346: 261: 230: 159: 1914:

includes quotes. Here are some links prior to event anticipating it. Thank you.

681:

good to see if you have a suitable reference for whether the publication of the

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3347: 2575: 2358: 2290:

Buying and selling property for profit is not something that is biographical.

2258: 1883: 1503: 983: 774: 526: 479: 345:

or any verbiage that supposes that Scientology is a religion should be struck.

132: 131:

is (hypothetically) the CoS's mother church, and the head of that org is still

3174:

coercive fundraising practices refers to the church and not to David Miscavige

3106:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2886:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2711:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2207:

about the various failed business offices he's had his customers buy for him.

1688:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3389: 3254: 3198: 3007: 2805: 2579: 2571: 2519: 2394: 2390: 2363: 2353: 2274: 2270: 2200: 2182: 2120: 2086: 2031: 1965: 1894: 1879: 1818: 1774: 1575: 1541: 1511: 1406: 1402: 1311: 1158: 1144: 1097: 1089: 1018: 1014: 941: 866: 832: 800: 738: 592: 572: 542: 440: 418: 309: 223: 193: 185: 136: 733:

as of now I can only find the Tony Ortega site reporting on this, so as per

3246: 3018:

Please sign your comments, if you would, 4 tildes will sign your comments.

2979: 2801: 1953: 1945: 1606: 1592: 1559: 1527: 1477: 1451: 1384: 1270: 1255: 1229: 1214: 1085: 1017:

it's helpful to establish that this was covered by multiple major outlets.

734: 534: 2389:

In this particular case, we are looking at a biography of a living person

3604: 3107: 2887: 2712: 1689: 1297: 3197:. The article must be a neutral overview, not a platform for promotion. 1644:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

3410: 1163: 2146:

https://www.rt.com/usa/347840-scientology-propaganda-network-launched/

2012:

creation of its own media and delivery of its teachings and messages."

2954:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Leah_Remini:_Scientology_and_the_Aftermath

2117:...the cult and its leaders have revamped the church's media strategy 1961: 2069:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Church_of_Scientology#Production_Facilities

1211:

Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

329:

indictments et al. Toward that end I have to agree that the wording

2778:

Miscairrage was originally spelt Myszkiewicz. It's a Polish name.

1821:

and is likely the same editor who has been banned from vandalizing

715: 435:

I am in agreement with Grayfell and Damotclese, and I would remind

414: 1652:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

765:, link #81 is dead. However, the Reuters article is still live at 827: 3455:

religion - for people without a confession this is problematic.

1662:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5heELOXbk_8qWowwJGtd3RrEXdqgQ

963:

of time in muddy ravines in the forest far from Internet access.

2269:

doesn't completely eliminate the concerns that come with being

2071:). Two other facilities are already mentioned there. Thank you. 1817:

to avoid waste of editor volunteer time. He/She is obviously a

1754:

readers to include these details from Bernstein's book. Thanks.

2429:

When not humiliating people, Miscavige fellates space aliens.

1822: 537:: "the appropriateness of any source depends on the context". 2678:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2663:

http://www.nationalheadlinerawards.com/Winners2010Print.html

1667:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

333:

is far more accurate than the obviously fictitious verbiage

3496: 3428:

Should it be mentioned that he is a high school drop out?

3287: 3068:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2858:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2633:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

611:

We owe it to the reader to get historical figure titles...

1441:

Does he appoint temporary captains to obfuscate his role?

1628:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2820:

Mvaldemar why did you remove that detailed information?

2067:

facilities section of the Church of Scientology page.(

1397:

Janet Reitman is a journalist who currently writes for

2673:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

2653:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

1013:

show source. It's not offering much new info, but for

3324:

ther is a "on June 2018" hat should b "in June 2018"

1952:. Redbook, MovieNewsGuide, Inquisitr (which is not a 3628:

Yes, it's worth mentioning in the relevant section.

1305:

which means that captain should not be presented as

3110:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2890:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2715:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2048:

News.com.au and just recently, Christian Examiner (

1692:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1502:exceptions in usable sources point to people like 614:offered in the references and citations. They are 127:Yes. In addition to free zone Scientologiest, the 2480: 3253:issue, feel free to bring it up for discussion. 685:article some how drove changes in sales volumes. 3078:http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012148.ece 1813:We should probably get User:Ultimatorr blocked 3096:This message was posted before February 2018. 3015:financial crimes et al. would not be relevant. 2876:This message was posted before February 2018. 2701:This message was posted before February 2018. 1678:This message was posted before February 2018. 255:Also Skyparkroute101, David Miscaviage is not 158:putatively the "President" of the enterprise. 3493:Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022 2487:Joe Childs, Thomas C. Tobin (June 23, 2009). 2459:Joe Childs, Thomas C. Tobin (June 23, 2009). 2199:The article here is about David Miscavige, a 2345:we can discuss it, but I seriously doubt it. 1540:Yup. Sometimes I think they might be right. 3284:Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018 2489:"Inside Scientology: A Times Investigation" 2452: 2846:I have just modified one external link on 2486: 2458: 2263:Church of Scientology editing on Knowledge 3056:I have just modified 2 external links on 2621:I have just modified 4 external links on 2401:) notes, is rather Undue Weight. Editors 2352:Knowledge covers topics in proportion to 1809:User:Ultimatorr -- Single Purpose Account 2030:significant, not just that it happened. 1157:Yucky! Thanks, I should read that whole 3465:2A02:8388:1641:8380:419C:5734:36D4:E382 3326:2605:E000:9149:A600:60D1:B731:8D72:2CF6 1432:Is Miscavige the leader of the Sea Org? 826:. I like the idea of incorporating the 341:should be adopted, the obviously false 14: 2109:Ultimatorr, did you actually read the 563:, the policy you are asking us for is 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3535:2601:901:4300:1CF0:F5B1:8E41:2FD0:A86 3374:2601:82:c380:5d40:8de7:e13d:e8fb:dc9f 3193:. "Celebrate his accomplishments" is 2690:to let others know (documentation at 2592:Thank you, that looks a lot cleaner. 2568:Governmental lists of cults and sects 2426:I removed this, as amusing as it is: 339:"Leader of the Church of Scientology" 331:"Leader of the Church of Scientology" 1084:is lengthy and well sourced (it's a 468:"Leader of the Scientology religion" 343:"Leader of the Scientology religion" 335:"Leader of the Scientology religion" 25: 1997:) These are credible news sources. 1789:Listing 10,000 people in attendance 129:Church of Scientology International 23: 521:Knowledge's policies are based on 24: 3654: 3060:. Please take a moment to review 2850:. Please take a moment to review 2625:. Please take a moment to review 1632:. Please take a moment to review 1438:Is he the only permanent captain? 1435:Does he hold the rank of captain? 324:Point in fact David Miscavigs is 3619: 3549: 3500: 3339: 3291: 822:switched the person infobox for 29: 3602:Where has this been reported? — 2563:List of new religious movements 2259:is not a platform for promotion 1944:This claim to significance is 1335: 751:20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 728:20:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 13: 1: 3473:01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 3164:02:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 2944:07:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2602:16:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC) 2588:23:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) 2549:18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC) 2532:18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC) 2234:this is a different case, no? 1909:Scientology Media Productions 1744:20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 824:template:infobox officeholder 119:23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 103:22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3419:08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 3228:For clarity, this was about 3043:10:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 3028:15:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 2988:07:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 2970:15:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC) 2814:21:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 2794:21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 2769:06:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC) 2514:List of cults classification 1845:-- recommend immediate ban. 1176:00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC) 1153:21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 1135:20:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 1106:03:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC) 1063:00:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 1045:20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 1027:00:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC) 999:17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 976:20:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 950:00:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 934:00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 7: 3643:13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC) 3614:21:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC) 3597:20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC) 3576:01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 3543:00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC) 3527:to reactivate your request. 3515:has been answered. Set the 3488:00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 3318:to reactivate your request. 3306:has been answered. Set the 2561:Since that's a redirect to 2442:15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 2416:16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 2372:01:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 2335:00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 1882:, but that's not a suicide 1615:00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) 1584:00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC) 1568:23:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1550:22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1536:22:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1520:21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1486:14:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1460:11:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1415:10:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1393:08:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1320:07:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1279:06:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1264:06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1238:22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 1223:18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 794:17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 10: 3659: 3362:Distance from Philadelphia 3207:19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 3184:17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 3127:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3053:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2907:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2843:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2834:17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 2774:Miscairrage = Myszkiewicz. 2732:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2618:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2422:Removed blow-job vandalism 2300:17:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 2283:01:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2244:23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 1891:Sometimes they get blocked 1709:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1650:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 1625:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1302:captain at Flag Land Base, 799:Okay, I fixed it. Thanks. 702:16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 673:08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC) 657:22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 609:Skyparkroute101, you note 3444:06:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC) 3398:04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 3382:02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 3356:07:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 3334:05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC) 3006:If you would, please see 2949:Please add to See Also 😀 2217:18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 2191:00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 2157:22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 1783:19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 1764:18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 1143:). No easy answers here. 909:16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) 894:16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC) 875:06:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 856:15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 841:03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 809:07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) 710:David served legal papers 636:17:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 601:23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 586:16:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 551:02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 516:00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 496:01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 454:05:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 427:04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 394:22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 355:22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 318:03:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 288:01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 270:22:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 239:17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 202:04:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 168:22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 145:00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2129:01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) 2104:22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 2081:22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 2062:22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 2040:20:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 2022:19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 2007:22:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 1988:20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1974:20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1939:16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1903:02:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) 1873:22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 1855:21:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1843:Contributions/Ultimatorr 1835:20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1804:16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 1428:The questions here are: 1166:page which is also BLP. 815:Military rank in infobox 763:Family and Personal Life 3279:20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 3263:23:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 3223:20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 3049:External links modified 2839:External links modified 2614:External links modified 1621:External links modified 364:Additional references: 2271:single purpose account 2249:I'm not an admin. The 1082:The Hole (Scientology) 85:Introductory sentences 3404:Leader of the Sea Org 2518:A suggested edit for 2174:Church of Scientology 1607:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1528:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1478:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1385:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1271:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1230:Grammar'sLittleHelper 1215:Grammar'sLittleHelper 42:of past discussions. 3108:regular verification 2888:regular verification 2713:regular verification 2461:"The Truth Run Down" 1690:regular verification 1675:to let others know. 1636:. If necessary, add 863:Jenna Miscavige Hill 257:an historical figure 18:Talk:David Miscavige 3450:Bias in the article 3098:After February 2018 2878:After February 2018 2703:After February 2018 2682:parameter below to 2494:St Petersburg Times 2466:St Petersburg Times 1680:After February 2018 1671:parameter below to 299:wikt:Ecclesiastical 222:I agree with that, 3582:Evasion of service 3169:Lead modification. 3152:InternetArchiveBot 3103:InternetArchiveBot 2932:InternetArchiveBot 2883:InternetArchiveBot 2757:InternetArchiveBot 2708:InternetArchiveBot 2112:Christian Examiner 2089:and is engaged in 1685:InternetArchiveBot 880:under-scoring the 3574: 3531: 3530: 3446: 3434:comment added by 3384: 3372:comment added by 3322: 3321: 3128: 2908: 2796: 2784:comment added by 2733: 1742: 1710: 1358:Missing or empty 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3650: 3641: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3566: 3564: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3522: 3518: 3504: 3503: 3497: 3429: 3367: 3343: 3342: 3313: 3309: 3295: 3294: 3288: 3271:Wordsculptor2018 3247:reliable sources 3215:Wordsculptor2018 3176:Wordsculptor2018 3162: 3153: 3126: 3125: 3104: 2978:Yes, I agree. -- 2942: 2933: 2906: 2905: 2884: 2779: 2767: 2758: 2731: 2730: 2709: 2697: 2506: 2505: 2503: 2501: 2484: 2478: 2477: 2475: 2473: 2456: 1738: 1737:Talk to my owner 1733: 1708: 1707: 1686: 1651: 1643: 1368: 1367: 1361: 1356: 1354: 1346: 1339: 1074: 792: 789: 783: 777: 757:Reference Change 486:for my history. 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3658: 3657: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3629: 3620: 3618: 3584: 3560: 3550: 3548: 3520: 3516: 3513:David Miscavige 3501: 3495: 3452: 3426: 3406: 3364: 3340: 3311: 3307: 3304:David Miscavige 3292: 3286: 3171: 3156: 3151: 3119: 3112:have permission 3102: 3066:this simple FaQ 3058:David Miscavige 3051: 2951: 2936: 2931: 2899: 2892:have permission 2882: 2856:this simple FaQ 2848:David Miscavige 2841: 2822: 2802:reliable source 2776: 2761: 2756: 2724: 2717:have permission 2707: 2691: 2631:this simple FaQ 2623:David Miscavige 2616: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2499: 2497: 2485: 2481: 2471: 2469: 2457: 2453: 2424: 2227: 1911: 1811: 1791: 1751: 1741: 1736: 1701: 1694:have permission 1684: 1645: 1637: 1630:David Miscavige 1623: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1359: 1357: 1348: 1347: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1190: 1141:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 1068: 986: 921: 817: 787: 781: 775: 772: 759: 712: 644: 561:Skyparkroute101 508:Skyparkroute101 386:Skyparkroute101 280:Skyparkroute101 95:Skyparkroute101 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3656: 3646: 3645: 3616: 3589:173.88.246.138 3587:to find him)? 3583: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3529: 3528: 3505: 3494: 3491: 3480:172.113.46.119 3451: 3448: 3436:203.145.95.191 3425: 3422: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3363: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3320: 3319: 3296: 3285: 3282: 3266: 3265: 3242: 3233: 3210: 3209: 3170: 3167: 3146: 3145: 3138: 3091: 3090: 3082:Added archive 3080: 3072:Added archive 3050: 3047: 3033: 3031: 3030: 3016: 3012: 3004: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2973: 2972: 2950: 2947: 2926: 2925: 2918: 2871: 2870: 2862:Added archive 2840: 2837: 2821: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2800:Do you have a 2775: 2772: 2751: 2750: 2743: 2676: 2675: 2667:Added archive 2665: 2657:Added archive 2655: 2647:Added archive 2645: 2637:Added archive 2615: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2479: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2423: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2387: 2375: 2374: 2350: 2346: 2303: 2302: 2286: 2285: 2255: 2226: 2225:New discussion 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2197: 2169: 2132: 2131: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 1991: 1990: 1976: 1910: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1887: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1810: 1807: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1750: 1747: 1734: 1728: 1727: 1720: 1665: 1664: 1656:Added archive 1622: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1591:-- well said, 1586: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1504:Heber Jentzsch 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1370: 1369: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1189: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1119: 1109: 1108: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1030: 1029: 985: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 964: 956: 920: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 896: 816: 813: 812: 811: 758: 755: 754: 753: 711: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 686: 643: 640: 639: 638: 623: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 554: 553: 538: 530: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 476: 459: 458: 457: 456: 430: 429: 358: 357: 321: 320: 304: 303: 275: 274: 273: 272: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 227: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 150: 149: 148: 147: 133:Heber Jentzsch 122: 121: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3655: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3626: 3617: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3563: 3562:Pupsterlove02 3556: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3526: 3523:parameter to 3514: 3510: 3506: 3499: 3498: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3460: 3456: 3447: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3346: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3317: 3314:parameter to 3305: 3301: 3297: 3290: 3289: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3243: 3239: 3234: 3231: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3195:WP:PEACOCKery 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3166: 3165: 3160: 3155: 3154: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3123: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3099: 3094: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3046: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3035:165.214.11.69 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3002: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2935: 2934: 2923: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2903: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2879: 2874: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786:74.15.216.160 2783: 2771: 2770: 2765: 2760: 2759: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2728: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2704: 2699: 2695: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2520:List of cults 2496: 2495: 2490: 2483: 2468: 2467: 2462: 2455: 2451: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2427: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2360: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2319: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2309: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251:Reuters piece 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2231: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2166: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2147: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2113: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2092: 2088: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1746: 1745: 1739: 1732: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1705: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1681: 1676: 1674: 1670: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1641: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1447: 1440: 1437: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399:Rolling Stone 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1365: 1352: 1344: 1338: 1334: 1331: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 977: 973: 969: 965: 962: 957: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 938: 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 910: 906: 902: 897: 895: 891: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 829: 825: 821: 810: 806: 802: 798: 797: 796: 795: 790: 788:Contributions 784: 778: 770: 768: 764: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 717: 703: 699: 695: 691: 690:Time Magazine 687: 684: 683:Time Magazine 679: 676: 675: 674: 670: 666: 661: 660: 659: 658: 654: 650: 637: 633: 629: 624: 621: 617: 612: 608: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 574: 573:User:Grayfell 570: 566: 562: 558: 557: 556: 555: 552: 548: 544: 539: 536: 531: 528: 524: 520: 519: 518: 517: 513: 509: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 474: 471:demonstrably 469: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 455: 451: 447: 442: 438: 434: 433: 432: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 411: 406: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 391: 387: 381: 377: 376: 373: 370: 367: 362: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 327: 323: 322: 319: 315: 311: 306: 305: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 271: 267: 263: 258: 254: 253: 252: 251: 240: 236: 232: 228: 225: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 169: 165: 161: 156: 155: 154: 153: 152: 151: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 125: 124: 123: 120: 116: 112: 107: 106: 105: 104: 100: 96: 91: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3637: 3631: 3624: 3603: 3585: 3561: 3554: 3532: 3524: 3509:edit request 3476: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3430:— Preceding 3427: 3407: 3368:— Preceding 3365: 3344: 3323: 3315: 3300:edit request 3267: 3250: 3211: 3172: 3150: 3147: 3122:source check 3101: 3095: 3092: 3055: 3052: 3045:ThePunisher 3032: 3000: 2994: 2952: 2930: 2927: 2902:source check 2881: 2875: 2872: 2845: 2842: 2823: 2780:— Preceding 2777: 2755: 2752: 2727:source check 2706: 2700: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2677: 2620: 2617: 2517: 2498:. Retrieved 2492: 2482: 2470:. Retrieved 2464: 2454: 2446: 2431: 2428: 2425: 2402: 2380:Bluefishwarp 2342: 2327:Bluefishwarp 2324: 2320: 2304: 2236:Bluefishwarp 2232: 2228: 2204: 2177: 2133: 2116: 2110: 2084: 2065: 2046: 2010: 1992: 1912: 1861: 1814: 1812: 1792: 1752: 1729: 1704:source check 1683: 1677: 1672: 1668: 1666: 1627: 1624: 1599: 1588: 1556: 1500: 1448: 1444: 1427: 1398: 1337: 1329: 1306: 1296: 1226: 1199: 1191: 1122: 1114:Thank you, ( 1086:good article 1051: 1010: 987: 960: 922: 881: 818: 771: 760: 743:Coffeepusher 713: 689: 682: 645: 642:Time mention 620:demonstrably 619: 615: 610: 578:Coffeepusher 523:WP:CONSENSUS 504: 472: 467: 446:Coffeepusher 444:Scientology. 409: 382: 378: 363: 359: 342: 338: 334: 330: 325: 294: 276: 256: 189: 111:Coffeepusher 92: 88: 75: 43: 37: 3388:Okay. And? 2694:Sourcecheck 2500:January 21, 2267:gnome edits 1756:Truegravity 1298:Tulsa World 1293:this source 1123:informative 1094:WP:BLPCRIME 1071:Truegravity 1055:Truegravity 991:Truegravity 926:Truegravity 919:Recent edit 559:No problem 36:This is an 3558:, thanks. 3517:|answered= 3308:|answered= 3238:WP:PEACOCK 3191:WP:LINKROT 3159:Report bug 3020:Damotclese 2962:Damotclese 2939:Report bug 2826:Damotclese 2804:for that? 2764:Report bug 2594:Damotclese 2541:Damotclese 2524:Damotclese 2447:References 2434:Damotclese 2408:Damotclese 2292:Damotclese 2209:Damotclese 2149:Ultimatorr 2096:Damotclese 2091:WP:NOTHERE 2073:Ultimatorr 2054:Ultimatorr 2014:Ultimatorr 1999:Ultimatorr 1980:Damotclese 1931:Ultimatorr 1865:Ultimatorr 1847:Damotclese 1827:Damotclese 1796:Damotclese 1771:WP:PEACOCK 1749:Early life 1330:References 1193:Damotclese 1168:Damotclese 1164:Phil Mason 1127:Damotclese 1077:WP:LINKROT 1037:Damotclese 968:Damotclese 901:Damotclese 886:Damotclese 848:Damotclese 720:Damotclese 694:Damotclese 678:Mickmontez 665:Dkspartan1 649:Mickmontez 628:Damotclese 569:Damotclese 488:Damotclese 484:Damotclese 437:Damotclese 347:Damotclese 262:Damotclese 231:Damotclese 160:Damotclese 3424:July 2021 3348:Danski454 3230:this edit 3142:this tool 3135:this tool 2922:this tool 2915:this tool 2747:this tool 2740:this tool 1962:Gold Base 1958:WP:GOSSIP 1724:this tool 1717:this tool 1207:698458747 820:This edit 776:Septegram 565:WP:WEIGHT 410:described 405:WP:ASSUME 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3632:Cambial 3572:contribs 3432:unsigned 3390:Grayfell 3370:unsigned 3255:Grayfell 3251:specific 3199:Grayfell 3148:Cheers.— 2928:Cheers.— 2806:Grayfell 2782:unsigned 2753:Cheers.— 2580:Grayfell 2472:June 23, 2432:Thanks. 2395:Grayfell 2378:Thanks, 2364:Grayfell 2275:Grayfell 2183:Grayfell 2178:Church's 2121:Grayfell 2032:Grayfell 1966:Grayfell 1950:WP:SYNTH 1895:Grayfell 1775:Grayfell 1730:Cheers.— 1640:cbignore 1603:contribs 1576:Grayfell 1542:Grayfell 1512:Grayfell 1508:WP:SYNTH 1407:Grayfell 1351:cite web 1312:Grayfell 1203:contribs 1145:Grayfell 1098:Grayfell 1019:Grayfell 1007:WP:CLAIM 942:Grayfell 867:Grayfell 833:Grayfell 801:Grayfell 716:Narconon 593:Grayfell 543:Grayfell 419:Grayfell 415:MOS:LEAD 401:WP:CIVIL 310:Grayfell 224:Grayfell 194:Grayfell 192:leader. 137:Grayfell 3638:foliar❧ 3062:my edit 2980:Slashme 2852:my edit 2680:checked 2627:my edit 2578:, etc. 2576:WP:NPOV 2359:WP:FART 1884:WP:PACT 1740::Online 1669:checked 1634:my edit 1593:Slashme 1560:Slashme 1452:Slashme 1360:|title= 1256:Slashme 882:Captian 828:Sea Org 527:WP:NPOV 480:WP:NPOV 260:nobody. 39:archive 3605:C.Fred 3008:WP:BLP 2688:failed 2572:WP:BLP 2391:WP:BLP 2354:WP:DUE 2201:WP:BLP 2087:WP:SPA 1880:WP:AGF 1819:WP:SPA 1648:nobots 1403:WP:DUE 1159:WP:BPL 1090:WP:BLP 1015:WP:DUE 984:Powell 924:think? 739:WP:BLP 441:WP:POV 186:WP:BLP 3521:|ans= 3507:This 3411:Laval 3312:|ans= 3298:This 3001:might 2403:could 2343:maybe 1954:WP:RS 1946:WP:OR 1823:R2-45 1011:Today 735:WP:RS 535:WP:RS 16:< 3625:Done 3610:talk 3593:talk 3568:talk 3555:Done 3539:talk 3484:talk 3469:talk 3440:talk 3415:talk 3394:talk 3378:talk 3352:talk 3345:Done 3330:talk 3275:talk 3259:talk 3219:talk 3203:talk 3180:talk 3039:talk 3024:talk 2984:talk 2966:talk 2830:talk 2810:talk 2790:talk 2684:true 2598:talk 2584:talk 2545:talk 2528:talk 2502:2012 2474:2009 2438:talk 2412:talk 2399:talk 2384:talk 2368:talk 2331:talk 2296:talk 2279:talk 2240:talk 2213:talk 2203:and 2187:talk 2153:talk 2125:talk 2100:talk 2077:talk 2058:talk 2036:talk 2018:talk 2003:talk 1984:talk 1970:talk 1935:talk 1899:talk 1869:talk 1851:talk 1831:talk 1800:talk 1779:talk 1760:talk 1673:true 1611:talk 1597:talk 1580:talk 1564:talk 1546:talk 1532:talk 1516:talk 1482:talk 1456:talk 1411:talk 1389:talk 1364:help 1316:talk 1275:talk 1260:talk 1234:talk 1219:talk 1197:talk 1172:talk 1149:talk 1131:talk 1116:talk 1102:talk 1092:and 1075:See 1059:talk 1041:talk 1023:talk 995:talk 972:talk 946:talk 930:talk 905:talk 890:talk 871:talk 852:talk 837:talk 805:talk 782:Talk 747:talk 737:and 724:talk 698:talk 669:talk 653:talk 632:talk 597:talk 582:talk 547:talk 512:talk 492:talk 473:true 450:talk 423:talk 403:and 390:talk 351:talk 314:talk 284:talk 266:talk 235:talk 198:talk 190:only 164:talk 141:talk 115:talk 99:talk 3519:or 3511:to 3310:or 3302:to 3116:RfC 3086:to 3076:to 2896:RfC 2866:to 2721:RfC 2698:). 2686:or 2671:to 2661:to 2651:to 2641:to 2205:not 1815:now 1698:RfC 1660:to 1307:the 1080:on 961:lot 761:In 616:not 384:up. 326:not 3635:— 3612:) 3595:) 3570:• 3541:) 3525:no 3486:) 3471:) 3442:) 3417:) 3396:) 3380:) 3354:) 3332:) 3316:no 3277:) 3261:) 3221:) 3205:) 3182:) 3129:. 3124:}} 3120:{{ 3041:) 3026:) 2986:) 2968:) 2909:. 2904:}} 2900:{{ 2832:) 2812:) 2792:) 2734:. 2729:}} 2725:{{ 2696:}} 2692:{{ 2600:) 2586:) 2574:, 2547:) 2530:) 2491:. 2463:. 2440:) 2414:) 2370:) 2333:) 2298:) 2281:) 2242:) 2215:) 2189:) 2165:RT 2155:) 2127:) 2102:) 2079:) 2060:) 2038:) 2020:) 2005:) 1986:) 1972:) 1937:) 1901:) 1886:). 1871:) 1853:) 1833:) 1802:) 1781:) 1762:) 1711:. 1706:}} 1702:{{ 1646:{{ 1642:}} 1638:{{ 1613:) 1582:) 1566:) 1548:) 1534:) 1518:) 1484:) 1458:) 1450:-- 1413:) 1391:) 1355:: 1353:}} 1349:{{ 1318:) 1277:) 1262:) 1236:) 1221:) 1174:) 1151:) 1133:) 1104:) 1061:) 1043:) 1025:) 997:) 974:) 948:) 932:) 907:) 892:) 873:) 854:) 839:) 807:) 749:) 726:) 700:) 671:) 655:) 634:) 599:) 584:) 549:) 514:) 494:) 452:) 425:) 392:) 353:) 316:) 286:) 268:) 237:) 200:) 166:) 143:) 117:) 101:) 3608:( 3591:( 3537:( 3482:( 3467:( 3438:( 3413:( 3392:( 3376:( 3350:( 3328:( 3273:( 3257:( 3232:. 3217:( 3201:( 3178:( 3161:) 3157:( 3144:. 3137:. 3037:( 3022:( 2982:( 2964:( 2941:) 2937:( 2924:. 2917:. 2828:( 2808:( 2788:( 2766:) 2762:( 2749:. 2742:. 2596:( 2582:( 2543:( 2526:( 2504:. 2476:. 2436:( 2410:( 2397:( 2382:( 2366:( 2329:( 2294:( 2277:( 2238:( 2211:( 2185:( 2151:( 2123:( 2098:( 2075:( 2056:( 2034:( 2016:( 2001:( 1982:( 1968:( 1933:( 1897:( 1867:( 1849:( 1829:( 1798:( 1777:( 1758:( 1726:. 1719:. 1609:( 1600:· 1595:( 1578:( 1562:( 1544:( 1530:( 1514:( 1480:( 1454:( 1409:( 1387:( 1366:) 1362:( 1345:. 1314:( 1273:( 1258:( 1232:( 1217:( 1200:· 1195:( 1170:( 1147:( 1129:( 1100:( 1073:: 1069:@ 1057:( 1039:( 1021:( 993:( 970:( 944:( 928:( 903:( 888:( 869:( 850:( 835:( 803:( 791:* 785:* 779:* 773:* 745:( 722:( 696:( 667:( 651:( 630:( 595:( 580:( 545:( 510:( 490:( 448:( 421:( 388:( 349:( 312:( 295:A 282:( 264:( 233:( 196:( 162:( 139:( 113:( 97:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index