Talk:Shelly Miscavige

Spelling of first name

Do we have a reliable source for the correct spelling of her first name? Laval (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question, I just noticed the mismatch between the 1st line of the article and the article name. It's definitely Michele, according to Lawrence Wright (cited in the article). Prioryman (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Authorities?

I don't understand the casual tone of the speculation in this article. Is there any chance she's dead? Are police/FBI actively looking for her? 209.172.25.240 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

so far she is only "speculated" as a missing person, both her family and the church state that she is not missing but rather prefers to be out of the public eye. my understanding is that for an official investigation to take place you need someone associated with the person to file a report (simply being interested in someone's whereabouts as a private citizen isn't enough to get the police force to do a search). If you have any WP:RS which point to an official investigation then we can add those.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

CoffeePusher hit it on the head. One of the reasons that she is so interesting is that nobody knows what happened to her. She might be sipping mai tais on a nondescript beach avoiding public attention, she might be in the Hole, she might be dead; nobody knows. So it's extremely important that we only use well sourced articles from reliable sources in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 14:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically, what I'm about to say is simply speculative extrapolation on my part... however much it may correlate with what we've already seen going on in the Church of Scientology. My assumption is that when Davey-boy came back from his hiatus to find that Shelly had taken the initiative to get things done for him in his absence, he may have been embarrassed, upset or felt threatened by the results and opted to permenantly Hole/RFP her. Remember that David Miscavige's assumption of power was essentially an opportunistic coup d'etat upon the death of LRH, given his realization that "Power is assumed". There has, in any event, been no defacto proof given that Shelly is so alive and well as the CoS and the police wish people to believe. If I told you that Jimmy Hoffa was alive and well, as confirmed by a pathological liar, would you really believe me? Didn't think so.

Please understand, also, that they have agents on the web who actively work to disinform, misinform, spin and manipulate the public with information counter to what's really going on. A lot of them are too brainwashed to actually *know* the truth... and I don't fault such individuals in this way. However, on an organizational basis, I do fault the CoS for the mind control, fear-mongering, corruption, fraud and other tactics that they use to get their adherents to propagate such anti-truth. FraudyMissCabbage (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. But I just cannot understand, why authorities don't do their job. If you take a look at the facts: A person is missing, authorities have to search for this person and clarify what happened. If the person can be found and there is no crime, everything is fine anyway. So why don't they just do their job, start a proper invesitgation and do whatever it takes to localize Shelly Miscavige? 94.217.8.120 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP violations

Considering issues of BLP at other articles about Scientologists and sourcing issues that have been brought up, it is only fair to bring them up here. Technically speaking, based on general standards of BLP upheld at articles such as Grant Cardone, this article is essentially totally speculative and completely in violation of WP:BLP. I had a hell of a time simply having the simple fact of Cardone's membership in the church being retained, whereas in this article, we have speculation being presented as fact. For some reason, the editors who opposed the fact of Cardone's affiliation with Scientology have no such issues with the flagrant violations of BLP in this article. Something is amiss here. Laval (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the earlier revert, Laval, but when I checked the talkpage you hadn't posted yet. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is well sourced using WP:RS so it isn't WP:OR or speculation, but rather WP:V and given appropriate weight. Simply saying there are BLP violations doesn't mean there are BLP violations. Could you please let us know exactly how you feel this article is in violation.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I created this article and I have no idea who Mr. Cardone is. After you added the tag, I carefully read the article again and see references to reliable sources for all major claims. Nobody seems to know what happened to the subject of this BLP, and her disappearance is notable and well documented in numerous books and journalistic articles. Andrew³²⁷ 13:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose that give the tag one week and then assess editor consensus on the matter. Andrew³²⁷ 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an editor who believes there are BLP concerns about an article has a responsibility to spell out exactly what he thinks the problem is. It's disappointing that Laval hasn't done this despite apparently canvassing in multiple places. There are evidently plenty of people here who will help fix any problems but there's nothing anyone can do without some specifics from Laval. Prioryman (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewman, lets give it a week and see what kind of tightening up we can do before we remove the tag. I've taken a second look as well, and the only questionable source I can find is a blog which is used to identify who her parents are, and that source isn't used for anything else in the article(her parents identities are a non-contestable point I assume, and thus the use of a blog isn't a violation of BLP). Otherwise just about everything in the article is backed up by at least one reliable source, two in many cases, and I believe that there is proper weight given throughout the article. Everything is represented in a neutral manner, I can't find any WP:PEACOCK or cases where things are stated in wikipedia's voice as opposed to the tone of the original source, and her husband's and the church of scientology's position is represented with an even tone to the rest of the article (and we might point out that the person who wrote that section is an editor who has since been topic banned from Scientology articles for editing with a pro-scientology bias). This isn't a fringe view, and has generated enough sources to be a notable person as well as notable event. I'm really curious what WP:BLP violations Laval is worried about. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Six years later, these BLP concerns remain. Whether or not Miscavige has been “disappeared” is irrelevant. Whether or not you find the “Church” of Scientology to be repugnant is also irrelevant. What is relevant, is that the BLP policy demands we use reliable sourcing for this (and every) article about a person presumed to be alive. This is not a soapbox. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Cat among the pigeons

Wow. Not reliably sourced yet but if this story takes off (and it will, I'm sure) expect a lot more media coverage soon. Prioryman (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I just removed a related claim from the article pending a reliable source, but I agree, this article could become much more popular. It might even warrant an "In the news". Andrew³²⁷ 18:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably not an "in the news" but it's certainly caught fire in a big way. It's now been confirmed by an impeccable source, The Hollywood Reporter, so I've added it to the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the previous link in the introduction, which was to E! Online, with a link to the LA Times as a more reliable source. The LA Times also stated the circumstances slightly differently, and so I updated those words. Importantly, the LA Times does not refer to any 'face to face' meeting. Ambiguosity (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

LAPD call rumors unfounded - Miscavige NOT missing

Check it out for yourselves: [1]

Numerous other outlets are running with this story. This shows just how screwed up this article is. Wikipedia is better than this tabloid rumormongering. Laval (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say this to all those who have insisted this article be nothing more than a receptacle of tabloid fodder: WP:BLP. Laval (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read BLP again, Michele Miscavige has generated a lot of discussion among reliable sources regarding her whereabouts. So much so that if she came out right now and remained in public sight for the rest of her life this article would still pass notability due to the fact that it was a significant event in both the church's existence and in her life, more so now that the LAPD has made a public statement on a missing persons report filed by a high profile defector. Right now on both the BLP board and here we have 4 editors who have been over this article and state that there aren't any violations (one of those editors had no previous edits in scientology). You have been asked several times "where exactly are the BLP violations?" with no specific response. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

She has not been seen in public for many years, and it has not been released where she's been or why she has not been seen. This is a bit strange. There are many sources discussing this. The controversy is note worthy. How is it a BLP problem to cover the controversy over her lack of public appearances and unknown location and the current revelations by the LAPD? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and look at this development. The wife of a controversial religious leader suddenly vanishes from public view without any explanation. Books, magazines, and newspapers provide coverage of the disappearance. Her friends worry about her well being. When the police look into the matter, they provide a cryptic message that basically says "She's alive, but we can't tell you anything else."

The current version of the article provides well sourced information describing this clearly notable chain of events. Just as I did above, I encourage any editor with specific BLP concerns to raise them here for public discussion. Andrew³²⁷ 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Something is odd about this one. No press release on http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom and nothing from the Los Angeles Times, which is pretty much the standard place for the LAPD to make press announcements. On the other hand, I don't believe that it is bogus; TMZ said "Law enforcement tells TMZ..."[2] and they are usually pretty good about specifying what is and is not sourced. It just seems weird. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The LA times has covered this. Here and here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Flo Barnett's suicide: more neutral reporting.

I've just read the Village Voice article, and it's pretty clear that it wasn't a cover-up, so I included some text to clarify this. The article is by Tony Ortega, but I don't think that's a problem, because even though he's not neutral, he's critical of Scientology, and the article helps to clear up the obvious questions about how it's possible that "three rifle shots to the chest and one to the head" could well be consistent with suicide, even if very unusual. The article also includes his discussions with the investigating officers, who were personally convinced that it was a suicide. --Slashme (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you do such a thing: Suicide with four shots, probabliy three of them terminal? 94.217.8.120 (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you read the Village Voice article, it explains in great detail how competent investigators came to a conclusion consistent with suicide about Flo Barnett's death. Yes, it is *very* unusual. The writer of the article is no friend to Scientology. I'm not either. But Mr. Ortega has experts who were involved in the actual autopsy and investigation go on record about the number and nature of the wounds, and how they could be consistent with suicide. It is highly unusual, but apparently not impossible. 165.110.5.64 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michele Miscavige. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703092228/http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart3.html to http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/102598/scientologypart3.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Quit trying, to no avail, to cover this up while also ill-affecting the integrity of Wikipedia

Looks like the Scientology Cult has their hands deep into trying to cover up her disappearance... even to the extend of editing Wikipedia. Please don't think that the public is stupid and that we haven't already deduced exactly who you are and where you're connecting from. You already know that we are Legion, we never forgive, we never forget, and we still run this. It's been over ten years and you still haven't learned your lesson... even after we took you to school.

Wikipedia isn't the place for you to spread your counter-truths... now run along. And for future reference, please understand that the public is on to the tactics of your violent, abusive and fraudulent religious cult. You're not fooling anyone. The only acceptable proof that Shelly hasn't been purposely disappeared by David and his version of the Gestapo, known as OSA, is to produce her.. and you won't do that. Why? Because you can't.

To everyone else, what you should know is that the CoS is known to go online and try to dispel the truth being told about them... spreading disinformation, propaganda and other lies on the web through forums, newsgroups and any number of other sources. Scientology is also widely known to "disappear" and "destroy" people, as confirmed by their own ex-members... and there are more ex-members than current members for a very good reason. The LAPD never proved that they actually saw or spoke to Shelly in person to confirm her status. The LAPD are bedfellowed with the CoS... just as the corrupt police in Clearwater and other places are. You can't trust law enforcement... especially when they're being bribed by this sick, dangerous cult.

In the spirit of the factual integrity required by Wikipedia, this article will be undergoing massive editing in accordance with what is and isn't factually known. Any edits thereafter should duly being in accordance with said rules or the changes will be reverted. This isn't the place for he-said, she-said B.S.

The second paragraph (re: Tom Cruise et. al) has at least been truncated at this time to more or less stay on topic. Everything else was excessive and already covered in previous articles regarding Tom Cruise, Scientology, etc.

FraudyMissCabbage (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

References to being "Missing" or "Disappeared"

Reliable sources indicate that the LAPD investigated allegations that Shelly was missing or had disappeared, and met with Shelly, and then closed those complaints as unfounded. So, we should avoid referring to Shelly as having disappeared. The better terminology is that she has been out of the public eye. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that she disappeared. What it means is that we can't say she was kidnapped or possibly murdered, which used to be a theory prior to the LAPD statement. Andrew³²⁷ 18:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The term "disappear" is inappropriate as it means "to be lost or missing; become impossible to find." Clearly she was not impossible to find because the LAPD did, in fact, find her. The term "withdrawal from the public eye" is a better term that's supported by RS and not loaded with implications. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If it takes a team of police officers to find you to make sure you haven't been kidnapped, "disappeared" seems appropriate. Andrew³²⁷ 18:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No reliable source indicates that they had any trouble in locating her. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google search turned up this lede from Vanity Fair: "After the wife of Scientology leader David Miscavige disappeared from public view, in 2007, those who asked questions were stonewalled, or worse." Fox News wrote that Shelly "allegedly disappeared in 2007." We could change the article to match the wording of one of these sources, i.e. "disappeared from public view." Andrew³²⁷ 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs changing or re-wording at the moment, but it's probably not misleading if it's always qualified with the phrase "from public view." Simply saying that she "disappeared" implies something very different. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. Saying she has "disappeared" implies no one knows where she is. "disappeared from public view" is better, since many people (including the police) know where she is. Ashmoo (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Just say what we know: she was last seen in public in 2007; missing person reports were investigated, etc. Jonathunder (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The reason I made this post on the Talk page is because an editor added a "missing for eleven years" line to the infobox. Given that many (most?) of the edits on this page have something to do with her withdrawal from the public eye, I thought it would be worth talking about exactly how we're going to reference this on the talk page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A problem with "for x years" in the infobox is it will need maintenance. Jonathunder (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there exists some type of counter that will give you an up-to-the-minute count based on the start date you plug in. But all technical issues aside, I think the implications of "missing" or "disappeared" are inherently misleading, so I wanted to see if consensus can be reached about that. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Supposedly the San Bernadino County sheriff's department met with Miscavige in 2013, but they won't release any information about this meeting. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Five-plus years later, we are still having the same problem here. I have just edited the infobox to remove material describing Miscavige as having "disappeared" on a certain date and as being "missing" for a certain length of time. It is completely misleading for the infobox to say that Miscavige has disappeared and is missing when the article cites a reliable source saying that she was located in 2013 and that a missing persons report was deemed unfounded. I get that some people don't believe the LAPD on this, and those people's skepticism is noted in the article. But more than skepticism is needed before the infobox can refer to her as disappeared and missing. 172.100.117.24 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Year she was last seen in public

The article states she was has not been seen in public since August 2007, but both references for that statement say 2006. Another sentence in the second paragraph states, "Shortly afterwards, in June 2006, she no longer made any appearances in public." So which is it, June 2006 or August 2007? Melonkelon (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the June 2006 and August 2007 dates are sourced from the same book - Going Clear, only about ten pages apart. I don't have a copy, so I can't refer to it. Based on how these dates are used in the article, though, it sounds like June 2006 was the last time she attended a public event while August 2007 was the last time she was spotted in public at all. A quick Google search indicates that the August 2007 date was when she attended her father's funeral. According to Tony Ortega's blog, Shelly was spotted in a grocery store in 2015 but it doesn't sound particularly reliable. Someone claims they were "90% sure" that they saw Shelly. Fairly weak IMO and not appropriate for inclusion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Retreat into Private Life

Greyfell removed the words "retreat into private life" with the edit summary of "subtle editorializing." Can you explain why? Diff: [[3]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Because "retreat into public life" is both redundant, and also presumptuous. It implies (arguably indirectly) that she was obligated to have a "public life" and that her "retreat" was intentional or voluntary. Neither of these points are well-supported, and neither are necessary for a section title. She is no longer in the public eye, and that's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Retreat" definitely implies a voluntariness that's non-NPOV in this context. "Missing persons report" might be a more accurate section title, but in the interest of balance 'Absence from public eye' works. Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I don't think that it carries any implication that she was obligated to have a public life. Why do you think that? As for your second point, the idea that Shelley was forced into a private life is speculation and unsupported by reliable sources. As the article cites, the LAPD conducted a check on her and the missing persons report was unfounded. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not ping me again. I've explained myself clearly enough. The section title is more succinct and more neutral, and you are wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, Well, okay. My problem is that you reverted this edit and asked that it be taken to talk. I created a talk section. You didn't respond for almost three months. I went ahead and made the edit again, as nobody objected, and you immediately reverted it back despite not participating at talk. Now you don't want to continue the discussion. This is not a collaborative approach to editing this article. You can't just revert and revert without expecting some discussion on the talk page. Please review WP:OWN. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We aim always to use neutral and concise language, 'Absence from the public eye' is neutral. The addition appears both redundant and speculative and does not improve the article. Mramoeba (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Contrary to May His Shadow Fall Upon You's comments, I did not specifically suggest discussing this on this talk page, because it seems obviously unnecessary. Assuming goof faith, May His Shadow Fall Upon You is confusing me with some other editor, or this page with some other page. If this isn't important enough to keep these details straight, what does that say about the edit itself? Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox information about death

The info box says Shelly has died, but I don't see confirmation of this in the BLP. It is my understanding that, as far as we know, her current life status is still unconfirmed and only based on speculation.Writethisway (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Writethisway, I see that you fixed this yourself - thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Shelly Miscavige → Controversy on Michele Miscavige's public absence – Shelly Miscavige is only known for her public absence, as what all the reliable sources discuss. She is not notable as her own person and does not warrant her own article. The page is better contextually if moved to “Controversy of Michele/Shelly Miscavige’s public absence” to correctly represent the content of the page. Cupnoodle2021 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Overly unwieldy title, and this article has previously been kept at AFD. There is also not much of an event here to center an article around IMO. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the comment at the AfD, Miscavige was notable as a church leader before her disappearance from view. Hence I think that the current article title is the natural one, as well as being more concise. Wham2001 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dependence on Wright source

The entire "Scientology career" section of the article, including everything about Tom Cruise and Miscavige's role in finding a girlfriend for him, is all sourced to the same book, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, by Lawrence Wright. Given how obviously controversial all of this is, I'm surprised that a single source is cited for so much factual material. Is all of that really undisputed fact? — BarrelProof (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. I know very little about this subject – I came to the article via recent changes patrol – but I agree that heavy reliance on one source is undesirable. Looking briefly at Wright, he appears to be a well-respected journalist but not to have written about Scientology beyond this book – so probably reliable, but not "unambiguous subject expert" territory. This book appears to be another plausible source if you wanted to improve the paragraph, and I would guess that the articles on Miscavige's husband and on Scientology itself might have further and probably better sources. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, You make a good point. I'm a little concerned by this type of publication - a one off book (i.e. the author is not a SME) and one with clearly an axe to grind (regardless of how legitimate that axe may be, it's still concerning from a reliability standpoint.) In other words, Wright hasn't proven his reliability on this topic. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ShellyRemini.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ReminiMiscavige.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Miscaviges.webp
• ReminiMissingPerson.webp
• ShellyLeah.webp
• ShellyMiscavige1112.jpg
• ShellyMiscavige1990.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no First lady of Scientology

In Scientology, there is no "first lady". David Miscavige is overwhelmingly considered the one and only leader of Scientology — universally referred to as "COB" (or infrequently as "COB RTC"), but his wife Shelly was never presented as anything akin to the concept of First lady. The concept of a First lady is a revered honorary title indicating social status or respect and courtesy. Shelly Miscavige was David Miscavige's "Communicator", which is on the same level as an executive assistant, administrative assistant or secretary in corporate America. David Miscavige held national events by himself, without Shelly. The idea that someone married to the leader is always called "First lady" is incorrect. Grorp (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Disappeared versus withdrawn from public

I made an edit where I restored several bits that IP 172.100.117.24 changed. They modified content away from what the cited sources say, and towards their preferred version of events. "Disappeared" is the term used in all the reports, articles and books. Whether or not Shelly is actually 'disappeared' or 'withdrawn from public' is irrelevant in Wikipedia editing. It is what the sources say that matters in how we present it. The IP editor's conclusion of the mystery doesn't change the sources or Wikipedia's coverage.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description

@Marcus Markup: Per WP:Short description § Content, Each description should provide a brief overview of the topic, a short annotation, and a way to differentiate it from other similarly titled articles. You are focusing solely on the last phrase, to the exclusion of the first phrase (brief overview). Your choice of short description as "Scientologist (born 1961)" is just about useless. Shelly isn't known for "being a Scientologist"; she's known for being the missing wife of the leader of Scientology, and the article reflects that weight.

Note that about 50% of Wikipedia readers view the mobile version, and any search in the mobile version shows the short description immediately below each article title in the search list. My version of short description as "Missing wife of Scientology leader" (34 chars) is actually an overview of the topic. Even a disambiguation page uses short blurbs longer than something as brief as "Scientologist (born 1961)".

Go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and type in "Shelly M" and see the short descriptions of other Shellys. The short description is there to assist a reader in their search. With a last name like "Miscavige" (which most people mispronounce, and fewer can spell), having a good short description could be helpful for them finding what they are looking for. As long as it's less than 40 characters, there is no point in trying hard to shorten it further.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Requiring readers to parse complete sentences when presented with a list of possible hits is not preferable over having them just have to recognize one adjective. It is a better interface design philosophy, and a main reason why short descriptions are recommended to be as short as possible. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

"Missing wife of Scientology leader" is not a sentence and isn't a burden to readers (as you infer). You are taking your preferences to an extreme. And "(born 1961)" is something that no one is going to use as a disambiguator.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If every entry in a list of hits was a sentence, it would be a burden. I am not taking my "preference" to an "extreme", I am simply applying the guidelines as I read them. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Including the DOB in parentheses is the standard for short descriptions of BLPs. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I know of no Wikipedia guideline or policy suggesting such 'standards'. Can you point to any?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a prior conversation about the subject on a talk page about the issue before, with a respected senior editor. I objected to the practice of adding DOBs, actually, and removed it which is why they discussed it with me, and they restored it, and pointed out to me that it was the standard (as a quick review of sample BLPs will demonstrate to you). I am not going to go find that conversation. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually would have no objection to the DOB being removed. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

John Oliver videos

For editors who may want further verification of the John Oliver blurbs, here are youtube shorts I found excerpted from the March 19, 2023 Episode 274 and August 18, 2024 Episode 311 shows.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)