Talk:Shelly Miscavige

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)

She IS missing and she HAS disappeared. No one is saying she's dead or kidnapped. But she hasn't been seen in almost 20 years. That, by definition, means she is missing and has disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2025 (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)

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)

A similar edit was just made from another IP editor: Diff/1314132411. This specific way of phrasing the events seems to hold someone's interest. Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn: Thank you for pointing out the IP edit. This phrasing has been reverted before, and for good reason. Saying "Miscavige has not appeared in public since 2007" implies she was a public figure in her own right, which isn't accurate. Her visibility stemmed from her constant presence alongside David Miscavige, functioning as one of his close aides and enforcers. She was seen because he was seen.

The sudden and unexplained absence of someone who was previously always at his side constitutes a disappearance—especially given the lack of any public statement or explanation from the Church (then or since). That's precisely why the term "disappearance" is used: it reflects the abrupt and mysterious nature of her vanishing, which has fueled speculation and inquiries. Replacing it with "not appeared in public since" feels euphemistic and downplays the unusual circumstances.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. This is one whacky organization. Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2025 (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)

Heads up

Various sources on the Internet are trying to show that this police report is about Shelly Miscavige:

https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news/local/2025/11/28/officials-seek-id-of-woman-whose-body-was-found-on-crestline-mountainside/87518218007/

Keep an eye out for unsourced changes to this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)