Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 8 August 2006

Archive 1 (talk page contents through 3/20/2005)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

revert of 3/20

I just reverted a recent addition, which is to say I removed the following from the intro:

"He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence, using a research methodology based on the scientific method and an optimized research algorithm. He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms which he used as the basis for a technology which he developed to improve the condition of the human spirit. Although his work received a lukewarm reception in the scientific community of his time, recent discoveries in the field of Quantum mechanics have begun to vindicate a great deal of his work. "

I do not claim to be an expert on this, but based on my readings about Hubbard, the above, particularly with regard to the application of the scientific method, is false. And the vindication of his work by quantum mechanics is unsubstantiated, at best. I do want to offer the section here in case other editors believe there are parts of it that deserve to be included. Please make your case here before reinstating this. BTfromLA 00:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right--it is false, even amusing. (Anonymous) 00:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually as you are admittedly not an expert on Hubbard's work then why would you blankly reject the information. Perhaps you ought to study up on Quantum mechanics and science before jumping to your conclusions. Please notice that we are not discussing the merits of the Church of Scientology here , we are discussing Hubbard and his work and the statements made is 100 % accurate. I have reverted to my version. (comment not signed, posted by the author of the disputed paragraph)

The scientific method involves making carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by other, disinterested researchers. The precise details of the research--the controls in place, sample size, duration, etc., are published and made available for inspection, replication and criticism by other researchers. Did Hubbard ever do this? I think not. Quantum mechanics can, when cited in a vague, imprecise way, be used to justify all kinds of beliefs, both sound and looney. You have provided no examples to support your claims. Unsubstantiated assertions that these claims are "100% accurate" don't help your case. BTfromLA 01:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very well said, BTfromLA. I think you should just keep removing those looney assertions, you are doing a very good work, I'm sure that any sane person will agree with you. (Anonymous) 01:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to get invlved in a "revert war." I do wish the anonymous poster would not make big changes without justifying them here (as when recently undoing rewrites to the later sections of the article, possibly unintentionally), and would not make claims without justification (such as some specific evidence that quantum science vindicates Hubbard's beliefs). BTfromLA 02:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The assertions in the intro should not be kept unless there are sources to support them. -Willmcw 03:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You people should learn to accept other viewpoints besides your own. You are not the only people who live in this world. Anon User 20 Mar 2005

These people DO accept other viewpoints. The changes made had no evidence supporting them, and were in places straight-up nonsense. Removing them helps everyone. Criticism is not in itself a lack of acceptance. This is not a forum for opinions, but a source of verifiable facts. - Another anonymous user 06 Apr 2006

As a particle physicist I have a very sound understanding of Quantum Mechanics. I can therefore quite catagorically state that there is no connection whatsoever between Quantum Mechanics and L. Ron Hubbard or his works.

I have amended the original insertion to reflect a NPOV. I have made an effort to consider other viewpoints so please re-read the insertion carefully and state which clause you specifically object to before blankly wiping it out. I am once again reverting to its last version. Thanks. Anon User 20 Mar 2005

Please provides your source for this assertion:

Although his work received a lukewarm reception in the scientific community of his time, recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be interpreted to vindicate a great deal of his work.

Thanks, -Willmcw 03:56, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with BTfromLA and Willmcw--please discuss your ridiculous claims here providing reliable sources (other than OT documents, of course) before you repost them anywhere else than WP:BJAODN--you may find it entartaining but you are only wasting time of people who actually try to make this article better but instead of improving it they have to fight with you to maintain the NPOV. And make sure you read WP:3RR carefully, especially what it says about sockpuppets. I know that you consider us all suppressive but trust me, if anyone here needs to accept other viewpoints besides your own, it is you. (Anonymous) 04:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, Anon, and I have no objection to including multiple viewpoints, or to including positive claims about Hubbard and his work. If I were trying to silence you, I wouldn't have pasted your writing on the talk page and invite other editors to consider it. I think it's a good idea for admirers of Hubbard to have a hand in this article. The problem, from my point of view, is not that you are expressing a different perspective, but that you are making claims that are either repeating Scientology sales rhetoric (hence violating the NPOV idea of a disinterested authorial voice) or you are making unsubstantiated assertions. "Quantum science validates Hubbard's work" or "Quantum science invalidates Hubbard's work" would both need some specific, documented support before they would merit inclusion here. As unsupported assertions, they are worthless, and should be edited out. BTfromLA 04:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I can't help but notice that you are wasting your time which is a real shame having seen your contributions and knowing that you could be writing interesting articles instead. You are trying to read too much in something that is basically an obvious propaganda and as such it sould be answered with simple request to "put up or shut up". (Anonymous) 04:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous of 04:13,20 Mar 2005. Your responsibility is to become familar with Misplaced Pages Policy. Untill you do people can only edit out your postings when they don't follow Wiki Policy, assert to you their work is valid, and point you to the appropriate Wiki Policy pages. You are mistaken, but several have already made that clear to you. Wiki considers a fact to be "A verified, published statement." You will have to provide a source of information if you wish to have your postings stand the test of public scrutiny. see: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources Terryeo 05:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a case to be made that noodling around[REDACTED] is inevitably a waste of time. And I'm not going to spend much more time here. But I do try to treat people respectfully and give them every encouragement to rise to the best possibilities of the project. Occasionally one runs into a contributor who seems hopeless, but I haven't reached that conclusion in this case. The anon contribuor did make changes in response to criticism, and it may be that he or she is new here, and doesn't yet understand about npov, revert rules, substantiating claims, etc. I sure don't like being on the recieving end of a hostile dismissal of something I've posted (I've experienced that on Misplaced Pages). So I'm up for giving editors every chance, and I also think it is appropriate to incorporate the understanding of Hubbard that his admirers share into this article, if any of Hubbard's admirers are willing to accept the Misplaced Pages ground rules. Thanks for the kind comments about my contributions. BTfromLA 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- If you read what I said it is "recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be INTERPRETED to vindicate a great deal of his work". That statement clearly presents a NPOV and this is a legitimate insertion. I am not repeating any scientology rhetoric at all , as a matter of fact I do not believe there is any such claims from the Scientology community in regards to Quantum mechanics . The fact is that any one who would care to research it for themselves would see that this is truly the case in current QM research. With all due respect, it looks like the the real issue is that there are some people posting here that cannot tolerate any statement which would reflect positively on L Ron Hubbard. (Anon) 20 Mar 2005

"The fact is that any one who would care to research it for themselves would see that this is truly the case in current QM research." -- Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research! Also, you have broken the Three-revert rule. (Anonymous) 05:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be INTERPRETED to vindicate a great deal of the claim that BTfromLA is the fountainhead from which all good in the universe flows." Is that NPOV? -- BTfromLA 05:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One last bit: here's the part that reads like a Scientology press release: "He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence. He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms which he used to develop a technology designed to improving the condition of the human spirit. " BTfromLA 05:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that line then take it out , but leave the rest as you do not mention any disagreement with those clauses.thanks (Anon) 20 Mar 2005

You have violated the Three-revert rule. You have not quoted any sources to support your absurd assertions whatsoever. You must stop reposting them immediately. (Anonymous) 05:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look , my request is that you stop trying to censure information that is meant for the reader. Why do you not let the reader form their own opinion ??? The whole idea of Misplaced Pages is to spread knowledge , not bury it. If you have some positive contributions to make then do so by adding your own 2 cents in the article. Anyone is allowed to edit Misplaced Pages thanks.(Anon) 20 Mar 2005

The whole idea of Misplaced Pages is to spread knowledge, not nonsense. Will you finally provide any sources to back up your ridiculous claims or are you just going to cry that not supporting every random nonsense posted anonymously on Misplaced Pages is censorship and oppression? You avoid answering questions about your sources. Why? (Anonymous) 06:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also note that when 65.139.80.23 is actually quite comfortable with removing "information that is meant for the reader" -- if it's described as "correction of misinformation". Is .23 attempting to tell us that none of the information that he/she removed from that article was correct, factual information? Nothing there meets the same stringent standards of proof as the claim that quantum mechanics supports Hubbard's theories? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted again to remove the assertion that quantum mechanic discoveries are vindicating Mr. Hubbard. It would be useful to describe which aspect of quantum mechanic vindicates which aspect of Mr. Hubbard's research. It cannot just be stated without further details, or else it has no Misplaced Pages value. Regards. Povmec

Actually you just slashed the whole section , not just the Quantum mechanics part. (Anon) 21 Mar 2005 .

1. Don't change too many things in one edit.
2. Don't repost the reverted text with your new edits.
3. Please use edit summaries.
4. Please discuss your changes before you post them.
5. You may want to edit Wikinfo:L. Ron Hubbard.

To be closer to proper NPOV, it's important to state explicitly all the POVs. By constantly reverting to a single one, NPOV is decreased, not increased. BTfromLA did a good job at rephrasing in order to enhance NPOV, so I brought back his changes. We cannot state that Mr. Hubbard's "research" is an absolute, since it makes sense only to people which are following scientology beliefs. Povmec

Important to people reposting the reverted paragraph

You are trying to write essays with original research.

You may want to edit Wikinfo:L. Ron Hubbard.

Use edit summaries

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

What Misplaced Pages is not

Users participating in this edit war might want to read What Misplaced Pages is not, especially:

Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy:

Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Misplaced Pages is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. If you want to do so, you can use the Misplaced Pages fork Anarchopedia.

Misplaced Pages articles are not personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic:

Misplaced Pages is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Misplaced Pages are welcome at Meta. There is a Misplaced Pages fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Misplaced Pages is not a primary (original) research:

See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.

Addition of templates

Unless a very good argument is made to the contrary, I will be reverting to the last version by Povmec and removing the {{Attention}} and {{ActiveDiscuss}} tags. Why? Because there is only one "contributor" who believed the article was not being developed appropriately by the existing process -- and this is a contributor who, at best, badly misunderstands the existing process, and at worst doesn't give a damn for the correct process but only in using Misplaced Pages as a forum for "their 2 cents". This latter theory is better supported by the fact that this contributor has already switched between at least three IPs as they get blocked for violations of the three-revert rule.

There would be more reason to take seriously the insistence of this contributor if this contributor showed any signs of taking seriously Misplaced Pages's standards. As it is, it is completely inappropriate to modify this article merely because someone with an ax to grind has been persistent in violating the 3RR and sneaking around their earned blocks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your that it should get reverted--it doesn't. If no one is reverting it then the tags are needed because somone may be reading this article right now, one of the Misplaced Pages mirrors may be updating its content right now, someone may be translating this article to other languages right now, Answers.com (linked by every single 'definition' link on Google) may be updating its Misplaced Pages content in http://www.answers.com/topic/l-ron-hubbard right now as we speak, and it will be present there for a long time even if we revert it tommorow (notice no space around the dash in the birth date and compare the content to see that it is an outdated copy, and yet more people use Answers.com than Misplaced Pages directly, because that's what they get when they click 'definition' links in their Google searches). Yes, it should be instantly reverted--but it isn't. Which means that this article is in need of attention and the readers of Misplaced Pages and its mirrors must know what is disputed. I agree with you but the tags must be present until the text is removed and every time it is reposted.

So, erm... if I'm following this, you're saying that while we are trying to keep a blatant scofflaw from unilaterally defying consensus to insert questionable material into the article, it is crucially important to warn people by ... marking the version which no one except the scofflaw objects to as 'questionable and in need of attention'? If there was a dispute between contributors acting in good faith, I could agree with the tag, but I think a line was crossed when our anon scofflaw was warned about the 3RR and went ahead reverting to his preferred version anyways -- and then switched to another IP to get around the ensuing block. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that if everyone agrees that it should be reverted but no one actually does it (see the article history during out posts in this thread) then a reasonable thing to do for someone who don't want to violate the 3RR like myself is at least warn about the controvercy. While we were talking about how we agree that it should be reverted not actually doing it, this text posted by 68.130.206.103 was present in the article for 90 minutes until BTfromLA finally removed it. That's a lot of time to mislead people. If we had such a text inserted for 90 minutes 4 times a day, than 25% of people would read it and 25% mirrors would use it--it's that simple. What are you suggesting? That I shouldn't have added the warning and should have just left the controversial text alone?

More wrangling over the intro

User 65.141.40.101, "He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence" is a controversial claim; it's an interpretation of Hubbard's activities that many observers of Hubbard's life would disagree with. (By contrast, "Founder of the Church of Scientology" is so far as I am aware, an uncontroversial fact.) As of a day or two ago, the intro paragraph was a concise factual account, with the interpretive discussions limited to the main body of the article. You (this is the first appearance of 65.141.40.101, but I'm guessing this is the same anon user who added material to the intro yesterday) have declared that positive interpretations of Hubbard's accomplishments belong in the intro, but counterbalancing critical interpretations do not. Your position hardly constitutes NPOV--quite the contrary. I suggest we go back to the very lean, non-judgemental intro, and if you think that there are important things about Hubbard that are misstated or omitted in the body of the article, focus your attention there. I'd also suggest you get a user account with a stable name--it will help your credibility and ability to communicate with fellow editors. One more thing: why in the world do you object to Hubbard being described as an author? -- BTfromLA 01:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. --FOo 01:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The introduction says, it is controversial whether Mr. Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology or didn't. The words used as of right this minute are: " ... author and the controversial founder of Dianetics and Scientology." May we instead say: " .. author and founder of Dianetics and Scientology which viewed as controversial" ? And then leave some semblence of that. Terryeo 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction dispute

You are entitled to your opinions on this topic however please put that in its own section further down in the article. In order to not confuse the reader of this article, the material should be introduced by a NPOV and factual summary of the work and life of the subject. Further POVs, pros and cons, can then be expanded upon in their own section. Keep it simple and fair OK ? Thanks for your consideration. ANON 3/21/2005

The fact that not everyone in the world thinks Elron was a great wonderful guy is not "slanted" or "derogatory". It's simply a fact, and needs to be mentioned. Please quit reverting before you go into violation of the WP:3RR.

Then as was stated just above , you can put your POV in its own section further down the article.

Also, please do not use derogatory or slanted section titles in talk pages -- they are intended to describe what is being discussed, not to give you a place to make accusations. --FOo 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amazing! user obfusco even sees it fit to edit other peoples discussions. anon 3/21/2005

Anon is correct that the intro should include an "NPOV and factual" summary. However there is no evidence that the assertions he has been adding are factual. They also appear to present a pro-Hubbard POV. That is why the info keeps getting removed. -Willmcw 02:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

If you do not know whether the intro is factual then with all due respect you do not know very much about this topic. Both pro and anti editors who know anything about Hubbard know that every word is true. However the antis would rather bury this truth by stating that the claims of the detractor community should be presented as a headline to Hubbards's whole life work.Anon 3/21/2005

I don't need to know anything about the topic. I do know that Misplaced Pages rules require editors to cite their sources. I see an assertion with no source. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, we need to see the sources you are using to justify your assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see the page has been protected. But for the record, I've written this up at WP:AN/3RR. --FOo 02:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you say "Many believe that he devoted his life to researching" or "Hubbard's follower's claim that he devoted his life to researching"?

Un-protecting the page

As far as I can tell, there is one user who is responsible for the page being protected, and if that user can agree to a version of the intro, we can unprotect it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I propose we select between two options: the version with the "admirers say/detractors say" bit (the current version), or a shorter version that edits those sentences out, and puts nothing in their place. Either of those are acceptible to me. How about others? BTfromLA 03:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest , the format should be Intro as the 68.130.206.73 post and other pro and anti POVs elsewhere in the article.

The sources for the intro are below:

"He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence.He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms" which are here :

     http://www.scientology.org/wis/WISENG/34/34-scax.htm

"which he used to develop a technology which he claimed could be used to improve the spiritual state of human beings" which are containted in a set of technical volumes which you can see here:

     http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/technical-volumes.html

There should not be any problem verifying the truth of those statements .Anon 3/21/05

Please note, the above "suggestion" was posted by 68.130.206.166, which is likely the same user as the 68.130.206.73 with whom s/he purports to be agreeing. If my suspicion is correct, this user has already violated 3RR on this article.

Anonymous contributor -- It is not OK to use multiple addresses to give the appearance of a number of people agreeing with you. That is called sock puppet behavior and is frowned upon. --FOo 03:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

user Fubar Obfusco is probably doing what he or she is accusing others of doing. Truthtell 21 Mar 2005

Good to see you've got a user account now. Could you go back and sign your comments so we'll know which ones are yours for sure? Thanks. --FOo 04:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comment is right above yours and it is signed TruthTell 21 Mar 2005

Information removed from the article

I notice that in the various revisions, Hubbard's military career is mentioned but the fact that he was relieved of command of PC-815 after the shelling of South Coronados Island has been removed. Needless to say, it is rather one-sided to note that he commanded vessels -- like many who served in WWII -- but omit the fact that unlike many who commanded vessels in that war, he was relieved of command due to disciplinary action. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The information you refer to is unsubstantiated and ( likely fabricated and being spread by the anti-hubbard community in a deliberate effort to tarnish Hubbard's character and repute). This is type of shameful and despicable activity which seems to be your basic tactic is called "black propaganda" in the public relations world. Perhaps you , Antaeus Feldspar, ought to disclose to the rest of the editors on this board what is your personal history with scientology that has you working day and night inserting derogatory and discreding remarks into Hubbard's bio under many different aliases. Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some despicable behavior that you commited while a member. Your ego is hurt so now you dedicate yourself to pay back in this medium. Had you any personal integrity you would voice your POV without resorting to concocting lies in an effort to manipulate the reader's opinions. You only fool the very naive , but for the rest of us, it is clear what you are up to. Anon 3/22/2005

Detailed information can be found there http://ronthewarhero.org/coronados.htm, along with official source documents from the U.S. Navy which have been scanned into PDF format. Other sources have used these documents to reach the same conclusions independantly: Russell Miller in Bare-Faced Messiah; Jon Atack in A Piece of Blue Sky. I believe these sources as credible. Povmec 13:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Information in question has been proven time and time again. There is no "anti-Hubbard" community, there are only those who recognize that Mr. Hubbard was a deeply disturbed and paranoid individual who created a cult of personality around himself, (which is why Scientology is so deeply disturbed and paranoid, or as Hubbard would have said with one of his own neologisms, "enturbulated"). "Black propaganda" can only be so when one is not speaking the truth. I am not interested in Antaeus Feldspar's "personal history" with anything. Stop messing around with the facts presented in this encyclopedia. No one is interested in debating with you, because brainwashed members of cults cannot be reasoned with. Any fact we present you with, you will say was invented by a world-wide conspiracy of psychologists, or the Jews who control the banks, or some other such nonsense. Anon, have you ever stopped and questioned the value of the organization to which you belong? Have you ever met a "clear" or "OT" who could demonstrate his "super powers" to you? Does the incredible cost of the church's services ever give you pause? Does the church ever tell you where all that money goes to? Yes, I am clearly stating my own POV, but notice that I am doing so here on the talk page, and not in the article. func(talk) 15:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The information you refer to is unsubstantiated and ( likely fabricated and being spread by the anti-hubbard community

Spread by the anti-Hubbard community? Of course it is. There's no shame in that, since it's completely true information which is substantiated by U.S. Navy records.

in a deliberate effort to tarnish Hubbard's character and repute). This is type of shameful and despicable activity which seems to be your basic tactic is called "black propaganda" in the public relations world.

No, actually, "black PR" is a term invented by L. Ron Hubbard and only in use by Scientologists -- not a term in use in the general public relations world. You're right that it's a shameful and despicable activity -- it's a shameful and despicable activity that Hubbard felt was fantastic as long as it was being used by Scientology on whomever Scientology declared to be their "enemies".

Perhaps you , Antaeus Feldspar, ought to disclose to the rest of the editors on this board what is your personal history with scientology that has you working day and night inserting derogatory and discreding remarks into Hubbard's bio under many different aliases.

Well, since I insert true information that Scientologists find uncomfortable to accept only under my single user name, I can't comply with your suggestion. I can't explain why I "do" something that I "do" only in your made-up world of psychological denial.

Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some despicable behavior that you commited while a member.

Wrong again! =D Speaking of ex-members, haven't you ever considered it strange that so many of those who leave Scientology do so from so high up? You'd think that if Scientology actually delivered more results and proof of its correctness the higher you moved up in the organization, you wouldn't have so many people leaving Scientology from the very highest rungs of the ladder. Could it be that when they got to the other side of the Bridge they found nothing there that Hubbard had promised them?

Your ego is hurt so now you dedicate yourself to pay back in this medium.

You're sure you're the same person who's been moaning about "unsubstantiated" information? This is an awfully detailed psychological "analysis" to be drawing solely from the fact that I add factual material you wish wasn't true and remove unsubstantiated material that you wish was. (I've been accused of being a PR agent employed by Scientology based on the same evidence, by someone who wanted to insert unsubstantiated information against Scientology and was similarly angry that I was removing it.)

Had you any personal integrity you would voice your POV without resorting to concocting lies in an effort to manipulate the reader's opinions.

That's correct, and that's what I do. I have personal integrity, and therefore I have no need of lies. Maybe someday you can be that way too and you won't need to resort to sockpuppets or Hubbard's "black PR" or intricate speculation unfounded in reality that allows you to maintain your denial.

You only fool the very naive , but for the rest of us, it is clear what you are up to. Anon 3/22/2005

Tell yourself that as you switch to yet another IP address and pretend to be someone new who only happens to agree with all the other anons in the same IP block -- tell yourself that you're the one with personal integrity even as you act with absolutely none. I believe that most Scientologists are drawn to Scientology because they're good people, and I think it's sad that many of them are fooled by Scientology's bait and switch of "Scientology is the wonderful thing that's going to save the world! Therefore, it's not only all right but good for you to abandon all your personal integrity and do reprehensible things, if you're doing them for Scientology! Lie and slander! It's okay to do the very things you're accusing others of doing, if you're doing them for the greater good -- and Scientology is the greatest good there is, so you can do anything for it!" I feel sorry for them when they finally wake up and realize that Scientology can't even keep its own house clean, let alone deliver on its grandiose promises of a world free of war and crime and disease. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our semi-anonymous contributor above has now broken at least two hard & fast Misplaced Pages policies -- WP:3RR and WP:NPA -- as well as a rather clumsy attempt at sock-puppeting. This is not the behavior of someone interested in collaborating on an article.

His/her baseless accusations that disdain for Hubbard's behavior stem from "despicable behavior", by the way, are a standard Scientologist response -- Google the phrase "what are your crimes?" (in quotes) to see more. As far as I can tell (though I'll admit I'm not sure) within Scientology it is common for a guilty person to accuse others of their own "crimes", and so Scientologists assume that this is the case for others. Their term for this is "being in a condition of blame" on the "tone scale".

It is not worthwhile using Misplaced Pages to try to convert this person from Scientology, nor is that what Misplaced Pages is here to do. Much better to simply recognize that this contributor's current mode of response is in egregious violation of Misplaced Pages standards of conduct, and that s/he is not eligible to contribute to Misplaced Pages until s/he is willing to behave like a community member rather than an aggressor. Or, in Scientologist jargon -- s/he is out-ethics and needs to handle his/her condition of blame and get his/her ethics in. --FOo 15:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Hey, FOo? I tried it, and for some wacky reason if you leave the ? inside the quotes Google will ignore the "what" and "are". If you leave it out then 18 of the first 20 results are clearly Scn-related (can't be sure about #15.)) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look in the Scientology controversy article for more about the policy of dealing with critics and "enemies" of Scientology. Essentially, the matra that is followed by all Scientologists states that the Tech is 100% correct, it is always correct, and everyone (that's everyone) who questions Source (i.e. Hubbard) is an enemy of Scientology. And from this it follows that all of Scientology's enemies have crimes that they are trying to hide. Therefore, What are your crimes? is a standard way of saying, "You are an enemy of Scientology, and we will find your hidden crimes and expose them." Lovely, yes? --Modemac 16:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we tried. Sadly, I have to agree with FOo's diagnosis at this point that anon user's behavior is chronically counterproductive and unacceptible for a Misplaced Pages contributor. Hubbard asserted something to the effect that anyone who ever attempted to "suppress" Scientology was doing so only because Scientology's bright light of truth was going to reveal the critic's own criminal past. And it seems that pretty much any acknowledgement of any flaw within Hubbard, or the "tech," or the organization is labelled as "suppression." Hence the bizarre personal attack on Antaeus. Anon, I have no personal history with Scientology, I'm just trying to fairly present an account of this interesting subject. Before concluding that anything unflattering to Hubbard is the result of some conspiratorial smear campaign, I suggest that you read some of the copious material about Hubbard that is available on the net, including the Miller and Atack books. Atack is a former scientologist and scientology archivist; Miller was a journalist with no prior history with Scientology. Ask yourself why so many independent journalists have come to similar conclusions when investigating Hubbard's life; conclusions that diverge, sometimes wildly, from the story the Church tells. And why, rather than facing critical accounts and answering them with facts, the Church instead directs it's spokespeople to accuse the critics and reporters of "crimes." BTfromLA 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA, func, Antaeus Feldspar-- with all due respect, you have apparently no idea who are you trying to argue with. You call this a "bizarre personal attack"? FOo-- do you want to see the power of "what are your crimes" routine? Then don't search Google to see how it looks like on paper, but rather see how it works in the real-life face-to-face confrontation (start from the topmost movie). If you want to argue with the person who is adding that text to this article (I repeat: if), then you will have to understand that you are "suppressive persons" or SPs (google the phrase) because of the very fact that you are questioning Ron and Xenu in the first place, and by attacking, offending, harrassing, threatening or indeed even trying to kill you, they are trying to do "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" (google it) because they honestly believe that is the only way to save the planet and civilization! They are trying to save the humanity, for crying out loud! I mean, seriously, if you were absolutely sure that the existence of our civilization is in serious danger, because some people want to destroy it (think Hitler with millions of nuclear bombs ready to take every human being with him in his suicide), wouldn't you do everything possible to save it? So first you will have to understand the reasons. Then, you will have to understand the techniques. You will have to know that they are trying to find your "buttons" and provoke you. And frankly, you have no chance to win such a confrontation, because you haven't spent years learning ("flunk for blinking" - google it). Read this to have some basic understanding how such a learning starts, and how it ends (though I recommend starting from the first chapter for full background). It makes them basically invulnerable to any of the amateurish techniques you have shown in this discussion (sorry but that's true). You will have to understand it first, and then decide whether you want to take a challange. I honestly admire your determination to make this article as best as possible, but I sadly doubt you are able to reason with the person who is adding that introduction. Sadly, you will probably have to censor it without giving any justification that would possibly be understood by the second side of this argument as anything other than a censorship resulting from a conspiracy of suppressive persons. Otherwise I will seriosuly consider you masters of reason. I wish you good luck. And thanks for your great work. Anonymous Friend on 02:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's about time to remove the protection from this page, as there is a general consensus about the article: one anonymous person accusing everyone else of being "anti-Hubbard" is hardly a dispute. I'd remove it myself, but I'd rather follow Misplaced Pages tradition that the person who protected the page be the one to remove it. --Modemac 10:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction, I find the following statement kind of confusing: His admirers claim that Hubbard developed an effective technology to improve the condition of the human spirit. It says Mr. Hubbard developped a technology to improve human mind. Mr. Hubbard is using this claimed technology as the foundation of the Church of Scientology. Isn't contradictory? Technology is applied science as far as I'm concerned. Church of Scientology is defined as an applied religious philosophy. I understand the above statement was integrated in order to satisfy as many sides as possible, but if I read the article with a newbie hat, it gives me a sense of inconsistency. Could we replace technology with philosophy? Maybe it's just me. Povmec 15:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any Scientologist will adamantly state that it should be described as "technology." Why? Because Hubbard said so. He described his writings as "Advanced Technology," and in the eyes of the Church of Scientology, all of Hubbard's writings are known as Advanced Technology. In Scientologese, it's known simply as "The Tech." --Modemac 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I've got it right, "applied religious philosophy" means applicaton of "the tech" to reincarnated spirit (in Scientology). A similar claim is made about the nature of mind, in Dianetics. So while some may argue that Hubbard's programs and beliefs are not rightfully called "technology," the claim that Hubbard developed a workable method for the real-world application of his philosophy seems central to his followers, most of whom are Scientologists (I get the sense that this-life-only Dianetics hangs around mostly as a sales device, but is considered by his followers to have been superceded by he later techniques of Scientology. Please correct me if I've got any of this wrong.) If it still seems confusing, would something like "....developed an effective system to improve the condition..." or "....developed an effective method to improve the condition..." be an improvement? BTfromLA 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While this discussion on the Church's usage of the word "technology" may yield profitable insights for improvement of the article, I'd like to voice my hope that it doesn't cause the issue of whether to place the dueling POVs in the intro to be forgotten. At the current time, I'm not completely convinced, but I'm leaning towards going back to the old intro and saving the claims on both sides about what Hubbard was for the body of the article. I'd like it if we could return to discussing that (not to mention the Coronados incident, discussion of which was successfully if temporarily sidetracked by our anon's personal attacks.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If editing this for the quality of writing, I'd say that a brief statement of the nature of the controversy surrounding Hubbard (as in the current version) is best for the opening--it adds specificity and drama, and is likely to pull the casual browser in to further reading. But as a practical matter on Misplaced Pages, if including contoversial claims up front is going to lead to endless wrangling, I'm fine with dropping those two sentences. As for Hubbard being relieved of duty, I suggest you just set the record straight once the page is unprotected--deal with arguments about that if and when they arise. BTfromLA 18:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why so many people insist on prefixing the "method" or "technology" with "effective" only to be forced to add "according to ..." etc.? For the record, yes, it is technology and it is based on science--the Ohm's law. Hubbard's electropsychometer is just a different name for a galvanometer which by itself is, needless to say, as scientific as it gets. So the technology itself (galvanometer) is scientific, unlike the idea of reading mind with a galvanometer in the first place. It is pseudoscience, which is not to say that it is false, but only that it isn't based on any sound scientific theory while being presented as such. So please let's be objective and reasonable: galvanometer is a technology based on science. Reading mind and soul is a stricte religious idea. We have to somehow separate those two concepts in the article if we don't want to confuse the reader.

Well, an atomic clock is a precision instrument. But if I was using that atomic clock solely to bach someone's skull in, would it make much sense to note that the atomic clock is a precision instrument? No, because it is not being used as a precision instrument, only as a blunt weapon. Likewise, stressing that a galvanometer is an instrument based on sound scientific principles is at best deceptive when it's in the context of its usage in a religious practice that is not based on sound scientific principles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the Controversial episodes section, I would suggest we replace the psychiatric drug Vistaril present by the drug Vistaril present. According to Misplaced Pages, it's an antihistaminic, anti-emetic and anxiolytic. By using the psychiatric qualifier, we presume it's usage by Mr. Hubbard was to treat anxiety symptom. I have read that at the same time, he was also given doses of niacin (http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/autopsy2.htm), which causes inflammation at large doses, in which case, the Vistaril could have been used as well to counter niacin effects. In my opinion, using psychiatric here is more a taunt to Scientologists out there than an informational fact, since we don't know for sure why this drug was given to him in the first place.Povmec 14:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was just browsing Wiki and came across this discussion.

This discussion is fascinating. I can just feel the frustrations. It is like there are two discussions simultaneously. I want to suggest to the editors to stop talking to Anon and just ignore him (I believe Anon is a he) but his responses are so humorous I want more. I think that Anon has changed other Scientology related Wiki articles as the writing styles look similar.

I have read Final Blackout and Battlefield Earth, and some others. I find that Hubbard, especially in Final Blackout, is very much in support of forceful authority of one person. The main character “the Lieutenant” is Hubbard as he sees himself. This conclusion not only comes from the story, but also can be interpreted by reading his own preface.

I want to know more about the South Coronados Island incident. Also what did his contemporaries think of him? I heard that Asimov and Heinlein did not like him.

QuestioningAuthority 23:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

............

>Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some >despicable behavior that you commited while a member.

Obviously written by a strong supporter.

Unprotect?

This article was protected a couple of days ago because of a little edit war involving anon IPs. Ready to unprotect, yet? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let the person who protected the article, unprotect it; but it's past time. Done. --Modemac 02:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Important question about article protection

Is it possible to protect an article from anynymous edits only? If so, could you please do that? Because as we can see, the only problem in this article is anonymous reposting of the same propaganda, violating 3RR, getting blocked, doing the same from another IP few hours later, etc. ad nauseam. I don't see logged in users being a problem and many of them greatly improve the article almost every day so the article protection would be completely counter-productive, but the anonymous reposting of propaganda and POV apparently isn't going to stop any time soon. What can we do to stop this silliness? (Yes, I know that that person would just log in and probably do the same, but then at least we would have some credibility, user talk page, the possibility of RfC, mediation, arbitration etc.) I hope something can be done and will be done quickly because it starts to be a complete waste of time of anyone involved, and seing that completely inappropriate text in the intro stays for 10 hours before I revert it I see that all of the editors slowly start to give up, and frankly I can't blame them. Thanks.

A repeated vandal doesn't need to be discouraged just from editing this one article. A repeated vandal needs to be blocked from editing any Misplaced Pages article at all. Blocking, not article protection, is the approach here.

One measure that Misplaced Pages hasn't (to my knowledge) had in place before, but that might be useful here, is to report abusive anonymous conduct to the ISP or site responsible for the IP addresses from which it comes. Effectively all ISPs have acceptable-use policies that forbid malicious and harassing conduct, and forbid users from violating the policies of Internet sites they use. By vandalizing Misplaced Pages, a person also thereby violates the terms of service of their own ISP.

Of course, this would not work against open proxies -- but there are already tools for dealing with known open proxies, such as DNSBLs tailored to that purpose (e.g. Spamhaus XBL). --FOo 15:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, open proxies are blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under WP:No Open Proxies, so if the IP address of the rather amusing anon poster happens to show up in any of the DNSBLs as one, it might be worthwhile to point that out to an admin. PS: those of you who are actually making worthwhile contributions to this article are doing an excellent job, keep up the great work! Nortelrye 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Best known as the author of the best-seller ...

"L. Ron Hubbard, was a prolific and controversial American philosopher. He is best known as the author of the self help best-seller Dianetics the modern science of mental health and as the founder of Scientology."

While he may be known for that among Scientologists, for the general population he is best known as a science fiction writer.

"In addition to religious and philosophical works, he developed a technology to remove drug residue from the body called the Purification Rundown and a study technology to help people learn any subject in an effective and systematic manner called the Student Hat."

This is POV, advertisement, and unnecessary bloat in the intro paragraph. This is hardly the most important thing to write in the introduction. I remind you: This is ENCYCLOPEDIA. Please keep that in mind. Thank you.

Removing more bloat. This is a large article with plenty of information, we don't need the introduction tainted with opinion. Enough said. California guy 16:30

Please stop removing major portions of the article with fully verified and well-sourced information merely because they don't fit the picture you would like to have of L. Ron Hubbard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Enhancements to the Intro

Philosopher because it is a broader description than writer. The subject of Scientology falls in the category of philosophy.

He is the founder of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology

Hubbard never founded the church of Scientology, he declared this many times in his writings and lectures, he founded the subject and it was other people who founded the church.

I will be making further edits to the article to correct a great deal of incorrect information that is strewn throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.44.104 (talk • contribs)

I rather see author being used. Given Mr. Hubbard's bios available out there, I don't see philosopher being applicable to Mr. Hubbard. If I was a follower of scientology practices, I would probably see Mr. Hubbard as a philosoper, but for the majority of people not in scientology, Mr. Hubbard as a philosoper doesn't sound proper.Povmec 14:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The line about "Quintin saying that 99% of what Hubbard said is untrue" is silly, as how was the 99% derived, and why not 98% or 99.3%. It should be removed. This is not about Quintin.

Mr.Hubbard is a philosopher, as he philosophised, goodly or badly. -- Buddyandwilly

First of all, Quentin Hubbard and Ron DeWolf are two different people. Second of all, this article is about L. Ron Hubbard. If you're suggesting that it is not relevant to the subject of L. Ron Hubbard that one of the people closest to him on Earth -- his own son -- believed that most of what Hubbard said was untrue, that is what's silly, not that his son used the mathematical figure of 99% to indicate the frequency of Hubbard's lying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay

I removed hearsay attibuted to Isaac Asimov that is traced to Paulette Cooper , who sued the COS. Either someone gets a direct quote from Asimov or it does not belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.44.104 (talk • contribs)

He/she is talking about the sentence «, but others, including Campbell's star author Isaac Asimov, criticised Dianetics' unscientific aspects.» that was removed from the article. Not hearsay, Asimov himself mentions this is his book Isaac Asimov, I, Asimov. Doubleday, 1994. 552p. This should be put back in the Misplaced Pages article.Povmec 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, it was the COS that sued Paulette Cooper at least 18 times, in addition to subjecting her to many other forms of harassment. func(talk) 17:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hubbard founded Dianetics and Scientology

I keep putting Dianetics in the intro and editor BTfromLA keeps taking it out. So what is your issue with Dianetics being in the intro ?? Should we not give Hubbard credit for what he has done? Ask anyone who knows anything about Hubbard and they will tell you that L Ron Hubbard = DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY. TruthTell

• Just trying to keep it concise--you'll notice that I recently added an additional paragraph about the sensational reception of Dianetics. Hubbard did, by the way, found the Church of Scientology--there is considerable documentation of this fact, regardless of Ron's comments to the contrary. But since we're trying to keep the intro as non-controversial as possible, I'll go with dropping the mention of the Church (others may differ) and I hope in turn you'll stop shifting his job-description from "author" to "philosopher." Setting aside the extent to which Hubbard's status as a philosopher is itself controversial, "author" does a better job--it's more neutral and more broadly accurate. BTfromLA 06:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I am assuming you know something about L Ron Hubbard, you would not be investing so much time on this article if you did not. So you should know that Hubbard was first and foremost a philosopher as it relates to the Dianetics and Scientology story and to his whole life story as well. There is nothing controversial about it, BTfromLa, he was a philosopher whether his critics like it or not , that is just one of the facts about him. Read any of his scientology books or lectures and it is unquestionably true; he was a philosopher. TruthTell

• • • I didn't claim he wasn't a philosopher, only that "author" is a better word choice in this context. BTfromLA 17:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed-Style of Formal Address

Per current Misplaced Pages policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style Friend of Mankind to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.

Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for Pope Benedict XVI) but not for others (such as L. Ron Hubbard) then this may constitute improper POV by the Misplaced Pages community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. Whig 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't/isn't a formal style of address for Hubbard. He was known as "Ron." Argue about the appropriateness of "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" on their own merits, not by creating absurd straw man examples like this one. I'm reverting the change. BTfromLA 05:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The article text itself states: Scientologists refer to him as "The Friend of Mankind". This is a substantial enough number of people, however controversial they may be, that their style must be given if we do so in the instance of His Holiness for other religious leaders. Whig 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you participate in the survey if you think an exception should be carved out for L. Ron Hubbard. I believe such an exception is appropriate if we have to use prefixed formal styles, but only if it can be made in a NPOV way. Whig 06:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "friend of mankind" is used by Scientologists as a show of affection, not as any kind of "official" title. In this respect, we could refer to George W. Bush as "Dubya" because that's what many people call him. However, no one is going to retitle the George W. Bush article as President Dubya George W. Bush. --Modemac 09:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I accept this explanation and will revert my edit. Whig 10:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Per current Misplaced Pages policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus -- Whig, WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard bibliography page

Given that the length of the list of published titles (which will become even longer if someone includes the taped lectures) made for awkward reading (scrolling, more likely) in this article, I have taken the liberty of creating a more compact, selective bibliography in the article and adding a link to a new page, L. Ron Hubbard bibliography, which contains the comprehensive list, and allows room for further additions or annotations if anyone is so inclined. --BTfromLA 23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

L. Ron, Jr. dead?

According to this article L. Ron, Jr. aka Ronald DeWolf died in 1991. According to this NNDB profile, he is alive. Anyone know which is correct? Deus Ex 4 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that way to me.

Born: 13-Mar-1911

Birthplace: Tilden, NE

Died: 24-Jan-1986

Location of death: Creston, CA

Cause of death: Stroke

Remains: Cremated, Dumped into the Pacific Ocean

A simple overlook perhaps? :] 66.176.244.196 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The NNDB page is for L. Ron Hubbard, not L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ronald DeWolf. AndroidCat 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Charlatan?

While browsing through Wikepedia this morning, I came upon the article on LRH. I know very little about the man. However in the section BIOGRAPHICAL OUTLINE: Education, Pulp Fiction, and Military Service, I found it disturbing to find the line " Hence, Hubbard has been rightfully considered a charlatan ". Nothing preceding this statemant logically leads to this conclusion. It is very biased and should be deleted. If the man was a charlatan, and he may well have been one for all I know, a higher standard of information is needed to make the case.

Of course you are correct. You should feel free to cut obvious POV interjections like that; I have done so. Hubbard and Scientology articles seem particularly prone to inappropriate POV editing, both pro and con. BTfromLA 16:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"a minor incident in any case"

L. Ron Hubbard's legal difficulties first began with charges of petty theft involving checks in 1948. He was later charged in 1952 with wrongfully withdrawing funds from his bankrupt corporation, and after examination of the bankrupcy court, made restitution.

While I agree that this is not the most major incident in Hubbard's life, I believe precedent really points away from removing it just because it's a "minor incident". The article on Rick Ross is always going to contain the information about his two non-violent convictions, despite them having happened 30 years ago, despite the judgements having been vacated over 20 years ago, and despite them having absolutely nothing to do with the work that makes him worthy of note now. In contrast, the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, wrongfully withdrew funds thousands of dollars from Hubbard Dianetics Foundation, Inc. is much more relevant to Hubbard, the father of Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, the "minor incident" claim followed the note about the fact that this anecdote was awkwardly shoehorned into the article, out of chronological order. My point is that it interrupted the flow of the article, seemed like a POV "piling on" to the list of Hubbard's unscrupulous acts beyond what was necessary to make a concise enyclopedia article about Hubbard: there is no shortage of reports of Hubbard's dubious trustworthyness in the article as it exists. (Indeed, I think there is probably more of it than necessary in the article as it stands.) The number of criminal or otherwise unsavory actions that Hubbard participated in or has been accused of is very large: we can't include all of them here, any more than we need to list every lecture he gave or country he visited. I'm lobbying for a concise, readable and fair presentation of his life, which means that many potentially relevent details must be omitted in service of those goals. BTfromLA 17:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see an "edit page" button as referred to the help files, so unsure where to appropriately place my comments.

All of the "debunking" type phrases are irrelevant to a concise biography (Although he claimed to have graduated in civil engineering from The George Washington University as a nuclear physicist, university records show that he attended for only two years, was on academic probation, failed in physics, and dropped out in 1931. It is also claimed that he obtained his Ph.D from Sequoia University in California, which was later exposed as a mail-order diploma mill. )

These comments may be true, but can be summed up with some version of "Much evidence has been used to successfully challenge Mr. Hubbard's informal boasts". -- Buddyandwilly

I'm afraid you're mistaken on multiple counts. First of all, these were not merely "Mr. Hubbard's informal boasts"; they were presented as his professional credentials, as his authority to make pronouncements on certain subjects, but he did not actually have the expertise he pretended to. For instance, the full title of Hubbard's book All About Radiation was actually All About Radiation by A Nuclear Physicist & a Medical Doctor. Hubbard, of course, was neither, and no person can take seriously the claim that it was an "informal boast" to bill himself as such.

The other count you are wrong on is the idea that it is "irrelevant" to a biography of Hubbard to point out which biographical details the reader may have heard about Hubbard happen to be falsehoods. Since these false claims about Hubbard are still (incredibly enough) being made, a useful biography of Hubbard should deal with them. "Concise" is nice only when it doesn't pre-empt more important things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Business controversies

I found the following text fairly unconvincing.

Some documents written by Hubbard himself appear to suggest that he regarded Scientology as primarily a business, not a religion. In one letter dated April 10, 1953, he says that calling Scientology a religion solves "a problem of practical business", and status as a religion achieves something "more equitable...with what we've got to sell". In a 1962 official policy letter, he said "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors." . A Reader's Digest article of May 1980 quoted Hubbard as saying in the 1940s "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

Let's take each claim in turn.

The reference to "practical business" could easily be explained idiomatically. When I meet with colleagues, we often discuss "practical business", although we are academics, not businessmen.

The comment about "what we've got to sell" could similarly be justified on idiomatic or metaphorical grounds. Again, such language is common among academics and I will be unsurprised to hear it from religious figures.

The quote regarding activities of the organization, accountants and solicitors is similarly unpersuasive. It just isn't a smoking gun suggesting that Hubbard was in it as a business.

Finally, the "million dollars" quote. This one may persuasively show that Hubbard was motivated by money instead of altruism. But I think that this claim is fairly controversial, so I wouldn't want to lean on it too heavily.

I say either find more persuasive examples of Scientology-as-business or remove the paragraph. Phiwum 11:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would point to the fack that higher positions are attained via the purchase of progressively prohibitive volumes. Or mayhaps the fact that services are acquired via a transaction of valued credit, a practice more akin to a mercantile organization than traditional institutionalized faiths.Dryzen 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: private life missing and false claim about sunken submarine

1. His private life is missing. What should be mentioned is that he had a son, Quentin Hubbard, according to Monica Pignotti. . Andries 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Also, I wonder why the false claim about the sunken submarine is important. False claims by military men about casualties of the enemy are quite common. Is this claim presented as fact in Scientology's hagiography? If so this can be stated. Andries 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron certainly did have a son, Quentin Hubbard, who is described in a number of biographies and court affidavits. --FOo 01:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And Quentin's been mentioned in the article for quite some time. See the first paragraph under the "Scientology" heading. BTfromLA 03:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting opinion: Hubbard believed his own lies

from Prophetic Charisma by Len Oakes Syracuse 1998 University press ISBN 0815603983 page 170 According to Len Oakes, Hubbard told many blatant untruths about his own life but he believed in his own untruths. Andries 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusing Passage

"received a promotion to Lieutenant Commander in June 1947 (a promotion Hubbard never received and hence never accepted, and his subsequent (honest) biographical material refers to his final rank as Lieutenant), and resigned his commission in 1950." Really confusing. Can someone who knows what that means rewrite that sentence?

It doesn't read very well, does it? (You can tell it's been hacked around a bit...) I'll see what I can do to fix it. -- ChrisO 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For such an information there needs to be some verifiability. How about going with whatever the cited link says is true, else delete. Terryeo 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"pseudoscience"?

I note that the phrase "the pseudoscience Dianetics" currently appears in the first sentence of the article. While this happens to match my own opinion, I don't really understand why it's stated as such here; surely since we're already linking to Dianetics, we can leave the discussion of just what Dianetics is to that? To my mind, the only reason to have it in its current place is to fairly alert the reader that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is -- but IMHO this is handled better by simply noting that it is "controversial", as is done later in the same sentence for the Church of Scientology.

The only reason I'm not changing it right now is that rather a lot of editors who I would think must have seen it have let it stand, so I'm wondering if there's some reason previously discussed that accounts for it, though I don't see any such discussion here on the talk page. Anyone? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, Antaeus. I think it's an unnecessary POV inflection to the intro. Cut that adjective, says me. BTfromLA 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree to have it removed. It was added by an anonymous IP on January 5th. Povmec 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you people would only take 5 minutes out of your busy schdule to understand what Dianetics is, you would never have to contest what it is again. Ten books make it a body of information, ok? It is at least information, but then so is "how to bake an apple pie." It concerns itself with thought. That's its attention and direction. People get confused with the physical things it says happens, but physical things are not its address. It addresses itself to thought, thoughts like "what did you have for breakfast" and "when you were deep in the mine and the roof caved in, what were you thinking" and "what were you aware of just before the pain became so great that you were no longer concious" and stuff like that. Thought is what Dianetics is about. It is so simple that people don't want to understand it. Thought and the communicating of one's thoughts to another person via careful communication (by the auditor)Terryeo 22:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. Unscientific is entirely different from controversial. And Dianetics clearly does not meet scientific standard. Hence, the description is not only correct, it is warranted to inform readers on the unscientific nature of Dianetics. Possibly, one might suggest that "Dianetics is considered pseudoscience."--Nomen Nescio 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand my question. Why is that description, even if correct, which I think it is, warranted in the first sentence of an article that isn't Dianetics? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I cut the whole mention of Dianetics in the short intro. It seems complete that wayand bypasses the problem we're discussing here. The importance of Dianetics to Hubbard's career is well covered in the article itself. BTfromLA 00:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand how anyone could misunderstand so badly. No offence intended. Terryeo 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, it isn't clear whom you're addressing or what you're talking about. Who misunderstood what so badly? BTfromLA 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi BTfromLA, well really almost everyone but specifically the top of this section which says: "...fairly alert the reader that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is," which statement seems to state "I don't really understand what Dianetics is supposed to be about, it doesn't seem to me to be about anything but controversy." Then too, every time I try to insert a definition of what Dianetics is about, it gets deleted right out of there. I mean it is real simple. It is about thoughts. One person tells another person their thoughts, their attention is directed by the second person. Terryeo 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, Terryeo, if you expect to ever start being perceived as a serious Misplaced Pages editor, you're going to have to abandon this attitude of "any time anyone even acknowledges that there exists a point of view on Dianetics/Hubbard/Scientology which does not match mine, I will attack it as violating NPOV". This is just a prime example here: I acknowledge that while it is the view of some people that Dianetics is a pseudoscience, I suggest that it is unnecessary to state that it is in the introduction of this article. What do you do? You misrepresent me; you quote me saying "that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is" to claim that it's my way of saying "I don't really understand what Dianetics is supposed to be about." That is a completely false misreading which no editor acting honestly and reading the statement in context could make. Even trying to follow the conversation makes it perfectly clear that the statement acknowledges the simple fact: Some people think Dianetics is a pseudoscience. Some people do not. For you to twist that and claim that the act of acknowledging that there are differing views on what Dianetics is, is equivalent to the editor saying he personally fails to comprehend one of those views, is a reprehensible misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, okay Antaeus, I understand what you said. To reply to the point which I think you are underscoring, that you are not making an edit to push a POV, but making an edit because it simply reads better, makes sense, etc. okay. I got that. Actually, I think most of the back and forth editing is arriving at an area of definable difficulty (which might have known all along anyway) in the bottom of the Dianetics talk section. Terryeo 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cutting the mention of Dianetics does seem to sidestep the problem effectively. But just for the record, I think there's nothing POV-related about "pseudoscience" being attached to Dianetics. It is not subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. It is proven many times over and a given that Dianetics is not scientific. Yet it presents itself as such. Therefore, ipso facto, Dianetics is a pseudoscience. Anyone who doubts this, ask yourself: who decides what is scientific and what is not? Well, the scientific community, of course. And has the scientific community accepted Hubbard's theories? Far from it. Hubbardism has been debunked more times than crop circles or pro wrestling. wikipediatrix 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, exactly by "debunked." I suspect you mean something like, "not only does it never work, but the whole thing is a scam, just as it was intended by its author to be." That of course is a point of view and I suspect why you happily attempt to destroy it ? As for "pseudoscience," you notice there is no disipline to examine it, don't you? None of the hard sciences approach a "science of the mind" or even a "pseudoscience of the mind." It is just plain not in any other area of examination. Because it is about "X" and there is no comprable scientific disipline to examine, cross examine it and test its ideas, Psychology can happily point to it as "pseudoscience." Heh, on the other hand Dianetics points out just as happily that "psychology" is neither a science nor a study of the psyche. Terryeo 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to argue about Dianetics' scientific validity (and lack thereof), and your penchant for circular argument doesn't make me terribly interested in doing so anyway. Anyway, suffice it to say that most of Hubbard's concepts (conveniently) can neither be proven true or false, and thus they are not scientific by definition. And the assumptions he predicates his concepts on contradict mainstream science. I don't always agree with mainstream science either, but they do make the rules, because they're the scientists, not you or myself. wikipediatrix 01:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was attempting to understand what you meant by "debunked". Now that you have said what you meant by "debunked" and I understand what you meant by "debunked" I do understand that you were talking about the validity of the subject. Meaning, validity as being true as stated. At Dianetics talk, it seems to be getting close to defining our area of disagreement. And there is Misplaced Pages procedure for how to handle disagreements about "theory." Maybe we can produce good, readable articles. Terryeo 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)~

Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint :

A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which none the less are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:

• "The Scientology cult began in..."
• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization"
• "X is a pedophile, a form of sexual perversion"
• "Cripples may find it hard to get a job..."
• "Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific approach to healing"

Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage. It is the fact that the usage is accepted outside but not usually inside, which means they imply a point of view, that the article too is looking from outside, not inside.

(This is not the same as political correctness. We generally seek to describe, rather than find a harmless term. So the description of Scientology as a cult is attributed to a source, the KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism, "Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped" which is not considered as POV by disabled people, and the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity... but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards".)

It's often a good idea to try and avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").

This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint.

Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality.

Apokrif 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

citation for the 1947 promotion to Lt. Cmdr

Can be found here. Also other details which shed interesting light on the subject:

In view of your general service classification and since reference (c) found you physically qualified for limited shore duty only, you are not considered physically qualified for promotion and the authority for your appointment to the rank of Lieutenant Commander under the terms of reference (d) has terminated.

By endorsement to reference (c) this Bureau modified the recommendations of the Board of Medical Survey and the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, and you are to be released from active duty since your services are not required in your limited capacity.

Therefore, no action will be taken to effect your promotion prior to your release from active duty.

(Source: Air mail letter to Hubbard from BuNavPers, October 19, 1945)

-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. So he finally got the promotion that he'd been angling for (to put it mildly), and probably never even knew it. I don't think even the CoS fiction of his record mentions that. Thanks! --AndroidCat 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril

"Hubbard is also a featured character in the novel The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril by Paul Malmont, scheduled to be published by Simon & Schuster in May 2006." This is the author's first novel and it hasn't even come out yet; I smell self-promotion and I definitely don't think it should go above the table of contents. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't see how it merits any mention whatever. BTfromLA 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed too, but isn't that a great title for a book? -- ChrisO 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

'Recent' changes

I remember reading this very article a few weeks ago and there being reference to Hubbard spending some time on a ship with young boys. I cannot remember exactly what, but there is no specific reference to it anymore. Can anyone remember what it said?

It was probably a quickly-reverted piece of vandalism; this article tends to have a number of regular vandals who come in and try to slip in unacceptable edits of one sort or another. Since they tend to have favorite "themes", it's probably the same vandal who made this edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

The parody section towards the end features a bunch of assumed parodies of l. ron hubbard but i wonder how many of them are just parodies of religious sects/scams in general instead of scientology specific, scientology wasn't the only one and wasn't the first. Can anyone clearify/source on them? --62.251.90.73 13:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be pretty specifically based on Scientology. Either there is a clear L. Ron Hubbard parody, or parody of his name; or else (as in Bowfinger) it's pretty obvious - a science fiction cult that has celebrity centers seems pretty clearly a Scientology parody. john k 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed to here for discussion: L-Ron is the name of a fictional character in the DC Comics universe. He was initially a robot foe of the Justice League but later L-Ron's consciousness was transferred into the body of Despero and he became a member of their short-lived Justice League Task Force team.

Other than the name, what's the connection to L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology? The L-Ron article provides no clues. AndroidCat 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that one did seem odd. john k 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Did L. Ron Hubbard have sex with children?

Just wondering. Or more to the point (and perhaps a fairer question): Has anyone ACCUSED L. Ron Hubbard of having sex with children?

Only wondering because of the South Park episode. Thanks.

- S

The only thing which I have heard which is even close is the fact that many of his personal assistants in the Commodore's Messenger Organization were very young children and while the CMO is portrayed as "administrative assistants" they acted more like servants to him. Even at that, though, I've never read anything which suggests that anything sexually inappropriate happened. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it was in the South Park episode mostly because child molesters are reliably and universally despised, but there may be some connection to L. Ron Hubbard having (reportedly) said that Jesus Christ was a pedophile and a lover of young boys. Sort of a turning of the "accusation of pedophilia in order to discredit a religion" thing against someone who had used it. Or not! - Zotz 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In A Piece of Blue Sky it mentions that "Hubbard was not averse to sleeping with female students, though he did so discreetly, until the mid-1960s." (P9C2) The teenage girl servants in the CMO were described "wearing white hot pants", but CMO didn't come about until the late-60s (P6C1). So, at least in that book, there was no suggestion that he slept with children or teenagers. Chiok 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the South Park episode used paedophilia as a direct replacement for the twisted logic spread by Scientology - it was analogous, not a direct accusation. - dave420 06 April 2006

I thought they just did it because they wanted to use samples from Chef. His main line is "Hello Children" and he also has various lines about having sex, so it is sampling match made in heaven. Chiok 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Text added by 209.221.110.5 removed to here:

Hubbard had also been accused of being a pedophile and sexualy assaulting young boys on his ship.

Other than possibly LRHjr, I don't think anyone has accused him of that in real life, and South Park is not a primary source. AndroidCat 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics confusion

There seems to be a bit of confusion, or maybe just poorly-constructed passages, about when Dianetics was written and published. The first mention seems to indicate he wrote it in 1950... and that it was then published in 1949. And then later, when it's talking about the "E-meter", it mentions a Dianetics enthusiast inventing it in "the 1940s". -RannXXV 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"This is what Scientologists actually believe"

I changed this little bit slightly. It originally said it was exaggerated, but I see no evidence of this and edited accordingly. If it was meant to relate to the differentiation in how the souls were thawed out (I can't believe I just wrote that), then that isn't an exaggeration it is a mistake (I don't know which is right- atomic bomb or volcano). —This unsigned comment was added by DarkSideOfTheSpoon (talk • contribs) .

I think you misread it slightly. It didn't say the SP version of the Xenu story was exaggerated, but that a viewer who didn't know the Xenu story might think that what they were seeing was an exaggeration. This is why the caption, which is rather similar to Dave Barry's famous catchphrase "I swear I am not making this up", necessary precisely because so much of his humor comes from when he does make stuff up. Anyways, I've rewritten it so that it's hopefully clearer why South Park thought they needed a caption. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I get what you mean. My bad. It is very clear now though. Good stuff. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about biographical accuracy

I have edited the first paragraph. "The Church of Scientology has produced numerous biographical publications that make extraordinary claims about Hubbard's life and career. In the end, however, numerous investigations from journalists and critics have found most of these claims to be fabrications. Regardless, there is still a general agreement about the basic facts of Hubbard's life." The point is very much in dispute so you can’t say they have found the claims in the biographical publications to be fabrications, as Scientologists have produced documents that back the statements up. So, it is contentious and not neutral to say it the way is stated in the current entry. California guy 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph as well, because the accounts of LRH by the Church of Scientology differ substantially from the accounts of LRH done by independent researchers (including the US Dept. of Navy). Numerous books about LRH exist and they tend to show that much of what CoS "officially" says about LRH is a lie. Many other CoS claims simply have no justification at all. (e.g. "the youngest Eagle Scout ever!") Vivaldi 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientology hasn't produced documents. Scientology has produced claims. The actual documents (course transcripts, military records, etc) show that usually these claims are false. AndroidCat 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one case of Scientology producing documents, namely what's supposed to be Hubbard's record of service (on an official US Navy form). Unfortunately this shows him receiving medals that didn't actually exist, serving aboard ships that didn't serve in WW2 and is signed by an officer of whom the US Navy has no record. It's a trivially disprovable forgery, in other words, and it's revealing that the CoS would try to use it to prove Hubbard's claims. -- ChrisO 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is less accurate to say "The point is very much in dispute" than "The Church of Scientology is still very much in denial." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point of dispute as there is no evidence that Hubbard claimed that he had graduated in civil engineering from the University as a nuclear physicist and it is beside the point to talk about his having attended the university for only two years and having failed in physics. Many famous and successful people have not graduated from university. His abilities were recognized by his professor and his colleagues. The Phd from Sequoia University was an honorary degree and was not conferred until many years later, so is out of place here. California guy 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but there is evidence that he claimed to be a civil engineer and a nuclear physicist, starting with books and on through his lectures. It's his false claims that are notable, not his success or failure without degrees. As well, CoS continues to repeat fabrications about his life, so it's very much in place to mention them here. Speaking of which, can you document your statement that "His abilities were recognized by his professor and his colleagues"? AndroidCat 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As AndroidCat points out, there is indeed quite a lot of evidence that he falsely claimed to degrees which he didn't have and expertise which he didn't have. It is hardly "beside the point" to observe that a man who wrote a book called All About Radiation and claimed in that book to be a nuclear physicist did not even pass the courses he took in physics. And finally, when you say that the Ph.D that Hubbard claimed he had from Sequoia University was "conferred", what you actually mean is "purchased". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipediatrix says, there are two sides here and having a positive entry does not make it “puffery.” I have sourced my edit. How does a critic site or an evangelist (who is against everything other than his own religion) get to be a credible source for something that could be classified as “negative puffery?” Lets get some balance in here. If you want documentation to back up my statements - I can arrange it - just tell me where you want it posted. California guy 09:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can claim with a straight face that it's just "negative puffery". You deleted two bits of highly relevant and verifiable data. First, GWU's records definitely do show that LRH scored very low grades and dropped out. This is directly confirmable from GWU itself, not just from critical books and websites (try writing to GWU and asking them). Second, Sequoia University was definitely a non-accredited body which was widely regarded as a degree mill. Look it up on Lexis-Nexis and you'll see a number of LA Times articles about the California Assembly's investigation of its proprietor and its termination by court order in 1984.

While I don't have any problem with most of your additions (which I've retained), I don't agree with the line "where he attended the first class in nuclear physics, then called atomic and molecular phenomena". We only have Hubbard's word for it that it was the first such class, and it's important to note that he subsequently used it to claim expertise in that field despite his records showing that he got an F in it - it's a prime example of how he inflated his achievements (a consistent theme throughout his career). -- ChrisO 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You will see I have made some edits. The statement quoted was not made by Hubbard’s superior officer, it was the Harbour Master. The current entry is opinionated and not neutral, it ignores that the crew reports also confirmed the presence of a submarine in the area. The entry also makes no reference to the political motives behind this effort to claim there was “no sub”, despite the first-hand observations of the crew. This is a very one-sided version and I have edited it accordingly. Also, it is being ignored that Hubbard worked in intelligence during the war and that only a fraction of his naval records have been released by the U.S. Navy. Prouty is well qualified in the field of intelligence and his data should be included. I have corrected this.California guy 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources can be opinionated, Misplaced Pages articles cannot. You complain about the article's POV, yet your own pro-Hubbard POV push doesn't seem to bother you. In inserting your own information, you also removed a great deal of equally relevant information. I'm reverting it. Feel free to try it again without blanking out large amounts of other sourced information. wikipediatrix 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prouty was (he's dead now) an idiot and is completely non-credible as a source. He based his assertions on this document , which the CoS has been distributing for at least the past 20 years with the claim that it's a genuine record of Hubbard's war service. However, as I mentioned above, the document is a crude forgery - it lists medals that don't exist ("British & Dutch Victory Medals"), a ship that didn't serve in the war (the "USS Mist") and a signatory officer of whom the US Navy has no record. He wasn't much good as an "expert" if he didn't spot these trivially obvious signs of fakery.

As for Hubbard's intelligence career, see for a debunking - basically he worked for a few months as a cable censor and that was it. Unfortunately CG's latest additions are little more than long-disproved CoS PR claims. -- ChrisO 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't in relation to the other topics on this page, but it SHOULD be included in the questions about Mr. Hubbard's biography. There are two items posted about his birth and early life that dispute each other - one says he was born TO the Hubbards, and another says he was adopted by the Hubbards. It can't be both. I've been trying to fact check myself but come up empty-handed...does anyone else have a citeable source that proves whether or not the Hubbards are his biological or adopted parents? -- SpaceCowgirl 23:12, 13 July 2006

Actually, the content is correct, but it's unfortunately arranged in such a way that many people misread it. It says that Ron was born to Harry and May; it then talks about Harry and May, and mentions that Harry was adopted by the Hubbards (Ron's paternal and of course adoptive grandparents.) No contradiction, but it does cause confusion... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of "controversial"

"of the controversial Church of Scientology" Any religion (or cult, sect, political party) can be "controversial" for a number of people, so why use this word for the CoS in particular? I don't think this word adds useful information to the article. People interested in learning what Scientology (or the CoS) is can follow the link and read, in the relevant article, what controversies exist about this topic. Apokrif 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other groups may have some controversy, but CoS has waded in it for the 53 years of its existence. It's a rare newspaper article that doesn't say something like "the controversial church" as if it was part of the name. I think it's an accurate reflection of the general view and not just "a number of people". AndroidCat 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So we should say, for instance, "the CoS about which, according to this study, N% of newspaper articles say it's controversial". Most people think the CoS is a cult, that's not a reason to write in WP "the Scientology, which is a cult". Apokrif 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "controversial" is actually providing some benefit of the doubt to Scientology, since it contains the implication that there are two sides. No one refers to, say, Al-Qaeda as "controversial", because it goes without saying that almost everyone in the free world opposes them. wikipediatrix 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apokrif, you're correct that anyone can follow the link and read about the Church of Scientology and discover that it's highly controversial. However, not everyone will. When I'm working on an article, I try to always keep in mind that the reader could stop reading after any sentence; therefore I want to make sure that if they stop reading after N sentences, those N sentences have given them the most important information they can get in N sentences. What's "important" in this context? Well, since we've presumed that the reader is going to stop before they get all the information we have on the topic, the most important thing we can do is give them a framework for any further information they get on the subject. In this case, the "controversial" alerts the reader that there are probably some very different viewpoints out there on the subject, and that if they hear something about the subject, it should be interpreted as not necessarily "the truth" about the subject, but rather, someone's side of the story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this holds for (almost) every subject, so I think "controversial" (without some additional info) is one of the Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. I opened a topic at Misplaced Pages talk:Words_to_avoid#"Controversial":_vague_and_useless. Apokrif 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you think every religion/cult/sect/political party has a level of controversy anywhere near that of Scientology, I'm afraid you're either not well-acquainted with the subject or not prepared to see it clearly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Few topics are so deeply embedded in controversy as the Church of Scientology. While a responsible article should ultimately be more explicit about the nature of the controversy (the fact that a large percentage of the church's self-representation is judged by most third-party observers as misleading or outright false), using the word "controversial" to flag the contentious nature of this topic seems entirely appropriate. The fact that one can find controversy within virtually any field of discussion does not mean that everything is equally controversial. The CoS, like "intelligent design," is an outstanding example of a controversial subject. BTfromLA 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't much like the "controversial" tag; it has the connotation of "controversial" = "bad". -- ChrisO 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that's an unavoidable effect of the fact that for every issue we could describe as "controversial", some people would argue that it's good and some would argue that it's bad. If something isn't controversial, that implies that everyone is agreed on whether it's good or bad. Will some people read into the word "controversial" a judgement that is not actually denoted by the word, reading "controversial" as "bad"? Yes, unfortunately it's so -- but I've no doubt that the absence of "controversial" will lead readers to mistakenly think that whatever is so described is mainstream and free of controversy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. That's the nature of controversy. We wouldn't call Hitler "controversial", because he has almost no defenders. - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "contraversial" is appropriate when describing Scientology. On the basis of their contraversial theories on psychiatry alone I think it is one of the more milder terms to use. Whether the word can be applied to other "churches" is irrelevant. This article is about Scientology and the general public's view of it. Contraversial can be applied to Scientology, and justifiably so. Jmabel is right to say "We wouldn't call Hitler "controversial", because he has almost no defenders" (well, he actually has quite a few defenders, but regardless...) but a theory linking Hitler to modern psychiatry and some master plan would correctly be identfied as contraversial and by extension any organization that espoused or promoted such an idea quite rightly could be labled contraversial. Ultimately the creditbility of any religon or church or politics or fad is judged by the mainstream. It is price you pay for promoting your belifes in the free marketplace. In return for the money and power any church or religon gains by going public it must, and rightly so, be held accountable by the same free marketplace wherein the religon proffers its beliefs, otherwise the church/religon is being hypocritical. -- Jango Davis 19:10 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Links Issue

This is not a list of “Independent Studies” it is a list of POV sites. There are already other negative POV links on this page, so I am reorganizing this to get some balance in here. Rather than just pile in another load of new links, I am taking most of these out (other than those that can factually be called “neutral.”) And I’m labeling the critical sites for what they are, let’s not kid ourselves that “parodies” and straight out slander are “Independent Studies.” I am seriously unimpressed with the lack of NPOV being exercised recently. Nuview 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but somehow I don't think you are quite the person we want to trust to make the decisions about whether external links need to be removed to achieve NPOV, let alone which ones need to be removed. If you can make a case for the removal of a particular link, make that case. If all you can say is make vague allegations of "straight out slander" and can't even specify which link you mean, let alone explain how it constitutes "slander" (hopefully at least you actually mean slander according to the real, legal definition, and aren't just using it to mean "something I don't like") then you're unlikely to get much support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As is being done with the Scientology article, the external links are being cleaned up in accordance with point 4 of the Wiki guidelines on external links: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:EL

On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view – in particular, Misplaced Pages's guidelines on undue weight.)

Also, as the heading “Independent Studies” is misleading (sounds official) I have reorganized the external links section so that it is very clear what is critical and what is not, with a Neutral section to catch what is clearly not a Church site, nor a critical site. With the Amazon entries, it is clear which is which. As it was, these external links were misleading and this is now balanced and the link text is matter of fact. -- Nuview 14:45, 26 July 2006 (PST)

The Style Guide WP:EL seems to be in a state of flux right now. I don't think fanatically retro-applying the version of the moment would be wise. AndroidCat 01:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard founding the Church

Olberon, at the very least, it is still a matter of opinion and controversy whether Hubbard founded the Church himself, or whether others did. Sure, official Scientology sources say that others did, but there are other sources which state that these people were actually employed by Hubbard to set it up for him. If you persist in pushing the Church's "Hubbard didn't found it" party line, I'll have to gather up the many sources which contradict this assertion, and then an entire paragraph about it will further clog up these articles. Furthermore, the Church can't keep its own position straight on the matter: I just found several official Church sites that refer to Hubbard as its founder. Let it go. wikipediatrix 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For Rep Damaging Purposes?

Researching, I found out that this China journal entry was written when he was a teenager – Ms. Spaink fails to mention this. Are we going to include all of his childhood writings and make it look like “Scientologists are against …” ? This entry is irrelevant. California guy 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If any other religious leader made well-known racist remarks in their childhood, it would still be worth reporting, so don't act like Hubbard is being unfairly picked on. If you can provide a valid source for the info that Hubbard's remark was as a teenager, I agree that should be noted in the article. wikipediatrix 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix – do the math. He was born in 1911 and this journal entry is dated 1928. How much more “valid source” do you need? By the way, your attitude as an editor is extremely unhelpful. From your edits and comments you are extremely hostile – I don’t get the “chip on the shoulder” bit.California guy 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting point here - the CoS itself quotes from this diary but for some reason omits his racist commentary. Take a look at this page: . In the original diary, the very next line (after "Chinamen") reads: "They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." Now why do you think the CoS faithfully reproduces the rest but omits that line? -- ChrisO 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as Scientology is still insinuating that Dianetics is somehow based on the ancient wisdom of the mystic East which Hubbard absorbed on his trip to China, it is relevant that the actual evidence shows that Hubbard was actually a racist prick on that trip. I quote from What Is Scientology, 1998 edition, page 31: "It was also through the course of these travels that Ron gained access to the much talked-about but rarely seen Buddhist lamaseries in the Western Hills of China -- temples usually off-limits to both local peasants and visiting foreigners. Among other wonders, Ron told of watching monks meditate for weeks on end, contemplating higher truths. Once again then, he spent much of his time investigating and questioning answers to the human dilemma." So you're saying that the Church of Scientology is allowed to make false claims about Hubbard's teenage years, but it's "irrelevant" to show that his own diary entries show them to be lies? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Either the whole story goes in, in which Sara Northrup retracts her statements saying that what she said was false and purely to discredit Hubbard – which I can do, or this stays out and we skip it. California guy 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make ultimatums. You do not WP:OWN the article. wikipediatrix 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, please stay civil and objective and discuss the topic at hand. I came here to see if I could cleanup the article and this is what I saw first at the bottom of the talk page. --Nikitchenko 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is redundant, of course his followers are going to show him in a good light and of course apostates and/or critics are going to show him in a bad light. Someone is determined to leave the public with the impression that its all bad. California guy 15:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We could clean up the article by removing all statements referenced to unreliable sources (Personal websites) such as Andreas' site (Xenu.net), Lerma's site, Armstrong's site and the other personal websites. I think this will clean up the article somewhat. What does the Misplaced Pages community think? --Nikitchenko 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the references refer to personal claims made by the owners of those websites, fair enough. But not if the references are to published third-party sources such as books. I note that California Guy's attempts to remove the "Piece of Blue Sky" reference falls into just this category. -- ChrisO 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko, I for one agree that a clean up is in order. I saw there is an ongoing discussion about “reliable sources” that hasn’t been settled. I concur with your views on this. There are a number of personal web pages being used as references; however the validity of the information they proffer is most dubious. The website owned by Andreas is a good example of your point, the guy never was a Scientologist in any capacity and the information on his site is all based on second-hand information. As covered in the Misplaced Pages guidelines, this doesn’t classify as a “reliable source.” Its time some ground rules were established here. I think you should proceed. California guy 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko, aka Al, is unlikely to proceed with anything for the moment. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology#30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed AndroidCat 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am revisiting this Sara Northrup issue. I am removing this, with more information given as I doubt California Guy has the specifics. Sara Northrup retracted her accusations in a signed statement saying that “the things I have said about L. Ron Hubbard in courts and public prints have been grossly exaggerated and entirely false.” --Nuview 21:30, 7 June 2006 (PST)

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding Misplaced Pages policy again, Nuview. I felt sure that after the last five explanations, you were finally understanding, but it seems not. We have information in the article that Sara Northrup made certain allegations in her divorce papers, and that those allegations made a large public splash. That is fact: Sara Northrup did in fact make those allegations. That is sourced: we have it from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Now you are coming along and saying "Well, I have information from a different source, which claims that those allegations were all retracted! I won't present the source for consideration, and I won't consider the notion that perhaps the allegations were true and it was the retraction that was false, nor will I allow the reader to make up their mind whether they think the allegations or the retraction of the allegations was the more credible. Instead, I will simply assume that my source, which I will not present for consideration, settles the question so absolutely that nothing need ever be mentioned about any of the whole affair." This is incorrect. Even if you were to present your source, and even if it was to meet all requirements, it would mean that you could add what that source claims on the matter. It doesn't mean you can remove any mention of the argument -- that would be equivalent to declaring that your source settled the matter. And declaring that the matter is settled by a source that you don't even present is too absurd to even address. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's Start the Cleanup

I am not sure where the idea came from that Chel Stith is the President of the Church of Scientology International. Rev. Heber Jentzsch is the President and has held this position for 24 years. (http://www.scientology.org/scnnews/jentzsch.htm) This is just an example of the sloppy, unverified editing that this page is receiving. It definitely needs cleaning up.-- Nuview 13:01, 9 May 2006 (PST)

Next: I don’t want to discuss back and forward on the subject of individual entries in the parody section so I am proposing to remove the Parody section altogether. I have been unable to find any parody section in any other article about a religious leader, or prominent person (see the list given on this page Parody is its own thing and doesn’t belong in what should be an encyclopedic, biographical type article. This would be a major edit and I want to get consensus on this. Lets keep POV out of it and look at this editorially. Nuview 22:32, 21 May 2006 (PST)

I am taking this to mean that is no objection and I am removing the parody section in its entirety for the reasons stated above in my last comment (that it doesn’t belong here as there is no parody section in any other article about a religious leader, or prominent person (see the list given on this page . Parody is its own thing and doesn’t belong in what should be an encyclopedic, biographical type article.)Nuview 20:58, 28 May 2006 (PST)

Absence of comment is not consent. (I'm sure many people have become bored commenting on the same things you keep doing every couple of weeks.) AndroidCat 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. What is there to do with someone who keeps putting forth ridiculous suggestions such as "Let's disallow Time magazine as a source, because I personally think that Time got it wrong"? When you've tried repeatedly to explain to such a person what they should have understood themselves just from reading policy, to no avail, what is left but to ignore? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no precedent for keeping the parody section in this article, no other parody sections exist in any similar articles -- nor should they. This is the issue.Nuview 21:26, 7 June 2006 (PST)

"There is no precedent" only means that we make our decision based on the current situation without any benefits incurred from having resolved similar cases in the past. It does not mean, as you seem to think, "we will delete this section based on the fact that no other article that I define as being of similar type has a similar section." Perhaps none of the figures described in those articles did as much to attract attention, some of which came in the form of parody, or even more likely is that many of those leaders were equally parodied, except that it is far easier to recognize "science fiction writer who created own religion" as a reference to LRH than it is to identify "shady 'guru' comes to the United States and immediately starts peddling the alleged mystical wisdom of the East" as any one specific figure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Autopsy Contradiction

There is a contradiction in the article about whether or not an autopsy was performed.

"They were blocked by the San Luis Obispo County medical examiner, whose autopsy revealed high levels of a drug called hydroxyzine..."

"Several issues surrounding Hubbard's death and disposition of his estate are also subjects of controversy — a swift cremation with no autopsy; the destruction of coroner's photographs; coroner's evidence of the drug Vistaril present in Hubbard's blood..."

The first statement says that an autopsy was performed and the second statement says the coroner found evidence of Vistaril, which suggests that at least some type of examination was performed. -- Kjkolb 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan of sources seems to indicate that there was an examination of the body, and blood tests (which revealed the Vistaril) but no autopsy. I suspect someone simply didn't know that not every examination of a body by a coroner is called an "autopsy". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The supposed implications of L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.'s "retraction"

It may not be well known but L. Ron Hubbard Jr. retracted the statements he made about his father (which he conceded were for his own personal gain) several times. This was in the form of affidavits duly sworn and signed in 1969 and 1987. To use the statements he made prior to this to discredit his father is inappropriate considering he approached the Church to make the truth known, stating “… what I have been doing is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of damage to people that I value highly. I happen to love my father, blood is thicker than water, …” He also stated in the 1987 affidavit that the statements he made in manuscripts in his communications to Bent Corydon and others, were no more than “wild flights of fantasy based on my own unlimited imagination. To no represent those statements as ‘truth’ and to steal the hard earned value of the name “L. Ron Hubbard” by using my former name as the co-author of a book I have neither written nor reviewed, is an unethical act of the highest magnitude.” Therefore these removals, as the source is not valid. (Ref: http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/frenschkowski.html) -- Nuview 21:01, 16 June 2006 (PST)

Ah, Nuview. This would be, what, the sixth time you've removed cited information based on this same fallacious logic? Seventh? I do know for a fact that it has been explained to you why you cannot just say "I have a source, which I have not presented for consideration, which claims that all statements made by that source are unreliable; I decline to present my source and let the reader decide which source they find credible, but instead will unilaterally decide that my source settles the argument and remove all contrary information based on a source I haven't even presented." Of course, you've gone even beyond your previous actions this time, removing a link to one of the major works because one of the two authors of that work (not even the major author) supposedly retracted everything he ever said that the Church of Scientology didn't want to hear. The question is, when are you going to start abiding by this very simple application of Misplaced Pages policy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar – Finally answering you. I am sorry I don’t have a point of reference on the web to send people to, however, I have quoted the sworn affidavits by L. Ron Hubbard Jr. In terms of discussing and getting a consensus, please show me where there has been a recent instance of someone trying to include something positive or remove something false in the Scientology articles and the discussion on this resulting in the editor being listened to. Fine to criticize my application of Wiki policy, which policy do you suggest I follow to get my points actually discussed – rather than blown out of the water by editors who have already decided NPOV means the critical POV = majority rules? Be helpful and you tell me the solution to getting the extreme amount of falsehoods corrected in this article, instead of just following my footsteps and nuking everything I do. Prove that I shouldn’t query your editorial motives.-- Nuview 11:30, 12 July 2006 (PST)

The material you removed is properly cited. You are invited to add to it if you think you have complementary information that may shed a different light on the subject (and of course with proper cites). Removing well-cited material is inappropriate. Raymond Hill 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Ron DeWolfe later recanted at least one of his retractions, saying that it had been made under duress. (See the Clearwater Commission Hearings, 1982.) AndroidCat 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting from 1987, 5 years later. I am removing this again -and reiterate, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. retracted the statements he made about his father (which he conceded were for his own personal gain) several times. This was in the form of affidavits duly sworn and signed in 1969 and 1987. He stated “… what I have been doing is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of damage to people that I value highly. I happen to love my father, blood is thicker than water, …” He also stated in the 1987 affidavit that the statements he made in manuscripts and in his communications to Bent Corydon and others, were no more than “wild flights of fantasy based on my own unlimited imagination. To now represent those statements as ‘truth’ and to steal the hard earned value of the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ by using my former name as the co-author of a book I have neither written nor reviewed, is an unethical act of the highest magnitude.” Ref: http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/frenschkowski.html

Nuview 10:10, 8 Aug 2006 (PST)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics