Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 7

Split off an article or two?

Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs) makes a good point. There is enough material to make an article on L. Ron Hubbard military career. This actually would be a very interesting article, that would in and of itself probably already be sourced to over (20) reputable citations. We could then summarize that article, here. Thoughts? Smee 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Definitely the way to go. wikipediatrix 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about splitting the article but I'm slightly confused by wikipediatrix's agreement since the amount of information and it's "debunking" nature are what I understood to be her problems with it. In a separate article it's still going to be unacceptable. Anynobody 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My complaint has been about "undue weight". This means that too high a percentage of the content of the L. Ron Hubbard article is devoted to his war career, to systematically debunking his lies, to digging up dirt. Once this identical text is moved to an article of its own where his war career is the actual topic at hand, then there's no limits to how much detail can be devoted to it. (My complaints about the tally images, however, would still remain even if moved to another article.) wikipediatrix 01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You have said that you feel undue weight given to debunking his claims in general

And once the article reaches its "Biographical controversies", it's really hurtling out of control, so I'd literally be cut and pasting the entire article from that point on, so I'll spare ourselves that here.... Hubbard's drug use! Hubbard said "chink" in 1928! Angry ex-wives! Allegations of sex magick! "International opinions"! (why??) "Legitimacy of Scientology as a religion" (why here??)

— wikipediatrix 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're giving me the impression this article should say "L. Ron Hubbard was an author and founder of Scientology. The end."

Would you oppose splitting off the "Biographical controversies"?

The "tally images" are a visual aid, if you feel they are not conveying the information in an appropriate way you could suggest changes.

You must realize that if Hubbard and the CoS had been honest about his service, recounting his record would not seem like debunking. Are you saying that we should not discuss anything that diverges from his version of events? Anynobody 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? How can you even ask that when I've stated just the opposite? wikipediatrix 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read them all, and can't tell from your choice of words, how to describe almost any aspect of his life without contradicting (and thus debunking) some of what he said. Perhaps you could point to a version of the article from it's history that you approve of. Anynobody 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making this so difficult? Why do you persist in thinking I've said we shouldn't contradict what Hubbard claims, when I've stated no such thing?? wikipediatrix 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding you, again could you point to a past version of the article more in line with your vision of what the article should be. The article is/was a WP:GA so when did it start really hurtling out of control? Anynobody 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you assume I'd be happy with a past version of it?? Anything else I could say at this point would just be cut and pasting comments I've already made. wikipediatrix 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You've never liked the article? You have edited it in the past, diff 08/22/2006 and how the page looked after your edit: [1]. Is this closer to what your saying the article should be? (Frankly pasting your previous statements wouldn't be very productive since I am still asking you about them.) Anynobody 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in Hubbard's personal life, so I've never really paid close attention to the article as a whole, only stray bits here and there that I've edited. I only closely read it after seeing it discussed as a featured article candidate. You're talking this to death here. If you don't think the article as it stands right now is too unduly weighted, we just disagree and there's not much else to say. I've already explained what the problem and the solution is as I see it, don't know what else to tell you. wikipediatrix 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to know how the article should look to satisfy the pov tag you placed on it. You've done a lot to say what it SHOULDN'T be, but if you can't say what it should actually be then I'm going to have to remove the tag. When you put a pov tag on an article you're supposed to say how it could be edited to fix the pov issue. I have no idea what you think the article should be only that it shouldn't be what I thought. Rather than try again to meet your standards, I'd like to know just what they are so I can compromise with you. Anynobody 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to talk to someone else now. You clearly still haven't listened to a word I've said. I've explained more than enough to justify the tag. If you don't understand what undue weight means and why this article is filled with it, ask someone else. wikipediatrix 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral reviewer of FAC agrees with splitting article

• DIFF - This sounds like a good idea. Smee 05:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, I'm not opposed to splitting the military section I'm just trying to figure out once that's done what wikipediatrix thinks would be appropriate for the article. *She said she wants the whole and discussion of the legitimacy od CoS as a religion removed. Anynobody 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly did not say I wanted the whole biographic controversies section removed! This is the fourth or fifth time you have put words in my mouth or understood me to have said something I didn't say, and it's getting really bizarre. I don't know why you're doing this but it's profoundly annoying. wikipediatrix 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix I understand the concept of undue weight, I'm asking how much is allowable? Anynobody 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda what we're supposed to be hashing around here right now. That's why I brought it to the talk page to discuss instead of jumping in and fixing it myself. That was a mistake, obviously. wikipediatrix 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Temp This is what I imagine the end prodcut of your suggestions. Anynobody 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That version removes all controversy. I've never suggested removing all controversy. wikipediatrix 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix does the version on the temp page now reflect what you feel the article should be? I'm not trying to be difficult, as I've said, but we need more input than just yours or mine before making actual changes. This whole time I've been trying to get you to show us what you want the article to be so we could discuss bringing it closer to what you want. Anynobody 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding undue weight is more important than what I want, what you want, what anyone wants. There's no question that the original version of the article devoted too high a percentage of its text to negative trivia - one can do a word count and prove it. As noted at least twice before, Adolf Hitler is a good example of how to do a bio article about a person whose entire life is filled with lies and wrongdoing, and yet still find the self-control to refrain from being an overly-detailed pedantic litany of those wrongdoings. wikipediatrix 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the whole Hitler article? It's very comprehensive, discussing not only his service in WW I but his childhood and parents. When discussing Hubbard's childhood, issues like his claims of being a blood brother to the Blackfeet or the youngest Eagle scout need to be discussed. Evidently Hitler was more honest about his past than Hubbard. If Hitler had claimed to have been related to the Kaiser are you saying we wouldn't discuss it?

Why are you being so evasive about what should be in the article? I don't think undue weight has been given to anything, you do. If you are correct then I am more likely to include "unnecessary" information if you don't say what is necessary in your opinion. Anynobody 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removed

I took out these items, which were soon put back:

In Keith Giffen's Justice League International, a robot appeared aptly named L-Ron. In later issues, L-Ron's full programming code, "L-Ron H*bb*rd" was revealed. L-Ron is still a minor character in the DC Universe.

Hubbard was awarded the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature for "his crackling Good Book, Dianetics, which is highly profitable to mankind — or to a portion thereof".

Are a couple of jokes that important that they should take up space in his biography? Steve Dufour 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour I put the Justice League reference back in because it's true. The character isn't a villain, and Keith Giffen didn't appear to be creating the character out of spite. This is one of the claims the CoS makes that is actually true, other fiction writer's included Hubbard. Anynobody 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think these items are trivial, which is why I removed them. Steve Dufour 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think people interested in sci-fi writing/comic books AND Scientology would find the DC comics info interesting. I'm not arguing for or against the Ig Nobel prize though. Before removing it though I'd recommend explaining more thoroughly why you think it's trivial apart from your opinion. Anynobody 02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'd agree that it's trivial in the way that it's currently presented, though perhaps a case could be made for mentioning it under something like "Impact on popular culture". -- ChrisO 15:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sudden major removals

In just a little over 90 minutes this morning, Wikipediatrix removed 45% of the article. Among the means by which she did so was by removing all discussion of Hubbard's military career from the body of the article to a brand-new article and leaving only a fleeting reference at the beginning of an unrelated sentence ("After his military service (1941-1947), Hubbard returned to writing fiction ...") This is utterly contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice, which firmly establishes that if a new article is created to hold details which are getting to be too much for a main article, what goes back in the main article is an NPOV summary of the new spinout article, not a single buried wikilink. The practice of shuffling inconvenient facts off to a separate article and then minimizing mention of that topic in the main article on the pretext that "it's covered elsewhere" is such a well-known gambit of POV pushers that I frankly find it difficult to believe that an editor of experience could have ever thought reducing Hubbard's military service in his main article to six words was legitimate.

That is far from the only section that was removed entirely. I'll note a few of the others below, and why removal of them was hasty at best and a full whitewash at worst. I'm sure others will follow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess what, Feldspar? Sorry you find it "difficult to believe", but I am an editor of experience and I did think it was a "legitimate" edit. Sorry if you think it's a "well-known gambit of POV pushers", but so is making condescending insinuations such as you have just done. wikipediatrix 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When you see a newbie mistake being made by a newbie, it's easy to believe that it could be a mistake. But when the editor is clearly not a newbie, it becomes correspondingly more dubious that it was a mistake, either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I didn't see anything horrendously wrong with it and I still don't. Either way, I don't think it's worth angsting over to the degree that you are. wikipediatrix 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, you are indeed an experienced editor and this type of situation appears to have come up before. I mean no offense, but the difficulty we've had communicating led me to wonder if I was being unclear or if this involves more emotion than anything else. Diff of old POV issue and your block log. I'm not saying these blocks were all justified, but given your passionate tone and the response you gave to Antaeus Feldspar is it possible you're letting your opinion and preferences dictate your actions here?

I'm open to discussing changes to the article, but you're not giving very specific information about what you see as WP:NPOV. You've said that the article gives undue weight to discussing irrelevant aspects of his life, which were added by other editors who obviously think the disputed info is relevant. Anynobody 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Legitimacy of Scientology as a religion"

If we had to boil down L. Ron Hubbard's life to one thing he had, then anyone, whether Hubbard's biggest fan or greatest detractor, would inevitably have to say "He founded Scientology." How can it possibly be thought irrelevant whether he did so with utmost sincerity or under deceptive pretenses?? Wikipediatrix's edit summary says '"Legitimacy of Scientology as a religion" is off-topic here', but that only shows that the section is poorly titled, because it is all about Hubbard and the evidence that he was merely solving "a problem of practical business" when he founded his own religion. Quite far from being off-topic. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, such detailed analysis doesn't go on the article for the guy who created a thing, it goes on the article about the thing. wikipediatrix 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the guy created the thing for his own profit at the cost of others time and money THEN tries to create an image of himself as the greatest friend to mankind ever the legitimacy of his "creation" is very relevant. Anynobody 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not for you or I to judge that his profit margin or his "friend to mankind" shtick makes questioning Scientology's "legitimacy" more of a must. wikipediatrix 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not judging it though, that's for the readers to do. I'd like anyone reading the article to understand that Hubbard's colleagues mention his advice to use a new faith as the vehicle to wealth. Given how much the CoS charges for advancing up the bridge or whatever they call it, the information seems relevant. If they (the readers) want to judge, so be it, if not that's ok too but at least they have all the info. Anynobody 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

International opinions

Once again, the section is poorly titled. What does it matter (for that matter, what does it mean) that these opinions are "international"? What does matter is that these are opinions about L. Ron Hubbard by High Court judges in Great Britain, by Superior Court judges in the United States, by Supreme Court judges in Australia, in short, by figures outside the "independent journalists and ... former Scientologists" who the Church tries to pretend are the sole source of any form of questioning of Hubbard or Hubbard's account of his own life. Again, I cannot see how anyone acting in good faith could reasonably believe that removing this information would actually bring the article closer to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess what, Feldspar? I did do it in good faith whether you can see it or not. And guess what else? The "International opinions" section and title aren't mine, they were already there, so I'm not to blame for that. wikipediatrix 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been asking wikipediatrix for an idea of what she thinks the article should be. Since you're also unhappy with the new version I've moved it to the temp page and restored the article (for the most part). Maybe she'll be more amenable to discussing changes with you. Anynobody 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Given Feldspar's reprehensible WP:AGF-violating insinuations above, not likely. wikipediatrix 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offense but you haven't exactly been a beacon of good faith yourself:

::I think I'd prefer to talk to someone else now. You clearly still haven't listened to a word I've said. I've explained more than enough to justify the tag. If you don't understand what undue weight means and why this article is filled with it, ask someone else.

— wikipediatrix 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

but I'm still trying to come to a compromise with you. You haven't made your reasoning clear that the changes you suggest are necessary beyond your opinion that article is POV and must have information removed to bring it back to WP:NPOV compliance. Given that I'm having difficulty understanding just what you are proposing and exactly why, you should probably WP:AGF with Antaeus Feldspar. (Unless there is a history of arguing I'm unaware of.) Anynobody 08:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am proposing is the way I edited the article before Feldspar reverted it. Why I am proposing it has already been expounded upon multiple times. If you look at the FAC discussion for this article, we see impartial editors who are not obsessed with Scientology making the same complaints I am. wikipediatrix 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be a summary of his military career and the controversies over it, as that's of major importance to the founding of Dianetics (don't forget he supposedly invented it to cure his own ailments). Treating it as a one-liner isn't adequate. But I do agree that the existing military career content is too lengthy for this article and could benefit from being spun off into a separate article. -- ChrisO 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bit you refer to should be mentioned in the Dianetics section. The main reason I reduced Hubbard's military 'career' to one sentence in the article is primarily because he really barely had one at all. "Ron the War Hero"'s naval service was as brief and nondescript as his school record. The more we yap about it - even to debunk it - the more we give it credence that it doesn't deserve. Rather than write an essay about it, I think it best to simply say something like "Contrary to his own claims, Hubbard actually did very little of note in the Navy and earned very few medals", list those medals, give sources, and get out and move on to the next bit. wikipediatrix 15:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO would you mind writing a summary of his career for this article? I'm not sure what exactly wikipediatrix thinks would be appropriate, but I think she'd respect your rationale. (I'm not trying to imply anything about wikipediatrix by saying this, I simply want the article to get organized ASAP and this seems the quickest way given our stalemated disagreement.) Anynobody 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Impostors replace with Category:Fraudsters

I was about to remove this when I realized he did claim to be a nuclear scientist, how does everyone else feel about this category? Anynobody 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think being an impostor implies something more than just saying you are something. Maybe check out the other people in the category. Steve Dufour 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more to an impostor than just claiming to be something, on that you are correct Steve Dufour. However he also wrote books about radiation, which also means he was acting like nuclear scientist too. Anynobody 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still seems like gratuitous name-calling to me. Are there also categories for drug abusers, hypocrites, liars, megalomaniacs and pederasts? wikipediatrix 02:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, but there are categories for "Fraudsters"... Smee 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

A man who writes a book called All About Radiation where he claims knowledge of a scientific subject and calls himself a nuclear physicist but has no training is not impersonating one? Looking at the other names on the list I see Frank Abagnale, a man known for writing bad checks and impersonating among other things a doctor. I'm actually pretty sure Hubbard wrote bad checks too, though not on Abagnale's scale.

If it's the truth, how is it gratuitous to call Hubbard an impostor but not Abagnale? Anynobody 07:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The category might be justified then. One thing to consider is that because we have freedom of the press in the USA it is not illegal to write a book under false pretenses. If he had applied for a job as a nuclear scientist that might be a civil violation. Of course writing checks under a false name or impersonating a doctor or a police officer could be criminal matters. Steve Dufour 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you seem to think that simply because something is the truth, that makes everything okay. LOTS of things are true that don't necessarily need to be in the article, and don't necessarily need to be reflected by categories. It's also the truth that Hubbard was an entrepreneur, so how about Category:Entrepreneurs? Category:Chief executives? He also composed music and released albums, so how about Category:Composers? Category:Musicians? He was well known for his kooky philosophy, so how about Category:Philosophers? He was a staunch anti-psychiatry activist, so how about Category:Activists? And Category:Health activists because of his vitamin-B obsession and the Purif? He made many films, so how about Category:Filmmakers? And don't get me started on categories about hobbies or personal habits. One could go for hours making a parlor game out of thinking up categories that could apply to Hubbard, but obviously, as per WP:CAT, restraint should be used and categories should be kept to a minimum. wikipediatrix 15:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention Category:Philosophers but I'll explain that at the end since the question appears to be sarcastic (and thus if it was you didn't want or expect an answer).

You're right, the Category:Impostors inclusion would be WP:OR. I thought the Anderson Report called him one but I was wrong, they called him a fraud.

However Hubbard may appear to his devoted followers, the Board can form no other view than that Hubbard is a fraud and scientology(sic) fraudulent.

— Australia 1965 Anderson Report

.

Therefore I'm going to change my position in favor of Smee's opinion that he be included in Category:Fraudsters.

I'm not familiar with his musical talent, but would be willing to discuss adding him to the categories as long as he meets their requirements of course. The same goes for any other category. The funny aspect of mentioning the philosopher topic is that in the same report they pointed out an instance where Hubbard clearly states he didn't think of himself as one. Anynobody 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure he didn't think of himself as a "fraudster" either. That you would support branding someone a "fraudster" on the basis of what a handful of Australians stated their "view" was in 1965 suggests a serious lack of proper encyclopedic perspective, not to mention a total disregard for WP:CAT, which says that restraint should be used and categories should be kept to a minimum. (And that's the second time I've had to point that out.) Obviously, I'm no fan of Hubbard either, but this POV drive to push for the most negative presentation possible is getting beyond ridiculous. wikipediatrix 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned his view of himself as a philosopher because the CoS appears to consider him one too despite what he said. I didn't say we shouldn't because he didn't think of himself as one, just pointing out a bit of irony. Since I'm willing to discuss putting in the music categories I don't see why you'd assume I was saying it would be more appropriate for the article to mention them but not his possible status as a philosopher.

Do you suppose many of the people listed in that category would want to be? Leaving it up to the subject would be like asking a criminal if he/she felt they should go to prison. It's also hard to take a person seriously who is implying that adding him to the Category:Fraudsters is "branding" him as though nobody had EVER said that about him. You're acting like we're besmirching the good name of L. Ron Hubbard by describing some of his actions for what they were; fraud.

Discounting a source because it's "Australian" and outdated is hasty;

...on the basis of what a handful of Australians stated their "view" was in 1965...

— wikipediatrix 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Australian sources are just as valid as American or British sources.
2. The "view" being from 1965 is not a valid reason either to disparage it as a source, he was arrested BEFORE 1965 after all.

Anynobody 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you that he be classified as a fraud on the basis of the Anderson Report's 1965 opinion, when most people who have actually been charged with crimes do not have this reflected in a category in their Wikipedia article? wikipediatrix 05:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because multiple sources say he was, I just picked the Anderson report because I thought it called him an impostor, remember that is the title of the section. Turns out they called him a fraud, but they aren't the only ones as I thought you were well aware. Why is it so important to you that his criminal history not be discussed? Would it make you feel better if we sourced the FBI files released through FOIA mentioning his criminal history instead of the Anderson report? Anynobody 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. How do you make the mental leap from my distaste for this category and twist that into accusing me of not wanting his criminal history to be discussed? Seriously: slow down and read, then re-read what I say, and think before you fire off an automatic response. wikipediatrix 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not twisting your words or ignoring WP:CAT, and I'll explain the latter first. It does indeed encourage sparing usage but this is relative to what the article says and how big it is.

1. Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. Say what you will about him, but Hubbard was many things and claimed to be many more. This is going to cause a general increase in the number of categories he's in for better or worse.
2. An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article. Most articles and their subjects are pretty specialized, so adding a lot of categories can be counterproductive. Then you have people like Adolf Hitler as you pointed out and others like Leonardo Da Vinci, Nelson Mandela, and Theodore Roosevelt who tended to leave their mark in multiple areas. Hubbard belongs with the exceptions.
3. Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. Not part of the issue.
4. Check to see where siblings of the article reside. If there are few if any articles in a category, the article probably belongs in one of the subcategories. Not part of the issue.
5. Articles should be placed in categories with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article can also be placed in categories populated with similar articles. The category can be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush. Not part of the issue.
6. There are often occasions when articles might ideally be moved from a category to two or more of its subcategories, but not all of the subcategories exist. In such cases consider creating the additional subcategories, but if you decide not to do so, leave the articles in the parent category for the time being. Not part of the issue.
7. Bend the rules above when it makes sense, but only if no other solution can be found. This is a time when it makes sense, if the article discusses his fraud issues readers might want to know about other cases of fraud by still other people. If his fraud history had not been discussed in the article I'd agree that inclusion in the category is improper.
8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option. I can't think of any other way to say a person is guilty of fraud, not saying it actually violates WP:NPOV which says:Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. His status as a fraudster is a fact, whether either of us likes it or not.
9. An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or organization members or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. There are multiple references which document his record.
10. If you don't know where to put an article, don't worry about it. Instead of adding a category, use the {{uncategorized}} tag to bring attention to the article. Editors who love to categorize articles will find a good home for your article. Not part of the issue.

NPOV also says Let the facts speak for themselves..., calling a person who commits fraud a fraudster is not a POV assertion it's just a plain fact. Calling somebody a dirty fraudster is a POV assertion.

I'm not twisting your words because you still haven't said how his record should be addressed despite my many requests. Anynobody 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix. I would not consider Hubbard an impostor in the usual sense. All sorts of folks pretend to be better educated when they write on topics, but this does not make them impostors (liars, sure, but there is thankfully no category for that). Hubbard was not convicted of fraud (was he?) and the fact that a single report calls him a fraud is not sufficient to put him in the fraudster category.

We don't really need to look for new and exciting ways to add controversy to the article. The plain and simple facts paint a complete enough picture of Hubbard, without adding disputable judgments like "fraudster" and "impostor". Phiwum 12:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion Phiwum, however he was convicted of fraud in France. Hubbard, a guy named Andreu and some others were all found guilty. (Hubbard wasn't there) Andreu was the only defendant to appeal, and eventually won his appeal but Hubbard's conviction was unchanged see this article. This by itself earns him entry into the fraudsters category, but any second thoughts I had were eliminated after reading several accounts of his less than kosher practices in the United States, [2] [3] [4].

On an organizational note, would you mind if I moved this discussion to the main section discussion? I created this subsection to discuss my removal of two other categories from the article, in case anyone thinks I was wrong. It's still possible someone may want to post here, which is why I ask that we move this. Anynobody 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That he was convicted (I missed that) lends some weight to the claim that he should be included in the Fraudster category. But, at least in my mind, not everyone convicted of fraud is a "fraudster". How is the category defined? (Does WP give reasonably explicit definitions of categories?) For now, I will withhold my opinion on that category.

Feel free to move this discussion (and excise this remark). It was only by accident I put my original comment down here anyway. Phiwum 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, how are the US files relevant to the idea that he is a fraudster? What does fraudster mean to us? Phiwum 02:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been pretty consistently described as a fraud, besides France and Australia official sources in Germany, the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States have called him a fraud to name a few. Here, in the US, he had a habit of writing bad checks, evading creditors by moving often, as well as running his businesses into bankruptcy and making illegal withdrawals from them.

He also received disability from the government after having invented Dianetics (therefore theoretically being able to cure himself) AND becoming a millionaire so even if Dianetics didn't cure him he didn't need help from the government. There's more even, but I'm hoping it's clearer by now why he belongs in that category. Anynobody 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed two categories

I have no doubt that his drug use did have something to do with his stroke, but there is no reference saying so therefore it should be removed. [[Category:People from California]] doesn't apply to people from Nebraska. If there is a category for people who lived in California that would be more appropriate. Anynobody 04:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Integrated trivia and most controversies

I couldn't figure out what to do with Attitudes regarding race, so if anyone has an idea where it should go please be my guest in moving it. The integrated paragraphs will need some editing to make them flow together with the sections I added them to. Anynobody 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Attitudes regarding race sometime after 3 days from 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC) if I or anyone else is unable to work the information in somewhere. I don't mean this to sound like a threat, I just think we should get rid of it if it doesn't fit. Anynobody 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, the portion of the "Attitudes regarding race" section is significant especially because the same lama priests he was mocking in 1928, he would later claim had introduced him to "China’s ancient wisdom that had been handed down from generation to generation", "ancient wisdom" with which he would in turn try to bolster Scientology's appearances of legitimacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it has to be banned, just that it needs to be integrated into the article somehow. If it can't be integrated and I remove it, I'm also not saying you can't integrate in later. The Biographical controversies section has to go though. Anynobody 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the early life section. Anynobody 05:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sequoia University

Currently the article states that Sequoia University was shut down in 1984, approximately 30 years after granting Hubbard his honorary degree. However, I think that what is more probable is that there have been two unaccredited institutions that went by the name of "Sequoia University" -- that there was the Sequoia University one-man operation of Joseph Hough[5] and run out of his Los Angeles residence[6] which came to the negative attention of the California State Assembly in 1957[7] and was shut down in 1958[8], and then much later another institution, the one described in Bears' Guide, used the same name until it, too, was shut down, this time in 1984. This to me seems far more plausible than that Hough's one-man operation somehow survived its 1957-8 difficulties and lasted another quarter-century or so and only then was shut down by a judge's injunction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's plausible, but I'm afraid it's inadmissible original research until your hypothesis can be documented. -- ChrisO 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the circumstances again, you'll see that what's in the article now is the actual unproven hypothesis. We have a reference saying that Sequoia University (specifically the one which granted Hubbard his honorary "Ph.D") was shut down in 1958. And then we have a different reference saying that a Sequoia University (no mention of whether it is the same one) was shut down in 1984. To assume that the Sequoia University shut down in 1984 is the same one that granted Hubbard's degree in February 1953, even though this contradicts the reference which says that that Sequoia U shut down in 1958, that is the original research here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that the 1958 shut down was temporary until they could figure out a way around the new anti-diploma mill legislation. Then in 1984 an injunction was issued which they couldn't get around.

I'd be willing to believe your hypothesis but would need a definite source, and I'll explain why. Even though it makes sense a diploma mill shouldn't be able to operate that long after garnering negative attention, it's not impossible for a sham business to go on so long until exhausting the patience of a judge one day in 1984. Also I can't rationalize someone else starting a new diploma mill with the same name as one that was shut down by the state. Anynobody 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. We have a definite source for "The Sequoia University that awarded Hubbard his degree was closed in 1958." The hypothesis we don't have any source for is "that closing was only a temporary shutdown from which they recovered and went on to operate for another 25 years." Is it impossible? No, but it's implausible, more implausible IMHO than other hypotheses which explain the evidence such as "a second person sometime in the decades following Joseph Hough also thought of the name "Sequoia University" and thought it sounded good." I'm not suggesting we put that hypothesis in the article either. I'm suggesting that either we mention the 1958 shutdown of the Seq U we know is Hubbard-connected, or we mention the 1958 shutdown and the 1984 shutdown of a Seq U that may or may not be the same. But mentioning the Seq U we know is Hubbard-connected and only the 1984 shutdown which might not be connected doesn't make sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, it does sound awfully implausible but there is a fact which does increase it's likelihood. California may have enacted legislation in 1958 to combat diploma mills but it doesn't seemed to have solved the problem as there are still several operating there today, and have been for quite some time. Pacific Western University and Warren National University to name a couple that can be found here on Wikipedia. Honestly it just doesn't make sense for the second CU people to name the new diploma mill the same name as the disgraced first diploma mill, I mean I could maybe see calling a new mill something similar like California State Sequoia University. It'd be like starting a financial business called the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.

I'd support leaving a bit of doubt by saying the 1958 and 1984 SUs were probably the same. Anynobody 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Scout?

Is there solid evidence that L Ron Hubbard was ever an Eagle? The footnotes are rather unconvincing as are references in his biographies(even the anti-LRon ones), but the Eagle records at the time were so poor it is really hard to tell either way. Can anyone tell me what council(or city) he received his Eagle?Jerjharris 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Washington, D.C., according to Miller. -- ChrisO 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I saw that the picture in the infobox has been nominated for deletion on grounds of replacability. Are there any pictures of him in the navy that could be loaded on a free license as government works? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Later Life Picture

I stumbled across this article while looking up some information after talking to a co-worker about LRH, Scientology, et all and noticed a discrepency - how is it that L. Ron Hubbard, who died in 1986 according to the article, could be depicted playing a Nintendo Wii when the Wii came out in 2006? The incongruity of image wasn't clear until after I had scrolled back up and I figured out why it had seemed so wrong. Perhaps a gag image on the article? 216.99.185.50 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard's boy scout diary

No one has come up with a good reason yet why we, or Wikipedia, or Scientologists, or anyone on Earth should care about L. Ron Hubbard's boy scout record. The article says: "Church biographies routinely state that he was "the nation's youngest Eagle Scout" which is based on a March 25, 1930, report of the "Evening Star" and Hubbards Boy Scout Diary of 25 March 1924. Okay, that's already too much information. I can come up with dozens more celebrities who were also in the Scouts, yet we don't mention such micro-minutiae in their article. Even if we had notarized proof that he was the youngest Eagle Scout, who really cares?

But wait, it gets worse: since the Scientologists place so much needless emphasis on this Scout thing, of course the anti-Scientologist editors just have to try to dispute it, heaping counter-trivia onto trivia: "According to the Boy Scouts of America, their documents at the time were only kept in alphabetical order with no reference to their ages — thus there was no way of telling who was the youngest." Whew! Glad that vital issue is cleared up for the record! wikipediatrix 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are bigger problems in this article than Eagle Scout memberships, but I think you showed very well how this article became so big. What do you want to do? COFS 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Questioned

This article has once again deteriorated to the point I feel compelled to call its neutrality into question.Su-Jada 01:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is now just a poorly written attack piece. It should certainly not be listed as a good article anymore. ---Slightlyright 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific with your concerns, or better still offer a suggestion to make it more NPOV? Anynobody 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a tour through about a dozen Wikipedia articles,Anynobody, and in every other case but this, the lead article is the summary of the person's accomplishments followed by a timeline biography. Attempts were made in April to bring this article to the same standards. Then the article was frozen because of edit wars and in my opinion has continued to deteriorate since. I do call it's neutrality into question. Your not considering it is not POV does not cancel or set aside my statement that POV needs to be addressed.Su-Jada 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit more to the last: I'm reviewing the whole article and will address points of NPOV as I do so,but to begin with, this article fails to follow the standard of other biographies, all of which simply state the points about which the public figure is best known (in this case, as a writer, author of Dianetics and founder of Scientology). By diverging from that standard it skews the article. So, to begin with, I am going to move the paragraphs about his marriages down to the "Early Life" section and returning the lead paragraph to what was worked out in April.Su-Jada 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with dispersing the family stuff in the lead to other parts of the article, but moving them all to Early Life section would throw the chronology of the article out of sequence.

As to your concern about POV, I'm not saying the article is or isn't POV only that saying so doesn't make it fact. For example a concern about deviating from what Hubbard is best known for isn't necessarily a POV issue. If you are correct it sounds more like a WP:MOS issue.

Also you should consider using policies and guidelines as the standard to judge an article by rather than other articles. (You risk getting an incorrect idea of what is/is not preferred editing practices by quoting an article which nobody had noticed was incorrectly formated. Although if you really want to point to other articles then please list specific eexamples.) Anynobody 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I get your point on the style points and we can bring that into question. However, my point is that as written the article weights the controversy about L. Ron Hubbard above his accomplishments, and that is a POV.Su-Jada 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I want to take up another point in the lead section of this article, specifically "However, the Church's account of Hubbard's life has changed over time, EG, differences in editions of What is Scientology? noted by Tom Voltz in his book Scientology With(out) an End http://web.archive.org/web/20050207024745/www.lermanet.com/cisar/books/swoe00.htm, pages 58-59 http://web.archive.org/web/20050117203538/www.lermanet.com/cisar/books/swoe07.htm with editions of the biographical account published over the years differing from each other as new information came to light proving some claims to be inaccurate and many more false." I read the citation and there is nowhere in Voltz' account that presents any evidence that Hubbard encouraged, countenanced or even knew about the biographical changes. A statement like would be better suited to an article on "L. Ron Hubbard biographers" than in the lead section of the LRH biography. So, I am deleting this section. If someone finds a place in the bio where it would be appropriate they can add it back in there.Su-Jada 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Su-Jada the life of L. Ron Hubbard is pretty much one big controversy, for almost every aspect of his life there are several versions of what happened. One of the main sources on Hubbard is the CoS. The CoS has indeed changed it's version of Hubbard's biography. When discussing the nature of information available about Hubbard it's important to note contradictions and corrections. Anynobody 04:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine Anynobody. I don't disagree. But it should go at the appropriate point in the article, not in the lead section.Su-Jada 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then move it, instead of deleting something you "don't disagree" with. --Tilman 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, I don't disagree that it is interesting that his biographers changed their accounts over time. I still don't agree that it is an important aspect to his biography, but for now I've moved it to the "early life" section under the 1925-1927 era that Voltz describes in his essay.I think that having this in the LRH biography article.Su-Jada 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Su-Jada go ahead and put this back in the introduction where it belongs, as it is just about the most salient thing that can be said about an author... that he holds the world record for published works. Alas, the folks that hate Hubbard and Scientology (who - I know, I know - do not exist and are not responsible for making this article into an unreadable piece of crap) keep burying it down in the bowels of the article.

In 2006, Guinness World Records declared Hubbard the world's most published and most translated author, having published 1,084 fiction and non-fiction works that have been translated into 71 languages.[9] Guinness Gracious; Vox - Columbia Missourian; Sean Ludwig;

December 7, 2006; accessed 2007-02-11

{{cite web }}</ref>

---Slightlyright 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a good "comparison article" would be the one on Jim Jones. While Hubbard never led his followers in a mass suicide, his life IS very controversial, and treating his article like those of other, less controversial figures would be disingenuous, and would--of itself--constitute a departure from WP:NPOV.K. Scott Bailey 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

A good way to look at WP:NPOV is to see it as a measure of how faithful we as editors are being with the resources available about the subject. For our purposes the sources are WP:RS, WP:V references which is what that word means from here on.

Example

1. If the references say somebody was X, we should also say they are X.
   1. (If we said they were X-like or if we said ...some consider him/her to be X., we'd be committing a NPOV violation)
2. If another reference says they were Y, we would also want to include this as well.
   1. (If we ignored the reference that says Y, this would be an example of a NPOV violation)

Applying example to Hubbard

1. If references say Hubbard was heard to say one could become wealthy by creating a fake religion, that is what the article should say.
   1. (We should not say ...it has been alleged that he said etc. because that would be second guessing the reference in favor of the subject.)
2. I can't think of a reference which says something else about Hubbard, but if there is one we should use it.

So here is my proposal, those who feel the article violates NPOV please point out specific examples of either 1) Rewording a reference or 2) Ignoring one so that we can make the article NPOV. If they can not, the tag should be removed. Anynobody 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing but the respect and sympathy for the people maintaining this article, but I'm compelled to agree with the NPOV tag. The whole article could use a close review. Being the NPOV goodguys here means playing with one hand tied behind your back. You asked for specific example: The Church insists Hubbard was a US government intelligence agent on a mission to end Parsons' supposed magical activities and to "rescue" a girl Parsons was "using" for supposedly magical purposes. I truly understand and sympathize with the wording, but the use of "insists" and "supposed" and multiple scare quotes... that is an awful lot of NPOV slips in just one sentence. If someone says something then NPOV is that we use the word "says" without "insist"ings or supposedlys or scare quotes... make it a direct clean statement and then balance it by copying/attaching the London High court's statement calling it false (found elsewhere). Tighten the paragraph up by deleting the two entire "Mad Old Boy" and "Parsons as his friend" sentences... they are far less notable and only serve to excessively(POV) back one side against the other. Those two sentences actually distract and dilute what could be a powerful NPOV report of the Church statement vs the court calling it a lie. Trust the reader to decide who is more credible. I guess I should write up that edit, but I am really writing here to support the NPOV tag. The whole article could use a review for language and content choice. Keep the most highly notable items and make the hard choice to cut some of the minor stuff. A tight article with a few important items is more effective than a rambling article listing every piece of minor dirt and trying too hard (POV-pushing) to be a grand exposé backing up which side is lying and why.

On the other hand I disagree with some of Su-Jada's NPOV objections. Hubbard is far more notable for Scientology and controversy than for his accomplishments as an author. It is quite appropriate for Hubbard's authorship accomplishments to take a back seat in this article. I also think the issue of published biographies carrying false information is itself a relevant illuminating ripple of Hubbard's life. Discussing it also aids the reader in understanding and evaluating the content of *this* biography, some of which itself depends exactly upon the reliability of those sources. Alsee 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should prefer the phrasing "According to the Church, ..." rather than "The Church insists ...." This allows us to introduce more truthful sources on the same footing and let the reader decide. --FOo 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alsee thank you for taking the time to comment, you have a valid but difficult point about the "Mad Old Boy" and "Parsons as his friend" concern. The tough part is that they are sourced, but not to anything immediately accessible which I don't like. (I prefer a hyperlink so I can see it for myself, but we're not supposed to require it when using a book as reference.) Even though I don't like it, it has to be considered a source all the same. (In short I agree it should go because it can't be readily proven as I see it, but if Hubbard did say those things then it wouldn't be POV to point out their friendship).

Words like "rescuing" and other dramatic language actually come from Hubbard though, that's his side of the story. (I'd recommend reading his after action report, written after the encounter with two IJN subs. He tends to be melodramatic when describing things, but that is probably why he found success as a writer.)

As to the overall tone, there are several places where rewording looks necessary. You pointed to, and FOo and I agree, statements like "the church insists..." are better substituted with something like "The Church says..." or "According to the Church of Scientology..."

Anynobody 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected all the instances I found of unnecessarily POV descriptions, and removed {{NPOV}}. Anynobody 04:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?

Someone really needs to archive this page. John Carter 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do! --FOo 17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest bot archiving as the easiest option. My preference is for User:MiszaBot. It's fairly easy to set up, check out User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or take a look at Talk:Main Page and Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for examples. I could set it up myself, but want to make sure no one opposes first. Nil Einne 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the bot archiving integrate with the archives this page already has? If it does, or if you can make it do that, i'd love to see automated archiving here. Foobaz·o< 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Foobaz, you would be able to do that if it was set up correctly. If Nil Einne is happy to do so, I say go ahead :)  Tiddly Tom  20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As there's been no objection I've added it. The page should be archived when the bot next runs which should be in about 12 hours from now. Also, it's possible for the bot to archive to existing pages. But as the last archive (/Archive 4) is already 142k and for pages with only moderate activity like this one it's generally better to keep them smallish, I set the limit to 125k so it will use the next number anyway 5. The format will still be the same (/Archive X). I've set it to archive after a thread is not updated for 72 days and to keep at least 5 threads and only archive when at least 2 threads need to be archived. These settings can easily be changed if necessary, check out the header at the top. Someone will have to update the date tags as new archives pages are added which is all the manual work that should be needed. Nil Einne 12:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a good idea Nil Einne, I suggested it a while ago myself. Maybe the best place to find a volunteer to keep the archives updated could be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. Anynobody 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth Date

hey i'm just wondering why it says he was born in 1911 but enlisted in the navy at 1904? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.60.13 (talk) 03:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood what it said. Hubbard's father enlisted in the navy in 1904. wikipediatrix 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this information is relevant. The fact that's relevant is that they moved a lot, explanation being his father was from the Navy. I think the article's part on his parent should be removed completely.

leonardopsantos 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most other Wikipedia biographies have information about the subject's parents. I think a certain amount of information is called for. However, if you believe the article should be different than it is, i recommend you act boldly and change it to how you think it should be. Foobaz·o< 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-official biographies

User:Anyeverybody removed a list of references to unofficial biographies of L. Ron Hubbard, with the following summary: "rem unoffical bios... they are all already listed as references". That doesn't qualify as a good reason to remove this important reference material from the list. Raymond Hill 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The biographies are already linked in the Footnotes section...see L. Ron Hubbard#Footnotes numbers 2, 6, and 7. Anynobody 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, "A Piece of Blue Sky" is not a Hubbard biography. wikipediatrix 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

external links

As usual, the external links section is packed with extremist kooks and fringe conspiracy crap like the "Ron the Nut" hate site that calls its subject a "raving, lying, lunatic sociopath who fabricated Scientology and Dianetics" and "Hubbard was a petty thief; a wife beater; and sociopath; a drug-addicted, rum besotted schizophrenic"', pretty much disqualifying it as anything but an extremist slander site that can't be taken seriously by anyone who requires information be conveyed by persons who aren't ranting with spittle flying from their mouths and exhausting their Thesaurus for every negative and hateful adjective they can think of. wikipediatrix 04:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism banner

Hubbard is reported as being said to have been an incarnation of Maitreya, an incarnation of Buddha, and is included in the List of Buddha claimants. Maybe not the strongest connection in the world, but a real one. In the event any content related to that does appear, that project would probably best know whether it's accurate or not. If you think the banner inappropriate, of course, feel free to remove it. John Carter 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard and Scientology

I was looking at the Scientology section and it occurred to me that we should consider changing the section title to Hubbard and Scientology. The reasons being that the section discusses his relation with it and Scientology itself seems to have changed since his "departure" somewhat. Anynobody 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Time in College

The article states that he was in college for two years, however, I believe it is actually two semesters that he was enrolled. A judge quoted later in the article confirms that he attended college for only one year (two semesters). Thanks, --75.45.9.196 21:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

His transcript confirms this also: [10]. His grades are listed under "First Semester" and "Second Semester," rather than first and second years. --75.45.9.196 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC) It looks like the first semester was in the 1930-1931 year, and the second semester was in the 1931-1932 school year. I believe this is what caused the confusion. --75.45.9.196 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC) More specifically, it looks like the first semester was in the Fall of 1930, and the second was in the Spring of 1931 (this is consistent). That's all he did. Note that "Summer Session" is left blank on transcript. The college semester started in September; it looks like when placed on academic probation on September of 1931, that was actually indicating he did not attend that semester (which would have been Fall 1931). Case closed. --75.45.9.196 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I used a GPA calculator [11] and, assuming I did it correctly, Hubbard got a 1.7 GPA (grade letter average "C-"). (1 "A"; 6 "B"s; 3 "C"s; 6 "D"s; 4 "F"s.) He did slightly better his first semester, and in the second alone got 3 "D"s and 3 "F"s. Students get put on probation and dismissed from universities for a GPA below 2.0 (e.g., [12]). Hubbard was put on probation and "entitled to a statement of honorable dismissal." --75.45.9.196 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Hubbard career and education documents?

I was just going through a bunch of the references in this article concerning Hubbard's early life, and noticed that a lot of them are pictures hosted at http://misou.awardspace.us. I'm assuming it's because Misou was kind enough to provide free hosting for them. Nevertheless, because those are scans, I would suggest a a reference for each to indicate where the scan came from. I know they're not original research, but they'll look that way until they're backed up by a book reference or similar citation. For instance, there's this quote from the article:

In December 1940 Hubbard was licensed by the United States Department of Commerce to "Master of Steam and Motor Vessels", valid first in the Pacific Ocean only and - from March 1941 on - in "Any Ocean."

The only reference for it is a pair of scans on the above site here and here.

What are other peoples' opinions on this? Does anything need to be done about it? --GoodDamon 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In cases where the source is a periodical or other publication, the image itself is sufficient as a reference... but a license, a diploma or other type of printed certificate isn't a proper reference, scanned or not. wikipediatrix 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we have a real problem on our hands. We definitely need to get some better references to keep those statements. Almost everything on Misou's website is a scanned certificate of some kind. How in the world did they get past the first time? There are a ton of statements in the article that rely entirely on these references. I know there are better ones out there. --GoodDamon 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Online availability of documents is not a prerequisite on Wikipedia. If I remember right at least some of those documents are attachments to the official biography, published in 1977 (and also referenced in the text). I posted something on Misou's talk page (seems to be dozing through the summer again). Shutterbug 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, that'd be nice. Ok, on these docs, yes, they are from a pack (SO ED something with a sh**load of attachments). Any problem? Misou 23:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. If you know the books or other sources those scans came from, references to things like ISBN numbers should be fine, but we definitely can't leave those scans as the only references. --GoodDamon 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand this right that original documents are less worthy (as a source for quoting) than a second-hand interpretation? Seems a bit odd. Misou, is that SO ED (Sea Organization Executive Directive, an official, usually internal, Scientology directive (for those who don't know)) online as well? Makoshack 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Note to self: Yes, the SO ED is online as well and contained in the article as a reference). Makoshack 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the book/source which these certificates could be attributed to would have to conform with reliability guidelines and verification policies to be eligible for use. (I'm sure GoodDamon meant this as well. I'm just saying it for anyone who doesn't already know). Anynobody 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the reliability and verifiability of APOBS and the other axe-to-grind-driven publications used as reference material is far more questionable as actual documents are. Makoshack 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

French language source and her...

Judgment of 9 Nov 1981, 13eme Chambre Correctionnelle du TGI de Paris, p. 171, "...l'intention de tromper pour obtenir la remise n'etant alors pas etablie. Auusi bien sa relaxe s'impose." - ".. the intention to deceive being not then established. Therefore her discharge is imperative." (typo in original French)

The use of this reference seems contrary to our rule about verifiability because there is not an easy way for average English speaking web user to get copies of this document. Moreover, how can we be sure the "she" part is a typo. Besides the guy found not guilty in the scanned article there were two or three others including Ron. Since the court said the others may be pardoned if they appealed it didn't guarantee it and Ron would need to appeal too. Given he wasn't big on dealing with the judicial authorities in foreign countries he could simply avoid returning to it seems doubtful that ever did appeal. Anynobody 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug violates WP:AGF?

Here is an editing comment just added by User:Shutterbug "01:18, 2007 September 26 Shutterbug (Talk | contribs) m (78,344 bytes) (Reverted to revision 160366620 by Fahrenheit451; reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV pushing wording put in by F451. using TW)" Shutterbug accuses me of "POV pushing wording". --Fahrenheit451 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. And what was changed? Shutterbug 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing coming close to what you described it as, diff Official to Favorable, Unofficial to unfavorable. I see the point Fahrenheit451 is trying to make, some report only favorably on Hubbard (these are the official Church biographies), while any that mention information Scientologists consider negative come from unofficial sites. (Personally I think most people will figure out the difference between official and unofficial without our help.)

However Fahrenheit451 clearly tried to draw a distinction between the nature of the sites, but did not try to minimize or remove either side. Anynobody 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The change went from "About L. Ron Hubbard" to "favorable" and from "unofficial biographies" to "critical biographies". "about" (or better: "official" as it is now) and "unofficial" are neutral, factual terms. F451 tried to push in some validation, i.e. "favorable" and "critical". That's POV pushing, maybe not in its severest form but if add up his edits it's just another one of those. Shutterbug 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• F451 tried to push in some validation, i.e. "favorable" and "critical".
  Validation of what? That positive and negative opinions of his biography exist? (They do by the way.)
• That's POV pushing, maybe not in its severest form but if add up his edits it's just another one of those.
  Not really, it would be POV pushing if Fahrenheit451 removed the "Favorable" section. As far as adding up anyone's edits, the place for that is a noticeboard not here. Anynobody 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please... "favorable" means "positive", "unfavorable"/"critical" is a negative connotation. NPOV means neutral, so I put in neutral wording, "about" and "unofficial". This is a somewhat useless debate here. F451 usually claims to anything I state that this is either AGF, civil or whatever violation blabdibla - black propaganda smear - but neglects to state a reason or the policy. Until he does this is not worth wasting any more time. Shutterbug 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, favorable, unfavorable, and critical are simply terms describing the tenor of the site. There is nothing particularly POV about those adjectives. The sites may be POV, but that is a different body of data entirely. There you go again with another violation of WP:AGF "F451 usually claims to anything I state that this is either AGF, civil or whatever violation blabdibla - black propaganda smear". I suggest you restrict yourself to discussing editorial content rather than commenting about editors.--Fahrenheit451 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please... "favorable" means "positive", "unfavorable"/"critical" is a negative connotation. NPOV means neutral,... Wp:NPOV says:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.

There are two verfiable perspectives here, that Hubbard was great AND that Hubbard was a great fraud. Presenting both is being neutral, ignoring one or the other is POV pushing. Anynobody 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

F451, I suggest you stop throwing "you violated AGF" around and there was no cause to make that the subject of this section. Such behavior is harassment. As far as labeling the nature of sites. Well, if the sites have any place in this project at all, i.e. do they meet the requirements of WP:V, meaning that they are represent a reliable source or are notable in themselves, if they meet that then they should only be described as they describe themselves or as they are described in RS; otherwise it is WP:OR for you to give your opinion of what they are. --Justanother 13:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I clearly documented the instances of your his violating WP:AGF. There is no harassment there, just a civil warning. I suggest you take it to heart. Again, restrict yourself to commenting on content, not editors.--Fahrenheit451 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me please, F451. How is Shutterbug violates WP:AGF? consistent with "restrict yourself to commenting on content, not editors." Why don't you just knock it off? It is really really obvious. --Justanother 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I corrected the typo. Please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.--Fahrenheit451 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)