Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Duplicated section

The "University and explorations" section was duplicated and removed, and I think the following diff gives a good "before and after" picture: 23:13, 2 August 2011 to 02:05, 14 August 2011 (it was the edit on 23:31, 9 August 2011 that accidentally duplicated the section).

The changes look good except the "University and explorations" section now has an extra blank line in front, and the following ref duplicates a ref in the "Early life" section:

<ref name="Great Secret">"L. Ron Hubbard and American Pulp Fiction", in Hubbard, L. Ron: "The Great Secret", p. 107–8. Hollywood, CA: Galaxy Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59212-371-1</ref>

Before that is fixed, would someone please consult the source and see how the same two pages (p. 107–8) can verify the two claims: Hubbard was said to have become a "blood brother" and pioneering barnstormer at the dawn of American aviation (currently is ref 15). Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can verify the mention of "blood brother" via Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=gwolGaa-J9oC&lpg=PR4&dq=ISBN%20%22978-1-59212-371-1%22&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q=blood%20brother&f=false. NestleNW911 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a well docmented claim of scientology that the book discusses, not verifies, correct? 173.167.1.129 (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Diary entry scan

In the talk page archive, there are inquiries about the scan of a diary entry (documenting racist comments by a young Hubbard about the Chinese), which had disappeared since 2008, questions which have obviously been misunderstood: It was not an image in the article, but a reference that was deleted in this edit. For those who have wondered about the whereabouts of the scan, this should answer their question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Positive Criticism

The breadth and depth of this article, and the quality of writing, are impressive. Wikipedia and the contributors ought to be proud of this entry. I only hope that it can add information, and additional citations for existing information, in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.17.11 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fact Checked Article

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked

Someone should note that L Ron was not wounded in his service and cite this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.224.175 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmeirow (talk • contribs)

I think is was covered in his war record section which states "His medical records state that he was hospitalized with an acute duodenal ulcer rather than a war injury."Coffeepusher (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

weasle wording

"it was said" "some have said" "some said" SOOOOOO many times in this article there are goofy claims that are not properly attribted. Can we please fix that in the article to properly demonstrate when it was a church thing or something somebody can actually verify? 173.167.1.129 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello 173.167.. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a glaring problem about the sourcing and attribution of claims in this article. Ive notified BTfromLA and The Resident Anthropologist about this. I am all for the resolution of this issue as well.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to address here until you provide specific examples of the problem, preferably including a specific proposal for improvement. BTfromLA (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi BTfromLA. I've been doing some study and research on this and found a possible edit that we can start with. The portion that reads, "Hubbard was, and remains, a controversial figure and many details of his life are disputed. The Church of Scientology depicts Hubbard in hagiographic terms, drawing on his legacy as its ultimate source of doctrine and legitimacy.[4] He portrayed himself as a pioneering explorer, world traveler and nuclear physicist with expertise in a wide range of disciplines including photography, art, poetry and philosophy. His critics have characterized him as a liar, a charlatan and a madman, and many of his autobiographical statements have been proven to be fictitious." I don't see NPOV applied here, on the other hand, it gives undue weight to the negative perspective of the life of LRH, and not the other side of the story. There is a need to reframe Atack/Miller claims vis-a-vis the perspective and characterization of the church. The article defaults to Miller and Atack as THE truth, rather than one presentation of the truth.

I propose then that we replace this paragraph with: "Hubbard was, and remains, a controversial figure and some details of his life are disputed. He describes his pioneering expeditions, his travels around the world, his study and work in nuclear physics and others disciplines including : photography, art, poetry and philosophy. A few critics have characterized him as a liar, a charlatan.[5] This has led to a widening divide between the Church and critics of L. Ron Hubbard, and continued controversy in the accuracy of his biography."

Looking forward to working with you on this matter. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the original does provide a good outline of the difference between the primary and secondary sources, and maintains WP:WEIGHT in the process. In fact looking at the available secondary sources we may find that this initial paragraph is weighted to heavily on the content of the primary sources of the Church and LRH and doesn't pay enough attention to secondary and third party sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@NestleNW911, I disagree with your proposed change to the lede. The original paragraph is clear and concise. As stated by Coffeepusher, it reflects accurately the article's description of disagreement between the primary and secondary sources -- and it gives weight to the prominence of scholarship and secondary sources. Your version reads like a non-statement to me. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the revision proposed by NestleNW911. The paragraph is better left as is. Plazak (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Coffeepusher, CactusWriter and Plazak. I recognize that you want to retain as much of the originally written article, but there is still much work to be done with regards to properly framing the information found here and acknowledging the fact that there are varying perspectives on L. Ron Hubbard's biography. Another point of controversy is Hubbard's being a blood brother to the Blackfeet Indians in Montana. Wouldn't it be more faithful to NPOV if we presented the information vis-a-vis the church perspective? This is another point in the article that needs work. I understand that there may be some tweaking here and there, but it is a discussion worth having. It is quite biased to write off the church perspective and simply saying that it is not valid, without acknowledging that there is a dispute in what is accepted truth, allowing for a consideration of both perspectives.

Instead of:

"Contemporary records state that his grandfather, Lafe Waterbury, was aveterinarian, not a rancher, and was not wealthy. Hubbard was raised in a townhouse in the center of Helena.[16] According to his aunt, his family did not own a ranch but had one cow and four or five horses on a few acres of land outside Helena.[13] Hubbard lived over a hundred miles from the Blackfeet reservation. The tribe did not practice blood brotherhood and no evidence has been found that he had ever been a Blackfeet blood brother.[17]"

We would insert: "One point of controversy for Hubbard’s early life is his being a blood brother to the Blackfeet Indians in Montana. According to Hubbard, when he was a young boy in Helena Montana, a medicine man named “Old Tom” made him a “blood brother” of the tribe. Sappell and Welkos of the Los Angeles Times disagree with such a claim and say the tribe did not practice blood brotherhood, and that “Old Tom” would not be a common name given the lack of Christian names during the period."

Again, this is a work in progress. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That section has already "presented the information vis-a-vis the church perspective" as you would like. the paragraph prior to the one you quote states

""A Scientology profile says that he was brought up on his grandfather's "large cattle ranch in Montana"[12] where he spent his days "riding, breaking broncos, hunting coyote and taking his first steps as an explorer".[13] His grandfather is described as a "wealthy Western cattleman" from whom Hubbard "inherited his fortune and family interests in America, Southern Africa, etc."[14] Scientology claims that Hubbard became a "blood brother" of the Native American Blackfeet tribe at the age of six through his friendship with a Blackfeet medicine man.[9][15]"

and when paired with the next paragraph (quoted above) we have a detailed account of the controversy along with the sources and evidence presented from both sides. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The insertion unbalances the POV by repeating info from the preceding paragraph and removing sourced text from one side. Concerning the blood brother claim, it is incorrect to say two LA Times journalists disagreed since it was the historian Hugh Dempsey and the tribe itself which discredited the claim. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template

I added Hubbard's name to Template:Science fiction in the "related articles" section. It doesnt have to be placed on this article, but editors may decide it belongs here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello! Need the help of an administrator. There seems to be a rampant amount of vandalism on this page; It is just appropriate to semi-protect it to lessen such incidents. Most of the culprits are unregistered users. All in the interest of bettering the page, I request that his matter be looked into in the soonest. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Educational influences

Links to Study Tech and Applied Scholastics were added by User:Wykypydya . The heading "educational influences" was potentially confusing, because it implies that these are educational influences on LRH, rather than systems he and his followers invented and promote. Maybe they could be added to the article. The Talk page is the proper place to discuss this. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be appropriate to put this into the see also section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor article

This is a shame for wikipedia! See the german article for the biographie of Hubbard without scientologie influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.209.74 (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And...

should one allow neo-nazies to edit hitlers biographie ? Surely not, for good reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.209.74 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Eagle Scout mention

I have included information about Hubbard's eagle scout achievement. It is mentioned in the early life section of the article, and should also be mentioned in the lead section. After Born in Tilden, Nebraska, he spent much of his childhood in Helena, Montana, I have added, "Hubbard is one of America’s youngest Eagle Scouts and is listed as one of the list of famous Eagle Scouts." Please see reference here: http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Famous_Eagle_Scouts. I have also cited Corydon's book as a reference. You will see the first version that I had posted and I eventually corrected -- because it clashes with information posted later on in the article, with Miller cited. Corydon writes that he secures the Eagle Scout badge at twelve years. Is there a correction that needs to be made to the statement: "Hubbard was active in the Boy Scouts in Washington, DC and earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 1924, two weeks after his 13th birthday?" Would appreciate your comment on this. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am actually going to revert this change for two reasons. First you used a Wiki as your source which isn't a reliable source. Secondly Hubbard isn't famous for being an Eagle scout so I don't think it should be in the lede. This decision seems consistent with the articles of other famous Eagle scouts. I can't find a single example where the mention of being an eagle scout is in the lede. Unless scouting was significant in their lives after they became Eagle scouts (ie. they participated in scout leadership in their adult lives) I don't think it deserves a mention in the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher. Being an Eagle Scout is a small detail of Hubbard's bio, not a key aspect of his life. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Hubbard won a Saturn Award?

Did Hubbard really won a Saturn Award for Battlefield Earth? It seems that this prize is reported only by Scientologic sources. I didn't found any reference to Hubbard in the Saturn Award website (and I was not the only [1]). The only independent source about this alleged award I was able to find online is a very short 1984 newspaper scan. --Marcok (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth is a neat book, but Saturn Awards are for film and TV, not books. Battlefield Earth, the movie, would never be given an award because it sucked Xenu's balls. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede

In the interest of more NPOV, I would like to propose a change in the following section:

"Hubbard was, and remains, a controversial figure and many details of his life are disputed. The Church of Scientology depicts Hubbard in hagiographic terms, drawing on his legacy as its ultimate source of doctrine and legitimacy.[4] He portrayed himself as a pioneering explorer, world traveler and nuclear physicist with expertise in a wide range of disciplines including photography, art, poetry and philosophy. His critics have characterized him as a liar, a charlatan and a madman, and many of his autobiographical statements have been proven to be fictitious."

There is a lack of NPOV in this part of the lead, thus we need to reframe the information to make out more neutral.

I suggest the following change:

"Hubbard was, and remains, a controversial figure and many details of his life are disputed. The Church of Scientology depicts Hubbard in hagiographic terms, drawing on his legacy as its ultimate source of doctrine and legitimacy.[4] He portrayed himself as a pioneering explorer, world traveler and nuclear physicist with expertise in a wide range of disciplines including photography, art, poetry and philosophy. His critics have characterized him as a liar, a charlatan and a madman.[5] This has led to a widening divide between the Church and critics of L. Ron Hubbard, and continued controversy in the accuracy of his biography."

This version provides an overview of the dualistic perspective on Hubbard's life, but does not give preference to one over the other.

About the statement from Refslund -- I feel that this statement is given too much weight. It is included in the lede and juxtaposed against the Church perspective - the perspective of a whole group of people. Can somebody tell me why Dorthe Refslund's perspective is given this much weight? If not, I don't see why we need this statement in the lead. Thoughts?NestleNW911 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just following up on my post. Any thoughts or feedback?NestleNW911 (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts, comments?NestleNW911 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The part about the "widening divide," which replaces "proven to be fictitious" is clearly not an appropriate change: it is muddled and sure looks to me like an attempt to paint LRH in a more positive light, accuracy be damned. About the Refslund quote: I agree that's not really a key item of Hubbard's bio that needs to be summarized in the lede--I'd have no objection to deleting that sentence. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the Refslund quote, but am now convinced by BT's argument that it is not sufficiently relevant (per WP:WEIGHT), for inclusion in the lede. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. Wikipedia would be a better place if all of us were so gracious and open minded. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Earth Opera

I think that L. Ron Hubbard was an adventurer. In the article, his Early Life talks about many adventures in the prairie and in Asia. The University and Explorations section is full of adventure, real and imagined. In later sections, he goes to Alaska, has misadventures in the Navy, and then becomes the head Kool-Aid brewer in Scientology. The CoS's Sea Org later bumbled through the Med and Caribbean while Hubbard was solving life's mysteries with Scooby Doo and the crew of the Mystery Machine.

Author, adventurer, and founder of the CoS. That sounds like a lead to me. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He may qualify as an adventurer, though the case you are making for it is what qualifies as "original research" in Wikipedia (i.e., while it may be a reasonable claim, it is your claim, not a reflection of the characterizations of Hubbard in third party reliable sources. See WP:OR if you aren't familiar with this policy.) The CoS does label Hubbard as an adventurer (a bit surprisingly, given that "adventurer" sometimes implies dishonesty), but their publications don't pass the reliability test, plus they also promote him as a poet, photographer, musician, philosopher, mariner, etc. You may be able to find some reliable source that supports the adventurer idea, but regardless of the source, being an adventurer isn't what he's best known for--is it?--thus it doesn't belong in the first sentence. A sense that his life included many colorful adventures should be conveyed by the intro section, though--do you think that comes through in the second paragraph? -- BTfromLA (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The words "OR" get tossed around alot these days. I feel my latest edit summary, though grammatically flawed for space allowed, explains my position. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BT, doesn't belong in the lede and based on the quick reversions from multiple editors it appears to be against consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

it has been changed to "adventurer" by Luke 4 times, and each time a different editor has changed it back. No one but Luke seems to support this editCoffeepusher (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Blood Brotherhood

On the section: "Contemporary records state that his grandfather, Lafe Waterbury, was a veterinarian, not a rancher, and was not wealthy. Hubbard was raised in a townhouse in the center of Helena.[15] According to his aunt, his family did not own a ranch but had one cow and four or five horses on a few acres of land outside Helena.[12] Hubbard lived over a hundred miles from the Blackfoot reservation. The tribe did not practice blood brotherhood and no evidence has been found that he had ever been a Blackfoot blood brother."

This perspective shuns church perspective altogether. There is a need to juxtapose church perspective vis-a-vis other sources in the matter in order to achieve NPOV. It reads the same way that most of this article does -- taking the perspective of a few sources as a default and ignoring what has been said by the church or LRH himself. Shouldn't the church perspective have a significant weight in the article as a whole? I suggest that we reframe the section using the L.A. times article that serves as its reference. Here is my proposed text:

"One point of controversy for Hubbard’s early life is his being a blood brother to the Blackfeet Indians in Montana. According to Hubbard, he was four years old when a medicine man named “Old Tom” made him a “blood brother” of the tribe. At least one source disagrees with such a claim and says the tribe did not practice blood brotherhood, and that “Old Tom” would not be a common name given the lack of Christian names during the period."

The following would serve as the reference:

Staking a Claim to Blood Brotherhood Series: The Scientology Story. Today: The Making of L. Ron Hubbard. First in a six-part series. NEXT: Part Two-- The Selling of Scientology.; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 24, 1990. pg. 38

Thoughts, comments? Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

isn't all that covered in the previous paragraph? and no, WP:WEIGHT does not offer special privileges for the subjects of articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Coffeepusher. Thank you for your input. It is not about offering "special privileges" for subjects of articles. It's about balancing points of view. The Church and LRH perspectives are other perspectives that should be mentioned along with perspectives found in other sources. This is all about neutrality, and due weight given to various perspectives.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Following up on my proposed text above. Thoughts? Comments?NestleNW911 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Boy Scouts mention

About the excerpt: "Hubbard was active in the Boy Scouts in Washington, DC and earned the rank of Eagle Scout in 1924, two weeks after his 13th birthday. In his diary, Hubbard claimed he was the youngest Eagle Scout in the US." We need to reframe "In his diary, Hubbard claimed.." This avoids and ignores church perspective on the matter and turns it into a trivial facet of his biography.

My suggestion is to reframe it to: "The Church of Scientology claims that he was the youngest Eagle Scout in the US, based on Hubbard's own statement." This change is all in the spirit of NPOV.

I am ready to make the change. Any feedback?NestleNW911 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not read the book that this bit of info is sourced from, does it say that the church makes this claim? Or that Hubbard's diary contains the claim? (Jonathanfu (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

I'm not sure about the book, but two official websites by the church contain this bit of information. Here are the links: http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-founder/who-was-lronhubbard.html http://www.lronhubbard.org.au/the_early_years/

Since this is official content form the church, this would count as a claim from the church correct?NestleNW911 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd oppose that proposed change. The source for the claim is Hubbard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you notice, my proposed change says: "The Church of Scientology claims that he was the youngest Eagle Scout in the US, based on Hubbard's own statement." The church claim is based on the main source of the statement, which is Hubbard.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to say, it doesn't matter what the church says or thinks on this point. It's Hubbard's claim about his time in the scouts, sourced to Miller's book, citing Hubbard's diary. What the church says on the matter isn't relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Image of him

Can somebody upload an image of him that was taken more recently, preferably less than 36 years before his death? Acoma Magic (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Early Life

I have revised a short section on "Early LIfe" regarding his travels in Japan in China. This is in the interest of NPOV; the section (and the whole article itself) lies too heavily on Miller and Atack, whose perspectives on Hubbard are not neutral.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a common error I see from editors - an insistence that the sources have to be neutral. They do not. NPOV requires us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It says nothing about sources being neutral, quite obviously. (And if neutrality is your goal, adding a long quote from the hagiographic publication "Ron the Philosopher" is a strange way of going about it!)

Replacing the existing content with that publication also, it seems to me, misses the point being made - that Hubbard's diaries conflict with the later stories about his travels. It's not "critics of Hubbard" who are suggesting a different account - it's Hubbard's own diaries which state that. Atack and Miller are not giving their opinion of Hubbard's travel, they are describing the contents of the diaries. There's no dispute over the accuracy of their descriptions - the diaries were a central issue in the litigation over Bare-faced Messiah and the individual quotes were claimed by the CoS to be copyright violations. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mental disorder evidence/Pathological liar

The page is missing the fact that Ron often made up words, I forget the term for doing that, but he did.Omegadeluxesupreme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ne·ol·o·gism (n-l-jzm)

n.

3. Psychology

a. The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.

b. A word so invented.

This is not to suggest that the invention of new words is necessarily such a symptom. Professional writers do it at all the time. TheScotch (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Drug addict?

Ron Hubbard was widely regarded as drug addicted. Just do a quick Google for "ron hubbard drug abuse". I'm sure a few of those sources are credible enough for this to be mentioned. So why isn't it? At least say that he has an alleged addict. See also Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_5#Drug_consumption_of_Ron_Hubbard osklil talk 22:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual

Ron Hubbard was also mentioned as a possible homosexual. Just do a quick Google for "ron hubbard homosexual." Some mention of possible abuse of DM when he was a minor. I'm sure a few of those sources are credible enough for this to be mentioned. So why isn't it? At least say that he is an alleged homosexual See also Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_5#Drug_consumption_of_Ron_Hubbard osklil talk 22:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.1 (talk)

What qualifies as a religion?

What qualifies as a religion, and how does scientology fit in as a religion? 86.140.52.57 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a stab: basically, Wikipedia makes decisions based on what has been established via other sources that are deemed "reliable." So wikipedia does not develop a definition of religion. If something can shown to have been understood and discussed as a religion in academic, legal and reputable journalistic sources, and to have been done so to a significant degree, so that it's not just an outlying "fringe" point of view, than it counts as religion so far as wikipedia is concerned. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, Scientology qualifies as a religion because it is described as such in several specialist reference books, like encyclopedias and dictionaries, on religion which call it a religion. Many of them might have slightly different definitions of the term themselves, because there does exist some question regarding the precise definition, but they do seem to agree about Scientology qualifying as a religion. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some more answers here: [2]. (I particularly like "A religion is a cult which has become acceptable.") Prioryman (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Christianity has - http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/cult.shtml - this is an interesting and related external. Youreallycan 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think a page that says "The Bible has been proven to be completely true and accurate, and is the only “sacred writing” about which anyone can truthfully make that claim" is a credible source for anything... :-/ Prioryman (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The exact definition of religion has long been debated. In the end, scientology's status as a religion depends your own definition of religion. Of course, since that would be both impractical and impossible to use in an encyclopedia article, it is logical to go with the generally accepted definition of religion and include scientology as a religion. Personally, I think it is an over-glorified cult based on science fiction gobblety gook whose members are either brain washed, nuts, or stupid, but, again, personal opinions are irrelevant. (2602:306:25A5:8AB9:E96F:AEE4:7209:1876 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC))

The Hell Job Series

So did he really go out and perform the "K-List" duties he writes about in his most famous anthology--e.g. mining, test piloting, driving racecars--or was Hubbard talking out of his proverbial butt? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hat. He was talking through his hat. TheScotch (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Or butt, which ever phrase you prefer. (2602:306:25A5:8AB9:E96F:AEE4:7209:1876 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC))

Category: Bodhisattvas

An editor has been repeatedly inserting the category "Bodhisattvas" into the article, implying that Hubbard was a bodhisattva. In the interest of avoiding edit warring, let's discuss this here. The conditions for becoming a Bodhisattva are specified in various schools of Buddhism. To become a bodhisattva, one must be part of a Buddhist tradition and meet those conditions. A bodhisattva is recognized by fellow adherents. I can find no reference to Hubbard being recognized by a Buddhist tradition as being a bodhisattva. I do see some references that Hubbard proclaimed himself to be Maitreya. I see no evidence that Buddhists accept this. Because the term is bodhisattva is well-defined in Buddhism, one would need to be recognized as such before we could add that to a Wikipedia article. Unless someone can produce a reliable Buddhist source that says he was a bodhisattva, I see no justification for including him in that category. Sunray (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Hubbard didn't proclaim that. In the source cited by the IP editor, Hymn of Asia, he writes, "Am I Maitreya?" rather than making a positive assertion that he is Maitreya. (Of course, the work itself is an implicit case for him being Maitreya, but he never actually comes out and says it. Maybe he felt that was a step too far even for him.) Prioryman (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Hubbard had some interesting ways of approaching the topic. In another text, Hubbard says: "[Buddha] postulated his own return as Metteyya, part of which prophecy will have been fulfilled upon the passing of L.Ron Hubbard."[3] Yet, in another example he clearly shows his failure to understand the basic teachings of Buddhism regarding spirit (vs. soul). So Hubbard is not operating within a Dharmic perspective, and thus is not likely to have met the conditions of bodhisattvahood :) Sunray (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I (some random editor who's strayed here by chance) find Sunray's argument (in his first set of remarks here) convincing. Hubbard should not be listed as a bodhisattva. TheScotch (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientologists are always trying to find new imaginary histories for Hubbard. THey still pretend he was a war hero. Stating Hubbard was a bodhisattva is just another in a long line of Mr Roger's Make Believe imagination land stories.66.87.116.90 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pathetic. They make him out to be some incredible genius or messiah. There is a key difference between him and other religious figures, like Buddha or Christ. That difference is in the amount of verifiable information. Ancient religious figures are poorly accounted for historically. Christ, for example, is barely mentioned in contemporary historical accounts. We know with a fare amount of certainty that he existed, but other than that we know virtually nothing about him other than what is mentioned in the Bible. L. Ron Hubbard, on the other hand, is a modern historical figure from the 20th century. As such, we have plenty of records and materials that verify the details of his life, including the diaries. The picture of the man portrayed by these accounts is quite different from that of the so called "biographies" written by Scientologists. He wasn't a child prodigy, he was at best an average science-fiction writer, and his grades in college were generally low. His grade in Nuclear physics was an F. He never even finished college, not because he found it lacking, but because his own personal failings as a student and as a person. He even failed at parenting, and even his own children have denounced him, and his great-grandson is an outspoken critic of Scientology. Scientologists paint him as a great and brilliant man, but history tells us he was a madman, a charlatan, and a liar. Scientologists may pretend otherwise, but the facts are there. (2602:306:25A5:8AB9:E96F:AEE4:7209:1876 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC))

this article is too long

This reads like a systematic refutation of anything people believe about this guy. It's point/counter-point all the way through. Aren't we paying just a little too much attention to this guy? Aside from the followers (who won't be swayed by a wiki anyway), there aren't that many people who are interested enough in some borderline/Histrionic personality case to justify such a long article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.60.251 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it absurdly hilarious that anyone would bother to read this. I got a bit of curiosity after some Scientology article I read in the paper. Anyhow, it is blatantly obvious that Adolph Hitler was an evil, lying, power crazed charlatan. How on Earth can Wikipedia be encyclopedic without pointing out such truths about Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.79.90 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is what Wikipedia should be. Very thorough. I hope to earn my spurs and be able to help produce such an article in the future. Whatever you think of L. Ron Hubbard he is a fascinating man and a very American story.Henry Box Brown (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of autopsy reports in article

I note a distinct lack of autopsy reports here, which is unusual considering that the toxicology report contains evidence of hydroxyzine HCL (Vistaril) in it. This is a compound that is purportedly banned by Scientology, as it is a psychotropic drug (sedative / tranquilizer - see http://www.rxlist.com/vistaril-drug/indications-dosage.htm).

It seems unusual that the founder of Scientology, who purportedly eschewed such chemicals, would be found with it in his system when he was dead.

Commentary? Suggested edits to the page to include this in the Death section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.248.174 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source which will put those two facts together?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dianetics

Dianetics is central to Scientology belief, and arguably the most recognizable and popular book written by Hubbard. I think this fact needs to be acknowledged in the lead. It is listed in the info box as his “notable work” and it would help the reader to get a background as to why Dianetics is pivotal to his role as a religious founder and author. I have made my proposed change and provided references that show how Dianetics was received at the time of its publication and again in 1988. Feedback and collaboration is welcome.Stomachinknots (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your bold edit; we already mention dianetics in the lede and wikilink to its main article. The lede of this article is already quite long. In any case, getting to the top of the NYT bestsellers list is not a very good indicator of how a work was received since the list is relatively easily manipulated. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversial fact

L. Ron Hubbard’s biography remains a controversial subject. One example of a highly contested fact in his biography is Hubbard’s ailments at this point in his military career. Tommy Davis confirms that Hubbard’s ailments went beyond a duodenal ulcer in this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

Here is the specific paragraph that speaks to this disputed fact: In the binders that Davis provided, there was a letter from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Oakland, dated December 1, 1945. The letter states that Hubbard had been hospitalized that year for a duodenal ulcer, but was “technically pronounced ‘fit for duty.’ ” This was the same period during which Hubbard claimed to have been blinded and lame. Davis had highlighted a passage: “Eyesight very poor, beginning with conjunctivitis actinic in 1942. Lame in right hip from service connected injury. Infection in bone. Not misconduct, all service connected.” Davis added later that, according to Robert Heinlein, Hubbard’s ankles had suffered a “drumhead-type injury”; this can result, Davis explained, “when the ship is torpedoed or bombed.”

Here is another article that addresses the controversy behind the facts involving his military career: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-24/news/mn-1012_1_l-ron-hubbard. This article provides a different angle to the same facts.

It is safe to say that this fact is dubious:

He was removed both times when his superiors found him incapable of command.[5] The last few months of his active service were spent in a hospital, being treated for a duodenal ulcer.[5]

....a highly contested controversial detail that should be taken down until further discussion. A lead must provide the overview, and the fact dispute must either be recorded in the overview and/or tagged dubious or the false claim deleted. Thanks.Stomachinknots (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how the first statement is contested by the source it was cited to. the LA Times source says:

The Navy documents variously describe him as a "garrulous" man who "tries to give impressions of his importance," as being "not temperamentally fitted for independent command" and as "lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation. He acts without forethought as to probable results." Hubbard was relieved of command of two ships, including the PC 815, a submarine chaser docked along the Willamette River in Oregon.

I can see editing the 2nd statement as the source listed is somewhat unclear. It might be best to peruse Military career of L. Ron Hubbard as this article seems to go much more in-depth on both statements and pull out sources from there. Will partially revert per WP:BRD Cannolis (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the statement concerning his ulcer. The source clearly states he was never wounded or injured in combat and that: "The truth is that Hubbard spent the last seven months of his active duty in a military hospital in Oakland, for treatment of a duodenal ulcer he developed while in the service." The record Tommy Davis claims to have has not been proven to be authentic. Dkspartan1 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting religion to get rich

At present the only mention in this article to Hubbard's motivation to starting a religion to get rich appears to be this:

Hubbard has been quoted as telling a science fiction convention in 1948: "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"

which is referenced to Methvin, Eugene H. (May 1990). "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult." Reader's Digest. pp. 16.

Without commenting on Reader's Digest as a trustworthy or reliable source in general, it would probably be useful to incorporate here either some or all of the additional referenced quotations and information shown at Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money instead of or in addition to the Reader's Digest reference; or at least a note could be added, referring readers to that much more extensive discussion. And there are further referenced quotations to the same effect at Scientology_as_a_business#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_Scientology_as_a_business.

My own guess would be that this topic of starting a religion to get rich, which presently appears midway in the Origins of Dianetics section, could be better placed somewhere else in the article on Hubbard, especially if the topic is to be expanded here. My impression is that Hubbard's motivation(s) for founding Scientology as a religion are very germane to the article on him, and some further referenced discussion would be useful. Or if replicating quotations across several articles is frowned upon, at least See also, etc, notes should link between all these different articles. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this User:Milkunderwood: I think you have a good point. Just to say that Reader's Digest would not normally be a reliable source because, as you know, a large proportion of what they published were articles digested from other publications, but in this case (and another connected to Scientology) they published serious original reportage. You are right that other references could be used to support the same point. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

As pointed out in my previous talk page post, a great number of the supposed facts in this page are highly disputed in various online forums and articles. Thjs is an example of an article that discusses the biographical questions and discrepancies in Hubbard’s biography: http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm. I have included the accuracy tag while the discussion is open about the questionable accuracy of this article, and the dubious nature of some of the details included within it. Thank you.Stomachinknots (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has already been through extensive discussion, including Featured Article Review which is Wikipedia's highest quality standard. Most of the points you raise have already been discussed at great length and the article reflects the consensus. That a page found on the internet says something different does not show that it is questionable: Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sourcing, not Googling. Even if it is true that "supposed facts in this page are highly disputed in various online forums and articles", which I still question, being questioned in online forums is not a basis for deciding what goes in an encyclopaedia. It also looks like the articles challenging facts about Hubbard's life come from one source. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article after reading you post, and think that Martin sums up my views nicely. The discrepancies between Hubbards official scientology biography, and other reliable sources is laid out in very good detail here with both sides getting highlighted. If anything, the official biography is given more weight than secondary sources. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A further reflection: maybe the "disputed" tag is being used in a misunderstood way. It's not for saying that the topic is controversial and there are strongly differing opinions. That is already made very clear by the content of the article, and there are other indicators such as the notice at the top of this Talk page. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Hubbard's followers in the Church of Scientology dispute what is said about him in third-party reference sources. The tag is more for when an article states something as fact which is not supportable in reliable sources. It's not enough to say that the claims made by an article are disputed somewhere on the internet: people make web pages disputing that the moon landings happened, that planes crashed into the World Trade Center, or that Elvis Presley died in 1977 but that doesn't mean that we tag all those Wikipedia articles as "disputed". MartinPoulter (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag as it is supposed to highlight unsourced claims within an article, as it states "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." Now if there are any sourcing issues, feel free to bring those up on the talk page. From what I have read, most of the "supposed facts" brought up by your post are all well sourced by reliable sources, with the exception being some sourced directly from scientology sources. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's sourcing procedures. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

In late 2012, Bridge published a comprehensive official biography of Hubbard, titled The L. Ron Hubbard Series: A Biographical Encyclopedia, written primarily by Dan Sherman, the official Hubbard biographer at the time. This series is the most recent official Church of Scientology biography of Hubbard, as published by Bridge Publications. It is a 17 volume series, each focusing on various different aspects of Hubbard's life, from his Music, to photography and other ventures he was involved in. Alausch (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC) This is part of the ==Biographies== section and the last sentence repeates what is allready said in the first sentence of the second paragraph of this section. It is therefore mostly meaningless and should be deleated.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. this one is a specific and most recent of his cos sanctioned biographies, so not exactly redundant. don't particularly have an opinion if it's necessary so if you want to open up some discussion on how important it is, go right on ahead, it's just not a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Parts of his info box are biased against him

Some of the information in the info box at the top of the article is meant to give readers an unfavorable impression of L. Ron Hubbard and should be removed: Net worth, criminal charges, the fact that his children are estranged from him. Take a look at similar celebrities who are wealthy, have committed crimes and are on bad terms with their family and that information is not listed. I'm no fan of him, the guy did create a dumb religion/cult that ruins lives, scams people, etc. etc. but the info box is biased against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.70.93 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 Mar 2015

"His critics including his own son have characterized him as a liar" I believe this should be written "His critics, including his own son, have characterized him as a liar" with commas. thank you 79.243.143.150 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015

Can the Atack reference be clarified in the footnotes section? I do not see a full bibliography given for this Hubbard biographer, despite his book being utilized many times as a key reference. I'd just like to see the full citation on the first time he is mentioned (66th footnote)

i'm pretty sure after some searching that the book in question is "A piece of blue sky: Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard exposed / by Jon Atack" but I am not positive.

I don't quite understand how Wikipedia updates but if someone could look into the missing citation that would be awesome 71.59.255.218 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. The full reference is given in reference number 11 which reads "Miller, Russell. Bare-faced Messiah: the true story of L. Ron Hubbard, p. 11. London: Joseph, 1987. ISBN 0-7181-2764-1, OCLC 17481843". For any subsequent times we want to reference on a different page, we only write "Miller, page X". Stickee (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT NEEDED:

FROM:

There is no record of Hubbard having every made this

TO:

There is no record of Hubbard having ever made this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.209.196.11 (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Frenchowski and Hubbard's military records

Ian.thomson, please correct your edit. On page 15 of the cited source (available on line through the link), Frenchowski states:

Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-Faced Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection).

Your edit does not acknowledge that

1. the much nearer
2. the complete set of relevant documents in his collection
3. the statement targets specifically Miller, not "critics." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My version was certainly closer to what the source said than "confirmed most of Hubbard's statements about his military career." Still, I will quote "much nearer," mention the personal collection, and narrow it down to just Miller. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Sara Northrup Hollister

I've nominated the article about Sara Northrup Hollister - Hubbard's second wife - for Featured Article status. If you have any comments on this please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sara Northrup Hollister/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

This passage was removed because of no citation "His medical records state that he was hospitalized with an acute duodenal ulcer rather than a war injury" The citation is located in the very next sentence "He told his doctors that he was suffering from lameness caused by a hip infection". The citation is for both of those. This is the citation: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-24/news/mn-1012_1_l-ron-hubbard/2 Thanks2601:405:4300:DB28:3459:CBD:C3DB:6F6 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Done The reference does verify the claim. I have placed the sentence back and added the reference to the end of both sentences. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit on disconnection

This seems to be a controversial topic related to Scientology. I have added Hubbard's direct words and church view on the issue for NPOV and clarification, especially to readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject.Daylighthief (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard as author

I would like to propose a change in the first paragraph of this lengthy Wikipedia article. Seeing as it is one of the longest that I’ve read, the first sections are very essential to a reader’s understanding of L. Ron Hubbard, a personality recognized by many. The first part currently reads that he is an “American pulp fiction author” and “best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories.” While Hubbard did write pulp fiction, science fiction and fantasy, this is not all the he wrote. He wrote in several other genres, including self-help and nonfiction (a great example is Dianetics). He is also on the Guinness World of Records for most published works by one author (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-5000/most-published-works-by-one-author/). I suggest that we peg him instead simply as an “American author” rather than an “American pulp fiction author,” as this better represents the gamut of written works that he has done in various genres. In Britannica, he is more appropriately referred to as an American novelist (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard). In another reference he is referred to as a novelist and author of Dianetics, a self-help book (http://www.nndb.com/people/545/000026467/).

For your reference, a secondary Wikipedia article also recognizes the varied spectrum of his work as an author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_works_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

Here are some examples, with references attached:

He wrote an article for the Sportsman pilot, a write-up on the 1933 Langley Day http://www.chet-aero.com/scientology.php

He wrote an article for the Explorers Club published in their book. http://books.google.com/books?id=fAFF7DBhJOsC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=explorers+club+it+bears+telling+hubbard&source=bl&ots=5D7VviM05j&sig=PppiZJ_HePlF_mjsHCw0VcYxQLw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZzIZU9GSB8bAkQfxk4HoBQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=explorers%20club%20it%20bears%20telling%20hubbard&f=false

He wrote for his university paper in the genre of fiction. In this article it states: “As an assistant Hatchet editor, Hubbard was expected to help with reporting the news, but news was not what made Hubbard stand out - rather, it was his fictional works. Hubbard's first fiction story, "Tah," was published in The Hatchet and was followed by many more, including the award-winning "The God Smiles." One of his greatest mentors was a GW professor of rhetoric, Dean William Wilbur. Hubbard also stood out in the field of science.” http://www.gwhatchet.com/2005/09/02/l-ron-hubbard-gw-scientology/

He wrote Hollywood scripts in the 1930’s http://www.fandango.com/lronhubbard/filmography/p33682

He wrote dozens of westerns and one was turned into a TV show. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0717152/

Based on all this information, I believe that the text that conforms with available third-party resources and the policy of neutrality would be:

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911 – January 24, 1986[2]), better known as L. Ron Hubbard (/ɛl rɒn ˈhʌˌbərd/, ell-ron-hub-ərd[3]) and often referred to by his initials, LRH, was an American author and the founder of the Church of Scientology. After establishing a career as a writer, he developed a self-help system called Dianetics which was first expounded in book form in May 1950.

I have made this change and I welcome feedback from other concerned editors.Stomachinknots (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I left the "pulp fiction" part out, but pre-dianetics he was pretty clearly best known as a sci-fi/fantasy writer so I restored that phrase. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This has already been extensively debated. See the archives. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't really deal enough with his writing, and includes some dismissive comments. His writing is still widely read, and loved even, by non-Scientologists. His SF is still genuinely popular. -MacRùsgail (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. He has very little standing critically as a writer. Even with regards to the body of work produced by him at his creative peak, he is not a "widely read, and loved" author, but rather a modestly-talented author who achieved some success; compared to the greats of science fiction (Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, et al), he is regarded as something of an embarrassment. His best work is not popular today, and but for the infamy he achieved through creating Scientology he would not be remembered as an author at all. And I say this as someone who actually has a copy of the novel Battlefield Earth on his bookshelf right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by

Our own opinions aside, Hubbard had many books and short stories published during his days as a writer (see L. Ron Hubbard bibliography) and his popularity had nothing to do with Dianetics or Scientology, which had not been invented yet. I don't know who might have been "embarrassed" by his writing, but his editors and publishers were hard nosed businessmen who ran their publications on sales to readers. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unsigned comments such as the one above come from readers who do not understand Wikipedia article talk pages are not a general discussion forum. Comments such as that should be deleted or striked out per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines since it not only adds nothing to our understanding of the subject, but is so totally speculative and based on personal bias that it has no place here. People who harbor such extreme biases and prejudices should understand that Wikipedia is not some kind of ideological battleground where their views would be welcomed or even tolerated. That's what message boards and discussion forums are for, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. Laval (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This article mentions Hubbard as a Guinness World Record holder, but he is not in the Wikipedia List of prolific writers. One of these is presumably in error (i.e. the Guinness people). It would be nice to be able to review his list of published works, and ghost-written works (noting that he put his name on a lot of other people's ideas - refer e.g. Inside Scientology), and so forth. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to separate reality and myth whenever dealing with the 'church', and so any such audit would be extremely difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.70.225 (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sylvan Muldoon in lead or elsewhere?

Hi @Checkingfax, Amatulic, Majora, and Prioryman: I am hoping one of you would be so kind as to review the content I've added to this articles lead relating to Sylvan Muldoon which I'm unsure about if this information should be included there or in another section--and if so, which one? Thank you, in advance, for any help you're able to offer. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Affidavit and Autopsy

As far as I can tell, this 1983 affidavit by L. Ron Hubbard has not been included in his article: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B17iefmhkI5fSnZHSENqSzhkM0U Any reason why not? Are affidavits not considered reliable sources? Also, can anyone explain why his article states "His body was cremated following an autopsy" yet this January 29, 1986 NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/29/obituaries/l-ron-hubbard-dies-of-stroke-founder-of-church-of-scientology.html states "County officials said today that Mr. Hubbard, a science fiction writer, was cremated Sunday without an autopsy." This is backed up by this 1982 codicil by L. Ron Hubbard http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/1983.html in which he states "Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy." Johnalexwood (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well the article no longer contains the string "autopsy" so I gather this has been removed by you or another person, so given the NYTimes ref this seems fine. It now says just "His body was cremated and the ashes were scattered at sea" and is this OK?

As to the affidaviat, for one thing it's very long and can you summarize what what statement you would like to support with it? Second of all, while it looks legit, the website is "drive.google.com" and this is probably just some person's Google drive? This is not an acceptable source, and it's not impossible that someone would put a forged document on a Google drive. What we'd want is the actual document hosted at the court website, or a legitimate second party website, or something, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And seconding the other editor's point that we want to be very careful about using primary documents particularly with fraught subjects. Is there a secondary source, such as an article in a major newspaper or magazine, that summarizes the points made in the affadavit? If not, is it maybe not a very important point? Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ron "studied" civil engineering?

How did this man "study" civil engineering for two years in some college, as the first two years of college one does not take courses in his major field of study? How stupid. Ron was no engineer, nor was he a physicist. He was a cult leader; nothing more, and nothing less. What a joke. - Herbert Barber, PhD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.134.18 (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616032022/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C595091823%2C00.html to http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C595091823%2C00.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703021531/http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/bfm/bfm06.htm to http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/bfm/bfm06.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ig Nobel Prize

Please add Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners. --Ingbeol (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This would first have to be explained in the article with a reliable source before being added as a category. Categories must still meet WP:V. Do you have a source for this? Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206143807/http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientology062890,1,737186,full.story?coll=la-news-comment to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientology062890,1,737186,full.story?coll=la-news-comment

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Others convictions from the same trial" in the lead section

No need for that 's' behind Other. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:8DF2:AC20:CE97:8359 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fleet

Lots of (sarcastic) mentions here about a Fleet. Surely we should say "Flotilla", three small vessels is not a fleet. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also add, that the amount given to Hubbard for his initial fleet, was $25,000, and not $15,000 75.82.59.114 (talk)

LRH

Saying Hubbard is frequently referred to as LRH is hard to support. Outside the Church of Scientology this is hardly the case. This isn't JFK, RFK or LBJ.

The church has an estimated 25,000 active members. What a small group chooses to refer to someone as is hardly worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.181.53.35 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Second that. The LRH-reference should be removed. 116.239.84.91 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

I don't see a problem that needs to be fixed. This is a manual of style issue, since LRH is a disambiguation which links here. It's plausible that someone trying to make sense of Scientology's cryptic and confusing documents would use Wikipedia to try and decipher this acronym. It's not hard to guess for someone even passingly familiar with the topic, but we shouldn't assume prior familiarity. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia, after all.

This article itself quotes people who use the acronym, and not in a particularly flattering way, so explaining it in the lede is necessary for clarity. It's not an endorsement.

As an encyclopedia, we should take a long view. Scientology is a small (and shrinking) group, but the group is still central to the article. Few people talk about Hubbard at all (how often do A. Bertram Chandler or L. Sprague de Camp come up?) If 25,000 members frequently use an acronym, that's going to be a substantial percentage, and even if they stopped talking about him completely, Scientology documents would still exist. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

CESNUR as a reliable source

I don't believe that CESNUR has ever been found to be a reliable source. Links to CESNUR's site have been allowed, where they have copies of material from reliable sources. AndroidCat (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but on what basis is CESNUR considered unreliable? Even the Wikipedia page for CESNUR does not indicate that it is unreliable. It seems that people disagree with its conclusions but no actual evidence for such a claim is backed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, CESNUR does seem to appear reliable insofar as it evidently has editorial oversight and the articles seem to be well-cited. That's just based on my cursory reading. At some point I'll have to sit down and actually read a CESNUR publication. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As AndroidCat alluded, Wikipedia namespace archives hold some past discussions about CENSUR's RS issues, which extend beyond the Scientology topic area to the general promotion of fringe. In this specific case, a significant red flag was novel/revisionist scholarship hinging in part upon documents provided to the authors by Church of Scientology. Long established consensus among both scholars and Wikipedia holds that that CoS is not a reliable historical source. Feoffer (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely bias in anything that the Church of Scientology produces or says, but at the same time, a CESNUR article is not presumptively unreliable just because it references those statements. A reliable source can cover potentially unreliable material as long as it's properly attributed - which CESNUR does. In fact, I'd imagine that it would be near impossible to cover any Scientology concept in-depth without eventually referring back to Scientology.

But let's look at this situation specifically. Iamsnag12 added some references to a CESNUR article that discussed the reveal of Dianetics back in 1950. This material does not, in itself, seem biased. The CESNUR article is a source for two tidbits about the event: one attendee who called the reveal a "fiasco", and Hubbard's agent who disputed that claim. The disputed claim was made before the BBC, which is a reliable source.

It should be noted that neither of those claims came from a Church of Scientology source, as far as I can tell. And the fact that the CESNUR article presents the claim that the Dianetics reveal was a "fiasco" indicates that the CESNUR article is far from a mouthpiece for Scientology propaganda. A pro-Scientology source would never, in a million years, claim the Dianetics reveal was a fiasco. The disputer is Hubbard's agent, which discloses a probable bias, so the CESNUR article doesn't hide the ball on that. Overall, it seems like balanced coverage supported by sources and therefore reliable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Good morning - as a follow-up, I did a search on our RS noticeboard and found this prior discussion: [[4]]. That discussion noted that CESNUR has been cited by hundreds of scholarly articles as of 2008 and certainly that number has only grown in the past ten years. I would say that's probably one of the best indicia of reliablility. Apparently the owner of CESNUR used to self-publish what some users called "flames" but I don't see any on the site now, so it looks as if that's a practice that has stopped. I think CESNUR falls into the category of "probably reliable as long as the article is well-sourced and itself appears reliable." (P.S. This is Cosmic Sans, post name change.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The heart is that we cannot trust Church of Scientology or CENSUR scholarship in isolation, as they have a history of self-publishing, aren't peer reviewed, seem to represent minority views, and generally promote fringe. Aside from the general objection, there's also the specific changes [5].[6][7]

"Dianetics lost public credibility in August 1950 when a presentation by Hubbard before an audience of 6,000 at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles failed disastrously." is a mainstream historical position, featured in widely lauded sources like Russell Miller, Lawrence Wright, even Hubbard's agent Ackerman. It'd be WP:UNDUE to remove it due to a lone dissenting paper of dubious origin that depends upon suspect sources like CoS-provided transcripts.

"Cox's and Gardner's claims which were made two years after the event" and "Hubbard's agent Forrest J. Ackerman contradicted the walkout claims"; It would be undue/fringe for WP to favor Hubbard's agent Ackerman and his recollections after 45 years over contemporary eyewitnesses and mainstream scholarship. Two positive quotes are included but they do not actually contradict the contemporary eyewitness claims that the event went poorly. Journalist Martin Gardner is relegated to the title of Skeptic. COS transcripts are used to contradict historic witnesses, but CoS transcripts are devoid of trustworthiness. Van Vogt is cited as the true origin of the "Now" explanation for the failure instead of Hubbard, but Van Vogt having offered the explanation does nothing to contradict the claim that Hubbard offered the explanation as well. It is claimed that "news outlets had only published positive remarks in the ensuing months", but to know this is true, we have to be able to trust CENSUR's historical research; Except, we don't trust their scholarship.

Ultimately, at this point our readers can learn nothing from CENSUR that they don't already know without it. Their claims may or may not have historic validity, it's not really for us to say. Until they are picked up by mainstream historians, rather than fringe self-published ones know as NRM revisionists, we cannot say for certain one way or the other. Once CENSUR's minority views are discussed in more mainstream scholarship, perhaps genuinely RSes will cover the issues raised by these new claims and thus merit inclusion. To justify the above edits at this time, however, we'd be forced to rely upon a month-old publication by unreliable authors in a publication of dubious reputation that itself relies upon witnesses and transcripts which are known to be untrustworthy, while at the same time discounting the scholarly consensus of mainstream scholars like Miller and Wright who have undergone extensive review and whose conclusions have widespread acceptance. Feoffer (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Feoffer: - I don't think it's fair to lump the Church of Scientology and CESNUR into the same category, as you do in your first sentence. CESNUR does not seem to have a pro-Scientology agenda, or at the very least, the relevant article doesn't. No Scientology source would describe the launch of Dianetics as a fiasco, as the CESNUR article did. Anyway, I'm not sure where the general objections to CESNUR come from. Past discussions on the RS noticeboard seem generally favorable to CESNUR. In any event, CESNUR is in fact peer reviewed. [[8]]. Also, covering minority views does not affect the reliability of the source as per WP:RS. This article is not self-published, so that criticism doesn't apply either.

As for your specific objections. I think it's important to separate out Iamsnag12's edits from the reliability of CESNUR. For example, your first diff involves Iamsnag removing a citation and re-wording the previously cited sentence. It has nothing to do with CESNUR and isn't really relevant to whether CESNUR is a reliable source. The same goes for the question of whether it would be undue/fringe to include comments by Hubbard's agent. (The short answer is that no, it's not undue or fringe - WP:UNDUE does not require that minority viewpoints are never discussed, but that they're given appropriate weight and couching. In this case, there's no problem with relating the position of Hubbard's agent as he was an eyewitness and any bias is appropriately disclosed.)

I don't see any particular reason why this source should not be considered reliable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 12:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CENSUR's reputation is far worse than was previously known, with finances tied to the objects of their study. After receiving funding from Aum Shinrikyo (Tokyo Sarin Gas attack group), the co-founder and colleagues publicly claimed the Aum could not have manufactured Sarin gas based upon documents provided to them by Aum, and they falsely accused Japanese authorities of religious persecution of the group. This is a coffin nail in any pretensions to their group being a scholarly RS. Feoffer (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Feoffer: That doesn't address anything I've said. But even so, your example is irrelevant to their reliability as a published source. Even if I assume that all of the above is true (which I have my doubts about - as I'll explain later), such a statement never published in CESNUR. A co-founder making a remark at a press conference almost 25 years ago does not inform us to whether the CESNUR journal is, itself, reliable. The co-founder is not CESNUR. This is purely a "guilt by association" argument, and it's not even a very good one because it deals with an event many years ago that is poorly substantiated. I've reviewed the segment for this event on the CESNUR article and it seems chiefly supported by a broken link to the Wayback Machine and "ApologeticsIndex.org", which is a self-published website that describes itself as an "online Christian ministry." The irony of using a self-published Christian apologetics website to refute CESNUR (a peer reviewed publication)'s reliability is not lost on me. So I have my doubts about this claim given the absolutely poor sourcing, but even if it were true, it has no bearing on CESNUR as a publication. Other than "this guy associated with CESNUR did something bad a couple decades ago so clearly this article published in 2019 by someone entirely different is unreliable", which makes no sense. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No conclusions were based in any way upon ApologeticsIndex. Feoffer (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been my sequence of events:

• First, AndroidCat spoke up to say that CESNUR isn't RS.
• Then, talk archives confirmed that AndroidCat's claim that CESNUR is controversial.
• Upon inspection, I noted the source made novel claims contradicting existing scholarly consensus; I noticed with suspicion that it relied upon documentation provided to them by the objects of their study.
• One admin removed the source as non-RS, another admin provides a sanity check confirming CESNUR is non-RS.
• Finally, I learn CESNUR fell into disrepute for having financial entanglements with the objects of their study and for falsely accusing Japanese law enforcement of religious persecution after relying upon documentation provided to them by the objects of their study, who were, by the way, responsible for the Tokyo subway sarin attack. LA TimesNova Religio
• At that juncture, I conclude AndroidCat, David Gerard are correct. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and we don't do original research, we rely upon trusted secondary sources. CESNUR doesn't have our community's trust. Feoffer (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that none of this really matters. WP:RS does not say that AndroidCat or David Gerard decide what sources are reliable and which are not. As I described above, a poorly-sourced incident from about 25 years ago involving a CESNUR contributor outside of the CESNUR publication does not bear on whether the publication is reliable in 2019. You previously stated that CESNUR was not peer reviewed, which was incorrect.

You also seem to have the belief that because CENSUR discusses some Scientology materials, that they themselves are biased or unreliable for doing it. That's incorrect. Please see WP:BIAS for the reason why. All the Scientology materials are properly attributed to the point where no reader could be confused as to where that's coming from. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And indeed, Iamsnag12 aka Smoothquandary aka Burningfern has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Feoffer (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should continue to discuss it because I perhaps might like to use the CESNUR source in this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus here and at RSN is that it's not. Guy (help!) 14:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Only Feoffer and I have been discussing it. I don't think there's enough material to determine consensus. I'm also not aware of any consensus on RSN about this. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

CESNUR is not a reliable outlet in general, and this specific source doesn't appear to be WP:DUE even if it were reliable. The last thing this article needs is more minutia. Grayfell (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well... why, though? I haven't seen any particularly good reason why, although there has been numerous references to consensus here and elsewhere that nobody can direct me to. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to ask people to walk you through things that have already been explained, but do not mistake a lack of response for a change of opinion.

Multiple editors are skeptical of this specific source. When you say something vague like "...perhaps might like to use the CESNUR source in this article" it suggests you are tying to keep this source in your back pocket for future use. "Perhaps" you might, and perhaps not, but that's not how this works. We're not interested in creating loopholes to be abused later, we're interested in discussing specific, actionable ways to improve this article. So far, you appear to be the only non-blocked editor to be defending this specific source, and you haven't actually explained what you would do with it. It's starting to look like a sticky situation.

Obscure and selective quotes from CESNUR have been crammed into to multiple Scientology articles by multiple sock puppet farms, and this is behaviorally connected to long-term, high profile manipulation of the site for non-neutral purposes. Despite this widespread attention, these articles are often cluttered with this overly-detailed and subjective filler, to a degree which makes them significantly less pleasant to read. I do not think this is an accident. Even if the specific details might be accurate, these obscure, sympathetic comparative religion sources do a very poor job of explaining why this trivia improves the articles. I've noticed this problem for years now, and I'm not the only one. We are not obligated to play stupid to these games. Experienced editors will see the repeated abuse of a source as an additional strike against its reputation. You don't have to agree with this, but you cannot discount it without understanding it.

Consensus starts with editors. I have shared my assessment of this source, and so have several other experienced editors. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Greyfell: A number of editors, including one who is topic banned and shouldn't be commenting at all (AndroidCat), have made the conclusory statement that CESNUR is not reliable. So believe me, I understand that multiple editors are skeptical of the source. But consensus is not built by saying "CESNUR is not reliable, I won't discuss why, just accept it or else you're causing a sticky situation." I guess I'll start a thread on WP:RSN about it since Feoffer seems to be the only editor here who wants to discuss it, and that interest seems to have completely faded now that snag was banned. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, you and some sockpuppets have made the conclusory statement that CESNUR is reliable and won't hear anything to the contrary. Guy (help!) 14:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: If you scroll up, you'll see that I have advanced some really concrete points as to why there is reliability - peer reviewed, well-sourced, does not seem to have a pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology agenda. My statement was far from conclusory. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban claim by May His Shadow Fall Upon You

May His Shadow Fall Upon You raised the claim that ~11 year-old topic ban against myself is still in effect. I've followed the secession of ArbCom decisions that the original actions were folded into, and that's far from clear. If May His Shadow Fall Upon You can point to something definitive, I will step away from pointing out occasional problematic issues. Otherwise it seems like a bad-faith attempt to shoot the messenger. (Note: I don't interact with Wikipedia in anything like real time.) AndroidCat (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@AndroidCat: - This is inappropriate for a couple reasons. The first is that this is a talk page for L. Ron Hubbard and not a clearing house for airing grievances against other editors that have nothing to do with a discussion of content. The second is that you are topic-banned from Scientology and should not be commenting on a Scientology-related page. Your topic ban is clearly stated on WP:RESTRICT. If you have a problem with that topic ban, then you should contact ArbCom. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing word in Initial success of Dianetics

Hubbard himself large sums with no explanation of what he was doing with it

Should probably be changed to "Hubbard himself took large sums with no explanation of what he was doing with it" or have the whole sentence changed to be less clunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.99.91 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sea Org

"During the late 1960s and early 1970s, he spent much of his time at sea on his personal fleet of ships as "Commodore" of the Sea Organization, an elite, paramilitary group of Scientologists.[8][9] Some ex-members and scholars have described the Sea Org as a totalitarian organization marked by intensive surveillance and a lack of freedom.[10] It came to an end in 1975."

The Sea Org did not come to an end in 1975 and is still ongoing.144.17.113.77 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see what needs to be edited. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"...a brief stop-over in a couple of Chinese."

Quoted from the Early Life section. There is clearly a word missing here, and looking back at the article history, it seems to be 'ports', though I'm not sure exactly where the change was made. 86.143.228.144 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading characterization of the New Jersey Board of Education

The "death and legacy" section seems to have been edited by Scientologists in this part. Hubbard's birthday is one of dozens of approved religious holidays, given a waiver signed by the parents. The following line (find it with ctrl + F) implies that the New Jersey BoE mandated it as a holiday for schools. "In April 2016, the New Jersey State Board of Education approved Hubbard's birthday as one of its religious holidays." The rest of the short paragraph also seems suspicious and should be reviewed for misleading statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14d:8200:6d80:e5f6:63bc:972b:9424 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth

The article states March 13, 1911 as Hubbard's DoB, but American Religious Leaders, the cited source, says May 13 (see here). Is that an error in the source or in the article? I would simply change the article to match the source, but it's a FA so... Wham2001 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a bizarre error (in the source, not the article). It's definitely March 13: see e.g. [9] Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a better source we can replace the one in the article with? Leaving it as it is, with a reference to a source that disagrees with the content in the article seems suboptimal. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Improperly formed sentence

“In February 1953, Hubbard acquired a doctorate from the unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.” Is not grammatically correct. I would make it, “In February 1953, Hubbard acquired a doctorate from an unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.” Or “In February 1953, Hubbard acquired a doctorate from the unaccredited degree mill, Sequoia University.” 2600:1700:1111:5940:1411:93F9:99D9:3DEB (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Winthrop23 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Pedophilia

There is no mention of how South park notes L. Ron Hubbard "lived on a boat with ONLY young boys and was busted by the feds numerous times." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.39.61 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

South Park is not a reliable source of information for anything, any more than shows like The Simpsons or Family Guy. For the record, Hubbard's crews included persons of both sexes and I'm not aware of any work that claims he was "busted by the feds" for pedophilia-related acts. --Ismail (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In fact the South Park episode doesn’t state that his federal indictments were for pedophilia, for what it is worth…SinoDevonian (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relocation to Rhodesia

If Hubbard relocated to Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe) because he believed he was the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes, shouldn't that information be included in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear it was causal. He claimed to believe he was Rhodes while in Rhodesia, but we can't say it's something he believed before he got there . Feoffer (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Best known for...?

From the lede:

"Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911 – January 24, 1986) was an American author, primarily of science fiction and fantasy stories, who is best known for having founded the Church of Scientology." I don't see any citation for this claim.

Is that really what he's best known for? I read Hubbard's scifi stories for years before I ever found out he was associated with Scientology. In the circles I moved in he was best known an an eccentric science fiction writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

White supremacist?

I just came across this passage:

In 1956, in an obvious reference to the 1954 Supreme Court decision to outlaw school segregation, [L. Ron Hubbard] attacked the "... Supreme Court Justice who does not recognize the rights of the majority, but who stresses the rights of the minority and who uses psychology textbooks written by Communists to enforce an unpopular opinion" (Wallis, 1977, p. 199). The Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, handed down on May 17, 1954 enraged white supremacists like Hubbard. The Court considered as evidence findings of research done by Kenneth Clark (1955), an African-American psychologist, which further enraged those supporting segregation. We know that later on, Hubbard supported the apartheid regime in South Africa.

I put it here in case anyone is interested in using this source. I don't have time to track it down further, or even figure out where it might go. Grorp (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

</noinclude>

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Article seems stable because fixing it is a daunting project. It has been on the list for a while but the article is enormous, full of fluff, and there are many instances of overlapping content with other articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Overlapping and duplicate histories, CONTENTFORKs for just the tip of the CF-iceberg. Grorp (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Stable means that there are no edit wars, or significant developments taking place that cause the article to constantly change, which would be confusing for a reader. Stable is what an article should be to be promoted to GA. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• There is a reference section [using the awkward short cite method - I'll give my traditional gripe that this is the internet, so the long cite method is more appropriate and more user friendly for readers and reviewers. Gripe over! ;-)] SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "short cite method" unless you mean the template:SFN usage. If you would prefer the style I used with Malko, I can change over Wallis (6), Atack (55), Miller (127), and any of the others if they're available at OpenLibrary (verifying page numbers as I go). Grorp (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT. It's not a GA issue if short or long cites are used - both are permitted. The short cite method is what is generally used in books as it saves space on the page. It's a form of shorthand. We don't need it on the Wikipedia as there isn't the need to save page space (it's all the same page after all, and all the cite material is tucked below the article, out of sight of the reader). The tricky thing with the short cite method is that page number info and book info are in two different places, which means doing a quick check is less easy. Some editors argue that using the short cite template makes it easier for editing, and that is true; however, I kind of feel that we should be aiming to make Wikipedia easier for the readers rather than the editors. Anyway, it's not a GA issue - it's just my personal moan which I tend to do each time I do a GA review which uses short cites. SilkTork (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• All the images in the article contain a suitable copyright tag, mainly public domain - those tags has been assumed to be correct. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• The copyvios picked up by Earwig's tool have been examined, and all are instances of using quotes. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• I see no evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• On the whole, though there is a slight weight toward the controversies in Hubbard's life, the article is fairly neutral. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Meets enough aspects of MoS for GA SilkTork (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Query

• I wonder if all the images are pertinent. Do we need, for example, three illustrations of his work? SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed 1 of the 3 pulp images, 3 decoration-only images, and moved 3 to be next to their associated content. Grorp (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable, though just holding up the pass for a while because of the preponderance of short paragraphs which tend to inhibit flow of reading, and make the article look scruffy. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Article is richly cited, though there is a large reliance on Miller's book, which I understand is somewhat controversial. Spot checks not done yet, though I have noted one citation needed tag in Controversies and crises section. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation-needed tag is now solved. Not sure why you think Miller is controversial. Grorp (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I took the info that the book is controversial from our article on the book: Bare-faced Messiah, which include quotes like "a scumbag book ... full of bullshit" and "like a life of Christ [written] by Judas Iscariot." And there are criticism of Miller's accuracy, such as "Melton disputes Miller's assertion that Hubbard was lying about his military career", and "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". Given that it is regarded as the most significant book on Hubbard, it is entirely right and proper that it should be used. My quibble is that of the sources used to write the article around a third are from Bare-faced Messiah, which has been seen in some quarters as critical of Hubbard, so I'm just wondering what that may say about the balance and neutrality of our article. What we need to ensure is that where the article is in Wiki voice it has facts rather than arguments and persuasions; and that where we do have arguments and persuasions, that these are attributed to sources, and that where appropriate there is a balancing argument, while also bearing in mind due weight. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

* Earwig's copyvio tool is in the red, though from a glance, it appears to be flashing up quotes rather than text. Will just need to spend a little more time on looking into this area before passing. SilkTork (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have nominated File:Gerryarmstrong-2004-07-05.jpg for deletion as it appears to be a copyright violation. My intention was to crop the image to remove unwanted and distracting space, then noticed that there are copyright issues. My suggestion would be to remove the image until the status of the image is established on Commons. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• The start of Hubbard's literary career is given in First marriage and early literary career, but is then not covered in detail, apart from simple mentions by name of key novels, such as To the Stars (novel). The later literary career is not easy to pick out from the text, and consideration could be given to providing a section which gives an overview. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Focus. Details in various sections could be trimmed, especially those sections, such as Dianetics and Rise of Scientology, where we already have detailed articles. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• "After moving to Kalispell, Montana, they settled in Helena in 1913." More clarity required. If there is little more information on the move to Kalispell, perhaps skip it. "By 1913 the family had moved to and settled in Helena, Montana. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Though Christensen writes in brief, McDowell recounts more fully. McDowell might also answer your question about the Navy. Christensen writes, "When young Hubbard was two years old, he moved with his family to a ranch outside of Kalispell, Montana, and later to the state's capital, Helena. ... In 1923, at the age of twelve, Hubbard moved with his parents to Seattle, because his father was stationed at a local naval base." McDowell writes, "L. Ron Hubbard was born on March 13, 1911, in Tilden, Nebraska. He was the son of Harry Hubbard, a naval officer, and his wife, Ledora May Hubbard. Six months after his birth, the family relocated to Durant, Oklahoma. Shortly thereafter, they moved again, this time to Kalispell, Montana. They remained in Montana for about five years. Ron and his mother later settled in Helena, Montana, when his father was called away by the Navy. ... From 1918 to 1921, the Hubbard family moved from Montana to California, first living in San Diego and later Oakland. In 1922, they moved to Puget Sound ... In October 1923, Hubbard’s father received orders to Washington, D.C. The family traveled there via the Panama Canal, aboard the USS Ulysses S. Grant." Grorp (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hubbard's father left the navy then returned. Do we know what he did between times? Or why the family moved to Montana? SilkTork (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I might suppose that the CofS hagiographical timeline (via McDowell; see above) was obtained because of Navy records of the father. What he did between commissions may not have been written down anywhere. Grorp (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• As part of the move to improve flow in the text, it would be helpful to vary the use of time. In Early life we have consecutive paragraphs starting: "In 1925", "In April 1927", "In September 1927", "Between October and December 1928", "In September 1929". The impression given is of a series of notes or bullet points toward an essay rather than the finished article. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I should be able to finish the first stage of the review in a few more days. SilkTork (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay on this. I have been kept busy with other stuff on and off Wiki. I intend to be fully engaged on this next week, and I'm looking forward to finishing off the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Again, sorry for delay. Things have been busier this week than anticipated (including two more ArbCom requests), but I have managed to clear away my other outstanding GA review, so with any spare time I have for Wikipedia I can focus on finishing this review, and seeing where we are. SilkTork (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• "In the late 1970s, two men began to assemble a picture of Hubbard's life.". Which two men? There are six men mentioned in the section: Shannon, Armstrong, Garrison, and Miller, Corydon, and Arack (though their books were published in the 80s). The focus of the section appears to be on Armstrong and later Miller. And there are links to Armstrong cases, Bare-faced Messiah, L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? , and A Piece of Blue Sky. The start of the section gives us some detailed information about Shannon - where he lived, how he got involved, etc, but that info doesn't go anywhere, and Shannon is not mentioned in either Armstrong cases or Gerry Armstrong (activist) which are assumed to be more detailed articles on the topic. It is not clear what the intent of the section is, especially as I don't see from the information given that Armstrong wrote a biography - his role appears to be that of archivist rather than biographer. Garrison "wrote a "warts and all" biography", but we get no other information on that. The section needs tightening to make clear what information is being given here, and why. SilkTork (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes that should address this. Grorp (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• "best known for having founded the Church of Scientology" - is this accurate? What is the difference between the Church of Scientology and Scientology itself? Later in the lead it says "he subsequently founded Scientology". Is he most known for founding Scientology or for founding the Church? SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Both, but Scientology first and foremost. I made an edit to clarify. Note that the entire lead section is far too long and bloated with what I consider trivia and even a few mistakes. Grorp (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• The Early life section contains too many short paragraphs - this inhibits flow of reading, and looks unprofessional. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• "The two were married on April 13". This is unsourced, and it seems very quick that they would meet in Feb, and be married with a child by early April. This source (an interview with the wife) gives the marriage as September: [10]. SilkTork (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Read Miller page 61 [11]. The source you mention is a transcript from a recorded FBI interview done 30 years after the marriage. Miller had Armstrong's archival documents, which might well have included the marriage certificate or newspaper announcement. Miller mentions the timeline on page 61. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have found the document - difficult to read as the reverse text bleeds through, but the date of 13 April 1933 appears to be true: [12], and this is confirmed by a court document: [13], though she was using the name Louise not Margaret. In the court document she is using the surname Morton, which just adds to the confusion. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• "She was already pregnant when they married, but had a miscarriage shortly afterwards" - how certain is this information? If it is uncertain, then probably best to remove it. I can't access the source, and a quick search doesn't reveal other sources giving that information. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

See Miller pg 61. You can 'borrow' the book online at this OpenLibrary link. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is it "Swevely" or "Swavely"? SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Swavely. I fixed it. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• "later recalled it discussed the "one command": to survive" - This is not clear. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I reworked that. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• The structure of the article in which Hubbard's life story is cut into sections such as Dianetics and Rise of Scientology makes it difficult to get an overview of his life. Within the Dianetics section, for example, we get information about his second marriage and his affair and then his third marriage. Meanwhile, how much do we need on Dianetics and the history of its development in this article on Hubbard, when we have History of Dianetics and Dianetics? The difficulty, of course, is deciding what information belongs where, and how to do an appropriate summary of History of Dianetics and Dianetics in this article. Generally, as a rule of thumb, where article A is summarised in article B, the lead section of article A can be used as the basis for the summary in Article B. SilkTork (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, lots of content forks. Four months ago I wrote about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology § Overlapping and duplicate histories, CONTENTFORKs. I don't know if my then-suggestion is the best, but I bring it up to show it's a BIG edit project and not something that could be tackled for this GA process. No one has even begun to tackle it; I sure am not ready to do so, either. And I just re-read it; trimming up the L. Ron Hubbard article is the last step in the process (#7). Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The more I look at this, the more unclear it becomes. My feeling is that a decent copy-edit of this article, and a restructuring and trimming, will at least help towards seeing what is needed. I have little confidence that this will become a GA article in the next few weeks, but any work done in the right direction will be helpful. Though, given the confusion of the information, I do feel that what is really needed is a careful reading (and preferably a careful study) of available sources rather than a hasty reshuffling of existing information, some of which may be dubious. For example, I have just made two edits in the article - in the main source (Miller) for Hubbard meeting Grubb, the source says that Hubbard had met Grubb before he left for Puerto Rico (Oct 1932), so he did not first meet her in Feb 1933. And while Miller, in the manner of a journalist rather than an academic, implies that Grubb was pregnant when they married, we don't actually know that - we don't have the date of the miscarriage, nor how far along the pregnancy was. A little more care rather than haste is needed. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• User:Feoffer, are the sub-sections temporary as you work out the shape and contents? Such short sections are discouraged, see MOS:OVERSECTION, as they inhibit flow and readability. Currently the article is looking like a series of notes toward an article rather than an article with potential to be GA. SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent pointer, to get to GA, we shouldn't have 1-2 para sections. The Caribbean trips section needs a voice of significance connecting them to Hubbard's future. The first marriage section need more details about timeline relationship, Early claims about Clear needs a lot more of the extravagant claims made in print and media. Prior musing about starting a religion section should be merged with other similar tales. In short, yes -- lots of work still to do :) Feoffer (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by llywrch

(Note: These are not made as an official reviewer for GA, but include suggestions for improvement.)

First, I'd like to congratulate all involved for their bravery. Seriously. In the past, all Hubbard/Scientology articles have been the battlegrounds involving advocates (if not members) of the Church of Scientology, who will do anything to ensure any article on this topic is nothing less than sterling positive accounts favorable to their POV. There have been numerous ArbCom cases concerning editing articles on this subject, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, & the cases linked there. And they have been known in the past to harass both online & in person anyone openly critical of Scientology. Only the fact that the CoS has yet to take notice of this nomination suggests that they may not be as effective in harassing as they have been known to be.

That said, here are some general suggestions for improving the article.

• First, can a better photo of Hubbard be found? I am no fan of the man (much the opposite), but that is a very unflattering photo. Some might even say unfair. (FWIW, I had a look at Commons, & failed to find a better.)
• I'm dubious about the assertion that Hubbard only earned $100 from his pulp fiction career. Being a pulp writer in the 1930s was definitely not a path to riches, but he did write more than 6 stories over those years. L. Sprague DeCamp in his Science-Fiction Handbook has a rather nice & succinct paragraph summarizing Hubbard's pre-Scientology writing career that I can provide if requested.
• The section "Scientology Biographies" definitely needs copy editing. The paragraphs have a repetitious pattern, e.g. beginning more often than not "Scientology accounts say". Creating a bit of variety would definitely make this section more readable.

I hope these comments prove helpful. -- llywrch (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to say Llywrch is certainly right about Hubbard's earnings; he was a prolific and popular writer. I can probably dig detals out of Alec Nevala-Lee's Astounding, which covers his pulp career, if needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: If you have an actual copy of Astounding by ANL, then Feoffer was looking for a quote that I know is in Astounding but which google books omitted to show me the exact page. It's under Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#To-do list the one about excalibur. I'm pretty sure he's looking for a citation for the letter in L. Ron Hubbard which includes the line "Don’t know why I suddenly got the nerve to go into this again and let it loose". Grorp (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that quote is not in that book. I checked with an online copy as well, searching for Excalibur. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Grorp: Forgot to check for the other quote. It's there, p. 238 of ANL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks! I added it to the article. [14] Grorp (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llywrch: The problem with getting a better photo is that all the photos are copyrighted by Scientology and they are quirky about complaining about the use of their photos. Grorp (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Since I figure it will be the Scientologists who will complain loudest about that picture (I merely asked if a better one could be found; if none is available, well, it is what it is), that will be the proper response: if they don't like it, then provide a CC BY-SA 4.0 photo. All that is needed is a headshot. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• On hold. There is information contained in the article, though the organisation and presentation make reading more difficult than it could be. The main areas needing attention are that the article would benefit from a serious copy-edit - tighten the sections, trimming waste and tidying up presentation. This will greatly aid readability. The article would also benefit from a rethink on the way it is organised. A section on Hubbard's life, giving an overview, and placing events in context, could come first, followed by sections giving summary introductions to the major incidents in his life - his science fiction, his military career, Dianetics, Scientology, etc, with links to articles on those topics giving more detailed information, followed by sections on his personal life (marriages and affairs and children - though this could be included in the Life and career section), and Legacy, and Biographies. At the very least, the article would benefit from a reduction in detail in several sections.

I'm putting on hold for the nominal seven days, though the amount of work needed would take longer than that. I am always prepared to keep a review open while substantial work is being done. And I'm also willing to help out. My recommendation, however, is that this is a task that will require thought and time, and unless there are several editors willing to come in and work on this, that it might be better to close this GAN in order to allow the work to be done at a more considered pace, and then re-nominate when the article has improved. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on spending much time with this GA process as I'd considered the GA request to be very premature. I have participated because this is on my watchlist and I like to keep apprised of changes, and double check them to make sure they're accurate (or accurate enough). There are few other editors who have shown any interest in the Scientology topic area, and that interest isn't accompanied by lots of editing in the area. So that leaves mainly me, currently, and with my own long list of things I want to work on (which doesn't include the Hubbard article) I'm really not volunteering to do the massive amount of work that I think this article really needs. To give you an idea of the scope of work that probably needs to be done, read (or skim) Talk:Scientology § Article size and related article title /scope challenges. Grorp (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Grorp for all you've done, I'm just now seeing how much actionable feedback we now have on how to improve the article. I'll pull up my sleeves and get to it! Feoffer (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the priorities is trimming text that is not about Hubbard - for example, the following is about Dianetics rather than Hubbard:

Dianetics was an immediate commercial success and sparked what Martin Gardner calls "a nationwide cult of incredible proportions".[119] By August 1950, Hubbard's book had sold 55,000 copies, was selling at the rate of 4,000 a week and was being translated into French, German and Japanese. Five hundred Dianetic auditing groups had been set up across the United States.[120]

Dianetics was poorly received by the press and the scientific and medical professions.[120] The American Psychological Association criticized Hubbard's claims as "not supported by empirical evidence".[121] Scientific American said that Hubbard's book contained "more promises and less evidence per page than any publication since the invention of printing",[122] while The New Republic called it a "bold and immodest mixture of complete nonsense and perfectly reasonable common sense, taken from long acknowledged findings and disguised and distorted by a crazy, newly invented terminology".[123] Some of Hubbard's fellow science fiction writers also criticized it; Isaac Asimov considered it "gibberish"[37] while Jack Williamson called it "a lunatic revision of Freudian psychology".[124]

Several famous individuals became involved with Dianetics. Aldous Huxley received auditing from Hubbard;[125] the poet Jean Toomer[126] and the science fiction writers Theodore Sturgeon[127] and A. E. van Vogt became trained Dianetics auditors. Vogt temporarily abandoned writing and became the head of the newly established Los Angeles branch of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. Other branches were established in New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Honolulu.[128][129] Psychologist and systems theorist William T. Powers, also prolific as a science fiction writer, was another early advocate[130][131] and researcher connected with the Chicago branch.[132]

Although Dianetics was not cheap, a great many people were nonetheless willing to pay; van Vogt later recalled "doing little but tear open envelopes and pull out $500 checks from people who wanted to take an auditor's course".[128] Financial controls were lax. Hubbard himself took large sums with no explanation of what he was doing with it. On one occasion, van Vogt saw Hubbard taking a lump sum of $56,000 (equivalent to $680,000 in 2022) out of the Los Angeles Foundation's proceeds.[128] One of Hubbard's employees, Helen O'Brien, commented that at the Elizabeth, N.J. branch of the Foundation, the books showed that "a month's income of $90,000 is listed, with only $20,000 accounted for".[133]

This can be removed or at least summarised in one or two sentences. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep! You see exactly where I was going. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I love your enthusiasm and energy Feoffer, and am quite prepared to keep this GA open for longer. SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm actually apologetic that I wasn't a bigger part of the GA process before now. Not sure how it happened but I somehow hadn't followed / accidentally unfollowed the GA discussion until you pinged me. I'm happy to work on it! Feoffer (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I will collapse the review and do a fresh one at some point as so much has changed. Meantime I've just had a quick look at progress, and have some general comments to make.
  • Section headers should not refer back to the subject. See MOS:NOBACKREF. I fixed this once, but it has returned. So it should be "Before Dianetics (1911-1950)" not "Hubbard before Dianetics (1911-1950)", etc.
  • What is the purpose of the "Overview" section? It appears to be the sort of summary of Hubbard's life that could appear in the lead (in an abbreviated form). If it's intended to be a biography section separate from the Dianetics/Scientology, military career, and writing career, then it falls short. As it stands it sort of falls between the two stools of lead and biography.
  • A number of images and media items are scattered through the article, and I'm wondering the benefit of a number of them. Many of them appear to be more decorative than helpful. The Internal Revenue Service building in Washington image, for example, doesn't appear to serve any purpose, and - especially given the caption ("one of the targets of Hubbard's "Snow White Program") - could be slightly misleading. Was it the building that Hubbard targeted or unfavourable records about Scientology? There are more pertinent Snow White images and media in Commons.
  • There are still too many short sub-sections and short paragraphs, which makes this look like a work in progress.
  • There is too much trivial or barely relevant information, such as the two sentence paragraph on the death of Aleister Crowley.
  • Article would benefit from a close reading to remove unnecessary detail, and to reduce the amount and length of the quotes. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Great feedback as always.

  • I got Hubbard's name out of the section headings
  • The overview is currently written is sort of half-lead half-bio, isn't it? For people with complex biographies, an overview can sometimes be helpful, especially until I can split the detailed content off in to sub-articles and replace it with summaries. I definitely know how to abbreviate it into a new lead, but what would we want added to it if it were to embody your idea of a "bio aside from Dianetics/Scientology, military career, and writing"?
  • This is tough article to find images for, we only have two free images of Hubbard. I agree the IRS image provided nothing, I replaced it with the building that was raided by the FBI. I also cut the decorative image of Corfu.
  • I would agree that the post 1953 material is still very much a work in progress with sections that are too short. I think the sectionation of "Before Dianetics" and "In Dianetics Era" might be okay, see if you agree.
  • definitely too much trivia, detail, and quotes. I've tackled most of the long quotations but there's still a lot of to do. Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm busy off-Wiki at the moment, and then going to France for family business, so will not be keeping on eye on this. I will check back early next month (September), and make a decision then as to if it is still productive to keep this GAN open. I hope you manage to push this in the right direction. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm back from my break. I've had a look at the article and I can see changes have been made, though it seems that, realistically, we are not yet at the point where the article meets GA criteria. There is more shape to the article, and more focus in certain areas, though it is still somewhat cluttered and unclear. The right side of the article is crammed with images, some of which are tangential - and this reminds me of the situation at the start of the review. I think this is a difficult subject to find the right approach in how to deal with Hubbard the man, given the complexity of his life. I feel it would benefit from a period of research, followed by discussion as to how best to shape the article, and then writing it up. It may even be worth considering writing it up on a draft page. Starting again from scratch can be beneficial at times. Getting more people involved will also help. I'll close this review now. A new nomination can be made when there is consensus among contributors that the article does meet GA criteria. Well done to everyone who has worked on this, and good luck moving forward. SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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

L. Ron Hoyabembe

There is not any serious speculation that Hubbard was a black man named L. Ron Hoyabembe. The video cited here is a comedy sketch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C481:4640:8849:F24B:EA8:CFE0 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There actually was quite a bit of speculation. A painting he created in his later years depicted a man clearly of African-American ancestry. The comedy sketch brought more attention to the rumor. SadInAShed (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, it's been removed. Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is a theory that he was a black man. Removing this reference is academically unsound and rooted in racist rhetoric. 67.85.198.188 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@67.85.198.188: If you can provide a reliable source, then okay. Otherwise, it is still speculation and rumor, which is insufficient to make it into a Wikipedia article. Grorp (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Discovery" of sabotage in quotations

The subtitle for his military history section implies that his discovery of attempted sabotage was falsified/planted himself due to being in quotes, but nothing in the body of the article suggests that 215.67.148.5 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Excellent point, I've added quotes from Nibbs and competing opinion from Owens, replaced scare quotes with a question mark at the end of heading Feoffer (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

@Feoffer: I would really like you to put a banner at the top of the page during the chunk of time you are working on the article, such as Template:In use. I'd noticed you hadn't edited in hours, so I sat down to clean up all the Wright citations, and just before clicking "Publish changes" I checked. You had just made 5 edits in the time I was editing the file. Needless to say, I didn't publish my changes, but it was a waste of my work. Please add a banner while you're doing these major edits and remove it when you are done. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry!! Please, in future, just publish your changes over mine in situations like this, so your improvements won't be lost! Literally, when you see the Edit conflict, just copy everything in the "your text" box into the article box without spending a second thought about it. I'll be happy to resolve the edit conflicts and incorporate your fixes into my revisions! (And of course, I'll also try to remember add the in-use banner as you request.)

Do you have any ideas for the Military subheadings? Per SilkTork, the current subheadings might sound a little "this happened, then this happened, then this happened". Feoffer (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Commented out section is missing an end code

@Feoffer: FYI, the commented out section which immediately follows "Each franchise holder was required to pay ten percent of income to Hubbard's central organization" doesn't have any end code (and therefore ends with the end of the following commented out section). I couldn't identify or guess where the end code should go, so I'm just letting you know so you can put in an appropriate end code. Grorp (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

MartinPoulter got to it before I had a chance! Thanks! Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Doing an "Inset map" on Wikipedia?

L._Ron_Hubbard#Hiding_in_California features two maps of Hubbards various hideouts -- one nationwide with another map of Southern California. Ideally these should be visually linked somehow, but presently they're rendered as two separate, unlinked maps. Does anyone have a solution? (short of rasterizing the entire thing)? Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"held by Guinness World Records to be for the most..." - under Death and Legacy

Full sentence: "Hubbard is held by Guinness World Records to be for the most published author with 1,084 works, most translated book (70 languages for The Way to Happiness) and most audiobooks (185 as of April 2009)."

This appears to be out of date, if not simply false as even in 2009.

If considering works, Hubbard was unlikely to have had the most, even at his death. He definitely did not have the most translated book. Perhaps convert to say that Hubbard formerly held these world records (per the Guinness World Records), or additional context could be added, or the sentence struck completely.

For most published author:

Wikipedia itself notes Ryoki Inoue as being the most published author (also referencing the Guinness World Records), though it notes only 1075 works (regardless the conflict between the two seemingly needs to be corrected). Corín Tellado is noted as having over 4000 works published, with even the partial bibliography on Wikipedia extending over 1200 works. As it considers works rather than novels, Charles Hamilton is identified as having over 5000 short stories.

For most translated book:

Guinness World Records shows Le Petit Prince as the most translated single author, single book, and Wikipedia itself notes that The Little Prince and Adventures of Pinocchio as having the most translations and third most translations (with 300+ and 240-260 languages respectively).

These are single-author examples only, as there are multi-author works with even more translations (ex: the Bible (with 724 translations of the Protestant Canon) or the Quran (with 112 translations as of 2010)).

For most audiobooks:

It seems unlikely to be the most audiobooks as of today, but I can't find a more up to date reference for this, and the article notes the date. Spindrift Aura (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Most published works by one author

Most audiobooks published for one author 91.110.25.16 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The numbers are that high only because the Church of Scientology continues to revise and republish the same books and tapes over and over again. Every audio lecture was released on reel-to-reel tapes, then cassette tapes, then CDs, then DVDs. Hubbard never published any "audiobooks" during his lifetime. All of Hubbard's books and audiobooks have been SELF PUBLISHED by the Church of Scientology with at least 4 new revisions of everything having been made after Hubbard's death. So no matter how Scientology got Guinness to recognize the numbers they assuredly provided, the results are still skewed and worthless. Hubbard never wrote 1,084 books. Grorp (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

To-do list

• Hubbard learning of upcoming commitment prompting kidnapping  Done
• Consolidate stories of religion for money  Done
• Emeter  Done
• Interaction with D.C. psychiatrists Done
• Letter from Polly to Sara Done
• grab the contemporary source about Hubbard discovering gold on Grubb farm.  Done
• Racetrack Kools theory  Done
• Sara on him being surrounded by sycophants  Done
• Outed as occult practitioner  Done
• Track down quote on returning to excalibur - love or hate for man. - Try these: [15] [16] [17] [18] note by Grorp  Done THanks!!!
• Winter 'ought to have known better'. Done
• Telling Mayo that people blow because of ARC breaks not missed Overts/withholds  Done
• Hypnosis and swami career  Done
• Track down quote from Nibs "What my father was really good what destroying people" Done
• Massive attention needed to sara divorce, make own era section? Done
• R2-45 Done
• Commented out "Scientology biographies" for now  Done
• R2-45 order in Sea Org era Done
• only earned $100?  Done
• Legacy: Hubbard in Nation of Islam  Done
• Document response to Shrine debacle outside auditorium  Done
• Barbara Klowden  Done
• Gardner statement: Craze has fizzled  Done
• Calling for Mayo after injury  Done
• In popular culture  Done
  • Simpsons, Strange Angel  Done
• Trimed non-essential blockquotes (keeping Walnut Lodge, Excalibur, some Affirmations, Request for Treatment, Dr Center, NulAs, Psych Denunciation )  Done
• Fixed reintroduced MOSBACKREF issues  Done
• Diabetes and cancer cures in Dianetics 1950  Done
• Widespread clerical collars were much later,Scientology cross  Done
• Increasing authoritarianism Done
• summarize start of public anti-psychiatry  Done
• Massive improvements needed to early pulp fiction -- currently just a recitation  Done
• John McMaster Done
• Expand APA denunciation,  Done not really a denunciation after all, all things considered
• "Lonnie", twelve year old canadian boy locked in chain locker and subjected to introspection rundown, went psychotic, offloaded in Morocco discussed by Franks but lots of people talk about it  Done H.E. gives different name and age, better provenance use that. In future sub-article, go into more details.
• improve written works of l. ron hubbard page  Done
• Add comments about Hubbard's prolific writing style  Done
• Roommate interview: George Bernard Shaw perfect cranium story and polar bear story  Done
• Pseudobiography of L. Ron Hubbard  Done
• From fiction to autobiography: Done
• Affirmations: you know which are lies, real stories good enough  Done
• Split bio into subarticles Done
• --
• --

• Better public domain picture of subject?
• Resolve uncertainty about first marriage narrative -- miscarriage?
• Hubbard narrative of Polly as humanly glider guardian angel
• Can we find a good pic of a 1930s dentist office, perhaps with dentist and patient.
• Track down lead from llywrch: "Someone had come to Hubbard's front door , begging to read Excalibur; Hubbard managed to get rid of the stranger, then after the door closed he laughed & said, "One of these days I'll need to actually write the darned thing."
• massive trimming/summarizing of Scientology section
• kidnapping students during phoenix era
• pushing peanuts with nose till bloody on ship
• When does Hubbard first start talking about 75 million years ago?
• When did he mention 75 million years ago and then say he was only joking? PDC I think
• relationship with Nibs
• When did Hubbard personally do the purif? Before or after Narconon?
• Hubbard in South Africa
• Filming
• Person aboard ship that Ron gave book to, later heard Ron repeat stories from it
• Legacy: Scholars on linkage between mental illness and NRMs
• --
• Curate images
• Rescue and fix refs
• Add refs to all unrefed statements
• Summarize subarticles and discuss themes
• Decide what to do with In Scientology section
  • Estimate of assets? Other measures of success?
  • Portraits at orgs and events (My Scientology Movie)
  • LRH Reincarnation? (is this even a thing outside of South Park?)
• Trim lede
• Expand todo list

• Wikipedia needs a better article on "swami" in 20th-century western entertainment.
• Wikipedia needs a better article on Magical worldview.
• Wikipedia needs an article on ice/cold water therapy in 20th-century psychiatry.

Feoffer (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, I saw in a recent edit summary that you're looking for an RS assessment of Hubbard's fiction. I think this is a top-quality source -- the SFE is the most authoritative science fiction reference work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly the source I needed! Thank you!!! Feoffer (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback before going forward

For reference:

• Current
• Article two months ago
• 2011 version that was promoted to FA

The article come a long way since June, but also developed problems along the way. The current version of bio is far too lengthy and detailed, uses historical quotes instead of summaries. Simultaneously, the post-1953 sections are somewhat barebones at this point. I think Pop Culture and Bibliography are mostly good. The entire article needs a close reading to remove unnecessary detail, and to reduce the amount and length of the quotes.

Before shunting off excess detail into biographical subarticles, is there anything we're "missing"? There's lots of things that are in the article that shouldn't be -- is there anything in particular that's NOT in the article that SHOULD be. Feoffer (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Feoffer: As I said before your changes look great so far. In the section "In the Dianetics era", or perhaps in "Pivot to Scientology", it would be good to include some material about the wider range of sources Hubbard was getting his ideas from, particularly Crowley's writings but also elsewhere. Currently we cite Christensen, who focuses on Freudian influence. There's articles by Jon Atack and Hugh Urban which cover some of the other sources Hubbard was drawing from: Atack, Urban 1, Urban 2. Message on my talk if access is an issue.

In a similar vein, we might include a brief summary of the reviews by more prominent individuals on the initial publication of DMSMH. For example, the psychologist and public intellectual Erich Fromm reviewed it in The New York Herald Book Review. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I've added Fromm's reaction -- how could I have missed having an important psychologist's feedback. I've also added a "Sources and Doctrines" section summarizing the Atack and Urban refs you provided! Good call, give a shout if you see any other opportunities for improvement Feoffer (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

I feel that there are too many pictures on this page, especially of vaguely related or irrelevant images. It's just a constant stream of pictures on right side, several of which are not necessary. Specifically, these are the ones I think could be removed without detracting too much from the article:

• Dentist office
• Jack Parsons (maybe)
• Bay Head cottage (or at least move part of the excessively long caption into the main article)
• Sara Northrup custody photo (there is a clearer photo of Sara's face earlier in the article)
• Rhodesia map
• Volcano
• Signorelli devil painting
• Purple Heart medal
• SNL parody comparison (maybe)

I'd like to know what thoughts other users have on this matter. Legocity264 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that these are excessive or irrelevant: Dentist, Parsons, custody, Rhodesia map, Signorelli. I like the Purple Heart and the parody images, and would like to see them stay. Bay Head and volcano were probably part of a reaction to remove some of the quotations that another editor asserted were 'excessive' in this article. Those two pictures could definitely go. If the quotes are desirable, then put them back into the paragraphs. Grorp (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is in desperate need of more historic photos of Hubbard. There are QUITE a lot of photos of him, even prior to 1926, and US Fair Use would allow them into the article, but Wikipedia's fair use policy is so strict, I'm not sure if it's possible to include multiple fair use photos of the subject in the article.

I think Volcano, Purple Heart, and SNL parody are high quality. I feel we should have _some_ AntiChrist imagery, and while Signorelli isn't ideal (I'd prefer something from Hubbard's era, but copyright), it does the job.

Dentist Office, Parsons, Bay Head, Custody Hearing, and Rhodesia map are substandard images, chosen out of a lack of good alternatives. The dentist office is a museum recreation that fails to evoke the other-worldly experience Hubbard describes having during his altered state of conscious. Parsons was an important figure, but this pic is of him as an expert witness not an occult practitioner. The custody hearing seems like a staged PR photo to me. But we DO need images, and they're relevant if low-quality. What might we replace them with??? Feoffer (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You could move these pictures to a gallery section. --Devokewater 10:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

typo Carl Jung instead Cark Jung 2A02:908:13D0:2B40:D0DF:D89B:5FC:D8B7 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done thanks for hte suggestion! Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Typo

In late-1950, Hubbard began an affair with employee Barbara Klowden, prompting Sara to start he own affair with Miles Hollister.

Should be "her own affair with Miles Hollister." Smorss2011 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching it! Feoffer (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)