Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch following concerns that the previous version - not written by me, I hasten to add - was excessively POV and based on original research. (Compare before and after.) The replacement article documents the military career of L. Ron Hubbard, who served in the US Navy from 1941-45 (active service) and 1945-50 (reserves). I would like to get it up to at least GA standard and preferably FA standard, and would appreciate feedback on the current text. I've avoided, wherever possible, quoting from primary sources but I should say up front that there are some primary source quotations simply to meet the demands of NPOV - the account would be extremely one-sided if Hubbard's own POV could not be quoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• In number ranges, you're supposed to use a ndash instead of a hyphen.
• Usually multiply used books are listed in full in the a separate section and in the notes section it is just "Miller, p. 50." without needing to use ibid, especially as only one book is used for the given author
• Lead is a bit short and I don't think that US should be used three times in the first sentence; after the first mention of USDF, the fact US doesn't need to be stated before the MC and N. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've actioned the first two points. I'll have a go at expanding the lead later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now expanded the lead. Please take a look and let me know what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466

I commented on the article's talk page earlier today, unaware that this peer review was ongoing. Is it possible to place a more prominent reference to this peer review on the article talk page? Anyway, here a copy of my comments.

• The "Marine Corps Reserve" section states,

  "Although he was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety,[4] he received an honorable discharge on October 22, 1931 along with the annotation "not to be re-enlisted."[5]"

• This synthesises two sources: Miller, who states,

  "Ron returned to Washington to report for two weeks' annual training with the 20th Marine Corps Reserve and was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety".

• The other cited source, Atack, states,

  "On October 22, 1931, Hubbard received an honorable discharge from the Marine Reserve. In his service record, there is a handwritten note under the character reference: 'Excellent.' In another hand beneath this is written, 'Not to be re-enlisted.' There is no explanation of either statement."

• I suggest we lose the "Although" in our text, because it editorialises and subtly suggests there was something wrong with his performance. 1931 was peace time, so I wonder what "not to be re-enlisted" means in such a context. Could it mean that he simply had finished his stint of reserve duty? And Hubbard obviously was re-enlisted in 1941 (although not by the Marine Corps, if that is what is meant).

• "He got no further than Brisbane" seems to imply it was Hubbard's fault; sources say his ship was diverted to Australia instead. Suggest we use a more neutral phrasing.

• Streeter, who is cited, also includes praise Hubbard received from a senior officer for his navigating skills, "excellent personal and military character", etc.; I think to be balanced, that should be included too.

• This passage, along with some others, has an air of synthesis about it:

  According to the Church of Scientology, Hubbard was landed on the island of Java "in the closing days of February 1942" to search for "stockpiled weapons and fast, shallow-draft vessels." He was cut off by invading Japanese "and was only able to escape the island after scrambling into a rubber raft and paddling out to meet an Australian destroyer."[9] Another Church of Scientology account describes Hubbard as "Senior Officer Present Ashore in Brisbane, Australia" and states that "after fracturing an ankle in subsequent action, he was flown stateside (in the Secretary of the Navy's plane no less) as the first American casualty returning from the Pacific Theater."[10] The US Navy's files do not record this episode.[1]

• The sentence "The US Navy's files do not record this episode." appears to be sourced to the sentence "The US Navy files do not record the time that Hubbard is supposed to have spent on Java" on page 207 of Streeter. I think it would be better to move that sentence to before the sentence on the flight on the private plane, so it is used in the context in which the source is using it.

• Some sentences seem to be designed to elicit guffaws, e.g.: "The PC-815 sustained some self-inflicted damage when a misaimed burst of gunfire shot away the vessel's radio antenna and injured three of the crew." (unsourced; questionable relevance unless sources say Hubbard was the one doing the shooting and was censured for it); "Other documents on Hubbard's medical file stated that he had injured his back in 1942 after falling off a ship's ladder.[43]" (sourced to "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International.", no further details given).

• A number of sentences don't have references, making verification difficult; given the contentious nature of the topic, I would recommend placing a ref after each sentence.

• In an earlier discussion on the talk page editors agreed that Melton was not a historian, and that there was no need to include his version of the submarine incident. I think I would like to have another look at this issue, for two reasons. Melton's account has since been re-published by Oxford University Press [1]:

  "It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war".

• Secondly, this present article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack, and Frenschkowski, in the Marburg Journal of Religion, wrote,

  "- Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, New York 1987. London 1988. The most important critical biography of Hubbard. Like Haack's and Corydon's books it is extremely polemical and very much tries to pull Hubbard to pieces who is seen as a dangerous megalomanic and notorious liar (especially when talking about himself). Miller has definitely exposed some inflated statements about Hubbard's early achievements, as they are represented e. g. in the preface to Mission into Time. On the other side the Church of Scientology has been able to disprove some of Millers assumptions. 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). The Church of Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander Thompson", the source of his early acquaintance with Freudian psychoanalysis. Joseph "Snake" Thompson (1874-1943) was Commander in the US Navy Medical Corps; his personal relation with Freud is documented by a letter written by Freud and addressed to him (in the Library of Congress, Washington. Copy in my possession). This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard."

  — [2]

• This creates enough doubt in my mind to make me feel that we should not be relying on Miller's version exclusively; we have to represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence. At the least, I think we should attribute material that comes from Miller to him, and find room somewhere for Frenschkowski's assertion that parts of Miller's narrative have been disproved. Jayen466 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll go through them in more detail later on today, but I'll make a few interim comments.

• We decided in the earlier discussion to exclude Melton not simply because he's not an historian but because his claims about Japanese submarines are not corroborated by any other reliable source, and in fact are actively contradicted by the standard histories of the Japanese navy's submarine fleet. There is literally no other source that suggests that any Japanese submarines were sunk off the US coast, by Hubbard or anyone else. I refer you to WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." This viewpoint is presented in no reliable sources other than as a claim made by the Church of Scientology. Note that Melton cites no sources to support his contention - he says it's "substantiated" without saying what substantiates it. It's a textbook case of a red flag: a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" and a "claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." If Melton is correct, then it overturns 65 years of scholarship and research and disproves all of the previously published evidence from official sources - US, British and Japanese - concerning this issue. We can't ignore the fact that there is a huge weight of scholarship contradicting Melton's assertion.

• As for Miller, unfortunately Frenchkowski doesn't say in what respects "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show." He doesn't actually dispute anything Miller says about Hubbard's WWII career. If there were specific issues of dispute, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but Frenchkowski doesn't give us anything to work with - it's just a non-specific general disagreement. It would be interesting to know what his specific concerns are, though. Maybe someone should ask him?

• Regarding Thompson, I don't see the relevance of that point - that was well before Hubbard joined the Navy. It's relevant to a general biography but not to an article concerning his military career.

• I take your point about the wording of the lines concerning the damage sustained by USS PC-815. It's not meant to "elicit guffaws" but to account for damage and casualties during the "engagement". I'll reword it to make that clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in two minds myself about the Melton passage; other scholars, while praising Melton's book as a whole, have remarked that in his bio of Hubbard, he may have been too credulous. In the end, I just don't know. I wouldn't even mind mentioning that Melton has received such criticism, but we shouldn't sweep him under the carpet. Melton's book is used in many university courses on Scientology, and Oxford University Press is in the academic mainstream. Melton also mentions the dispute about the number of medals. Jayen466 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(The Thompson reference is indeed irrelevant to this article. It was just included for completeness' sake. Jayen466 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

It's nothing to do with how "mainstream" Melton is. I'm sure he is regarded as a mainstream sociologist, and I have no doubt that his work is used in an educational context as you sau. The issue here is simply that he makes an unsourced claim in an area outside of his professional competence - military history rather than sociology - that no other reliable source supports, and that basically every other relevant reliable source actively contradicts. Let me walk you though this. Melton asserts, without any substantiation, that a Japanese submarine was sunk 15 miles off Oregon in May 1943. Only a handful of Japanese submarines were even capable of crossing the Pacific in the first place. Their service histories are well known and their losses are recorded in detail by the IJN, the US Navy and the Royal Navy. The specific submarine that Hubbard claimed to have attacked was recorded as having been sunk a year later. No Japanese submarine is recorded by any reliable source as having been off Oregon in May 1943, and no reliable source of any kind records that any Japanese submarine was sunk off the continental US coastline at any point in the war. Melton's assertion is not only made without evidence, it actively contradicts all of the published military histories of the US and Japanese navies. It's as if Melton was asserting that the Russians attacked Pearl Harbor rather than the Japanese. He's literally in a minority of one in making his claim. In that situation it doesn't matter that he is a mainstream sociologist or that his claim has somehow got into an OUP publication (their editorial standards have evidently slipped) - it's a textbook case of a red-flagged fringe claim from someone way outside his area of expertise. If we're trying to write a serious piece of military history Melton really does not have any place here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing from personal knowledge here. What you say may be true, but it is not verifiable from what you have written above. As you know, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Oxford University Press is the exact opposite of a fringe source. Even if we believe in our hearts Melton is wrong, I still think we should mention him, along with such criticism as his bio in the book has received in RS, as suggested above.

As for Miller, he is not always correct either, according to Frenschkowski, who says that the Church has been able to disprove some of his account, as quoted above. Given that we rely so heavily on him, would you object to attributing the material cited to Miller in the text, i.e. "According to Miller, ...", and adding that Miller's account has been disputed as well, as per Frenschkowski?

I feel to be NPOV on this we should give no source complete credence. We should describe the dispute as accurately as possible based on what RS have said and refrain from setting ourselves up as its arbiters, knowing full well that none of our sources may be correct in every detail they assert. It might be worth adding a paragraph just on the available sources on this topic, and how their reliability has been assessed. If you like we could mention Melton's version of the submarine there, rather than in the actual military history section, along with a mention that his account was deemed too credulous by some. We could also mention Miller in the section describing the available sources, and say that Frenschkowski asserts some of his details have been disproven. I think that would help getting to an NPOV presentation. What do you think? Jayen466 09:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Marine Corps Reserve, Brisbane, Java, PC-815 damage and casualties. I've reworded these section to address your concerns.
• Miller. It's not accurate to say that the article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack. I count 36 separate sources - Hubbard's military career has been tackled by non-Scientologists for nearly 40 years, well before Miller and Atack got into the act. I've expanded the article to provide some more context (see Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Documenting Hubbard's military career). Miller and Atack are simply the most recent and comprehensive treatments, but I've purposefully sought to include as wide a range of sources as possible.
• Sentences without references. If you can identify specific sentences that you feel need referencing, please do so and I'll see what I can add. Generally, if a sentence is without a reference the next reference you will find will be the one covering that reference. Multiple sentences (and in a few cases, paragraphs) are covered by individual references.
• Melton. It doesn't matter that Melton is a mainstream sociologist published by a reliable source. WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions are in some respects more important than that - even if a source is reliable it may not be suitable for inclusion. Fringe claims are inherently unsuitable for inclusion, particularly when they are textbook examples of red flags. Don't confuse fringe claims and reliable sources - a fringe claim can be made by a reliable source, particularly when the author is writing about something outside his area of competence. It doesn't make the claim any less fringy. The Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine force has been written about numerous times; the activities and particulars of loss are well-documented from Japanese, US and British records, as are the details of the IJN's activities off the US coast (which ceased after 1942). A number of books give the details: Retaliation: Japanese Attacks and Allied Countermeasures on the Pacific Coast in World War II (Webber, 1975); The Imperial Japanese Navy (Gordon & Watts, 1971; ISBN 0356030458); Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (Carpenter & Polmar, 1986); Submarines of World War Two (Bagnasco, 2000; ISBN 1854095323); The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II (Boyd & Yoshida, 2002; ISBN 1557500150); and Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-45 (Bryan and Stille, 2007; ISBN 1846030900). Melton's claim contradicts all of these sources and the official war histories of the US and Japanese navies. I don't propose to waste any more time on it since it is so clearly an exceptional claim and Melton's unsourced, virtually throw-away line is not remotely an exceptional source. It does not belong in the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Close to half of our citations are to Atack and Miller. Frenschkowski is positive that Hubbard's church has disproved some of Miller's assertions about his military history. That deserves a mention somewhere. Are there any other sources detailing the disputes that followed the publication of the book? We should mention them.

As for citations, honestly, I would suggest citing every sentence. Cirt usually does that, and it makes a lot of sense on topics like this. Jayen466 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the source on the I-76. However, this makes clear that the sentence

  "The I-76 (later I-176),[35] named by Hubbard as the vessel that he had sunk, was in fact destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944.[36]"

• is WP:SYN. None of the cited sources presents this information in direct connection with the article topic. We need a source saying, "Hubbard said he had sunk the I-76. In fact, the I-76 was later renamed the I-176 and sunk off Buka Island in 1944." If there is no such source, then this analysis is original research. JN466 08:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hubbard himself said that he had sunk the I-76. This is quoted and sourced in the article. What is the difficulty here? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a novel analysis. That alleged Hubbard quote is present nowhere on the Internet (including google scholar, google books and questia) but this Wikipedia article: [3] We are not supposed to perform original research here, but merely to cover what others have written about the topic, in this case the Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. That whole combination of the alleged Hubbard quote, the source about the renaming of the Japanese submarine and how and when and where it was sunk after it was renamed is not in any of the sources cited and is in fact unique to Wikipedia. JN466 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly to your obvious innuendo that I have forged the "alleged" quote which, I remind you, is properly sourced. I'll invite you to withdraw that remark. Unless you are going to approach this by assuming good faith, I think this discussion is at an end. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection noted, and I did not mean to imply that you "manufactured" the quote. However, it is odd that it is nowhere available but this Wikipedia article, given that incriminating Hubbard quotes are usually liberally reproduced. I have obviously no idea whether you read the book yourself and can vouch for the accuracy of the quote, or if this is information inserted by another editor. I believe you mentioned you were not the original author of the article. More importantly though, the point still stands that even if the authenticity of the quote were confirmed, there is apparently no published source discussing any such Hubbard quote in connection with the renaming of submarines by the Japenese navy, and the sinking of renamed submarines. As such, the presentation we have in the article is original research as per WP:SYN. Our job is to present the points made in reliable sources, rather than combining sources in new ways to arrive at novel conclusions that so far have not been presented in reliable sources. JN466 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about your meaning. This quote was in the original article and I'm not sure off the top of my head who added it, but I rechecked it (along with everything else in the article) and it is genuine. I have the original lecture at home (or more precisely, a published transcript of it). I'm away from home at the moment, so I can't check the fine details immediately, but it appears in a transcript published along with a set of cassette-recorded lectures that were published - if my memory serves me correctly - by Bridge Publications ApS of Copenhagen, Denmark, the main European distributor of Scientology publications. I don't recall the context of the quote off-hand, I'm afraid. I remember thinking it was rather random; Hubbard was in the habit of throwing in personal anecdotes to illustrate some point he was making at the time. The fact that it doesn't appear on Google Books is hardly a surprise, since Scientology is notoriously jealous of its copyrights. I don't think I've ever seen a Scientology book on Google Books.

As for your WP:SYN comment, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what WP:SYN actually says. It prohibits us from "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources," or in other words "A and B, therefore C". This is not happening in this article. "L. Ron Hubbard said he sunk the I-76, but the US Navy said he didn't, therefore he was lying" would be an example of original research through synthesis. No source could be cited to support that conclusion. But of course the article doesn't state this. It states: A, Hubbard said he sunk the I-76 and B, military historians say the I-76 was sunk a year later. It does not reach any conclusion or state that either party is wrong, so there is no C - no conclusion that would fall foul of WP:SYN. This sort of treatment is exactly what WP:NPOV requires of us, i.e. to present fairly conflicting viewpoints without endorsing them. We're not judging Hubbard here, simply presenting the fact that his view and that of the military/historical professionals are in conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just re-read the Smith and Jones example in WP:SYN. I think this is pretty much exactly analogous to it – in the example too there is no explicit statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism. The juxtaposition is enough, and it's SYN because the second source did not comment on the Smith/Jones dispute. But I don't blame you for trying it with this wording; we'll discuss it with the GA reviewer later on and see how it goes. JN466 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're still misreading WP:SYN. The Smith/Jones example (and indeed the page as a whole) says nothing about juxtaposition. It cites two paragraphs, the first of which juxtaposes Smith's and Jones's positions, and the second which draws a conclusion about those positions. The second paragraph is "the original synthesis ... because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it" (emphasis added). By contrast, "the first paragraph was properly sourced" because it simply summarised the opposing claims as found in reliable verifiable sources. We are supposed to juxtapose rival claims without drawing unsourced conclusions. That's not synthesis - it's NPOV at its most basic. Smith/Jones would only be analagous if the Hubbard article was making a specific unsourced claim about the Japanese submarine, which it doesn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me put the submarine passage in Smith & Jones terms:

Hubbard claimed in a lecture he had sunk an I-76 submarine.(on-topic [but primary] source a)

Now comes the original synthesis:

In fact, the I-76 was renamed I-176.(off-topic source B) The I-176 was sunk some time later, and elsewhere.(off-topic source C)

We do not have a published source on Hubbard's military career that presents this argument, encompassing these three logical steps, logically connecting these three items of information. That is why, in my opinion, the argument is original research. Also see WP:ORIGINALSYN. JN466 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any suggestion of synthesis, I've tweaked the wording to read: "According to military records, the I-76 was destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944." Note that this is a straightforward presentation of claim and counter-claim. Hubbard makes the claim that he sunk I-76 off the Columbia River. The records cited in the article and by the referenced historians say that the same submarine was sunk off Buka Island a year later. I've removed the "in fact" which I agree was probably fringing on endorsing one side. I've also added a picture of the I-(1)76 to the article, moving across the citation that the I-76 was renamed to I-176. The picture comes from the same source as the citation. So what we now have is claim A, the I-76/I-176 was sunk by L. Ron Hubbard off the Columbia River in May 1943, and counter-claim B, that the I-76/I-176 was sunk by three US Navy destroyers off Buka Island in May 1944. There is no conclusion C, "therefore L. Ron Hubbard was wrong" - we simply have the claim and counter-claim without endorsement for either side. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, though it does not change the basic problem that the source we cite for where the I-176 was sunk does not present this information in direct connection with the article topic, as WP:SYN demands. :( What you are doing may possibly be good original research, but it is not what WP is supposed to be doing. JN466 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'm going to have one more go at explaining this to you.

You're claiming that the sources are "off-topic". The topic in the paragraph in question is the fate of the I-176. Hubbard presents one claim about the submarine's sinking. Military historians and the US Navy present a different account. We are not saying which side is right or wrong; we are simply documenting what each party says about the submarine's fate. It would be unbalanced and POV to cite only Hubbard's claim; as WP:NPOV says, "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your taking the time. We just have an honest difference of opinion on which sources are on-topic here. As far as I am concerned, the topic is Hubbard's military career, and we should quote sources commenting on that. Sources that do not present their information in relation to his career are out of bounds, in my view, and using them takes us into SYN territory. Now, you are putting together (1) a (fairly obscure, I think you'll admit) primary source from Hubbard himself, talking informally, swaggeringly, about a submarine he believes he sank, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that talk (2) a source not commenting on Hubbard, which says the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 while being built, but renamed I-176 when it was commissioned in August 1942 and (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard saying the I-176 was sunk at such and such a date (1944), and at such and such a location. Now, according to our article on it, the I-76 was only ever called I-76 during its construction. What grounds do we have for believing that Hubbard knew the I-176 was previously called the I-76, and that he meant to refer to this specific submarine? If he didn't know about the name change, or just made the number up, or got it wrong, or meant to say I-67, what point is there detailing the fate of the I-176? The talk you are citing from Hubbard was clearly off the cuff; has anyone made an exhaustive review of whether he ever told the same story at other occasions, giving a different submarine identification? If he did, should we follow up all of those submarines' fates as well to prove that each one perished somewhere else, or survived the war? The point is that a number of key points in our article's coverage – that Hubbard knew the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 during its construction, and therefore he was referring to the I-176 when he said I-76; that the talk we cite from him is the definitive source and account of his claim; or indeed that there was only one Japanese submarine ever named the I-76 – are not based on secondary-source coverage of Hubbard's military career. Their juxtaposition represents a unique historical analysis as regards the topic of this article, Hubbard's military career. Let's rather concentrate on what the sources commenting directly on Hubbard and his phantom submarine say. If they say, the Japanese Navy did not lose any submarines in May 1943, in it goes. If they say (and they do) that his superiors thought he was mistaken, it goes into the article. That is all we need to do: summarise the sources commenting upon Hubbard's military career. Best, JN466 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that I am a bit late coming to the party, but in FAs I have used references that have nothing to do with the topic I am writing about to verify the accuracy of a point I am trying to make. For example: one source says that the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruisers would have been similar to Germany's Scharnhorst class. Including that in the article, I use a source that has nothing to do with the 1047s, but everything to do with the Scharnhorst's, to give the specifications for the latter that were not present in the first source. I see nothing wrong with this... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)