Talk:L. Ron Hubbard

NPOV Questioned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 7, 2006; accessed 2007-02-11

{{cite web }}</ref>

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

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

NPOV issues

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

Example

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

Applying example to Hubbard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anynobody 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Later Life Picture

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

L. Ron Hubbard's boy scout diary

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

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

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

Archiving?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth Date

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

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

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

leonardopsantos 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-official biographies

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

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

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

external links

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

Buddhism banner

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

Hubbard and Scientology

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

Time in College

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

His transcript confirms this also: [2]. His grades are listed under "First Semester" and "Second Semester," rather than first and second years. --75.45.9.196 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC) It looks like the first semester was in the 1930-1931 year, and the second semester was in the 1931-1932 school year. I believe this is what caused the confusion. --75.45.9.196 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC) More specifically, it looks like the first semester was in the Fall of 1930, and the second was in the Spring of 1931 (this is consistent). That's all he did. Note that "Summer Session" is left blank on transcript. The college semester started in September; it looks like when placed on academic probation on September of 1931, that was actually indicating he did not attend that semester (which would have been Fall 1931). Case closed. --75.45.9.196 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Sources for Hubbard career and education documents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French language source and her...

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

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

Shutterbug violates WP:AGF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explorer's Club

Currently there is a one sentence paragraph about Hubbard's acceptance to the club and an award he received: Hubbard was accepted as a member of the Explorer's Club on 19 February 1940 and awarded its flag in May 1940 for his "Alaskan Radio Experimental Expedition". [14][15][16] It seems like if this is all that can be said about his experience with the club, and it can't be worked in with some other part, perhaps it is not relevant enough to include in this article. Anynobody 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's your idea? I thought you had some knowledge on L. Ron Hubbard's trips in the 30-40s. Shutterbug 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas besides cutting it, which is why I started this thread; To see if anyone else did. I mostly just know about what happened during the war. Anynobody 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a POV cut to me. --Justanother 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not particularly notable, at least as it reads now. Perhaps if it were expanded, and linked to the Explorers Club? It's also got a typo (should be "Explorers", not "Explorer's"). One argument for its deletion: The references are just scans that reside at Misou's website, and -- as established earlier -- are not quality references. Until other refs can be found, I vote for deletion. I don't contest that Hubbard was a member, but verifiability is key here. --GoodDamon 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Bare Faced Messiah would be a secondary source. One reason that no one objected to (most) of Misou's scans is that basic facts like his membership in the Club were never in contention. AndroidCat 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The point about its sources is a valid one, but my comment assumed we accepted them making the problem more about relevance. The manual of style discourages "paragraphs" like this, and even though exceptions can occur, I don't see where this is an exception. Anynobody 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a POV cut. The references are a letter from the Explorers Club, Hubbard's membership application and a membership certificate, all correctly quoted. The Explorers Club is a very notable club which does not approve membership lightly, nor does it hand its flag to just anyone ([5]). It is irrelevant whether Damon or other of the anti-Scientology faction do not like that some elite club has accepted Hubbard. The text is in accordance to Wikipedia policy and would be valid even if it's references were not available as scans on the internet. Makoshack 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's just POV talking on my part, then it should be fairly easy for someone in "the other faction" to create a real paragraph using the information or working it in meaningfully in some way. Anynobody 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on their website, the flag is not an individual award, it's a temporary honor. Explorers Club Flag. Anynobody 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He was awarded the flag to carry on his expedition. You return it after the expedition. It is an honor. Nothing "temporary" about it. --Justanother 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, we agree he didn't keep the flag. The way it was worded said: ... in 1940 he was awarded the EC flag... without further information, making it sound like the flag itself was the award when in actuality one only has it temporarily.

Irregardless, I've also been looking at some other prominent people affiliated with the EC. Many EC members: Sally Ride, Jimmy Doolittle, Edmund Hillary AND Tenzing Norgay, etc have no mention of the club in their articles. Those that do, seem also have it lumped in as part of an exteremly short paragrapgh:Roald Amundsen. (Hillary is their chairman, and it's not even mentioned. Which surprised me almost as much as the fact that he's still alive did.) Anynobody 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good company for Hubbard, then, but bad bio writers on Wikipedia. What is your point? Shutterbug 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Differing CoS accounts

On the subject of Hubbard's college years, CoS sources are inconsistent with one and other. Specifically, in regard to his premature departure some do and some don't discuss it.

Justanother's edit summary indicates he thinks it's POV and WP:OR to discuss this difference. What does everyone else think? Anynobody 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Justanother's edits on several things, that being one of them. Justanother, I understand from wikipediatrix that newspaper articles are valid citations, and just because a citation happens to be hosted at Lerma's site doesn't mean you can remove it based on that fact alone. --GoodDamon 04:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Damon, WP:OR can be tricky to get a handle on. It can be subtle. I am sure that, as a writer, you can understand that what you might write if you were authoring a piece on Hubbard would be OR if you wrote it here. You do not get to debut your ideas and syntheses on these page. Basically we rehash what has already been explored in RS. Looking at primary sources (CofS bios) and making judgements about them is OR. As far as Lerma, let me check on that. Hold on. --Justanother 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Damon, I undid your revert of my edit re Lerma. That is not a newspaper article, that is a scan of some document that Lerma secured. That is Lerma's non-notable OR and violates WP:V. If you want to open a topic on it go ahead but please do not edit war with me. My edits are well-considered and serve to bring the article more into compliance with key policies here. Thanks. --Justanother 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue 1 - Language. I didn't place any OR. If you look at my version of those paragraphs, you'll note that I simply restored the language that had been there before, and removed or reworded some of the POV statements you had noticed.

Issue 2 - Unverifiable docs. Weird. In the gobbledygook of references there, it looked like Lerma was hosting a scan of an old LA Times article. I apparently got tired and cross-eyed, and combined references. I agree that the scan of Hubbard's record isn't verifiable as it stands. But I should bring up the docs hosted at Misou's site here again. If we're going to accept certificate and transcript scans at that site without secondary references that validate them, that's bias in the other direction. Those look like "non-notable OR" that "violates WP:V," to use your terms. We can't have different standards for verifiability depending on where a scanned document like that resides. --GoodDamon 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have no desire or intention to edit war with you. I firmly believe issues like this ought to be hashed out in discussion first. I hope you feel likewise. --GoodDamon 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to unverifiable docs, as far as news stories go we should be able to somehow verify scanned articles, whether through the paper directly or some other archive. I have a strange feeling that some of these news stories are not what they appear. I'm probably wrong, but it's just for that reason we have WP:V.

GoodDamon, I've noted the same apparent double standard. To sort this out perhaps we should post both sites (Lerma and Misou's) on the reliable sources noticeboard? Anynobody 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to assume it's a double standard. I'd rather assume good faith. I think a lot of these arguments could be more equitably resolved if both "sides" simply declare a complete moratorium on accusations of original research, personal attacks, and so forth. I like your idea of posting both on the reliable sources noticeboard, but you could have suggested it in a less confrontational way. If you kids don't stop fighting, I'm gonna turn this Wikipedia around. ;) --GoodDamon 00:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, I hope that you are not implying that I have a "double standard". Damon, I agree about similar documents that support the Scn "side". A good example is the affidavit relative to DeWolf. It would be much better to source his retraction in RS. I am uncomfortable with leaving those admitted lies in the article without clarification. That is a disservice to this project. However, since I am most definitely not a hypocrite, if someone wants to pull that info on the retraction then go ahead. I want to pull the DeWolf paragraph as it is non-relevant self-admitted fantasy that adds nothing to this project but some would scream foul if I did that so I would like someone else to. As regard Misou, that is a mixed bag. If he is hosting copies of published material then that is a "courtesy" that is neither required nor likely legal for copyright reasons. If Misou has access to certain published materials then all he need do is cite them when he uses them. He does not need to make PUBLISHED materials available to others. --Justanother 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was implying the opposite, Justanother. Anynobody said, "I've noted the same apparent double standard." I was responding that I'd rather not have anyone throwing that accusation around, along with all the other accusations that seem to be prevalent all over the Scientology articles. Even with Misou's scans, I prefer to assume he's hosting them out of, as you say, misplaced courtesy rather than any desire to do wrong. I basically agree with everything you just said. --GoodDamon 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't only talking about Justanother in relation to a double standard, it just seems like both sides are quick to point out issues with a content hosting site which disagrees with their POV, yet ignore the exact same issues of a site hosting material they happen to agree with. I've been treating them both the same, but have been uncomfortable doing so at the same time.

(P.S. I'm sure I've said this before, but to be clear JSYK, if I'm talking about/to you alone Justanother I'll make that clear by addressing you directly as I always have. In this case a few people are applying double standards, regardless of who, it needs to stop.) Anynobody 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also on the term Double standard, I just want to clarify that my use of it is meant to be in accordance with this definition, that is to say a double standard is something one doesn't know their holding. Whereas hypocrisy would be the accusation of intentional wrong doing, GoodDamon seemed to think I meant. Anynobody 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

a double standard is something one doesn't know their holding AN, it is this sort of analyzing of editors that can get you in trouble. Please limit your comments to edits, not editors and their supposed motivations and internal issues. --Justanother 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, that's what I said, it's an accident. However to keep supporting one hosted site, Misou, but arguing to remove another, Lermanet, is a double standard. Continuing to do so would mean intentionally engaging in a double standard which becomes hypocrisy. Anynobody 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You assume too much. I already explained my issue with that paragraph and that retraction. Please don't make suppositions about what is going on with me. --Justanother 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It applies to all of us Justanother. If I started intentionally removing Misou's references in favor of Lermanet refs, I'd be a hypocrite. (Actually since I knew all along they both have the same questions associated with them, there would have been no double standard on my part, I'd of been a hypocrite from the start. Anynobody 05:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing a raw document repository with a personal hate page (if there is any text on this site I missed it)? I don't know of any Scientologist running hateful, defamatory websites like the one's of self-proclaimed "Scientology critics". Shutterbug 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug yes I am, except I kinda see them as a "personal hate page" and "personal love page". You don't seem to understand that terms like "document repository(Misou)" and "personal hate page" others would call "personal love page" and "document repository(Lermanet)" for the same kind of reasons with a different POV. Anynobody 06:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Lerma's personal page is 100% anti-Scientology ranting over 100s of pages and that repository which might belong to Misou (at least the URL indicates that) does not have any text on it at all. I think I understand what you are trying to say - and I agree that being able to switch viewpoints once in a while is a nice thing - but your example sucks. Shutterbug 07:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a different perspective. Lerma may be running a "personal hate site" as you describe it, but at least the text he provides gives the scans he hosts context, even if the context is all lies and distortions. Misou's site, a "raw document repository" provides nothing of the sort. The documents exist in a vacuum, and for all we know were created in Photoshop. Now, I don't think that's actually the case, but I'm trying to show that these two sites can be viewed in very, very different lights depending on your point of view. And point of view's the real issue here, isn't it. Too many editors here have utterly intractable points of view that require them to regard all information counter to their beliefs as false and invalid no matter how verifiable and authentic it is.

So... Here's my proposition:

• We replace all references hosted at http://misou.awardspace.us with proper references, or back them up with additional references where applicable. Scanned certificates without any context or verifiability just don't cut the mustard.
• Similarly, we replace all references hosted at http://www.lermanet.com with proper references, or back them up with additional references where applicable. Since Lerma cites and reference his sources, those sources themselves should be verified before any of his docs are used, and ideally those sources can be used as references instead of Lerma's website.

No double-standards, no hypocrisy. Does this fly with everyone? --GoodDamon 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly the point I have been making for almost a year. Or as I say: The source is the source, not some copyright-violating alleged copy on a POV website. Good to see that we are on the same page. Please also remember that WP:AGF requires that if an editor claims that his edit is true to its source and he cites it with reputably published material there is absolutely no need for that material to be available online. We are talking PUBLISHED material, not FOIA data not previously published in RS; that we cannot use at all. --Justanother 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but where is lermanet.com referenced? I can't find any references to it. -- ChrisO 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

lead section

The lead section of this article has a paragraph saying: "Hubbard was a highly controversial public figure during his lifetime. Many details of his life remain disputed; official Scientology biographies present Hubbard as "larger than life, attracted to people, liked by people, dynamic, charismatic and immensely capable in a dozen fields,"[5] while independent articles and biographies of Hubbard and accounts by some former Scientologists paint a much less flattering, and often sinister, picture. In many cases they flatly contradict the biographical accounts presented by the Church of Scientology.[6][7][2][8]". I went to look up the references for this statement and except for the Scientology quote all of the text seems to be violating WP:OR. This text is the attempt of a synthesis and interpretation of various sources and should not be in this article. Any disagreements? Makoshack 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. The referenced works - A Piece of Blue Sky, Bare-Faced Messiah and L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah or Madman? - are independent biographies of Hubbard and they do flatly contradict the CoS biographies. They're quite explicit about this: to quote the intro of Bare-Faced Messiah, "every biography of Hubbard published by the church is interwoven with lies, half-truths and ludicrous embellishments. The wondrous irony of this deception is that the true story of L. Ron Hubbard is much more bizarre, much more improbable, than any of the lies." -- ChrisO 23:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO, nothing appears to be asserted that does not appear in a source. Anynobody 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Sure you do... I agree that this section is a "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", i.e. WP:OR. "flatly contradicting", giving some ex-Scientologist's Hubbard bio as a reference, leaves it to the reader to find what is contradicting. That's OR. And so on. Taking it out completely would be too much. I am short in time today. Anyone volunteers a rewrite? Shutterbug 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets compare the lead with sources: Scientology presents Hubbard: He was larger than life, attracted to people, liked by people, dynamic, charismatic and immensely capable in two dozen fields. So that's not original on our part.

Hubbard as a controversial figure, besides the Anderson Report and other criticisms of him while he was alive there was/is the:Church view and Time: During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Another view, etc... So controversy and L. Ron Hubbard are not exactly original concepts put together by us either.

Then there is the quote from Bare Faced Messiah, I hope you don't think that's WP:OR.

Actually if you really want to rewrite/add/change something, I'd recommend working on doing something with the Explorers Club blurb. As several of us have said, the WP:LEAD does not have WP:OR problems. Anynobody 08:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This thread deals with the lead section and that it contains two different viewpoints not marked as such, some blown up controversy with no meaning in reality (IRS, alleged Penal Code violations) and not enough facts. If you have a problem with Hubbard as a member and carrier of the flag of the Explorers Club, so be it. But this should be another thread. Shutterbug 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Ditto. And I would also like to point out the WP:OR definition of original research:

“ Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." ”

I don't see any unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories in that paragraph. I don't see any "novel narrative or historical interpretation." The paragraph isn't flattering to Hubbard, but it is just a statement of facts, backed up by valid references. If you feel the statement is rendered in a POV manner, I have absolutely no problem with you rewording it for neutrality. But removing it outright would be a mistake. --GoodDamon 00:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is a "synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" for you? Shutterbug 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Shutterbug above: Any statement of fact that could only have been reached by combining -- or "synthesizing" -- two or more published works. Every statement in that opening is backed by individual published works, with no synthesis. Or was, until the editing started. Come on, people, the opening was fine the way it was. --GoodDamon 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a published source actually call Ron a bigamist. If we take his divorce date from the previous wife and point out it came after the next marriage, even though it's bigamy the statement is a synthesis of facts from sources. Anynobody 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Similarly, Polly, in Bremerton, had yet to learn her husband was a bigamist." - Bare-Faced Messiah, p. 129. [6] There are probably similar statements elsewhere. -- ChrisO 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good deal on the references, but speaking in terms of WP:SYNTH if they didn't exist for us to make the connection would be synthesis right? Anynobody 04:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. -- ChrisO 07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability of certain claims

You can be right, but there are some rules to follow. I have no desire to scratch your eyes out, so keep your cool as well. Shutterbug 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this thread is about me, here's something else I was thinking. What if we try to verify Hubbard's Blackfeet claims? Misou's paper lists more or less the same contact info as their website: blackfeetnation.com. If they back it up, then it becomes a WP:V reference. If not, it's gone. What's everyone think? Anynobody 06:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's critical biographers as well as the CoS have already tried and failed to verify these claims. Atack reports: "There is actually no way of checking whether Ron, or anyone else, became a "bloodbrother" of the Blackfeet in 1915. There are no records. It seems unlikely, as the Piegan reservation was over sixty miles from the Waterbury half-section, and over 100 from Helena, where Ron was living with his parents in 1915. A Scientologist eighth-blood Blackfoot, having failed to find any record, recently admitted Hubbard without the Blackfoot nation's approval. In the 1930s Hubbard admitted that what he knew of the Blackfeet came second hand from someone who really had been a bloodbrother." [7] -- ChrisO 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"What if we try to verify Hubbard's Blackfeet claims?" (emphasis added). That would be WP:OR. We are not investigative reporters. Just report what has already been done in RS, please. --Justanother 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. It's already been covered by RS. -- ChrisO 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, that means we can call Misou's document a forgery right? Anynobody 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you work that out? If you mean the scanned letter at http://misou.awardspace.us/blackfoot.html , it's what Atack is referring to in the paragraph I quoted above. It's quoted by the Los Angeles Times in a 1990 report which you can see at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/la90/la90-1e.html . There's no reason at all to suppose that the letter is a fake. -- ChrisO 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am indeed referring to this document from the links you mentioned. It is a forgery of a letter from the Blackfeet nation, (they didn't write it, so it was forged). Anynobody 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. No, you can't say that, because it's your own evaluation. What you can say (per the LA Times story) is that the Blackfeet regard it as "meaningless." -- ChrisO 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(I assumed you knew what I meant, I'd never just put an assertion in the actual like that the way I said it above) Anynobody 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, it is not that the Blackfeet regard it as "meaningless.", it is one tribal elder that said that. Please do not use that sort of "logic". One tribal elder also signed off on it along with two other tribe members. It is what it is, it is on Blackfeet Nation letterhead and carries the signature of one elder. --Justanother 13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the LA Times story. The "meaningless" statement is attributed to "Blackfeet Nation officials." A tribal elder is later quoted by name, but the "meaningless" statement is not attributed to him. As for the letterhead, the tribal officials are cited as saying that "none of the three men who signed it were authorized to take any action on the tribe's behalf." No doubt you could write a letter on Church of Scientology notepaper that said anything you liked, but the mere fact that you used headed notepaper wouldn't confer any authority on your action unless you were specifically authorised. -- ChrisO 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you are right on that point but then it is un-named "officials", which may or may not consist wholly of one named ex-official, not "the Blackfeet"; that generality ignores the fact that it is on their letterhead and signed by one of their officials. --Justanother 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're getting into original research territory here. The fact is that we have an unambiguous statement from tribal officials that the letter wasn't authorised by the tribe. We have no grounds to dismiss that. As I've already pointed out, the letterhead is irrelevant, as it conveys no authority without authorisation. Your suggestion that it was "signed by one of their officials" isn't supported by any of the evidence I've seen cited - where do you get that point from? -- ChrisO 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we are both getting into original research territory here. We do not have an unambiguous statement from tribal officials, we have an an unambiguous statement from one ex-tribal official and one line attributed to an ambiguous vague generality, "tribal officials". the letterhead is irrelevant is your OR statement, the source does not say that, it says that those unnamed "tribal officials" claim that none of the signatories has authority to act on behalf of the tribe. Well maybe but it is "signed by one of their officials" (just compare the signatories with the list of tribal officials on the letterhead). I am not talking using the scan in the article but I think that we can assume it is genuine for the purposes of this discussion. The signature by a tribal official lends a degree of weight that Sappell/Welkos chose to ignore and did not even mention. Obviously I see the Sappell/Welkos series as sensationalist and biased. --Justanother 13:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please do not remove text from other's posts

From the LA Times article:

• We know that the Blackfeet didn't do "blood brother" ceremonies, Historian Hugh Dempsey is associate director of the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Canada. He has extensively researched the tribe, of which his wife is a member. He said that blood brothers are "an old Hollywood idea" and that the act was "never done among the Blackfeet."

• We know an actual tribal leader said, "You should not give it (the document) very much credibility," said John Yellow Kidney, former vice president of the tribe's executive committee. "I don't."

Essentially a historian said they didn't perform ceremonies like Hubbard said, and a real member of the tribe said it shouldn't be taken seriously. What else do you want to make it clear that Hubbard didn't become a "blood brother" because the Blackfeet never created "blood brothers". Anynobody 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, please do not be so anal. Obviously, that removal was an error and someone other than you managed to correct it and apparently without feeling a need to chastise me. Sheesh. --Justanother 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on topic Justanother, if you feel overly chastised post your feelings on WP:WQA. The article related points in my previous post were; History doesn't record the Blackfeet performing "blood brother" rites and an actual member of the tribe said it shouldn't be taken seriously. Are you saying you want the tribe to make a statement like; "We never performed blood brother rites, so we obviously never made L. Ron Hubbard one." Anynobody 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard made a number of unverifiable and false claims about himself. Among those was the claim that he made underwater films for the University of Michigan Hydrographic Office. I looked into this personally, having been a student there, and no records could be found whatsoever. Furthermore, nobody there at that time, in 1984, had any recollection of Hubbard having anything to do with the University of Michigan. A letter of thanks or a contract from the Hydrographic Office as documentation would have substantiated Hubbard's claims, but he was not inclined to prove anything he ever stated.--Fahrenheit451 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly 100% true, the part about him not trying to prove his claims. After all he or someone in the church forged the "blood brother" document, several fake Navy records, and who knows what else in an attempt to "prove" his claims. I don't mean to nitpick, but it would probably be more accurate to say he was unable to prove most anything he ever stated. Anynobody 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, however, my view is that falsification of documentation does not constitute attempted proof, but is evidence that the claim was false or unverifiable. It is the old "bullet in the foot" routine. --Fahrenheit451 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, your POV is showing when you call the Blackfeet letter "forged"; no-one ever made such a claim, the claim made is that has no validity, not that it was forged. Big difference. --Justanother 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, kindly comment on subject discussion rather than the editor. Taking your point, the document is then not a forgery, but rather a misrepresentation.--Fahrenheit451 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation? Perhaps or perhaps not. It simply is what it is, a letter on Blackfeet stationary signed by a tribal elder that another tribal elder says has no validity. It is an ambiguous thing and attempts to say it is this or that for sure can only be made to advance a position, IMO. --Justanother 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just gotta poke my nose in here, Justanother. Saying it was signed by "a tribal elder" would be original research, because there aren't any reliable sources who say it was. The only organization that has ever made the claim that a tribal elder signed the document is the Church of Scientology itself. And I was under the impression that Richard Mataisz had admitted to signing it, and he's not a tribal elder. --GoodDamon 03:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the document? See who signed it and then look at the letterhead. And Mataisz does not have to "admit to signing it", he did sign it. --Justanother 03:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I did. And I also read the LA Times article in which Richard Mataisz is described as having "held a private ceremony, made Hubbard his own blood brother and, along with two other men, signed the commemorative document." The only actual tribal elder whose signature appears on the document is that of Roland F. Kennerly, and he wasn't authorized by the tribe to take any action on its behalf. But lets set all that aside for the moment, and just look at Wikipedia regulations. The document, and the claims by the Church around it, are not reliable sources, while the LA Times article is. This is an encyclopedia, and has to adhere to using reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source for the Blackfeet accepting the document as valid, I have absolutely no problem with that at all. But until then, we can only look at the document from an encyclopedic perspective, and that perspective dictates that it must be treated as what it apparently is: Relatively meaningless. That is the only "POV" we should be applying in this article. --GoodDamon 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Damon, I do not know what prompted this topic. It seems to have something to do with AN calling the document a "forgery", a misrepresentation that he has not backed a way from. But listen. At the risk of being hoist by mine own petard, I am in total agreement with you. If the only RS we have to hand is the (IMO) one-sided article then so be it, that is all we have. --Justanother 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I've been trying to get across Justanother, what you have been calling POV is just all we have as far as WP:RS on the subject. It's encouraging to see this recognition on your part. As to the topic itself, I believe Shutterbug started it because she does not understand the point you just acknowledged. Anynobody 00:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Justanother, when in the article have I said it's forged? I'm only saying that here, rather than saying it's a meaningless document because forgery takes less keystrokes. In the article I said, and sourced: Former vice president of the tribe's executive committee, John Yellow Kidney has also said of the letter claiming to re-establish Hubbard as a blood brother, "You should not give it (the document) very much credibility, I don't."[5] Anynobody 03:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see by the number of keystrokes expended in discussing this, the idea that you would deliberately mis-state something on the talk page to "save" keystrokes is a false economy. --Justanother 03:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to prove mainspace POV issues with my discussions on talk pages? Like I said, I only say it here for brevity because its definition matches the situation:

Forgery

To fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit: forge a signature.(Or a document claiming rites from a Native American tribe they never performed.) Anynobody 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Money quote

This article carries a quote of L. Ron Hubbard on money which is outright wrong. The reference given for this quote is an article by TIME magazine. The quote is almost correctly cited from the TIME article (it however does not align with the original Hubbard quote, see below). I nevertheless have trouble finding the conclusion given in the Hubbard article, namely "However there is some evidence of Hubbard's financial goals in charging large fees for church services and his own instructions;". There is no reference nor evidence for Hubbard's personal financial goals in TIME nor the Wikipedia article. The official statement of the Church of Scientology on this matter is accessible online here and should be considered properly.

Having dealt with the issue of falsified Hubbard documents in court I happen to know that the quote as given in TIME is incorrect. The sentence "However you get them in or why, just do it" does simply not exist in the original Hubbard text. Further the other quoted text was taken out of a list under the heading "The Governing Policy Of Finance". The 12-point list gives directions such as "Don't ever borrow" or "Do not commit expense beyond future ability to pay.". This cannot be seen easily as the title, numbering and typesetting of the original has been left out. Aside from this irresponsible lack of context TIME also does not mention that the quote is out of the secular Hubbard Management Series on Finances. Those Finance Series are obviously used by "Treasury" (the finance department of the Churches of Scientology) for the purpose of finance management. As the Hubbard Management Series are publicly available the full quote is easily available so its interpretation falls apart instantly after the first look. Makoshack 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Makoshack, I'm sorry to have to put it to you this way but CoS sources are not WP:RS. We use them in this article to provide the Church's side of the discussion, which you are more than welcome to do with the one you listed. However RSs like Time and Money magazine say he made quite a bit of money, so the appropriate use of your source would be something like this (hypothetically):

L Ron Hubbard made millions of dollars through Scientology, though the Church states otherwise(your link), he was valued at over 200 million in 1982 (money) and laundered millions of it overseas (Time).

Again, and I mean this, I'm sorry to have to be so blunt. Anynobody 06:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 12-point list is HCO Policy Letter of 9 March 1972 Issue I "Finance Series 11 - Income Flows and Pools - Principles of Money Management". ("Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as customers flow upward.") Is there some kind of tag that separates the religious HCOPLs from the secular ones? AndroidCat 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

HCO PLs and administrative issues have no religious content, so they could be called secular. Church organizations are using this data for internal organization but it can be and is used by companies as well. It's just about how to organize things. The Finance series are about money, income etc. and not to spend more than you earn. Makoshack 02:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The cofs considers all HCOBs, HCOPLs, Scn books and recorded lectures all scientology "scripture". It is true that some WISE companies use some of the HCOPLs.--Fahrenheit451 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, is that right? How about FOs? Or GO EDs? Scripture, holy writs? Misou 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard is a LIAR

Got your attention? Good. A few days ago I worked to clean up the "Education" section (now "Early adulthood") and thought I did a pretty good job. User:Anyeverybody (AKA AN) edit-warred with me a bit but when I left it looked OK. Now I see that AN has once again undone a lot of my work and reintroduced some misconceptions and false ideas (I caution AN about his edit-warring in this article in light of the article probation). These edits often seem to be from the POV that "Hubbard (and the CofS) is a LIAR and we have to show that". Here they are:

1. Accounts by the Church of Scientology either do no (sic) mention or justify his choice to discontinue further college endeavors in favor of an individual approach to learning about life The idea that it is a "justification" is POV. The entire bit is OR.
2. Government reports and critics cite Hubbard's assertions of knowledge about atomic physics as an example of claiming knowledge he did not possess. That is not the issue - anyone can have knowledge. The issue is "did he claim to be a nuclear physicist." AN's version is POV.
3. The relationship between Hubbard and his son vacillated between extremes, Pure speculation (OR).
4. Hubbard was never a member of Princeton University's student body, This is older and I do not know if it is AN's work. POV phrasing.

I am sure there is tons of this sort of stuff throughout the article and it all needs to be cleaned out. Also I object to AN's little blue boxes highlighting his favorite lines. Further, the Latey bit is given undue importance. I will work on those later or invite others to. --Justanother 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Going on to pursue his research elsewhere sounds like a justification to me, given that Scientology (the fruit of his "research") is not recognized by WP:RSs a science. The truth is he dropped out, saying he did so to do something else is a justification.
2. Government reports like the Anderson Report: Hubbard as a Nuclear Physicist, and critics like Paulette Cooper The Scandal of Scientology cite Hubbard's assertions of knowledge about atomic physics as an example of claiming knowledge he did not possess.
3. A man who at one time accuses his father of some pretty horrible things, only to retract those accusations is more than speculation that they had large differences.
4. It's not "mine" but it's correct. The Navy used space at Princeton to educate candidate officers on administrative duties. Hubbard attended a Navy class in a Princeton building. To be part of the student body, he'd need to take classes offered by Princeton to its students.

Should you wish to question any of the other tons of this sort of stuff, I'm happy to help explain anything. (Like actually the title should be Hubbard was a pathological liar: ... a California judge concluded that its founder was "a pathological liar.") Anynobody 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A judge has a POV? That is news to you? Other people have other POVs. You choose to adopt the POV of the judge and ignore the other POVs, that is your business, just don't pretend it is neutral and do not attempt to cast the article to match your POV. --Justanother 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "justifications" of POV and OR indicate that you perhaps do not see it, i.e. you have a blind spot. --Justanother 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's the fact that the source cites the judge's POV. Assuming his POV is my POV because Time magazine cites him is a mistake. Anynobody 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits serve to infuse the entire article with POV. Every line must have its little WP:OR dig. That is the problem, not that we report controversy, but that we make the article into a soapbox, subtle or otherwise. Since the stuff you support is somewhat subtle, I WP:AGF that you just do not see it. --Justanother 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits serve to reflect what the sources say. Those that keep removing my edits are removing cited text. See below:

Anynobody 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's personality

I was reading The Mind Behind the Religion LA Times article, and it has a lot of info about Hubbard's behavior and personality which we should include in his article. Toward that end I created a new section called Personality with citations from it. Anynobody 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. Foobaz·o< 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Has anyone found positive accounts of his personality in places besides CoS sources? He couldn't have been a spoiled prick, as described in the article, his whole life. Anynobody 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Histories of science fiction would possibly be a good place to look. Can't say I have any on hand, though. --FOo 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. A huge section devoted to analyzing someone's personality is an appallingly low exercise in POV-pushing, especially with all the highlighted quotes. User:Anynobody openly admits the text is all negative, comes from only one source, and paints the subject as "a spoiled prick", and yet he added it to the article anyway. *shaking head*.... WTF? wikipediatrix 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you take a look at the pages for some of Hubbard's contemporaries, such as Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov, there's quite a bit of analysis of the writer's personality and philosophy, albeit not all in a section titled "Personality." (In Asimov's case, most of it is in "Intellectual positions," which gives quite a bit of insight into how the man thought). You're right that more than one citation is needed, and the section should definitely be more neutral in tone, but why not fix it instead of deleting it outright? --GoodDamon 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I have no interest in adding citations to it, and until someone else does, this unfair slanted version doesn't belong in the article. It's not my job to fix everyone else's messes. wikipediatrix 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I would have preferred you to comment it out instead of delete it, so I could work on it in the article instead of my sandbox. But I guess that's just a matter of personal taste. --GoodDamon 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually wikipediatrix, removing it simply because you don't want to look for additional sources is not the right thing to do. Frankly I've been looking for some kind of positive view of his personality before I add more negative from other WP:RS. Anynobody 03:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)*Update* However to show you that more sources exist, I added another one. Anynobody 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon would you please link some of Asimov's and other writers views on him? The POV of the section could use neutralizing if good sources exist to do so. Anynobody 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. He was friends with a lot of other writers before founding Scientology, so there should be plenty of good quotes. --GoodDamon 03:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it :) Anynobody 04:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How great would it be, how helpful, if you, Mister, could stop doing this "I am biased but I don't care"[8][9] number. It's not gonna give us an encyclopedia. I have no time to waste with such crap. So please knock it off, thank you. Misou 04:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That was rude, unnecessary, and uncalled for. Anynobody specifically asked me to come up with neutralizing, balancing information for inclusion in the article, which I'm working on. There was no reason to attack him for that. --GoodDamon 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it again as per Wikipediatrix and Misou. AN, please see if you can come up with something acceptable in a sandbox before trying to reinsert this one-sided and POV "pyschoanalysis". Removed "under construction" as it was seven hours old. --Justanother 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, for someone who thinks Hubbard was a positive figure I kinda figured you'd be able to provide some positive sounding WP:RS to help us. Anynobody 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou if I were being POV I wouldn't be looking for good stuff to add about him too. NPOV, as I've said, is based on the sources, so far the sources say he was prone to behaving badly sometimes. Like I said above, he couldn't have been a prick all the time, people don't tend to flock to pricks for help with mental problems. Surely something must be out there, we just need to find it. Anynobody 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How great would it be, how helpful, if you, Anynobody, could stop this number. It's not gonna give us an encyclopedia. That means, please knock it off and get consensus, thank you. Misou 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a number, it's adding sourced material. People want to know what Hubbard was like, this is what they say he was like. (If you think I'm breaking a rule or something, post it on a noticeboard). Anynobody 05:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's trying to make a point, WP:POINT, w/o sense reverting the edits of four others, w/o cooperation, w/o any sense and logic. Poor number, very poor. What are you gambling this time? Misou 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's been actively seeking balancing information, and I've been trying to help in that. Now then... I've reverted you, because you labeled his edits vandalism. Those additions might be criticized in any number of ways, but WP:VANDAL has very specific definitions, and those additions just don't qualify. Now then... I'm going to remove those additions myself, and I'm going to do it in a way that doesn't insult the editor who made them. --GoodDamon 05:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Personality section

Template:RFCbio Using reliable sources, should this article have a section discussing Hubbard's personality? Anynobody 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase: Should a one-sided, POV analysis of Hubbard's "personality" based on a small number of critical sources and bordering on WP:OR synthesis be posted in the article as a "work in progress" or should a balanced, NPOV, and non-OR piece be developed in a sandbox by interested parties from all sides of the issue. Which one benefits the project? There, that is a more accurate statement of the issue. --Justanother 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain Photo?

Does anyone out there have a public domain photo of Hubbard available? The one in the infobox right now is copyrighted, and that's something we'd prefer not to use if any free use image were available. John Carter 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct, however we have had difficulty locating a picture of him not owned by the Church of Scientology. Anynobody 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)