Talk:R2-45

Facts versus conjecture

There is some obvious original research in directly quoting Hubbard and interpreting the quotation to mean something other than what the Scientology sources claim (that he was joking), but that aside, considering the subject matter (homicide) and the sensitivity of such, there is no way to accept how the subject is presented as being in line with WP:NPOV. Laval (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The two Hubbard sources that are presented do not mention anything about the model of Colt -- the word "gun" isn't even apparently mentioned by him specifically. Using the image of the gun is also blatantly inflammatory given the sensitivity of the subject matter (homicide) and the fact that this is a Scientology article, which have been prone to continual POV edit wars. Laval (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no other "Colt .45 Automatic" that would have existed in 1958. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, well, that has nothing to do with the subject of this article because Hubbard wasn't advocating actually using a gun and killing people. Talk about cherry picking and completely going overboard in taking things out of context. There is no a single shred of evidence to back what critics claim about this alleged process. It is not an actual process and it is not and has never been included as part of any auditing regimen. This has been clarified again and again. Laval (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keyword is "alleged." The article as it stands gives undue weight to the absurd literalist interpretation that this "process" is actually real and used. The claim that the church actually verified this is obviously false and bogus. It's not a real process, it is not included in any of the training and cramming materials, nor is it used. We're talking about murder, for heavens sake, and alleging that Scientologists would actually murder someone because LRH mandated it.Totally false. Laval (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reasonably claim that Hubbard wasn't advocating killing people when he authored a memo advising people to use R2-45 on certain people. What other reasonable interpretation can there be for that? --Slashme (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun. Your allegation is not supported by facts and I suggest ypu seriously avoid stating as fact that this artice is about Hubbard advocating murder. Laval (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What interpretation apart from advocating shooting people can you reasonably ascribe to "Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45."? --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I strongly suggest you read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE several times over. You don't appear to be new, so you should already be familiar with these policies and guidelines. Laval (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That R2-45 refers to shooting someone is not OR: multiple independent sources flatly state this fact, with no need for synthesis. As for the reliability of the sources, we have a mix of books, blogs and lectures, so I don't think that's really an issue. And as for undue weight, I think the article is reasonably balanced. It shows that the church claims that it was just a little joke and that Hubbard never meant that anyone should shoot anyone else, and also presents the mainstream interpretation that the term was used in internal communications and in threats to ex-scientologists, and was intended to be understood as code for shooting someone to death. --Slashme (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard was advocating murdering people yes as part of the R2-45 "rundown," and no, it was not a "joke" as the Scientology enterprise attempts to paint his "technological breakthrough," as Hubbard originally called it. Murdering people was one way, Hubbard stated, to "exteriorize" (sic) someone, and not just the police, Judges, Federal agents, prosecutors, newspaper reporters et al. which were indicting him and his enterprise, the R2-45 exteriorization (sic) technique was a way to "end cycle" his own customers through suicide when his customers and owners/operators created media "flaps," as the enterprise's leader called it.

No such WP:NPOV issues arise when covering Scientology's policies, practices, and procedures as described verbally by Hubbard from his own lips faithfully recorded in his many lectures and endless other recordings inasmuch as for the extant article (and for Wikipedia as a whole) testable, falsifiable references and citations to those very same recordings available on YouTube, from Freedom of Information Act requests, and other sources are considered legitimate. One can't pretend that his core criminality was "jokes." Indeed, to suppose his advocacy and commission of endless criminal acts are "jokes" would be a bending of WP:NPOV.

I should add that witness testimony which has been provided under oath in numerous criminal and civil court cases, either before sitting Judge and during deposition, conducted for or against ex-customers and ex-owners/operators is also considered to be suitable references and citations for purposes of Wikipedia legitimacy provided it is clearly noted that same is in fact witness testimony which otherwise surmounts WP:NPOV worries.

Don't forget, for this particular issue one can also considered Hubbard's Jack Parsons history with intrusions in to the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) which would assist Hubbard in the mentally dysfunctional ideology which would allow for him to suppose that murdering people isn't really killing them and is merely removing their "Thetan" (sic) from their current "meat body" which, Hubbard likewise supposed, was merely an inconvenience" on what he called "the whole time track."

Hubbard's belief that human children are Thetans (sic) who have lived trillions of years in numerous other lives underscores his belief that R2-45 is just another "rundown" which his customers may utilize. Scientology customer Susan Meister was, in fact, subjected to R2-45 aboard one of Hubbard's ships while at anchor, so while Hubbard himself almost certainly did not engage in the "rundown," other people who followed him certainly considered the "rundown" to be wholly legitimate. (And considering the fact that the person responsible was never indicted gave further credence to the supposition that the procedure is valid.)

So the references and citations covering Scientology's R2-45 policy remain legitimate for purposes of Wikipedia. Damotclese (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, that's not how it works. There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder. That is so insanely stupid and asinine. Wikipedia isn't Usenet and this sure as hell isn't "alt.religion.scientology" -- take your WP:SOAPBOX somewhere else. We deal in facts here, not allegations, especially not baseless allegations claiming the existence of a policy that does not exist. It's just ONE line in a book. Get over yourself. Laval (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"There is not a single shred, not one iota to back any of your absurd claims that hubbard was advocating murder." - That's simply not true. There's excellent evidence that Hubbard himself issued an "Ethics Order" saying that any Sea Org member meeting a certain group of people should use R2-45 on them. Hubbard himself explained that R2-45 means shooting someone. This is not synthesis, and the connection has been made outside Scientology circles and outside USENET. --Slashme (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good grief. Once more time around Piccalilli Circus. VICKI AZNARAN covered Hubbard's ordering of a "troublesome" staff member to R2-45 "end cycle" though to be fair, Hubbard did not provide a firearm. STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ have provided testimony under oath as well as AZNARAN as to Hubbard advocating murder and suicide to "end cycle" people who were causing the criminal enterprise "flaps" and people who were deemed by Hubbard to be "enemies."

One of the best summaries of Scientology's core R2-45 "rundown" may be found In The Under Oath Deposition Documents filed by ex-customers and ex-owners/operators who were part of the enterprise and worked closely with Hubbard.

The second in command of the Scientology organization during most of Hubbard's later years was Jessie Prince. He was questioned during trial about Scientology's R2-45 "rundown" During A Lisa McPherson-Related Murder Trial which absolutely confirms that it's a "rundown" used for both murder and suicide of people Hubbard wanted to "end cycle."

Laval wants to suggest that "dealing in facts here" consists of lying about Hubbard's murder / suicide "rundown" as if it was some kind of joke when in fact there have been a number of R2-45 deaths, with Susan Meister being the most notable and notorious homicide. Laval, you're overruled, the facts speak for themselves. If you object to the format or the tone which covers Hubbard's policies, suggest a change, however objecting to the fact of Hubbard's policy covered in the extant article, the evidence has spoken. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethics Order R2-45 Murder Step 7

We continue to have the occasional editor wanting to suggest that Hubbard's murder / suicide policy R2-45 is a "joke," that Hubbard didn't actually mean that his customers and owners/operators should murder people or commit suicide however this is not true.

<<Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.>>

Are you even remotely familiar with WP guidelines and policy? Look at WP:V and WP:RS. The above is what is called a "primary document", and in this case, an alleged primary document. Even if you are able to verify that this is a legitimate document and not some kind of hoax, it still remains a primary source and doesn't even prove any of your bizarre conspiracy theories. Most of the sources in this article are junk hearsay and amount to nothing more than conspiracy theory. Laval (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because this article is such a mess and being used to promote fringe claims and conspiracy theories based on hearsay and misusing news articles that don't even back these allegations, on top of using primary sources that are next to impossible to verify the authenticity of, I am recommending all the sources be checked and vetted over at the reliable sources noticeboard, because this nonsense and soapboxing cannot be left to continue unchecked. Laval (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Fringe claims" and "conspiracy theory" -- If you have references and citations to show that these Scientology documents are forgeries, and that witness testimony by people who ran Scientology are perjury, please do provide them. Thanks. Oh: I'll add that the criminal enterprise sued alt.religion.scientology human rights activists for divulging the contents of these documents, thus confirming that the enterprise does in fact admit they are not forgeries. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's a primary document, however, the practice itself is mentioned in secondary sources cited in the article. The primary document is given as illustration and to give context and weight to the secondary sources. --Slashme (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is also audio recordings of Hubbard talking about using R2-45 against his perceived enemies, however some editors would appear to like to pretend that these Scientology documents and audio recordings of Hubbard's lectures and written policies are forgeries -- which begs the question of why anybody would feel the need to contrive forgeries and why Scientology employees, owners and operators would lie under oath in criminal and civil courts and under deposition.

No, the evidence is solid, the references and citations in the extant article support the extant text. Also I would add that the documents in question are public record and no longer under seal after the Scientology enterprise attempted to hide these documents from public record in the Fishman Affidavit. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

20/Nov/59 Audio Recording Is Verified Source

The editor that removed the text with the explanation that the audio recording is not verified: the audio has been confirmed to be an original L. Ron Hubbard lecture. The Scientology organization exerted copyright ownership of the recording during and repeatedly after the Fishman Affidavit. If you wish furether confirmation, you may contact Scientology in-house attorney Kendrick Moxon <-- Using that contact information. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, before making proposed changes to the extant article, please discuss it on Talk: first, we do not wish to have to impose protections on this article, let's ensure that editors remain polite and professional and reach agreement before making unfounded updates, please. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) topic

Sorry, but that argument is WP:OR. We need secondary and tertiary sources from reputable authors and editors to establish controversial claims. Blogs, primary sources, and self-published web pages are not sufficiently verifiable WP:V for a WP article. I made only well-founded updates. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are already so far in violation of editorial conduct and policy that if we were to open an RfC, you would eventually find yourself topic banned for pushing this extremely controversial and aggressive anti-Scientology campaign, which you yourself have admitted right here on this talk. Do you want to let ArbCom know about your behavior or should one of us do so? Up to you. Laval (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, every comment I've made on this talk page demonstrates the fact that the accuracy and POV of the article is in dispute. The fact that you are an admitted opponent of Scientology dating back to the Usenet era, in addition to your promotion of the most ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theories against Scientology and Scientologists should be reason for you to avoid any direct editing on your part. Do not remove the tags or attempt to put any of your conspiratorial nonsense sourced from Usenet posts and fringe blogs back in. Again, I strongly suggest you review WP:SOAP. Laval (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that "This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun" when we have multiple reliable sources claiming exactly that (LA Times, Time Magazine and multiple books) leads me to believe that you are not exactly neutral either. --Slashme (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And I also don't see any justification for removing a direct quotation from one of Hubbard's own books [1]. This is an abuse of WP:PRIMARY, frankly. This bit is important (my bolding): "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So in other words, it's a trivially verifiable fact that Hubbard wrote the words that appear in his book The Creation of Human Ability and there is no primary source issue about reflecting that fact in this article. I suspect Sfarney knows this perfectly well. Prioryman (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

An excerpted tape segment on an anonymous server may appear to be, but is not really, primary source. We are looking for WP quality, here, somewhat higher than tabloid quality. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the audio recording is Hubbard's own voice' talking about murdering people using the R2-45 rundown, there is no way that researchers could possibly mistake it as a forgery. If it were a text extract from his lecture, yes, then it would be weak enough to warrant a second look. Damotclese (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The allegation here seems to be a conspiracy to commit murder and/or deadly assault (threat) within the church going back more than 55 years. It should be of vital interest to every criminal prosecutor everywhere in the world. Do you know of any cases where it was alleged in court or discussed in government investigations? Do you know of any court findings on this conspiracy, either way? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Government investigations, sure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/258988801/Charles-Berner-FDA-investigation-of-Scientology . Alleged in sworn statements before courts, sure: http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/cw1982/cw4_7-77.htm#r2-45 (link to scanned transcript next to the text). --Slashme (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The first link sends me to the record of a personal interview report that seems to match the description on Ortega's page. If they are one and the same, that agent was from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). So on the one hand, we are looking for government investigations into murder, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy threat, etc. and on the other hand, the documents we have are from Food & Drug, which is kind of a different subject. The second link, which you introduce with the words, "sworn statements before courts", is headed by the words, "City of Clearwater Commission Hearing: The Church of Scientology". Do you see the difficulty, here? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed a conspiracy to murder. Laval removed a picture of a gun as illustration from this article, claiming that "This article has nothing to do with killing anyone with a gun", while we have non-tabloid newspaper and book sources saying that that is what R2-45 refers to, and which also point out that although Scientology denies that this was anything other than a joke, this interpretation is not universal. --Slashme (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If murder were church policy, it would be a conspiracy to murder. If intimidating people with threat of murder were church policy, it would be conspiracy assault. That is the subject under discussion: Does that church conspire to commit these criminal acts? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

New version of article

I've rewritten the article to take account of some of the concerns raised above (with apologies to Damotclese - I felt that it was best to take a fresh look at it rather than make piecemeal changes). I'll just highlight a few points. We certainly shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that R2-45 is about murder. There's also no point discussing whether it's church policy to commit murder. What we can say is what is reported in various sources - Hubbard's own words and the interpretations of those words of Scientology spokespeople and ex-Scientologists, attributed to each source as appropriate. We are not in the business of determining "the truth", but simply reporting the facts and letting the reader decide. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good, professional way to approach editors' concerns, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note that I think this edit by Sfarney strikes me as an abuse of WP:BLP, which I presume is the underlying rationale for this edit. Sfarney's comment that "We don't accuse living people of criminal activity on the support of a blog only" is plainly bogus, as no living persons are even named - neither the letters' recipients nor their (apparently unknown) senders. The article doesn't even say that the Church of Scientology sent them. Given that this apparently happened 40-50 years ago, it's also far from clear whether the unnamed individuals involved are still alive. Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The implication of the article is possibly more direct than the editor intended : "Some critics of Scientology and ex-Scientologists have alleged that R2-45 was invoked by Hubbard to authorize killing individuals regarded by Scientology as antagonistic. There is no evidence that it has ever been put into practice ... The journalist and author Tony Ortega has suggested that R2-45 may have been used neither as a murder order nor as a joke, but as a means of intimidation." The suggestion is apparent to anyone who reads it as it is, and it violates WP:REDFLAG, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It does not matter whether we "name" the target, or we use circumlocution like "the black couple who live in that big White House" in Washington D.C. The WP:BLP article applies. And the source is not Bob Woodward. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but how does BLP apply here? Hubbard, the author of that memo, discarded his body a while ago. And by the way, WP:REDFLAG, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY are all the same policy, so it's a bit funny to see you citing it three times. Furthermore I'm not convinced that it's an "extraordinary claim" that an organisation that sent itself bomb threats with Paulette Cooper's fingerprints, broke into the FBI offices and generally committed "criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts ... against private and public individuals and organizations" would try to intimidate people. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I do hope you read the comments from uninvolved editors on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tonyortega.org:

If a high-profile claim like this was considered reliable, wouldn't it have been reported by news sources subsequently? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and could be cited with WP:ATT but not stated in wiki-voice unless corroborated by other sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a case where whether or not it's true, it's not appropriate for wikipedia because it's such sensitive information and it's not public knowledge. WP:WELLKNOWN "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." PermStrump(talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 is well known, the "rundown" was covered in KFI AM Talk Radio Lows Angeles by Dennis Erlich and Scientology ringleader Heber Jentzsch, along with Xenu and other issues which are not disputed by the enterprise. Numerous real world entities have covered R2-45, including the Scientology enterprise itself albeit they lie about it. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They "do not dispute it" but "they lie about it"? Well... glad you cleared that up. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Image

A firearm image is not particularly educational or encyclopedic - people already know what a firearm is. What about showing a copy of the Racket Exposed ad instead? Feoffer (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the picture again. As for the ad, wouldn't it be a copyright violation? --Slashme (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That depends. Do we think inclusion of the "Racket Exposed" ad would meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to fit that policy perfectly. --Slashme (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking a whole lot better

The article is looking a whole lot better. I appreciate everyone's efforts to clean this up and get it encyclopedic. Damotclese (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions

Files for Discussion and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Feoffer (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

The tags, which are constantly removed by editors here who have voiced strong bias against Scientology, should not be removed, especially considering the fact that they have not been resolved at all. Rewriting the article using peacock terms and weasel words is not helpful. Laval (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "bias against Scientology." What you are complaining about are editors working to keep factual information about the Scientology enterprise from being covered accurately and fully. This is an encyclopedia, Laval, encyclopedias work to be informative and educational, so unless you can find something that is wrong, mistaken, not supported by testable, verifiable references and citations, you're wasting editor's valuable volunteer time. I'm getting very tired of people trying to demand that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is. Annoyance verging upon anger. Damotclese (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By the by, consensus does not equal a bunch of editors, particularly those with a stated bias against the subject (that subject being Scientology) coming up with a version of the article that is only agreeable to their viewpoint. The current version of the article has not, in any way at all, solved the issues that I have brought up. There is no appropriate rationale to constantly remove the tags every time I add them. If I have been absent for a few days, it's because I like to take a break from Wikipedia to cool down. Such an absence is no justification to removing those tags. Laval (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You added the tags to a previous version of the article. The current version of the article was written specifically to address several of the issues that you and Sfarney had raised. I agree that there were problems with how sources were being used in the previous version, but these have been resolved now. The only issue that you raised earlier that seems to me to have any application to the current version is your complaint about the use of primary sources - specifically the 1959 lecture. But as I have already pointed out to Sfarney at [[2]], this is a non-issue. There is no question about the authenticity of the quotation as you can check it yourself if you wish. The lecture in question is publicly available (you even can order it online). The current version of the article uses it exactly as WP:PRIMARY specifies - "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The facts being that Hubbard made a particular statement at a particular time, as recorded in the lecture. The interpretation of those facts is, as required by WP:PRIMARY, sourced exclusively to other reliable sources.

So having disposed of that issue, do you have anything else that you would like to raise? Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article currently cherry-picks words to say something quite different from the Ortega recording. We shall discuss that when the copyright question is settled. Grammar's Li'l Helper 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Ortega isn't being used as a reference for anything to do with any recordings, I fail to see what your point is. Are you sure you've read the current version of the article? Prioryman (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Presuming the Ortega recording is a true excerpt of the lecture, this statement is not a fair summary: "He said in a 1959 lecture that "even cops or gangsters" could make a "Clear" out of a person "by taking a Webley 38 or Smith & Wesson, or Colt or something like that and doing R2-45." It is a classic example of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is "cherry-picking" anything, the audio of Hubbard describing R2-45 is available on line for anyone to download and listen to themselves, and the extant article fully and accurately covers the Scientology enterprise's "rundown" which is described. Journalist Tony Ortega and every law enforcement agency and criminal and civil Judge which has commented on R2-45 are not "cherry-picking" what Hubbard said. If any editor can find anything wrong or not supported in the extant article then suggest a proposed update! Stop trying to pretend that R2-45 isn't what Hubbard said it is, you're wasting valuable volunteer editor's time! Damotclese (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why not quote at least one complete sentence? Instead, the editor picked words and phrases out of context to make a statement that says the very opposite of Ortega's recording. That is called Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would, suggest an update proposal, if you would please. Select a complete sentence which you consider to be more accurate and make the update, if it's golden I'm sure editors will agree. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should *I* "suggest a proposal" for you to thumbs up/down, while you edit the article directly? I am a junior editor to you? Here is my proposal to you: Do the work properly in the first place, and we can save these discussions. Do it without cherrypicking words and phrases to satisfy your preconceptions. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded images

I should just add that I don't think it's appropriate to add images to this article, other than perhaps a generic photo of Hubbard. The image of the notice in The Auditor didn't and couldn't pass muster under Wikipedia's copyright policies, and I don't see any point in adding a generic image of a revolver (or even a Colt .45 - I don't think Hubbard ever specified the type of .45 pistol). So please leave out the images for now. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)