Talk:L. Ron Hubbard
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the L. Ron Hubbard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10|
|L. Ron Hubbard is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
I would like to propose a change in the first paragraph of this lengthy Wikipedia article. Seeing as it is one of the longest that I’ve read, the first sections are very essential to a reader’s understanding of L. Ron Hubbard, a personality recognized by many. The first part currently reads that he is an “American pulp fiction author” and “best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories.” While Hubbard did write pulp fiction, science fiction and fantasy, this is not all the he wrote. He wrote in several other genres, including self-help and nonfiction (a great example is Dianetics). He is also on the Guinness World of Records for most published works by one author (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-5000/most-published-works-by-one-author/). I suggest that we peg him instead simply as an “American author” rather than an “American pulp fiction author,” as this better represents the gamut of written works that he has done in various genres. In Britannica, he is more appropriately referred to as an American novelist (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard). In another reference he is referred to as a novelist and author of Dianetics, a self-help book (http://www.nndb.com/people/545/000026467/).
For your reference, a secondary Wikipedia article also recognizes the varied spectrum of his work as an author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Written_works_of_L._Ron_Hubbard
Here are some examples, with references attached:
He wrote an article for the Sportsman pilot, a write-up on the 1933 Langley Day http://www.chet-aero.com/scientology.php
He wrote an article for the Explorers Club published in their book. http://books.google.com/books?id=fAFF7DBhJOsC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=explorers+club+it+bears+telling+hubbard&source=bl&ots=5D7VviM05j&sig=PppiZJ_HePlF_mjsHCw0VcYxQLw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZzIZU9GSB8bAkQfxk4HoBQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=explorers%20club%20it%20bears%20telling%20hubbard&f=false
He wrote for his university paper in the genre of fiction. In this article it states: “As an assistant Hatchet editor, Hubbard was expected to help with reporting the news, but news was not what made Hubbard stand out - rather, it was his fictional works. Hubbard's first fiction story, "Tah," was published in The Hatchet and was followed by many more, including the award-winning "The God Smiles." One of his greatest mentors was a GW professor of rhetoric, Dean William Wilbur. Hubbard also stood out in the field of science.” http://www.gwhatchet.com/2005/09/02/l-ron-hubbard-gw-scientology/
He wrote Hollywood scripts in the 1930’s http://www.fandango.com/lronhubbard/filmography/p33682
He wrote dozens of westerns and one was turned into a TV show. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0717152/
Based on all this information, I believe that the text that conforms with available third-party resources and the policy of neutrality would be:
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (March 13, 1911 – January 24, 1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard (/ɛl rɒn ˈhʌˌbərd/, ell-ron-hub-ərd) and often referred to by his initials, LRH, was an American author and the founder of the Church of Scientology. After establishing a career as a writer, he developed a self-help system called Dianetics which was first expounded in book form in May 1950.
- I left the "pulp fiction" part out, but pre-dianetics he was pretty clearly best known as a sci-fi/fantasy writer so I restored that phrase. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- This has already been extensively debated. See the archives. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't really deal enough with his writing, and includes some dismissive comments. His writing is still widely read, and loved even, by non-Scientologists. His SF is still genuinely popular. -MacRùsgail (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. He has very little standing critically as a writer. Even with regards to the body of work produced by him at his creative peak, he is not a "widely read, and loved" author, but rather a modestly-talented author who achieved some success; compared to the greats of science fiction (Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, et al), he is regarded as something of an embarrassment. His best work is not popular today, and but for the infamy he achieved through creating Scientology he would not be remembered as an author at all. And I say this as someone who actually has a copy of the novel Battlefield Earth on his bookshelf right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
- Our own opinions aside, Hubbard had many books and short stories published during his days as a writer (see L. Ron Hubbard bibliography) and his popularity had nothing to do with Dianetics or Scientology, which had not been invented yet. I don't know who might have been "embarrassed" by his writing, but his editors and publishers were hard nosed businessmen who ran their publications on sales to readers. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, unsigned comments such as the one above come from readers who do not understand Wikipedia article talk pages are not a general discussion forum. Comments such as that should be deleted or striked out per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines since it not only adds nothing to our understanding of the subject, but is so totally speculative and based on personal bias that it has no place here. People who harbor such extreme biases and prejudices should understand that Wikipedia is not some kind of ideological battleground where their views would be welcomed or even tolerated. That's what message boards and discussion forums are for, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. Laval (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This article mentions Hubbard as a Guinness World Record holder, but he is not in the Wikipedia List of prolific writers. One of these is presumably in error (i.e. the Guinness people). It would be nice to be able to review his list of published works, and ghost-written works (noting that he put his name on a lot of other people's ideas - refer e.g. Inside Scientology), and so forth. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to separate reality and myth whenever dealing with the 'church', and so any such audit would be extremely difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
This passage was removed because of no citation "His medical records state that he was hospitalized with an acute duodenal ulcer rather than a war injury" The citation is located in the very next sentence "He told his doctors that he was suffering from lameness caused by a hip infection". The citation is for both of those. This is the citation: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-24/news/mn-1012_1_l-ron-hubbard/2 Thanks2601:405:4300:DB28:3459:CBD:C3DB:6F6 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done The reference does verify the claim. I have placed the sentence back and added the reference to the end of both sentences. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit on disconnection
This seems to be a controversial topic related to Scientology. I have added Hubbard's direct words and church view on the issue for NPOV and clarification, especially to readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject.Daylighthief (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sylvan Muldoon in lead or elsewhere?
Hi @Checkingfax, Amatulic, Majora, and Prioryman: I am hoping one of you would be so kind as to review the content I've added to this articles lead relating to Sylvan Muldoon which I'm unsure about if this information should be included there or in another section--and if so, which one? Thank you, in advance, for any help you're able to offer. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Affidavit and Autopsy
As far as I can tell, this 1983 affidavit by L. Ron Hubbard has not been included in his article: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B17iefmhkI5fSnZHSENqSzhkM0U Any reason why not? Are affidavits not considered reliable sources? Also, can anyone explain why his article states "His body was cremated following an autopsy" yet this January 29, 1986 NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/29/obituaries/l-ron-hubbard-dies-of-stroke-founder-of-church-of-scientology.html states "County officials said today that Mr. Hubbard, a science fiction writer, was cremated Sunday without an autopsy." This is backed up by this 1982 codicil by L. Ron Hubbard http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/1983.html in which he states "Under no circumstances shall my body lie in state or be subjected to an autopsy." Johnalexwood (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well the article no longer contains the string "autopsy" so I gather this has been removed by you or another person, so given the NYTimes ref this seems fine. It now says just "His body was cremated and the ashes were scattered at sea" and is this OK?
- As to the affidaviat, for one thing it's very long and can you summarize what what statement you would like to support with it? Second of all, while it looks legit, the website is "drive.google.com" and this is probably just some person's Google drive? This is not an acceptable source, and it's not impossible that someone would put a forged document on a Google drive. What we'd want is the actual document hosted at the court website, or a legitimate second party website, or something, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- And seconding the other editor's point that we want to be very careful about using primary documents particularly with fraught subjects. Is there a secondary source, such as an article in a major newspaper or magazine, that summarizes the points made in the affadavit? If not, is it maybe not a very important point? Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)