Talk:L. Ron Hubbard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Featured articleL. 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2011.
Article milestones
November 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 1, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 5, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

"Others convictions from the same trial" in the lead section[edit]

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


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

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


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

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

Second that. The LRH-reference should be removed. (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
I don't see a problem that needs to be fixed. This is a manual of style issue, since LRH is a disambiguation which links here. It's plausible that someone trying to make sense of Scientology's cryptic and confusing documents would use Wikipedia to try and decipher this acronym. It's not hard to guess for someone even passingly familiar with the topic, but we shouldn't assume prior familiarity. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia, after all.
This article itself quotes people who use the acronym, and not in a particularly flattering way, so explaining it in the lede is necessary for clarity. It's not an endorsement.
As an encyclopedia, we should take a long view. Scientology is a small (and shrinking) group, but the group is still central to the article. Few people talk about Hubbard at all (how often do A. Bertram Chandler or L. Sprague de Camp come up?) If 25,000 members frequently use an acronym, that's going to be a substantial percentage, and even if they stopped talking about him completely, Scientology documents would still exist. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing word in Initial success of Dianetics[edit]

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

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