Talk:Mission Earth (novel)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Robert Vaughn Young

I have doubts that Young wrote the introduction. I read the intro and compared it to what is presuambly a sample of Young's writing ( Due to Young's frequent lapses in grammar, I found him unlikely to have authored the intro, which seems to me to be intellectually beyond the author of the sample. Also, I see no proof that the linked article was really composed by him. Wikipedia describes Young as a "Scientology whistleblower." That automatically calls into question any claims he made about the writing of Mission Earth, as he was in a personal battle with Hubbard's organization.

As usual with Wikipedia, factoids of dubious source become urban legend and therefore gospel. Wiki is fun, but I know better than to believe a word of it.

I'd say it is interesting to quote his claims in the article. It concerns a 10-volume books, 9 volumes of which were published posthumously, so it is interesting to have purported info about the editorial context. Also, for a "whistleblower", Vaughn Young is not too harsh in this case, i.e. he could have perfectly claimed that Hubbard did not write the novel himself. Instead, he debunks that thesis and states explicitely that most of the text had been completed by Hubbard. If not 100% reliable (unverifyable), it serves as a counterpoint to the rumors claiming that Hubbard wrote nothing at all. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article so biased?

Can someone fill me in on why this page is so biased? I'm not a Scientologist, but the article is heavily biased from the very first paragraph. Surely the article should be written about the book first and foremost, and then a section later titled "Controversy" where discussions about chart rigging or whatever could take place? Another section about "Scientology" could talk about the author's founding of the controversial church, and how some of the ideas presented in the novel are reflected in the values of Scientology - and could be outlined, as they make for interesting discussion I believe.

The article starts out by linking the book to Scientology in the first sentence - thus poisoning the reader immediately (after all, the internet is full of info about the evils of Scientology). Within seconds they are told the book is rubbish and something dodgy happened in the past to make it look better than it was, so now it is tied to some illegal sounding activity. Next we are told that the author is an idiot who makes up words, and once again that evil Scientology is at fault.

Basically the first 2 paragraphs should be taken out and shot. I'd rewrite the entire thing, but it seems from comments here that anyone who tries to fix the bias has someone just come and re-edit it.

I mean, imagine if you went looking for 2001: A Space Odyssey and the article you founded started out:

"2001: A Space Odyssey is a novel by Arthur C. Clarke, who denied reports that he was a pedophile..."

No one would stand for that. How about some quality article writing here instead of this rubbish? Curmi (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

has anyone read?

Has anyone here read all of Mission Earth and remembered enough to be able to make the 'Plot' section something deserving of a spoiler warning? Assuming you can still form sentences afterwards.

There does not appear to be the entire text of the NYT review anywhere on the Web. Does anyone have an original copy? - David Gerard 19:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

i've read all 10 books. i distinctly got the impression that the books implied that soltan gris was a repressed homosexual in denial, but the books never come straight out and reveal this. Gringo300 02:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've also read all ten books. The plot description isn't innacurate, the basic are correct. Obviously a lot of the plot is missing, you can't really summarise all ten books that well in a few paragraphs. I don't agree with the comments about it being full of perverted sex, there didn't seem to be any more sex scenes than can be found in many other novels. However, the character of Dr. Crobe (a sicko genetic medical engineer) took great delight in some of his operations. Notable examples include attaching an oversized organ to Soltan Gris, grafting children to each in perverted positions etc. Aside from that the sex scenes didn't seem like a big deal to me.. --Commking 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read all ten as well and agree with Commking's comments. I will add that the sexual content is an integral part of the story and does not appear to be gratuitous. This applies to the violence as well. --Maz2331 05:02, 9 April 2006 (EST)
I don't know if I concur; I've read all 10 also, and while it's a good enough summary for a 10-book series, I do think there's quite a bit of "perverted" sex...the continuing sexual torture sequences with Miss Pinch and Candy, to name the thing that comes to mind first. I can't really say if it has *more* sex scenes than other books, but I can say that almost *all* the sex scenes are someone's definition of perverted, whether it's power exchange, BDSM, group sex, prostitutes, gays and lesbians, nymphomania... I can't remember one sexual liason that doesn't involve at the very least some kind of kink, and seem to remember "sexual violence" as one of the pervasive overtones of the whole mess. There are numerous rapes, including but hardly limited to the "rape-as-cure-for-lesbianism" bit.
The scene in which Gris listens in on Jettero Heller and Countess Krak who are making love in their Voltarian "hotel" room should classify as non-perverted sex. They are in love, that is a good thing! The fact that Gris is, himself, a pervert, should not mistakenly influence one's opinion otherwise. In fact, this whole discussion as to the perversion-or-non-perversion of the sexual references is quite base and, I think, was part of the reason why LRH decided to write the book from the perspective of the "fool" -- Gris. Be careful lest your comments align you with the "foolish" characters of which he is so blatantly making fun.

"Perverted" is a POV word pretty much across the board, but since I've used the same description to describe the novels to friends, I have to say I agree with the comment. And now, I'm ashamed of myself for remembering that much of them, but hey... --Parcequilfaut 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the whole thing. I actually loved it. Fast-paced and with sardonic disrespect for most things American. Nothing wrong with that. The current article is hardly neutral. Basically it says that the novel is a piece of shit and somehow a limited number of Scientology members put every volume on the NY Times best seller list. There's no proof of that. And the discussions here seem to lean towards demanding proof that the sales were not faked, rather than the necessary proof that they were. How is it that each volume contains pages of favorable review excerpts, if it was so universally condemned? I think a lot of people hate Hubbard because of Scientology, and subsequently trash his other work because of it. I notice that all 10 volumes are still in print and are still sold everywhere. Might that mean it is popular? Does ever popular novel have a fansite? Maybe the demographic which reads Hubbard isn't comprised of computer-geek fanboys who spend their lives online. Anyway, the article could use some neutrality. And it also needs to include mention of the 30-hour full-cast audio dramatization, which was well-done - hate the novel or not. I read Herbert's Dune books recently, and those are appalling and badly written. You think poo-pooing is shared by everyone for the same things? Of course not. I'd fix the main page myself, but it has cooties and I don't want to touch it.

Hello, Clam.

page move to Mission Earth (novel)

No reason has been offered for the move of this page to a disambiguation-style title, nor any discussion. I have moved it back. If the reason is that there was also a movie, then that doesn't cut it: the novel came first and the movie is a subsiduary work. Tannin 21:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I moved it in preparation for an article I'll be writing on Mission Earth [1] [2] - those happen to be the top two Google hits on the phrase. Hence the disambiguation. SOrry for not noting it here. Excuse me while I move this stuff back - David Gerard 09:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
whoops, hits one and three (that RVY article sure is popular) - David Gerard 09:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thankyou for the explanation David. I'm not sure that this move is strictly justified either - Google or no Google, the novel is obviously the primary and best known "Mission Earth". But I confess to a double dose of prejudice here and will not defend the proper name as: (a) the one you link to is clearly more worthwhile and important (even if it is as yet little known), and (b) knowing the quality of your work, I can look forward soon to a good read. :) Tannin 09:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't think of a good disambig for the other one ;-) If someone does, this should still have the disambig I think - David Gerard 10:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do "substantial sales" in a buyback program count as real sales?

I don't think they do. Other industries where the company buys copies to push an item up the sales charts, e.g. the record industry, don't regard them as real sales either (they're charged as marketing budget).

I'd like to see a dot of evidence that the books sold in any appreciable numbers outside the CoS buyback program - David Gerard 11:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David, Mission Earth appeared in bookshops everywhere. Not just the first volume, but all of them, and in substantial numbers. Now one could try to claim that it made it onto bookshop shelves and then no-one bought it, but it would beggar belief to claim that all those copies of the volumes that came out long after the first few volumes also "only appeared on shelves but did not sell". A bookshop proprietor would have to be an absolute moron to order yet more copies of a title that wasn't selling! One might be that stupid (though I doubt it) but not all of them.

Nor is suggesting that these were distributed on a "sale or return" basis a tenable explanation: bookshops, like any other shops, cannot afford to waste shelf space on unsalable product, even if they get it for nothing. (I'm not saying that they were S or R, just pointing out that even an S or R product must be salable or it doesn't get stocked. Retailing just doesn't work like that. (That's what I do, by the way, I am a retailer - and no, I don't sell books.)

Hell, I've seen the Mission Earth books prominently displayed on the shelves of bookshops in at least three states. (Yes: my credit card and I frequent bookshops even when travelling. And although I don't look too hard at the science fiction shelves as a rule, the Mission Earth books lined up in their matching black covers are unmistakabe.)

Tannin 11:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope - they went into a lot of shops sale or return. Generally return. The CoS has buckets of money and spent lots of it to give Hubbard the appearance of a bestselling author. I'll dig up substantiation for this later - David Gerard 11:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If so why did the shops take them? Where is the evidence? Why could I walk into just about any bookshop in the country and buy a copy? You do not fill up your mega-expensive prime mid-city real estate with things you don't expect to sell - and if you don't sell many of Volume 1, there is no way on earth you are going to waste expensive shelf space on Volume 5 or Volume 7. Every foot of shelf space is precious and has to pay its way. Tannin 11:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Here's an article on the process: [3] (LA Times, 28 June 1990, page A1:1) - from this series [4] - and [5] (San Diego Union, 15 Apr 1990, p1). I'll add these to the article. Looking for more as we speak.
The CoS did whatever it took, spending whatever it took, to make LRH look like a bestselling author.
Anecdotal tales from Usenet (not good enough for the article I think, but provided here for background): [6] [7] [8] [9]
I do know that Hubbard books are not welcome in the several Australian second-hand stores I asked about this a few years ago - no-one but no-one buys the things - David Gerard 12:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point is, that (no matter what the CoS did or did not do) Mission Earth sold in vast numbers).

Where do you think all those second-hand copies came from? You yourself just confirmed what I said above: that bookshops do not like and will not carry unsalable stock. Now that the series is old hat and anyone who wants to buy it has already bought it, of course second-hand shops don't want more stock. Even if you get it for next to nothing, you only carry stock that you think you can sell. There was the substantial number of first release sales, then it was remaindered at about half price (according to your CoS conspiracy theory - which may or may not be true, I have no grounds for having an opinion either way - the remaindered stock came from the CoS rather than from the ordinary remainders channel), and now, as a result, there are lots of copies floating about in the second-hand shops. Whichever way you slice it, it still adds up to a lot of sales.

You still have not addressed the primary matter here, David: Mission Earth was carried in large quantities by mainstream bookshops right through the primary selling period (when it was a relatively new title). Now any shop can get stuck with one dud title, but there is no way on earth that a bookshop proprietor is going to make the same mistake nine more times. That's just a ridiculous thing to believe. Especially when you remember that we are not talking about one shop, we are talking about shops all across the country (and, I presume, all across the various other English-speaking countries.) (Being generous here and classifying Hubbard's work as "English".)

Tannin 13:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not when they're paid to put those displays up, as is common general practice in the book industry.
Are sales in a chart-rigging scheme regarded as credible real sales in the book industry? They aren't in the other industry where such schemes are commonplace, the record industry. I do think that's an issue. Sales in a chart-rigging scheme are not commonly regarded as evidence of popularity, and that is the point.
The chart inflation for Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth was particularly egregious in the history of such things - I think it's entirely fair to ask for other evidence of actual popularity - David Gerard 13:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't give a bent penny about sales charts, David. Charts != sales.

What I cannot accept is declaring that a work was a sales dud simply because the publishers (allegedly) tried to cheat. We know that it sold a hell of a lot of copies - and we don't know that because the New York Times list said so, we know it because a hell of a lot of bookshops moved a hell of a lot of stock of it. By all means throw the chart numbers out the window if you don't believe them. (I myself wouldn't trust those numbers further than I could throw them into a stiff nor-wester.)

Saying that Mission Earth was a sales dud because the publishers (if we take your word for it, and you do seem to have the evidence at your fingertips) tried to cheat the sales rankings is like saying that Ben Johnson wasn't a fast runner becuse he took performance enhancing drugs at the 1972 Olympics. Sure, BJ got done for drugs in sport, but he was nevertheless a very fast sprinter indeed. I'll bet you London to a brick that our Ben Johnson article says that he could run pretty fast. And so it should. (Yup: I just checked. Not in those words, of course, but it covers his competition successes.)

(Does this article say that Mission Earth was a sales dud? Not quite: but it bends over backwards to make the reader believe that it was. It's the exact equivalent of having an article on Ben Johnson and not saying that he was a world-class sprinter, or having an article on George W Bush and not saying he is the US President.) Tannin 15:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty thoroughly documented that they cheated; enough to state it was more than "allegedly." There's a notable lack of a non-Scientologist fan base for this supposedly enormously popular series; instead, it's widely condemned by readers as well as critics. The article at present does say it sold a lot; however, it must be noted that an awful lot of those sales, likely the majority , were in fact bogus. If it was actually popular with individual non-Scientologist buyers, there would surely be some sign of this amongst the almost universal condemnation. There isn't as far as I can tell. No doubt you can provide documentation, as I have - David Gerard 16:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll also add: reread the San Diego Union story [10]. All your questions about why they would put up the massive floor displays and so forth are answered: to create the illusion of a best-seller. - David Gerard 16:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have already provided evidence above. We already know it was actually popular with individual non-Scientologist buyers, because otherwise there is no possible way to explain the fact that booksellers stocked volumes subsequent to the first few volumes in quantity. You still haven't addressed this point. Tannin

No, we don't know any such thing. Them buying the floor space explains it. I have provided a pile of documentation that the large sales were not necessarily evidence of actual popularity. It achieved the greatest remainders many people in the trade had ever seen up to that point. Where are the non-Scientologist fans of the book? Even Battlefield Earth has non-Scientologists who'll say a good word about it (though many of those are ex-Scientologists). Anything? Anything at all? Even people on Usenet saying "well, actually, it wasn't that bad"? Argument by incredulity isn't proof - where are these fans? - David Gerard 08:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The bookshops were quite happy to take scientology's money from it. Why would they refuse to stock the books, if they were guaranteed that scientologists would come along and buy them? Morwen - Talk 08:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Do the thought experiment: suppose no-one liked the books at all and they sold no copies at all to non-Scientologists. Would the CoS have still pushed them into the stores, paid for displays and so on? Of course they would. So proper sales are not required to explain the observed phenomena, and would need some evidence. There are no fan sites for this supposedly very popular book - David Gerard 08:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mission Earth (novel) (Contested — 19 Jun) - WP:FAC discussion

Self nomination, I think it satisfies all of the criteria except a picture (not really possible). Will interest anyone who wonders about those huge piles of Hubbard books in the remaindered and second-hand stores. A controversial topic, but not a controversial article - David Gerard 15:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a project called "Mission Earth", a computer simulation project, which will probably get an article some time (I'll try to do it today). As such, I've moved this to Mission Earth (novel) and fixed links - David Gerard 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is usually ok to include a book cover as fair use. ✏ Sverdrup 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll find one and add it - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cover scan added - David Gerard 10:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The article says, "The authorship of the novel is contentious."; if so, then the first line is POV: "Mission Earth is a ten-volume science fiction novel by L. Ron Hubbard".2) I'm not sure about this line from the plot synopsis; can we tweak it?: "Fleet Combat Engineer Jettero Heller, a character who is so perfect, incorruptible, and flawless that he makes James Bond look like a rank amateur." 3) Generally in the plot synopsis section, it's hard to tell whether certain sentiments are those expressed in the book or whether they have been injected by the writer of the synopsis: "Rock music is used in the novel to spread sexual deviancy, especially homosexuality, among the population of Earth.", "...two man-hating lesbians (who end up marrying Gris after he rapes them and thereby "cures" them of their lesbianism)" 4) Can we have the year of first publication after each volume in the "Volumes" section? — Matt 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. It is generally accepted that Hubbard wrote it, but the authorship has been questioned on the grounds stated. However, Young came forward and described the circumstances of the novel's production and his account is generally accepted by all except the CoS. Better wording suggestions are welcomed. 2, 3. User:Modemac wrote most of the plot summary - I'll try to invoke him here. I wondered about 2, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the way the book presents the opinions therein; I think it would be silly to put "The book says" all the way through the synopsis. 4. Added - David Gerard 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, the dates help. Maybe we need to tone down the questioning of the authorship instead, if it's generally accepted to by Hubbard's own work? e.g., rewording "many have doubted" and "contentious", and noting that it is generally accepted. On the other hand, maybe putting a parenthetical remark in the first paragraph would do it? — Matt 16:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Regarding the plot synopsis: The James Bond comment is indeed mine, and can be removed if you wish. The perfection and incorruptibility of the lead character is hammered `into the reader's head shortly after the beginning of the first book, so I don't think my comment is inappropriate. The bit about rock music, sexual deviancy, and man-hating lesbians is (unfortunately) spelled out in the books themselves, and they are not simply my conjecture. The lesbian stuff takes place between book 4 and 5, for instance.--Modemac 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Cut the James Bond bit - David Gerard 22:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry to hear that; personally, I thought it was sharp, good writing. Ah, 1911....[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Authorship section reworded and shuffled quite a bit; I think it's clear now - David Gerard 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A fine article, but not yet brilliant. Object for now. The sections could be refactored - The psychology of Hubbard and Young;
    • This does not seem to be a specific actionable objection. Please ask for something in particular.
      • I meant here: the content about H&Y's psychology, about what Y said in his notes, etc -- content already in the article -- might be relegated to its own section rather than interspersed with the rest of the content.
  • what Young said about Hubbard and in his notes;
    • RVY's stuff about what it was like to work with Hubbard belongs in L. Ron Hubbard, I would have thought. I'll go through again and see what can be added.
  • and the new terminology coined in the novels and about them (the aside about "dekalogy") should find their own place in the article.
    • I'm not clear on what you mean by "should find their own place in the article." (see above. +sj+)
  • The article feels incomplete. Is the synopsis one of the entire decalogue? Does it end without real conclusion? The article introduces a few characters, but there must have been many more over the course of the million words. Who were they?
    • It's a paralysingly slow-moving book. LRH had given up brevity; when you have thousands of followers who regard you as their messiah and give you all their money, it's hard to accept the need for editors. (That too belongs in the LRH article.)
      • Other excellent book articles tend to include a detailed discussion of major characters and locations, comparisons with other works by the same author (like your line about the kinder critics), etc. It might be helpful to have someone who enjoyed the books add content, since they tend to remember it in some detail. I don't mind an article that pans a book or series, but that makes it harder to qualify as an FA, since there is much less to say! +sj+
        • I felt panning it would violate NPOV; the NYT review summarises the critical reaction sufficiently IMO. As for finding fans of the book, I haven't managed to. This book appears to have no fan sites that aren't run by the CoS. If you know of one, please tell me! - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Listing the 10 books without any note as to their differences seems hasty, considering the brevity of the article.
    • They're ten slices of a single sausage. There's probably more to add to 'Authorship' on the slicing.
  • What about non-critical public reaction to the novels?
    • This is mentioned - the non-Scientologists who read it largely hated it. The main reaction appears to be "why the hell are all these books in the remaindered bookstores?" but that's hard to put encyclopedically and it's answered.
  • Thoughts of further distribution or movie rights? +sj+ 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • No word of such. Nor do I don't feel it's right to write something claiming absence of something because I happen not to be able to find such; if you know of positive evidence of such, please point me at it - David Gerard 09:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Specific requests: Something more about what LRH was doing while composing the book? How his parallel work with the CoS at the end of his life influenced him; how this style of writing and these plot themes compare with other writing of his; comments from people working with him during those years other than Young (if possible! paraphrased from a CoS site?)...
    • There are a few other reports. He was "in seclusion", which means on the run from the law. He'd also fallen into a phenomenon called "guru trap", where a cult messiah is essentially a prisoner of his devoted followers. I'll see what I can turn up. - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit thin, and relies too much on the Synopsis section. I would like a separate section to discuss (like above suggestions) characters, main themes and such; this is generally much more interesting than a resumé. ✏ Sverdrup 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You really hate me, don't you. You want me to open the thing again. The things I may do for Wikipedia ... - David Gerard 01:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FAC status

So. Anyone else want to help go through the requests list and get it into shape for resubmission to WP:FAC in a few months? - David Gerard 01:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits by Marbahlarbs

Restructured article. Moved Synopsis, Volumes, and Critic's Reactions to the top. Marbahlarbs 17:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Added New York Times information about sales.

Cool - got a ref to the NYT-attributed statements? I've never heard of this, and I thought I'd been following the issue closely ... - David Gerard 11:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[11] Adam Clymer, a New York Times executive, said the newspaper has examined the sales patterns of Hubbard's books. In a two-year span, Hubbard logged 14 consecutive books on the New York Times list.

Clymer said that, while the books have been sold in sufficient numbers to justify their bestseller status, "we don't know to whom they were sold."

He said the newspaper uncovered no instances in which vast quantities of books were being sold to single individuals. Marbahlarbs 14:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This hardly justifies playing it down as you are. It's pretty substantially documented that it happened, and is pretty much the thing it's most famous for. (Second is all the remaindered copies.) - David Gerard 22:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So where's any documentation? All you have on the article is one link to one bad review which does not mention chart rigging.

I restructured the article so that it is once again an article about a series of books, and not a part of the Scientolgy conspiracy. Removed the Scientology tags, etc. Also reworded the chart-rigging statement at the beginning. 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Section reshuffle

I have put the sections "Sales controversy", "Critical reactions", "Authorship", "Synopsis", "Volumes". The sales controversy is the one thing it's most famous for. The critical reactions section follows directly from it - whoever put it above it instead of straight after failed to read the article and notice it then didn't make sense. Authorship leads into Synopsis, which is (a) long and dull (b) why put the spoilered section at the top of the article? The Volumes list is just data only for those who care, so should go at the end - David Gerard 11:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

David, you're missing the point. This is an article about BOOKS. 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Does sombody know if Soltan Gris is sposed to be a boy or a girl?

Does anybody know if Soltan Gris is a guy or a girl? I'm olny a few chapters in and that's relly been bothering me.

Soltan Gris is a man. 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to NPOV and lack of citations. Tarret 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Someone needs to explain why the NPOV tag is on the main article page and suggest ways in which this article can be improved so as to improve the neutral tone. It is wholly inappropriate to tag something with NPOV without providing the reasons and possible remedies. Since there aren't any claims showing specifically what is wrong with the the point-of-view of the article then I will remove the NPOV tag now. Feel free to re-add the tag and explain your reasons here. Vivaldi (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction edit

I removed the comments in the introduction. "critics of scientology claim that..." can be inserted factually into every paragraph of every article that has anything to do with Scientology. If those of you out there feel the need to make your viewpoints about everything known, put it in another section. Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by tenofalltrades

I keep putting this back, because I think it's a valid edit, and tenofalltrades has not justified the reversion. My IP is currently blocked for leaving a mean comment on David Gerard's talk page.

"Mission Earth is not a series of ten novels, but a single 1.2 million word novel cut into ten parts for publication."

What exactly makes this true? This requires an explanation. Postdlf 06:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I added a 'citation needed' note to the statement. If this isn't either proven as fact or resolved, I suggest the line be removed. --RoyalFool 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Is there any need to link this word to Scientology's use of jargon words? Dekalogy seems to me like a perfectly natural coinage on the pattern of "trilogy" -- although, following the pattern of "decalogue," and other deca- words, I might have chosen to spell it with a c rather than a k. The Scientology reference seems to me like a cheap and off-topic dig. --Geenius at Wrok (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Randomhouse webpoll

Oh yes, there was obvious vote-stacking going on by many groups, including the Randoids, and certainly pro and con Hubbard. (There were discussions on ars at the time. Tricky to cite, but not automatically non-RS.) Even by the lax controls of today's webpoll standards, this early trial was wide-open for simple manipulation, either by turning off cookies, or reloading the page, I forget. A complete non-starter as a reference. AndroidCat (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn due to changed circumstances. Gavia immer (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Gavia immer (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mission Earth (novel)Mission Earth

Remove redundant disambiguation. The only other "Mission Earth" with an article is Mission Earth (album), which was inspired by the novel. Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The other "Mission Earth" items don't have articles and frankly don't belong on the disambiguation page unless they do get them. Gavia immer (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I am in the midst of doing research for them. I will write articles for them. -- Cirt (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speculation about Hubbard's authorship

Wasn't there much speculation amongst Scientology critics that Hubbard did not actually write Mission Earth, and that there were ex-Church staff who after leaving also claimed that Hubbard did not write the novel? If so, this should be dealt with in the article. Laval (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sales controversy

It is pretty common to find in second hand bookshops copies of the Mission Earth books, and Battlefield Earth, that are in pristine mint condition and bearing the tell tale remainder mark LamontCranston (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)