Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 8

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 ([1]). 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. [2] 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." [3] -- 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"[4][5] 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)

First off, the whole article is loaded with pronouncements on Hubbard's character and personality, almost all of them from a critical viewpoint. There is little need for a new OR-ish section. That said, I have no problem with working with others here and if someone wants to start a sandbox section I will see if I can contribute to it. This idea you seem to have, AN, of "I will throw a big slanted piece in the article and challenge y'all to catch up with me" is not going to fly. --Justanother 16:30, 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

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

To expand just a tad. I know people who have never seen this article before, or actually never heard of Hubbard before, might think I'm trying to pack in as much negative information as I can, when in actuality this information is straight from the sources.

• Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete is not a valid reason to remove info
• Of course we should say that Scientologists dispute negative assertions made in the sources and that they think he was a great man. That's all we should say though since Church sources are not reliable a "point, counter-point" type article using Church sources to dispute WP:RS is incompatible with the rules.
• Dealing with biased contributors will be necessary to resolve this dispute. Determining just who those editors are is up to people not involved with this dispute directly. Ask yourself which type of behavior seems more biased in the Wikipedian sense; An editor citing reliable sources critical of the subject while looking for equally reliable sources which are not. Or the editor who removes cited critical information while refusing to participate in finding reliable positive info?(which according to the NPOV rules, is the only way to balance an article properly.) Anynobody 03:23, 13 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)

Justanother, your arguments are actually addressed pretty specifically by the NPOV FAQ which is the underlined text:Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.]] It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Anynobody 03:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sound all great in theory. In practice you re-use chosen POV-statements. The sources are correctly used in other places in the same article. But you exclusively use negative comments out of them. And you have a history of doing exactly that or did I miss you putting something neutral in an article? Your statement reads strange against that experience. Anyway, where is the sandbox? Start gambling. Misou 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer there seems pretty simple to me. If a reliable source contains both positive and negative elements, and you feel Anynobody is only using the negative ones, be bold and add the positive ones yourself. Misou, I haven't been editing these pages for very long, but I'm fairly certain I already see a trend in your edits of deleting negatives instead of adding positives. I think you -- and the article -- would be better served if you directed your focus to balancing it with positive additions instead. You could use, as a reverse example, the earlier issue with the Lev L'Achim reference on the Church of Scientology page... Once you got the text supporting that reference, it stayed (and Wikipedia got a new article out of it, incidentally). There were disagreements on it initially, certainly, but we hammered them out, and now that's a lovely piece of POV-neutral text, properly referenced, and well-balanced.

Incidentally, what's with the gambling references? --GoodDamon 05:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, that is just what I was hoping they'd do. Anynobody 05:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou, would you be so kind as to read the sources yourself and then point out the positive aspects I missed? They say he was a reasonably skilled writer, but that's not really a personality trait. They say he was good at parties doing hypnosis type stuff, I did mention that (since one must be somewhat charming to do that). As far as his personality goes, the ones I've seen so far only seem to discuss his more colorful displays of, shall we say, bad behavior. Anynobody 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We can do theory blah for weeks here, but "Where is the sandbox?" gave no answer. So I put one together here. Misou 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• RfC Comment - Based on the two comments above, there seems to be some conflict over the potential lack of balance in the section. I know that several books which are very critical of Hubbard exist. Many of these books probably contain verifiable information regarding Hubbard's personality. However, they will have the potential problem of them presenting only the information which supports their contention. I acknowledge that, in some cases, there may be no counterbalancing, "positive" comments elsewhere. However, it almost certainly would be the case that the article could lose GA status if it were perceived as being POV in this matter. On that basis, I tend to agree that creating such a section in a sandbox or user page where the content can be developed in a neutral, NPOV way is probably the best way to go. It may well be that the section comes across as being ultimately critical of Hubbard anyway, if that is what the balance of the sources indicate. But it would be far better for the article if it were developed independently until such time as there was agreement on the content. John Carter 14:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be on record agreeing with John Carter's conclusions on this. There is definitely a need for biographical information about Hubbard as a distinctive personality, but until multiple sources can be found for such a section, relying solely on overwhelmingly negative biographies of Hubbard is a bad idea.

The way I see it, we've got several possible sources for the impressions of Hubbard by people who knew him:

• The aforementioned biographies - Like it or not, Anynobody's sources are reliable, and should not be excluded simply because they put Hubbard in a poor light.
• Other writers - I'm still trying to track down notable thoughts on Hubbard from his non-Scientologist fiction writing contemporaries. Any help in that would be much appreciated, because I frankly haven't found much.
• The Church and Scientologists - We should definitely include the Church's overwhelmingly positive descriptions of Hubbard's personality if we are going to include the negative ones, though we should also make clear that the two strongly conflict.
• Interviews with Hubbard - He was reclusive, but he still did several interviews if I recall correctly (I'm trying to dig them up). The interviewers' descriptions of Hubbard would probably contain useful material.

This is a very interesting topic. Let's do it right. --GoodDamon 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, and I too felt uncomfortable making these additions given their overall POV nature. The problem with holding off until "positive" reliable sources can be found is that it presumes they do exist. We honestly have no way of knowing if any do or not, unless we find one. Given the difficulty we're encountering so far, it can also be assumed that reliable positive sources are not as abundantly available as negative ones are. This would seem to indicate that even if one is found, there will still be many more negative references than positive.

Basically, and I hate to refer to Hitler while talking about a guy like Hubbard, but if we had to wait for reliable sources to say good things about der Fuhrer his article would be much smaller. Like Hitler's article, we should write about what we can source, (good or bad), as we find it without waiting for balancing material. Anynobody 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC Comment - I think setting up a sandbox to hammer out these differences is a great idea. I've seen this solution used in a lot of other conflicts in other articles and it usually works out well. Both sides of the argument can go in there and tear it up. They can add well sourced info for either side of the argument. Eventually other editors will jump in and work on it. Then other editors come in and clean it up as far as grammar, style, and segways from topic to topic within the article. In the end you wind up with an article that is as balanced as possible given the available resources on the topic. The article is improved, it's interesting, and it's generally NPOV. The best part is that all the arguing and edit warring up to that point isn't noticeable or obvious in the actual main article. I'll jump in and see what I can do to help improve this article too. Elhector 07:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied from above) We can do theory blah for weeks here, but "Where is the sandbox?" gave no answer. So I put one together here. Misou 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You should probably add the positive depictions of Hubbard I missed into it. (Or is that the version you propose to add?) Anynobody 01:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

/snicker --Justanother 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to help too, after all Misou's sandbox has the section as it was before removal. I thought it was fine so I'm not sure what changes you expect me or those that support the section to make. Anynobody 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, when I looked at the sandbox it looked like this so I thought "(Or is that the version you propose to add?)" was pretty funny. Still kinda funny but I like the way I imagined you made the joke better. --Justanother 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So this means you concur with Misou's proposal, which is no section at all? Anynobody 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed versions

• The original:Personality section
  • Personality section, after a bit of tidying.
• Misou's proposal:No personality section

Discussion

This should make it easier to keep tabs on who thinks what in regard to proposed changes. Anynobody 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after a bit of time with no other proposals we have two options.

1) The section as it was, which includes sources from Time, the Los Angeles Times, and San Fransisco Chronicle. Note: I don't mind trying to include the ref Justanother found, but it must be easily accessible and abide by WP:EL.

2) No personality section, ignoring information provided by the same sources listed above. Policies and guidelines, even WP:NPOV, dictate that the section be included but open to the addition of new material from either POV so long as it abides by the rules. Anynobody 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm replacing the personality section, like I said above our NPOV policy clearly states that Lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete sourced, reliable, information. Anynobody 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. A number of editors from both sides have objected to what AN has created as being POV and the consensus is to see if we can come up with something in a sandbox. There is no DEADLINE. --Justanother 14:34, 17 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)

I've contacted the Science Fiction project to see if they might know of any. They're the only other group I can think of who might. John Carter 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Church of Scientology has been systematically buying up old photos of Hubbard, presumably to keep them out of the public domain. Having said that, there must still be pics of Hubbard in personal collections. -- ChrisO 10:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best chance we have is former Scientologists, from earlier days, who might have pictures they had taken while still with the church. Anynobody 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulp

I'm hoping to head off an edit war with this. Misou deleted the "pulp" reference in the intro, and the ref that supported it (Pulpateer, a Church-published website with, I believe, a companion book, covering Hubbard's vast pulp-fiction portfolio). The ref looks solid to me, and pulp fiction is certainly what Hubbard was most well-known for at the time, so I disagree with the removal. On the other hand, I agree with Misou's other additions, references that note his non-fiction works.

I know this has been argued ad nauseum already, but should the "pulp" stay or go? --GoodDamon 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pulp" describes his work accurately and concisely. Leaving out information about his pulp fiction career would be like removing mentions of carpentry from the article on Jesus. Foobaz·o< 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems you try to insinuate Scientology=pulp fiction with that, "non-fiction" was removed in the past with that "argument". The Pulpateer article is "Hubbard about Hubbard" which is OR to use as ref for "pulp fiction". APOBS has no content to support pulp, not on "page 65" or elsewhere. Misou 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoo boy... OK, first off, where the heck does Foobaz equate Scientology with pulp fiction there? He didn't do that; all he said was that it wouldn't be right to leave out information about his pulp fiction career. Again, you're attacking an editor without good reason, and I don't know why. Please stop it. I'm still trying to assume good faith with you, but it's getting harder.

Second, I propose switching the link to http://www.lronhubbard.org/eng/Literary/page76.htm. Same site, but to avoid even the intimation of WP:OR, it's a description of the end of Hubbard's pulp career written by the Church. Take a look, tell us what you think. But whatever you do, it's ridiculous to try to prevent mention of his pulp writings. Heck, it's something to be proud of, in my opinion. Those old pulps were a lot of fun! --GoodDamon 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing... The definition of pulps, here in Wikipedia, is "inexpensive fiction magazines. They were widely published from the 1920s through the 1950s." That's what Hubbard sold stories to. It's not a judgment call on his writing, on his future works, on anything at all. It's just one of the more prominent components of his writing career. --GoodDamon 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my text again, before you shoot. I did not attack Foobaz at all. Ok on flipping the ref, not ok on emphasizing pulp. Hubbard wrote in a dozen fiction genres, but wrote mainly non-fiction (which was missing completely, because somebody here continuously takes it out. If you have time, go down the history. I added it minimum four times in the last 12 months). Misou 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Between you putting words in my mouth and your use of scare quotes, i feel attacked. However, that's not relevant. The Pulpateer ref is not WP:OR because it's published, so i put it back. Foobaz·o< 21:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

what words did i put in your mouth where? what "scare quotes" did i use towards you? Misou 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of "pulp-fiction writer" we say "philosopher and humanitarian". I am sure that we can find a ton of RS that call him that. Or do I detect a desire on the part of past editors here (present company, of course, excluded) to predispose the reader to thinking less of the man that created a philosophical system that many many many thousands have followed to their self-attested betterment? --Justanother 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to intro the article with his writing at all, we have to mention the pulps he's most well known for. By all means, track down reliable sources that refer to him as a philosopher and humanitarian, and include those in the article too, but for the intro, we really ought to cover the things he's best known for. I truly don't understand the resistance to the word "pulp" from you and Misou here. His fiction was published in pulp magazines, and that gave rise to his early popularity. It's doing Hubbard as a fiction writer a serious disservice to try to disguise his writing origins. There's nothing POV or POV-pushing -- or anything that makes one think "less of the man" -- in a simple statement of the truth that he published fiction in pulp mags. I honestly don't get it... What seems like an insult to Hubbard in that, when his own writings describe him as a "pulpateer?" --GoodDamon 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; i read Hubbard's sci-fi long before i had even heard of Scientology. He is a famous author, and his writing career does not deserve to be swept under the rug. Describing him as a philosopher and humanitarian is great (given refs), but we should mention his fiction as well. Foobaz·o< 00:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That's it then. Misou 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd have the same difficulties calling Hubbard a "philosopher" that have frequently been discussed for Ayn Rand. In both cases, the person's followers refer to them as a philosopher, but the academic discipline of philosophy has usually not done so. While recognized as philosophers by their own followers, they do not have independent recognition as such. Recently there has been substantially discussion of Rand in academic philosophy, and so we do now call her a philosopher. However, to my knowledge, Hubbard's ideas are not considered part of the discipline of philosophy by that discipline's practitioners. --FOo 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard is clearly a philosopher. After all he formulated a whole religious system which is used by quite a lot of people, since more than 50 years, and has undoubtedly been recognized as a religion. Makoshack 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While the religious nature of Hubbard's systems is debated aplenty, I wouldn't have any objection to reliably sourced information about Hubbard as a philosopher, especially if it's added as a positive balance to the under-development "Personality" section (see the sandbox). --GoodDamon 01:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FOo, based on a quick doublecheck of the WP:RS, only Scientologists call him a philosopher.

I also agree with GoodDamon, should a RS be found I'd have no trouble calling him a philosopher. As it is I think the best we could do is say something like "...to Scientologists Hubbard was known as a significant philosopher." Anynobody 02:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea on that, actually. We could present the "Personality" section in two parts: Hubbard's personality as recalled by current Scientologists and the Church, and as presented by former Scientologists and secular sources (such as other writers, which I'm still trying to find stuff on). Just a thought, dunno if it would actually work out well that way. --GoodDamon 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested similar solutions in the past to other issues of this type and received less than enthusiastic results. Anynobody 05:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

How did this slip into RS?

"Scientology, the religion created by American philosopher and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard, has just received a massive boost." (emphasis added) From: Wales On Sunday (Cardiff, Wales) Date: 6/19/2005

That wasn't so hard (took about five minutes with Google) --Justanother 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave doesn't say what you're attributing to it. I searched the site using:Scientology and Hubbard, resulting in nada. So would you please provide a better link? Anynobody 05:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF my friend. If I say that line is in the issue I cite then, by golly, it is. Not all sources are online nor need they be. --Justanother 07:14, 15 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.

---

We can't use good faith assertions as a source though Justanother, so until we get a full copy of this article good faith isn't what's holding up its use on this page. Anynobody 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Since you say you found it using Google, I assume you can provide us with a link to what Google found for you? Might I remind you that WP:AGF includes the following: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." You say you found it after "five minutes"... I've spent five minutes searching with Google on every combination I can think of of Hubbard, philosopher, and humanitarian, and all I can find are Church references. --GoodDamon 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon... After a few more minutes of digging, I found this, which I'd guess is your source. How you incorporate that into the article is up to you, but it looks legit. Judging from context, it's a gossip column, and I'm not sure how that rates as a reliable source, but the article definitely exists. Now for a big ol' helping of crow, served up by yours truly, for yours truly... :) --GoodDamon 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Damon. I may have a prize for you! --Justanother 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, if I were you I'd hold off eating any crow until we can get a look at the whole article, unless you like crow that is. Here is the problem, ic Wales has stories available online from 2004. Using the info from highbeam.com I tried several more searches and still wasn't able to find it on ic Wales' site. (We can't cite the first few lines of an article without knowing what the rest says, that would be ignoring verifiability rules.)

Justanother, have you seen the rest of the article anywhere? Anynobody 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I definitely deserve the crow I got. I assumed, based on context, that Justanother was making a point about Wikipedia's rules on good faith and verifiability. When I couldn't find the article in question, I failed to assume good faith. Then, of course, I found the same link he had.

Whether the article holds any content worth putting in the article is another question -- like I said, even if it's real, it seems to be a gossip column, and is apparently about Tom Cruise, not L. Ron Hubbard. But the fact remains that he did find what appears to be a legit article, or what's claimed to be by that site, that calls L. Ron Hubbard a philosopher and humanitarian. I find it interesting that the IC Wales site doesn't have it, and that would certainly call its validity into question, but what's unquestionable is that Justanother did find it. Ergo... Mmmm, crow. --GoodDamon 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel necessary, but in this situation WP:AGF is stretched a bit:

1)Justanother says he found a source and included a link.

2)His link didn't substantiate the statement he was attributing it to.

3)I asked him for a better link.

4)He said If I say that line is in the issue I cite then, by golly, it is. Not all sources are online nor need they be. which seemed a bit evasive since he seemed to think it was online when he quoted the source (otherwise why include a link?) All he had to do was go through his browser history and send us the link he found at highbeam.com, why suddenly downplay a possible online source?

Your questions about AGF followed after this, so it's not like your doing so without any reason. Anynobody 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't what point you are trying to make, AN. If you want to read the whole article just sign up for a free trial at Highbeam. --Justanother 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My last post was to GoodDamon. However in response to your point, we're talking about using this statement to back the philosopher claim. So that goes beyond me wanting to read the article, we have to find a way to use it as a source according to the rules here. One of those rules says, emphasis added on relevant point:

7. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. Should be avoided.

Please either stop dragging your feet and point us to a useable source otherwise it might appear as though you are simply being disruptive. Anynobody 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"it might appear as though you are simply being disruptive" - cut the crap, AN, that borders on harassment. The citation is the paper - it is not a pay site. You are misinterpreting what is meant by what you reference. If a site makes back issues available for a price that is irrelevant to the fact that the source is the paper, not a pay site. The reference is about linking; no link is necessary, simply cite the paper. --Justanother 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel harassed, then report it to the arbcom, but you haven't been very helpful in resolving the disputes here. Almost from the start you have displayed a negative attitude and not observed WP:AGF. (This despite insisting we all do so toward you. Q:...would you please provide a better link? A:WP:AGF my friend....)

You've made irrelevant comments about points to other editors. And all but refused to commit to any position, as this response which ignored the issue at hand helps illustrate. Yet another example was provided after I asked a reasonable question to help resolve the Personality section issue, you also ignored. Anynobody 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, if you cannot help yourself from making this about me then please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. --Justanother 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, could you just please:

1) Help us get a copy of the article you identified that can be used as a source.

2) Focus on the issues under discussion here.

3) Participate in consensus building.

Anynobody 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, don't you dare make negative remarks about me! Don't you dare tell me what to do or what to focus on. Am I clear? --Justanother 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa there! There wasn't anything negative in that. And so far, Anynobody has been nothing but civil. Frustrated-sounding, but civil. And frankly, I understand his frustration. I've eaten my crow; there's a link that indicates the article exists, and I was wrong. Now, I'd like to see the article in question or get an idea of its contents, which is all Anynobody has been asking for, and you've been remarkably unforthcoming on it. The brief intro that's available at that site makes it look like a gossip column, as I said, and you haven't provided any detail about the article beyond that first paragraph, which makes me wonder if you have, in fact, read the whole thing. Have you? And if you have, can you please share with the rest of us? --GoodDamon 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, Damon, but you are jumping into the middle of something that you may not understand. First, "Almost from the start you have displayed a negative attitude and not observed WP:AGF" is a negative comment. Second, AN has spread negative comments about me so far and so wide that an arbitration, our highest form of social control, has ordered that he stop making negative comments about me and, in fact, stop being interested in me at all. It is a very strict interpretation of WP:NPA's "comment on the edits, not the editor." As you can see, he cannot manage to. --Justanother 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, this will be a long one. The verbosity of writers and all... I think whether that comment is negative or not depends on whether it's true. And in this case, the diff he provided did look like a very negative comment on your part. I reverted a wikivandal the other day who went to my talk page and blathered about how he wasn't a vandal and it was rude of me to call him one, when he'd just gone through a page systematically deleting all its content. I wasn't being negative when I called him on that. Now, I don't think this is the same dynamic... Obviously, the relationship between you two is complex, and you've sniped at each other a lot on these pages. But in this particular instance, you have avoided providing us with any content from the article, you've maintained a very negative tone, and you keep turning the discussion to Anynobody instead of his perfectly valid request to verify the source in question.

And it is a valid request. The site you provided isn't even the "Wales on Sunday" website, but an aggregator of news from several newspapers (Western Mail, South Wales Echo, Wales on Sunday, Celtic Weekly Newspapers), and they are under no obligation to host every article from every paper. This means the only way to verify the article is to register for it on Highbeam.com, which we all know is a no-no. So in summation:

* The link you provided didn't say what you said it did.

* The only place it's available online is in a registration site, which Wikipedia can't use.

* The only other way for any of us to read the article is to go to Wales and find it in a library.

Now, WP:CITE has this to say: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source (in this case, the intermediate source would be Highbeam.com) without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear." In this case, it's apparent you only saw the intermediate source of Highbeam.com's pre-registration sample, which definitely doesn't pass muster as a reliable source in and of itself. It's therefore right and proper for other editors to challenge this as a source, and ask for further verifiability. --GoodDamon 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity not a problem. Let's leave Anyeverybody out of the picture, he is a special case and he should respect the constraints the arbitration committee placed upon him - to NOT direct negative attention to me. No matter my attitude. He cannot. OK, let me be clear. I have registered with the Highbeam site and read all the articles I reference in their entirety. Let us discuss Highbeam as an intermediate source. Clearly, if I use a reference that I see only on Highbeam then I should make mention of that. However, Highbeam is a reputable and reliable source, no different from www.newsbank.com that provides similar turnkey service to other media. Use of the reference from Highbeam carries the same validity as if I had read it in microform at the library. The fact that Highbeam is a fee service is also irrelevant. It is simply providing a service of providing a convenience. The real source is the original material, it just comes to us "on a via" (as we say in Scientology). Think about it; the original material cost money, it costs money to go to the library (if only in gas), internet access costs money for most of us. This idea that "it costs money" is a red herring. The only real point is "is the original a reliable source". That and the WP:AGF that Anyeverybody (and you?) seem to be having a bit of trouble with. --Justanother 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, and you've somewhat convinced me. I want to establish that before I go any further. The articles in question all exist, they all say what you say they do, and so forth. You're also being more forthcoming about using Highbeam, and not the original sources, which I honestly appreciate.

I want to explain my resistance towards using Highbeam as a source. First, there's some things about how we came to discussing Highbeam in this particular matter. When this discussion started, you began it with a cite to a magazine without a link. That's fine, as you've said. Nothing in WP:V requires that a source be online, and if you'd provided a full magazine citation and left it at that, then all would be well. You could have followed that up with a courtesy link to the Highbeam-hosted version , but your source would be the magazine, not Highbeam. Those kinds of links exist all over Wikipedia (try doing a search for Highbeam.com). But instead, you provided a link somewhere else, and the link did not contain the information you claimed. That immediately threw suspicion on your reference that didn't need to be there, if you'd only been upfront with us on the real source. I think we all had a very negative reaction then when we found the source to be a registration-only website. Basically, you got my back up with that. You weren't forthcoming with the real source, and it looked to me like you were being evasive about it.

All that said, you do make a good point about highbeam.com being like newsbank.com (with the exception that many of the newsbank.com URLs on Wikipedia don't require registration). If you registered at Highbeam, read the articles, and want to balance this page with information from them, be my guest.

...well, except for with that first one. It's a gossip column about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (I went ahead and got the free trial), and doesn't strike me as a reliable source. --GoodDamon 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Laff. If we had to remove gossip columns in rebutable media then half the references in the Scientology-series articles would go away. Works for me. It is certainly a column, don't know if it is a "gossip column". Doesn't matter, still RS. Not particularly a favorable article, kinda half and half. Sorry I got your back up, Anyeverybody's consistent assumptions of bad faith on my part and attempts to bend policy to suit his POV have that effect on me. I will try to be more circumspect. --Justanother 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to argue the removal of gossip columns used as sources on Scientology pages Justanother, I agree with GoodDamon that they aren't the kind of sources we'd want to use for articles in the series.

GoodDamon, well said, that is exactly why assuming good faith became a slight stretch; I don't want to perpetuate the disagreement by going into specifics, but I really appreciate your explanation. :) Anynobody 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another

Hubbard Exhibition Viewed Locally: More Than 300 Photos Chronicle the Life of Acclaimed Author, Humanitarian From: Sacramento Observer Date: December 6, 2000

Sacramento Arts Commissioner Kendall Person, one of the tour attendees, may have summed up the exhibition best: "Mr. Hubbard was a tremendous humanitarian and his endeavors to assist people in all walks of life is an immeasurable achievement as well as an example for all."

emphasis added. --Justanother 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Only available on registration site Highbeam.com. --GoodDamon 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another

L. Ron Hubbard Way opened by officials, celebrities From: Call and Post (Cleveland) Date: May 15, 1997

L. Ron Hubbard Way, named in honor of the late author, humanitarian and founder of the Scientology religion, was formally dedicated as Los Angeles' newest street with festivities climaxed by a ribbon cutting ceremony that included Mayor Richard Richard Riordan's Hollywood representative Chelsea Cochrane, City Councilman John Ferraro, George Grays of the California Governor's office, and Hollywood stars John Travolta and Kirstie Alley.

. . .

Councilman Ferraro hailed the new street as a model of community spirit and street beautification for all communities in Los Angeles and for cities throughout the country. The Council president also presented an official congratulations commemorating the opening of L. Ron Hubbard Way to Rev. Heber Jentzsch, president of the Church of Scientology, International.

The work on this street and its beauty have been inspired by the Church's founder, author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard. His humanitarian works are contributing greatly to helping eradicate illiteracy, drug abuse and criminality in the city of Los Angeles.

The Council president concluded; "Today, I am a friend of Ron."

emphasis added. --Justanother 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Only available on registration site Highbeam Encyclopedia. --GoodDamon 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting the idea?

Accidents will happen - or will they? From: Filipino Express, The Date: December 7, 2003

In the best-selling self-help book Dianetics, author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard explains what makes a person accident-prone. "If one knows the cause of something, he can usually prevent the cause from going into effect,"

emphasis added --Justanother 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Only available at registration site Highbeam.com. --GoodDamon 16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Philosopher

Tricked on to Heroin From: Precinct Reporter Date: March 13, 1997

There is also now ample evidence that drugs and other toxins can residually store in the fatty tissue of the body for long periods of time. The smoking of the oil forms of these drugs are cause for concern that more of the drug will remain locked in the fatty tissue. Narconon utilizes a very unique sauna sweat-out detoxification program developed by author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard to sweat these drug residues out of the body with tremendous results.

emphasis added and I am calling it a night. --Justanother 04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, only available on registration site Highbeam.com. And in each case, you quote only the beginning text that's available as a sample. I have serious doubts that you've read these articles, Justanother, and WP:AGF does not require me to assume you have.--GoodDamon 16:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Verification

I honestly appreciate your effort here Justanother, it's nice to see you are indeed trying to help. However, these really are no better than the bit of the first article you mentioned and I'll explain why with an example.

L Ron Hubbard enjoyed a moderate amount of success writing pulp science fiction. <ref name="Time2">The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power page 2 Time magazine, Monday, May. 06, 1991, By RICHARD BEHAR Hubbard was a moderately successful writer of pulp science fiction.</ref>

This not only shows what the source says, but also allows for verification.

In regard to your demand; AN, don't you dare make negative remarks about me! Don't you dare tell me what to do or what to focus on. Am I clear? As to the negativity aspect, it brings me no joy to point out behavior which disrupts the discussion here. I assure you that it is simply an observation of impasse and how it can be resolved if you take action. (I've met you halfway in asking you several times to participate in building this article consistently with the established rules.) In regard to asking for your focus on the issues at hand, I'm going to defer to the observers. Does anyone else think I was out of line asking Justanother to focus on unresolved issues with article content? Anynobody 04:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AN. you could not be more wrong. Why in the world do you think that WP:V means "available online". Where in the world do you get that idea?? --Justanother 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you happen to have these sources on hand, or did you find them online? The impression your posts give is that you copied and pasted them from somewhere. If so all I'm asking is that you tell us where you got them. Anynobody 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To me it appears as though this is the same type of reference as the gossip column, found on highbeam.com which discusses a local event one might find in the entertainment or weekend edition of a local paper. (Like the photo exhibition you cite which calls him a philosopher). Anynobody 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

From the beginning I said I found the first one using Google and I already told Damon that I signed up for Highbeam and read them all there. My point in bringing these to light is that it is not difficult to find positive mention of Hubbard or certainly non-negative. Your apparent POV of Hubbard, as pushed by a very small number of "journalists" that look only at critical material, is by far not the only one out there. Hubbard has been given many many awards and recognitions for his contributions. --Justanother 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here, including Anynobody, has any problem with positive information about Hubbard going into the article to balance the negative. You say Hubbard has been given many awards and recognitions? Then I don't have any problem with their inclusion in the article, assuming you have reliable sources to back them up. --GoodDamon 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I understand your point, really, and mine is that these aren't reliable sources for a couple of reasons. To make sure it is understood that I understand the difference between policy and opinion I'm emphasizing the policy point.
1. These stories aren't news in the sense required for this article. They are more like 'Celebrity'/'People' journalism or infotainment.
2. So far, though it isn't required, we've done a good job of keeping the sources available online. This is good because readers are able to see the evidence for themselves. (I mean we even have the forged (whatever one calls it) Blackfeet letter and his 1977 bio which Misou scanned. Why not try to keep that going? From a readers perspective it's the best way to go.) Anynobody 23:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon you are correct, I don't have any problems with positive information being included. My only requirement is that it be reliable info relevant to Hubbard's life. (IE not a sentence or two about him in an article about Tom Cruise.) Anynobody 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There I have to agree. Tom Cruise gossip columns aren't a reliable source for calling Hubbard a humanitarian and a philosopher, because gossip columnists don't speak from expertise on those subjects. Maybe on what Hubbard was wearing for this or that award, but otherwise I don't trust gossip columnists to report the color of the sky accurately, and I think Wikipedia generally agrees with me. --GoodDamon 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally with you. Let's get rid of opinionated articles. But - who flips the coin on good/bad journalism? You? Or Mr. I-only-find-bad-stuff-about-this-Hubbard? Misou 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about getting rid of opinionated articles. (We're talking about not using gossip or entertainment columns). Anynobody 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really easy

Why do critics say that they can never find good press on Scientology? Is it because they limit their research to rickross.com?? Church of Scientology Of Georgia Unveils Newly Renovated Headquarters From: Atlanta Inquirer Date: July 14, 2001

The first Church of Scientology was founded in Los Angeles in the 1950s using the works of humanitarian and author, L. Ron Hubbard. As Scientologists become more aware of problems and injustices in society, they take action, forming organizations and groups to rid society of its rotten spots. Over the years, the churches of Scientology and their parishioners and related charitable organizations have forwarded the cause of social justice and have brought about reforms in laws and government, all of which have combined to make the world a safer place for everyone. There have been 854 social reform groups formed by Scientologists and various churches. These include reform groups, human rights and other community action groups.

--Justanother 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Decent quote. I would only say that as we don't have an article on the Atlanta Inquirer at present, there could be some question whether it qualifies as a reliable source and verifiability. I'm not saying it doesn't, because I don't know one way or another. The relevant quotes might be that "mainstream newspapers" do qualify and that "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in tese areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." Whether this particularly paper meets that standard I really can't say, given the lack of information we have on it. That shouldn't be taken as saying that it doesn't meet them, just that we'd probably like to see some evidence to indicate it does. John Carter 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at highbeam.com, which seems to archive a lot of smaller publications. I have seen positive press in the sptimes.com too and have some linked on my talk page. I have seen lots of positive press on Scientology and Hubbard but that does not make it, for obvious POV reasons, to rickross.com, which, I am sure, is primary research source for many critics. --Justanother 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Atlanta Inquirer seems to have reprinted a CoS press release. They did the same thing on April 7, 2001 as well - see [6] for the original and [7] for the Inquirer's reprint. Alternative publications do this sort of thing rather often, as it saves on the cost of actually writing their own copy. We tend to discount them somewhat as reliable sources, which is why WP:RS alludes to "mainstream newspapers" (implicitly contrasting them with the alt-press). -- ChrisO 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Begs the question of the use of "alternative weeklies" sometimes prefered by critics of Scientology. Hollywood Interrupted comes to mind - I do not think that even rises to the level of "alternative weeklies". --Justanother 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Hollywood Interrupted, which seems to be critical about quite a few things, it does seem according to that article to probably rise to the level of at least Notability, and John Wiley & Sons is a big enough publisher that their policies for fact-checking can probably be trusted. Granted, innuendo and insinuation aren't facts, and I don't know anything about the book itself, but I can see how it would be referenced. John Carter 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the website, www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/, which, I believe, goes beyond the book and leaves the realm of WP:RS. Similar to the relationship between the Skeptic magazine and the website; one arguably RS and one arguably not. (Actually, not Skeptic, something else that escapes me right now. It is a book with corresponding website too.) --Justanother 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That page looks soooooo silly, I can't imagine anyone thinking it could ever be mistaken for a reliable source. If that is thing is cited or linked to anywhere in wikipedia, please feel free to probably remove it, as I imagine a lot of that stuff might be seen as possibly violating BLP. John Carter 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the other, Skeptic's Dictionary vs. www.skepdic.com/. He goes quite a bit further on his self-published site then in the book. Re the Hollywood site, see Philip Gale, I think that uses refs from the web site. --Justanother 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Skeptic, the recruitment pool for cultbashers? Or sceptics, the heathen group? Found some articles too:

St. Petersburg Times

December 6, 1994, City Edition Scientology puts itself on display ...Church members offered demonstrations of Scientology's E-Meter, an oval-shaped electronic device that is said to measure energy caused by negative mental images. The device is used by church "auditors," who say it helps them pinpoint memories that may be impeding a person's spiritual development. The shift in image to what could be described as a kinder, gentler church was accented by a quote at the end of the exhibit by the late L. Ron Hubbard, the writer/philosopher who founded Scientology: 'Ideas and not battles mark the forward progress of mankind.' A few feet away, however, church officials were giving away Bible-thick volumes of What is Scientology?, a new book that includes descriptions of reporters as Merchants of Chaos who help sow "confusion and upset." ...

The Philadelphia Tribune

March 4, 1994 Scientology church pushes probe of secret tests performed in African-American communities ... One set of documents obtained by the Church under the Freedom of Information Act show that in a test conducted by the U.S. Army in 1956, swarms of mosquitoes were released in Savannah, Georgia. The target area included Carver Village, a predominantly African-American neighborhood. Despite the Army's claims that the mosquitoes were not infected with any disease, Carver Village residents experienced an outbreak of mysterious illnesses around the time the insects were released. The Army documents indicate that the mosquitoes used were of the Aedes Aegypti type, the kind notorious for transmitting yellow fever. As with the federal radiation tests which secretly targeted pregnant women, minorities, prison inmates and the mentally retarded, the chemical and biological warfare tests conducted by the U.S. Army and CIA were apparently fueled by Cold War concerns of a Soviet Union attack on the U.S. Both the U.S. House and Senate have begun what is likely to be a long series of hearings on the federal government's secret radiation tests. The hearings are exploring not only how people were harmed or endangered, but how the federal government should compensate the victims. The Church of Scientology, founded in the 50's by writer and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard, has over eight million members world-wide. It has initiated numerous social and governmental reform programs, including its call in the 1980's for an end to production of chemical and biological weapons. ....

And for our sputnik товарищ:

ITAR-TASS

December 14, 1994 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ADMINISTRATION OPENS DOORS IN RUSSIA ... AS RUSSIA OPENS UP ITS MARKET TO WESTERN BUSINESSES AND THEIR TECHNOLOGIES, MORE AND MORE OF ITS REGIONS APPEAR TO BE ANXIOUS TO LEARN THE RIGHT WAY OF DOING BUSINESS WITH THEIR PARTNERS. ... EARLIER THIS YEAR THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE AUTHORITIES OF THE CITY OF PERM OFFICIALLY ADOPTED A NEW SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT FOR THEIR CITY AND REGION BASED ON THE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OF ADMINISTRATION DEVISED BY INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED PHILOSOPHER L. RON HUBBARD. ...

The Kansas City Star

May 22, 1999 METROPOLITAN EDITION Knock, knock, knockin' on Scientology's door More people are finding their way to Kansas City site ... Scientology at a glance Founded in 1954, the Church of Scientology is based on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986), a philosopher who produced a book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, expounding his views on psychology. Written in 1950, Dianetics became the basis of Scientology. ...

The Houston Chronicle

February 11, 1995, Saturday, 2 STAR Edition 'Firebrand cleric' gives a low-key last sermon ... Church of Hollywood lights Nancy Cartwright, the voice of animated television character Bart Simpson, is less well known as a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology, the little-understood church of choice for such Hollywood lights as John Travolta and Tom Cruise. Cartwright, 36, was in Washington recently to celebrate the church's 40th anniversary and to explain why she became a Scientologist. ""I was bummed because I hadn't had a committed relationship in my life, she said. ""I was rapidly approaching 30, and I wanted to get married and have kids. I thought that maybe I could find a relationship by going to a church. She chose the Church of Scientology, she said, after attending a barbecue with some actor friends. All were Scientologists, and all had thriving careers. And all had come with partners. Cartwright began reading the works of L. Ron Hubbard, the late science fiction writer and philosopher whose books and lectures form the church's ""scriptures. The seminal work was ""Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, published in 1950. ...

The Sunday Times (Perth, Australia)

June 24, 2001, Sunday Travolta shares spiritual word ... Based on the ideas of science fiction writer and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology hinges on the assumption human beings can "clear" themselves of past hurts and experiences. ...

The Statesman (India)

December 14, 2000 Through the mind: Renu Govil recommends a technology called Dianetics which employs no drugs, psychiatry or hypnotism ... EDUCATIONIST, artist, film producer, writer of science fiction and philosopher who did extensive research on the human mind, L Ron Hubbard was a man unto himself. And what he left behind is a 50-year-old technology called Dianetics and Scientology which, since its debut in May 1950, has helped people overcome psychosomatic illnesses, improve their efficiency at work, better their communications skills, overcome their inhibitions and increase their overall vitality. The process has helped millions of adults and children across 140 countries come to grips with marital and relationship problems, freed millions of others from drug dependence and mental trauma. And the concept employs no drugs, psychoanalysis, psychiatry or hypnotism. Hubbard's legacy has been translated into more than 52 languages and is available in hundreds of books, journals, audio and video tapes and professionally conducted courses. ...

...and so on. Kinda boring. I'll put the refs on awardspace if I remember the password. Misou 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Buckskin

In 1937 Hubbard honored this status with "Buckskin Brigades", a "novel of one man's courageous struggle to save the Blackfoot Nation from destruction by the Northwestern fur traders"

Presumably there's a contemporary cite that explains that was the reason that Hubbard wrote the book? AndroidCat 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such cite. Although it's claimed to be a scathing critique of the Hudson Bay Company's policies towards the Indians, in fact Hubbard received a crate of whiskey from the company as a token of appreciation for writing the book. -- ChrisO 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the source acknowledges that Hubbard was critical of HBC.

Hudson Bay Company had sent him a case of scotch, which was very good of them because he had been very critical of Hudson Bay Company in his book Buckskin Brigades - it was about mistreatment of Indians by the Company - but they'd sent him a case of scotch and the Blackfeet Indians sent him a beautiful beaded bag. [8]

Most likely sent it as a good-will gesture. --Justanother 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for digging that up. I knew I'd read it somewhere but couldn't remember where. -- ChrisO 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

I added a NPOV first line to the sandbox and removed AN's POV lead-off punch. Let's go from there if we want this section in the article. --Justanother 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Discussion section above:

Proposed versions

• The original:Personality section
  • Personality section, after a bit of tidying.
• Misou's proposal:No personality section
• Justanother's proposal:removes opening quote in favor of Like most aspects of Hubbard and his life, there is wide disagreement on his personality. He is called "Mankind's Greatest Friend" by his followers and has been dubbed a humanitarian by others. His critics, however, paint a different picture of the man.

Discussion

This should make it easier to keep tabs on who thinks what in regard to proposed changes. Anynobody 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after a bit of time with no other proposals we have two options.

1) The section as it was, which includes sources from Time, the Los Angeles Times, and San Fransisco Chronicle. Note: I don't mind trying to include the ref Justanother found, but it must be easily accessible and abide by WP:EL.

2) No personality section, ignoring information provided by the same sources listed above. Policies and guidelines, even WP:NPOV, dictate that the section be included but open to the addition of new material from either POV so long as it abides by the rules. Anynobody 03:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm replacing the personality section, like I said above our NPOV policy clearly states that Lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete sourced, reliable, information. Anynobody 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. A number of editors from both sides have objected to what AN has created as being POV and the consensus is to see if we can come up with something in a sandbox. There is no DEADLINE. --Justanother 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At least you're finally participating in the discussion about what the section will say. As to your proposed version,

First: The quote should be replaced, if not in the opening then elsewhere but it provides an insight it what he wanted for his life in his own words. (Quote:"I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form, even if all the books are destroyed. That goal, is the real goal as far as I am concerned.")

Second: Your opening has a couple of issues which concern me, 1) It is a very small paragraph which is discouraged in the style guide 2) It minimizes and makes assertions not backed by the sources, I believe a better version would be:

1.Like most aspects of Hubbard's life, the personality portrayed by the Church of Scientology is very different from what independent sources record. 2. He is called "Mankind's Greatest Friend" and a humanitarian by his followers. 3. Reporters, government/military records, and former Scientologists document Hubbard as being a man plagued with trouble ranging from domestic, mental as well as physical health problems, to investigations by several governments.

Changes explained:

1. There really isn't a wide difference in mainstream sources, there is one between what the Church and everyone else says.

2. As we've been discussing gossip columnists and church statements reprinted by papers are not reliable for these purposes. (A paper reprinting a church statements is basically saying "This is what the CoS says:")

3. The number of different sources of "critical" information should be discussed. Calling a group which includes reporters, former members, courts, governments, etc. critics undermines their diversity. (Critics start out looking for stuff to criticize as part of their job. Journalists, researchers, and past members usually start out either neutral or positively inclined.)

Anynobody 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The opener I put is a start, not the end. AN, we have to be careful with your suggestions because, IMO, you are looking to write an OR piece based on quotes that you cherry-pick from various sources. I can cherry-pick LRH quotes too. Rather than "interpret" LRH quotes yourself as you have shown is your wont, please restrict yourself to what others say about his personality. --Justanother 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly assuage those concerns with a little discussion of it. WP:OR says that: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.

Statement 1 is not OR. I think we can agree that the CoS sees him as a great man. Mainstream media sources about Hubbard's life describe him very differently as shown by Time, the LA Times, etc. Therefore it's not OR.

Statement 2 is not OR either, his followers do call him those things.

Statement 3 is also not OR, Reporters (like Behar), government (like Australia)/military (the Navy), and former members (like Armstrong and the woman talking about Hubbard's temper tantrums) all say these things. They are not "critics" (I'd call someone like James Randi a critic).

As to the "cherry picked" nature of quotes from cited sources, this implies that I deliberately left out "better" quotes in them. Which ones were those? Anynobody 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning and end?

Something Justanother said in the section above, The opener I put is a start, not the end. got me thinking. Why try to hammer out details of a section that will be open to editing as soon as it goes into the article. Think of it this way, even if we could come up with the perfectly balanced section editors like him are striving for, it all becomes irrelevant once it's in the article since everyone is welcome to edit it.

In short, what's the pointing of trying to "finalize" a version which makes one or two editors happy, when there will never be a final version? Anynobody 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors are free, of course, to come along and change it whenever they see it. But as it stands, for the established editors currently working this article, the personality section is way too POV-pushing. And it'll be reverted for that reason every time it's added until there's consensus, or at least a majority opinion in favor of it. Why bother with all the friction that would engender? Yes, everything in Wikipedia is basically a work-in-progress, but that doesn't mean the text we put in mainspace shouldn't be as good as we can make it. --GoodDamon 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, got pay on hold or what (kidding!)... Actually, this section is redundant. Just a channel for some POV pushers to throw more dirt and violate more Wiki policies. It could at least not be POV pushing (even if some other parts of the article are) but that is work. See above for some more refs. Misou 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope Misou, just trying to follow the rules. Wikipedia:Editing policy

GoodDamon, who are you referring to when you say "established editors"? I don't mean to come off as "short" but the only editors here who have removed it citing that reason are the Scientologists (*and wikipediatrix for a questionable reason). I can't speak for them of course, but Foobaz, Fubar Obfusco (FOo), ChrisO, and others edited the page while the section was there and didn't remove it. I get the impression that you are trying to compromise, but also support the section (and adding any positive RS about his personality should they be found, as am I). My concern is that since Scientologists see Hubbard as the ultimate humanitarian, any version which discusses his more common traits will be unacceptable to them thus creating a sort of never ending sandbox phase. Anynobody 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed the sandbox got very little use initially, so I'm actively working on it now. The truth is, almost everything about Hubbard coming from independent, reliable sources is negative. The only sources I've been able to find on anything positive have been from the Church of Scientology itself. (Now that I've said that, Justanother will pop in with six references to positive depictions of Hubbard's personality... At least, I hope he will). So I'm trying to dampen down the tone of the Personality section in the Sandbox, without negating any of the known, verifiable facts therein, and restructure it in such a way as to present the Church's views, his family's views, and other people's views. Go take a look... It's a work in progress, but I think it'll be better in the end. --GoodDamon 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Damon, I think we need to move away from the direction that AN set for this section and that you may be following without due consideration. The situation is not this "Church says he a god, everyone else says he is a devil" because that is just not so. Nor is it "Hubbard is a LIAR." Both those views are immature, ill-informed, and POV. The real situation is more likely that he was both "god" and "devil" with the Church sources stressing the positive and critical sources stressing the negative and none of them really lying much. For myself and people that I know, the negative aspects are blown out of proportion by critics and so much BFD. As in "let's ignore the contribution this man made and continues to make and instead make a big deal of his marital piccadillos." That is what the critics do we do not have to follow suit. --Justanother 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying the sources record he wasn't the great person the church makes him out to be. I'm not saying everyone thinks he is terrible, or only the church likes him, we just only have sources about him which tend to disprove his claims.

If you could find a reliable source that is about him, rather than stories about new Scientology centers or groups which happen to mention him I'd be happy to work it in too. Anynobody 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Therein lies the crux of the issue. Every positive reference you've dug up, Justanother, hasn't passed WP:RS muster. They're all Church press releases, gossip columns, or articles that mention him in passing, and without the requisite authoritativeness -- or, for that matter, any details about Hubbard's humanitarian works other than Dianetics and Scientology, neither of which are largely accepted as humanitarian contributions to society except by the Church itself. We need positive references that match in quality the negative references already there. The negative ones, such as that Time article and Bare-Faced Messiah, pass muster. Believe me, I would like to see some positive balance here, but the refs you dug up aren't giving me much hope. --GoodDamon 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Personality?

I just read the sandbox. What's in there is not related to "personality", not per definition, here:

"Behavior pattern of an individual, established over time. An individual's personality is a combination of lifetime experiences as well as genetic characteristics. Personality is an indelible characteristic and results in a pattern of predictable behavior." (Barron's).

Thinking aloud here. "Behavior pattern over time"..."results in a pattern of predictable behavior", hmmm, maybe something like "Anobody will be cynical towards Scientologists"? Yeah, I think I got it. Misou 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou, I'm honestly not trying to antagonize you so I'll be brief. You appear to be confused about what a personality is. How one acts when dealing with life is probably the most basic definition. For example, when faced with difficulty some people face it in a calm collected manner, others throw their hat to the floor and stomp on it while shouting profanities.

In short it actually conforms exactly to the definition you're citing, (we can predict that if something happened to upset Hubbard, he was liable to throw a tantrum). The sources you're pointing out do not. For example:

The Kansas City Star-May 22, 1999 METROPOLITAN EDITION Knock, knock, knockin' on Scientology's door More people are finding their way to Kansas City site .. This article is about people coming to KC for a Scientology center, not L. Ron Hubbard (it does mention him, but in no way could this article be understood to be about him.) Anynobody 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's predictable that you read me wrong so I'm not surprised here. My quotes are for news sources about L. Ron Hubbard=philosopher, per the thread. And on "personality", Barron's defines it that way and other RS as well. We are not into crystal balling here how Hubbard was facing a situation and your and my judgment doesn't matter. We are also not in the business of "somebody claims"=general behavior, personality. Misou 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, it takes more than a journalist saying he was a philosopher in passing to qualify it as a reliable source. WP:RS says, "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Those refs are probably quite reliable on their subjects -- for instance, the opening of a new Scientology center. But Hubbard isn't the subject of those articles, nor are his philosophies or humanitarian efforts. --GoodDamon 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "throwaway adjectives" by the journalist carry minimal weight however if a community leader calls Hubbard a humanitarian and is quoted then that carries as much weight as say, a judge in a child custody case saying he is a liar. --Justanother 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of links

The mass stripping of links to online copies of valid sources is rather outrageous in my opinion. If this needs to arbitrated, so be it. AndroidCat 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a systematic POV-based deletion of reliably published critical sources (books, newspaper articles etc). Clearly not on. -- ChrisO 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I saw here. Chris' mischaracterization is not, hopefully, on a par with his other work here. NO-ONE IS DELETING RELIABLE SOURCES! 'Cat has it right - links are being deleted. Links to a POV, non-RS site laden with WP:COPY violation. Yes, I know that maybe one of those books is OK to be on the site but certainly not all that material that is linked like the LA Times. I repeat. The reliable sources are NOT being deleted. --Justanother 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:RS argument bears consideration, but WP:POV and WP:COPY apply to Wikipedia articles, not to their sources. Foobaz·o< 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I direct your attention to WP:COPY

Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Now we can weasel around with "well, do we really know that copyrights are being violated?" but I think a bit of common sense is in order and there is no lack of that here. Then I direct your attention to WP:CITE

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

I wonder how many people that cite material from these biased "intermediate sources" such as Touretsky or Rick Ross ever really saw the original article. Not many, I would bet (ChrisO excluded, I never said that he cannot research). So we are basing an article on a biased, self-published source? If that is the case, then the source should come out completely. Actually, I am sure that many of our critics have read the originals of some critical books (myself, I have been reading critical material since I read Paulette Cooper around 1982 and I did my early research in the Clearwater public library in the 1980's.) I doubt that many of the editors here (again with the exception of ChrisO) have ever seen a critical newspaper or magazine article that was not available online but instead rely on biased intermediaries. Sorry for the diversion. Point is that I can show you more policy that would steer us away from biased sites used as "convenience links", WP:EL and even WP:RS if you read a bit deeply into them. --Justanother 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My three cents (inflation and all)...

• Deleting those links is fair and proper as non-reliable sources. For much of it, there are better sources available, and it would have been preferable to replace those links instead of deleting them. It also would have been preferable to talk about it first. All that said, solitarytrees and such aren't in line with WP:RS, even if they're 100% accurate.
• You didn't delete any of the much-discussed, all-agreed-upon links to Misou's hosted documents, even though that would have been an utterly uncontroversial edit, and pretty much everyone has agreed they should be removed. It would have looked a lot more above-board and reasonable to delete all non-reliable sources, not just the critical ones.
• Your use of WP:CITE is amusing, considering I quoted exactly that text to you just a couple of days ago as a reason not to use Highbeam.com as an intermediary between the reader and the desired document. You convinced me it was just like reading the original article, as I recall... For the record, I'm still convinced. Might some of these links, like Highbeam.com, also be reliable intermediaries? --GoodDamon 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I support removing Misou's hosted stuff too. Go ahead if you want to. There is one difference, however, that you might want to consider. Misou's site is not a propaganda site. It is simply a repository. There is no agenda. That is not the case with Touretsky and Rick Ross and others of that ilk. That said, I still do not think the Misou links belong in the articles although they might be helpful here in the back room. As far as this subject, I did not originally make the removals in question, I simply supported Misou. You are right, I too found it ironic that I was quoting that. But it only says that in this, like most issues here, "common" sense and good judgement are required in the application of policy. And no, the propaganda sites are not valid intermediates; flipping it around, ask our critics if they would consider the CofS a reliable intermediate site. --Justanother 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Several of them could probably be included in the "External links" section, but they probably don't qualify as references. John Carter 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about non-reliable sources. The sources are the books or papers hosted on the websites in question - are you saying that (for instance) Bare-Faced Messiah or the (government-published) Kotzé report are non-reliable sources? Good luck with that assertion. They're mainstream published works - and some are state publications - not some random web pages by an unknown individual. To be honest, this sort of issue comes up every year or so. A scientologist editor swoops in, deletes any links to "suppressive" websites and gets reverted; the community discusses it for a bit and the links stay. We've been through this cycle several times before and the consensus has always come down in favour of inclusion. -- ChrisO 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, if highbeam.com were the same as reading an original article we should have been able to locate the first one Justanother cited and linked to IC Wales. Thus being able to use their website (IC Wales rather than a bit from highbeam requiring registration for more.) Anynobody 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK at least, many provincial papers only put a subset of their content into databases such as Highbeam and Lexis-Nexis. It can be a bit frustrating. -- ChrisO 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That sucks, highbeam and lexis sound kind of like rip offs then (for people paying for access). When researching I'd assume anyone who wants to be sure about what they're citing wants to read the whole thing. Anynobody 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, I wasn't asserting that Bare-Faced Messiah or any of the other items you mentioned were non-reliable sources. But the refs themselves probably shouldn't hold links to web pages that are themselves non-reliable sources. Let me make clear I think the links have a place in the article, just not in the refs. Could there be a section specifically devoted to links to online versions of the referenced material? That way all of it could still be easily available to the reader, without having refs pointed at non-RS sites. --GoodDamon 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I did it again. Damon got it right and it doesn't matter if I like these refs or not. But those websites are non-RS. Misou 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS: ChrisO, ever considered that you have a WP:COI issue here (with your site links being removed)?

I'm sorry, but no one has ever asserted that the online copies of critical books about Scientology are in any way inaccurate. This has been gone over again and again, specifically on those links to those sites, and I believe it's gone to arbitration at least once. The decision has always been to keep them and I object to their removal as part of some claimed "deal" over some scans. AndroidCat 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deal? Where? Kitty, you are active on and off wiki against Scientology, and so it's easy to predict what you want. But these sites are personal pages, collections of 100% negative information, mostly set up by some anonymous, puppet or paid cultbasher. Period. It is enough to quote the source. If you doubt it, go look. Blind faith in some fanatics won't help anybody. Misou 05:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore your attempt to provoke me. For now. However, the links will go back in. AndroidCat 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to provoke you. Just stick to policy. These sites are personal pages, collections of 100% negative information, mostly set up by some anonymous, puppet or paid cultbasher. Period. It is enough to quote the source. If you doubt it, go look. Blind faith in some fanatics won't help anybody. Misou 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Misou links should certainly come out. However, the deletion of links to critical books isn't acceptable; their inclusion is a settled matter. And I'd suggest you lay off the POV-pushing and name-calling. -- ChrisO 07:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You accusing me of POV-pushing is really a GREAT joke, considering yourself. And the moon is made of green cheese, right. Anyway, you claim "settled matter" without giving a proper ref. Where? Misou 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There must be a way to work in some of Misou's links though. I was skeptical at first too, but as long as we don't cite them as an RS there is lots of info a potential reader might like to see. Off the top of my head there's,

• The fake Blackfeet letter,
• The 1977 version of Hubbard's bio which differs from the current CoS bio.

Rarely do we get to see the actual implementation of deception. Anynobody 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But these are already described in reliable sources. The fake Blackfeet letter, for instance, is discussed in Atack's book. -- ChrisO 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure is, but does it include an image a reader could see? (I'm saying use Atack's book as the reference but as a convenience link Misou's scanned copy could be offered for those who want to see for themselves.) Anynobody 07:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that the scanned copy is unverifiable. A convenience link to a published book isn't a problem; I can go down to the library and get a copy of that book. But where can I get a hard copy of Misou's scanned document? It fails WP:V, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

APOBS uses the same docs I put up (plus some creative inventions and slant which is not in the original docs). Look it up. Your move and celebration here is a direct attack on Wikipedia quality. Stop it. Misou 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The SO ED is fine, that is published material. The fact that it is hard-to-find does not change that (Is it in old OEC volumes or the PL pack that was published?). The letter is of no use to us. This is similar to the use of FOIA documents; they are not published either and may be referenced in RS but not shown in their entirety. And, for that reason, all we can talk about is what the RS says about them. 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC) --Justanother 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the docs are published material. That's how I got them. They are part of a pack published in '78 or so. The cover sheet is the SO ED, the rest are attachments ref'ed in the SO ED. Misou 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou links gone!

OK, I took the plunge and deleted all the Misou links and any content that directly and solely relied on those citation if they were strongly contested as forgeries, and added a {{cite}} tag in any case where the content wasn't strongly contested. At least, I think that's what I did. This was a big, messy job, and there was a lot of reliance on Misou's hosted image scans as references. How the heck did they slip past the first time around? Anyway, the hunt is on to find replacement refs! Think of it like looking for easter eggs, only the kids are larger and fight meaner over the chocolate ones... --GoodDamon 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I drugged you out of the water, Damon. You can borrow my towel. You removed the refs themselves!! That is a violation of WP:AGF. The WP:RS refs stay, all we remove are the links to non-RS that is archiving them and unpublished materials. Please follow suit with the critical non-RS sites in the same fashion if you care to. --Justanother 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah, I must be tired today. That was a mistake. After a while of looking, all the text began to run together, and I ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My apologies, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. --GoodDamon 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NotAnRfC on the disputed links

Hoping to avoid an RfC or an arbitration, I would like to have a structured discussion among the interested editors and see if we can develop some consensus. This is a WIP and we can fine tune the statement of the issue, etc. If we cannot come to an agreement then this can be restructured to an RfC. --Justanother 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please cite the links you are talking about? Anynobody 20:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ground rules

1. This a new discussion, please do not copy "votes" (of editors other than yourself) from elsewhere on this page. You may, of course, copy arguments.
2. Please remain civil and treat your fellows with respect.
3. Please stay on-topic and refrain from discussing or complaining about editors.
4. Please do not debate the arguments inline in the body of the Argument sections themselves but instead use the "Rebuttal" sections provided for debate. This formality helps keep the arguments, both pro and con, accessible. Thank you.

Issue

The basic issue is the inclusion of links to non-RS sites that are archiving RS materials; these links being in addition to the citation of the material (i.e. this is not about removing citations or material in the article proper). This includes sites critical of Scientology such as rickross.com and Touretzky (www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/) as well as simple archives such as Misou (misou.awardspace.us). It should be noted, however, that no-one objected to the removal of Misou's links, which has already been accomplished. So this is mainly about linking to non-RS sites critical of Scientology.

Arguments in support of removal

1a. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." - from WP:NOT
1b. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" either.

If the reason for inclusion of those links is to direct the reader to online versions of the materials then that reason is not in line with the purpose of Wikipedia and, it seems to me, more serves a "soap-boxing" purpose, another thing that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Especially in light of the copyright concern, it seems to me that critics of Scientology are putting their desire to promote critical materials above the good of and the purposes of this project.

2. Such archiving can be assumed to violate copyrights of the original publishers.

I direct your attention to WP:COPY

Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Now we can weasel around with "well, do we really know that copyrights are being violated?" but I think a bit of common sense is in order and there is no lack of that here.

3. Use of these sites dilutes the credibility of the material and, by extension, of Wikipedia.

I direct your attention to WP:CITE

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

I wonder how many people that cite material from these biased "intermediate sources" such as Touretsky or Rick Ross ever really saw the original article. So are we basing an article on a biased, self-published source? If that is the case, then the source should come out completely.

4. Other

I can show you more policy that would steer us away from biased sites used as "convenience links", WP:EL and even WP:RS if you read a bit deeply into them.

Arguments in support of inclusion

1. Taking Justanother's arguments in sequence:

a) "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." True but irrelevant. This aspect of WP:NOT is intended to dissuade people from compiling lengthy directory-style lists of links in articles. Go read what WP:NOT#LINK actually says - it doesn't remotely cover the way that the links in this article are being used. To quote, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article."

b) "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Also true but irrelevant. Including content-relevant links isn't soapboxing.

c) "Such archiving can be assumed to violate copyrights of the original publishers." No, it can't. A history lesson here: back in the mid-1990s, several people (including myself) embarked on a systematic project of scanning, getting permission to distribute and web-publishing various books, official reports etc on Scientology. I personally got permission to freely redistribute Bare-Faced Messiah from Russell Miller, who lives not far from me, and I still have his letter of permission archived somewhere. Jon Atack was asked for permission to distribute A Piece of Blue Sky. Others on the other side of the Atlantic dealt with Paulette Cooper (Scandal of Scientology) and Bent Corydon (Madman or Messiah). The authors, who hold the copyrights (not the publishers!), have no reason to object - as Miller put it, the books are never likely to be published again and the authors aren't earning a penny from them. As for the items such as the Anderson Report, Foster Report, Kotzé report etc., they have always been out in the public sphere - they're not FOIA-type publications, they're official reports issued by various governments in the 1960s and 1970s.

d) "Use of these sites dilutes the credibility of the material and, by extension, of Wikipedia." Justanother argues this on the assumption that people are "copying a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source." I can confirm that the intermediate sources - the webbed books - are accurate copies of the original books. I've got many of the originals here, from which some of the scanned copies were taken, and the ones I don't have personally are in public libraries here and in the US (that is, where copies haven't been stolen). They're word-for-word copies and eminently verifiable. They may be on websites of which Justanother doesn't approve, but that by itself doesn't mean that a reliable-source publication suddenly becomes unreliable. -- ChrisO 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors supporting removal

1. --Justanother 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2. -- If consequently and throughout. Misou 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
3. -- John Carter 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors supporting inclusion

1. For the reasons set out above, since Justanother's arguments are a combination of misreading of WP:NOT and erroneous assumptions of fact. ChrisO 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
2. I find both sides of this argument very compelling, but upon a complete reading of WP:NOT and WP:RS (per ChrisO's arguments), I'm willing to see the links kept in the article. I reserve the right to change this vote at any moment should superior arguments arise, and am still considering whether the links should be moved to a separate section. --GoodDamon 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I thought I saw that one or more of them was released into the PD anyway. Anynobody 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion II

• One question: Where are these links included? It might be permissable to permit them in an "External Links" section, maybe with some description to the effect of "anti-Scientology group" as warning of POV. But to include them in the article itself, or as reference links, would probably be, at least in my opinion, not acceptable. John Carter 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They are embedded in the article as part of the ref tag. --Justanother 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Then they should be removed, at least from the reference tags. Putting them in an External links section would still be an option, however. John Carter 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• A question for people who support their inclusion in refs: What are these sites' credentials as reliable sources? Are they widely considered authoritative? WP:RS says: "In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable a work or publication is." And if Misou's hosted images aren't RS for refs, what makes the sites that host these works RS? I'm open to being convinced in either direction, but right now I'm leaning towards taking the links out of the refs and putting them in a separate section until the reliability of the links can be successfully asserted. --GoodDamon 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that there is evidence to contrary:

    The teacher has teamed with David Touretzky, a computer science research professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a free-speech advocate who runs an anti-Narconon Web site that includes some controversial material. - San Francisco Chronicle

    I personally see "controversial" as NPOV-speak for "dubious", they certainly are not saying "reliable material". --Justanother 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually given the material on the site (like reprints of news articles), I'd say the controversy being referred to is between the CoS and David Touretzky. Anynobody 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, don't you have your dictionary around? :-) Controversy simply means that it's been the subject of debate. Scientology is controversial. Global warming is controversial. Evolution is controversial. The mere fact that something is controversial doesn't mean that it's bad or unreliable. -- ChrisO 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Touretzky had a problem with his site being labelled that way. I think it was meant the way I think and I think Touretzky saw it that way, too. --Justanother 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again, but the article in question clearly puts the story forth as what each side says. (Narconon says drugs can be sweated out, doctors say no, etc.) How Dr. Touretzky took the story is not actually relevant, more on that at the end.

There are four basic "sides" depicted in it, divided into two factions; Narconon and Scientology on the opposite Science and Ex-members/critics. The stuff on Touretzky's site is supported by the latter, and disputed by the former. To a neutral observer, like the Chronicle, it's a subject of controversy. (That's what ChrisO was saying.)

To explain why Dr. Touretzky's opinion of the story is irrelevant, I'll compare it to a reverse hypothetical situation; lets say Narconon felt that they had been quoted out of context. Both arguments are equally invalid since a paper isn't expected to publish what the subject wants published. (Actually, it's really similar to the lawsuit Barbara Schwarz filed against the Salt Lake City Tribune when they published her story and interview.) Anynobody 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree away, I certainly won't try to stop you. --Justanother 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever.

Anybody else have an opinion on whether or not Dr. Touretzky's "problem" with the story has any relevance for our purposes? Anynobody 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Honestly, Justanother, I think you're reading too much into the word "controversial" in this context. --GoodDamon 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we have lost sight of the point. Damon, you asked if there was evidence that Touretzky's site was reliable. I said that all I was aware of was evidence to the contrary - an RS referenced his site in a somewhat disparaging fashion (we can argue about just how disparaging) and the RS did not even bother to name the site. Touretzky took umbrage at both points. Certainly not evidence of reliabliity and, as I said, if anything speaking against reliability (how much again a matter of opinion). That was my answer to your question. If someone else can provide the positve reference that you asked for then they should. --Justanother 03:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, most of that post, I'm sorry to say, is original research on your part.

...the RS did not even bother to name the site. Mentioning it seems adequate to me.

...Touretzky took umbrage at both points. You're reading into this text what emotion you think he is trying to get across. How do you know he was offended, maybe he just wanted to offer a friendly clarification (we really can't tell if either or none is true, which is why speculating on how he felt is OR). Plus, they posted the name he put in the letter to the editor, so it's not like the SF Chron left it out because THEY had problems with it. Anynobody 04:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

On POV expressed in this and related articles on Wikipedia

Incidentally, this (SF Chron) article is an excellent example of the best case scenario of POV in a CoS/Hubbard article. It presents both sides arguments without additional comment by the paper, but unlike the Narconon/CoS claims, proof exists to back the assertions made by science. For example *Narco/tology's belief that all drugs have long longevity in fat, scrambling of 3D pictures, etc. compared to tests on human fat showing otherwise and the 3D picture theory to be unproven.

*Narconon and Scientology are for the purposes of the US Government separate entities and this abbreviation is not meant to imply otherwise. They do however share similar vocabulary and ideas, and when describing these I have chosen to abbreviate. Anynobody 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is little proof offered for the "science side", just pronouncements and guesses. So pretty much the same for both sides. --Justanother 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof is not relevant; reliable sources are. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight states, "…the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Foobaz·o< 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The proof I was referring to is in the forms of clinical/scientific studies that doctors/scientists in the article refer to when explaining the nature of drugs in the body:The doctors contacted by The Chronicle agreed that drug residue can remain in fat for a short time, but not indefinitely. "The longest we know that THC (the active substance in marijuana) stays in the fat is about a month. For ecstasy and LSD, we're talking about a day or two," said Dr. Neal Benowitz , head of clinical pharmacology at UCSF. Anynobody 02:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is not proof, just an informed-sounding pronouncement and on your "the 3D picture theory to be unproven" there is basically nothing. --Justanother 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, Justanother there are studies and data to back that informed sounding pronouncement. The doctor isn't just pulling data out of his arse. Anynobody 04:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "proof" and statements that may or may not be based on proof. You said there was "proof" in the article and I simply clarified that there is none, not even a reference to the proof as in "study in 19XX at the University of Blah". There is simply appeal to authority, a logic fallacy. --Justanother 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Justanother is correct, here. The doctor doesn't explicitly reference the proof to back up his authoritative statement. Appeal to authority says, "The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious."

I would argue, however, that the doctor's expertise is extremely relevant (it's not like he's making claims about aeronautics), and the backing data for his statements should be easy to verify. Since it comes from a reliable source, we have very little ground to go against his statements. But like I said, you are technically correct; relying solely on his authoritative statement would be a fallacy. --GoodDamon 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said proof does exist, however it doesn't seem like we should have to go through point by point and support assertions made by professionals in these articles. (Doing that seems like it goes close to OR. For example the if the doctor says three weeks, and our proof says four, we can't discuss that discrepancy without engaging in OR. Instead, the doctor should be assumed to be backed by proof until another RS points out that he is not) Anynobody 20:21, 23 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.

---

Indeed not, and I'm not suggesting we do. I agree with you completely on this, I'm just pointing out that Justanother is technically correct. But it would be a pointless waste of time -- and original research -- to go down that path. --GoodDamon 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. Anynobody 00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Well, while we are talking OR, let me give you a bit of mine. Like I see so often, the offered proof is somewhat tangential to what is being claimed by Hubbard. I am not talking about you, AN, I am talking about the "experts". They are basing their statements on studies of half-life residues in urine but that exactly lines up with what Hubbard says. 1st, we can take it as given that toxins are indeed stored in fat cells, no? We are simply not in agreement as to how long. Well if we take it as a given that they are in the cells does it not make sense to you that they will not all migrate out under some "normal" level of cellular stress. Does it not make sense that the urine residue will die down but some level of residual toxin will remain? If you are at all familiar with membrane transport mechanisms that is a bit of a no-brainer, IMO. There is some point at which the difference in chemical potential is not sufficient to drive continued cross-membrane movement. That is Hubbard's point, increase the stress under controlled conditions and force more toxins out. It is not "disproven" by urine half-life studies. I also did a search on Google and found it taken almost universally that fats store toxins, especially pesticides, and for long periods. --Justanother 20:54, 23 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.

---

First a question, do many people go to Narconon to detox pesticides and other non voluntarily introduced toxins?

Second, You're talking about "toxins" as if all behave the same way, which they don't but that's besides the point since we really are bound by what the source says: Narconon's anti-drug instruction rests on these key church concepts: that the body stores all kinds of toxins indefinitely in fat, where they wreak havoc on the mind until "sweated" out. I wouldn't be surprised if Hubbard said something different later, he had that tendency, but as reported by the SF Chronicle, Narconon is or has been telling schoolchildren that marijuana, crack, PCP, etc. all stay with people forever in their fat. Anynobody 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

Straighten me out here, how am I "talking about "toxins" as if all behave the same way"? --Justanother 05:11, 24 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.

---

No problemo, ...we can take it as given that toxins are indeed stored in fat cells. Now please answer my question, I'd honestly like to know do many people go to Narconon to detox pesticides and other non voluntarily introduced toxins? Anynobody 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

This is one of my favorite topics :-) pesticides do stay stored in fat cells for a long time. Longer then drugs and medications due. As far as drugs and medications go though they really due leave the body quite quickly. Marijuana is a prime example. THC will be excreted from urine for about a month after it's last usage. Once its no longer detectable in the urine it still remains detectable in fair follicles for a bit longer, I can't remember how long exactly, but I think it's somewhere on the manner for 3-6 months depending on metabolism and hair/fingernail growth speed. After 6 months since the last time THC was introduced into the body it is no longer detectable. It's no longer in the fat cells. You can take a sample of fat cells and not find a trace. I did a study for a college class where I took 2 friends who I knew were frequent marijuana users. They both stopped there usage at the same time. They were both similar in body type, size, and weight and both on average participated in the same amount of physical activities. Person A coninuted there normal physical activities, eating habits, and so forth. Person B upped there amount of physical activity quite a bit. This included running 2-6 miles every morning, and biking. Person B also spent quite a bit of time in steam rooms and sauna's and his diet included lots of Vitamin C and Niacin (2 things that some claim "purify" your system quicker). This involved drinking lots of orange juice, cranberry juice, and taking lots of supplements. We then used over the counter THC drug tests from Wal-greens to test them once a week. Also, once a month we paid for a hair follicle test. We opted for once a month on those because they cost about $150 a pop at the local lab. The entire purpose of the "expirement" was to see if there really was a way to cleanse your system quick enough to pass things like pre-employment drug screens. So person A did nothing but quit using the drug and person B did all the things that are supposed to clean your system quicker. The result of the expirement was that THC became undetectable at pretty much the same time in both of them. Person B's activites had no noticable effect on how long it took for the THC to clear there system. Now I know this expirement was not "hard science", it was part of a simple project. But to me the results were quite interesting and even though the original expirement was to test a different hypothosis it has definitely affected my opinion of companies that offer "purification" treatments. Elhector 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, how do you account for Hubbard's claim that fats store and release atomic (i.e. electromagnetic) radiation, as in the infamous claim that you can sweat out sunburn if you take massive overdoses of niacin? Or claims such as "Now, all America sits in front of television sets and those television sets exude, I am sorry to say, a considerable amount of radioactive material. It's not huge, you know, but it's enough so that people who have made a habit of watching TV ... get the TV radiation"? Do you think that we have to find a source that says that TVs aren't radioactive? -- ChrisO 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

IDK, I would have to see the actual line by Hubbard. I can tell you this; I did three purification rundowns over the years. I was one of the first on it in 1979 but had to stop then did it again soon after and then again around 1990 or so. Point is that on many pepole, when they did high levels of niacin, they would get a bright red flush in the exact areas that they had old sunburn (like years old). You could see the bikini strap lines. So a Scientologist would say that the rundown "turned on" the old "radiation exposure" and "ran it out", i.e. that some cellular memory or cellular trace was being contacted, kinda like Dianetics engrams. Obviously we can suppose other reasons but it is all supposition and the Scientologist will prefer a supposition consistent with his beliefs and a materialist can suppose something else. The real thing to keep in mind in all cases is that Scientology benefit is subjective benefit and it is only "proven" to oneself. --Justanother 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking like anecdotal evidence and what is true to a Scientologist are as acceptable as RS. Until a report in a publication like the New England Journal of Medicine talks about the "turned on" effect Hubbard claimed, it's not reliable. Writing like it is would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view. (Sorry) Anynobody 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AN, are you unable to discern the difference between an exchange directly related to editing the article and a bit of discussion only indirectly related to editing? Except for you, we are all of us here a bit off-topic. (Sorry) But since you mention it, given the number of testimonies by Scientologist that are available, it is not minority at all nor undue weight. One would need only phrase it as "Many Scientologists say they have experienced . . . " We are not talking "science" here, we are talking subjective experience and if ten thousand people say they saw the Mother of God in a window pane then we say that "ten thousand people say they saw the Mother of God in a window pane." --Justanother 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, the point about minority view, and this ties into the discussion about toxins remaining in fat indefinitely, is that all of the reliable sources treat claims made by Scientology like they do claims by any minor religion (minor relative to Christian, Jewish, etc. the big ones seem to get more credibility with sources).

I'm willing to bet more people claim to have been abducted by aliens than have had positive subjective experiences with Scientology, yet the reliable sources don't proclaim alien abductions to be a fact. Even though there are more alien abductee/Scientologists than there are critics, the majority and minority views are decided by the sources not group size. Anynobody 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My own personal view would be that we could say something like "Scientologists claim the treatments are effective, even though there are to date no (or few, whatever) medical studies supporting that belief. There are also some (maybe, maybe more, I dunno how many there are) which seem to indicate that they are in fact at least potentially damaging", with citations added at the end of each sentence. That would seem to me to be the fairest and most objective way to go. John Carter 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, a statement like "Scientologists claim..." is the best way to present their viewpoint. Beyond that we should stick with RS on any actual help or harm they actually cause. Anynobody 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Misou

Er... I see Misou giving his/her opinion above. Are you guys aware that he or she was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Shutterbug a little later? [9] Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

We are now. Thank you for the information. A notice to that effect on the user's page might be welcome as well. John Carter 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Misou and Makoshack both are apparently just Shutterbug, who has been blocked for three days for side-stepping the topic ban. I find this rather disappointing. --GoodDamon 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Misou, Makoshack, and Shutterbug are all the same person? I had no idea. That's not good at all if it's true. Elhector 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea either. Yeah, apparently a checkuser verified that they're socks (see Shutterbug's talk page). And indeed, it's not good. I'm particularly disappointed because I thought I had a good understanding going with Shutterbug. --GoodDamon 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a thought. Shutterbug used to be COFS, right? Doesn't Shutterbug edit from a computer that shares an IP address with many others on a large network? I could be way off here and remembering a different situation but I thought it turned out he was editing from a CofS facility somewhere. Is it possible Misou and Makoshack could be editing from the same facility? I'm hoping this is the case, otherwise it brings a whole lot of things into question. They've all been acting and editing like individual people which is just unethical around here IMHO. Elhector 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Foolish behaviour, and very disappointing. But I'd like to commend Justanother for doing the right thing and discussing the matter calmly on this talk page, rather than disrupting the article. -- ChrisO 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it particularly disheartening because I think the article's in need of a more balanced perspective, but that won't be achieved through gaming the system. --GoodDamon 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew, this already went to arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS Their solution was going to be a 30 day block on Shutterbug(COFS) but didn't address the checkuser identified accounts like Misou, CSI LA, Makoshack, etc. Anynobody 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Damon, They are not sockpuppets, they are a world apart and probably not in more than casual communication like many of us get on our e-mail channel. I am being a bit less calm on the Enforcement page than I am here (smile). But, Damon, please don't fall into the same black/white thinking that gets us in trouble elsewhere. If you have questions about the case, I will be happy to address them on my talk page to the best of my ability. --Justanother 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser powers so I can't look into it myself, but from what I understand, there's a range of checks that CUs make - IP addresses, editing times, similarities in editing style and so on. There's more to it than just looking up an IP address. From what I've seen of their work, the CUs are pretty reliable at spotting sockpuppets. -- ChrisO 10:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin has it right now and withdrew all the new blocks and what we have now is all three under the original 30-day ban on COFS Shutterbug that ends on Nov 1, I guess. The basic idea being taken is "multiple editors speaking with one voice". --Justanother 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I guess that's a slightly wordy way of saying meatpuppets... -- ChrisO 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Just that they all seem to be likely to have the same opinions on certain matters regarding Scientology. Maybe kind of like all the editors from, say, Vatican City might be inclined to edit the same way on articles relating to Catholicism, as well. Meatpuppets more or less means that they're under some individual puppeteer's direct control, and I'm not necessarily sure that's really meant here. John Carter 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are various signature moves of editing style which travel from identity to identity. It's sometimes obvious, but not provable. *shrug* AndroidCat 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Crocodile tears all over the place, amazing. Not very charming, not for me and not for you. So I am Misou, and this is not Shutterbug, not Makoshack and not any other Wikipedia editor. I can say this louder if needed and way more forceful, but it is still the truth. Can we go back to create articles now? Misou 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the accusations are due to you sharing the same IP address as others, I could be wrong though. Do you edit from a location that other editors are editing from? Elhector 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not (yes, I am sure of that, there is only one internet access here). Sometimes I use an access others allegedly use too (a firewall/router computer or something like that, I'm no specialist in this). I have never met any of the other guys. Doesn't matter anyway. The checkuser was nonsense. Repeating some "you are all the same and should be shot together" crap doesn't make it true. Robots have this kind of logic, if at all. Misou 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just confused because the results from the check user wouldn't have been what they were if you were not all in the same physical location. If you are all coming up with same IP address then you have to be in the same building, or at least accessing wikipedia from the same network. Know what I mean? You can understand how that would get confusing. Elhector 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proxy server. The subject editors all accessed a church-owned proxy server that routes traffic worldwide through a common firewall. They do not know each other as far as I know (I have communicated with all of them by e-mail and am satisfied that they are distinct editors) and they do no co-ordination other than the "co-ordination" that all Scientologists do (and that all Wikipedians should help with . . . and many do) - try to get the lies, POV-pushing, and non-RS material out of the articles. As far as what they do now, that is for them to negotiate/determine/whatever. --Justanother 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I had assumed was happening. If you don't mind me asking, what is the purpose of accessing Wikipedia from a church owned proxy server as opposed to accessing Wikipedia from just there general home internet connection? You guys can see how this whole thing could cause a lot of confusion, right? I just hate to see people blocked/banned from wikipedia incorrectly. Just want to make sure myself and everyone else is clear on what is actually going on without throwing around a bunch of accusations :-) Elhector 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is something that they will have to answer themselves. Obviously they were just people accessing the internet by a convenient and available means and never considered that it would be a problem. It came up not because of any real sockpuppet concern but because, IMO, a pair of POV-pushers used checkuser to attack their "enemies". The POV-pushers even tried to checkuser me and another completely uninvolved editor, Lsi John, before their fishing expedition was sent packing. --Justanother 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the actual investigation, but if check user was used to maliciously go after some editors because they didn't like there edits then that is a serious issue. Would you be able to direct me to where I could read everything that was matted out on this subject? Thanks! Elhector 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the checkuser request, and personally I doubt it was malicious. All three of those users have very aggressive editing styles, including histories of improperly marking good-faith edits they disagree with as vandalism, such as here and here. And if they all used the same proxy it becomes highly suspicious, even for someone like me who's determined to remain neutral. Specifically in Shutterbug's favor, however, is that after she was aggressive towards me, I reproached her for it in a non-confrontational manner, and she seemed open to changing to a less aggressive approach. Personally, I'm still happy to believe they're different people, but all three of them need to stop editing like that. --GoodDamon 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be right, Damon. Otherwise, how about editing this article? Why for example are those private hate sites still used as ref, and not the original actual refs? Why for example are there refs which are not even ok per WP:EL? For example ref #77 "Is Scientology a religion? Hubbard says 'No'." seems somewhat OR, non-RS or - just crap. Misou 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. The ref wasn't even necessary, because another ref was right there that contained the same text. Now why did you have to bring it up in a confrontational manner? I'm happy to remove bad links, I'm happy to work with everyone here on both sides of the argument, and I'm not beholden to either. Might I suggest taking a look at Justanother's editing style? He takes the time to explain his logic and thoughts on any topic he's editing, and he does it in ways that don't attack other editors, from what I've seen. In the personality sandbox, he's been a model of cooperative editing, even when I've disagreed vehemently with his logic or reasoning. --GoodDamon 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for changing this. You reverted it the last time I changed it, remember. Sometimes I get the idea some people are just pretending to edit here. Might come across a bit confrontational, yes. Take a look at this thread above. Is this a newsgroup or talk page about L. Ron Hubbard? See what I mean? Misou 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If these editors are all using a church-owned proxy server, does that mean that they're church employees (and does that in turn mean that they've editing on behalf of the church in some capacity)? If so, it would raise some conflict of interest issues. -- ChrisO 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how transparent, this disruption. You know, I said that about 8 or 9 times now, but I am not a Church employee. You followed the whole discussion over the last 12 months where all of this was chewed and digested and now you come up here asking rhetorical questions? Wow! Please explain. And let me know why your personal website is still used as ref in there article. Misou 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember ChrisO being part of the discussions on the ramifications of editing from a place that doesn't offer Internet services to members or the public. Anynobody 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think ChrisO brings up a very good point. A user would not be editing from cofs proxy servers if that user was not a cofs employee. The cofs has strict security policies on internet access from its locations: One must be staff, have a reason for unfiltered internet access, and be cleared by HCO and OSA. Conflict of Interest is definitely a concern from such editors.--Fahrenheit451 23:26, 24 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.

---

Is that right? I think you are violating WP:BATTLE. Knock it off. Misou 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Misou, you are clearly violating WP:CIVIL and you need to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Consider posting a thread on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. I don't remember them addressing the actual specifics of editing from a place that doesn't offer Internet services to members or the public. Anynobody 06:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I think we need to end this thread and get back on topic. I don't think this is the correct place to discuss Misou's connection with the church of scientology. If we want to continue this discussion maybe we should move it over to the project talk. Thoughts? Elhector 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are indeed other places for such discussions. (Sorry to post ahead of you just above saying the same thing.) Anynobody 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Next improvements to article

1. Here is one: ref name=bio77>7 April 1977 by Liz Gablehouse, Church of Scientology</ref> should be <ref name=bio77>SO ED 879 INT, "LRH Biography", 7 April 1977 by Liz Gablehouse, Church of Scientology</ref> .
2. Here is another one: In 1961 he carried the Explorers Club flag for his 'Ocean Archaeological Expedition' and in 1966 Hubbard was awarded custody of the Explorers Club flag for the 'Hubbard Geological Survey Expedition'.{{Fact|date=October 2007}}

should be: In 1961 he carried the Explorers Club flag for his 'Ocean Archaeological Expedition' and in 1966 Hubbard was awarded custody of the Explorers Club flag for the 'Hubbard Geological Survey Expedition'<ref>Letter from the Explorers Club to John Fudge, 8 December 1966</ref><ref>[http://www.scientology.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/chronicle/pg014.html Official Biography, Church of Scientology International</ref>. Misou 01:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't use the Scientology link to prove that, but otherwise the letter looks good. Where can we verify it? --GoodDamon 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Personality section (again)

Misou has suggested in edit summaries here and here that the personality section violates WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure what he's referring to. WP:UNDUE reads:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Which minority view is being given undue weight? I'm just not sure I see what you're referring to. The section may be redundant, and certainly could use a lot of cleanup, but I'm not seeing a minority view on Hubbard's personality being given too much space. --GoodDamon 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly if any minority view is being given undue weight it's the Scientology view, and I'll explain what I mean. Given the number of sources and what they say about him, there should be much more "negative*" information in it. To illustrate here's a table breaking down how weight should be divided:

Source	Information	Weight
LRH and the church	Humanitarian, philosopher, etc.	1
Time magazine	Greedy, mentally disturbed author/flim flam man	1
LA Times	Greedy, abusive, mentally disturbed author/flim flam man	1
SF Chronicle	Hypocrite, bad father, and abusive husband.	1
Bare Faced Messiah	Greedy, mentally disturbed author/flim flam man, hypocrite, bad father, and abusive husband	1
etc.	etc.	etc.
"Positive"	"Negative"
1	4
Total	3

*Note:By Positive/Negative I mean from a Scientology standpoint. Anynobody 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BFM has "positive personality traits" too. In the back. Gotta run right now. Maybe you find a chance. Misou 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved

(From my talk page)Anynobody 06:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reordered my re-write of that section. I rather wish you hadn't, because there's no need to place the contents of that section chronologically. I think my way of organizing it into a cohesive narrative describing and contrasting the different facets of his personality worked a lot better. Would you mind if I restored my version? --GoodDamon 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly the way it read sounded like a stretch to find good things to say about him, ANY good things. Saying Hubbard was sociable in the late forties and called a charmer during an interview in the late sixties spans two decades just to say two "nice" things about him in one sentence.

I understand your point that chronology need not be the sole guiding factor, but the other problem I had with it was its tendency to go back to the late forties after briefly mentioning the time earlier in the section. There must be some compromise between strict chronlogical order, and the almost Pulp Fiction way the information was laid out before. (I mean no offense there either, I enjoy that writing style in fiction.) Anynobody 06:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Also an advantage to chronological discussions of his personality is allowing to show how it evolved. Certainly he, like all of us, experienced changes with age. Anynobody 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see your points, but I think the contrast between his public/private persona is lost in your rewrite. Honestly, it's a bit mangled in its current form, grammatically speaking.

It wasn't a stretch to find good things to say about him, by the way. The source I added for his Alaska trip really did describe him that way. It also described him in negative terms, but it was very clear that Hubbard was charming on a personal basis. I don't say this lightly, Anynobody, but I think your POV is showing in this. There was no great difficulty in taking both positive and negative things from that article, because they're right there on the page. Re-read my version; it's overwhelmingly negative, because the majority of reliable sources portray him in a negative light. But that doesn't mean I should just exclude reliable sources that portray him positively (or even just semi-positively).

And about chronological order... The rest of the article is already in roughly chronological order, and I see no reason (or WP policy) requiring an overview of a man's personality -- which is necessarily going to draw on sources throughout his life -- be in chronological order. My version specifies dates and times, and is much more concise than earlier versions.

What do other people think? My version is here, and Anynobody's version is here is below. --GoodDamon 14:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon I have never said reliable sources should be excluded that paint him in a "positive" light. I didn't actually remove anything from the Alaska article you put in, nor did I even remove the 1968 interview where he was called a charmer (I just included it as a reference next to the word charmer, its not that I have a problem with it as a source I have a problem discussing it specifically in the text.)

Re-read my section over again, you'll notice I didn't remove any of it. Anynobody 06:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that, yes (and sorry about pointing to the wrong version). I guess I'm just unclear on the point of your version, then. You said above that mine read like a "stretch" to find good things to say about Hubbard, but I've pointed out that mine's almost completely negative, since the sources are negative. Is the main point of contention the chronological order at this point? I think we may just have to agree to disagree on that, and if you feel strongly about it I'll go back and reorder it chronologically all the way through. But I don't think there's much point in doing that, because this is just supposed to be a brief overview of the man's personality. Any more depth than that, and we're talking about a new article. --GoodDamon 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify; This is what I meant by stretching to say nice things about him: Hubbard was known to be very sociable and charming, and a gifted hypnotist. In a 1948 demonstration of hypnotism at a gathering of science fiction buffs in Los Angeles, Hubbard successfully convinced one person he was cradling a baby kangaroo.[23] At the beginning of a 1968 interview with him by World in Action, a series produced by Granada Television in England, Hubbard is described as a "charmer"

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

---

I grouped those two refs together because they represent something that was true for Hubbard's whole life: Whatever other personality traits he possessed, he was charismatic and charming on a personal basis. In an overview of his personality -- about which entire books could be written if we had that kind of space -- you don't have to depict every aspect of it in strict chronological order. It also allows for contrast between that public persona he wore, and his personality in private. --GoodDamon 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is more to discuss, just because the section is out of the sandbox doesn't mean it's near a final form (I tried pointing this out there too, with my question about why we were going to the trouble to finalize something that in theory may never be finished.)

I envisioned the section as being first written in a chronological type way to get things straight, then once sources became really hard to come by a rewrite to whatever form you like would be in order. Also, and just as a thought, such sweeping statements might be better made as a conclusion and not right at the beginning. Anynobody 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's just a matter of taste: Group refs by personality trait they best represent, or group them chronologically. It's pretty apparent you feel strongly that it should be chronological, and I don't feel strongly enough the other way to resist that, so I guess have at it. --GoodDamon 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What traits are you thinking of grouping the refs by? Anynobody 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From the references, I would say there are a few general descriptions of his personality that are fairly easy to identify, and well backed up by references:

• He was a charming man on a personal basis.
• He was prone to extraordinary exaggeration and storytelling about himself.
• He was abusive to his family and close associates.
• Official records contradict him enough to assert that he lied regularly.
• He was a skilled orator.
• At least early on, he suffered depression.
• He had a short temper.

Those are the obvious ones that the refs we're working with so far verify. If you intend to expand it into a separate article, I figure you could use either something like that or chronological order as your template. I'm still not convinced there needs to be a separate article about his personality -- again, I refer you to Isaac Asimov, whose article is extremely well-written and covers his personality nicely without a separate article, or even a separate section -- but then again, Mr. Asimov was hardly controversial, with the biggest criticisms about him being reserved for his ascetic writing style. --GoodDamon 00:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being unclear, I'm not saying a spin off must be created, only that it is an option should the section begin to overwhelm the article. My point is that we put in what the sources say either toward the points you mentioned or in a chronological way. Anynobody 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed most of this but are you saying that you judge one's personality (I mean, seriously, the whole person) by third-party reports or reports of disaffected former members in newspaper articles published years after his death? That is like judging you from your Wikipedia appearance or by reports of your disappointed ex-wife (should you have one). Shutterbug 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The only possible way to report on anyone's personality after they have died is by talking to people who knew him. It's true for Hubbard, and it's true for anyone. In cases where someone has been dead for a very long time, such as Alexander the Great, information about a person's personality is only available through written and interpreted record. Does that mean the editors there shouldn't write about Alexander's personality? Don't be surprised if the people working in that article tell you off if you make that suggestion.

The Church does not make anyone who knew Hubbard personally available for interviews about him, so we must take what sources are available. --GoodDamon 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question (...reports or reports of disaffected former members in newspaper articles published years after his death?) for the purposes of Wikipedia the answer is yes. What goes into the article has less to do with how I feel about Hubbard than what the WP:RS say. Anynobody 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GoodDamon, in order to provide as many options as possible I've been working on not only a chronological order to things but a format along your suggestions too. Assuming you've looked at them, where would you categorize his "reports" of communists/nazis in his midst and his attempt to bring Dianetics to the FBI which got him labeled "mental" by the agent who talked it over with him? Anynobody 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I have no problem including the Ketchikan article, in fact we really should discuss the debts mentioned in it. However the reason I'm suggesting a chronological based order for now is that there is more to say about his personality:

• His obsessive nature and the tantrum after being handed a shirt that smelled like soap.
• His motorcycle accident in the 60's and subsequent failure to seek proper medical attention.
• His later years in California where he posed as the father of two Scientologists who were helping him hide.
• There are probably other things worth mentioning I'm forgetting.

Anynobody 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with including those details, but don't think all of it should go into the "personality" section. The debts, for instance, would go better in the "legal difficulties" section. --GoodDamon 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It could actually be included in several sections, I have seen documents in his Navy file discussing the debt for example. However it seems better discussed in the Personality section because it involves his financial situation already mentioned there. (Plus once he started receiving officer grade pay from the Navy it didn't seem like a debt that could not be paid back. Hopefully there is a source that says so of course, but my sense is even with a family he could've sent payments of some amount.) Anynobody 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Game

The section on Fair Game (under "Legal difficulties and life on the high seas") follows xenu.net and other critics' sites in not mentioning the July 68 Policy Letter that superseded the Fair Game policy as laid out in the October 1967 policy letter. Basically, the sequence was:

• HCOPL 18 October 1967: the letter quoted in the article ("May be tricked, lied to or destroyed")
• HCOPL 21 July 1968 cancels HCOPL 18 October 1967. The wording for Suppressive persons now is: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org." This policy letter is quoted in the Foster Report.
• HCOPL 21 October 1968: the other letter quoted in the article, cancelling the use of the term Fair Game, but not the existing policy (which by now was no longer described by the HCOPL 18 October 1967, due to this letter having been superseded in July 68.

So the current presentation is distorted. Any objections to getting this fixed? Just for the sake of NPOV. Jayen466 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, made minor corrections but I am not sure what you want to fix? Shutterbug 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, see what you think. My main point is that critics always say that 1. the policy "May be tricked, lied to or destroyed" has never been cancelled and 2. that Scientologists are lying when they say it was cancelled. Well, it was cancelled, not in October 1968, but in July 1968, as the Foster report proves. Of course, the July 21 1968 PL still makes uncomfortable reading, but it is not the same as the 1967 version. Jayen466 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is the xenu.net page concerned. Look for the July 21 1968 letter: it's not there. No peer-reviewed academic would get away with this. Jayen466 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with sites like Clambake is that the fanatic, anti-Scientology activist controlling its content is not liable for accuracy, verifiability or reliability of his original research. Also there is no one checking it anyway. It's like linking to MySpace. If the letter would be still there it could be false, half of it, leaving out parts of it and so on, because Andi (the site creator) has no reason to follow Wikipedia policy on his personal site. So why consider this site at all? Misou 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clambake: Reliable?

OK, help me with this one... I just noticed a bit of back-and-forth between Misou and AndroidCat over a link to Operation Clambake. I'm beginning to think we need mediation on this, because Misou describes the link thusly: "The torture-scientologists-on-hot-stone personal hate page did not get more reliable. Still POV pushing." AndroidCat seems to regard Clambake as a reliable source, though -- at least, reliable enough to be trusted on a hosted copy of a book: "Replaced book link. Do we need to go through this all over again?"

I, for one, am tired of the constant back-and-forth on this one. I'm inclined at this point to discard with any link to Church-owned sites and critic-owned sites, but I'm hesitant to just remove the critic-owned ones because some of them may still technically qualify as reliable sources. From WP:RS

Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details.

— (emphasis added)

See what I'm getting at? Using Clambake links seems to be inadvisable to me unless it can be proved that it's a reliable source, and frankly I doubt that it can be. But those WP:RS exceptions there I'm not so sure of. Do we need to mediate this? --GoodDamon 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a good place to start would be to look into how Clambake is perceived in the outside world. Do people generally regard it as a reliable source outside of Wikipedia? Does the page itself cite where it gets its info from? And if it does would it make more sense to cite the original source then to cite clambake? Also, is clambake used as a reference in any legitimate writings, articles or stories outside of Wikipedia? See what I'm getting at? If this does require mediation that might be a good thing, after mediation this whole issue can be put to bed. However the mediation ends at least we shouldn't have to deal with the issue anymore. Elhector 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I learnt recently that the German Scientology article presently eschews links to both Scientology sites AND critics' sites. Nearly all references backing up the text are references to academic publications. The article still is not perfect, but the approach used there is, I believe, a useful strategy, and the only one fully in line with WP:OR, WP:RS etc. It prevents some of the obvious distortions present on some critics' sites (and Scientology sites, for that matter) from being introduced again and again as "encyclopaedic knowledge". Of course, even among sociologists of religion, there is still a broad spectrum of opinion, from Stephen A. Kent to Bryan R. Wilson, allowing the complete variety of views to be represented, but at least the debate and arguments will be reputable and easier to present in an article. Generally, the approach should be: if there is a comprehensive academic literature available, as there is in this case, use it in preference to all other sources – and certainly in preference over private web sites. Jayen466 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that we shouldn't be linking to Clambake if the linked material is original to Clambake. Clambake's author is not a reliable source as far as we define it. But look at the link that Misou is disputing - it's to an online copy of Bare-Faced Messiah, a book published by a mainstream publisher and written by a well-known British journalist, which is being reproduced with the permission of the author. Note also that Misou is merely deleting the link, not disputing the source. I'm afraid this dispute is really nothing more than POV-pushing by deleting links to a website that Misou dislikes for POV reasons - there's no defensible reason why he should delete the hyperlink while not disputing the source. This is not an issue that requires mediation. I note that he's been temporarily banned again along with Shutterbug, and I'm quite prepared to ban him myself if he keeps up this pattern of behaviour. -- ChrisO 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As the example with the HCOPLs above, under #Fair Game, illustrates, critics' sites sometimes are not reliable even if they present material that originated elsewhere and reproduce it verbatim – the possibility of falsification by omission always exists. I understand the temptation of using a convenience link, but on the other hand, we have to remember that by using such a convenience link, we would be seen by readers as endorsing the convenience site as a reliable source. So if we know that major parts of a site do not qualify as a reliable source, there is a clear cost attached to using the convenience link as well as a benefit. Does the benefit of the online availability of a document outweigh the drawback of endorsing an unreliable site? For example, I doubt that Encyclopaedia Britannica would link to Operation Clambake, whatever rare book or scholarly article is hosted there. Jayen466 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the book is also hosted here, which is an academic site, so there is no need to link to Operation Clambake. Shall we change the link? Jayen466 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in the external links section. (In an article like Scientology, where the subject has taken action against clambake it would be appropriate.) Hosted content though is a different matter, and should continue to be linked as references. Anynobody 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology has taken action against so many people, it would be silly to remove links based on this. Scientology has fought the government in court, does that mean we can't link to government sources? Foobaz·o< 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Perhaps I was unclear, I'm saying that the commentary portion of Clambake makes it a critic site. Outside the reliable hosted content, it would be unacceptable for an article about L. Ron Hubbard. Linking to critical opinions of the webmaster is not the same as linking to sources which happen to be critical (which the hosted content is).

When I say it'd be ok on the Scientology article that is because Scientology has actively tried to suppress the page as part of a documented pattern of shall we say aggressive PR. Ordinarily linking to a site critical of the subject would be POV, except that in the Cos/Clambake case an attempt to suppress this site was publicly documented and discussed in secondary sources (and therefore discussed in our article). As a courtesy, to the reader who may wonder what the site is all about, we're obliged to link to Clambake.

Hubbard was dead and burned long before clambake went online, since this is the Hubbard article the same exception I'm talking about on the Scientology article wouldn't apply. Anynobody 07:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayen466 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I have to side with Jayen466 here. I don't think Clambake should be used, even for courtesy links, if any other, more reliable version is available. Hosted content should not continue to be linked as references, because it degrades the overall quality of the articles. Remember the pictures Misou hosted, at http://misou.awardspace.us? Courtesy links, but an unreliable source, so they got removed and replaced. Personally, I think that unless Clambake can be shown to be a reliable source, we should treat links to it the same way. --GoodDamon 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Understanding how I feel about the link in the EL section, the reason the hosted content is more reliable than Misou's site is because Clambake's content meets verifiability in that independent verification of the sources is not only possible but in this case many of our sources use the same primary materials. (We're talking about stuff like Hubbard's FBI files and digital versions of BFM as opposed to a typed page claiming to be from an Indian tribe debunked in our same sources. There is a difference between the two.) Anynobody 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. To be fair, some of Misou's content is independently verifiable, for instance the US navy records (by requesting it through FOIA), but it would have to be counted as a primary source. If we're talking about hosted copies of published books, that's a very different story. I have my own hard copy of Bare-Faced Messiah, for instance, and there are probably hundreds if not thousands of library copies around the world. There's no serious dispute from Misou or anyone else that B-FM isn't verifiable or that the copy on Clambake isn't verbatim. If you look at Misou's given reasons for deleting the link, it's entirely for POV reasons, since he considers Clambake to be a "personal hate page" [sic]. He would have exactly the same objection to the academic website cited above by Jayen466. He disputes the site, not the source. -- ChrisO 09:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the academic site for the link, simply because, even though this library has an agenda – this is its front page – it is not overtly derogatory in tone. As a general principle, we should select the most reputable and neutral sites available whenever a convenience link is used, and use restraint in linking to extremely POV sites. This is just a general extension of the NPOV principle of Wikipedia. -- Jayen466 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between academic sites and sites of academics, right? WP:RS expects that we use refs which are somewhat controlled and liable for what they write, in a legal and journalistic sense. Just posted this elsewhere on Clambake but it fits here too: The problem with sites like Clambake is that the fanatic, anti-Scientology activist controlling its content is not liable for accuracy, verifiability or reliability of his original research. Also there is no one checking it anyway. It's like linking to MySpace. If the letter would be still there it could be false, half of it, leaving out parts of it and so on, because Andi (the site creator) has no reason to follow Wikipedia policy on his personal site. So why consider this site at all? Misou 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two things here. Nobody is disagreeing with the general principle that personally published original material shouldn't be cited as a source. But we're not discussing original material. You've repeatedly tried to remove links to a mainstream publication by a recognised author, solely because you have a POV objection to the website on which it's hosted. You've not disputed the relevance or reliability of the source. There is no objective reason why a link to a copy of a book on Clambake is somehow different to a link to the same thing on another website - it's the same publication (actually a microsite, in effect) wherever you link to it. Your objection is plainly that you consider Clambake and other critical sites to be unacceptable according to your personal POV - they're all "suppressive", right? - so you don't want to link to them at all, no matter how reliable or verifiable their content might be. That approach isn't acceptable and has no basis in Wikipedia's policy. -- ChrisO 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are several sites linking to the same content, the one that is most consonant with WP's guidelines should be used. I.e., if there is a site whose entire content would be acceptable as a Wikipedia source, and it links to the desired content, then that site should be used as the convenience link, in preference over other sites containing much questionable or unreliable content. -- Jayen466 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris, watch it, that attitude there might lead to WP:NPA problems. Your own personal "anti" page is unacceptable per your own definition. I have said that all along and finally we are on the same page! Now I count on you to take your ref links out of the two LRH articles then, also those ref links to your _personal emails_, as if that would be a WP:RS, and the WP:OR graphics in the LRH/Military article. Trouble finding them? Here: 1,2, and 3. Sorry for those I missed, there might be more.

My "personal POV" - aka "understanding of Wikipedia policy" - is what I say: If Andi decides to fake, cut down, rewrite a chapter in BFM right now he is free to do that. And Wikipedia happily continues to link to it. If the L.A. Times does it, they get their license pulled. That simple. It's called "reliable source" concept. I have seen that the L.A. Times is not always verifiable or true but that's a different subject. Misou 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jayen, that criterion doesn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia's guidelines - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Convenience links. Misou, your "faking" scenario is completely hypothetical and would apply to any website anywhere on the Internet (web pages aren't set in stone, after all). I'm pretty sure you have no evidence that would suggest that xenu.net would be more prone to this than any other website. -- ChrisO 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clambake IS a private site by one person, period. Not liable, not responsible for anything. It seems REALLY hard to get this through, get rid of your prejudice or whatever it is. So why don't we link to - say - Google books? Or Amazon? Or why does it need a link at all if the cite form is sufficient (incl. the right quote)? I prefer having to search for a online copy myself and KNOW that it might be fake. Better than thinking Wikipedia has it right and failing. Misou 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I'm not saying we have to link Clambake's version of BFM, only that we can because it's verifiable. (Hell you can cross check Clambake's version with the one on Carnegie-Mellon's server.) Is BFM available in complete form on Google books? (I imagine Amazon would want money for a copy, which could explain why we don't link to them). Anynobody 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2¢ from a veteran of this same argument a year or two ago (oy!): As ChrisO points out, this book is not comparable to an original essay by the host of a private website, and the question of whether "Clambake," or Dave Toretzky, etc. is a "reliable source" is irrelevant, as the hosts are not the source of the book. This is a widely- and respectfully-reviewed book by a reputable journalist that was published by reputable publishing houses on multiple continents. (Despite attempts by the Scientology organization to suppress it through the courts.) This web version shows every indication of scrupulous attention to differences between the editions and typographic errors (see the "errata" section, for example). What appears to be the identical web version of the book is hosted at numerous sites, including this one in Germany. If I recall correctly, this version of the book has been present on the web for about ten years, with the permission of the author. It is a fairly simple matter to compare the online versions for inconsistencies, and with a bit more effort, one could compare any of them with a printed copy. (As I recall, some Wikipedians did just that in the past, and reported no inconsistencies.) Misou's fears about these being rewritten to suit some webhost's personal whim have no basis in evidence and, as ChrisO points out, that scenario is equally possible with any web site. (And if it happens with the LA Times, they don't "get their license pulled"--there's no license involved.) The citation in the article is to the original print edition, not the online version, which is made available to take advantage of the capabilities of the internet--it is a perfect example of a convenience link that offers real value to interested readers. It is arguably the most highly regarded (by scholars and journalists) biography of Hubbard written to date. The link (from whichever host site) belongs in the article. BTfromLA 06:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It unquestionably does belong in the article, no one disputes that. But the site selected for the convenience link should be the one that is most consonant with Wikipedia's ideals regarding WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. For example, if a text on slavery is available on a reputable historian's website as well as a white supremacist's website, we should use the historian's website, etc. I don't think anyone in Wikipedia would seriously advocate the principle that we should generally select the most POV and unreliable site as the convenience link, rather than the most balanced and reliable site available, or that it does not matter at all what sort of site we select. -- Jayen466 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Misou was disputing that the convenience link belongs in the article. ("I prefer having to search for a online copy myself...") Anyway, sure, all things being equal, the least controversial host site seems like the best choice--the host shouldn't be an issue, that's my point. But while some would say that the German cult-information site is the most reputable, or that Professor Touretzky's site is reputable because of his academic affiliation, others will argue that those reflect a biased, critical POV and the argument will go on, distracting editors from their actual job of making a good article. This webbed version of the book is hosted on several sites independently, but I don't know that any are more evenhanded collections of information about Scientology than the Clambake site: while the overall orientation of that site is clearly very critical of Scientology, they host the entire spectrum of press coverage of Scientology, including positive press and links to Scientology's own sites. If you can find another host of the Miller book that will quiet these objections, by all means, make the switch. BTfromLA 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with switching from Andreas Heldal-Lund's copies to the ones of Pastor Thomas Gandow, Sect Commissioner of the Lutheran Church in Berlin and Brandenburg, provided that we're not back here again in a year with the complaint that Thomas Gandow's site now unacceptable. While we're at it, what about copies of a paper at another of his sites? Psychiatry and Scientology AndroidCat 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

World War II, submarine incident/citations, alternative version

J. Gordon Melton writes in The Church of Scientology, ISBN 1560851392, p. 6: "It appears that (Hubbard's sub chaser) PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war." Should perhaps be mentioned as an alternative published opinion. Melton also states (on page 66) that Hubbard DID leave service with the number of citations he claimed to have received and mentions "expert evidence by military specialists explaining why discrepancies may occur for a number of reasons between an original notice of separation and the copy kept by the Veterans' Administration, insisting that the original should prevail". Melton is not uncontroversial, but according to our article on him he is the second most prolific contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica, as well as the author of their Scientology article. -- Jayen466 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard and the military#World War II, submarine incident/citations, alternative version - please leave comments there. -- ChrisO 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

a prolific writer of non-fiction works

As far as I'm aware, other than one or two small articles for pulps, all of his professional non-fiction work was on Dianetics/Scientology. The current phrasing gives the impression that he was widely published in the open market on a variety of non-fiction subjects. (Compare to, say, Isaac Asimov, who was a prolific writer of non-fiction works.) The wording seems like horn-tooting, but I don't want to flip it too far the other way. AndroidCat 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Scientology/Dianetics really qualify as non fiction? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say he was a prolific writer of religious texts? Anynobody 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of nonfiction. Hubbard certainly presents his writing as nonfiction, and whether or not it's accurate nonfiction is another matter entirely. I'm inclined to keep it as is simply to avoid cluttering the intro with excessive verbiage. --GoodDamon 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I define the difference between nonfiction and religious writing as subjects which have verifiable answers compared to ideas/etc. which have no tangible proof. For example, his book about radiation I would classify as nonfiction (even though it's totally inaccurate) whereas his "tech" would be religious. Anynobody 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just change non-fiction works to works on Scientology and avoid the whole religious question? AndroidCat 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as the intro doesn't start ballooning out again, I'd be happy with something like that. --GoodDamon 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm down with that too, but don't forget there are editors who think it is a religion and may disagree. Anynobody 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to be concerned about, here. Saying Hubbard wrote a lot about Scientology and Dianetics is very neutral. It makes no judgments on those writings concerning quality, merit, accuracy, or status as fiction/nonfiction. It's a statement of fact well-supported by non-biased bibliographic references, nothing more and nothing less. --GoodDamon 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Is a bit short - try to add at least another substantial paragraph. Richard001 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image from Commons

I think this has been discussed before, but -

• Image:L. Ron Hubbard - crop.jpg

Used on French and German Wikipedia articles on "L. Ron Hubbard", and on German Wikipedia article on "Scientology".

See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:L. Ron Hubbard - crop.jpg

• Image:L. Ron Hubbard Life & Death.jpg

Used on French Wikipedia on article "L. Ron Hubbard".

• Per the usage on two other Wikipedia language sites, and the ruling from the Commons Deletion Discussion, why not use this image in this article instead of a fair-use image? Cirt (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

I replaced the one there now with the life and death image a few months ago, it was unpopular. However I still think a free image is the way to go. Anynobody 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, ugh, yuk. Those images are terrible. They also don't solve any copyright issues, since they're blatantly derivative works (derivative of original copyrighted photos). Unfortunately this is not a subject where we're likely to be able to get a free image very easily. The only real possibility I can see would be to get hold of someone's personal photos of Hubbard, though obviously that will take some doing. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, those two deletion debates were plainly wrongly decided; the images aren't suitable for Commons, and I intend to delete them as copyvios. (See Commons:Commons:Village pump#Wrongly decided deletion debates?) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a different picture, as long as the fair-use rationale is solid for the one currently in use. --GoodDamon 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Ugh, ugh, yuk. Those images are terrible"

The photo we have today at the top of the article looks like an idealized, CoS promotional image of Hubbard. I have argued against posting iconic images, for example in the Che Guevara talk page. IMHO a realistic, non official church image would be ideal for this article, however terrible Ron may look...

—Cesar Tort 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And now the image of Hubbard's son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr., is about to be deleted. Who takes care of checking up if images in Scientology articles have been legally uploaded? —Cesar Tort 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The fault, dear Cesar, lies not in our uploads, but in the shifting requirements for the use of non-free images. AndroidCat (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for keeping me informed! :) Cesar Tort 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

vistaril and toxicology

the blathering on about vistaril is misleading. if he was ill, it's a perfectly normal drug to take. it's a smooth muscle relaxant and most often used to treat nausea. the article makes it sound as if it was being used either recreationally or to treat a psychological condition. 206.230.62.2 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the point of the mention is that in public Hubbard was strongly against the use of drugs. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

overboarding

"hoping not to hit sharp barnicles on the way down"? if anyone has ever seen a ship, the sides come to a point from a max width on the deck, also barnicles are typically near the water line. I plan on changing this portion, it seems like a blatant attack with no purpose or validity. 76.19.140.110 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)pkmilitia

February 5, 2008, Los Angeles Times - picture of Hubbard in the "public domain" ?

• L. Ron Hubbard in La Quinta, Calif., in the late 1970s. This photo is believed to be the last picture of Hubbard in the public domain. - "This photo is believed to be the last picture of Hubbard in the public domain." - Do you think that by "public domain" the Los Angeles Times means that this picture is in the "public domain" ? Cirt (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that's an ambiguous bit of wording, isn't it? I think from the context that it's not referring to public domain in the sense of copyright, but in the sense of it being the chronologically latest publicly available photo of Hubbard. It's the first picture I've seen from his period in hiding (he fled to La Quinta after the FBI raids on Scientology following the Guardian's Office scandal). For obvious reasons, he wasn't keen on public appearances at that point, so photos of him in that period are exceedingly rare. Scientology probably has pics of him from that time but this is the first one I've seen published. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing in Fictionalized depictions in media

Hubbard was parodied by Frank Zappa in the song "A Token of My Extreme" from the Joe's Garage album. The song describes a religious figure named L. Ron Hoover who represents the "First Church of Appliantology", an obvious spoof of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.190.147 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happier with this missing from that section. LRH is mentioned in pop culture so much that we have to be selective about what we include. Foobaz·o< 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ooops, thought police, however uncomfortable the truth is, its still a damn good reason to post and mention it, artistic expression and parodying is what democracy is all about. and if there are specks over his personality, let it be shown. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.19.142 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, if you strongly believe that every pop culture reference to Hubbard should be in Wikipedia, feel free to create an article devoted to such. But that is not this article. --GoodDamon 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

physician on Vistaril

As a practing physician I thought I would throw my two cents into this discussion. There has been a lot of talk about this book- and scientology's assertions regarding modern medicine- and it is quite concerning to me and my colleagues that their largely unfounded proclamations have the potential to cause great harm. You are correct that hydroxyzine is classified by the FDA as an antihistamine with anticholinergic properties; however, Vistaril is NOT commonly prescribed to patients for treatment of allergies as would be other drugs within the same classification, such as Zyrtec (ceterizine). The two most common clinical indications for use of Vistaril are for symptomatic relief of anxiety and tension associated with psychoneurosis and as an adjunct in organic disease states in which anxiety is manifested; or as a sedative when used as premedication and following general anesthesia, typically given IM (intramuscular injection) or IV along with meperidine (Demerol). Vistaril (hydroxyzine hydrochloride) Intramuscular Solution is useful in treating the following types of patients when intramuscular administration is indicated:

The acutely disturbed or hysterical patient.

The acute or chronic alcoholic with anxiety withdrawal symptoms or delirium tremens.

As pre- and postoperative and pre- and postpartum adjunctive medication to permit reduction in narcotic dosage, allay anxiety and control emesis.The fact that Hubbard was given Vistaril IM rather that ingesting it himself indicates that he was either agitated or too ill to safely swallow an oral medication; either way, most credible medical professionals would deduce that the medication was NOT being given for allergies but rather to control or abate anxiety associated with pain or another acute psychotic condition. Standard of practice would dictate that if the patient were experiencing an acute allergic reaction then IM or IV steroids would be given instead as the quickest, safest, and most effective way to reduce the inflammatory response. Additionally, Vistaril has what we call a short half-life; in other words, it is metabolized rather rapidly by patients. This is what makes it such a good choice for pre-medication for procedures, but also NOT a good choice in treating allergies. In light of this, it is not surprising that the coroner only found traces of hydroxyzine in Hubbard's system; depending on time of dosage lapsed until time of death, it is quite possible that the majority of the medication had already been cleared by his system- in patients with normal kidney and liver function, this happens within a day or two at most, and therefore the medication doesn't reside in the bloodstream for very long. [10]

Can we find an original cite to back this up? Subsolar (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the sort of detail that belongs in the article on Hydroxyzine, and could then be referenced here. I'll see what I can dig up. However, right now that's all not only original research, but also the random comments of someone who sounds legit but could theoretically have pulled a bunch of med-speak from his butt. --GoodDamon 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalised by operant thetans using thier mystic powers..

Someone vandalised allot of the notes turning them into abcdefghij.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.67.187 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are links to multiple uses of the same reference. AndroidCat (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Special officer for the LAPD

Any non-Scientologist sources for this? WillOakland (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Followup: User GoodDamon has commented out the relevant paragraph pending reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

LRON goes to jail

Why is his criminal history so overlooked? I'm fairly certain that is important to know, and the reason I was curious to visit his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he ever served any time. Sure he was arrested for writing a bad check, but if I remember correctly he paid a fine. Then there was the thing in France, but he just never went there again. Anynobody 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He did briefly over a civil case from the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation of Wichita bankruptcy dispute with Don Purcell. Bare-Faced Messiah p.210-211. It was only an arrest and hours at most before he was bailed, and he later made restitution and was discharged. As for France, I don't know if they ever tried to extradite Hubbard, but that possibility, the IRS investigation and the initial charges in the Operation Snow White case in Canada were good reasons to keep his whereabouts unknown. AndroidCat (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds important to me 71.72.82.183 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

POV problem in article?

Sorry for busting in someone elses comment,but i do not know how to start a new post.Anyway it seems to me that there is obviously a POV problem on this article.Read for yourselves. Quote He was attended by "Commodore's Messengers," teenage girls dressed in white hot pants who waited on him hand and foot, fixing his shower and dressing him and even catching the ash from his cigarettes.[10] He had frequent screaming tantrums and instituted brutal punishments such as incarceration in the ship's filthy chain-locker for days or weeks at a time and "overboarding," in which errant crew members were blindfolded, bound and thrown overboard, dropping up to 40 ft. into the cold sea,[10] hoping not to hit the side of the ship with its sharp barnacles on the way down.[10][79] Some of these punishments, such as imprisonment in the chain-locker, were applied to children as well as to adults.[10] A letter Hubbard wrote to his third wife, Mary Sue, when he was in Las Palmas around 1967: "I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys..."[80] The author of an unauthorized Hubbard biography also says that "John McMasters told me that on the flagship Apollo in the late sixties he witnessed Hubbard's drug supply. 'It was the largest drug chest I had ever seen. He had everything!'".[80] This was confirmed by Gerald Armstrong through Virginia Downsborough who said in 1967 he returned to Las Palmas totally debilitated from drugs.[81] “ We found him a hotel in Las Palmas and the next day I went back to see if he was all right, because he did not seem to be too well. When I went in to his room, there were drugs of all kinds everywhere. He seemed to be taking about sixty thousand different pills. I was appalled, particularly after listening to all his tirades against drugs and the medical profession. There was something very wrong with him... My main concern was to try and get him off all the pills he was on and persuade him that there was still plenty for him to do. ”

"He was existing almost totally on a diet of drugs. For three weeks Hubbard was bedridden, while she weaned him off his habit."[10] His drug use appears to pre-date the 1967 accounts.[82] A letter written by Hubbard to his ex-wife was given special attention in the Church of Scientology v. Armstrong case,

   I do love you, even if I used to be an opium addict.

   – L. Ron Hubbard

Unquote.Once again,I apologize for jumping into someone elses comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.129.58 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: No problem on busting into someone else's comments. For future reference, you can start a new section by going to the bottom and typing ==(Name of new section)== to create a new header at the bottom, then put your comments below that.

Anyway, on to the meat of your comment... POV is a tricky question with controversial topics. The best we can do is go by what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. We state what the reliable sources say, without adding any opinions of our own. But unfortunately, this will frequently result in questions like yours in topics related to Scientology, because the reliable sources themselves are overwhelmingly negative. In order to remain POV-neutral ourselves, we have to be dispassionate ourselves, but if the reliable sources paint a negative picture, it would be POV-pushing to discard the reliable sources in an attempt to make the article more positive. Similarly, on subjects where the reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive, it would be POV-pushing to try to make the article more negative.

The content you're objecting to is supported by proper citations, and reflects what the reliable sources say, so I'm afraid it's not POV-pushing to include it... rather, it would be POV-pushing to exclude it. I hope this answers your concerns. --GoodDamon 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.I get the point,but I was concerned with what sounded like a whole lot of negative comments.Ill check the sources to see if they are valid,just in case. 79.125.128.169 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sources should always be checked for accuracy and validity. --GoodDamon 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

 Ok, I checked the sources in question,and they seem to be valid.Well,that's it,question answered.Silvery Swirls (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That Fishman doc

Please see OT VIII. The authenticity of that document is strongly doubted even among critics. As far as I know, no high-level ex-members (who have confirmed other advanced material in the Fishman docs) have confirmed that they've ever seen that one. Just because the court has a copy of the document that Fishman submitted to it, that is no proof that it is an authentic document from Scientology. The CoS lawyers did try to claim copyright, but afterwards said this was a mistake. (This one time, I'm inclined believe them since they're well known for snapping at anything without reading it too carefully.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that only the OT VIII section of the Fishman affidavit was seriously disputed, because other ex-members reported seeing versions of OT VIII that were completely different, but that the remainder of the document had been confirmed by other ex-members. --FOo (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That "Jesus was a pedophile" bulletin is part of the disputed OT VIII section. AndroidCat (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --FOo (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about family?

What about his homosexual son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.166.28 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources. Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean avoid using CoS primary sources right? Not court papers/etc. Anynobody 02:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be silly to rely heavily on sources that end in scientology.org or the like - we wouldn't want chunks of this article to begin to look similar to Scientology websites or Church of Scientology-affiliated accounts of their organization and their prominent individuals. Best to stick to secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources as much as possible. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, they are only WP:RS for what the Church of Scientology says. We would have to frame each block of imported text with a qualifier that this is their view or opinion. AndroidCat (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's rational, bearing in mind that some use of CoS sources is necessary only to report their major assertions about him discussed in secondary sources. However CoS information which has not been in a relevant secondary source is probably unacceptable. Anynobody 07:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with sources on related articles?

I have been working on The Secret of Treasure Island, a movie serial written by L. Ron Hubbard, and recently started the article on Buckskin Brigades, Hubbard's first published novel. If anyone knows of some additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that I haven't come across yet, please let me know on the corresponding article's talk page. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Does anyone else think this is up to Featured Article standard? I just read it for the first time, and I think it's pretty close. I have to say it seems remarkably neutral for an article on such a controversial figure. The only problems I think it would have with the Featured Article Criteria are 'Stability' - inevitably, it attracts a fair amount of vandalism - and being well-illustrated, as there are only three images on the whole page. I don't know what can be done about the stability issue, but surely the latter is pretty easy to fix? I hope more images can be found, because if they can, I believe this could easily be promoted to Featured Article status. Terraxos (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article would definitely prove interesting as a Featured Article, but the most salient of problems would be getting a hold of any images that could be used. I'll see what I can find! Nihiletnihil (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR violations at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography

New material added recently to this article violates WP:NOR, as it is either unsourced, or personal interpretation from primary sources. There are also some references provided but not footnotes. I would appreciate it if some other editors could take a look at this article and help monitor/cut down on the WP:NOR violations. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hospitalization

Why is there no mention of Hubbard's being committed to a mental hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.142.201 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has any cites for this claim? AndroidCat (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be added:

"The wife of L.Ron Hubbard, 40, founder of the Dianetics Mental Health Movement, filed suit for divorce today, charging he is suffering from a mental ailment. Mrs. Sara Northrup Hubbard, 25, said "competent medical advisers" had examined her 40-year-old husband and concluded he was "hopelessly insane" and should be placed in a private sanitarium for "psychiatric observation." She said doctors told her her husband was suffering from a mental ailment "known as paranoid schizophrenia.

"When informed of the doctors` recommendation that he be placed in a mental institution, Hubbard took their 13-month-old daughter, Alexis, from Mrs. Hubbard`s apartment and went into hiding, the suit charged.

http://www.lermanet2.com/scientologynews/sfchronicle-hubbard-042451.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"[..] should be placed in a private sanitarium" is not quite the same as an actual commitment order. See BFM p.178 for more details of the situation at the time. (Hubbard actually shopped around for a psychiatrist or psychologist who would say that he was sane. O RLY...) AndroidCat (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)