Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 2

revert of 3/20

I just reverted a recent addition, which is to say I removed the following from the intro:

"He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence, using a research methodology based on the scientific method and an optimized research algorithm. He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms which he used as the basis for a technology which he developed to improve the condition of the human spirit. Although his work received a lukewarm reception in the scientific community of his time, recent discoveries in the field of Quantum mechanics have begun to vindicate a great deal of his work. "

I do not claim to be an expert on this, but based on my readings about Hubbard, the above, particularly with regard to the application of the scientific method, is false. And the vindication of his work by quantum mechanics is unsubstantiated, at best. I do want to offer the section here in case other editors believe there are parts of it that deserve to be included. Please make your case here before reinstating this. BTfromLA 00:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right--it is false, even amusing. (Anonymous) 00:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually as you are admittedly not an expert on Hubbard's work then why would you blankly reject the information. Perhaps you ought to study up on Quantum mechanics and science before jumping to your conclusions. Please notice that we are not discussing the merits of the Church of Scientology here , we are discussing Hubbard and his work and the statements made is 100 % accurate. I have reverted to my version. (comment not signed, posted by the author of the disputed paragraph)

The scientific method involves making carefully controlled experiments that can be repeated by other, disinterested researchers. The precise details of the research--the controls in place, sample size, duration, etc., are published and made available for inspection, replication and criticism by other researchers. Did Hubbard ever do this? I think not. Quantum mechanics can, when cited in a vague, imprecise way, be used to justify all kinds of beliefs, both sound and looney. You have provided no examples to support your claims. Unsubstantiated assertions that these claims are "100% accurate" don't help your case. BTfromLA 01:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very well said, BTfromLA. I think you should just keep removing those looney assertions, you are doing a very good work, I'm sure that any sane person will agree with you. (Anonymous) 01:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to get invlved in a "revert war." I do wish the anonymous poster would not make big changes without justifying them here (as when recently undoing rewrites to the later sections of the article, possibly unintentionally), and would not make claims without justification (such as some specific evidence that quantum science vindicates Hubbard's beliefs). BTfromLA 02:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The assertions in the intro should not be kept unless there are sources to support them. -Willmcw 03:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You people should learn to accept other viewpoints besides your own. You are not the only people who live in this world. Anon User 20 Mar 2005

These people DO accept other viewpoints. The changes made had no evidence supporting them, and were in places straight-up nonsense. Removing them helps everyone. Criticism is not in itself a lack of acceptance. This is not a forum for opinions, but a source of verifiable facts. - Another anonymous user 06 Apr 2006

As a particle physicist I have a very sound understanding of Quantum Mechanics. I can therefore quite catagorically state that there is no connection whatsoever between Quantum Mechanics and L. Ron Hubbard or his works.

---

I have amended the original insertion to reflect a NPOV. I have made an effort to consider other viewpoints so please re-read the insertion carefully and state which clause you specifically object to before blankly wiping it out. I am once again reverting to its last version. Thanks. Anon User 20 Mar 2005

Please provides your source for this assertion:

Although his work received a lukewarm reception in the scientific community of his time, recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be interpreted to vindicate a great deal of his work.

Thanks, -Willmcw 03:56, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with BTfromLA and Willmcw--please discuss your ridiculous claims here providing reliable sources (other than OT documents, of course) before you repost them anywhere else than WP:BJAODN--you may find it entartaining but you are only wasting time of people who actually try to make this article better but instead of improving it they have to fight with you to maintain the NPOV. And make sure you read WP:3RR carefully, especially what it says about sockpuppets. I know that you consider us all suppressive but trust me, if anyone here needs to accept other viewpoints besides your own, it is you. (Anonymous) 04:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, Anon, and I have no objection to including multiple viewpoints, or to including positive claims about Hubbard and his work. If I were trying to silence you, I wouldn't have pasted your writing on the talk page and invite other editors to consider it. I think it's a good idea for admirers of Hubbard to have a hand in this article. The problem, from my point of view, is not that you are expressing a different perspective, but that you are making claims that are either repeating Scientology sales rhetoric (hence violating the NPOV idea of a disinterested authorial voice) or you are making unsubstantiated assertions. "Quantum science validates Hubbard's work" or "Quantum science invalidates Hubbard's work" would both need some specific, documented support before they would merit inclusion here. As unsupported assertions, they are worthless, and should be edited out. BTfromLA 04:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I can't help but notice that you are wasting your time which is a real shame having seen your contributions and knowing that you could be writing interesting articles instead. You are trying to read too much in something that is basically an obvious propaganda and as such it sould be answered with simple request to "put up or shut up". (Anonymous) 04:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous of 04:13,20 Mar 2005. Your responsibility is to become familar with Wikipedia Policy. Untill you do people can only edit out your postings when they don't follow Wiki Policy, assert to you their work is valid, and point you to the appropriate Wiki Policy pages. You are mistaken, but several have already made that clear to you. Wiki considers a fact to be "A verified, published statement." You will have to provide a source of information if you wish to have your postings stand the test of public scrutiny. see: Wikipedia:Citing sources Terryeo 05:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a case to be made that noodling around wikipedia is inevitably a waste of time. And I'm not going to spend much more time here. But I do try to treat people respectfully and give them every encouragement to rise to the best possibilities of the project. Occasionally one runs into a contributor who seems hopeless, but I haven't reached that conclusion in this case. The anon contribuor did make changes in response to criticism, and it may be that he or she is new here, and doesn't yet understand about npov, revert rules, substantiating claims, etc. I sure don't like being on the recieving end of a hostile dismissal of something I've posted (I've experienced that on Wikipedia). So I'm up for giving editors every chance, and I also think it is appropriate to incorporate the understanding of Hubbard that his admirers share into this article, if any of Hubbard's admirers are willing to accept the Wikipedia ground rules. Thanks for the kind comments about my contributions. BTfromLA 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- If you read what I said it is "recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be INTERPRETED to vindicate a great deal of his work". That statement clearly presents a NPOV and this is a legitimate insertion. I am not repeating any scientology rhetoric at all , as a matter of fact I do not believe there is any such claims from the Scientology community in regards to Quantum mechanics . The fact is that any one who would care to research it for themselves would see that this is truly the case in current QM research. With all due respect, it looks like the the real issue is that there are some people posting here that cannot tolerate any statement which would reflect positively on L Ron Hubbard. (Anon) 20 Mar 2005

"The fact is that any one who would care to research it for themselves would see that this is truly the case in current QM research." -- Wikipedia is not the place for original research! Also, you have broken the Three-revert rule. (Anonymous) 05:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Recent research in the field of Quantum mechanics can be INTERPRETED to vindicate a great deal of the claim that BTfromLA is the fountainhead from which all good in the universe flows." Is that NPOV? -- BTfromLA 05:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One last bit: here's the part that reads like a Scientology press release: "He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence. He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms which he used to develop a technology designed to improving the condition of the human spirit. " BTfromLA 05:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that line then take it out , but leave the rest as you do not mention any disagreement with those clauses.thanks (Anon) 20 Mar 2005

You have violated the Three-revert rule. You have not quoted any sources to support your absurd assertions whatsoever. You must stop reposting them immediately. (Anonymous) 05:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look , my request is that you stop trying to censure information that is meant for the reader. Why do you not let the reader form their own opinion ??? The whole idea of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge , not bury it. If you have some positive contributions to make then do so by adding your own 2 cents in the article. Anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia thanks.(Anon) 20 Mar 2005

The whole idea of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not nonsense. Will you finally provide any sources to back up your ridiculous claims or are you just going to cry that not supporting every random nonsense posted anonymously on Wikipedia is censorship and oppression? You avoid answering questions about your sources. Why? (Anonymous) 06:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also note that when 65.139.80.23 is actually quite comfortable with removing "information that is meant for the reader" -- if it's described as "correction of misinformation". [1] Is .23 attempting to tell us that none of the information that he/she removed from that article was correct, factual information? Nothing there meets the same stringent standards of proof as the claim that quantum mechanics supports Hubbard's theories? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted again to remove the assertion that quantum mechanic discoveries are vindicating Mr. Hubbard. It would be useful to describe which aspect of quantum mechanic vindicates which aspect of Mr. Hubbard's research. It cannot just be stated without further details, or else it has no Wikipedia value. Regards. Povmec

Actually you just slashed the whole section , not just the Quantum mechanics part. (Anon) 21 Mar 2005 .

1. Don't change too many things in one edit.
2. Don't repost the reverted text with your new edits.
3. Please use edit summaries.
4. Please discuss your changes before you post them.
5. You may want to edit Wikinfo:L. Ron Hubbard.

To be closer to proper NPOV, it's important to state explicitly all the POVs. By constantly reverting to a single one, NPOV is decreased, not increased. BTfromLA did a good job at rephrasing in order to enhance NPOV, so I brought back his changes. We cannot state that Mr. Hubbard's "research" is an absolute, since it makes sense only to people which are following scientology beliefs. Povmec

Important to people reposting the reverted paragraph

You are trying to write essays with original research.

You may want to edit Wikinfo:L. Ron Hubbard.

Use edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

What Wikipedia is not

Users participating in this edit war might want to read What Wikipedia is not, especially:

Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy:

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. If you want to do so, you can use the Wikipedia fork Anarchopedia.

Wikipedia articles are not personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic:

Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Wikipedia is not a primary (original) research:

See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.

Addition of templates

Unless a very good argument is made to the contrary, I will be reverting to the last version by Povmec and removing the {{Attention}} and {{ActiveDiscuss}} tags. Why? Because there is only one "contributor" who believed the article was not being developed appropriately by the existing process -- and this is a contributor who, at best, badly misunderstands the existing process, and at worst doesn't give a damn for the correct process but only in using Wikipedia as a forum for "their 2 cents". This latter theory is better supported by the fact that this contributor has already switched between at least three IPs as they get blocked for violations of the three-revert rule.

There would be more reason to take seriously the insistence of this contributor if this contributor showed any signs of taking seriously Wikipedia's standards. As it is, it is completely inappropriate to modify this article merely because someone with an ax to grind has been persistent in violating the 3RR and sneaking around their earned blocks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your that it should get reverted--it doesn't. If no one is reverting it then the tags are needed because somone may be reading this article right now, one of the Wikipedia mirrors may be updating its content right now, someone may be translating this article to other languages right now, Answers.com (linked by every single 'definition' link on Google) may be updating its Wikipedia content in http://www.answers.com/topic/l-ron-hubbard right now as we speak, and it will be present there for a long time even if we revert it tommorow (notice no space around the dash in the birth date and compare the content to see that it is an outdated copy, and yet more people use Answers.com than Wikipedia directly, because that's what they get when they click 'definition' links in their Google searches). Yes, it should be instantly reverted--but it isn't. Which means that this article is in need of attention and the readers of Wikipedia and its mirrors must know what is disputed. I agree with you but the tags must be present until the text is removed and every time it is reposted.

So, erm... if I'm following this, you're saying that while we are trying to keep a blatant scofflaw from unilaterally defying consensus to insert questionable material into the article, it is crucially important to warn people by ... marking the version which no one except the scofflaw objects to as 'questionable and in need of attention'? If there was a dispute between contributors acting in good faith, I could agree with the tag, but I think a line was crossed when our anon scofflaw was warned about the 3RR and went ahead reverting to his preferred version anyways -- and then switched to another IP to get around the ensuing block. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that if everyone agrees that it should be reverted but no one actually does it (see the article history during out posts in this thread) then a reasonable thing to do for someone who don't want to violate the 3RR like myself is at least warn about the controvercy. While we were talking about how we agree that it should be reverted not actually doing it, this text posted by 68.130.206.103 was present in the article for 90 minutes until BTfromLA finally removed it. That's a lot of time to mislead people. If we had such a text inserted for 90 minutes 4 times a day, than 25% of people would read it and 25% mirrors would use it--it's that simple. What are you suggesting? That I shouldn't have added the warning and should have just left the controversial text alone?

More wrangling over the intro

User 65.141.40.101, "He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence" is a controversial claim; it's an interpretation of Hubbard's activities that many observers of Hubbard's life would disagree with. (By contrast, "Founder of the Church of Scientology" is so far as I am aware, an uncontroversial fact.) As of a day or two ago, the intro paragraph was a concise factual account, with the interpretive discussions limited to the main body of the article. You (this is the first appearance of 65.141.40.101, but I'm guessing this is the same anon user who added material to the intro yesterday) have declared that positive interpretations of Hubbard's accomplishments belong in the intro, but counterbalancing critical interpretations do not. Your position hardly constitutes NPOV--quite the contrary. I suggest we go back to the very lean, non-judgemental intro, and if you think that there are important things about Hubbard that are misstated or omitted in the body of the article, focus your attention there. I'd also suggest you get a user account with a stable name--it will help your credibility and ability to communicate with fellow editors. One more thing: why in the world do you object to Hubbard being described as an author? -- BTfromLA 01:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. --FOo 01:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The introduction says, it is controversial whether Mr. Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology or didn't. The words used as of right this minute are: " ... author and the controversial founder of Dianetics and Scientology." May we instead say: " .. author and founder of Dianetics and Scientology which viewed as controversial" ? And then leave some semblence of that. Terryeo 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction dispute

You are entitled to your opinions on this topic however please put that in its own section further down in the article. In order to not confuse the reader of this article, the material should be introduced by a NPOV and factual summary of the work and life of the subject. Further POVs, pros and cons, can then be expanded upon in their own section. Keep it simple and fair OK ? Thanks for your consideration. ANON 3/21/2005

The fact that not everyone in the world thinks Elron was a great wonderful guy is not "slanted" or "derogatory". It's simply a fact, and needs to be mentioned. Please quit reverting before you go into violation of the WP:3RR.

Then as was stated just above , you can put your POV in its own section further down the article.

Also, please do not use derogatory or slanted section titles in talk pages -- they are intended to describe what is being discussed, not to give you a place to make accusations. --FOo 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amazing! user obfusco even sees it fit to edit other peoples discussions. anon 3/21/2005

Anon is correct that the intro should include an "NPOV and factual" summary. However there is no evidence that the assertions he has been adding are factual. They also appear to present a pro-Hubbard POV. That is why the info keeps getting removed. -Willmcw 02:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

If you do not know whether the intro is factual then with all due respect you do not know very much about this topic. Both pro and anti editors who know anything about Hubbard know that every word is true. However the antis would rather bury this truth by stating that the claims of the detractor community should be presented as a headline to Hubbards's whole life work.Anon 3/21/2005

I don't need to know anything about the topic. I do know that Wikipedia rules require editors to cite their sources. I see an assertion with no source. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, we need to see the sources you are using to justify your assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see the page has been protected. But for the record, I've written this up at WP:AN/3RR. --FOo 02:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you say "Many believe that he devoted his life to researching" or "Hubbard's follower's claim that he devoted his life to researching"?

Un-protecting the page

As far as I can tell, there is one user who is responsible for the page being protected, and if that user can agree to a version of the intro, we can unprotect it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I propose we select between two options: the version with the "admirers say/detractors say" bit (the current version), or a shorter version that edits those sentences out, and puts nothing in their place. Either of those are acceptible to me. How about others? BTfromLA 03:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest , the format should be Intro as the 68.130.206.73 post and other pro and anti POVs elsewhere in the article.

The sources for the intro are below:

"He devoted his life to researching the nature of the human spirit and of existence.He codified the results of his research into a set of axioms" which are here :

     http://www.scientology.org/wis/WISENG/34/34-scax.htm

"which he used to develop a technology which he claimed could be used to improve the spiritual state of human beings" which are containted in a set of technical volumes which you can see here:

     http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/technical-volumes.html

There should not be any problem verifying the truth of those statements .Anon 3/21/05

Please note, the above "suggestion" was posted by 68.130.206.166, which is likely the same user as the 68.130.206.73 with whom s/he purports to be agreeing. If my suspicion is correct, this user has already violated 3RR on this article.

Anonymous contributor -- It is not OK to use multiple addresses to give the appearance of a number of people agreeing with you. That is called sock puppet behavior and is frowned upon. --FOo 03:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

user Fubar Obfusco is probably doing what he or she is accusing others of doing. Truthtell 21 Mar 2005

Good to see you've got a user account now. Could you go back and sign your comments so we'll know which ones are yours for sure? Thanks. --FOo 04:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comment is right above yours and it is signed TruthTell 21 Mar 2005

Information removed from the article

I notice that in the various revisions, Hubbard's military career is mentioned but the fact that he was relieved of command of PC-815 after the shelling of South Coronados Island has been removed. Needless to say, it is rather one-sided to note that he commanded vessels -- like many who served in WWII -- but omit the fact that unlike many who commanded vessels in that war, he was relieved of command due to disciplinary action. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The information you refer to is unsubstantiated and ( likely fabricated and being spread by the anti-hubbard community [ of which you are a subscriber no doubt] in a deliberate effort to tarnish Hubbard's character and repute). This is type of shameful and despicable activity which seems to be your basic tactic is called "black propaganda" in the public relations world. Perhaps you , Antaeus Feldspar, ought to disclose to the rest of the editors on this board what is your personal history with scientology that has you working day and night inserting derogatory and discreding remarks into Hubbard's bio under many different aliases. Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some despicable behavior that you commited while a member. Your ego is hurt so now you dedicate yourself to pay back in this medium. Had you any personal integrity you would voice your POV without resorting to concocting lies in an effort to manipulate the reader's opinions. You only fool the very naive , but for the rest of us, it is clear what you are up to. Anon 3/22/2005

Detailed information can be found there http://ronthewarhero.org/coronados.htm, along with official source documents from the U.S. Navy which have been scanned into PDF format. Other sources have used these documents to reach the same conclusions independantly: Russell Miller in Bare-Faced Messiah; Jon Atack in A Piece of Blue Sky. I believe these sources as credible. Povmec 13:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Information in question has been proven time and time again. There is no "anti-Hubbard" community, there are only those who recognize that Mr. Hubbard was a deeply disturbed and paranoid individual who created a cult of personality around himself, (which is why Scientology is so deeply disturbed and paranoid, or as Hubbard would have said with one of his own neologisms, "enturbulated"). "Black propaganda" can only be so when one is not speaking the truth. I am not interested in Antaeus Feldspar's "personal history" with anything. Stop messing around with the facts presented in this encyclopedia. No one is interested in debating with you, because brainwashed members of cults cannot be reasoned with. Any fact we present you with, you will say was invented by a world-wide conspiracy of psychologists, or the Jews who control the banks, or some other such nonsense. Anon, have you ever stopped and questioned the value of the organization to which you belong? Have you ever met a "clear" or "OT" who could demonstrate his "super powers" to you? Does the incredible cost of the church's services ever give you pause? Does the church ever tell you where all that money goes to? Yes, I am clearly stating my own POV, but notice that I am doing so here on the talk page, and not in the article. func(talk) 15:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The information you refer to is unsubstantiated and ( likely fabricated and being spread by the anti-hubbard community

Spread by the anti-Hubbard community? Of course it is. There's no shame in that, since it's completely true information which is substantiated by U.S. Navy records.

[ of which you are a subscriber no doubt] in a deliberate effort to tarnish Hubbard's character and repute). This is type of shameful and despicable activity which seems to be your basic tactic is called "black propaganda" in the public relations world.

No, actually, "black PR" is a term invented by L. Ron Hubbard and only in use by Scientologists -- not a term in use in the general public relations world. You're right that it's a shameful and despicable activity -- it's a shameful and despicable activity that Hubbard felt was fantastic as long as it was being used by Scientology on whomever Scientology declared to be their "enemies".

Perhaps you , Antaeus Feldspar, ought to disclose to the rest of the editors on this board what is your personal history with scientology that has you working day and night inserting derogatory and discreding remarks into Hubbard's bio under many different aliases.

Well, since I insert true information that Scientologists find uncomfortable to accept only under my single user name, I can't comply with your suggestion. I can't explain why I "do" something that I "do" only in your made-up world of psychological denial.

Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some despicable behavior that you commited while a member.

Wrong again! =D Speaking of ex-members, haven't you ever considered it strange that so many of those who leave Scientology do so from so high up? You'd think that if Scientology actually delivered more results and proof of its correctness the higher you moved up in the organization, you wouldn't have so many people leaving Scientology from the very highest rungs of the ladder. Could it be that when they got to the other side of the Bridge they found nothing there that Hubbard had promised them?

Your ego is hurt so now you dedicate yourself to pay back in this medium.

You're sure you're the same person who's been moaning about "unsubstantiated" information? This is an awfully detailed psychological "analysis" to be drawing solely from the fact that I add factual material you wish wasn't true and remove unsubstantiated material that you wish was. (I've been accused of being a PR agent employed by Scientology based on the same evidence, by someone who wanted to insert unsubstantiated information against Scientology and was similarly angry that I was removing it.)

Had you any personal integrity you would voice your POV without resorting to concocting lies in an effort to manipulate the reader's opinions.

That's correct, and that's what I do. I have personal integrity, and therefore I have no need of lies. Maybe someday you can be that way too and you won't need to resort to sockpuppets or Hubbard's "black PR" or intricate speculation unfounded in reality that allows you to maintain your denial.

You only fool the very naive , but for the rest of us, it is clear what you are up to. Anon 3/22/2005

Tell yourself that as you switch to yet another IP address and pretend to be someone new who only happens to agree with all the other anons in the same IP block -- tell yourself that you're the one with personal integrity even as you act with absolutely none. I believe that most Scientologists are drawn to Scientology because they're good people, and I think it's sad that many of them are fooled by Scientology's bait and switch of "Scientology is the wonderful thing that's going to save the world! Therefore, it's not only all right but good for you to abandon all your personal integrity and do reprehensible things, if you're doing them for Scientology! Lie and slander! It's okay to do the very things you're accusing others of doing, if you're doing them for the greater good -- and Scientology is the greatest good there is, so you can do anything for it!" I feel sorry for them when they finally wake up and realize that Scientology can't even keep its own house clean, let alone deliver on its grandiose promises of a world free of war and crime and disease. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our semi-anonymous contributor above has now broken at least two hard & fast Wikipedia policies -- WP:3RR and WP:NPA -- as well as a rather clumsy attempt at sock-puppeting. This is not the behavior of someone interested in collaborating on an article.

His/her baseless accusations that disdain for Hubbard's behavior stem from "despicable behavior", by the way, are a standard Scientologist response -- Google the phrase "what are your crimes?" (in quotes) to see more. As far as I can tell (though I'll admit I'm not sure) within Scientology it is common for a guilty person to accuse others of their own "crimes", and so Scientologists assume that this is the case for others. Their term for this is "being in a condition of blame" on the "tone scale".

It is not worthwhile using Wikipedia to try to convert this person from Scientology, nor is that what Wikipedia is here to do. Much better to simply recognize that this contributor's current mode of response is in egregious violation of Wikipedia standards of conduct, and that s/he is not eligible to contribute to Wikipedia until s/he is willing to behave like a community member rather than an aggressor. Or, in Scientologist jargon -- s/he is out-ethics and needs to handle his/her condition of blame and get his/her ethics in. --FOo 15:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Hey, FOo? I tried it, and for some wacky reason if you leave the ? inside the quotes Google will ignore the "what" and "are". If you leave it out then 18 of the first 20 results are clearly Scn-related (can't be sure about #15.)) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look in the Scientology controversy article for more about the policy of dealing with critics and "enemies" of Scientology. Essentially, the matra that is followed by all Scientologists states that the Tech is 100% correct, it is always correct, and everyone (that's everyone) who questions Source (i.e. Hubbard) is an enemy of Scientology. And from this it follows that all of Scientology's enemies have crimes that they are trying to hide. Therefore, What are your crimes? is a standard way of saying, "You are an enemy of Scientology, and we will find your hidden crimes and expose them." Lovely, yes? --Modemac 16:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we tried. Sadly, I have to agree with FOo's diagnosis at this point that anon user's behavior is chronically counterproductive and unacceptible for a Wikipedia contributor. Hubbard asserted something to the effect that anyone who ever attempted to "suppress" Scientology was doing so only because Scientology's bright light of truth was going to reveal the critic's own criminal past. And it seems that pretty much any acknowledgement of any flaw within Hubbard, or the "tech," or the organization is labelled as "suppression." Hence the bizarre personal attack on Antaeus. Anon, I have no personal history with Scientology, I'm just trying to fairly present an account of this interesting subject. Before concluding that anything unflattering to Hubbard is the result of some conspiratorial smear campaign, I suggest that you read some of the copious material about Hubbard that is available on the net, including the Miller and Atack books. Atack is a former scientologist and scientology archivist; Miller was a journalist with no prior history with Scientology. Ask yourself why so many independent journalists have come to similar conclusions when investigating Hubbard's life; conclusions that diverge, sometimes wildly, from the story the Church tells. And why, rather than facing critical accounts and answering them with facts, the Church instead directs it's spokespeople to accuse the critics and reporters of "crimes." BTfromLA 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTfromLA, func, Antaeus Feldspar-- with all due respect, you have apparently no idea who are you trying to argue with. You call this a "bizarre personal attack"? FOo-- do you want to see the power of "what are your crimes" routine? Then don't search Google to see how it looks like on paper, but rather see how it works in the real-life face-to-face confrontation [2] (start from the topmost movie). If you want to argue with the person who is adding that text to this article (I repeat: if), then you will have to understand that you are "suppressive persons" or SPs (google the phrase) because of the very fact that you are questioning Ron and Xenu in the first place, and by attacking, offending, harrassing, threatening or indeed even trying to kill you, they are trying to do "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" (google it) because they honestly believe that is the only way to save the planet and civilization! They are trying to save the humanity, for crying out loud! I mean, seriously, if you were absolutely sure that the existence of our civilization is in serious danger, because some people want to destroy it (think Hitler with millions of nuclear bombs ready to take every human being with him in his suicide), wouldn't you do everything possible to save it? So first you will have to understand the reasons. Then, you will have to understand the techniques. You will have to know that they are trying to find your "buttons" and provoke you. And frankly, you have no chance to win such a confrontation, because you haven't spent years learning ("flunk for blinking" - google it). Read this [3] to have some basic understanding how such a learning starts, and how it ends (though I recommend starting from the first chapter for full background). It makes them basically invulnerable to any of the amateurish techniques you have shown in this discussion (sorry but that's true). You will have to understand it first, and then decide whether you want to take a challange. I honestly admire your determination to make this article as best as possible, but I sadly doubt you are able to reason with the person who is adding that introduction. Sadly, you will probably have to censor it without giving any justification that would possibly be understood by the second side of this argument as anything other than a censorship resulting from a conspiracy of suppressive persons. Otherwise I will seriosuly consider you masters of reason. I wish you good luck. And thanks for your great work. Anonymous Friend on 02:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's about time to remove the protection from this page, as there is a general consensus about the article: one anonymous person accusing everyone else of being "anti-Hubbard" is hardly a dispute. I'd remove it myself, but I'd rather follow Wikipedia tradition that the person who protected the page be the one to remove it. --Modemac 10:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction, I find the following statement kind of confusing: His admirers claim that Hubbard developed an effective technology to improve the condition of the human spirit. It says Mr. Hubbard developped a technology to improve human mind. Mr. Hubbard is using this claimed technology as the foundation of the Church of Scientology. Isn't contradictory? Technology is applied science as far as I'm concerned. Church of Scientology is defined as an applied religious philosophy. I understand the above statement was integrated in order to satisfy as many sides as possible, but if I read the article with a newbie hat, it gives me a sense of inconsistency. Could we replace technology with philosophy? Maybe it's just me. Povmec 15:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any Scientologist will adamantly state that it should be described as "technology." Why? Because Hubbard said so. He described his writings as "Advanced Technology," and in the eyes of the Church of Scientology, all of Hubbard's writings are known as Advanced Technology. In Scientologese, it's known simply as "The Tech." --Modemac 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I've got it right, "applied religious philosophy" means applicaton of "the tech" to reincarnated spirit (in Scientology). A similar claim is made about the nature of mind, in Dianetics. So while some may argue that Hubbard's programs and beliefs are not rightfully called "technology," the claim that Hubbard developed a workable method for the real-world application of his philosophy seems central to his followers, most of whom are Scientologists (I get the sense that this-life-only Dianetics hangs around mostly as a sales device, but is considered by his followers to have been superceded by he later techniques of Scientology. Please correct me if I've got any of this wrong.) If it still seems confusing, would something like "....developed an effective system to improve the condition..." or "....developed an effective method to improve the condition..." be an improvement? BTfromLA 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While this discussion on the Church's usage of the word "technology" may yield profitable insights for improvement of the article, I'd like to voice my hope that it doesn't cause the issue of whether to place the dueling POVs in the intro to be forgotten. At the current time, I'm not completely convinced, but I'm leaning towards going back to the old intro and saving the claims on both sides about what Hubbard was for the body of the article. I'd like it if we could return to discussing that (not to mention the Coronados incident, discussion of which was successfully if temporarily sidetracked by our anon's personal attacks.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If editing this for the quality of writing, I'd say that a brief statement of the nature of the controversy surrounding Hubbard (as in the current version) is best for the opening--it adds specificity and drama, and is likely to pull the casual browser in to further reading. But as a practical matter on Wikipedia, if including contoversial claims up front is going to lead to endless wrangling, I'm fine with dropping those two sentences. As for Hubbard being relieved of duty, I suggest you just set the record straight once the page is unprotected--deal with arguments about that if and when they arise. BTfromLA 18:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why so many people insist on prefixing the "method" or "technology" with "effective" only to be forced to add "according to ..." etc.? For the record, yes, it is technology and it is based on science--the Ohm's law. Hubbard's electropsychometer is just a different name for a galvanometer which by itself is, needless to say, as scientific as it gets. So the technology itself (galvanometer) is scientific, unlike the idea of reading mind with a galvanometer in the first place. It is pseudoscience, which is not to say that it is false, but only that it isn't based on any sound scientific theory while being presented as such. So please let's be objective and reasonable: galvanometer is a technology based on science. Reading mind and soul is a stricte religious idea. We have to somehow separate those two concepts in the article if we don't want to confuse the reader.

Well, an atomic clock is a precision instrument. But if I was using that atomic clock solely to bach someone's skull in, would it make much sense to note that the atomic clock is a precision instrument? No, because it is not being used as a precision instrument, only as a blunt weapon. Likewise, stressing that a galvanometer is an instrument based on sound scientific principles is at best deceptive when it's in the context of its usage in a religious practice that is not based on sound scientific principles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the Controversial episodes section, I would suggest we replace the psychiatric drug Vistaril present by the drug Vistaril present. According to Wikipedia, it's an antihistaminic, anti-emetic and anxiolytic. By using the psychiatric qualifier, we presume it's usage by Mr. Hubbard was to treat anxiety symptom. I have read that at the same time, he was also given doses of niacin (http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/autopsy2.htm), which causes inflammation at large doses, in which case, the Vistaril could have been used as well to counter niacin effects. In my opinion, using psychiatric here is more a taunt to Scientologists out there than an informational fact, since we don't know for sure why this drug was given to him in the first place.Povmec 14:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was just browsing Wiki and came across this discussion.

This discussion is fascinating. I can just feel the frustrations. It is like there are two discussions simultaneously. I want to suggest to the editors to stop talking to Anon and just ignore him (I believe Anon is a he) but his responses are so humorous I want more. I think that Anon has changed other Scientology related Wiki articles as the writing styles look similar.

I have read Final Blackout and Battlefield Earth, and some others. I find that Hubbard, especially in Final Blackout, is very much in support of forceful authority of one person. The main character “the Lieutenant” is Hubbard as he sees himself. This conclusion not only comes from the story, but also can be interpreted by reading his own preface.

I want to know more about the South Coronados Island incident. Also what did his contemporaries think of him? I heard that Asimov and Heinlein did not like him.

QuestioningAuthority 23:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

............

>Would it be fair to deduce that you are likely an irate ex-member who was booted out for some >despicable behavior that you commited while a member.

Obviously written by a strong supporter.

Unprotect?

This article was protected a couple of days ago because of a little edit war involving anon IPs. Ready to unprotect, yet? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let the person who protected the article, unprotect it; but it's past time. Done. --Modemac 02:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Important question about article protection

Is it possible to protect an article from anynymous edits only? If so, could you please do that? Because as we can see, the only problem in this article is anonymous reposting of the same propaganda, violating 3RR, getting blocked, doing the same from another IP few hours later, etc. ad nauseam. I don't see logged in users being a problem and many of them greatly improve the article almost every day so the article protection would be completely counter-productive, but the anonymous reposting of propaganda and POV apparently isn't going to stop any time soon. What can we do to stop this silliness? (Yes, I know that that person would just log in and probably do the same, but then at least we would have some credibility, user talk page, the possibility of RfC, mediation, arbitration etc.) I hope something can be done and will be done quickly because it starts to be a complete waste of time of anyone involved, and seing that completely inappropriate text in the intro stays for 10 hours before I revert it I see that all of the editors slowly start to give up, and frankly I can't blame them. Thanks.

A repeated vandal doesn't need to be discouraged just from editing this one article. A repeated vandal needs to be blocked from editing any Wikipedia article at all. Blocking, not article protection, is the approach here.

One measure that Wikipedia hasn't (to my knowledge) had in place before, but that might be useful here, is to report abusive anonymous conduct to the ISP or site responsible for the IP addresses from which it comes. Effectively all ISPs have acceptable-use policies that forbid malicious and harassing conduct, and forbid users from violating the policies of Internet sites they use. By vandalizing Wikipedia, a person also thereby violates the terms of service of their own ISP.

Of course, this would not work against open proxies -- but there are already tools for dealing with known open proxies, such as DNSBLs tailored to that purpose (e.g. Spamhaus XBL). --FOo 15:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, open proxies are blocked from editing Wikipedia under WP:No Open Proxies, so if the IP address of the rather amusing anon poster happens to show up in any of the DNSBLs as one, it might be worthwhile to point that out to an admin. PS: those of you who are actually making worthwhile contributions to this article are doing an excellent job, keep up the great work! Nortelrye 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Best known as the author of the best-seller ...

"L. Ron Hubbard, was a prolific and controversial American philosopher. He is best known as the author of the self help best-seller Dianetics the modern science of mental health and as the founder of Scientology."

While he may be known for that among Scientologists, for the general population he is best known as a science fiction writer.

"In addition to religious and philosophical works, he developed a technology to remove drug residue from the body called the Purification Rundown and a study technology to help people learn any subject in an effective and systematic manner called the Student Hat."

This is POV, advertisement, and unnecessary bloat in the intro paragraph. This is hardly the most important thing to write in the introduction. I remind you: This is ENCYCLOPEDIA. Please keep that in mind. Thank you.

Removing more bloat. This is a large article with plenty of information, we don't need the introduction tainted with opinion. Enough said. California guy 16:30

Please stop removing major portions of the article with fully verified and well-sourced information merely because they don't fit the picture you would like to have of L. Ron Hubbard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Enhancements to the Intro

Philosopher because it is a broader description than writer. The subject of Scientology falls in the category of philosophy.

He is the founder of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology

Hubbard never founded the church of Scientology, he declared this many times in his writings and lectures, he founded the subject and it was other people who founded the church.

I will be making further edits to the article to correct a great deal of incorrect information that is strewn throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.44.104 (talk • contribs)

I rather see author being used. Given Mr. Hubbard's bios available out there, I don't see philosopher being applicable to Mr. Hubbard. If I was a follower of scientology practices, I would probably see Mr. Hubbard as a philosoper, but for the majority of people not in scientology, Mr. Hubbard as a philosoper doesn't sound proper.Povmec 14:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The line about "Quintin saying that 99% of what Hubbard said is untrue" is silly, as how was the 99% derived, and why not 98% or 99.3%. It should be removed. This is not about Quintin.

Mr.Hubbard is a philosopher, as he philosophised, goodly or badly. -- Buddyandwilly

First of all, Quentin Hubbard and Ron DeWolf are two different people. Second of all, this article is about L. Ron Hubbard. If you're suggesting that it is not relevant to the subject of L. Ron Hubbard that one of the people closest to him on Earth -- his own son -- believed that most of what Hubbard said was untrue, that is what's silly, not that his son used the mathematical figure of 99% to indicate the frequency of Hubbard's lying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay

I removed hearsay attibuted to Isaac Asimov that is traced to Paulette Cooper , who sued the COS. Either someone gets a direct quote from Asimov or it does not belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.44.104 (talk • contribs)

He/she is talking about the sentence «, but others, including Campbell's star author Isaac Asimov, criticised Dianetics' unscientific aspects.» that was removed from the article. Not hearsay, Asimov himself mentions this is his book Isaac Asimov, I, Asimov. Doubleday, 1994. 552p. This should be put back in the Wikipedia article.Povmec 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, it was the COS that sued Paulette Cooper at least 18 times, in addition to subjecting her to many other forms of harassment. func(talk) 17:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hubbard founded Dianetics and Scientology

I keep putting Dianetics in the intro and editor BTfromLA keeps taking it out. So what is your issue with Dianetics being in the intro ?? Should we not give Hubbard credit for what he has done? Ask anyone who knows anything about Hubbard and they will tell you that L Ron Hubbard = DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY. TruthTell

• Just trying to keep it concise--you'll notice that I recently added an additional paragraph about the sensational reception of Dianetics. Hubbard did, by the way, found the Church of Scientology--there is considerable documentation of this fact, regardless of Ron's comments to the contrary. But since we're trying to keep the intro as non-controversial as possible, I'll go with dropping the mention of the Church (others may differ) and I hope in turn you'll stop shifting his job-description from "author" to "philosopher." Setting aside the extent to which Hubbard's status as a philosopher is itself controversial, "author" does a better job--it's more neutral and more broadly accurate. BTfromLA 06:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I am assuming you know something about L Ron Hubbard, you would not be investing so much time on this article if you did not. So you should know that Hubbard was first and foremost a philosopher as it relates to the Dianetics and Scientology story and to his whole life story as well. There is nothing controversial about it, BTfromLa, he was a philosopher whether his critics like it or not , that is just one of the facts about him. Read any of his scientology books or lectures and it is unquestionably true; he was a philosopher. TruthTell

• • • I didn't claim he wasn't a philosopher, only that "author" is a better word choice in this context. BTfromLA 17:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed-Style of Formal Address

Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus, I am prefixing the formal style Friend of Mankind to the present biographical entry. Do not revert this edit unless you can dispute the existing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) policy regarding Honorific Prefixes, and the entry on Style (manner of address) containing examples.

Please note that it is my preference that the prefixed style not be used, however if it is used in some cases (such as for Pope Benedict XVI) but not for others (such as L. Ron Hubbard) then this may constitute improper POV by the Wikipedia community. Because of the existing division of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this policy, a survey is currently being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in which I encourage you to participate. Whig 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't/isn't a formal style of address for Hubbard. He was known as "Ron." Argue about the appropriateness of "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" on their own merits, not by creating absurd straw man examples like this one. I'm reverting the change. BTfromLA 05:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The article text itself states: Scientologists refer to him as "The Friend of Mankind". This is a substantial enough number of people, however controversial they may be, that their style must be given if we do so in the instance of His Holiness for other religious leaders. Whig 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you participate in the survey if you think an exception should be carved out for L. Ron Hubbard. I believe such an exception is appropriate if we have to use prefixed formal styles, but only if it can be made in a NPOV way. Whig 06:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "friend of mankind" is used by Scientologists as a show of affection, not as any kind of "official" title. In this respect, we could refer to George W. Bush as "Dubya" because that's what many people call him. However, no one is going to retitle the George W. Bush article as President Dubya George W. Bush. --Modemac 09:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I accept this explanation and will revert my edit. Whig 10:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Per current Wikipedia policy, as claimed by jguk to have been adopted by a prior consensus -- Whig, WP:POINT. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard bibliography page

Given that the length of the list of published titles (which will become even longer if someone includes the taped lectures) made for awkward reading (scrolling, more likely) in this article, I have taken the liberty of creating a more compact, selective bibliography in the article and adding a link to a new page, L. Ron Hubbard bibliography, which contains the comprehensive list, and allows room for further additions or annotations if anyone is so inclined. --BTfromLA 23:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

L. Ron, Jr. dead?

According to this article L. Ron, Jr. aka Ronald DeWolf died in 1991. According to this NNDB profile, he is alive. Anyone know which is correct? Deus Ex 4 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that way to me.

Born: 13-Mar-1911

Birthplace: Tilden, NE

Died: 24-Jan-1986

Location of death: Creston, CA

Cause of death: Stroke [1]

Remains: Cremated, Dumped into the Pacific Ocean

A simple overlook perhaps? :] 66.176.244.196 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The NNDB page is for L. Ron Hubbard, not L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ronald DeWolf. AndroidCat 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Charlatan?

While browsing through Wikepedia this morning, I came upon the article on LRH. I know very little about the man. However in the section BIOGRAPHICAL OUTLINE: Education, Pulp Fiction, and Military Service, I found it disturbing to find the line " Hence, Hubbard has been rightfully considered a charlatan ". Nothing preceding this statemant logically leads to this conclusion. It is very biased and should be deleted. If the man was a charlatan, and he may well have been one for all I know, a higher standard of information is needed to make the case.

Of course you are correct. You should feel free to cut obvious POV interjections like that; I have done so. Hubbard and Scientology articles seem particularly prone to inappropriate POV editing, both pro and con. BTfromLA 16:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"a minor incident in any case"

L. Ron Hubbard's legal difficulties first began with charges of petty theft involving checks in 1948. He was later charged in 1952 with wrongfully withdrawing funds from his bankrupt corporation, and after examination of the bankrupcy court, made restitution.[4]

While I agree that this is not the most major incident in Hubbard's life, I believe precedent really points away from removing it just because it's a "minor incident". The article on Rick Ross is always going to contain the information about his two non-violent convictions, despite them having happened 30 years ago, despite the judgements having been vacated over 20 years ago, and despite them having absolutely nothing to do with the work that makes him worthy of note now. In contrast, the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, wrongfully withdrew funds thousands of dollars from Hubbard Dianetics Foundation, Inc. is much more relevant to Hubbard, the father of Dianetics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, the "minor incident" claim followed the note about the fact that this anecdote was awkwardly shoehorned into the article, out of chronological order. My point is that it interrupted the flow of the article, seemed like a POV "piling on" to the list of Hubbard's unscrupulous acts beyond what was necessary to make a concise enyclopedia article about Hubbard: there is no shortage of reports of Hubbard's dubious trustworthyness in the article as it exists. (Indeed, I think there is probably more of it than necessary in the article as it stands.) The number of criminal or otherwise unsavory actions that Hubbard participated in or has been accused of is very large: we can't include all of them here, any more than we need to list every lecture he gave or country he visited. I'm lobbying for a concise, readable and fair presentation of his life, which means that many potentially relevent details must be omitted in service of those goals. BTfromLA 17:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see an "edit page" button as referred to the help files, so unsure where to appropriately place my comments.

All of the "debunking" type phrases are irrelevant to a concise biography (Although he claimed to have graduated in civil engineering from The George Washington University as a nuclear physicist, university records show that he attended for only two years, was on academic probation, failed in physics, and dropped out in 1931. It is also claimed that he obtained his Ph.D from Sequoia University in California, which was later exposed as a mail-order diploma mill. [2] [3])

These comments may be true, but can be summed up with some version of "Much evidence has been used to successfully challenge Mr. Hubbard's informal boasts". -- Buddyandwilly

I'm afraid you're mistaken on multiple counts. First of all, these were not merely "Mr. Hubbard's informal boasts"; they were presented as his professional credentials, as his authority to make pronouncements on certain subjects, but he did not actually have the expertise he pretended to. For instance, the full title of Hubbard's book All About Radiation was actually All About Radiation by A Nuclear Physicist & a Medical Doctor. Hubbard, of course, was neither, and no person can take seriously the claim that it was an "informal boast" to bill himself as such.

The other count you are wrong on is the idea that it is "irrelevant" to a biography of Hubbard to point out which biographical details the reader may have heard about Hubbard happen to be falsehoods. Since these false claims about Hubbard are still (incredibly enough) being made, a useful biography of Hubbard should deal with them. "Concise" is nice only when it doesn't pre-empt more important things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Business controversies

I found the following text fairly unconvincing.

Some documents written by Hubbard himself appear to suggest that he regarded Scientology as primarily a business, not a religion. In one letter dated April 10, 1953, he says that calling Scientology a religion solves "a problem of practical business", and status as a religion achieves something "more equitable...with what we've got to sell". In a 1962 official policy letter, he said "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors." [11]. A Reader's Digest article of May 1980 quoted Hubbard as saying in the 1940s "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." [12]

Let's take each claim in turn.

The reference to "practical business" could easily be explained idiomatically. When I meet with colleagues, we often discuss "practical business", although we are academics, not businessmen.

The comment about "what we've got to sell" could similarly be justified on idiomatic or metaphorical grounds. Again, such language is common among academics and I will be unsurprised to hear it from religious figures.

The quote regarding activities of the organization, accountants and solicitors is similarly unpersuasive. It just isn't a smoking gun suggesting that Hubbard was in it as a business.

Finally, the "million dollars" quote. This one may persuasively show that Hubbard was motivated by money instead of altruism. But I think that this claim is fairly controversial, so I wouldn't want to lean on it too heavily.

I say either find more persuasive examples of Scientology-as-business or remove the paragraph. Phiwum 11:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would point to the fack that higher positions are attained via the purchase of progressively prohibitive volumes. Or mayhaps the fact that services are acquired via a transaction of valued credit, a practice more akin to a mercantile organization than traditional institutionalized faiths.Dryzen 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: private life missing and false claim about sunken submarine

1. His private life is missing. What should be mentioned is that he had a son, Quentin Hubbard, according to Monica Pignotti. [5]. Andries 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Also, I wonder why the false claim about the sunken submarine is important. False claims by military men about casualties of the enemy are quite common. Is this claim presented as fact in Scientology's hagiography? If so this can be stated. Andries 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron certainly did have a son, Quentin Hubbard, who is described in a number of biographies and court affidavits. [6] --FOo 01:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And Quentin's been mentioned in the article for quite some time. See the first paragraph under the "Scientology" heading. BTfromLA 03:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting opinion: Hubbard believed his own lies

from Prophetic Charisma by Len Oakes Syracuse 1998 University press ISBN 0815603983 page 170 According to Len Oakes, Hubbard told many blatant untruths about his own life but he believed in his own untruths. Andries 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*74 citations, could use more images, perhaps public domain images of relevant historical documents from WikiCommons. Smee 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)