Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusing Passage

"received a promotion to Lieutenant Commander in June 1947 (a promotion Hubbard never received and hence never accepted, and his subsequent (honest) biographical material refers to his final rank as Lieutenant), and resigned his commission in 1950." Really confusing. Can someone who knows what that means rewrite that sentence?

It doesn't read very well, does it? (You can tell it's been hacked around a bit...) I'll see what I can do to fix it. -- ChrisO 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
For such an information there needs to be some verifiability. How about going with whatever the cited link says is true, else delete. Terryeo 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"pseudoscience"?

I note that the phrase "the pseudoscience Dianetics" currently appears in the first sentence of the article. While this happens to match my own opinion, I don't really understand why it's stated as such here; surely since we're already linking to Dianetics, we can leave the discussion of just what Dianetics is to that? To my mind, the only reason to have it in its current place is to fairly alert the reader that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is -- but IMHO this is handled better by simply noting that it is "controversial", as is done later in the same sentence for the Church of Scientology.

The only reason I'm not changing it right now is that rather a lot of editors who I would think must have seen it have let it stand, so I'm wondering if there's some reason previously discussed that accounts for it, though I don't see any such discussion here on the talk page. Anyone? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, Antaeus. I think it's an unnecessary POV inflection to the intro. Cut that adjective, says me. BTfromLA 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree to have it removed. It was added by an anonymous IP on January 5th. Povmec 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If you people would only take 5 minutes out of your busy schdule to understand what Dianetics is, you would never have to contest what it is again. Ten books make it a body of information, ok? It is at least information, but then so is "how to bake an apple pie." It concerns itself with thought. That's its attention and direction. People get confused with the physical things it says happens, but physical things are not its address. It addresses itself to thought, thoughts like "what did you have for breakfast" and "when you were deep in the mine and the roof caved in, what were you thinking" and "what were you aware of just before the pain became so great that you were no longer concious" and stuff like that. Thought is what Dianetics is about. It is so simple that people don't want to understand it. Thought and the communicating of one's thoughts to another person via careful communication (by the auditor)Terryeo 22:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. Unscientific is entirely different from controversial. And Dianetics clearly does not meet scientific standard. Hence, the description is not only correct, it is warranted to inform readers on the unscientific nature of Dianetics. Possibly, one might suggest that "Dianetics is considered pseudoscience."--Nomen Nescio 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand my question. Why is that description, even if correct, which I think it is, warranted in the first sentence of an article that isn't Dianetics? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I cut the whole mention of Dianetics in the short intro. It seems complete that wayand bypasses the problem we're discussing here. The importance of Dianetics to Hubbard's career is well covered in the article itself. BTfromLA 00:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I just don't understand how anyone could misunderstand so badly. No offence intended. Terryeo 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, it isn't clear whom you're addressing or what you're talking about. Who misunderstood what so badly? BTfromLA 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi BTfromLA, well really almost everyone but specifically the top of this section which says: "...fairly alert the reader that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is," which statement seems to state "I don't really understand what Dianetics is supposed to be about, it doesn't seem to me to be about anything but controversy." Then too, every time I try to insert a definition of what Dianetics is about, it gets deleted right out of there. I mean it is real simple. It is about thoughts. One person tells another person their thoughts, their attention is directed by the second person. Terryeo 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, Terryeo, if you expect to ever start being perceived as a serious Wikipedia editor, you're going to have to abandon this attitude of "any time anyone even acknowledges that there exists a point of view on Dianetics/Hubbard/Scientology which does not match mine, I will attack it as violating NPOV". This is just a prime example here: I acknowledge that while it is the view of some people that Dianetics is a pseudoscience, I suggest that it is unnecessary to state that it is in the introduction of this article. What do you do? You misrepresent me; you quote me saying "that there is in fact disagreement over just what Dianetics is" to claim that it's my way of saying "I don't really understand what Dianetics is supposed to be about." That is a completely false misreading which no editor acting honestly and reading the statement in context could make. Even trying to follow the conversation makes it perfectly clear that the statement acknowledges the simple fact: Some people think Dianetics is a pseudoscience. Some people do not. For you to twist that and claim that the act of acknowledging that there are differing views on what Dianetics is, is equivalent to the editor saying he personally fails to comprehend one of those views, is a reprehensible misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I see, okay Antaeus, I understand what you said. To reply to the point which I think you are underscoring, that you are not making an edit to push a POV, but making an edit because it simply reads better, makes sense, etc. okay. I got that. Actually, I think most of the back and forth editing is arriving at an area of definable difficulty (which might have known all along anyway) in the bottom of the Dianetics talk section. Terryeo 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Cutting the mention of Dianetics does seem to sidestep the problem effectively. But just for the record, I think there's nothing POV-related about "pseudoscience" being attached to Dianetics. It is not subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. It is proven many times over and a given that Dianetics is not scientific. Yet it presents itself as such. Therefore, ipso facto, Dianetics is a pseudoscience. Anyone who doubts this, ask yourself: who decides what is scientific and what is not? Well, the scientific community, of course. And has the scientific community accepted Hubbard's theories? Far from it. Hubbardism has been debunked more times than crop circles or pro wrestling. wikipediatrix 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean, exactly by "debunked." I suspect you mean something like, "not only does it never work, but the whole thing is a scam, just as it was intended by its author to be." That of course is a point of view and I suspect why you happily attempt to destroy it ? As for "pseudoscience," you notice there is no disipline to examine it, don't you? None of the hard sciences approach a "science of the mind" or even a "pseudoscience of the mind." It is just plain not in any other area of examination. Because it is about "X" and there is no comprable scientific disipline to examine, cross examine it and test its ideas, Psychology can happily point to it as "pseudoscience." Heh, on the other hand Dianetics points out just as happily that "psychology" is neither a science nor a study of the psyche. Terryeo 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the venue to argue about Dianetics' scientific validity (and lack thereof), and your penchant for circular argument doesn't make me terribly interested in doing so anyway. Anyway, suffice it to say that most of Hubbard's concepts (conveniently) can neither be proven true or false, and thus they are not scientific by definition. And the assumptions he predicates his concepts on contradict mainstream science. I don't always agree with mainstream science either, but they do make the rules, because they're the scientists, not you or myself. wikipediatrix 01:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was attempting to understand what you meant by "debunked". Now that you have said what you meant by "debunked" and I understand what you meant by "debunked" I do understand that you were talking about the validity of the subject. Meaning, validity as being true as stated. At Dianetics talk, it seems to be getting close to defining our area of disagreement. And there is Wikipedia procedure for how to handle disagreements about "theory." Maybe we can produce good, readable articles. Terryeo 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)~
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint :

A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which none the less are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:

Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage. It is the fact that the usage is accepted outside but not usually inside, which means they imply a point of view, that the article too is looking from outside, not inside.

(This is not the same as political correctness. We generally seek to describe, rather than find a harmless term. So the description of Scientology as a cult is attributed to a source, the KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism, "Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped" which is not considered as POV by disabled people, and the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity... but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards".)

It's often a good idea to try and avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").

This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint.

Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality.

Apokrif 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

citation for the 1947 promotion to Lt. Cmdr

Can be found here. Also other details which shed interesting light on the subject:

In view of your general service classification and since reference (c) [the Report of Medical Survey] found you physically qualified for limited shore duty only, you are not considered physically qualified for promotion and the authority for your appointment to the rank of Lieutenant Commander under the terms of reference (d) [Alnav 317-45] has terminated.

By endorsement to reference (c) this Bureau modified the recommendations of the Board of Medical Survey and the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, and you are to be released from active duty since your services are not required in your limited capacity.

Therefore, no action will be taken to effect your promotion prior to your release from active duty.

(Source: Air mail letter to Hubbard from BuNavPers, October 19, 1945)

-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. So he finally got the promotion that he'd been angling for (to put it mildly), and probably never even knew it. I don't think even the CoS fiction of his record mentions that. Thanks! --AndroidCat 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril

"Hubbard is also a featured character in the novel The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril by Paul Malmont, scheduled to be published by Simon & Schuster in May 2006." This is the author's first novel and it hasn't even come out yet; I smell self-promotion and I definitely don't think it should go above the table of contents. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't see how it merits any mention whatever. BTfromLA 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed too, but isn't that a great title for a book? -- ChrisO 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

'Recent' changes

I remember reading this very article a few weeks ago and there being reference to Hubbard spending some time on a ship with young boys. I cannot remember exactly what, but there is no specific reference to it anymore. Can anyone remember what it said?

It was probably a quickly-reverted piece of vandalism; this article tends to have a number of regular vandals who come in and try to slip in unacceptable edits of one sort or another. Since they tend to have favorite "themes", it's probably the same vandal who made this edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Parodies

The parody section towards the end features a bunch of assumed parodies of l. ron hubbard but i wonder how many of them are just parodies of religious sects/scams in general instead of scientology specific, scientology wasn't the only one and wasn't the first. Can anyone clearify/source on them? --62.251.90.73 13:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be pretty specifically based on Scientology. Either there is a clear L. Ron Hubbard parody, or parody of his name; or else (as in Bowfinger) it's pretty obvious - a science fiction cult that has celebrity centers seems pretty clearly a Scientology parody. john k 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed to here for discussion: L-Ron is the name of a fictional character in the DC Comics universe. He was initially a robot foe of the Justice League but later L-Ron's consciousness was transferred into the body of Despero and he became a member of their short-lived Justice League Task Force team.

Other than the name, what's the connection to L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology? The L-Ron article provides no clues. AndroidCat 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that one did seem odd. john k 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Did L. Ron Hubbard have sex with children?

Just wondering. Or more to the point (and perhaps a fairer question): Has anyone ACCUSED L. Ron Hubbard of having sex with children?

Only wondering because of the South Park episode. Thanks.

- S

The only thing which I have heard which is even close is the fact that many of his personal assistants in the Commodore's Messenger Organization were very young children and while the CMO is portrayed as "administrative assistants" they acted more like servants to him. Even at that, though, I've never read anything which suggests that anything sexually inappropriate happened. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it was in the South Park episode mostly because child molesters are reliably and universally despised, but there may be some connection to L. Ron Hubbard having (reportedly) said that Jesus Christ was a pedophile and a lover of young boys. Sort of a turning of the "accusation of pedophilia in order to discredit a religion" thing against someone who had used it. Or not! - Zotz 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In A Piece of Blue Sky it mentions that "Hubbard was not averse to sleeping with female students, though he did so discreetly, until the mid-1960s." (P9C2) The teenage girl servants in the CMO were described "wearing white hot pants", but CMO didn't come about until the late-60s (P6C1). So, at least in that book, there was no suggestion that he slept with children or teenagers. Chiok 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought the South Park episode used paedophilia as a direct replacement for the twisted logic spread by Scientology - it was analogous, not a direct accusation. - dave420 06 April 2006
I thought they just did it because they wanted to use samples from Chef. His main line is "Hello Children" and he also has various lines about having sex, so it is sampling match made in heaven. Chiok 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Text added by 209.221.110.5 removed to here:

Hubbard had also been accused of being a pedophile and sexualy assaulting young boys on his ship.

Other than possibly LRHjr, I don't think anyone has accused him of that in real life, and South Park is not a primary source. AndroidCat 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics confusion

There seems to be a bit of confusion, or maybe just poorly-constructed passages, about when Dianetics was written and published. The first mention seems to indicate he wrote it in 1950... and that it was then published in 1949. And then later, when it's talking about the "E-meter", it mentions a Dianetics enthusiast inventing it in "the 1940s". -RannXXV 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"This is what Scientologists actually believe"

I changed this little bit slightly. It originally said it was exaggerated, but I see no evidence of this and edited accordingly. If it was meant to relate to the differentiation in how the souls were thawed out (I can't believe I just wrote that), then that isn't an exaggeration it is a mistake (I don't know which is right- atomic bomb or volcano). —This unsigned comment was added by DarkSideOfTheSpoon (talk • contribs) .

I think you misread it slightly. It didn't say the SP version of the Xenu story was exaggerated, but that a viewer who didn't know the Xenu story might think that what they were seeing was an exaggeration. This is why the caption, which is rather similar to Dave Barry's famous catchphrase "I swear I am not making this up", necessary precisely because so much of his humor comes from when he does make stuff up. Anyways, I've rewritten it so that it's hopefully clearer why South Park thought they needed a caption. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I get what you mean. My bad. It is very clear now though. Good stuff. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Dispute about biographical accuracy

I have edited the first paragraph. "The Church of Scientology has produced numerous biographical publications that make extraordinary claims about Hubbard's life and career. In the end, however, numerous investigations from journalists and critics have found most of these claims to be fabrications. Regardless, there is still a general agreement about the basic facts of Hubbard's life." The point is very much in dispute so you can’t say they have found the claims in the biographical publications to be fabrications, as Scientologists have produced documents that back the statements up. So, it is contentious and not neutral to say it the way is stated in the current entry. California guy 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph as well, because the accounts of LRH by the Church of Scientology differ substantially from the accounts of LRH done by independent researchers (including the US Dept. of Navy). Numerous books about LRH exist and they tend to show that much of what CoS "officially" says about LRH is a lie. Many other CoS claims simply have no justification at all. (e.g. "the youngest Eagle Scout ever!") Vivaldi 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Scientology hasn't produced documents. Scientology has produced claims. The actual documents (course transcripts, military records, etc) show that usually these claims are false. AndroidCat 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I can think of one case of Scientology producing documents, namely what's supposed to be Hubbard's record of service (on an official US Navy form). Unfortunately this shows him receiving medals that didn't actually exist, serving aboard ships that didn't serve in WW2 and is signed by an officer of whom the US Navy has no record. It's a trivially disprovable forgery, in other words, and it's revealing that the CoS would try to use it to prove Hubbard's claims. -- ChrisO 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It is less accurate to say "The point is very much in dispute" than "The Church of Scientology is still very much in denial." -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point of dispute as there is no evidence that Hubbard claimed that he had graduated in civil engineering from the University as a nuclear physicist and it is beside the point to talk about his having attended the university for only two years and having failed in physics. Many famous and successful people have not graduated from university. His abilities were recognized by his professor and his colleagues. The Phd from Sequoia University was an honorary degree and was not conferred until many years later, so is out of place here. California guy 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but there is evidence that he claimed to be a civil engineer and a nuclear physicist, starting with books and on through his lectures. It's his false claims that are notable, not his success or failure without degrees. As well, CoS continues to repeat fabrications about his life, so it's very much in place to mention them here. Speaking of which, can you document your statement that "His abilities were recognized by his professor and his colleagues"? AndroidCat 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
As AndroidCat points out, there is indeed quite a lot of evidence that he falsely claimed to degrees which he didn't have and expertise which he didn't have. It is hardly "beside the point" to observe that a man who wrote a book called All About Radiation and claimed in that book to be a nuclear physicist did not even pass the courses he took in physics. And finally, when you say that the Ph.D that Hubbard claimed he had from Sequoia University was "conferred", what you actually mean is "purchased". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipediatrix says, there are two sides here and having a positive entry does not make it “puffery.” I have sourced my edit. How does a critic site or an evangelist (who is against everything other than his own religion) get to be a credible source for something that could be classified as “negative puffery?” Lets get some balance in here. If you want documentation to back up my statements - I can arrange it - just tell me where you want it posted. California guy 09:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can claim with a straight face that it's just "negative puffery". You deleted two bits of highly relevant and verifiable data. First, GWU's records definitely do show that LRH scored very low grades and dropped out. This is directly confirmable from GWU itself, not just from critical books and websites (try writing to GWU and asking them). Second, Sequoia University was definitely a non-accredited body which was widely regarded as a degree mill. Look it up on Lexis-Nexis and you'll see a number of LA Times articles about the California Assembly's investigation of its proprietor and its termination by court order in 1984.
While I don't have any problem with most of your additions (which I've retained), I don't agree with the line "where he attended the first class in nuclear physics, then called atomic and molecular phenomena". We only have Hubbard's word for it that it was the first such class, and it's important to note that he subsequently used it to claim expertise in that field despite his records showing that he got an F in it - it's a prime example of how he inflated his achievements (a consistent theme throughout his career). -- ChrisO 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You will see I have made some edits. The statement quoted was not made by Hubbard’s superior officer, it was the Harbour Master. The current entry is opinionated and not neutral, it ignores that the crew reports also confirmed the presence of a submarine in the area. The entry also makes no reference to the political motives behind this effort to claim there was “no sub”, despite the first-hand observations of the crew. This is a very one-sided version and I have edited it accordingly. Also, it is being ignored that Hubbard worked in intelligence during the war and that only a fraction of his naval records have been released by the U.S. Navy. Prouty is well qualified in the field of intelligence and his data should be included. I have corrected this.California guy 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources can be opinionated, Wikipedia articles cannot. You complain about the article's POV, yet your own pro-Hubbard POV push doesn't seem to bother you. In inserting your own information, you also removed a great deal of equally relevant information. I'm reverting it. Feel free to try it again without blanking out large amounts of other sourced information. wikipediatrix 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Prouty was (he's dead now) an idiot and is completely non-credible as a source. He based his assertions on this document [1], which the CoS has been distributing for at least the past 20 years with the claim that it's a genuine record of Hubbard's war service. However, as I mentioned above, the document is a crude forgery - it lists medals that don't exist ("British & Dutch Victory Medals"), a ship that didn't serve in the war (the "USS Mist") and a signatory officer of whom the US Navy has no record. He wasn't much good as an "expert" if he didn't spot these trivially obvious signs of fakery.
As for Hubbard's intelligence career, see [2] for a debunking - basically he worked for a few months as a cable censor and that was it. Unfortunately CG's latest additions are little more than long-disproved CoS PR claims. -- ChrisO 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


This isn't in relation to the other topics on this page, but it SHOULD be included in the questions about Mr. Hubbard's biography. There are two items posted about his birth and early life that dispute each other - one says he was born TO the Hubbards, and another says he was adopted by the Hubbards. It can't be both. I've been trying to fact check myself but come up empty-handed...does anyone else have a citeable source that proves whether or not the Hubbards are his biological or adopted parents? -- SpaceCowgirl 23:12, 13 July 2006

Actually, the content is correct, but it's unfortunately arranged in such a way that many people misread it. It says that Ron was born to Harry and May; it then talks about Harry and May, and mentions that Harry was adopted by the Hubbards (Ron's paternal and of course adoptive grandparents.) No contradiction, but it does cause confusion... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of "controversial"

"of the controversial Church of Scientology" Any religion (or cult, sect, political party) can be "controversial" for a number of people, so why use this word for the CoS in particular? I don't think this word adds useful information to the article. People interested in learning what Scientology (or the CoS) is can follow the link and read, in the relevant article, what controversies exist about this topic. Apokrif 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other groups may have some controversy, but CoS has waded in it for the 53 years of its existence. It's a rare newspaper article that doesn't say something like "the controversial church" as if it was part of the name. I think it's an accurate reflection of the general view and not just "a number of people". AndroidCat 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So we should say, for instance, "the CoS about which, according to this study, N% of newspaper articles say it's controversial". Most people think the CoS is a cult, that's not a reason to write in WP "the Scientology, which is a cult". Apokrif 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling them "controversial" is actually providing some benefit of the doubt to Scientology, since it contains the implication that there are two sides. No one refers to, say, Al-Qaeda as "controversial", because it goes without saying that almost everyone in the free world opposes them. wikipediatrix 15:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Apokrif, you're correct that anyone can follow the link and read about the Church of Scientology and discover that it's highly controversial. However, not everyone will. When I'm working on an article, I try to always keep in mind that the reader could stop reading after any sentence; therefore I want to make sure that if they stop reading after N sentences, those N sentences have given them the most important information they can get in N sentences. What's "important" in this context? Well, since we've presumed that the reader is going to stop before they get all the information we have on the topic, the most important thing we can do is give them a framework for any further information they get on the subject. In this case, the "controversial" alerts the reader that there are probably some very different viewpoints out there on the subject, and that if they hear something about the subject, it should be interpreted as not necessarily "the truth" about the subject, but rather, someone's side of the story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this holds for (almost) every subject, so I think "controversial" (without some additional info) is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I opened a topic at Wikipedia talk:Words_to_avoid#"Controversial":_vague_and_useless. Apokrif 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you think every religion/cult/sect/political party has a level of controversy anywhere near that of Scientology, I'm afraid you're either not well-acquainted with the subject or not prepared to see it clearly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Few topics are so deeply embedded in controversy as the Church of Scientology. While a responsible article should ultimately be more explicit about the nature of the controversy (the fact that a large percentage of the church's self-representation is judged by most third-party observers as misleading or outright false), using the word "controversial" to flag the contentious nature of this topic seems entirely appropriate. The fact that one can find controversy within virtually any field of discussion does not mean that everything is equally controversial. The CoS, like "intelligent design," is an outstanding example of a controversial subject. BTfromLA 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't much like the "controversial" tag; it has the connotation of "controversial" = "bad". -- ChrisO 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that's an unavoidable effect of the fact that for every issue we could describe as "controversial", some people would argue that it's good and some would argue that it's bad. If something isn't controversial, that implies that everyone is agreed on whether it's good or bad. Will some people read into the word "controversial" a judgement that is not actually denoted by the word, reading "controversial" as "bad"? Yes, unfortunately it's so -- but I've no doubt that the absence of "controversial" will lead readers to mistakenly think that whatever is so described is mainstream and free of controversy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup. That's the nature of controversy. We wouldn't call Hitler "controversial", because he has almost no defenders. - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "contraversial" is appropriate when describing Scientology. On the basis of their contraversial theories on psychiatry alone I think it is one of the more milder terms to use. Whether the word can be applied to other "churches" is irrelevant. This article is about Scientology and the general public's view of it. Contraversial can be applied to Scientology, and justifiably so. Jmabel is right to say "We wouldn't call Hitler "controversial", because he has almost no defenders" (well, he actually has quite a few defenders, but regardless...) but a theory linking Hitler to modern psychiatry and some master plan would correctly be identfied as contraversial and by extension any organization that espoused or promoted such an idea quite rightly could be labled contraversial. Ultimately the creditbility of any religon or church or politics or fad is judged by the mainstream. It is price you pay for promoting your belifes in the free marketplace. In return for the money and power any church or religon gains by going public it must, and rightly so, be held accountable by the same free marketplace wherein the religon proffers its beliefs, otherwise the church/religon is being hypocritical. -- Jango Davis 19:10 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Links Issue

This is not a list of “Independent Studies” it is a list of POV sites. There are already other negative POV links on this page, so I am reorganizing this to get some balance in here. Rather than just pile in another load of new links, I am taking most of these out (other than those that can factually be called “neutral.”) And I’m labeling the critical sites for what they are, let’s not kid ourselves that “parodies” and straight out slander are “Independent Studies.” I am seriously unimpressed with the lack of NPOV being exercised recently. Nuview 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but somehow I don't think you are quite the person we want to trust to make the decisions about whether external links need to be removed to achieve NPOV, let alone which ones need to be removed. If you can make a case for the removal of a particular link, make that case. If all you can say is make vague allegations of "straight out slander" and can't even specify which link you mean, let alone explain how it constitutes "slander" (hopefully at least you actually mean slander according to the real, legal definition, and aren't just using it to mean "something I don't like") then you're unlikely to get much support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
As is being done with the Scientology article, the external links are being cleaned up in accordance with point 4 of the Wiki guidelines on external links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL
On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
Also, as the heading “Independent Studies” is misleading (sounds official) I have reorganized the external links section so that it is very clear what is critical and what is not, with a Neutral section to catch what is clearly not a Church site, nor a critical site. With the Amazon entries, it is clear which is which. As it was, these external links were misleading and this is now balanced and the link text is matter of fact. -- Nuview 14:45, 26 July 2006 (PST)
The Style Guide WP:EL seems to be in a state of flux right now. I don't think fanatically retro-applying the version of the moment would be wise. AndroidCat 01:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard founding the Church

Olberon, at the very least, it is still a matter of opinion and controversy whether Hubbard founded the Church himself, or whether others did. Sure, official Scientology sources say that others did, but there are other sources which state that these people were actually employed by Hubbard to set it up for him. If you persist in pushing the Church's "Hubbard didn't found it" party line, I'll have to gather up the many sources which contradict this assertion, and then an entire paragraph about it will further clog up these articles. Furthermore, the Church can't keep its own position straight on the matter: I just found several official Church sites that refer to Hubbard as its founder. Let it go. wikipediatrix 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For Rep Damaging Purposes?

Researching, I found out that this China journal entry was written when he was a teenager – Ms. Spaink fails to mention this. Are we going to include all of his childhood writings and make it look like “Scientologists are against …” ? This entry is irrelevant. California guy 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If any other religious leader made well-known racist remarks in their childhood, it would still be worth reporting, so don't act like Hubbard is being unfairly picked on. If you can provide a valid source for the info that Hubbard's remark was as a teenager, I agree that should be noted in the article. wikipediatrix 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix – do the math. He was born in 1911 and this journal entry is dated 1928. How much more “valid source” do you need? By the way, your attitude as an editor is extremely unhelpful. From your edits and comments you are extremely hostile – I don’t get the “chip on the shoulder” bit.California guy 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There's an interesting point here - the CoS itself quotes from this diary but for some reason omits his racist commentary. Take a look at this page: [3]. In the original diary, the very next line (after "Chinamen") reads: "They [the Chinese] smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here." Now why do you think the CoS faithfully reproduces the rest but omits that line? -- ChrisO 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as Scientology is still insinuating that Dianetics is somehow based on the ancient wisdom of the mystic East which Hubbard absorbed on his trip to China, it is relevant that the actual evidence shows that Hubbard was actually a racist prick on that trip. I quote from What Is Scientology, 1998 edition, page 31: "It was also through the course of these travels that Ron gained access to the much talked-about but rarely seen Buddhist lamaseries in the Western Hills of China -- temples usually off-limits to both local peasants and visiting foreigners. Among other wonders, Ron told of watching monks meditate for weeks on end, contemplating higher truths. Once again then, he spent much of his time investigating and questioning answers to the human dilemma." So you're saying that the Church of Scientology is allowed to make false claims about Hubbard's teenage years, but it's "irrelevant" to show that his own diary entries show them to be lies? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Either the whole story goes in, in which Sara Northrup retracts her statements saying that what she said was false and purely to discredit Hubbard – which I can do, or this stays out and we skip it. California guy 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make ultimatums. You do not WP:OWN the article. wikipediatrix 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, please stay civil and objective and discuss the topic at hand. I came here to see if I could cleanup the article and this is what I saw first at the bottom of the talk page. --Nikitchenko 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is redundant, of course his followers are going to show him in a good light and of course apostates and/or critics are going to show him in a bad light. Someone is determined to leave the public with the impression that its all bad. California guy 15:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We could clean up the article by removing all statements referenced to unreliable sources (Personal websites) such as Andreas' site (Xenu.net), Lerma's site, Armstrong's site and the other personal websites. I think this will clean up the article somewhat. What does the Wikipedia community think? --Nikitchenko 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the references refer to personal claims made by the owners of those websites, fair enough. But not if the references are to published third-party sources such as books. I note that California Guy's attempts to remove the "Piece of Blue Sky" reference falls into just this category. -- ChrisO 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko, I for one agree that a clean up is in order. I saw there is an ongoing discussion about “reliable sources” that hasn’t been settled. I concur with your views on this. There are a number of personal web pages being used as references; however the validity of the information they proffer is most dubious. The website owned by Andreas is a good example of your point, the guy never was a Scientologist in any capacity and the information on his site is all based on second-hand information. As covered in the Wikipedia guidelines, this doesn’t classify as a “reliable source.” Its time some ground rules were established here. I think you should proceed. California guy 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Nikitchenko, aka Al, is unlikely to proceed with anything for the moment. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology#30 May 06 - Nikitchenko indef blocked, case closed AndroidCat 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am revisiting this Sara Northrup issue. I am removing this, with more information given as I doubt California Guy has the specifics. Sara Northrup retracted her accusations in a signed statement saying that “the things I have said about L. Ron Hubbard in courts and public prints have been grossly exaggerated and entirely false.” --Nuview 21:30, 7 June 2006 (PST)
I'm afraid you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy again, Nuview. I felt sure that after the last five explanations, you were finally understanding, but it seems not. We have information in the article that Sara Northrup made certain allegations in her divorce papers, and that those allegations made a large public splash. That is fact: Sara Northrup did in fact make those allegations. That is sourced: we have it from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Now you are coming along and saying "Well, I have information from a different source, which claims that those allegations were all retracted! I won't present the source for consideration, and I won't consider the notion that perhaps the allegations were true and it was the retraction that was false, nor will I allow the reader to make up their mind whether they think the allegations or the retraction of the allegations was the more credible. Instead, I will simply assume that my source, which I will not present for consideration, settles the question so absolutely that nothing need ever be mentioned about any of the whole affair." This is incorrect. Even if you were to present your source, and even if it was to meet all requirements, it would mean that you could add what that source claims on the matter. It doesn't mean you can remove any mention of the argument -- that would be equivalent to declaring that your source settled the matter. And declaring that the matter is settled by a source that you don't even present is too absurd to even address. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's Start the Cleanup

I am not sure where the idea came from that Chel Stith is the President of the Church of Scientology International. Rev. Heber Jentzsch is the President and has held this position for 24 years. (http://www.scientology.org/scnnews/jentzsch.htm) This is just an example of the sloppy, unverified editing that this page is receiving. It definitely needs cleaning up.-- Nuview 13:01, 9 May 2006 (PST)

Next: I don’t want to discuss back and forward on the subject of individual entries in the parody section so I am proposing to remove the Parody section altogether. I have been unable to find any parody section in any other article about a religious leader, or prominent person (see the list given on this page [4] Parody is its own thing and doesn’t belong in what should be an encyclopedic, biographical type article. This would be a major edit and I want to get consensus on this. Lets keep POV out of it and look at this editorially. Nuview 22:32, 21 May 2006 (PST)

I am taking this to mean that is no objection and I am removing the parody section in its entirety for the reasons stated above in my last comment (that it doesn’t belong here as there is no parody section in any other article about a religious leader, or prominent person (see the list given on this page [10]. Parody is its own thing and doesn’t belong in what should be an encyclopedic, biographical type article.)Nuview 20:58, 28 May 2006 (PST)

Absence of comment is not consent. (I'm sure many people have become bored commenting on the same things you keep doing every couple of weeks.) AndroidCat 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. What is there to do with someone who keeps putting forth ridiculous suggestions such as "Let's disallow Time magazine as a source, because I personally think that Time got it wrong"? When you've tried repeatedly to explain to such a person what they should have understood themselves just from reading policy, to no avail, what is left but to ignore? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no precedent for keeping the parody section in this article, no other parody sections exist in any similar articles -- nor should they. This is the issue.Nuview 21:26, 7 June 2006 (PST)
"There is no precedent" only means that we make our decision based on the current situation without any benefits incurred from having resolved similar cases in the past. It does not mean, as you seem to think, "we will delete this section based on the fact that no other article that I define as being of similar type has a similar section." Perhaps none of the figures described in those articles did as much to attract attention, some of which came in the form of parody, or even more likely is that many of those leaders were equally parodied, except that it is far easier to recognize "science fiction writer who created own religion" as a reference to LRH than it is to identify "shady 'guru' comes to the United States and immediately starts peddling the alleged mystical wisdom of the East" as any one specific figure. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's say, just for fun, that you had like, TOTAL control over the article, like. And you wanted to use parody in order to present an aspect which might go unnoticed without parodoy. Then, like, total control, man, every word of it always there. Parody might work. Here. we got what 80,000 editors or something, everyone tweaking phrases right and left. Parody ain't gunna work, man. Terryeo 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
A reasonably well-known parody of a notable person is also notable. It just means LRH was important enough for someone to parody. I don't see one good reason to exclude it from the article. Vpoko 18:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Autopsy Contradiction

There is a contradiction in the article about whether or not an autopsy was performed.

"They were blocked by the San Luis Obispo County medical examiner, whose autopsy revealed high levels of a drug called hydroxyzine..."

"Several issues surrounding Hubbard's death and disposition of his estate are also subjects of controversy — a swift cremation with no autopsy; the destruction of coroner's photographs; coroner's evidence of the drug Vistaril present in Hubbard's blood..."

The first statement says that an autopsy was performed and the second statement says the coroner found evidence of Vistaril, which suggests that at least some type of examination was performed. -- Kjkolb 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan of sources seems to indicate that there was an examination of the body, and blood tests (which revealed the Vistaril) but no autopsy. I suspect someone simply didn't know that not every examination of a body by a coroner is called an "autopsy". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The supposed implications of L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.'s "retraction"

It may not be well known but L. Ron Hubbard Jr. retracted the statements he made about his father (which he conceded were for his own personal gain) several times. This was in the form of affidavits duly sworn and signed in 1969 and 1987. To use the statements he made prior to this to discredit his father is inappropriate considering he approached the Church to make the truth known, stating “… what I have been doing is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of damage to people that I value highly. I happen to love my father, blood is thicker than water, …” He also stated in the 1987 affidavit that the statements he made in manuscripts in his communications to Bent Corydon and others, were no more than “wild flights of fantasy based on my own unlimited imagination. To no represent those statements as ‘truth’ and to steal the hard earned value of the name “L. Ron Hubbard” by using my former name as the co-author of a book I have neither written nor reviewed, is an unethical act of the highest magnitude.” Therefore these removals, as the source is not valid. (Ref: http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/frenschkowski.html) -- Nuview 21:01, 16 June 2006 (PST)

Ah, Nuview. This would be, what, the sixth time you've removed cited information based on this same fallacious logic? Seventh? I do know for a fact that it has been explained to you why you cannot just say "I have a source, which I have not presented for consideration, which claims that all statements made by that source are unreliable; I decline to present my source and let the reader decide which source they find credible, but instead will unilaterally decide that my source settles the argument and remove all contrary information based on a source I haven't even presented." Of course, you've gone even beyond your previous actions this time, removing a link to one of the major works because one of the two authors of that work (not even the major author) supposedly retracted everything he ever said that the Church of Scientology didn't want to hear. The question is, when are you going to start abiding by this very simple application of Wikipedia policy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar – Finally answering you. I am sorry I don’t have a point of reference on the web to send people to, however, I have quoted the sworn affidavits by L. Ron Hubbard Jr. In terms of discussing and getting a consensus, please show me where there has been a recent instance of someone trying to include something positive or remove something false in the Scientology articles and the discussion on this resulting in the editor being listened to. Fine to criticize my application of Wiki policy, which policy do you suggest I follow to get my points actually discussed – rather than blown out of the water by editors who have already decided NPOV means the critical POV = majority rules? Be helpful and you tell me the solution to getting the extreme amount of falsehoods corrected in this article, instead of just following my footsteps and nuking everything I do. Prove that I shouldn’t query your editorial motives.-- Nuview 11:30, 12 July 2006 (PST)
The material you removed is properly cited. You are invited to add to it if you think you have complementary information that may shed a different light on the subject (and of course with proper cites). Removing well-cited material is inappropriate. Raymond Hill 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that Ron DeWolfe later recanted at least one of his retractions, saying that it had been made under duress. (See the Clearwater Commission Hearings, 1982.) AndroidCat 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I am quoting from 1987, 5 years later. I am removing this again -and reiterate, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. retracted the statements he made about his father (which he conceded were for his own personal gain) several times. This was in the form of affidavits duly sworn and signed in 1969 and 1987. He stated “… what I have been doing is a whole lot of lying, a whole lot of damage to people that I value highly. I happen to love my father, blood is thicker than water, …” He also stated in the 1987 affidavit that the statements he made in manuscripts and in his communications to Bent Corydon and others, were no more than “wild flights of fantasy based on my own unlimited imagination. To now represent those statements as ‘truth’ and to steal the hard earned value of the name ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ by using my former name as the co-author of a book I have neither written nor reviewed, is an unethical act of the highest magnitude.” Ref: http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/frenschkowski.html Nuview 10:10, 8 Aug 2006 (PST)
Well, at least this time you provided a source! Too bad it's a source that says absolutely nothing about the material you're trying to remove. Frenschkowski's article does mention an affidavit by DeWolf, but does not say anything about its content besides that it denied statements made in Corydon's Messiah or Madman. There is absolutely no indication that the affidavit nullified statements DeWolf made to PBS on his own completely independent of Corydon. And as we have explained to you many times, even if you were to provide a source that actually supports your story of a retraction, that would not make the retraction automatically the "final word" on the matter, sufficient to justify removing any discussion of the matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If there is a retraction, it should be mentioned together with the original statement. A retraction would not warrant the removal of the original statement, however - it is historically significant and NOTHING that happens after the fact can change that. Vpoko 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The POV on the Sara Northrup entry

I have edited this to include the information of her retraction. [User:Nuview|Nuview]] 10:20, 8 Aug 2006 (PST)

I think you mean "edited this to completely remove anything except her retraction". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus is correct--this is a very disingenous representation of your edit. A notable moment in Hubbard's bio is the fact that he was was the subject of sensational headlines about his personal life in relation to that divorce--the fact of his bigamy, so far as I know, has never been contested, and the charges of torture and kidnapping were in the news, regardless of their ultimate merit. They deserve a brief mention in the article, and I have restored them. BTfromLA 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some incredible information I MUST add to this article, but I wanted to put it on the talk page first because I know this article has many ardent followers, both detractors and supporters of Mr. Hubbard. Anyway, I think that Scientologists should know that my grandma, Vi Gardina, is still alive at the age of 81. Clearly, she must have unlocked many deeper, darker secrets than even the great L. Ron Hubbard ever did, or else the thetans in her would have taken her life long ago. I just thought you should know, so you can come over to my house if you want, and worship my Grandma. If someone would like, I will send them a short biography of my grandmother, so that they can Wikify it, and make sure to link to her article from this one, as she is CLEARLY the successor to L. Ron Hubbard's heritage. Tmorrisey 17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, cool idea ! Did she buy her own Arizon ranch or anything like that? no, wait, don't give any personal details. Terryeo 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deathbed Photo

I'm sure we've all seen Elron's black & white deathbed photo, but I think it should be included in the article, preferably alongside the info about his strokes and Vistaril use. I say this because Scientology promotes Hubbard as a "perfect being" with supernatural powers who could cure all physical and mental illnesses. Furthermore, they claim he did not die per se, but rather voluntarily "dropped the body" to continue his research in the spirit realm (or what have you). This photo, along with the coroner's report, expresses a decidedly different view of his end. Roland Deschain 08:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is finding any photo of Hubbard that has a documented usable copyright permission or public domain status. Like the Happy Birthday song, just because everyone uses it, it doesn't mean that someone doesn't own it. In Wiki's case, "nod and a wink" permission isn't enough. AndroidCat 12:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "deathbed photo". It's a picture of Hubbard from a TV documentary in 1973 (and as such, it might be usable under fair use provisions). The pic appears in Stewart Lamont's book "Religion, Inc." It shows an interesting point in Hubbard's physical deterioration - he developed a large swelling on his forehead (you can see it a few cm above the bridge of his nose), which he later had surgically removed. -- ChrisO 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two ideas I just wanted to throw out there

1) Does anyone think they can find and cite some reviews of Hubbard's sci-fi and pulp-fiction work? Just kind of curious as to how good of a writer he was, because I found the exceprts on the Xenu page from "Revolt in the Stars" to be poorly written and I was wondering if that caliber of writing was his typical work. 2) Is it possible that he invented Scientology as a way to involve masses of people to believe in some sci-fi realm of his creation in some kind of master work? Is this theory seriously stated/researched/backedup somewhere? Eno-Etile 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fear and Final Blackout are considered his best fiction and quite well-reviewed. You can google a few terms to get a sense. Not sure how to fit these in, perhaps you have an idea. In which case, go ahead.
Ideas like your second are best placed on your personal blog. There is good evidence that he made a joke during an address to a group of fellow writers about starting a religion for profit. I should mention that anyone that has listened to LRH knows how irreverent he was, how he would say anything, and did not take himself too seriously when he did say something "out there" nor did he expect others to. For instance, on the 1st tape of the PDC Lectures he claims, obviously joking, that he is the devil incarnate. So the fact that he joked about starting a religion for profit does not preclude him starting a religion for nobler purposes or because he felt that his philosophies would be best descibed that way. And of course, there is the issue of taxes and overall protected status. It is probably some combination and what is wrong with that? Point is, we don't know and all is opinion as to the why. --Justanother 18:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Moscow State University - Hubbard room?

I once heard that there was a library or a lecture room in the Moscow University that was named after L. Ron Hubbard.

Does anyone know whether this is true? If it is true, does it still have that name?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true enough. See [5]: "The University has renamed its Library of Journalism the “L. Ron Hubbard Reading Room”. At the entrance, the traditional bust of Lenin has been replaced by one of Hubbard. The room is decked out with photographs of the former cult leader and houses a collection of his Scientology books." No idea if this is still the case, though. -- ChrisO 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV statements

Apparently, my reverting of -many- statements by a single user frequently denouncing L. Ron Hubbard and using many POV statements was me not understanding a guideline. Can someone iterate how I screwed up? Thanks. Rayonne 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning your removal of that goofy POV rant from 68.59.179.96. The problem is that your last edit - this one - changed a few words but still said "Reverting from vandalism", which makes no sense. If you notice, Antaeus Feldspar did NOT revert your removal of this. wikipediatrix 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. I reverted it an extra article back, thanks for the help. Rayonne 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify -- that was one problem, that you reverted an extra article back. The other was describing the stuff inserted in this edit as "vandalism". While any evenly mildly experienced editor can see the stuff in that edit clearly violates numerous Wikipedia principles, I don't see any evidence that "Demon-Syntax Gokumangt" knew those principles or knew that his edit violated them. An edit shouldn't be described as "vandalism" unless it's clear that it was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia -- otherwise it just launches a never-ending spiral that ends up with editors describing all content changes they don't like as vandalism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Military Career

please review the sections "early life" and "military career" - i noted the following discrepancy (20 Oct 06):

Early Life: "He served in the Navy until 1946, reaching the rank of Lieutenant-Commander in 1934."

Military Career: "In June 1947 the Navy attempted to promote him to Lieutenant Commander, but Hubbard appears not to have learned of this and so never accepted it; consequently he remained a Lieutenant. He resigned his commission in 1950." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elrond116 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see a discrepancy. Take a closer look. AndroidCat 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking, and - either he became a Lt Cmdr in 1934, or he nearly did in 1947. Can't be both. Could it be the 1934 should be a promotion to just Lieutenant? --Jamoche 18:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1934 is his dad. --Justanother 18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/Archive_3&oldid=96256076"