Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 2

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  More wrangling over the intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I was just browsing Wiki and came across this discussion. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Important question about article protection

message: "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)
thread_title:  Best known as the author of the best-seller ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Enhancements to the Intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hearsay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hubbard founded Dianetics and Scientology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Prefixed-Style of Formal Address 

message: 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)
thread_title:  L. Ron Hubbard bibliography page 

message: 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)
replies: text: The NNDB page is for L. Ron Hubbard, not L. Ron Hubbard jr aka Ronald DeWolf. AndroidCat 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  L. Ron, Jr. dead?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charlatan? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Business controversies 

message: #His private life is missing. What should be mentioned is that he had a son, Quentin Hubbard, according to Monica Pignotti. . Andries 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron certainly did have a son, Quentin Hubbard, who is described in a number of biographies and court affidavits.  --FOo 01:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments: private life missing and false claim about sunken submarine

message: from Prophetic Charisma by Len Oakes Syracuse 1998 University press  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)
thread_title: Interesting opinion: Hubbard believed his own lies

message: Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment