Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 4

message: I've never done this before so forgive me if I screw up, but looking at the Early Life section the dates are clearly messed up, he was born in 1911 but enlisted in the Navy in 1904, left in 1908 and re-enlisted in 1917 (at the ripe age of 6?)...  Someone who is more experienced should take a look at that.  Also seems contradictory with information in the section on his military career, which reports he entered the Navy in the 40's as a LTJG.--JaymzRR 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's Hubbard's father you're thinking of (he was the one who enlisted in 1904). Perhaps this needs to be made clearer. -- ChrisO 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DATES 

message: I reviewed this article on the following 7 criteria:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Neutral 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
Congratulations, it passes.  I gave Stable a neutral because it is a vandal target, but not a very big one, as it is currently being hit at 1 every 1 to 2 days.  I was pleasantly surprised at the neutral handling of such a controversial man, and I would suggest that this article be sent to Peer Review in hopes of one day becoming a Featured Article.  --PresN 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reviewer is real lax in his criteria. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you haven't given any specific examples of a lack of NPOV either here or your section below, I'm going to be bold and change it back to that given by the reviewer until you can provide such examples. --163.1.165.116 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC 

message: As much as I disagree with Scientology this article isn't NPOV. A good NPOV article should be able to be read by a reader without being able to tell the personal believes of the author(s) of the article. Upon reading this article, it appears obvious that it's collective authors, of content/editing that has been included, is anti-scientology. I haven't read the talk pages so I don't know who has written it. I'm not involved in this topic at all - I was just reading it. However, I read my talk pages periodically. --Signed by:  Chazz - (responses). @ 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything specific? --Tilman 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started from the bottom. The first example is the section "Hubbard in popular culture" is almost completely unsourced though clearly written to ridicule Hubbard as a person, with typical propaganda wordings like "it is thought" or the - again unsourced - under-the-belt sidenote that Hubbard was negatively talked about more after his death than before. If he would have come up in that many areas ("novels, motion pictures, television cartoons, video games and other cultural forms") in the way described, it should be easy to reference it. Also the meaning of "he was also the most prolific posthumous author that year" is not clear (maybe because some of his books were republished that year?). I found a Wiki symbol for such POS and added it accordingly. Does anyone have Hubbard's Rocky Mountain News interview of 20 Feb 1983? All I can find on the net are digested versions from known critics. COFS 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tilman. This refers to the revision you just did contrary to WP:POV, WP:CIV and is rude. If you do not feel like sticking to Wikipedia policy right now, go "take a walk" (which is another Wikipedia policy or guideline, I believe). Or go back to bed. In good faith I assume that you did not read the talk page before doing that. COFS 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your problem? I added the source. --Tilman 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You want to convince me that you did not see that you rv'ed a bunch of changes "by adding a source"?! Come! On! Sorry however for rvv'ing it, I just put it back. COFS 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Could someone with knowledge about US academic szene check whether it is correct to claim that Ron "majored" in Civil Engineering? According to wikipedia , it means "the primary focus of a Bachelor's degree". Taking one course for one semester  isn't a "primary focus". --Tilman 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, in a four-year school, you get on a "major track" right from the get-go. I do not know what LRH's major was. And I do not know how that school was structured in the 30's. From the transcript it looks like engineering. We could perhaps say he majored in engineering then. I assumed that the "took a course in" was UK for "majored in" because what would be the point otherwise of mentioning that one course out of 20 (of course I get the point of mentioning the other, nuclear physics). --Justanother 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go:In September of 1930, Ron was admitted to George Washington University School of Engineering with a major in civil engineering.From a source you would most likely respect (joke - I sure don't but useful for some stuff).--Justanother 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  in the U.K. "took a course in" normally means just that : any course at any level ( evening class, college etc ), which is not the same as what I understand "majored in". For university we normally say took engineering at XX university, or did engineering or ( formally ) read engineering. 217.7.209.108 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  majored 

message: Sentence from this section: "In 1978, Hubbard was convicted of felony fraud and sentenced to four years in jail and a 35,000₣ fine by a French court. Hubbard refused to serve his jail time or pay his fine and went into hiding." There is an article in the International Herald Tribune, March 3 1980, titled "Court in France Recognizes Cult, Acquits Ex-Head", with this passage: "The court's president indicated that the three others [Hubbard included], who were sentenced in their absentia, might be acquitted if they appealed." Although it seems Hubbard never bothered to appeal, is it significant enough to add this information? Raymond Hill 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal difficulties and life on the high seas 

message: "He was attended by "Commodore's Messengers", teenaged girls dressed in white hot pants who waited on him hand and foot, bathing and dressing him and even catching the ash from his cigarettes. He had frequent screaming tantrums and instituted brutal punishments such as incarceration in the ship's filthy chain-locker for days or weeks at a time and "overboarding", in which errant crew members were blindfolded, bound and thrown overboard, dropping up to 40 ft. into the cold sea, hoping not to hit the side of the ship with its sharp barnacles on the way down. These punishments were applied to children as well as to adults [1]."- http://www.xenu.net/
As horrific an ordeal this is one must remember, I think, that the Mediterranean can not reasonably be considered "cold". A quick glance at xenu.net sufficiently impresses me that the site wishes to discredit Hubbard and/or Scientology. I think the reader of this article could arrive at their own conclusions without the added bombast from questionable sources.72.23.239.232 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever swum in the Mediterranean? It's not a tropical sea by any means, and it gets pretty cold in the winter - see http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/water/Europe/WestMediterranean.htm for current temperatures (as low as 14C / 57F). But I agree, the paragraph you quoted is pretty overheated, and it's badly referenced - xenu.net shouldn't be being used as a reference for that. -- ChrisO 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't actually get that warm anywhere in the Med in the winter; the best you're going to get at this time of year is about 18-19C. However, Hubbard appears to have spent at least one winter (1966/67) in Morocco, and his fleet visited the Canary Islands as well - both are reasonably warm in the winter. -- ChrisO 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased representation 

message: Reference http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/LRH-bio/chinamen.htm is down. Alpine 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Down 

message: The article mentions this Board, which Hubbard set up - is there a list somewhere of who served on it, and isn't that worth mentioning? I believe LRH split with all of them and tried to have some of them done down in various ways. That would also surely be worth a mention. MarkThomas 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The various Dianetics corporations that Hubbard created with partners that crashed and burned could use more detail either here or in the Dianetics article, but digging up adequate sources for events over 50 years ago is work, especially when some of them seemed to exist for only a few weeks. Certainly things like Hubbard's arrest in Philadelphia (1952), and the loss of control of the Dianetics materials for a time during legal battles with Don Purcell over the Wichita Foundation are notable. AndroidCat 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board of Dianetics 

message: Since I am so outnumbered here, I think I should get a handicap, like in horse racing or golf. I propose that I get 6RR. I mean, that will level the field just a tad. What do you'all think? --Justanother 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't Miscavige just allocate a "hit-team" to WP. That would sort you out. Or is it that you know in advance you wouldn't stand a chance. Scientology has 75,000 sad adherants and WP a few million. Oh dear. MarkThomas 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give him a call and ask him. Fact is that it would only take about 10 - 15 Scientologists that knew what they were doing here to totally clean up the articles here. By clean up I mean remove the soapboxing while leaving a legitimate exposition of criticism of Scientology and adding a ton of truth about Scientology. I do what little I can but I am the only one here that fits that description at this time. Clueless POV-pushers abound, though. Luckily most editors here, including critics of Scientology, can see clueless POV-pushers for what they are. --Justanother 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, Justanother, were you under the impression that this is some sort of game? Please leave the games elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up, Antaeus. Life is a game. More fun that way. --Justanother 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and call Miscavige. Do you seriously think that the powers-that-be in Wikipedia would allow Miscavige's nonnies to trample and win? Or isn't it the case that in fact you would have to withdraw from your bullying "clean-up" with egg all over your sorry little faces? Probably John Travolta would have to issue a public apology. Not that I speak for Wikipedia - just speculating. Interesting though to see the way your mind is really working - "clean-up", "legitimate exposition" - I think we all know what those terms mean in sinister Scieno-speak!! MarkThomas 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sinister Scieno-speak only exists in your imagination. Like much of your criticism, I would wager. --Justanother 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't looked at it thoroughly though, so if the same info can be found on xenu.net it could be worth removing for being superfluous. Anynobody 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is spam because the guy is spamming it in multiple articles. Anynobody, do you know what a WP:RS is?? Please review the policy if you have a question. Do you think that this project should include non-RS materials just for the hell of it? Sorry to be a bit blunt just it strikes me as odd that you think that an encyclopedia would endorse such a site. And inclusion is endorsement, no matter how you label it. Websites like that are little more than graffiti on the information superhighway. --Justanother 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not say the site was spam, I said it was being spammed. The site is non-RS, highly POV, inappropriate for this project. Anynobody, please just read the same refs that I read; WP:RS (WP:ATT and the FAQ for it), WP:EL, WP:NPOV. That is really all I have to say; read the policies. Thanks. --Justanother 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it adds anything that xenu.net doesn't already cover. And Justanother is right to point out that the site has been spammed on Wikipedia in the past - I recall this coming up before. -- ChrisO 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handicap 

message: I realize you feel outnumbered, and though I can't offer you a handicap I can offer you a chance to discuss why this: L Ron Hubbard's own words illustrating the Xenu Space Opera Story is not really spam.   I agree it does not belong where it was near the top, but it seems no worse than the other sites listed under the Independent section and it does deal with the subject at hand and has some primary sources (like some of his lectures). I know you wouldn't endorse the site personally but as long as it's listed with similar sites people will know what the point it's trying to make is.
:
I haven't looked at it thoroughly though, so if the same info can be found on xenu.net it could be worth removing for being superfluous. Anynobody 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is spam because the guy is spamming it in multiple articles. Anynobody, do you know what a WP:RS is?? Please review the policy if you have a question. Do you think that this project should include non-RS materials just for the hell of it? Sorry to be a bit blunt just it strikes me as odd that you think that an encyclopedia would endorse such a site. And inclusion is endorsement, no matter how you label it. Websites like that are little more than graffiti on the information superhighway. --Justanother 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not say the site was spam, I said it was being spammed. The site is non-RS, highly POV, inappropriate for this project. Anynobody, please just read the same refs that I read; WP:RS (WP:ATT and the FAQ for it), WP:EL, WP:NPOV. That is really all I have to say; read the policies. Thanks. --Justanother 06:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it adds anything that xenu.net doesn't already cover. And Justanother is right to point out that the site has been spammed on Wikipedia in the past - I recall this coming up before. -- ChrisO 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam? 

message: Please discuss in one place at Talk:Catherine Bell#Scientology Status of Catherine Bell. Thanks --Justanother 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the "outing" site, "truth"aboutscientology - Please discuss at Catherine Bell 

message: NetRange:   71.160.0.0 - 71.191.255.255 
CIDR:       71.160.0.0/11 
NetName:    VIS-BLOCK
NetHandle:  NET-71-160-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-71-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.BELLATLANTIC.NET
NameServer: NS2.BELLATLANTIC.NET
NameServer: NS2.VERIZON.NET
NameServer: NS4.VERIZON.NET
Comment:    
RegDate:    2005-06-01
Updated:    2006-12-29
OrgAbuseHandle: VISAB-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   VIS Abuse 
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-214-513-6711
OrgAbuseEmail:  abuse@verizon.net
Abuse email sent. COFS 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 71.171.216.249 

message: When a drug has secondary effects like acting as an antihistamine but is also psychoactive doctors tend to prescribe it in cases where the patient can't take regular antihistamines. Otherwise a doctor could prescribe cannabis as an anti-emetic, when there are much better options for just treating vomiting than cannabis. (I understand in cancer patients cannabis is used to stop vomiting AND increase appetite, I'm talking about prescribing cannabis for someone who could just as easily be treated with a dose of over the counter Emetrol.) Anynobody 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong but psychoactive drugs are part of what Scientology hates most about psychiatrists, because they see them as poison. The text was changed to make it seem as though Hubbard was taking it as an antihistamine. Does this mean that if Prozac also had antihistamine properties it would be acceptable for a Scientologist to take? Anynobody 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of "psychoactive" drugs is too narrow. Caffeine and alcohol - "the most widely used depressant in the world" - are psychoactive, nicotine is as well and so are valerian, bugleweed, catnip, chamomile, feverfew, hops, mullein, peppermint, skullcap .... And yes, it is totally fine for Scientologists to take those "drugs". If there is a medical, life-prolonging reason it is also OK to take sleeping aids, painkillers or an antihistamine with a psychoactive (e.g. calming) effect. Prozac is not an example as it has no such properties as it has harmful and known longterm effects. COFS 01:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So then, if Prozac could be used to treat headaches in people allergic to regular pain relievers Scientology would find that acceptable as a short term solution? Prozac as treatment for headaches Anynobody 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (I'm not arguing the Vistaril issue anymore, but am just curious about how Scientology applies it's beliefs) Anynobody 06:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know Scientology beliefs, obviously, otherwise you would not assume or extrapolate that way. The whole story is that you cannot get auditing if you are on drugs, no matter what type of drugs, including over-the-counter painkillers/sleep aids like Tylenol or Ibuprofen, because the person being audited must be alert, well fed and must have gotten enough sleep before being admitted to auditing. And you are not alert if you have taken painkillers or tranquilizers (such as Vistaril). Simple rule. COFS 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know all of Scientology, as I said. If I understand you correctly, drugs and painkillers are ok as long as the Scientologist isn't going in for auditing that day? Anynobody 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all type of drugs (especially not illegal ones...) certainly, but psychoactive medication in general. As long as the drug is "active" in the body, auditing is not permitted. There is no hard rule on that, dependent on the drug I have been waiting from 24hrs to a whole week. There are lots of guidelines and the background to them in the "Tech Volumes" of Scientology (Vol. I, p.140 for example has a whole tape transcript about why a PC needs to be "dry" of any drugs). But there is also a quote from LRH saying "It is not fatal to audit over drugs. It is just difficult, the results may not be lasting and need to be verified afterwards." (from a bulletin called "Drugs, Aspirin and Tranquilizers").  COFS 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are drug tests ever given to make sure? (Like for someone with a history of problems with drugs, or if the audit/drug combo could be harmful?) Anynobody 01:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as a hard rule. But believe me, inside a Scientology group a druggie shows like a dead cat at a wedding. Also, those doing Scientology know that it won't work if there are drugs in the way and that it would be a waste of effort for everyone to e.g. do auditing or courses while on drugs. For starting the Purification Rundown a medical attest on healthiness etc is required. COFS 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vistaril 

message: During peacetime, the military does not "offer" promotion. In 1947 there was no war going on, and 
candidates for promotion had to go through a testing process. Anynobody 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Owen mentions that the actual promotion was running through the system since October 3, 1945, here  under Afterlife, but doesn't mention the document that shows this. At any rate, Hubbard certainly didn't "refuse" the promotion because (assuming this can be sourced), it was never delivered and signed for. AndroidCat 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Navy didn't try to promote Hubbard 

message: MarkThomas I'm NOT trying to make his career seem more noble. As you have pointed out the CoS has been putting out inaccurate information for a long time regarding this, the anti-COS people have made similar but smaller and more innocent mistakes. If you are trying to prove Hubbard was an incompetent officer, the truth really suits your case better. If Hubbard could've detected the "magnetic deposit" it would actually make him look like an inexperienced rather than incompetent captain. 
:
Instead the truth is he mentioned how much "sleep he caught up on" in ASW school, where they would have given him training on SONAR. If he hadn't slept through the class, he might have realized he wasn't detecting an enemy sub. He talks about his experienced and skilled crew in his report, then the following month the crew was too green to return to base without him at the conn (and he was too tired to do it)? Looking at this quote from above "Exactly, and the pathetically distorted and exaggerated LRH "submarine warfare off Oregon" story is characteristic of the man..." the behavior I'm describing and citing backs you up. Anynobody 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to allegation of flim-flam designed ... "military career" sound more noble," 

message: Submarine Warfare You don't have to take my word for this. The Japanese didn't operate their submarines the same way as the Nazis operated their uboats, trolling for merchant vessels. I'm not saying there was never an IJN sub off the West Coast, because there was at least one. Those times were very few and far between because the IJN didn't believe in attacking shipping or industrial targets. The Nazis did though, and because of that the Allies had to run shipping in the Atlantic by convoys. The Japanese didn't bother attacking, so in the Pacific our merchants just sailed by themselves. The sub commanders were ordered to attack large warships first, like the USS Wasp (CV-7) or the USS Indianapolis (CA-35). The point being that area was not regularly patrolled by enemy subs, so on the occasions when one was there it was on special orders.
:
So he was not taking away valuable patrol resources and allowing a sub to slip through a gap caused by the other ships searching for his contact. I'm also not saying he was doing this in bad faith, he really was trying to do his job. That is the one thing his commanders all said about him is that he was genuinely trying to do the right thing as he saw it. This incident is very similar in nature to what happened earlier on the East Coast during his assignment as the prospective C.O. of USS YP-422, and earlier still in Australia. Down under he convinced himself and somebody in an Army unit that he was some kind of liaison for the Navy when no such orders existed. In Boston he was most likely telling the officers in charge of converting the ships how to do their jobs, and was relieved after complaining that said officers weren't listening to him after being ordered not to.
:
The point is he wasn't stupid, he just had a really high opinion of himself and as such wasn't fit to be in charge of a ship. He could have been valuable as a part of a larger unit though. To those who feel he is being unduly portrayed, would  a sentence explaining that he was doing what he thought best serve to counterbalance the POV issues at all? Anynobody 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One last thing on his command of PC-815 

message: Lt. Hubbard wasn't posted to Australia, the ship he was taking to Manila was diverted there. Added a document submitted by the Attaché explaining what happened, why he was returned, and recommendation he not be given independent authority. His less than heroic return cost him a career with the ONI, since he was then assigned to the USS YP-422. Anynobody 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia and N.I. 

message: Added info about the ship and situation which got him relieved, with references. Also added pics of both the YP-422 and the PC-815. Anynobody 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YP-422 and Algol 

message: Misou said in the last edit summary: de-POVed and where is the controversy? he was pissed, complained and got ignored. so what. no war action.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown editor or IP (talk • contribs) unknown date/time
I don't know who added this, I just know it wasn't part of my original statement:  Anynobody 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it now. I guess some people find that heroic. Maybe you want to rewrite that part so that anyone not a military specialist can understand what you want to say? Misou 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uiii-uiii-uiii, cynicism alert.... Misou 02:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be afraid to try to explain it yourself, being a layperson maybe you could word it better so that fellow laypeople would understand. Anynobody 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try. Misou 02:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a good try Misou, but the actual explanation I was talking about (and I thought you were too) is that in the military people are not supposed to go over the heads of their COs. Hubbard did this twice, which was a mistake then a repeated mistake. The first mistake cost him the assignment, the second mistake just showed he hadn't learned anything from the first mistake. Anynobody 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, didn't I write that? Protesting where you better shut up? Misou 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, this is what was there (emphasis mine): The situation cost him an opportunity to work as a Naval Intelligence officer, and he was subsequently made prospective Commanding Officer of USS YP-422. A fishing trawler undergoing conversion into a shipyard patrol vessel at the Boston Naval Shipyard, it had been called Mist by its civilian owners. Shortly after arrival a personality dispute there evolved into a situation which Lt. Hubbard did not feel was handled properly by the Commandant of the shipyard. He protested to the Commandant's C.O. the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Subsequently the Commandant requested Hubbard be relieved of command noting he is: "...not temperamentally fitted for independent command."[44][1] A further request for the intervention of the Vice Chief's office was ignored as well.[45]These incidents are in contrast with official presentations of the Church of Scientology which often portray Hubbard as a role model soldier during World War II.[30][46][47] This kinda makes it sound appropriate to protest disagreeable orders. Only illegal orders can be ignored/reported, and illegal orders involve stuff like Mi Lai, not refitting a trawler. Anynobody 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo. A queer fellow, that guy. I wonder why he went to the Navy at all. Misou 01:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean why he joined or why he went to the Vice Chief? Anynobody 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why he joined midst of a war. Not for the girls and beer, for sure. Misou 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually he was commissioned before the U.S. entered the war. Anynobody 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard's mistake at the Boston Naval Yard