Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 6

message: Question to everybody. How do I get scanned documents on here? I managed the scanning - ha! - but now I got lost in the license policies. Anybody has a good tip? Misou 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who wrote the document? The license has a lot to do with ownership rights. Anynobody 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Court documents (i.e. stuff written by the court) have no copyright. --Tilman 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the docs are court docs, meaning they were presented to the court, or newspaper articles or FOIA docs. For now I put them up somewhere else. More to come, whenever I get to it. Misou 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If they are U.S. court docs then I'm pretty sure they are Public Domain, ditto FOIA docs. Reposting a newspaper article could be a copyright issue. Anynobody 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo rights etc 

message: *It appears that this issue could use a WP:RFC.  Can someone please succinctly summarize the main points at issue here in this disagreement?  Preferably in the form of a brief question, or at most, 2 sentences?  Smee 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand the opposing argument, they are saying that this document unaltered copy from another site did not come from the CoS/L. Ron Hubbard. Anynobody 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slightly confused, and trying to formulate a neutral-sounding question to pose for the RFC...  Smee 07:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't quite understand the sudden problem with the fake DD-214, I think this is what they are saying. Anynobody 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (that it did not come from the CoS/L. Ron Hubbard.) Anynobody 07:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so a good question to get things going for an RFC would be something like:  Can the article L. Ron Hubbard display a fake version of his DD-214 military form?.  Smee 07:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mean to be evasive, but really I think this is what they are saying. I'd hold off formating it until we know for sure what the problem is. We've (wikipedia) been referencing the fake and real forms for a while, I'm wondering if my visual aid has more to do with this than is being said. Anynobody 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I have opened a WP:RFC, below.  Smee 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC would be a good idea

message: Just a place to discuss the current edit-warring. Please move disputed bits over here for discussion. Thanks. --Justanother 05:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  War?  PLease tell me that he didn't steal $10k from Parsons, that he didn't marry Northrup while still married and that the judge in the UK was biased and I will give you a piece of blue skyVolcanoXeni 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish for this information to stay in the article, you may wish to add additional sourced citations from reputable secondary sources.  Take a look at WP:RS and WP:CITE for some help.  Smee 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit-war 

message: Article is now fully protected until some sort of resolution to this edit war is put forward. Note: this protection is per request on WP:RFPP and no particular revision is endorsed here. Just want the edit war to end, is all - Alison☺ 06:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ;Comment from Smee
This information and images/media should be included in the article.  Many scholars, authors and other secondary sources, including highly-viewed television programs such as 60 Minutes and Nightline, have commented on the discrepancies that exist between the Church of Scientology's version and the actual United States Military versions of Hubbard's historical military documents.  The images add encyclopedic value to the article, and illustrate the differences between the documents.  As the images are public domain in the United States, they are free to use on Wikipedia.  However, as the data contained in the images was entered into publicly available court records, it does not constitute original research, but verifiable information.  Smee 08:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Smee's comment. Anynobody 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anynobody, you are the one who put it in there in the first place. I would have agreed to it if there would be ANY source confirming what you claim. But there is not. Smee coming along and claiming sources I never heard of does not help much. Smee, where is this stuff? Misou 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not already in the article?  Oh well, I will find the citations and transcripts momentarily that deal with this the Church of Scientology's false claims about Hubbard's records.  Bear with me...  Smee 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Still waiting.... Misou 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a break please, it's been a whole 5 minutes.  I'll get to it at some point...  Smee 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Misou the documents can also be found here. I'm not saying the commentary on the page is what the RS on the site is. The RS are the documents themselves, as they can be verified. (Actually this site also has an explanation letter accompanying the fake form that I didn't). Anynobody 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As given above. --Justanother 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ; Reason for document being WP:RS
The document was circulated by the CoS around 1985, in an affidavit the consultant they hired (Col. Prouty) refers to Hubbard earning a "palm" for his purple heart as noted on the document. The explanation document that was distributed with it also makes the same claims the CoS has been making about commanding a corvette squadron etc: . Given that this document has been out there for at least 22 years, if the CoS hadn't put it out they would have long ago cried "foul". Instead they just add more medals and put out new versions: . While the Navy version stays the same: . More can be found in the documents on this site: . Anynobody 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That question has no relevance; there is no "time limit" on objections, no unacceptable material is "grandfathered in", and stuff is caught and discussed when it is caught and discussed. You are throwing out a time-wasting red herring there, Anynobody. --Justanother 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must agree with Justanother on this, aside from the insinuation about throwing out the red herring.  The question is pretty irrelevant, whether purposely or inadvertently so.Phiwum 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously involved editors

message: Does anyone have a problem with me requesting unprotection? I'd like to get the new CoS sources into the article, and they were what the contention was about in the edit war. (Whether or not the CoS put out the document/info). Anynobody 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, unprotect. Just please do not think that you will continue your day trip into OR-land. --Justanother 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Please point me at the RS that shows either of those documents for a start?? --Justanother 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The RS for the real document is the US Navy itself; the document's available from the USN via an FOIA request. The copy we've seen on this page is a scan of the document in Hubbard's USN file. -- ChrisO 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are simply repeating here an off-wiki non-notable OR piece by Chris Owen. The whole thing is a violation of WP:V to the degree that it goes so far beyond anything that shows up previously published in reliable third-party sources. All the material used here is material scanned in by unreliable people (as per wikipedia definition and that includes me) from unreliable sources (not the Navy, I mean the critic sites that store it). What if I do not believe that the copies you allege are from the Navy are true copies. Asking me and every single editor here to submit FOIA requests to verify goes beyond the requirements of WP:V. You are in OR land and the entire OR excursion and duplication of "Ron the War Hero" shall be the subject of RfC when you are done writing it. --Justanother 13:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, Chris Owen is a Wikipedia editor.  He has stated for the record that he has himself requested and received the documents from the Navy.  If you "do not believe that the copies you allege are from the Navy are true copies" then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your scurrilous accusation that Chris is lying to us all.  I must also ask, are you advocating that you should be subjected to the same paranoid suspicion?  I don't see why you should be held to a looser standard.  Perhaps if you add a claim such as "L. Ron Hubbard was born in Tilden, Nebraska" and cite the New York Times as your source, the rest of us should castigate you for your OR.  "Oh, sure, Justanother claims that the Times supports his claim, but how do we know that he isn't lying through his teeth about what the article actually said?  Stop spreading your OR, Justanother!"  Yes, there indeed might be an RFC before this is all through, but it just might be about your continuing unjustified personal attacks on the integrity of other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chris Owen is one of the greatest editors - possibly THE greatest - at Wikipedia. If Chris says something is true, I'm inclined to accept it, and I certainly don't believe he has any reason to falsify information. However, that doesn't mean Justanother has to agree with me, and it certainly doesn't mean he has to agree with you. If Chris Owen feels personally attacked by Justanother's wondering out loud about the verifiability of the chain of evidence, Chris Owen can speak for himself. wikipediatrix 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Get real, Antaeus. I know exactly who Chris is, of course. I am saying that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth" as in WP:V and asking that I submit a FOIA request to verify something is ridiculous and goes beyond WP:V and into WP:OR. Chris did original research and came up with his essay. The essay is non-RS, POV, and non-notable. It does not get duplicated here. And the material that he may or may not have received from the Navy is his OR source material. It is similar to interview material in that if I interview someone I could say that you could go interview them too but we surely agree that that is beyond WP:V and is WP:OR. --Justanother 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so what you're basically saying is that even though ChrisO's evidence is verifiable, the fact that you would choose not to verify it allows you to make personal attacks on his integrity and openly allege that perhaps he is lying when he states quite plainly that he received it from the US Navy.  I mean, when he has affirmed that yes, he received it from the Navy via a FOIA request, is there any other translation of "the material that he may or may not have received from the Navy" (emphasis added) than "I think that instead of treating ChrisO with civility, we should regard him as likely to be a liar"?  Please inform me of which other editors you think that we should treat in a similar fashion; is there any reason that when you make an edit and tell us "It is supported by Source X", we should not respond by saying "Well, I haven't seen Source X, and I won't bestir myself to seek it out -- but as long as I haven't seen it, let me allege that Justanother is completely lying through his teeth about its contents"?  I mean, let's talk turkey, Justanother -- you are not more trustworthy than ChrisO.  In any sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify: I declined to add this citation because you proposed adding it as a reference to the sentence "He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"".  This is a claim by Hubbard, and can only by substantiated by a source written by or quoting him.  Your source is written by the "official biographer" and does not quote Hubbard. —dgiestc 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These are all unsourced assumptions. Looking at the text you want to put in you claim that "Hubbard" or "Scientology" "distributed" or "spread" the fake DD-214 form. This claim cannot be sourced, also not with his biographer's statement which only says "21 medals" and not even which ones or if they were noted on a DD-214 form. I remember having read somewhere here that the fake form is not even a "DD-214" form which is odd to start with. So, back to the trenches, who did spread the forgery where and when? COFS 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *When did the Church hire the biographer? Armstrong was allegedly his biographer in the 1980s. Armstrong stole some thousands of documents without leaving duplicates which was convenient later on (1984), because no one but him knew whether "his" documents were forged or not. Further he said on camera around that time that he planned to plant forged documents before leaving. Do we know if he did or not? The next biographer must have had a hell of a time sorting out this mess, especially after LRH died in 1986. Who spread the forgery where and when? COFS 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. What a pity that the video of his subversion plans is not in better quality. A truly loyal biographer he is, proposing to fake LRHs issues. COFS 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this happened after Armstrong left, remember the trial was around 1984. The article I found at news.scientology.org is from March 1998. Anynobody 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request unprotection? 

message: The article previously contained exact dates cited to reliable sources for Hubbard's marriage to Sara Northrup and divorce from Margaret Grubb.  I'm assuming there are no objections to restoring this information when protection is lifted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. Anynobody 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you missing? All three marriages and divorces are in the article with proper sources. CSI LA 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should refresh your cache and look at the article again.  The dates of Hubbard's marriage to Sara Northrup and his divorce from Margaret Grubb were in the article attributed to reliable sources, but they are not there now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage and divorce dates 

message: :Category:Bigamists should be removed. There is no mention of being convicted of bigamy in the article, which is a requirement for the category. -SESmith 05:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are married while already married this is called bigamy.  It is an English word, in the dictionary.  One need not be convicted to be a bigamist.  This is BIG of ME to explain this to youColScott 05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Har, har, har, but No. Go to the category and read the definition. (We've been through this a million times on the Bigamy/Polygamy category discussions.) It is now agreed (finally) that no one is to be included in this category unless they have a criminal conviction for the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, unlawful cohabitation, or whatever. The cat. is NOT being applied to anyone who had more than one spouse at once, even if they admitted that this was the case. The category should be removed in this article, unless someone can provide a reference for a criminal conviction. -SESmith 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point SESmith, were there a lot of articles like this one in the category? If so would a subcategory called suspected bigamists be appropriate for them? Anynobody 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a lot where it was clear they had more than one spouse but were never convicted. Mostly early Mormon leaders like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. If you want to make a category like that you'll have a fight with the Mormons on your hands, and I don't have the energy anymore to push for it--though I'd support anyone else who tried. If we can't put Brigham Young in the category I don't think L. Ron should be in it either. :) -SESmith 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No conviction, but it might be mentioned in the papers of the legal proceedings of his first and second divorces. AndroidCat 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is so mentioned, but it plainly isn't a conviction and LRH can't be included in the "convicted bigamists" hall of shame. The category should be removed from this article. BTW, SESmith, I'd advise you to rename the category to "Convicted bigamists" to ensure that you don't get this sort of confusion in the future. -- ChrisO 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good idea. -SESmith 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need a hand with changing the category name, I'm happy to use my Admin-Fu™ to expedite the change. Just let me know if you need this. -- ChrisO 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, that is a good idea, if you need any opinions for a request for change I'll say the same there. Anynobody 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now can I make a motion for a category called "Lunatic Religious Leaders who disrespected Matrimony" so we can take care of these other cases?ColScott 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigamists Category 

message: There appears to be some confusion about the documents in question and where they came from. One is a version the CoS claimed was Hubbard's record.  The other is a version from the U.S. Navy documenting his record. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have to ask -- the "official biographer" keeps howling about his status as the "official biographer" of Hubbard, how could anyone be so unprofessional as to say anything about Hubbard without asking the "official biographer" -- does anyone know who this person is?  I mean, seriously, it's written in the format of an open letter to Joseph Mallia and/or the editor but it's an open letter whose sender never reveals his own name.  Prior to reading this, the only "official biographer" of Hubbard I knew about was Omar Garrison, whom the CoS ended up paying not to write an accurate biography of Hubbard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving off the obvious jibes about Googling (in light of your recent remarks on AN/I about how I missed the obvious); here is what I found when I googled. Gray-haired guy on the right. Dan Sherman. The link is just more evidence that Scienology is unwelcome, hated, and reviled everywhere it shows up. --Justanother 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *tweet* Clumsy introduction of non-sequitur straw man; 15 yards penalty. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the Google jibes, but I think Justanother is right about Dan Sherman. Here are a couple of examples of his "research":Freedom magazine UKSherman concluded the anecdote by putting it in perspective. “The real point of these pages does not lie with his seventy-two depth-charge runs, the slivers of shrapnel he took in the chest or his molding of a criminal crew into sailors described as the finest in the fleet,” he said. “The real point of these years lies in how he viewed this war, and what that view tells us about him.”Sunday HeraldSuch as? He tells me about a former CIA recruiter he met in Washington DC who claimed he saw Hubbard coming out of a restricted area of the Pentagon sometime in the 1950s. Hubbard, says Keenan, was working for US naval intelligence. "When we talk about Hubbard's history the first thing people say is, where's the evidence?' Well we've got the evidence. I've got rooms bigger than this, full of evidence of what Hubbard was doing, including his wartime history, what he was doing in Australia with naval intelligence, what he was doing up in Alaska when he was chasing a spy up there who J Edgar Hoover was looking for."As for the discrepancies in Hubbard's war record - most biographers claim he never saw active service with the US navy, was twice relieved of command and once shot up Mexico by mistake - Keenan has his own explanation. "I have in my possession five different records issued by five different departments in the military that say five different things about his war record. Not written by him or by us but by different departments."And the reason? "Sheep dipping." Excuse me? "Sheep dipping. It's a standard intelligence procedure - you create several records for someone so that you can't get the clear picture. Hubbard used to say, I always told the lesser tale because I don't think a lot of people would believe me.'"I wonder why he didn't identify himself in the open letter he wrote. Anynobody 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. It was actually obtained by the CoS in the late 1970s after the Freedom of Information Act was passed. The CoS basically spammed the US government with FOIA requests, obtaining anything it legally could and using its agents to steal anything that was identified but withheld by the government. (That was the basic premise of Operation Snow White.) A copy of Hubbard's naval record went to Gerry Armstrong as the LRH Biographer, and were among the papers "borrowed" by him when he left the CoS - it was used to devastating effect in the 1984 Armstrong court case. Some of the naval papers were then circulated unofficially to other ex-Scientologists. The disclosure of the real DD-214 appears to have prompted numerous requests to the US Navy for the release of Hubbard's full file - copies of those requests are included with the file - but they were all turned down due to the US Navy's privacy policy, until Hubbard's death in January 1986. The Los Angeles Times apparently was the first to obtain the full record, closely followed by Russell Miller, who (in Bare-Faced Messiah in 1987) was the first person to expose in print the full details of Hubbard's file. -- ChrisO 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline  and sources of the documents 

message: March 1, 1998 the Boston Herald publishes this series of articles,  Inside the Church of Scientology. In one article the Herald points out that L. Ron Hubbard did not hunt u-boats in the North Atlantic during WW II:
The Herald charges for archives. Here are two other sources to see the article:
Boston Herald Scientology Unmasked 03/01/98 from www.apologeticsindex.org
After March 1, 1998 the CoS' official biographer  claims L. Ron Hubbard earned 21 medals including a Purple Heart with "palm". As I've stated above "palm" is incorrect, the term is cluster.
 
 
Prior to that time this DD-214 had also been circulated by the CoS since at least 1985.
In their rebuttal of the Herald article, the CoS included a picture of the documents they referred to, a comparison of this picture compared with the previous image show them to be identical in appearence. The rebuttal also mentions the "palm" claim just as the inaccurate DD-214 does as well. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have to ask -- the "official biographer" keeps howling about his status as the "official biographer" of Hubbard, how could anyone be so unprofessional as to say anything about Hubbard without asking the "official biographer" -- does anyone know who this person is?  I mean, seriously, it's written in the format of an open letter to Joseph Mallia and/or the editor but it's an open letter whose sender never reveals his own name.  Prior to reading this, the only "official biographer" of Hubbard I knew about was Omar Garrison, whom the CoS ended up paying not to write an accurate biography of Hubbard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving off the obvious jibes about Googling (in light of your recent remarks on AN/I about how I missed the obvious); here is what I found when I googled. Gray-haired guy on the right. Dan Sherman. The link is just more evidence that Scienology is unwelcome, hated, and reviled everywhere it shows up. --Justanother 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *tweet* Clumsy introduction of non-sequitur straw man; 15 yards penalty. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the Google jibes, but I think Justanother is right about Dan Sherman. Here are a couple of examples of his "research":Freedom magazine UKSherman concluded the anecdote by putting it in perspective. “The real point of these pages does not lie with his seventy-two depth-charge runs, the slivers of shrapnel he took in the chest or his molding of a criminal crew into sailors described as the finest in the fleet,” he said. “The real point of these years lies in how he viewed this war, and what that view tells us about him.”Sunday HeraldSuch as? He tells me about a former CIA recruiter he met in Washington DC who claimed he saw Hubbard coming out of a restricted area of the Pentagon sometime in the 1950s. Hubbard, says Keenan, was working for US naval intelligence. "When we talk about Hubbard's history the first thing people say is, where's the evidence?' Well we've got the evidence. I've got rooms bigger than this, full of evidence of what Hubbard was doing, including his wartime history, what he was doing in Australia with naval intelligence, what he was doing up in Alaska when he was chasing a spy up there who J Edgar Hoover was looking for."As for the discrepancies in Hubbard's war record - most biographers claim he never saw active service with the US navy, was twice relieved of command and once shot up Mexico by mistake - Keenan has his own explanation. "I have in my possession five different records issued by five different departments in the military that say five different things about his war record. Not written by him or by us but by different departments."And the reason? "Sheep dipping." Excuse me? "Sheep dipping. It's a standard intelligence procedure - you create several records for someone so that you can't get the clear picture. Hubbard used to say, I always told the lesser tale because I don't think a lot of people would believe me.'"I wonder why he didn't identify himself in the open letter he wrote. Anynobody 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The fake/CoS DD-214

message: I thought was obtained for the Armstrong trial, when I find out more I'll post it here. Unless anyone else knows of course. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It was actually obtained by the CoS in the late 1970s after the Freedom of Information Act was passed. The CoS basically spammed the US government with FOIA requests, obtaining anything it legally could and using its agents to steal anything that was identified but withheld by the government. (That was the basic premise of Operation Snow White.) A copy of Hubbard's naval record went to Gerry Armstrong as the LRH Biographer, and were among the papers "borrowed" by him when he left the CoS - it was used to devastating effect in the 1984 Armstrong court case. Some of the naval papers were then circulated unofficially to other ex-Scientologists. The disclosure of the real DD-214 appears to have prompted numerous requests to the US Navy for the release of Hubbard's full file - copies of those requests are included with the file - but they were all turned down due to the US Navy's privacy policy, until Hubbard's death in January 1986. The Los Angeles Times apparently was the first to obtain the full record, closely followed by Russell Miller, who (in Bare-Faced Messiah in 1987) was the first person to expose in print the full details of Hubbard's file. -- ChrisO 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The real/Navy DD-214

message: I had suspicions about these accounts when CSI LA first began editing when COFS was blocked earlier this month. When CSI LA returned after COFS was recently blocked again I decided to submit a checkuser request and it was confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS.
What does everyone want to do about this? Anynobody 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, looks like the community already blocked both accounts. (The checkuser procedure said that I'd have to request action, which is why I posted since I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this before requesting action.) Anynobody 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that it is an error and they will both be back soon. --Justanother 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And throwing cliched phases around does not prove a thing either. Won't be the first time I've seen an error here. --Justanother 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, whole lot of nothing. --Justanother 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkuser reveals [[User:COFS|COFS]] 
is also
 and [[User:CSI LA|CSI LA]] both edit from C OF S or CSI LA computers - Wow! 

message: This page is again getting huge, I was thinking of setting up a bot to archive the older stuff for us. So far MiszaBot III has worked for my talk page, but I am open to other suggested bots. Here are the perameters I suggest, these are also up for discussion: 
  
Anynobody 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bot for auto archive? 

message: Since its a locked, controversial page, is this material worth reading? Gautam Discuss 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part it is, the page is locked because several members of the CoS refuse to accept that accounts of their founder are not all positive nor do they accept that he might have embellished his past. Anynobody 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gautam Discuss, the page was locked because one of the anti-Scientology group on Wikipedia asked for it after some other editor ran out of arguments (see in the history of this talk page where you find a relatively childish exchange of arguments on some stupid medals) for his unsourced changes. Otherwise, yes, this article is quite readable as L. Ron Hubbard was a remarkable man, knowing life from top to bottom and back. Enjoy! Makoshack 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Going On Here?? 

message: Should you unfortunately find yourself in a "debate" with a real CoS member, I would like you to know that they are actually trained to never, ever concede anything. They are actually trained to never give one small iota. They are trained in ways to evade logic, in ways to twist it on you. The minute you say anything the least bit negative concerning any aspect of the CoS you are not only persona non grata to them, but you could very well be considered an SP, or suppresive person. Either way, you will not gain any headway. I tell you this because I value independent, logical thought and I want those who value it as well to be prepared.
John 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! I knew that there was something wrong with those Critics of Scientology (CoS) and you really nailed that down. Makoshack 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the heads up, I had noticed that trait so it's nice to have someone else point it out also. In this case I had just assumed it was due to their overwhelmingly positive view of Hubbard. Anynobody 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Heads-Up to All Independent and Critical Thinkers! 

message: In the Ritual Magic section the last paragraph is basically a repeat of the parragraph before.  It even repeats the same quote about 2 sentences after it has already been used.  Could some clever person sort this out please?
Thanks 
CaptinJohn 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion, when the page is unlocked I'll take care of it and a few other minor errors. I apologize for the rough edges, the page was locked while undergoing changes. Anynobody 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Anynobody 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Quicky 

message: How should we handle the CoS self contradictions I pointed out above? I was all set to make a page in my user space then realized this is an important question. Anynobody 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinarily I'd agree, but the contradictory CoS sources will need to be resolved either way so we should probably discuss that aspect here. Anynobody 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you would have 2 sides, one for "CoS sources", and the other for something along the lines of "secondary sourcs and government sources".  But in instances in which CoS conflicts with other CoS statements, you could simply make use of the second column, and just make a special note of this.  Smee 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If two CoS statements contradict each other, I'd go with the more recent of the two. Unless the second one recently contradicts something that had been in place since, say, 1950, then that should be noted also. wikipediatrix 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless the contradiction is something notable and glaringly questionable, that sounds about right.  Smee 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I had changed my mind, the contradictory CoS stuff went in just fine the proper way. Anynobody 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sided experiment 

message: I just realized that the article states that Hubbard was a Special Officer for the Los Angeles Police Department in 1948, but the only two sources the article gives for this are from Scientology's own Hubbard website. Do we have any other evidence that he was a rent-a-cop besides this single primary source? Incidentally, we do know that Hubbard was arrested in California in 1948 for petty theft - see here.  wikipediatrix 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did know about his run ins with the law, but he wasn't a cop. (I don't think the church forged this ID, but I do think they're trying to make more out of it than appropriate.) He worked for a private detective agency as a security guard. To do that he had to be issued a license by the LAPD. I could see a petty theft collar, maybe even in a different part of LA being missed in circa 1948 law enforcement. Anynobody 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This Scientology shill site puts quite a spin on it: "In 1947-1948 Hubbard served as a Special Police Officer with the L.A. Police Department which gave him the opportunity to study the criminal mind.  This led to the development of Criminon..." wikipediatrix 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Consistency is not their biggest strength it appears, here's what I found: L. Ron Hubbard the humanitarian. (These are the same people who think Ron was in two places at once during WWII). Anynobody 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron the Rent a Cop 

message: The sentence stating "Fair game was cancelled" is inaccurate and presents a biased conclusion unwarranted by further developments. The Hubbard quote makes it clear that it is only the use of the term that was cancelled and not the practice. Actually information that the church later admitted that the practice had continued and tried to present it as a core religious practice is missing. At least to begin, a more neutral "In 1968, L. Ron Hubbard stated..." is in order.--Leocomix  12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leocomix  has a point, I reworded the sentence. Anynobody 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Fair Game (Scientology). We should ensure that this article is consistent with that one. -- ChrisO 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought my rewording matched well with the gist of the article about it, they stopped calling it fair game but continued to practice the doctrine after the end of it's use as a term. Anynobody 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cancellation of fair game 

message: There was a statement added: After the University episode Hubbard works as a writer, aviator and heads further sailing expeditions  which is referenced with some scanned images from 1930s era magazines. They don't look verifiable and their reliability concerns me too. I didn't remove it, but rather added includeonly commands around it. Anynobody 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate enough, but badly worded. I'll see what I can do with it. -- ChrisO 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accurate enough? Hmmmm... for some reason I highly doubt that...John 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sources on aviator claims 

message: This image of two "artistic renditions" of Hubbard is highly problematic...... On the one hand, they make him look even more unattractive than he was in life (if that's conceivable), and one could see how an "artistic rendition" could contain POV when it seems deliberately trying to make him as ugly and unattractive as possible. On the other hand, to dispel such an accusation, one would have to acknowledge that these images are directly mimicking copyrighted photographs (and they are), And that is, in itself, just as much a copyright violation as if we'd used the photo. In fact, a copyright lawyer would probably say this is even worse because of its distortion and its unflattering use. wikipediatrix 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's the third hand representing copyright. I'm not wild about the picture either, did any of his books show his picture on the cover? If we mention the book, using the cover would probably be solid fair use. Anynobody 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea... He's pictured on the front of "Notes on the Lectures".... wikipediatrix 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is strange. I've seen photos of L. Ron in numerous places, why have they been removed?John 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The CoS holds the copyrights to 99% of his photographs (99% is a guess, but they do own a majority). To make a really good article the use of copyrighted material should be minimized or irreplaceable. Anynobody 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Updated picture and bibliography (added NOTL to the list in the article). Anynobody 05:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugly ugly ugly 

message: I'm conflicted on this issue. The guideline says the article is long enough to warrant a longer lead, but I'm not sure if we should make it as long as it could be since it would be a very repetitive series of Hubbard said this, the evidence says that. What should we do? Anynobody 06:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully, if any of the major glaring problems I've pointed out are taken care of, this article will soon be a LOT shorter, so it's a moot point. wikipediatrix 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD]]