Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 8

message: I was reading The Mind Behind the Religion LA Times article, and it has a lot of info about Hubbard's behavior and personality which we should include in his article. Toward that end I created a new section called Personality with citations from it. Anynobody 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, thanks. Foobaz·o< 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Histories of science fiction would possibly be a good place to look. Can't say I have any on hand, though. --FOo 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree. If you take a look at the pages for some of Hubbard's contemporaries, such as Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov, there's quite a bit of analysis of the writer's personality and philosophy, albeit not all in a section titled "Personality." (In Asimov's case, most of it is in "Intellectual positions," which gives quite a bit of insight into how the man thought). You're right that more than one citation is needed, and the section should definitely be more neutral in tone, but why not fix it instead of deleting it outright? --GoodDamon 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I have no interest in adding citations to it, and until someone else does, this unfair slanted version doesn't belong in the article. It's not my job to fix everyone else's messes. wikipediatrix 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, although I would have preferred you to comment it out instead of delete it, so I could work on it in the article instead of my sandbox. But I guess that's just a matter of personal taste. --GoodDamon 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually wikipediatrix, removing it simply because you don't want to look for additional sources is not the right thing to do. Frankly I've been looking for some kind of positive view of his personality before I add more negative from other WP:RS. Anynobody 03:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: GoodDamon would you please link some of Asimov's and other writers views on him? The POV of the section could use neutralizing if good sources exist to do so. Anynobody 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can find. He was friends with a lot of other writers before founding Scientology, so there should be plenty of good quotes. --GoodDamon 03:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I appreciate it :) Anynobody 04:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How great would it be, how helpful, if you, Mister, could stop doing this "I am biased but I don't care" number. It's not gonna give us an encyclopedia. I have no time to waste with such crap. So please knock it off, thank you. Misou 04:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was rude, unnecessary, and uncalled for. Anynobody specifically asked me to come up with neutralizing, balancing information for inclusion in the article, which I'm working on. There was no reason to attack him for that. --GoodDamon 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Justanother, for someone who thinks Hubbard was a positive figure I kinda figured you'd be able to provide some positive sounding WP:RS to help us. Anynobody 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the whole article is loaded with pronouncements on Hubbard's character and personality, almost all of them from a critical viewpoint. There is little need for a new OR-ish section. That said, I have no problem with working with others here and if someone wants to start a sandbox section I will see if I can contribute to it. This idea you seem to have, AN, of "I will throw a big slanted piece in the article and challenge y'all to catch up with me" is not going to fly. --Justanother 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Misou if I were being POV I wouldn't be looking for good stuff to add about him too. NPOV, as I've said, is based on the sources, so far the sources say he was prone to behaving badly sometimes. Like I said above, he couldn't have been a prick all the time, people don't tend to flock to pricks for help with mental problems. Surely something must be out there, we just need to find it. Anynobody 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How great would it be, how helpful, if you, Anynobody, could stop this number. It's not gonna give us an encyclopedia. That means, please knock it off and get consensus, thank you. Misou 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's trying to make a point, WP:POINT, w/o sense reverting the edits of four others, w/o cooperation, w/o any sense and logic. Poor number, very poor. What are you gambling this time? Misou 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he's been actively seeking balancing information, and I've been trying to help in that. Now then... I've reverted you, because you labeled his edits vandalism. Those additions might be criticized in any number of ways, but WP:VANDAL has very specific definitions, and those additions just don't qualify. Now then... I'm going to remove those additions myself, and I'm going to do it in a way that doesn't insult the editor who made them. --GoodDamon 05:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard's personality 

message: Does anyone out there have a public domain photo of Hubbard available? The one in the infobox right now is copyrighted, and that's something we'd prefer not to use if any free use image were available. John Carter 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct, however we have had difficulty locating a picture of him not owned by the Church of Scientology. Anynobody 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've contacted the Science Fiction project to see if they might know of any. They're the only other group I can think of who might. John Carter 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the Church of Scientology has been systematically buying up old photos of Hubbard, presumably to keep them out of the public domain. Having said that, there must still be pics of Hubbard in personal collections. -- ChrisO 10:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking the best chance we have is former Scientologists, from earlier days, who might have pictures they had taken while still with the church. Anynobody 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain Photo? 

message: Hubbard Exhibition Viewed Locally: More Than 300 Photos Chronicle the Life of Acclaimed Author, Humanitarian From: Sacramento Observer Date: December 6, 2000Sacramento Arts Commissioner Kendall Person, one of the tour attendees, may have summed up the exhibition best: "Mr. Hubbard was a tremendous humanitarian and his endeavors to assist people in all walks of life is an immeasurable achievement as well as an example for all."emphasis added. --Justanother 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another 

message: L. Ron Hubbard Way opened by officials, celebrities From: Call and Post (Cleveland) Date: May 15, 1997L. Ron Hubbard Way, named in honor of the late author, humanitarian and founder of the Scientology religion, was formally dedicated as Los Angeles' newest street with festivities climaxed by a ribbon cutting ceremony that included Mayor Richard Richard Riordan's Hollywood representative Chelsea Cochrane, City Councilman John Ferraro, George Grays of the California Governor's office, and Hollywood stars John Travolta and Kirstie Alley.. . .Councilman Ferraro hailed the new street as a model of community spirit and street beautification for all communities in Los Angeles and for cities throughout the country. The Council president also presented an official congratulations commemorating the opening of L. Ron Hubbard Way to Rev. Heber Jentzsch, president of the Church of Scientology, International.The work on this street and its beauty have been inspired by the Church's founder, author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard. His humanitarian works are contributing greatly to helping eradicate illiteracy, drug abuse and criminality in the city of Los Angeles.The Council president concluded; "Today, I am a friend of Ron."emphasis added. --Justanother 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another 

message: Accidents will happen - or will they? From: Filipino Express, The Date: December 7, 2003In the best-selling self-help book Dianetics, author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard explains what makes a person accident-prone. "If one knows the cause of something, he can usually prevent the cause from going into effect,"emphasis added --Justanother 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the idea? 

message: Tricked on to Heroin From: Precinct Reporter Date: March 13, 1997There is also now ample evidence that drugs and other toxins can residually store in the fatty tissue of the body for long periods of time. The smoking of the oil forms of these drugs are cause for concern that more of the drug will remain locked in the fatty tissue. Narconon utilizes a very unique sauna sweat-out detoxification program developed by author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard to sweat these drug residues out of the body with tremendous results.emphasis added and I am calling it a night. --Justanother 04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher 

message: I honestly appreciate your effort here Justanother, it's nice to see you are indeed trying to help. However, these really are no better than the bit of the first article you mentioned and I'll explain why with an example.
L Ron Hubbard enjoyed a moderate amount of success writing pulp science fiction. The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power page 2 Time magazine, Monday, May. 06, 1991,  By  RICHARD BEHAR Hubbard was a moderately successful writer of pulp science fiction.
This not only shows what the source says, but also allows for verification.
In regard to your demand; AN, don't you dare make negative remarks about me! Don't you dare tell me what to do or what to focus on. Am I clear? As to the negativity aspect, it brings me no joy to point out behavior which disrupts the discussion here. I assure you that it is simply an observation of impasse and how it can be resolved if you take action. (I've met you halfway in asking you several times to participate in building this article consistently with the established rules.) In regard to asking for your focus on the issues at hand,  I'm going to defer to the observers. Does anyone else think I was out of line asking Justanother to focus on unresolved issues with article content? Anynobody 04:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AN. you could not be more wrong. Why in the world do you think that WP:V means "available online". Where in the world do you get that idea?? --Justanother 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: From the beginning I said I found the first one using Google and I already told Damon that I signed up for Highbeam and read them all there. My point in bringing these to light is that it is not difficult to find positive mention of Hubbard or certainly non-negative. Your apparent POV of Hubbard, as pushed by a very small number of "journalists" that look only at critical material, is by far not the only one out there. Hubbard has been given many many awards and recognitions for his contributions. --Justanother 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone here, including Anynobody, has any problem with positive information about Hubbard going into the article to balance the negative. You say Hubbard has been given many awards and recognitions? Then I don't have any problem with their inclusion in the article, assuming you have reliable sources to back them up. --GoodDamon 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: GoodDamon you are correct, I don't have any problems with positive information being included. My only requirement is that it be reliable info relevant to Hubbard's life. (IE not a sentence or two about him in an article about Tom Cruise.) Anynobody 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There I have to agree. Tom Cruise gossip columns aren't a reliable source for calling Hubbard a humanitarian and a philosopher, because gossip columnists don't speak from expertise on those subjects. Maybe on what Hubbard was wearing for this or that award, but otherwise I don't trust gossip columnists to report the color of the sky accurately, and I think Wikipedia generally agrees with me. --GoodDamon 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm generally with you. Let's get rid of opinionated articles. But - who flips the coin on good/bad journalism? You? Or Mr. I-only-find-bad-stuff-about-this-Hubbard? Misou 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not talking about getting rid of opinionated articles. (We're talking about not using gossip or entertainment columns). Anynobody 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: December 14, 2000
Through the mind: Renu Govil recommends a technology called Dianetics which
employs no drugs, psychiatry or hypnotism
...
EDUCATIONIST, artist, film producer, writer of science fiction and philosopher who did extensive research on the human
mind, L Ron Hubbard was a man unto himself. And what he left behind is a 50-year-old technology called Dianetics and
Scientology which, since its debut in May 1950, has helped people overcome psychosomatic illnesses, improve their efficiency at
work, better their communications skills, overcome their inhibitions and increase their overall vitality.
The process has helped millions of adults and children across 140 countries come to grips with marital and relationship
problems, freed millions of others from drug dependence and mental trauma. And the concept employs no drugs, psychoanalysis,
psychiatry or hypnotism. Hubbard's legacy has been translated into more than 52 languages and is available in hundreds of books,
journals, audio and video tapes and professionally conducted courses.
...
...and so on. Kinda boring. I'll put the refs on awardspace if I remember the password. Misou 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Statesman (India)

message: Presumably there's a contemporary cite that explains that was the reason that Hubbard wrote the book? AndroidCat 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any such cite. Although it's claimed to be a scathing critique of the Hudson Bay Company's policies towards the Indians, in fact Hubbard received a crate of whiskey from the company as a token of appreciation for writing the book. -- ChrisO 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source acknowledges that Hubbard was critical of HBC.Hudson Bay Company had sent him a case of scotch, which was very good of them because he had been very critical of Hudson Bay Company in his book Buckskin Brigades - it was about mistreatment of Indians by the Company - but they'd sent him a case of scotch and the Blackfeet Indians sent him a beautiful beaded bag. Most likely sent it as a good-will gesture. --Justanother 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for digging that up. I knew I'd read it somewhere but couldn't remember where. -- ChrisO 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckskin 

message: The mass stripping of links to online copies of valid sources is rather outrageous in my opinion. If this needs to arbitrated, so be it. AndroidCat 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a systematic POV-based deletion of reliably published critical sources (books, newspaper articles etc). Clearly not on. -- ChrisO 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what I saw here. Chris' mischaracterization is not, hopefully, on a par with his other work here. NO-ONE IS DELETING RELIABLE SOURCES! 'Cat has it right - links are being deleted. Links to a POV, non-RS site laden with WP:COPY violation. Yes, I know that maybe one of those books is OK to be on the site but certainly not all that material that is linked like the LA Times. I repeat. The reliable sources are NOT being deleted. --Justanother 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your WP:RS argument bears consideration, but WP:POV and WP:COPY apply to Wikipedia articles, not to their sources. Foobaz·o< 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I direct your attention to WP:COPYLinking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.Now we can weasel around with "well, do we really know that copyrights are being violated?" but I think a bit of common sense is in order and there is no lack of that here. Then I direct your attention to WP:CITEIt is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.I wonder how many people that cite material from these biased "intermediate sources" such as Touretsky or Rick Ross ever really saw the original article. Not many, I would bet (ChrisO excluded, I never said that he cannot research). So we are basing an article on a biased, self-published source? If that is the case, then the source should come out completely. Actually, I am sure that many of our critics have read the originals of some critical books (myself, I have been reading critical material since I read Paulette Cooper around 1982 and I did my early research in the Clearwater public library in the 1980's.) I doubt that many of the editors here (again with the exception of ChrisO) have ever seen a critical newspaper or magazine article that was not available online but instead rely on biased intermediaries. Sorry for the diversion. Point is that I can show you more policy that would steer us away from biased sites used as "convenience links", WP:EL and even WP:RS if you read a bit deeply into them. --Justanother 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I support removing Misou's hosted stuff too. Go ahead if you want to. There is one difference, however, that you might want to consider. Misou's site is not a propaganda site. It is simply a repository. There is no agenda. That is not the case with Touretsky and Rick Ross and others of that ilk.  That said, I still do not think the Misou links belong in the articles although they might be helpful here in the back room. As far as this subject, I did not originally make the removals in question, I simply supported Misou. You are right, I too found it ironic that I was quoting that. But it only says that in this, like most issues here, "common" sense and good judgement are required in the application of policy. And no, the propaganda sites are not valid intermediates; flipping it around, ask our critics if they would consider the CofS a reliable intermediate site. --Justanother 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of them could probably be included in the "External links" section, but they probably don't qualify as references. John Carter 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about non-reliable sources. The sources are the books or papers hosted on the websites in question - are you saying that (for instance) Bare-Faced Messiah or the (government-published) Kotzé report are non-reliable sources? Good luck with that assertion. They're mainstream published works - and some are state publications - not some random web pages by an unknown individual. To be honest, this sort of issue comes up every year or so. A scientologist editor swoops in, deletes any links to "suppressive" websites and gets reverted; the community discusses it for a bit and the links stay. We've been through this cycle several times before and the consensus has always come down in favour of inclusion. -- ChrisO 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDamon, if highbeam.com were the same as reading an original article we should have been able to locate the first one Justanother cited and linked to IC Wales. Thus being able to use their website (IC Wales rather than a bit from highbeam requiring registration for more.) Anynobody 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK at least, many provincial papers only put a subset of their content into databases such as Highbeam and Lexis-Nexis. It can be a bit frustrating. -- ChrisO 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That sucks, highbeam and lexis sound kind of like rip offs then (for people paying for access). When researching I'd assume anyone who wants to be sure about what they're citing wants to read the whole thing. Anynobody 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, I did it again. Damon got it right and it doesn't matter if I like these refs or not. But those websites are non-RS. Misou 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but no one has ever asserted that the online copies of critical books about Scientology are in any way inaccurate. This has been gone over again and again, specifically on those links to those sites, and I believe it's gone to arbitration at least once. The decision has always been to keep them and I object to their removal as part of some claimed "deal" over some scans. AndroidCat 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deal? Where? Kitty, you are active on and off wiki against Scientology, and so it's easy to predict what you want. But these sites are personal pages, collections of 100% negative information, mostly set up by some anonymous, puppet or paid cultbasher. Period. It is enough to quote the source. If you doubt it, go look. Blind faith in some fanatics won't help anybody. Misou 05:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ignore your attempt to provoke me. For now. However, the links will go back in. AndroidCat 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to provoke you. Just stick to policy. These sites are personal pages, collections of 100% negative information, mostly set up by some anonymous, puppet or paid cultbasher. Period. It is enough to quote the source. If you doubt it, go look. Blind faith in some fanatics won't help anybody. Misou 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Misou links should certainly come out. However, the deletion of links to critical books isn't acceptable; their inclusion is a settled matter. And I'd suggest you lay off the POV-pushing and name-calling. -- ChrisO 07:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You accusing me of POV-pushing is really a GREAT joke, considering yourself. And the moon is made of green cheese, right. Anyway, you claim "settled matter" without giving a proper ref. Where? Misou 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But these are already described in reliable sources. The fake Blackfeet letter, for instance, is discussed in Atack's book. -- ChrisO 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The main problem with that is that the scanned copy is unverifiable. A convenience link to a published book isn't a problem; I can go down to the library and get a copy of that book. But where can I get a hard copy of Misou's scanned document? It fails WP:V, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: APOBS uses the same docs I put up (plus some creative inventions and slant which is not in the original docs). Look it up. Your move and celebration here is a direct attack on Wikipedia quality. Stop it. Misou 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The SO ED is fine, that is published material. The fact that it is hard-to-find does not change that (Is it in old OEC volumes or the PL pack that was published?). The letter is of no use to us. This is similar to the use of FOIA documents; they are not published either and may be referenced in RS but not shown in their entirety. And, for that reason, all we can talk about is what the RS says about them. 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the docs are published material. That's how I got them. They are part of a pack published in '78 or so. The cover sheet is the SO ED, the rest are attachments ref'ed in the SO ED. Misou 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I drugged you out of the water, Damon. You can borrow my towel. You removed the refs themselves!! That is a violation of WP:AGF. The WP:RS refs stay, all we remove are the links to non-RS that is archiving them and unpublished materials. Please follow suit with the critical non-RS sites in the same fashion if you care to. --Justanother 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I must be tired today. That was a mistake. After a while of looking, all the text began to run together, and I ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My apologies, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. --GoodDamon 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass removal of links 

message: OK, I took the plunge and deleted all the Misou links and any content that directly and solely relied on those citation if they were strongly contested as forgeries, and added a  tag in any case where the content wasn't strongly contested. At least, I think that's what I did. This was a big, messy job, and there was a lot of reliance on Misou's hosted image scans as references. How the heck did they slip past the first time around? Anyway, the hunt is on to find replacement refs! Think of it like looking for easter eggs, only the kids are larger and fight meaner over the chocolate ones... --GoodDamon 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I drugged you out of the water, Damon. You can borrow my towel. You removed the refs themselves!! That is a violation of WP:AGF. The WP:RS refs stay, all we remove are the links to non-RS that is archiving them and unpublished materials. Please follow suit with the critical non-RS sites in the same fashion if you care to. --Justanother 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I must be tired today. That was a mistake. After a while of looking, all the text began to run together, and I ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My apologies, and thanks for cleaning up my mess. --GoodDamon 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misou links gone!

message: 1. Taking Justanother's arguments in sequence:
a) "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." True but irrelevant. This aspect of WP:NOT is intended to dissuade people from compiling lengthy directory-style lists of links in articles. Go read what WP:NOT#LINK actually says - it doesn't remotely cover the way that the links in this article are being used. To quote, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article."
b) "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Also true but irrelevant. Including content-relevant links isn't soapboxing.
c) "Such archiving can be assumed to violate copyrights of the original publishers." No, it can't. A history lesson here: back in the mid-1990s, several people (including myself) embarked on a systematic project of scanning, getting permission to distribute and web-publishing various books, official reports etc on Scientology. I personally got permission to freely redistribute Bare-Faced Messiah from Russell Miller, who lives not far from me, and I still have his letter of permission archived somewhere. Jon Atack was asked for permission to distribute A Piece of Blue Sky. Others on the other side of the Atlantic dealt with Paulette Cooper (Scandal of Scientology) and Bent Corydon (Madman or Messiah). The authors, who hold the copyrights (not the publishers!), have no reason to object - as Miller put it, the books are never likely to be published again and the authors aren't earning a penny from them. As for the items such as the Anderson Report, Foster Report, Kotzé report etc., they have always been out in the public sphere - they're not FOIA-type publications, they're official reports issued by various governments in the 1960s and 1970s. 
d) "Use of these sites dilutes the credibility of the material and, by extension, of Wikipedia." Justanother argues this on the assumption that people are "copying a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source." I can confirm that the intermediate sources - the webbed books - are accurate copies of the original books. I've got many of the originals here, from which some of the scanned copies were taken, and the ones I don't have personally are in public libraries here and in the US (that is, where copies haven't been stolen). They're word-for-word copies and eminently verifiable. They may be on websites of which Justanother doesn't approve, but that by itself doesn't mean that a reliable-source publication suddenly becomes unreliable. -- ChrisO 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments in support of inclusion 

message: # --Justanother 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors supporting removal 

message: # For the reasons set out above, since Justanother's arguments are a combination of misreading of WP:NOT and erroneous assumptions of fact. ChrisO 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors supporting inclusion 

message: Er... I see Misou giving his/her opinion above. Are you guys aware that he or she was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Shutterbug a little later?  Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are now. Thank you for the information. A notice to that effect on the user's page might be welcome as well. John Carter 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Misou and Makoshack both are apparently just Shutterbug, who has been blocked for three days for side-stepping the topic ban. I find this rather disappointing. --GoodDamon 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying Misou, Makoshack, and Shutterbug are all the same person?  I had no idea.  That's not good at all if it's true. Elhector 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea either. Yeah, apparently a checkuser verified that they're socks (see Shutterbug's talk page). And indeed, it's not good. I'm particularly disappointed because I thought I had a good understanding going with Shutterbug. --GoodDamon 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a thought.  Shutterbug used to be COFS, right?  Doesn't Shutterbug edit from a computer that shares an IP address with many others on a large network?  I could be way off here and remembering a different situation but I thought it turned out he was editing from a CofS facility somewhere.  Is it possible Misou and Makoshack could be editing from the same facility?  I'm hoping this is the case, otherwise it brings a whole lot of things into question.  They've all been acting and editing like individual people which is just unethical around here IMHO. Elhector 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Foolish behaviour, and very disappointing. But I'd like to commend Justanother for doing the right thing and discussing the matter calmly on this talk page, rather than disrupting the article. -- ChrisO 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it particularly disheartening because I think the article's in need of a more balanced perspective, but that won't be achieved through gaming the system. --GoodDamon 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought everyone knew, this already went to arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS Their solution was going to be a 30 day block on Shutterbug(COFS) but didn't address the checkuser identified accounts like Misou, CSI LA, Makoshack, etc. Anynobody 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have checkuser powers so I can't look into it myself, but from what I understand, there's a range of checks that CUs make - IP addresses, editing times, similarities in editing style and so on. There's more to it than just looking up an IP address. From what I've seen of their work, the CUs are pretty reliable at spotting sockpuppets. -- ChrisO 10:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blocking admin has it right now and withdrew all the new blocks and what we have now is all three under the original 30-day ban on COFS Shutterbug that ends on Nov 1, I guess. The basic idea being taken is "multiple editors speaking with one voice". --Justanother 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. I guess that's a slightly wordy way of saying meatpuppets... -- ChrisO 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not. Just that they all seem to be likely to have the same opinions on certain matters regarding Scientology. Maybe kind of like all the editors from, say, Vatican City might be inclined to edit the same way on articles relating to Catholicism, as well. Meatpuppets more or less means that they're under some individual puppeteer's direct control, and I'm not necessarily sure that's really meant here. John Carter 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various signature moves of editing style which travel from identity to identity. It's sometimes obvious, but not provable. *shrug* AndroidCat 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crocodile tears all over the place, amazing. Not very charming, not for me and not for you. So I am Misou, and this is not Shutterbug, not Makoshack and not any other Wikipedia editor. I can say this louder if needed and way more forceful, but it is still the truth. Can we go back to create articles now? Misou 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the accusations are due to you sharing the same IP address as others, I could be wrong though.  Do you edit from a location that other editors are editing from? Elhector 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not (yes, I am sure of that, there is only one internet access here). Sometimes I use an access others allegedly use too (a firewall/router computer or something like that, I'm no specialist in this). I have never met any of the other guys. Doesn't matter anyway. The checkuser was nonsense. Repeating some "you are all the same and should be shot together" crap doesn't make it true. Robots have this kind of logic, if at all. Misou 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just confused because the results from the check user wouldn't have been what they were if you were not all in the same physical location.  If you are all coming up with same IP address then you have to be in the same building, or at least accessing wikipedia from the same network.  Know what I mean? You can understand how that would get confusing. Elhector 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I had assumed was happening.  If you don't mind me asking, what is the purpose of accessing Wikipedia from a church owned proxy server as opposed to accessing Wikipedia from just there general home internet connection?  You guys can see how this whole thing could cause a lot of confusion, right?  I just hate to see people blocked/banned from wikipedia incorrectly. Just want to make sure myself and everyone else is clear on what is actually going on without throwing around a bunch of accusations :-) Elhector 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is something that they will have to answer themselves. Obviously they were just people accessing the internet by a convenient and available means and never considered that it would be a problem. It came up not because of any real sockpuppet concern but because, IMO, a pair of POV-pushers used checkuser to attack their "enemies". The POV-pushers even tried to checkuser me and another completely uninvolved editor, Lsi John, before their fishing expedition was sent packing. --Justanother 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the actual investigation, but if check user was used to maliciously go after some editors because they didn't like there edits then that is a serious issue.  Would you be able to direct me to where I could read everything that was matted out on this subject?  Thanks! Elhector 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over the checkuser request, and personally I doubt it was malicious. All three of those users have very aggressive editing styles, including histories of improperly marking good-faith edits they disagree with as vandalism, such as here and here. And if they all used the same proxy it becomes highly suspicious, even for someone like me who's determined to remain neutral. Specifically in Shutterbug's favor, however, is that after she was aggressive towards me, I reproached her for it in a non-confrontational manner, and she seemed open to changing to a less aggressive approach. Personally, I'm still happy to believe they're different people, but all three of them need to stop editing like that. --GoodDamon 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be right, Damon. Otherwise, how about editing this article? Why for example are those private hate sites still used as ref, and not the original actual refs? Why for example are there refs which are not even ok per WP:EL? For example ref #77 "Is Scientology a religion? Hubbard says 'No'." seems somewhat OR, non-RS or - just crap. Misou 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was easy. The ref wasn't even necessary, because another ref was right there that contained the same text. Now why did you have to bring it up in a confrontational manner? I'm happy to remove bad links, I'm happy to work with everyone here on both sides of the argument, and I'm not beholden to either. Might I suggest taking a look at Justanother's editing style? He takes the time to explain his logic and thoughts on any topic he's editing, and he does it in ways that don't attack other editors, from what I've seen. In the personality sandbox, he's been a model of cooperative editing, even when I've disagreed vehemently with his logic or reasoning. --GoodDamon 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, thanks for changing this. You reverted it the last time I changed it, remember. Sometimes I get the idea some people are just pretending to edit here. Might come across a bit confrontational, yes. Take a look at this thread above. Is this a newsgroup or talk page about L. Ron Hubbard? See what I mean? Misou 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If these editors are all using a church-owned proxy server, does that mean that they're church employees (and does that in turn mean that they've editing on behalf of the church in some capacity)? If so, it would raise some conflict of interest issues. -- ChrisO 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, how transparent, this disruption. You know, I said that about 8 or 9 times now, but I am not a Church employee. You followed the whole discussion over the last 12 months where all of this was chewed and digested and now you come up here asking rhetorical questions? Wow! Please explain. And let me know why your personal website is still used as ref in there article. Misou 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't remember ChrisO being part of the discussions on the ramifications of editing from a place that doesn't offer Internet services to members or the public. Anynobody 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that right? I think you are violating WP:BATTLE. Knock it off. Misou 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misou, you are clearly violating WP:CIVIL and you need to knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Consider posting a thread on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. I don't remember them  addressing the actual specifics of editing from a place that doesn't offer Internet services to members or the public. Anynobody 06:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, there are indeed other places for such discussions. (Sorry to post ahead of you just above saying the same thing.) Anynobody 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the subject of Misou 

message: # Here is one: ref name=bio77>7 April 1977 by Liz Gablehouse, Church of Scientology</ref> should be SO ED 879 INT, "LRH Biography", 7 April 1977 by Liz Gablehouse, Church of Scientology . 
# Here is another one: In 1961 he carried the Explorers Club flag for his 'Ocean Archaeological Expedition' and in 1966 Hubbard was awarded custody of the Explorers Club flag for the 'Hubbard Geological Survey Expedition'.
should be: In 1961 he carried the Explorers Club flag for his 'Ocean Archaeological Expedition' and in 1966 Hubbard was awarded custody of the Explorers Club flag for the 'Hubbard Geological Survey Expedition'Letter from the Explorers Club to John Fudge, 8 December 1966[http://www.scientology.org/en_US/l-ron-hubbard/chronicle/pg014.html Official Biography, Church of Scientology International. Misou 01:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't use the Scientology link to prove that, but otherwise the letter looks good. Where can we verify it? --GoodDamon 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next improvements to article 

message: The section on Fair Game (under "Legal difficulties and life on the high seas") follows xenu.net and other critics' sites in not mentioning the July 68 Policy Letter that superseded the Fair Game policy as laid out in the October 1967 policy letter. Basically, the sequence was: 
* HCOPL 18 October 1967: the letter quoted in the article ("May be tricked, lied to or destroyed")
* HCOPL 21 July 1968 cancels HCOPL 18 October 1967. The wording for Suppressive persons now is: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org." This policy letter is quoted in the Foster Report.
* HCOPL 21 October 1968: the other letter quoted in the article, cancelling the use of the term Fair Game, but not the existing policy (which by now was no longer described by the HCOPL 18 October 1967, due to this letter having been superseded in July 68.
So the current presentation is distorted. Any objections to getting this fixed? Just for the sake of NPOV. Jayen466 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it, made minor corrections but I am not sure what you want to fix? Shutterbug 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at it, see what you think. My main point is that critics always say that 1. the policy "May be tricked, lied to or destroyed" has never been cancelled and 2. that Scientologists are lying when they say it was cancelled. Well, it was cancelled, not in October 1968, but in July 1968, as the Foster report proves. Of course, the July 21 1968 PL still makes uncomfortable reading, but it is not the same as the 1967 version. Jayen466 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference, this is the xenu.net page concerned. Look for the July 21 1968 letter: it's not there. No peer-reviewed academic would get away with this. Jayen466 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with sites like Clambake is that the fanatic, anti-Scientology activist controlling its content is not liable for accuracy, verifiability or reliability of his original research. Also there is no one checking it anyway. It's like linking to MySpace. If the letter would be still there it could be false, half of it, leaving out parts of it and so on, because Andi (the site creator) has no reason to follow Wikipedia policy on his personal site. So why consider this site at all? Misou 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Game 

message: J. Gordon Melton writes in The Church of Scientology, , p. 6: "It appears that (Hubbard's sub chaser) PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war." Should perhaps be mentioned as an alternative published opinion. Melton also states (on page 66) that Hubbard DID leave service with the number of citations he claimed to have received and mentions "expert evidence by military specialists explaining why discrepancies may occur for a number of reasons between an original notice of separation and the copy kept by the Veterans' Administration, insisting that the original should prevail". Melton is not uncontroversial, but according to our article on him he is the second most prolific contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica, as well as the author of their Scientology article. -- Jayen466 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard and the military#World War II, submarine incident/citations, alternative version - please leave comments there. -- ChrisO 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II, submarine incident/citations, alternative version 

message: As far as I'm aware, other than one or two small articles for pulps, all of his professional non-fiction work was on Dianetics/Scientology. The current phrasing gives the impression that he was widely published in the open market on a variety of non-fiction subjects. (Compare to, say, Isaac Asimov, who was a prolific writer of non-fiction works.) The wording seems like horn-tooting, but I don't want to flip it too far the other way. AndroidCat 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Scientology/Dianetics really qualify as non fiction? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say he was a prolific writer of religious texts? Anynobody 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of nonfiction. Hubbard certainly presents his writing as nonfiction, and whether or not it's accurate nonfiction is another matter entirely. I'm inclined to keep it as is simply to avoid cluttering the intro with excessive verbiage. --GoodDamon 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I define the difference between nonfiction and religious writing as subjects which have verifiable answers compared to ideas/etc. which have no tangible proof. For example, his book about radiation I would classify as nonfiction (even though it's totally inaccurate) whereas his "tech" would be religious. Anynobody 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better to just change non-fiction works to works on Scientology and avoid the whole religious question? AndroidCat 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the intro doesn't start ballooning out again, I'd be happy with something like that. --GoodDamon 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm down with that too, but don't forget there are editors who think it is a religion and may disagree. Anynobody 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's anything to be concerned about, here. Saying Hubbard wrote a lot about Scientology and Dianetics is very neutral. It makes no judgments on those writings concerning quality, merit, accuracy, or status as fiction/nonfiction. It's a statement of fact well-supported by non-biased bibliographic references, nothing more and nothing less. --GoodDamon 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a prolific writer of non-fiction works 

message: Is a bit short - try to add at least another substantial paragraph. Richard001 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: the blathering on about vistaril is misleading. if he was ill, it's a perfectly normal drug to take. it's a smooth muscle relaxant and most often used to treat nausea. the article makes it sound as if it was being used either recreationally or to treat a psychological condition. 206.230.62.2 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point of the mention is that in public Hubbard was strongly against the use of drugs. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vistaril and toxicology 

message: "hoping not to hit sharp barnicles on the way down"? if anyone has ever seen a ship, the sides come to a point from a max width on the deck, also barnicles are typically near the water line. I plan on changing this portion, it seems like a blatant attack with no purpose or validity. 76.19.140.110 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overboarding 

message: *L. Ron Hubbard in La Quinta, Calif., in the late 1970s. This photo is believed to be the last picture of Hubbard in the public domain. - "This photo is believed to be the last picture of Hubbard in the public domain." - Do you think that by "public domain" the Los Angeles Times means that this picture is in the "public domain" ?  Cirt (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that's an ambiguous bit of wording, isn't it? I think from the context that it's not referring to public domain in the sense of copyright, but in the sense of it being the chronologically latest publicly available photo of Hubbard. It's the first picture I've seen from his period in hiding (he fled to La Quinta after the FBI raids on Scientology following the Guardian's Office scandal). For obvious reasons, he wasn't keen on public appearances at that point, so photos of him in that period are exceedingly rare. Scientology probably has pics of him from that time but this is the first one I've seen published. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 5, 2008, Los Angeles Times - picture of Hubbard in the "public domain" ? 

message: Hubbard was parodied by Frank Zappa in the song "A Token of My Extreme" from the Joe's Garage album. The song describes a religious figure named L. Ron Hoover who represents the "First Church of Appliantology", an obvious spoof of Scientology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.190.147 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happier with this missing from that section. LRH is mentioned in pop culture so much that we have to be selective about what we include. Foobaz·o< 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ooops, thought police, however uncomfortable the truth is, its still a damn good reason to post and mention it, artistic expression and parodying is what democracy is all about. and if there are specks over his personality, let it be shown. -anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.19.142 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, if you strongly believe that every pop culture reference to Hubbard should be in Wikipedia, feel free to create an article devoted to such. But that is not this article. --GoodDamon 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing in  Fictionalized depictions in media 

message: As a practing physician I thought I would throw my two cents into this discussion. There has been a lot of talk about this book- and scientology's assertions regarding modern medicine- and it is quite concerning to me and my colleagues that their largely unfounded proclamations have the potential to cause great harm. You are correct that hydroxyzine is classified by the FDA as an antihistamine with anticholinergic properties; however, Vistaril is NOT commonly prescribed to patients for treatment of allergies as would be other drugs within the same classification, such as Zyrtec (ceterizine). The two most common clinical indications for use of Vistaril are for symptomatic relief of anxiety and tension associated with psychoneurosis and as an adjunct in organic disease states in which anxiety is manifested; or as a sedative when used as premedication and following general anesthesia, typically given IM (intramuscular injection) or IV along with meperidine (Demerol). Vistaril (hydroxyzine hydrochloride) Intramuscular Solution is useful in treating the following types of patients when intramuscular administration is indicated:
The acutely disturbed or hysterical patient.
The acute or chronic alcoholic with anxiety withdrawal symptoms or delirium tremens.
As pre- and postoperative and pre- and postpartum adjunctive medication to permit reduction in narcotic dosage, allay anxiety and control emesis.The fact that Hubbard was given Vistaril IM rather that ingesting it himself indicates that he was either agitated or too ill to safely swallow an oral medication; either way, most credible medical professionals would deduce that the medication was NOT being given for allergies but rather to control or abate anxiety associated with pain or another acute psychotic condition. Standard of practice would dictate that if the patient were experiencing an acute allergic reaction then IM or IV steroids would be given instead as the quickest, safest, and most effective way to reduce the inflammatory response. Additionally, Vistaril has what we call a short half-life; in other words, it is metabolized rather rapidly by patients. This is what makes it such a good choice for pre-medication for procedures, but also NOT a good choice in treating allergies. In light of this, it is not surprising that the coroner only found traces of hydroxyzine in Hubbard's system; depending on time of dosage lapsed until time of death, it is quite possible that the majority of the medication had already been cleared by his system- in patients with normal kidney and liver function, this happens within a day or two at most, and therefore the medication doesn't reside in the bloodstream for very long. 
  
Can we find an original cite to back this up? Subsolar (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the sort of detail that belongs in the article on Hydroxyzine, and could then be referenced here. I'll see what I can dig up. However, right now that's all not only original research, but also the random comments of someone who sounds legit but could theoretically have pulled a bunch of med-speak from his butt. --GoodDamon 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  physician on Vistaril 

message: Someone vandalised allot of the notes turning them into abcdefghij..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.67.187 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are links to multiple uses of the same reference. AndroidCat (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalised by operant thetans using thier mystic powers.. 

message: Any non-Scientologist sources for this? WillOakland (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special officer for the LAPD 

message: Why is his criminal history so overlooked?
I'm fairly certain that is important to know, and the reason I was curious to visit his page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he ever served any time. Sure he was arrested for writing a bad check, but if I remember correctly he paid a fine. Then there was the thing in France, but he just never went there again. Anynobody 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He did briefly over a civil case from the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation of Wichita bankruptcy dispute with Don Purcell. Bare-Faced Messiah p.210-211. It was only an arrest and hours at most before he was bailed, and he later made restitution and was discharged. As for France, I don't know if they ever tried to extradite Hubbard, but that possibility, the IRS investigation and the initial charges in the Operation Snow White case in Canada were good reasons to keep his whereabouts unknown. AndroidCat (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRON goes to jail 

message: Please see OT VIII. The authenticity of that document is strongly doubted even among critics. As far as I know, no high-level ex-members (who have confirmed other advanced material in the Fishman docs) have confirmed that they've ever seen that one. Just because the court has a copy of the document that Fishman submitted to it, that is no proof that it is an authentic document from Scientology. The CoS lawyers did try to claim copyright, but afterwards said this was a mistake. (This one time, I'm inclined believe them since they're well known for snapping at anything without reading it too carefully.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been under the impression that only the OT VIII section of the Fishman affidavit was seriously disputed, because other ex-members reported seeing versions of OT VIII that were completely different, but that the remainder of the document had been confirmed by other ex-members. --FOo (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Jesus was a pedophile" bulletin is part of the disputed OT VIII section. AndroidCat (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. --FOo (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Fishman doc 

message: What about his homosexual son?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.166.28 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about family? 

message: It would be best to avoid usage of primary sources and self-referential sources, in describing the history of an organization specifically from those sources. Better to rely on secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean avoid using CoS primary sources right? Not court papers/etc. Anynobody 02:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It would be silly to rely heavily on sources that end in scientology.org or the like - we wouldn't want chunks of this article to begin to look similar to Scientology websites or Church of Scientology-affiliated accounts of their organization and their prominent individuals.  Best to stick to secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources as much as possible. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, they are only WP:RS for what the Church of Scientology says. We would have to frame each block of imported text with a qualifier that this is their view or opinion. AndroidCat (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Cirt (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that's rational, bearing in mind that some use of CoS sources is necessary only to report their major assertions about him discussed in secondary sources. However CoS information which has not been in a relevant secondary source is probably unacceptable. Anynobody 07:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: I have been working on The Secret of Treasure Island, a movie serial written by L. Ron Hubbard, and recently started the article on Buckskin Brigades, Hubbard's first published novel.  If anyone knows of some additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that I haven't come across yet, please let me know on the corresponding article's talk page.  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with sources on related articles? 

message: Does anyone else think this is up to Featured Article standard? I just read it for the first time, and I think it's pretty close. I have to say it seems remarkably neutral for an article on such a controversial figure. The only problems I think it would have with the Featured Article Criteria are 'Stability' - inevitably, it attracts a fair amount of vandalism - and being well-illustrated, as there are only three images on the whole page. I don't know what can be done about the stability issue, but surely the latter is pretty easy to fix? I hope more images can be found, because if they can, I believe this could easily be promoted to Featured Article status. Terraxos (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article would definitely prove interesting as a Featured Article, but the most salient of problems would be getting a hold of any images that could be used. I'll see what I can find! Nihiletnihil (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: New material added recently to this article violates WP:NOR, as it is either unsourced, or personal interpretation from primary sources.  There are also some references provided but not footnotes.  I would appreciate it if some other editors could take a look at this article and help monitor/cut down on the WP:NOR violations.  Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] violations at [[L. Ron Hubbard bibliography]] 

message: Why is there no mention of Hubbard's being committed to a mental hospital?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.142.201 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one has any cites for this claim? AndroidCat (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this should be added:
"The wife of L.Ron Hubbard, 40, founder of the Dianetics Mental Health Movement, filed suit for divorce today, charging he is suffering from a mental ailment. Mrs. Sara Northrup Hubbard, 25, said "competent medical advisers" had examined her 40-year-old husband and concluded he was "hopelessly insane" and should be placed in a private sanitarium for "psychiatric observation." She said doctors told her her husband was suffering from a mental ailment "known as paranoid schizophrenia.
"When informed of the doctors` recommendation that he be placed in a mental institution, Hubbard took their 13-month-old daughter, Alexis, from Mrs. Hubbard`s apartment and went into hiding, the suit charged. 
http://www.lermanet2.com/scientologynews/sfchronicle-hubbard-042451.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.97.83 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "[..] should be placed in a private sanitarium" is not quite the same as an actual commitment order. See BFM p.178 for more details of the situation at the time. (Hubbard actually shopped around for a psychiatrist or psychologist who would say that he was sane. O RLY...) AndroidCat (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospitalization