This is an archive of past discussions about L. Ron Hubbard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion
This section added by 194.57.219.129 has no references in the proper format, uses other Wiki articles as references, reads like someone's personal essay writing and has serious POV problems. "The pathetic end of life of Ron Hubbard, the numerous injection marks on his body and the drugs found in his corpse seem to strengthen the sad picture painted by the testimonies above." While I would welcome a section on Hubbard's drug use, I think that there are too many problems with it right now to let it stay before a massive cleanup. AndroidCat22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds pretty similar to the accounts I recall reading in Sunday supplements. I agree there are style problems but the bulk of the text seems pretty accurate to me. MarkThomas22:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As it appears now I'm satisfied with the section. I added <blockquote></blockquote>
back into his opium addict quote and the longer account of Hubbard. Anynobody04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, verification pending. Do you have the original data (not the digested stuff in the books)? Misou04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually helping the anon who contacted me, so I don't have the books. However I'm pretty sure Barefaced Messiah, APOBS, and some others are available online. I'll double check that to make sure in the near future. Anynobody05:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, for Messiah or Madman (B. Corydon), full text is here online: [1]. However, in this format, page is n°54. I'll try to find the other texts online since I've time... 194.57.219.129 18 April 2007
see chapter 'Scientology at sea' for J. Atack in APOBS 194.57.219.129 18 April 2007
I found those books as well. They have been written for specific purposes at the time and were appropriately "smeary". What's much more interesting is to see the original documents the books are based on, to see the context and exact wording. That is what I meant with "Do you have the original data (not the digested stuff in the books)?" To me the Hubbard quotes sound like his usual sloppy jokes rather than some deep confession on being a whatever addict. Misou03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, I've completed one reference, other quotes are from the authors themselves or from interviews with the people they quote. Perhaps Miller, Corydon, Armstrong, Downsborough, Atack are complete liars, and Ron Hubbard has an enormous sens of humour (and he really had, sometimes). However, they basically described the same kind of person, and if all of them can lie, their testimonies have to be considered anyway. About my ID, I can't have one because IP I use is not only mine, but the IP of my university so a lot of people can use it, it's not useful to create a special ID... I'm not hiding, no more than you (Misou is not your real name, is it?). Facts and quotes and references are important, not who I am. However, I'm not German, sorry:-) 194.57.219.129 19 April 2007
Hi there! Why don't we get the "maybe"s out of this article (and a lot others). I think there is too much room for interpretation and - by habit - it seems to be one to the negative. May be justified in some cases, may not be in others. In any case, the man is dead, and I am against some posthumous propaganda shit. On your IP, if that one is used by many others you should even more get an ID, so you can log in from where ever you are without confusing anybody. That's what I meant with hiding. (Misou is my nickname not only here, but who care what your ID will be). Anyway, just a hint. Pity that you are not German, I am always looking for possibilities to brush up mine. Misou17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Mein lieber Freund, 'Perhaps' meant possible, because it's always possible that these 5 interesting persons lie together; a few things more incredible happened on this planet, as you know. Personaly, I didn't think it was probable at all. Just possible because 'you never know' and my opinions are not fixed for eternity. I would be the first to be interested by knowing how a so perfect plot could have happened. Thanks for your advices, Misou, if I continue to use Wikipedia, sure I’ll get an ID. By the way... picture of Hubbard below is available for exemple here [2], even if he seems a little more exhausted on the photo than on the painting. You're right, this one is not a photo of 66-67, Hubbard was very tough yet. This photo is from 1984, a big year before his death, and used (a little blackened?) in the famous sunday times magazine article [3]. And you're right again, it's not how Hubbard looked like throughout most of his life (at least throughout his official photos), but if Hubbard was at this time OTXVI or something like that, he portraied then the absolute goal that a scientologist can hope to attain. (He even wasn't supposed to die, or not so soon.) Please excuse-me if it seems agressive, I stop there. 194.57.219.129 20 April 2007
Nothing against a bit aggressive, my friend. The "debates" here can be boring like hell. Another tip, get a typo correction for your prouwser. Got that tip a bit ago and Firefox is great for that. Misou01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Misou, almost everything you pointed out to 194.57.219.129 can be said about the information the CoS puts out about him, just in a much more "cheery" way (the opposite of "smeary"). Watch: They have been written for specific purposes at the time and were appropriately "cheery". What's much more interesting is to see the original documents the books are based on, to see the context and exact wording.That is what I meant with "Do you have the original data (not the digested stuff in the books)?" I'm all for primary sources, but books are necessary here too. They're secondary sources. Anynobody09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a good opportunity to arrange it in the middle? You know, I found just too many slants in those articles, or BS like the part on "the body was dragged away". Nonsense, and if the person putting that in KNOWS that the body was drug checked left, right and center and the result publically available, then this becomes an intentional lie. Misou17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I just adjusted your edit. The body was also not checked for moon dust. Is that worth mentioning? Misou17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember putting anything like "the body was dragged away" in the edit I wrote. Moon dust aside, the statement I replaced said something like the test eliminated all possibility of murder. A drug test does not eliminate the possibility of poisoning. I'm not saying he was murdered, but I can't say he wasn't either since the information is just not available, in part thanks to the refusal of an autopsy and speedy cremation. Anynobody22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Drugs are usually classified as poisons. But why was the Sheriff-Coroner looking for drugs at all? COFS23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The documents don't give an exact reason, all they seem to say is he was ordered to and what the result was. My WP:OR theory is: The powers that be found it very strange that they had a dead body about a day old and an organization looking to have him cremated right away. An autopsy can be waived by religious decree but not a drug test, that's probably the best the coroner could do as far as investigating possible evidence.
A drug overdose is indeed a toxic reaction that could be called "poisoning" but in a forensic sense a test for poison is looking for chemicals that shouldn't be present in high concentrations. Nobody gets prescribed arsenic, antimony, antifreeze, or strychnine. I realize that as a Scientologist you see drugs as poison, but Prozac and Cyanide are two totally different chemicals. Anynobody06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, makes sense on the drugs/poison distinction. But why they did not check for poisons if there was something strange about the death (as this wording suggests "Being a drug test, it did not look for the presence of poison.") and they had the blood sample in hands. That's kinda strange, isn't it? COFS18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Come one, you recognize a little propaganda slant when you see it, right? That's in there to show that "something" might be wrong with that death. I mean, who dies at 75? Strange.... Misou01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
When testing for poison, blood tests are not the best way to determine the presence of poison. The CDC says urinalysis is the best method to detect arsenic for example. (I also know that it accumulates in hair and fingernails allowing detection long after death). The unusual aspect was how tidy almost everything was; cops called after lawyers, will and religious declaration that no autopsy be performed and remains cremated ASAP. Then there was the fact that inheritance and control of a religious group was at stake. Anynobody01:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Famous picture
The the picture mentioned of a totally exhausted Hubbard is out there, here's a rendering of it: (I have seen this photograph before, don't remember where but I'm pretty sure it can be found.)
Smeary or cheery, Anynobody? Is it representing how Hubbard looked like throughout most of his life? If the photo is not a fake - and I don't know that - he must have looked like this when he wrote Mission Earth. And then you check photos of the time of 1966, 1967 (that's when he got his ships, Sea Org and the cap for it), you see someone who doesn't look like a druggie. Sheds some doubt on the drug stories, for me at least. Misou17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is a source indicating the picture is fake, and assuming I find and post the photo in question, would you be able to tell if it's fake? If so would you then be able to explain why it is or isn't? The statement wasn't discussing his appearance in the 1960s it was talking about his appearance in 1985 at the time of the article's publishing. Anynobody22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You would put this picture with the purpose to degrade the appearance of Hubbard. Why are you choosing such a picture when there are hundreds of less degrading ones? COFS23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter at all, it's just the talk page. That which makes this picture so interesting is specifically that it's so different than the other and ideal ones. 194.57.219.129 20 April 2007
Not THIS picture of somebodies charcoal rendering (or whatever it is) of Hubbard. I mean the actual photograph the artist used for reference. Anynobody06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Actual photo is here:[4], and article where photo was used here: [5] 194.57.219.129 20 April 2007
I recognise that pic. It's in Stewart Lamont's book "Religion, Inc." - according to the caption it's a screenshot from a 1973 television documentary. No idea what the film was called or who made it, though. -- ChrisO07:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1973!! So it's the only photo in the 1984' article that wasn't from the photograph of the Sunday Times? I remember it was a doc, you're right. I think it was the BBC. If the video is online I'll find it, thanks. 194.57.219.129 20 April 2007
Cesar Tort yep that's him alright. The picture I was talking about is down further on the rotten page, but is also in 194.57.219.129's links (which are very nicely done by the way 194.57.219.129 :) ) Anynobody08:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion
The suggested format for a lead paragraph can and should include discussion regarding crticism of the article's subject. It also points out that a good lead should include references to each sections discussed.
WP:LEAD#Writing about concepts
When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:
Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs.
Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context.
Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.
WP:LEAD#Suggestions
The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole. For many articles, these suggestions can be helpful in writing an appropriate lead:
In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
WP:LEAD says that an article greater than 30,000 characters is very large.
My word processor counted: 37,889 with no spaces. 44,965 with. I copied and pasted all sections from the article page except the lead, the TOC, references, and links/categories. It also counted characters that shouldn't count like [edit] and reference numbers. Even deducting those this article is well above 30,000 making 3,4, or even maybe 5 paragraphs appropriate.
Would it be inappropriate to split this article up? It was proposed at Sylvia Browne to make a subpage dedicated to her controversial biographical aspects and criticism, and it seems to have worked well. I've noticed that like her, there seems to be a dispute about more or less every aspect of Hubbard's life. Anynobody23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you Steve Dufour, it's important to keep the text readable. That is the ultimate challenge of course but in a contest between interest and information I think information should win. The point I'm trying to make by noting the number of characters is that we don't have to cram everything into one or two paragraphs. I think the one thing anyone can agree about him is that he had a very complicated life. The intro I wrote was designed to be a starting off point, but we should mention each section in the lead. (Not each subsection though, for example his military career should be mentioned but details about the subsections would be too much.) Anynobody05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Justanother I did my best to portray the founding of the Sea Org and RPF as accuratly and neutrally as possible. The RPF shouldn't be mentioned but the Sea Org does need to be, how would you describe the circumstances under which it was founded?(I could've sworn that the RPF was in there at one point, but since it's not now it shouldn't be mentioned) To keep as close to the article as possible I just termed the trouble legal difficulties and tried to give it a truthful but optimistic version of it's creation without mentioning the more unusual aspects like the billion year contract or even the uniforms.
I propose a goal of one to three paragraphs mentioning these subjects which are for the most part in there already, I've rephrased and re-ordered some of the writing career specifics as a propsal:
Early life
Education
Pre-Dianetics writing - he wrote for both pulp and science fiction magazines, making him a writer (it's just easier that way)
Military career
Dianetics
Scientology
Legal difficulties and life on the high seas
Post-Dianetics writing career
Later life
Controversial episodes - keep this until after his death
Hubbard in popular culture - since the pop culture references are usually allusions to one of the Controversial episodes this should follow it.
The problem is that the lead section is clunky, if you read it out loud the opening sentence sounds like a first grader telling his/her mother about somebody. I mean no offense to whoever wrote it because they seem to be trying to compromise on tone by being specific. Listing two different genres he wrote in is superfluous without listing them all, as they weren't the only types of writing he did. Anynobody09:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see anything wrong with the lead paragraphs. Yes, it's general. That's what an intro is supposed to be -- it's supposed to be a general overview, with the details saved for the article. We don't need to list every single genre he wrote in; we don't need to list every single component of the Church of Scientology that he founded. -- Antaeus Feldspar15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have agreed with you a couple of days ago, but when I got here I noticed {{Lead section|date=January 2007}}. Since somebody had a problem with it, I refreshed my understanding of WP:LEAD. I listed the suggestions from it above. It also states:
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
The lead section here now could not stand by itself. You're right that we don't need to list all the genres he wrote in, which is why the opening sentence should just say he was a writer. I think the lead needs expanding but it doesn't need to be so specific. This is also why I didn't include the subsections in the list of things it should mention above.
Essentially, according to WP:LEAD, the lead should be a mini version of the article as a whole. Since it is a guideline we can ignore it, and if that's the consensus I'll stop mentioning it. Anynobody01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI that tag has been there since:
20:35, 8 November 2006 CloudNine (Talk | contribs) m (Lead section is too short for an article of this length)
All Wikipedia guidelines and policies are shaped by observing where they produce satisfactory results and where they produce unsatisfactory results. I'll note that many of the suggestions given in WP:LEAD#Suggestions seem to be excellent suggestions for articles about ideas, happenings, and constructs, but much less suited to, say, biographical articles and geographical articles. Suppose, for instance, we have someone who's unquestionably notable, but only for one particular action they took (Lee Harvey Oswald, for example.) The full article should of course be an overview of their whole life; the lead should of course identify what they're notable for. But if we adhere strictly to the suggestion that "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article" then we're basically cluttering up a clean lead which tells what the person is notable for with everything they aren't notable for. -- Antaeus Feldspar02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Lee Harvey Oswald was actually a bad example to cite as a good lead, because it doesn't mention he was a qualified USMC sharpshooter which is pretty relevant when discussing a man who is notable for what he is.
I get the impression you think that I want to include the whole article, I do not. However I think as mmany major sections should be mentioned as possible and some of the text reworded:
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March1911 – 24 January1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was primarily known as an American freelance writer [1][2][3]and founder of the Church of Scientology based on the ideas put forth in his book Dianetics. He was also an officer in the United States Navy during the Second World War and would go on to command a fleet of private Scientology vessels after later legal difficulties in the U.S. dictated his temporary relocation. Hubbard used the opportunity to form an elite group within Scientology he called the Sea Org. He continued writing and expanding the concepts on which he founded the Church until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch. Hubbard was a controversial public figure, with many details of his life disputed.
The Church of Scientology official biographies present Hubbard as "larger than life, attracted to people, liked by people, dynamic, charismatic and immensely capable in a dozen fields".[4] However, the Church's account of Hubbard's life has changed over time, with editions of the biographical account published over the years differing from each other.[5]
In contrast, biographies of Hubbard by independent journalists and accounts by former Scientologists paint a much less flattering, and often highly critical, picture of Hubbard and in many cases contradict the material presented by the Church.[6][7][1]
This is closer to what I'd like to see. Calling him a writer instead of a Pulp fiction and Science fiction magazine writer, dedicating one paragraph to praise and the last for criticism. Anynobody06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my take on a lead. The last line I removed can go to the second paragraph. I think mine is more concise, more NPOV, and better represents the balance of the man's life.
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (13 March1911 – 24 January1986), better known as L. Ron Hubbard, was a well-known American author of the pre-World War II pulp fiction era that went on to write the immensely popular self-help book Dianetics in 1950 and to found of the Church of Scientology in 1953. He served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II and later commanded a small fleet of private Scientology vessels manned by his Sea Org, a group that became the management structure of the present-day Church. He continued writing and expanding the concepts on which he founded the Church until his January 24, 1986 death at a private California ranch.
I think it reads fluent and is an appropriate (for a encyclopedia article) introduction. COFS18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely a major improvement and does read much better. The article mentions his life at sea and the Sea Org as happening around a time of "legal difficulties". The section is called Legal difficulties and life on the high seas. I mentioned the Sea Org as a positive byproduct of the situation he was in. Phrase it however you like, call it a legal controversy or disagreement, but it should be mentioned that he went to sea as sort of a get away from some difficulty. (That is what the article says.)
Without mentioning the Sea Org it sounds like he was just running away to live at sea. If the Sea Org is mentioned and the reason for leaving is not, it suggests that he went to form the org and for no other reason. Again, I think it is a big step in the right direction but to be complete should look something like this:
He was an avid seaman and served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II. Later he commanded a small fleet of private Scientology vessels during a particularly controversial period in his life. At that time he created the Sea Org, which started as simply the crews who manned the vessels but has since evolved into the management structure of the present-day Church.
I'm not saying that we need to fill the lead with negative information but in order to truly be NPOV the critics must be addressed too. Anynobody01:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowedgement. All due respect, AN, but I feel that, of the few words of that intro paragraph, you want to make too many about the sea. Most of them should be about Scientology as that, with Dianetics, consumed at least 36 years of his life. Compare that to, what? four years in the active Navy. Scientology took up the vast portion of his life and directly and importantly affected hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. You need to get a sense of perspective on this man. The Navy is trivial. The years at sea with the SO, less so but still minor. The barest mention that he served in the Navy is appropriate. I am not even sure that the SO years at sea belongs in the lead. It probably does not.
I think that is better. Controversy can go in the next paragraph as it interrupts the flow of the first and the back and forth makes things choppy and awkward. --Justanother02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Justanother you really appear to be trying to put your bias aside, but by not mentioning any criticism or controversy it creates a unbalance in his favor. Respectfully, most people don't see him the same way as Scientologists do. Life on the sea aside, the way I envisioned keeping the three paragraphs NPOV was like this:
Paragraph 1: General overview including one point about how Scientologists see him and another about the criticism. (1 Pro 1 Con)
Paragraph 2: Scientologists points about him slightly expanded. (Pro)
Paragraph 3: The critics points about him slightly expanded. (Con)
Result NPOV, equal number of points.
Your intro's make the balance look more like this:
Paragraph 1: (Pro)
Paragraph 2: (Pro)
Paragraph 3: (Con)
Result Pro-Scientology POV, more pro than con points.
In actual fact, I do not edit from my "bias" except to the degree that I am biased for truth in these articles. Never been any other way for me. Nor do I see you as a biased editor. What you may not realize, AN, is just how highly Hubbard is regarded among non-Scientologists. That is likely because your sole exposure to Hubbard is in the poisoned atmosphere of internet criticism of him. Do me a favor, AN, put any preconceived notions that you might have about the man to the side for a moment and read through this site: http://www.lronhubbardtribute.org/iv/accolades/index.htm Pretend that all the people quoted there actually said all those things (they did of course, but critics like to pretend that Scientology sites would lie about something like that). --Justanother03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
About the website you mentioned:
I'm sure there are some non-Scientologists who see Hubbard in a relatively positive way, however it's difficult for me to believe what is on the site you've pointed out because it doesn't mention a context for the people's comments, or when they said it. As an example, the site claims to be current as of 2006 and cites: James Barnes Safety Officer Rocketdyne Division Rockwell AerospaceBoeing bought Rockwell Aerospace in 1996. Do you have any references to any of these people directly? It goes back to the conversation we had on your talk page a while ago, the key is to find a source that has no interest in either trashing or worshiping him (like the Navy).
About general POV of Hubbard
Acknowledging that some non-Cos people think of him in a positive way, you must also acknowledge that many people think of him in a negative way. We are supposed to write in a balanced way, that means not just talk about his positive traits OR his negative but rather to strike a balance. This is the only problem I have with your suggestions, they make no mention of the opposing view and only concentrates on how Scientology sees him. Anynobody04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the site. AN when a person does not assume good faith on the part of another when they have no reason to do otherwise, they are showing their bias. Do you have any real reason (other than the general "CoS is bad" that critics spew), any reason to think that the CoS would misquote a public person's words on that site? Such misquoting being the ultimate foot-bullet if they were ever called on it. You are hemming and hawing with this "relatively positive way" or "doesn't mention a context for the people's comments, or when they said it". Those comments re not "relative" and most of them stand without context and are timeless (the man has been dead for 20 years, I doubt that he will get in much more trouble). I thought you had no bias but I may be wrong because while your 2nd paragraph shows NPOV, your first does not. --Justanother12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Justanother welcome back from your hiatus. I mean no insult when I say this but, yes indeed I do have reason to question the information presented by pro-Scientology sources. You have to remember that these are the same sources that have in the past published documents like this: L Ron Hubbard Fake DD-214
Even you, I guess unconsciously, are misrepresenting the facts on this very talk page.
<< Ever read the Moulton testimony? I suggest you do. Hubbard, his crew, another ship, blimps. All making positive contact; sonar (not magnetic) and magnetic, hearing screws, seeing periscopes, diesel slicks. And what was that disallowed bit about a shore observer? Golly, maybe there was a sub chase. And what do we have to counter all that evidence that the chase actually occurred?? A CYA (Cover Your Ass) from some pissed-off higher-up?? Well, that is enough for us to smear the man and his crew and everyone else involved. Silly critics. --Justanother 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If you bother to read Hubbard's report the only real help he got was from the SC which didn't have SONAR until their CO returned. That was the boat he was signaling with the whistle to drop depth charges after he ran out, none of the other ships wanted to engage or drop depth charges. Not because they thought he was right, but because they didn't hear anything (that wasn't in Hubbard's report, but it's what the others reported to Admiral Fletcher). Only the blimps had any kind of contact, and that was the "magnetic deposit".
I have read the Moulton Testimony, it shows that L Ron Hubbard was able to impress his friend and first officer, along with 60 or so men into thinking he knew what he was doing. Incidentally he would later blame most of the same men (minus Moulton who went on to get his own ship) for his having to anchor of the Eastern Coronado a month later for being too incompetent to return to base without him at the conn.
The above said, I do agree with your idea that my original version, while NPOV-ish, is somewhat one-sided. As I respect the man for what he accomplished and tend to forgive his peccadillos, it is difficult for me to "write for the enemy" in this instance. However a line with the notable and overarching criticism of Hubbard and his creation (Scientology) is not inappropriate in the lead paragraph. Why don't some of you guys go ahead and add that to my draft and we can go from there. What you, AN (since you are the only one with the problem), should understand is that, in some cases, while my POV would prevent me from creating something, my adherence to NPOV requires that I respect the POV of others. That is an important point for you to understand, AN, because it may be the point that throws you about me. My POV affects those bits I create, from scratch as it were (I don't have to write for the enemy if I don't care to), and other editors should review my work, as I review the work of other editors. My POV does not affect how I treat the creations of others because I evaluate them against the policies of Wikipedia, not against my POV (something some anti-Scientologists do also but that needs more work). What this means is that while I do not mind writing for the enemy in certain instances, like writing up Hubbard's military career, or his schooling, I am not about to write some overarching criticism of the man when I believe that he made one of the most important contributions to Man of any individual and that he dedicated his life to the effort despite the vast forces of governments and institutions that tried to shut him down. He succeeded and others are carrying on his work, that work being simply to make people happier and more able to influence their lives and the lives of others to the betterment of all. And plenty of non-Scientologists agree with that summary. And, yes, there are many that agree with the summary that he was a con-man. But, IMO, those people have mostly simply considered only superficial criticisms of the man (do we really care about his Naval career?) and the complaints of a very small number of vocal critics (a number of which edit here) and totally discount the testimony of tens of thousand of people that have been helped by Hubbard. That is just weird but that is indicative of how things work on the internet. Thanks. --Justanother15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
ps, to AN, you are wasting your time over at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 and it reflects badly on you and all those involved over there, for example and all the other clues people have been trying to send you to knock off your preoccupation with me, like here or, more directly, here ("Smee and Anynobody, let go of your grievance - Geogre") and here (for me it merely comes across an effort to prolong a dispute. - pgk). I can find others if you need me to. Hopefully you can take good advice and "let go". I bring this up not because I have any fear of a User RfC (actually one part of me would love you to take that RfC live) but because I really do not want to waste any more of my time and the time of others with this silly personal bickering. --Justanother15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Charlatan is an opinion that is belied by the thousands of testimonies that Scientology works. An opinion that some have and some do not. Not shown. Of as opposed to during? Of is better prose and does not imply what you claim it does. Well-known? You better believe it and to think otherwise shows poor research on your part and simply relying on your POV to tell you. Dianetics was immensely popular and to say otherwise again shows a lack of research and relying on a POV on your part. Leave out immensely if it bothers you so much. Attacked is what he was (and is). Again, trying to change that to shown is POV on your part. Attacked is not POV, shown is. He is held in high regard by other than Scientologists, too.
Here ya go. There are governments, scholars, doctors, people on both sides so no need to expand, people is good enough, --Justanother02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You've actually ignored a couple of my points, the first I notice is the point about being well known. I'm willing to believe you, but I'd need to see some kind of non-partisan proof. Like a magazine, newspaper, or something showing he was well known. If that is accurate then he either made no money from being well known, as he claimed in forms he filled out, or was lying when he filled out the forms.
Dianetics did make him a grip of money, but how do you define immensely popular? For example how many copies of Dianetics have been printed compared to the Bible or Koran?
The term "attacked" is indeed POV. If I say you are attacking my proposed lead paragraph it implies something quite different than if I say you are criticizing it.
Hubbard was a liar, he lied to several banks and committed check fraud (which is what writing a bad check essentially is).
Latest comment: 17 years ago35 comments7 people in discussion
This bit has little place in the article, certainly not where it currently sits.
This is an article on Hubbard; that case was a Family Court case about child custody for a regular garden-variety Scientologist.
It is in the "Legal difficulties" section for Hubbard but has nothing to do with his legal difficulties. You can see that it is clearly out-of-place there.
Sure, the judge parrots critic lines but that is all he is doing, parroting. Nothing new. All those points about Hubbard are brought up elsewhere and in more relevant circumstances like Inquiry Boards on Scientology. Latey adds nothing and is redundant.
Where this belongs, if anywhere, and only as a mention, is in the main Scientology article under goverment reaction in the UK.
Here is the sourced material backed up by citations, that was removed:
In 1984 Justice Latey, ruling[8] in the High court of London, stated in his judgment that Scientology is "dangerous, immoral, sinister and corrupt" and "has its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard".[1] Justice Latey also addressed Hubbard's representation of himself:
... he has made these, among other false claims:
That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not.
That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not.
That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated.
That he was crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetic technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.
That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.
That he was a graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed the one course on nuclear physics in which he enrolled.
There is no dispute about any of this. The evidence is unchallenged.[1]<!-p. 339 -->
This material is speaking directly about the subject of this article, and is highly pertinent to the article itself and should therefore remain in the article. Smee16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
It is redundant, he is simply parroting critical material presented to him during a non-related child custody hearing. Obiter dicta. If you want those points, just make them where they belong using RS. Not too much to ask. --Justanother17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What a fascinating claim, that judges can somehow be assumed without any evidence to be "simply parroting" the assertions made by one side and not make any attempt to evaluate them. What nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can have your opinion and I can have mine but the fact is that the material has nothing to do with the section it is placed in and, other than that it parrots opinions presented elsewhere and in RS, little to do with this article. The actual case having nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard. --Justanother03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, so suggest a section where it would be more appropriate. However, your delusion that simply by parroting the phrase "Obiter dicta! Obiter dicta!" over and over it will act like a magic spell to eliminate an RS you find troublesome is just that, delusion. You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the statements in question areobiter dicta; since the custody hinged in a major way on whether an environment so permeated with the intolerant and unethical attitudes practiced and preached by the Church of Scientology could be a fit environment in which to raise the children, for an untrained editor like yourself to carelessly yet fervently deem them obiter dicta not forming a necessary part of the judicial opinion is presumptuous and dubious indeed. COFS's statement that obiter dicta "regularly abused for defamation" seems also to be the product of a mind that has a very good idea of what would be convenient for him for the law to be, and almost no idea what the law actually is. Consider this: a journalist who examines some of the evidence from both sides of the issue -- amounts limited by whom he can actually reach for comment, and what research materials he can dig up before the news organization's deadline -- when that story goes out over the air or off to the presses, it becomes an RS. Now you are trying to argue that a judge, who has years of training in sorting out reliable evidence from unreliable evidence and sound argument from sophistry, and who has two teams each working to make sure that he is not lacking any evidence or any argument which pertains to their side of the case, and who knows well that anything in his decision which even hints that he improperly favored one side or the other can be used as grounds for an appeal of his decision -- you're trying to argue that that judge's decision is less of an RS than the journalist's story? Because you just learned two words of Latin? Poppycock. -- Antaeus Feldspar01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, so suggest a section where it would be more appropriate. You have it mixed up, Antaeus. If you can place it in a proper location then do so but it has no place where it is now and its placement is disputed ergo it stays out please until we sort this out. Q.E.D. Thanks. --Justanother02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it's you who are a bit mixed up on this issue. We should be trying to improve Wikipedia with our edits. If you can suggest a better section in the article for it to be moved to, that's perfectly reasonable. Removing it entirely because you think the section it's in is not the best section for it is no kind of improvement. -- Antaeus Feldspar03:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
However what he said was true, and has been discussed in court cases about the CoS. Here is an example from the 1984 Armstrong trial:
[...]In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in [Scientology] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder [L. Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile."
-- Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., 6/20/84 (Scientology v. Armstrong, affirmed on appeal 232 Cal.App.3rd 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.)
As to Judge Latey's points about Hubbard's claims of military achievement, they can be disproven through the Navy:
That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not.
That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not.
That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated.
That he was crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetic technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.
That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.
and this from academic records:
That he was a graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed the one course on nuclear physics in which he enrolled.
As I've said, there are lots of other sources out there. When one ends up in court as much as he did there are probably other options for judicial sources. Anynobody05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are other sources out there, bring them on. There also have been plenty of court cases about Scientology or not even about Scientology which include Obiter Dicta totally positive about Scientology. This is not the point. The point is that the personal opinion of this judge is not relevant and the case in which this opinion was uttered is not relevant as well. Documents are. If you got some, bring them on. I got loads of them, too, just did not find the time to scan them. COFS05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's my point COFS, I understand that Obiter dicta is a judges opinion not related to the ruling. There are cases where the court has made a ruling, like Judge Paul G. Breckenridge above. (It isn't Obiter dicta if it's in the ruling). Anynobody05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Obiter Dicta is always in the ruling, somewhere, but disrelated to the issue of the case. COFS05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not when it's the subject at hand, Latey had to decide on a child custody issue between relatives. Breckenridge was making a decision on whether the CoS had a case against Armstrong. In the former Scientology or Hubbard aren't the primary issue. In the later case they are. The judge didn't believe them, and explained why. That is a judgement or ruling, and when he/she gives their opinion regarding something like that it is not Obiter Dicta COFS. Anynobody05:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
IAMNOTALAWYER and apparently, AN, neither are you. Not sure if obiter dicta or ratio decidendi strictly applies. This is family court. There are no charges; it is all opinion of the judge. Example: let's say a dad has his issues and a mom has had some drinking problem but has promised to reform and is in rehab. One judge might decide that she will correct her problem and is the "better" parent while another might decide that she will not. Their statement of their opinion means nothing, only that in their opinion blah blah blah. This is just blah blah blah opinion. Antaeus floats the argument that it is really special opinion because it is from a judge. Plenty of equally intelligent "neutral" people think highly of Hubbard. The point is to not fill the article with primary source opinions. There is no need to and it invites finding and adding "counter opinions". A ridiculous exercise; let's just stick to the secondary sources here. --Justanother11:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is what is going to happen. Dicta is additional blabber by definition, just as if the judge could not withhold some sneering comment (or enthusiastic sideline). If we decide that such things as the Latey-dicta is valid for the article - and I think it is not - I will dig out my own Dicta collection and start adding in. COFS16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of clarity:
Latey discussing his views of Hubbard/Scientology in a family court custody situation = Obiter Dicta.
Breckenridge discussing his views of Hubbard/Scientology in a civil action by the CoS against Armstrong = Ratio decidendi.
There are plenty of cases in which the CoS or Hubbard was involved where a judge's opinion would not be Obiter Dicta since Hubbard/CoS are a party to the case. Anynobody01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Too easy, man. Read the Wikipedia definitions of both. Even a case with Hubbard/CoS as a party could have Obiter Dicta. Let's say Hubbard sues his neighbor for growing his apple tree over his side of the fence and the judge puts half of Scientology in the decision (like Hubbard would be on the road doing lectures so much, about Scientology, which is blahblahblah). Get the point? Dicta is a bulking agent used by judges if their judgment is too thin. Or their got paid or got political pressure or so. Dicta is the Judge's rant section. And the B'Ridge quote might be Dicta or not, you can't say just from the case title. Misou04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The case was brought by the CoS and Mrs. Hubbard against Gerald Armstrong which the Church lost. The statement I quoted was part of Breckenridge's reasons for ruling the way he did. His opinions about Hubbard and the CoS apply directly to his decision, which is why it's Ratio decidendi.
In this matter heretofore taken under submission, the Court announces its intended decision as follows: As to the tort causes of action, plaintiff, and plaintiff in intervention are to take nothing, and the defendant is entitled to Judgment and costs. As to the equitable actions, the court finds that neither plaintiff has clean hands, and that at least as of this time, are not entitled to the immediate return of any document or objects previously retained by the court clerk.
No, man, THE LAW, what does THE LAW say? A judgment interprets the law for one or the other party. You know? Not: Judge Hammersmith thinks that Party A is a sweet crispy boy and that's why he is right. But: Per Article 12, Paragraph 753, etc. I am hereby sentencing all Sockpuppets to Hell. And so on. Any personal statement and other BS are Dicta by definition. Misou05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully Misou, that is not what the law says. Ratio decidendi: "It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the principles of judgment for ratio decidendi stand as potentially binding precedent, through the principle of stare decisis." The judge found in favor of the defendant for among other reasons:
[...]In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in [Scientology] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder [L. Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile."
Breckenridge ruled in favor of the defendant, Armstrong, because of the opinion he formed about the CoS and Hubbard during the case.
Latey's remarks were obiter dicta because the CoS was neither a plaintiff, defendant, or participant in the hearing he was ruling on. Breckenridge's comments were ratio decidendi because the CoS was the plaintiff in the case he was ruling on as such his opinion of them and Hubbard actually does pertain to the case at hand. Anynobody06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a WP page that cautions editors to be careful when the legal Latin starts flying. It's not Wiki is not a courtroom, but it's out there somewhere. AndroidCat12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to know which one does that? I'd be happy to take a look at it, but I must point out that in this discussion we are only talking about two terms. Obiter dicta, non-related commentary from a judge before ruling. Ratio decidendi, reasons a judge makes his/her ruling. Anynobody23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the basic syllogism being offered by those who believe that Judge Latey's assessment of Hubbard must go out as obiter dicta:
Judge Latey's assessment of Hubbard was obiter dicta.
All obiter dicta are not legally binding statements.
Therefore, Judge Latey's assessment of Hubbard does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing.
Now, the first big problem with the above syllogism is with the first premise. A number of editors have asserted that the quoted lines from Judge Latey are obiter dicta -- but many editors think they know a lot more about the law than they actually do. I have no reason to believe that COFS (who put forth this issue of obiter dicta in the first place) is a legal expert, and even if he claimed to be, the recent problems with Essjay should caution us against accepting any such claims casually.
However, even if that premise was not so doubtful, the syllogism is still no good, because it depends on the enthymeme "No statements which are not legally binding meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources" and this, to understate just a bit, would certainly surprise the hell out of Jimbo Wales. So far as I know there has never been a single story in the New York Times which has ever been legally binding by virtue of being printed. Are we to take from this that New York Times stories aren't reliable sources? Like I said, it would really surprise Jimbo Wales to learn that this rule has somehow been passed by stealth when he wasn't looking. -- Antaeus Feldspar23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
New Information
I reread the Latey ruling and now feel the discussion of the CoS is not obiter dicta. I missed the part where he said something like all things being equal I'd let the kids stay with their father, except for CoS factors like education which directly impact the kids. Clearly all the Scientology info was the primary reason for his ruling. (If he would have said all those things and still awarded custody to the father, the concept of obiter dicta would be accurate and his comments not relevant to the article). Anynobody00:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are applying this logic and measure there would be many more judgment obiter dicta to be put in this article. On the Latey custody case, what tipped the scale was that the father lied to the court (at least that is what the Judge says) and that he - Latey - did not trust him enough to raise the children free from Scientology interference until they are old enough to decide themselves. That is the issue at hand - child custody to the father or to the mother. COFS03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed he does say that the fact which clenched his decision was the fact that the father lied and the judge was therefore concerned all the negative aspects he listed about Hubbard/Scientology causing harm to the children (which he didn't trust the father to keep the kids away from, as a result of his earlier lie.) It wasn't so much the lie itself as the implications of him possibly lying about limiting the kids exposure to Scientology. That is why all the things he said were relevant to the case and Hubbard. diffAnynobody03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We are turning in circles here. It is Dicta. Hubbard was no party of the case. Otherwise he could have defended himself against the statements but not being a party prevents that. That's why there is such regulation as a Obiter Dicta classification. This case must have been a mess. The kids later ran away from their mother, got on drugs and crashed school. The son returned to his father in 1989 and the mother sent the daughter there as well in 1990 to her help her getting back on the feet (Ref: sworn and notarized declaration of David B. (the father), dated 19 July 1991). COFS06:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Emphasis added
An obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta), Latin for a statement said "by the way", is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[9]
It may seem like circles, but really I think we are close to resolving this or exhausting all logical arguments. The bottom line is this:
The father promised not to excessively expose the kids to Scientology.
The father was caught by Judge Letay in a lie regarding a different subject.
Judge Latey describes Hubbard/Scientology as he did, including their demonstrated past of lies and deception.
Because father lied to him once Letay believes the father was lying about his intentions regarding the kids and Scientology, since he noted Scientologists are taught to lie (according to the evidence he heard).
Mother gets custody.
Because of his views about the CoS/Hubbard and the father's demonstration of dishonesty he awarded custody to the mother. If Scientology was not an issue, he would have awarded custody to the father as he had been inclined to do originally.
It's sad that the family ended up the way it did, but in this case Letay's views about the CoS are directly part of his judgment. Obiter dictum DOES NOT apply toward the judge's reasoning, it is information like analogies, illustration of a point, or rhetorical arguments. Anynobody06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, we are turning in circles. You have decided on the outcome of this discussion and you are not open for arguments. Latey smears L. Ron Hubbard based on the lie the father presented. Hubbard was not present and could not say something against it or file libel suit against Latey. But this is also not necessary as it is Obiter Dicta and not relevant for the case. If it would be relevant there would be a remedy for such a situation (Judge smears people who are neither a party to the case nor even affected by the type of law being decided upon (custody law). He was not even in the country or knew any of the participants of the case.). That is why any of Latey's words - except for the part which grants custody to the mother - are not relevant for the case and that is why this whole case is not relevant for an article on L. Ron Hubbard. COFS02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully we are not going in circles, I have listed why his remarks were relevant to his ruling. You have listed irrelevant and unconvincing reasons for them being invalid per your definition of obiter dictum.
"Hubbard was no party of the case. Otherwise he could have defended himself..." unconvincing- He wasn't being sued, at stake was the welfare and benefit of the children which the case involved. Part of their welfare is how the question of religion will be handled since the parents no longer agreed on one religion. At that point the nature of the religion and the reputation of founder became relevant to the case.
"...what tipped the scale was that the father lied to the court..." unconvincing - He had promised to limit the kids exposure to Scientology as his ex wife requested. Since he had proven a willingness to lie, and the evidence Latey heard showed that Scientology actively encouraged lying at the time, he ruled against the father. It's not the lie itself but the possible consequences of him lying again, exposing the kids to Scientology against the wishes of their mother. Since he viewed the CoS as he did, the ruling was to keep the kids away from it. (It is part of his reasoning, therefore it isn't obiter dictum).
"...The kids later ran away from their mother, got on drugs and crashed school..." irrelevant - Since he couldn't see the future and the issue at hand is the reasoning he used to come to his decision this is a sad but irrelevant contention. (Incidentally can you provide a link to the sworn statement? I'm curious about what else happened.)
I don't mean to sound like a smart ass but I haven't "... decided on the outcome of this discussion and you are not open for arguments." You haven't offered an argument to show why all of his statements had nothing to do with his decision, which is what obiter dictum is. Show me why they aren't related to his decision and I'll agree with you again. Anynobody03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous and lame. Golly, if we find a judge in a child custody case opining that video games are bad, are we going to add that to the video game article? If we find a judge in a divorce case opining that alcohol is bad, are we going to put that in the alcohol article. Of course not. This whole premise is lame. Personally, I would not waste more time on it - put it out ot RfC or whatever. It is lame and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. --Justanother04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we're discussing this issue as it relates to L. Ron Hubbard so I honestly don't know if judicial quotes belong in the articles you mentioned Justanother. In this case it illustrates controversy about the nature of his philosophy and religion internationally. Hubbard affected many people's lives with his ideas about religion and MEST, this has caused controversy. As you probably know, controversy is relevant in an encyclopedic article. (If it wasn't, guidelines like WP:LEAD would say to keep it out altogether). Anynobody05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The African tribesman
Latest comment: 17 years ago40 comments8 people in discussion
Instead of exhausting my reverts, I would appreciate if User:COFS could enlighten us how the segment he deleted [7] and "...so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for the truth, and his emphasis on brutality and savagery..."<ref>Hubbard, L. Ron, ''Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought''. Copenhagen: New Era Publications, 1997. {{ISBN|1900944979}}, p. 77</ref> is out of context. --Tilman18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS seems to be blocked right now. I got curious and looked it up, and I might be able to enlighten you on this. The quote is wrong. It is not "African tribesman" but "primitive tribesman" with no qualification where this tribe might be. Then the full quote is "Self-created data is then not a bad thing. Neither is education. But one without the other, to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a no-civilization. Just as individuals can be seen by observing nations, so we see the primitive tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others (but not himself) is a no-civilization." This quote is from a chapter called "Civilization and Savagery". The essence of this chapter is that the more education is prevented in a nation and the more self-created data (this is personal observation, i.e. primary sources) is prevented, the more savagery and the less civilization you get. Nothing about blacks or Africans or what have you. Just an example for people who have not been educated and some really good reasons why they should be educated. The quote is not only out of context but it is used to give an example for Hubbard writing about "colored people". Obviously - to follow the purpose of slandering Hubbard - the quote had to be falsified to fit the bill. By the way, the same falsification was done to the other quote. Allegedly Hubbard wrote: "Unlike the yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part ... that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention.". Now, this is false again. The actual book text says: "Unlike people devoted to an ancient spiritual heritage, those of more recent, largely Western, societies do not usually believe they can get attention from matter or objects. The former believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention." The whole chapter, entitled "Identity and Attention", discusses how a game is made up. Actually the quotes are not even out of context, they actually do not even exist! Both quotes have been a) falsified and b) put in there to activate "blacks" against Hubbard. The motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there by all means, is clearly opposite to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am happy that you did not fall for it. CSI LA22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
CSI LA, I am afraid you have made an understandable mistake. It is not as simple as "if I look in the first edition I can find of the book with that title and I find the text in a different form than it was quoted here, the person who quoted here falsified the quote." What is far more likely is that you are reading from an edition of the book other than the one referenced -- i.e., the edition in which you "checked" the quote was not Hubbard, L. Ron, Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought. Copenhagen: New Era Publications, 1997. ISBN1900944979. It is simply a fact that despite the prohibitions against altering Hubbard's words, they have been altered, with different editions changing Hubbard's phrasings and sometimes leaving out inconvenient sections. For instance, let me show you the "tribesman" paragraph, complete, as it appears in my copy of Fundamentals:
Self-created data is, then, not a bad thing, neither is education, but one without the other to hold it in some balance will bring about a no-game condition or a no-civilization. Just as individuals can be seen, by observing nations, so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not himself, is a no-civilization. And we see at the other extreme China, slavishly dedicated to ancient scholars, incapable of generating within herself sufficient rulers to continue, without bloodshed, a nation.
My copy, by the way, is Hubbard, L. Ron, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, 1997. ISBN0-88404-503-X and the paragraph in question is in the middle of page 113. And here in the same copy are two paragraphs comparing the "white" to "yellow and brown people", which occupy roughly the bottom half of page 35 and the upper third of page 36:
Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part (and it is all a matter of consideration) that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention. The white man seldom believes this and so is likely to become anxious about people.
Thus the white saves people, prevents famine, flood, disease and revolution for people as the only purveyors6 of attention are scarce. The white goes further. He often believes that he can get attention only from whites and that yellow and brown people's attention is worthless. Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive, but, by and large, saner. And the white race is progressive but more frantic. The yellow and brown races do not understand white concern for "bad conditions" since what are a few million dead men? There are plenty of identities and there is plenty of attention, they think. The white can't understand them. Nor can they understand the white.
[For completeness's sake, the footnote on page 35 referenced: "6. purveyors: providers or suppliers."]
So while your mistake in thinking the quotes "do not even exist" is understandable... it is in fact a mistake, because the quotes do exist, even if they have been altered by the publishers into more acceptable forms for later editions. Which edition do you have? I think it might be good to note in the article that the quotes are not the same from edition to edition of the book, and that direct references to race such as "yellow and brown people" have been replaced with terms such as "people devoted to an ancient spiritual heritage". -- Antaeus Feldspar01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Am I happy that you can read books, Antaeus! Would you also be able to consider that YOUR EDITION might be altered from the original Hubbard? Just a thought. I have no books available but I AM SURE some other people here do. Misou03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Misou, I'm not only able to consider it but I already did consider it. If you had, you would have seen in a second, as I did, that it made no sense; if as CSI LA points out the effect of the racial terminology would be to "activate" the racial groups referred to against Hubbard, why would Bridge Publications do such a thing? Why would New Era Publications do such a thing? By the way, your "Am I happy that you can read books, Antaeus!" is a pretty clear personal attack and I'll thank you to refrain from them. -- Antaeus Feldspar03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Chill, please, I just switched this machine on and didn't want you to blow up right in the first minute. Well, good we are tracking, doesn't happen that often! However, taking dozens of Hubbard books, some thousand or more lectures and some million words, altogether being "Scientology" and then his behavior in real life and the fact that Isaac Hayes and some other colored people are Scientologists, I'd say that Hubbard was unlikely to be racist in any way. So the "quotes", whatever Hubbard actually said in the end, are still out of context, aren't they? Misou03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your claims that you didn't want to start trouble ring very hollow, seeing how gratuitously you throw around comments designed to do nothing but. As for the quotes being "out of context", of course they are not. You might choose to believe that the evidence supports your preferred view of Hubbard, as "unlikely to be racist in any way." That does not mean that evidence which contradicts your preferred view, such as Hubbard's suggestion that "yellow and brown people" think "what are a few million dead men?" is "out of context". -- Antaeus Feldspar04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, poison dripping off your teeth now again, cool! I am sure you like it better that way. However, this is not my "preferred view of Hubbard" but straight logic. But hey, I am open for new information anytime and if Hubbard - big man, right? - was racist, there must be PLENTY of stories about it. Misou04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence that LRH was racist. [8] Anyway, the example how offensive texts were polished now that scientology needs to recruit the people on whom Hubbard looked down, would be an interesting addition to Altered texts in Scientology doctrine.
Did I see anyway a reference to the actual edition in the Misou and CSI LA texts? I think I didn't, but I just went over the discussion text quickly. --Tilman05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
How do we distinguish this "straight logic" that proves Hubbard was not a racist from original research? Hubbard's own words as quoted here have every appearance of racism. He has generalized the attitudes of peoples based on racial characteristics. Now this may well have been the prevailing attitude of the day, but sure seems racist to my eyes. (All of this depends on the quoted passages really being written by Hubbard, but—if I understand correctly—they are in texts attributed to Hubbard. Unless someone can show that earlier texts did not use racial classifications and that any changes came from someone other than Hubbard, it seems sensible to assume that these are indeed Hubbard's writings.) Phiwum16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Phiwum, based on what are you are trying to attribute racial statements to Hubbard? The real quotes are not containing such statements. Further, the context in which the real quotes are done have no political meaning nor do they instruct to think or treat specific races in one way or the other. Not only are the used quotes a fake and slander attack on Hubbard but they also are irrelevant for a Wikipedia article on him. There are literally millions of words available to be quoted and just by probability you most likely could "prove" anything. I am seeking agreement that quotes are not used at all, just because of that, and because it is actions that mark a man's life and not words. The book in question here has been written first in 1956 and revised by L. Ron Hubbard several times as his research went on until the 1980s, so newer data went in and obsolete data went out. CSI LA17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
CSI LA, I'm very disappointed in you. You should know, if you read the comments in this very section that were addressed directly to you, that what you are telling Phiwum now is false. The quotes about the "African tribesman" and the difference between "the white" and the "yellow and brown people" are "real quotes". They are found in the official publications of Hubbard's books by both Bridge Publications and New Era Publications. They are not "a fake and slander attack", they are a true reflection that right up until at least 1997 Hubbard's official publishers were offering those clearly racial words as Hubbard's own words. The notion that they should be regarded as no longer Hubbard's words because the book was "revised by L. Ron Hubbard several times as his research went on" is a red herring; it obviously wasn't the man who "dropped the body" in 1986 who removed those racial terms sometime after 1997. Now, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you did not know that just because your edition of Fundamentals is missing those racial references does not mean that no edition of Fundamentals has those racial references. But you are still referring to "the real quotes" as if you didn't now know that those quotes are found in official editions of the book in question. Now I suggested that if you were to provide information on the edition you are citing from that does not have these racial references, we could include in the article that some editions do refer to "the white" and to the "yellow and brown people" and to the "African tribesman" and that some editions substitute terminology less offensive to modern sensibilities. But we're not going to remove information which is correctly and completely cited to a given edition because someone else says they didn't find that same text while looking in a different edition, especially when they won't say what that different edition was. -- Antaeus Feldspar19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
CSI LA, my assumptions were explicit. Others have quoted a text authored by Hubbard. Do you have evidence that he did not write those words? If not, we have fairly strong prima facie evidence that he did write those words (assuming that no one is lying). Now, I don't want to claim anything so strong as "Hubbard is a racist", although my previous post may have suggested it. But I do say that the quoted passages contain what we may reasonably call racism. Furthermore, I do not agree that the fact that he was prolific suffices to explain those passages. They were quoted fairly extensively and are not a mere aside likely to be misinterpreted. Instead, they very strongly suggest that Hubbard was attributing prevailing opinions to the different races. And even if Hubbard later revised his views (contrary to what Antaeus writes), his earlier views (and subsequent revisions) may certainly be included in an encyclopedia article. The idea that we should refrain from quoting Hubbard because quotes can be misleading is ludicrous. We have no clearer indication of a man's opinions than what he said and wrote. We must be careful not to take a misleading excerpt out of context, of course, but that does not seem to be the case here. (For what it's worth: I don't have a dog in this fight. Prior to seeing this discussion, I had no opinion or interest on whether Hubbard had uttered racist remarks. Now I have an opinion but not much interest.) Phiwum20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much, Prof. Both quotes are being used to underline some thesis that Hubbard had some consideration in skin color. My copy of the book is an inherited 1976 version and does talk about the "colors" of people. The context is however a metaphoric one, "yellow" being used for Asian cultural heritage, "brown" for African cultural heritage and "white" for "The Western" way of civilization, as it was understood in 1954 (or 1976 for that matter). Those here trying to knit a racism patter out of that are just poor propagandists with an agenda outside of Wikipedia. COFS23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would you want to lay words in my mouth which I did not say? Curious. Maybe so you can complain along about hot air. Or to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder. You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials. I am just guessing, because what you state does not make sense. What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes. He was nowhere near a racist attitude can be seen in what he actually did (and in many other quotes, like Ability Mag 179, 20 March 1966, ""Unless a large and effective effort is made to halt man's decline, this planet will revert to barren desert. Certainly, with his bombs, racism and inhumanities, he is trying hard enough." or the foundation and support of CCHR). Even the Creed of Scientology of 1954 excludes anything coming even close to racism. You know better than you say. I am not going to continue the discussion on why your alleged quote is different to mine (though I will get as many editions as possible soon). This one started out with why those quotes were put there out of context. The answer is: to smear Hubbard, to make him appear something he wasn't. The response to that is: delete. CSI LA20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Antaeus, why can't you stop interfering in other people's conversations? Now you frightened off Phiwum from participating in this and we miss a fresh external look by a philo Prof. COFS20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have not been frightened off by Antaeus. It has, after all, been only a few hours since my last contribution. Frankly, I find the White/Yellow/Brown remarks more indicative of racism than you do, but why not let his words speak for themselves? Mention the original quotes and mention that the text has changed some time after his death (from what I hear).
For what it is worth, I am not a professor. Merely an adjunct. The custodial staff has seniority over me. Phiwum00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh mein Gott, der Tilman ist aufgestanden. You dare to present a knucklehead like Touretzky as a source? You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming. Hey, und noch was, what is the "Misou Text"? Misou05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You may want to reconsider the use of language like poison dripping off your teeth now again, [9]knucklehead like Touretzky[10] (he is, after all, a professor with a PhD - and if you had looked further, you would know that the work was not written by him, he is only hosting it), You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming[11] - this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. Please read WP:WQ. With "Misou Text" I meant your contribution here. So, when was your edition published? Oops, I see that you wrote I have no books available so I shouldn't have asked. Btw, here is another source for the racist text: [12] --Tilman16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Tilman, they use the Wikipedia quotes in there. This is Goebbels tactics ("If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."). Stop that and participate in the discussion if you can, thank you. CSI LA17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Google, Oh mein Gott, der Tilman ist aufgestanden means "Oh my God, the Tilman rose.", Misou is that supposed to be a Nazi reference? (Or to Tilman did Google screw this up somehow?)
CSI LA...This is Goebbels tactics... is definitely one though. Seriously you make yourself look like a total jackass when you bait a guy from Germany for being a Nazi, but probably get offended when someone calls Scientology a cult. He may have a website highly critical of Scientology elsewhere on the internet, but he is willing to at least attempt leaving that outside Wikipedia when he deals with Scientologists here. If you feel he is insulting you, here are your options. Otherwise you should consider apologizing to him for the "...Goebbels tactics..." statement.
The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws, not the least of which was at best a bad memory of his life at worst his bald faced lies about it. Worse was his failure to acknowledge that fact, even when presented with reality. If Scientology does work his actions have done almost as much to keep it down as make it popular. In this article it's twice as bad for Scientology because Hubbard is the focus, and the CoS is looked at in the context of his whole life. Example: Hubbard - Scientology. He's bound to come off better when mentioned on the Scientology article if it does indeed work. Example: Scientology - Hubbard
To put it another way, I'm not editing in the same capacity there as I am here nor do I plan to. I can prove Hubbard was full of crap about himself, he wrote enough of it in the face of the truth to make that obvious. I can't disprove Xenu(see below) anymore than I can Jesus Christ, Buddah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We're only discussing the man, not the per se religion. (Or whatever you really believe, I mean no insult but you do keep things secret and Xenu is the closest thing to a deity mentioned in the backstory) Anynobody12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, that is true but he also had a lot of incredibly good qualities and those qualities are attested to a lot more frequently that his flaws. Let me tell you what I see as his biggest "flaw" in his military career. Just his military career. Hubbard "didn't know his place". He did not know how to be a "subordinate" in the military if being a subordinate means taking just so much responsibility and no more. That was hard for Hubbard. He could not see something that he thought he could handle and say "not my job". That is the common thread throughout the problems he had in the military - not a good subordinate. A loose cannon, if you will. That is how the militay would look at him. He would say he was a damn good cannon. If you can look at all the military records of Hubbard in a neutral but not unsympathetic eye rather than a critical eye you get a real picture of the man. If you also have any experience with the tremendous affection and respect he enjoined in anyone that met him or worked with him it becomes even more clear. Just look at those letters of recommendation to his appointment he received. But we don't mention much of those, do we? They do not exactly fit in with the agenda do they? --Justanother01:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
New comment: I feel that Justanother is misrepresenting my statement by quoting only part of a sentence, here is the rest: "...not the least of which was at best a bad memory of his life at worst his bald faced lies about it." I'm saying he was human, and tended to paint an inaccurate picture of his life. Though I think he was a liar, if evidence were shown that he had some kind of psychiatric condition that caused it I'd change my opinion. Anynobody23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've actually come to that conclusion based on his own writings, several primary sources, and the ever changing biography the CoS puts out. Here are a few examples of the info which convinced me that Hubbard was a liar, Justanother:
Sourced text from article:
Hubbard became the protegé of "Old Tom, a Blackfoot Indian medicine man ... [who] passe[d] on much of the tribal lore to his young friend" and that at the age of six, he was "honored with the status of blood brother of the Blackfeet in a ceremony ". Blackfeet historian Hugh Dempsey has commented that the act of blood brotherhood was "never done among the Blackfeet",
Church biographies routinely state that he was "the nation's youngest Eagle Scout."[10] According to the Boy Scouts of America, however, at the time they only kept an alphabetical record of Eagle Scouts, with no reference to their ages — thus there was no way of telling who was the youngest.
Flash of 5 inch guns He said his eyes were burned by the flash of a 5 inch gun firing. If he was standing close enough to be burned by the flash, the concussion would have probably killed him.
With all due respect, you are only citing Scientology sources for his "exploits" and those have changed as previous ones proved inaccurate or outright lies. Frankly the difference between us is that if one can find proof from a neutral source that he WAS everything he said he was I might change my opinion. You will probably never change your opinion of him no matter what sources can be found, since you seem to believe people who don't believe everything he said are editing here under an agenda. I guess you don't realize it, but you are actually the one who is editing from a one sided view and editing with an agenda. Point our recent edit counts:JustanotherAnynobody. I've noticed that it takes a much longer time and more edits to get anything done on a Scientology related page not inline with the views of the CoS no matter how well sourced. Anynobody03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
All due respect, AN, but you are simply parroting no-nothing critic lines. I am not parroting official CoS lines at all and my opinion of his military career is based on the same documents that you looked at and some you appear to have ignored and interviews and statements of non-critics that you, in your one-sided view, discount or don't bother looking at. And for trash like the Eagle Scout claim "debunk". Do you know what that piece of critic rubbish is based on? A letter from some guy saying that 80 years ago they did not keep records of the youngest scout. What in the world does that have to do with anything?? Even assuming he is correct, which he might not be. Either Hubbard was the youngest or he was not and if he was not then certainly someone else was. Maybe he was told at the time that he was and maybe the person doing the telling was in a position to know and was correct. But we are not going to know that now but we can sure come up with some misapplication of logic to make him out a liar, can't we? What a bunch of trash. --Justanother03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume you are right, there are a few things I'd need some help understanding based on direct knowledge:
Eagle scout: I was a Boy Scout myself and it's amazing that they didn't mention such an honor when discussing the history of Eagle scouts in general. What was the BSA's agenda against Hubbard?
Military: As I said, Hubbard got into Naval Intelligence (I was the one who mentioned that he skipped Ensign). He didn't even make it to his first assignment and obviously didn't stay in touch with the ONI while in Australia. (If he had, they would not have sanctioned the crap he pulled there as they would certainly have had something else for him to do.) Once he made a big enough nuisance of himself he was sent back to the states.
If the ONI still wanted him, his next assignment would not have been the YP-422. He couldn't complete that assignment either, going outside the Chain of Command is frowned upon to say the least (as he should have learned from his experience down under). Doing it because you think your C.O. made a bad order is forbidden (unless of course it was a bad order like a war crime or something. No war crimes occurred in Boston. (The irony is what I imagine Hubbard's reaction would have been had one of his subordinates gone over him for a ruling.)
If the country hadn't been at war, two incidents like these would have led to a discharge. Since this was World War 2 the Navy gave him one more chance to prove his leadership ability, PC-815. Of the sub fiasco, Hubbard makes it sound like the only ships effectively fighting the "battle" were his and the SC he directed with the ship's whistle. Understanding that at the time, the IJN didn't have submarines patrolling there it sounds like the other ships either didn't hear the supposed screw noise Hubbard's ship did or they heard it and didn't think it sounded like a sub. What's the Navy's agenda against him?
The whole Mexican island affair was the low water mark of his service. Being relieved and given a letter of admonition can not be seen as an achievement in the good sense. Are you saying it could?
Just to inject a bit of context here. Hubbard was talking about animism; the concept that there is a spiritual nature to what we in the west (yes, us "whites") call "inanimate objects". African ("brown"), American Indian ("red", though LRH does not mention them), and Asian ("yellow") races often hold beliefs that are animistic; e.g. Shinto or shamanism ("It could be said that shamans are the experts employed by animists or animist communities.") It was Ron's belief that the brown and yellow therefore take a different view of human life than the whites. He does not say that because of their race, he says it because of their beliefs. Not race. Beliefs. If you read the quote, you see that he considers the brown and yellow races "saner" than the white. So if he was a racist then I guess he was anti-white?? Now for my opinion. Do you know how much of our current GNP goes to "health care"; i.e. prolonging life. I can see a future where all activity is directed at health care to support overpriced drugs and treatments to prolong life with all wealth concentrated in drug companies, "health care" providers, and insurance companies (wait, I think we are almost there already.) Why does our society have to spend so much on prolonging life? Two reasons, IMO. 1) The current trend toward materialism and atheism attach inordinate importance to eking out another day of life and 2) "whites" believe that they exist in a bubble disconnected from the inanimate universe, animals and plants, and even other races of man. The latter point is what LRH was addressing. So rather than talk about what he was addressing, we want to ignore that and nanny nanny boo boo, he did not use PC terminology in a pre-PC age. And why do we do that? Because, as another said - "The incorrect and counterproductive consideration that seems to pervade the community is this: Scientology is not a subject - it is instead controversy about a pseudo subject." --Justanother18:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify that LRH was not "talking about animism", he was talking about Scientology; have-waste, scarcity-abundance, attention; Scientology stuff as in the subject of Scientology as opposed to the invented "controversies" about Scientology. But the spiritual beliefs of the non-white races that he is referring to fall under what we might term animism. --Justanother20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
LRH was relating the animistic beliefs of the non-white races to Scientology theory. Rather than try to talk about Scientology theory our nanny nanny boo boo critics want to invent a controversy called "Ron the Racist". The non-whites were not practicing Scientology; they were practicing animism. --Justanother20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. The book article is titled "Identity and Attention". Antaeus tries to make it look like it would be about "Races and Politics" or similar. But reading the article again I am not wondering anymore. Let's apply this to the Wiki IDs here: "One 'needs' an identity to play the game, as covered later, but mainly to 'get attention'." Does that explain why he interferes in other people's conversation? CSI LA21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks are unneeded, uncalled for, reflect badly on all, can get you blocked, and will minimize your effectiveness here. My suggestion; add as much material as you remove and (based on my own errors) don't get personal, don't get angry. --Justanother21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
By add as much material as you remove I do not mean necessarily in the Scn articles although that is fine and there is lots that can be added. I mean edit also in other, non-controversial areas. --Justanother21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I would respond with "I could write a book" but I think that I already have - it is just spread all over wikipedia. Perhaps I will gather it up. --Justanother21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that sensible people of good will could disagree on whether Hubbard's writing was racist or not. For my money, claiming that yellow and brown men do not understand concern over a few million dead is pretty blatantly insulting, but I can believe that others don't interpret this in a racist manner. Seems to me that we should accept the following compromise: if there is a reliable source that cites this passage as evidence of racism, we may include the passage and the evaluation (and any relevant rejoinders). By including the quotation and also perhaps noting that it was rewritten later (after Hubbard's death?), the reader may draw his own conclusions. If there is no source that discusses this quote with regards to racism, then this passage does not belong in a discussion of alleged racism in Hubbard's work, since including it would require original interpretation, i.e., OR. Phiwum16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds feasible. But you got one thing very wrong (sorry), there is no approval of a "few million dead" anywhere in this quote nor in its meaning. This is an ill-intended interpretation of something completely different, namely the varying viewpoints on life in Africa (metaphorically indicated as "brown"), Asia ("yellow") and the Western World ("white"). In a culture beliefing that there will be another life of many after one's death, dying is seen less important than in a culture which teaches that there is only one life. There is not much indication how Hubbard validates or invalidates such beliefs. But he says (and this is part of the quote): "Thus the yellow and brown races are not very progressive, but, by and large, saner.". "Saner" in a Scientology context is always a plus and to be supported. Now, the whole argument here is whether "race" is used interchangeably for culture/tradition etc. This text was written in 1954, long before Martin Luther King and globalization and the use of "race" as a word had not evolved into having political connotations to it. Wikipedia provides some definitions for "race" which consider the fact that the word also has a meaning of "traditional group, social group, geographical group" etc.. I like your proposal though. Knowing Hubbard and Scientology for a while I heavily doubt that there is such WP:RS on "racism" though. COFS17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation of the quote is largely irrelevant to what I suggested, so I will not bother replying to the "few million dead" part. Let us stick to the bits relevant to the article. For my part, sorry that I included any discussion of whether I found the passage racist or not, since my opinion doesn't matter. As far as your comment about Hubbard and racism, let us see what other editors suggest as relevant sources. Phiwum18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Can this be cited?
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
(Among occultists today, it is widely accepted that Hubbard derived a large part of 'Dianetics' from Golden Dawn occult ideas such as the Holy Guardian Angel.[citation needed])
Here is the only citation needed tag I found in the article. Can this be cited? Does anyone know where to find a citation for this?? Anynobody10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it's likely true or close to true, but without a source, it doesn't belong there. By "close to true", I suspect that Ordo Templi Orientis rather than the Golden Dawn is more likely as an influence; Jack Parsons was OTO, not GD. --FOo02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't heard much about the specifics of Jack Parsons occult side; I did know of him from his JPL accomplishments. I read a bit about him after you made your post, and I think you are most likely right about Ordo Templi Orientis "inspiring" Hubbard. If we could find a citation I wouldn't mind adding it back in, corrected of course.
I didn't realize he was telling people that "Navy Intelligence" sent him to break up the group, I must say I found that claim hilarious. What I found so funny was not his claim to Naval Intelligence , but that his claim that the ONI gives a crap about cults: "Join the Navy, see the world, learn new things, and battle cults!" At that time they would have been busy trying to learn as much as possible about the Soviet fleet. Anynobody02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
He knew Jack Parsons before the war. I doubt Parsons' occult interests were that secret and if the navy cared that much, they could have gotten his security clearances pulled. AndroidCat03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of books about Parsons published recently; I haven't had time to get my hands on any of them, unfortunately. One of them might have some notes on Hubbard and Parsons' relationship, and possibly in less overwrought terms than some of the literature on Hubbard tends to use. --FOo04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Cat, what's your source for Hubbard knowing Parsons before the war? The letter that Parsons wrote to Crowley saying that Sara "has transferred her sexual affection to Ron" also says that Parsons only met Hubbard "about three months ago", though he described Hubbard as "a writer and explorer of whom I had known for some time". While there seem to be some weird discrepancies about just when that letter was written, Parsons didn't start up with Sara until after his wife Helen left him in 1944, so it doesn't seem possible that three months previous to that letter was before the war. -- Antaeus Feldspar07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to try the marvellously-titled "Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons" by John Carter and Robert Anton Wilson. It's been a while since I read it, but I recall it has a fairly detailed account of Hubbard's involvement with Parsons. -- ChrisO07:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My source certainly can't be cited since it's fiction (Rocket to the Morgue, Anthony Boucher, 1942), but Hubbard, Parsons, Heinlein and a host of other writers and members of the Mañana Literary Society are used as characters in the book, with many in-jokes. It is possible that Boucher (pen name) knew both Hubbard and Parsons, and they hadn't bumped into each other yet, but I doubt it. The book is an otherwise excellent snapshot of that circle and pulp writing at the time. If there are any non-fiction accounts of the Mañana Literary Society and the LA writer/fan scene at the time, there might be some confirmation. If, *sigh*. AndroidCat14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Jon Atack says pretty specifically (p. 90 of Blue Sky) that "Hubbard met Jack Parsons while on convalescent leave in Los Angeles, in August 1945". What previous opportunities might they have had to meet? If I remember rightly, most of Hubbard's on-shore time was spent in Massachusetts, Florida and Oregon. Hubbard was certainly involved to some extent in the pre-war LA writers' scene, though most of his focus was on his publishers in NY, but that would surely have been too early for Parsons to have come into the frame. -- ChrisO23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Problems with French conviction "dropped" cite
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Last night 00:07, Misou added this, starting with "(→Legal difficulties and life on the high seas - found first one (hooray to online databases))":
In 1978, as part of a case against three French Scientologists Hubbard was convicted for "making fraudulent promises" and sentenced to four years in jail and a 35,000₣ fine by a French court. Hubbard - who had not been defended in the trial at all and had not been in the country during the whole time - refused to serve his jail time or pay his fine. The case was appealed later - in 1980 - with all fraud charges being dropped.<ref>Sunday Star (Toronto), 2 March 1980: "Scientology gets nod from court. Paris (Reuter) - The Paris Appeal Court has recognized the U.S.-based Church of Scientology as a religion and cleared a former leader of its French branch of fraud.". Also in International Herald Tribune, 3 March 1980</ref>
The problem is that the only leader of the French branch whose conviction was discharged 1980-02-29 was Georges Andreu, not Hubbard. The other three convictions, including Hubbard's, were confirmed. (Andreu's conviction was discharged mainly due to his being 22 when named president of Scientology in France and merely a subordinate.) The claim that the "Paris Appeal Court has recognized the U.S.-based Church of Scientology as a religion" also seems very doubtful, but I haven't dug into that yet.
The mention of an online database (certainly not the Toronto Star's, which only goes back to 1985) and at least one error of fact make me question this reference. AndroidCat15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
From ProQuest database, The Globe and Mail, March 1st, 1980, "Scientology called religion by Paris court": "The Paris Appeal Court yesterday recognized the Church of Scientology as a religion because it embraces both a faith and a community and cleared a former leader of the movement of fraud. Georges Andreu, formerly president of the sect in France, and three other leaders of the church, including its U. S. founder Ron Hubbard, received fines and suspended prison sentences a year ago after the movement was accused of enticing people to join by making fraudulent promises. Mr Andreu was the only one of the four to appeal." Hubbard didn't appeal, thus he wasn't cleared. Raymond Hill16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to know that you have access to the real stuff. I'll keep that in mind 'cause I plan to verify each line of this smear piece called article and might need your help. Could you find the one on the retrial of the case in 1981? When the other was acquitted? Misou21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Whereas you're making edits and ref'ing them without the "real stuff"? The part about him being cleared on fraud will have to go until someone can find a valid reference for it. AndroidCat00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is not going to you, I guess, as you are not looking for that side of the story, right? Misou01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Another ref problem with Hubbard's mother's name Ledora/Dora: "Biography issued 7 April 1977 by Liz Gablehouse". How can anyone verify that rather sparse entry? Since she was a Sea Org member, I assume that this was issued by CoS. Was it actually published in any real sense? As well, although this is a minor detail, CoS's accounts of Hubbard's life haven't been terrible accurate. Bare Faced Messiah uses Ledora. AndroidCat01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Another problem with your research capabilities. Good ol' Lerma has it sitting on his site. But don't cry, I'll get a scanner soon. Misou02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I returned the CoS links to the page. They may be full of it, but that's still their position. Not having them makes the section very POV. Anynobody00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
US Naval Hospital stay
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Anynobody, you claim the following:
The remainder of Hubbard's wartime service was spent ashore in the continental United States. He was mustered out of the active service list in late 1945 and continued to draw disability pay for arthritis, bursitis, and conjunctivitis for years afterwards, long after he claimed to have discovered the secret of how to cure these ailments.
The "source" for all of that is "reader's digest". Now, some years ago I challenged the statements about Hubbard's disabilities and what I could get were some documents from U.S. Naval Hospital, for example of 1 Dec 45, L.D. Morgan Cmdr. USNR writing a medical report on Hubbard, incl. "ulcer", "eyesight failing" and later "getting worse", and "lame in right hip", "infection in bone" (not joint, meaning bursitis). I can't find that in your report but mine is lacking anything about "arthritis, bursitis" while the eyesight thing might be the "conjunctivitis" you have there. Any idea why that is? Misou 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: Good news! My flatbed scanner is supposed to arrive tomorrow. Cross fingers that I am back home by then. Misou21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed this post, I've got some documents from his time in the hospital. Not sure the info you're referring to is mine but I think I saw something about "arthritis, bursitis" in the docs. (Remember, I didn't write the original military career section. For example the mistake with the quote you pointed out before, I didn't notice the missing word so I worked around what was there already). Anynobody02:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find bursitis on his list of complaints, so I replaced it with his chronic ulcer problems as listed by the man himself.
Image of Hubbard's medical claim, page 1 from Wikimedia: Commons.
Image of Hubbard's medical claim, page 2 from Wikimedia: Commons.
Image of Navy report on Hubbard's medical claim, page 2 from Wikimedia: Commons.
Image of Navy report on Hubbard's medical claim, page 1 from Wikimedia: Commons.
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
I want to put the article in time sequence and started with the family life parts. This one is located in the "controversy" section and might be taken out from there. What I am missing is the year LRH married Northrup and some details around that. I am planning to fix that somewhen later today or tomorrow. Any protests or considerations? COFS23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, as it is now it is chronologically all over the place. The article should start at his birth and end with his death (excluding links, references, lead, etc.). Rather than a controversy section, the info should be integrated into the rest of the text. Anynobody00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is how I can think best as well but for one thing which is his family life. It will always stick out, in the middle of "Writer" or "Dianetics" etc. So I propose to put the whole family story at the end of Education to run through to his death. Then have separate paragraphs for military, fiction writer, Dianetics, Scientology. The latter is the longest part and with the most gaps so far (none of the vessel trips is on there, nothing about Rhodesia and so on which was all in the context of Scientology, its organizations etc). And let's save the disagreements until the structure is clear, ok? COFS01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the concept of holding off on disagreements, but in reality I don't think everyone would go along with that. How about a compromise to say no discussion of disagreements unrelated to structuring issues in this section? Anynobody04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. There are not many people editing on this article (though I am sure that the usual suspects are grouping behind the fence right now) which seems to be a good time for cleanup. COFS17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose a structure something like this (note: this is just an outline):
The "trail of marriages"....he didn't marry another time after 1953. I'd pack the kids in the family section together with the respective wife and be done with it. Snow White fits in the 66-80 section. Misou01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Another bad reference
Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
In later research the Sunday Times in UK (1969) found out that Hubbard's contact to O.T.O. had been an intelligence operation for the U.S. Government to prevent leaks of confidential information to O.T.O. (midst of the Cold War Parsons was working as a solid fuel rocket scientist in California)<ref>Sunday times "Scientology: New Light on Crowley", 28 December 1969, (Hubbard) "...went to life at the house and investigated the black magic rites and the general situation ... . Parsons wrote to Crowley in England about Hubbard. Crowley "The Beast 666" evidently detected an enemy and warned Parsons. This is all proven by the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times. Hubbard's mission was successful ... . The black magic group was dispersed ... ."]</ref>
COFS, I'm sure you know very well that was a statement printed as is from the Church of Scientology, not part of any research by The Sunday Times, and that they did not retract their previous story of 5 October 1969, SCIENTOLOGY: Revealed for the first time. . . The odd beginning of Ron Hubbard's career. AndroidCat00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What I know is that they published this article and retracted their false report. Rv'ing the whole restructuring - which did not change the content but rather wikified/adjusted the article to the Scientology main article - is rather rude and not appropriate. At least not on the grounds of your disagreement that a newspaper printed an article which you did not like. I have dozens of those and you would not care either. COFS01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, there was no retraction. In any event, it was a statement from the Church of Scientology. I believe you knew this, but misrepresented it anyway. AndroidCat01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The article does not say that. To the contrary, it talks about the "the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times" (see above). I bet that this material came from the Church that time whose legal department might have received it from FOIA documents or any other source. But the Sunday Times made it their own, verified it and printed it as their own. That makes it valid as a source. Equal rights, eh? COFS01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You bet? Strange how no one else's FOIA requests have unearthed a trace of it—even after Hubbard was dead and it was possible to do those FOIA request that you've ORed. For starters, A Piece of Blue Sky talks about the circumstances of this printing. I'm sure that I'll find other references for this. AndroidCat02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
AndroidCat, I haven't been impressed yet by your presentations of WP:RS - take a bite from Anynobody's military research - but it is never too late to approach this without too much criticism. Good luck hunting, I am very curious what you find out. COFS02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, COFS when I said the Navy didn't care about cults I wasn't joking. IF there was a security issue concerning espionage, that would've fallen under the jurisdiction of the FBI's counter-intelligence division. Anynobody01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I get you. As the story goes Parsons was a solid fuel rocket engineer working on military projects and whoever (ONI? FBI?) feared that Crowley could send them a rocket, so to say. I would be concerned too, especially right after WWII and in the beginning of the Cold War the insecurity must have been high. This is not really an espionage issue but more public safety (they didn't know about AUM, but with a little imagination...). LRH had a FBI ID at some point in the 1940/50s. I forget the date on it but maybe I can find it (he will tell some anecdotes about that in several lectures later). COFS02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Until then, all you have is a statement from the Church of Scientology that was printed as part of a legal settlement. AndroidCat02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. All I have is a newspaper article in which the Sunday Times says they found out that LRH was cracking some satanist circle. COFS02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Miller also refers to it as "Statement by the Church of Scientology, December 1969" in BFM. [13]
In the appendix of Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology, "B) The Scientologists' statement concerning Hubbards' supposedly practicing black magic (reprinted in the London Times)".
A Piece of Blue Sky, "In 1969, the London Sunday Times exposed Hubbard's magickal connections. The Scientologists threatened legal action, and the Sunday Times, unsure of its legal position, paid a small out-of-court settlement. Without retracting their earlier article, they printed a statement submitted by the Scientologists:" "During the Scientologists' case against Gerald Armstrong in 1984, the original of this peculiar statement was produced. It is in Hubbard's handwriting."
I would wonder if Miller/Cooper would not try to nullify that. But what's the significance? The Sunday Times printed it as their own research results and that means they made it their own. That they had to be kicked in the goods by an attorney to wake them up to the fact that they better do some research, well, that is the risk going along with the job. COFS16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they didn't print it as their own research. "This was all proven by the correspondence unearthed by the Sunday Times" refers to the correspondence in the previous Oct 1969 article regarding Crowley detecting an enemy and warning Parsons, nothing more. AndroidCat17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
COFS the info the paper is citing must be coming from the CoS because it is; A) Inflating Hubbard's importance, B) assigning Hubbard a role he wasn't qualified for, and C) runs counter to the way the government operates in reality.
Your logic is remarkable, sometimes, but not this time. If you take a) and b) as a yardstick for information you will end up having biased information. Can't say much on c) but worth some looking. COFS16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Parsons founded JPL (some called it the Jack Parsons Lab), with a couple other scientists. JPL analyzed captured V2 rockets, built rockets for NASA, and helped develop an Army fielded surface to surface nuclear capable missile. It wasn't affiliated with the Navy at all.
I can guarantee that L Ron Hubbard most definitely DID NOT EVER have an official FBI ID at any time J. Edgar Hoover was running it, and then by the time Hoover died the FBI knew enough not to give him one anyway. I'm sorry to be so emphatic, but Hoover's FBI are the people who said "appears mental" after Hubbard tried to convince them that Hubbard's organization was overrun with communists and how the FBI could use Scientology against them and all commies. (I don't blame them for looking at him as mental on that occasion; "You say Dianetics will stop communism but you need the government's help to rid said organization of...communists. It must not be working then.)
Anynobody, there are too much assumptions and generalities in this. As I said above, I fully believe that the data the article was based on what was provided by the Church. But this is irrelevant for the WP article here. Just as your FBI statements are as long as you do not provide a source for them. The generality comes in when you compare Hoover to what his staff did. They weren't all equal or "acting as one man" or something. What Hoover thought and what the DC local office thought and did might not be identical (ok, that's an assumption as well).
Just out of curiosity: Who said Dianetics would stop communism? Seems a bit out of context, i.e. that does not fit to each other. One is a self-help method for personal improvement, the other one a political system (i.e. for groups). COFS16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of sequence reply to above
To answer your last question first, Hubbard did. The agent's notes from the interview are included along with Hubbard's correspondence, and the FBI's notes on him: FBI and L. Ron Hubbard. If you read all the letters, the general FBI impression of him is pretty clear (Hoover believed Hubbard's first letter about Nazi spies in 1940 or 41, and the FBI found nothing to corroborate his claims. Later the FBI stopped answering him at all.) Hubbard became very concerned about communist infiltration of his organization, as also documented in the letters.
I wasn't saying the FBI stuff ought to be included necessarily, I was pointing out a flaw in your logic here:
I get you. As the story goes Parsons was a solid fuel rocket engineer working on military projects and whoever (ONI? FBI?) feared that Crowley could send them a rocket, so to say. I would be concerned too, especially right after WWII and in the beginning of the Cold War the insecurity must have been high. This is not really an espionage issue but more public safety (they didn't know about AUM, but with a little imagination...). LRH had a FBI ID at some point in the 1940/50s. I forget the date on it but maybe I can find it (he will tell some anecdotes about that in several lectures later). COFS 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This whole statement is WP:OR but I didn't think you wanted it included in the article. Anynobody 22:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The Sunday Times prefixed the statement with Scientology: A New Light on Crowley. On 5 October 1969, Spectrum published an article "The odd beginning of Ron Hubbard's Career." The Church of Scientology has sent us the following information: All the rest of the text was within quotes. Clearly this was a statement by CoS and the best that can be said is that the Sunday Times printed it (like any other letter they might print).[14]AndroidCat18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Link to ref.
This credential looks like something a security guard would be issued, and the link describes the special officers as having no authority beyond citizens arrest. (I have seen armed security guards, bear in mind armed doesn't necessarily mean with a gun.)
I heard that this "security guard license" thing has also been used as "evidence" for the "undercover agent" tale. --Tilman08:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not? According to the CoS links above he was laying down the law with a kind word and cleverness while the LAPD just showed up and clubbed everyone. I suppose he could ensure the security of the rocket program and break up Parsons cult at the same time...no wait those goals seem somewhat contradictory.
Actually as I read the info in the links I couldn't help getting the feeling that his experience and time with the private Metropolitan Detective Agency was probably much more mundane and his performance not as glorious as he would have wanted. It's hard to make guarding a warehouse or shopping center sound important but boy are they trying. Anynobody09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a one year time frame for this. He moved from Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, back to California to a rented trailer in North Hollywood in July 1947. In the summer of 1948, he and Sara were off to Savannah, Georgia. In January 1949, he wrote from Savannah to Forrest Ackerman hinting about his book on the 'cause and cure of nervous tension' to be called The Dark Sword or Excalibur or Science of the Mind. AndroidCat14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
^Re: B & G (Minors) (Custody), Delivered in the High Court (Family Division), London, 23 July 1984; judgement transcript available on-line via HolySmoke.org and Xenu.net
![[14]](http://www.xenu-directory.org/share/19691228-uk-sundaytimes.gif){kind=link}