Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 1

completely biased

This article is biased towards L Ron, the military records show that his military career was a complete sham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.34.50 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

name change

Funny how the same editors who get bent out of shape when I make drastic changes have no problem with making drastic changes themselves. At least I discussed my problems with L. Ron Hubbard on the talk page first, but no one discussed the renaming of the article on its talk page first.

There was nothing wrong with the broad title L. Ron Hubbard and the military, and in fact, such a broad title is preferable to help keep this article from looking like a POV fork. Since we had the opportunity to delve into these matters in greater detail now with a new article, I had planned to add further military-related material eventually, like how Hubbard's failure in the military was reflected in his later creation of the paramilitary Sea Org, an imaginary Navy where Hubbard got to play Admiral... and also how Hubbard's alleged military injuries led into Dianetics, as User:ChrisO suggested. wikipediatrix 16:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You do realize the only military service discussed is his naval service? If Hubbard had been in a situation where he dealt with the whole military I could see L. Ron Hubbard and the military as a valid title for this article. (For instance people like Robert Mcnamara or Donald Rumsfeld since the United States Secretary of Defense deals with the whole military).

I'm sorry if you feel offended, the previous was title inaccurate in it's general nature. Anynobody 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I just said, I was planning on expanding it to cover further military-related material in general, not just his naval service. Why am I always having to repeat myself to you? wikipediatrix 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, because I can't read your mind and any other discussion of Hubbard/the military is brief enough to on his main article. I know he tried to get into the USAAC and claimed service with the USMC but that's not really a paragraph worth of information. We could rename the section in the main article Hubbard and the military though. Anynobody 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking about you having to read my mind, we're talking about what I already stated. We're talking about me saying something and then you giving a response that acts like it did not read, did not absorb, or did not understand what I just said. I'm starting to feel like I'm in the movie "Memento". Where did this reading comprehension problem come from all of a sudden? wikipediatrix 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem with comprehension on my end, the mind reading comment was intended to bring your attention to the fact you didn't say you had further plans to edit this article on the talk page. You're acting like I was supposed to "know" you had intended to add something. (I had assumed a very experienced editor would know to say something on the talk page if they were planning on adding material in the near future, but couldn't at that particular moment.

Incidentally, what are/were those plans? (What do you want to say about L. Ron Hubbard and the military?) Anynobody 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. You still don't get what I've said. You have to be doing this on purpose. It's a real conversation-killer. wikipediatrix 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think I'm purposely undermining you then you are very incorrect, take the issue to WP:ANI if you want to. I'm still wondering, among other things, what are/were your plans for L. Ron Hubbard and the military?? Anynobody 05:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read wikipediatrix's original message in this section. He laid out his plans right there. It starts where he said, "I had planned to add further military-related material eventually". You repeatedly complained that there is little or no non-naval military-related material after he had already stated that he planned to add more, and he even gave some examples of things in that vein he might add. Then, when he repeated the fact that he planned to add more, you complained about how you couldn't "read his mind". He pointed you back to his original message a couple of times, and you apparently either never re-read it or failed to understand how it had already answered your complaint any of those times. So, you should have known what he had intended since he had made his intentions clear from the start. Look back through this discussion in that light and I think you'll understand his frustration now.

Let me add, I too would like the article to be renamed back to "L. Ron Hubbard and the military". -- HiEv 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that I think "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" is the better title. Is it true that most of the material we currently have that would fall under such a title would also fall under "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service"? Yes, that is true. However, I do not see how this is actually an argument for "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service", because no Wikipedia principle that I am aware of says that article titles have to be chosen to exclude non-existent material. It isn't the case that we have to keep his naval service separate from his service in the Marines separate from his service in the Air Force, et cetera -- and if we do have material that falls under the topic of "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" and not "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service" (such as, oh, L. Ron Hubbard's formation of paramilitary orders?) then giving the article the more restrictive title denies us the opportunity to show context. The "naval service" title also has another against it: it is a title which presumes existence, which are generally bad Wikipedia practice. Yes, in this instance it is unlikely that anyone will ever dispute that L. Ron Hubbard's naval service existed, but again, that is not an argument for the title "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service", not when a title that doesn't presume existence exists.

In short, I support "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" over "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points, but still disagree with the original name. L. Ron Hubbard served in the Navy, the whole article is about his service in the Navy. HiEv you have described the conversation I have been having with wikipediatrix "I had planned to add further military-related material eventually" doesn't explain to me what exactly she planned to add. Military related material is a very vague term and unless what she wants to add has something to do with the Army (the USAAC was part of the Army at that time so there was no "air force")

I asked several times because I'm not opposed to changing it back if there is a compelling reason.

Antaeus Feldspar the reason I was specific is this part of naming conventions: WP:NC#Be precise when necessary. Since Hubbard didn't serve outside the Navy it seems necessary to specify that. Anynobody 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I really don't agree. That guideline is talking about something entirely different from what the crux of the issue here is. Here, I'll quote the section you point to in full:

"Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation". (emphasis added)

That guideline is clearly talking about page titles which could have unrelated meanings other than the one intended. If we follow the link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), we see as examples Apollo program (where just "Apollo" could be the Greek god, a Harlem theater, a lunar crater...), Nirvana (band) (where just "Nirvana" could be the Buddhist mental state, an Italian science fiction film, a genus of leafhopper...), and smoking pipe (where just "pipe" could be a plumbing supply, a volcanic feature, an interprocess communication facility in some computer OSes...)

In short, the "when necessary" seems to be fairly clearly excluding those meanings which do not go along with the existing meaning -- i.e., you cannot make a meaningful and cohesive article that is both about the Seattle grunge band and the genus of leafhopper. In contrast, just because the material currently in the article "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" is primarily about L. Ron Hubbard's naval service does not mean that it's necessary or desirable to narrow the title, and the scope of the article, to only "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service". There is nothing in the guideline which suggests that a title like "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" should be changed, because there is no grounds for confusion. The intent of the guideline is clearly to avoid confusion, not to avoid room for further expansion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the specific application of that guideline, but I was more talking about the common sense extension of that principle. Why would one guideline express the need for accuracy in specific use of words with several definitions but allow ambiguity elsewhere?

If we were talking about someone like James Stewart (actor) who may have played roles in other military branches as an actor in addition to actually serving in the USAAC/USAAF/USAF I could see calling the article "and the military." An even better example is Robert McNamera, if this article was about him it would have to be called "Robert McNamera and the military" since he was Secretary of Defense he did deal with the entire military.

I asked wikipediatrix, and I'll ask you: What content can you add which would bring the article's scope to include the entire military? Once again if it's compelling I'll support the old name too, as it is now the article's title fits the content exactly. Changing the name back without adding info relevant to the entire military would seem illogical to me because it would be like having an article called George W. Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize using your point ...because no Wikipedia principle that I am aware of says that article titles have to be chosen to exclude non-existent material. Bush doesn't have a Peace Prize, but since it doesn't exist there is no reason to believe it never will.

In short: When a reasonable amount of sources discussing Hubbard and the military the title should be changed, not before. Anynobody 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, it's obvious you still haven't re-read wikipediatrix's original message yet. I know that "I had planned to add further military-related material eventually" doesn't explain to you what exactly she planned to add, but as I pointed out earlier, the text she wrote immediately after that part does explain it. Since you won't re-read it there, here it is again:

Since we had the opportunity to delve into these matters in greater detail now with a new article, I had planned to add further military-related material eventually, like how Hubbard's failure in the military was reflected in his later creation of the paramilitary Sea Org, an imaginary Navy where Hubbard got to play Admiral... and also how Hubbard's alleged military injuries led into Dianetics, as User:ChrisO suggested.

- wikipediatrix 16:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (emphasis added)

Please note that Sea Org is not really the Navy, and is a paramilitary group, thus the reason why the slightly broader title works better. That is the plan she gave earlier and the one she kept directing you to read. Please, when someone recommends that you re-read something because they say they already explained it, it would behoove you to go back and give it a re-read, it's always possible you missed something. Thanks. -- HiEv 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I assure you I have read all of this, but the Sea Org isn't the Navy as you pointed out. A paramilitary group, is not part of the military. "L Ron Hubbard and the military" implies the US military. How does any of what you mentioned have anything to do with the rest of the military? Anynobody 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also it occurs to me that since much of the actual history has been moved here, there is now space to discuss how Hubbard created the Sea Org from his experience on the main article. Anynobody 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And the current title doesn't preclude you or wikipediatrix talking about how his service in the navy influenced his creation of the Sea Org here:

the paramilitary Sea Org, an imaginary Navy where Hubbard got to play Admiral... and also how Hubbard's alleged military injuries led into Dianetics

He got those military injuries in the Navy. Anynobody 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Changing the name back without adding info relevant to the entire military would seem illogical to me because it would be like having an article called George W. Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize using your point ...because no Wikipedia principle that I am aware of says that article titles have to be chosen to exclude non-existent material. Bush doesn't have a Peace Prize, but since it doesn't exist there is no reason to believe it never will." Faulty, faulty analogy. Since Bush does not have a Nobel Peace Prize there can be no content to an article called George W. Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize. Since L. Ron Hubbard had interactions with the military, there is content to such an article and there is room for expansion. And since "things having to do with the subject of military forces" can be expressed as "the military", I do not agree that "A paramilitary group, is not part of the military."

Your demands seem illogical. "Changing the name back without adding info relevant to the entire military" -- the entire military? It has to be either his naval service, or the entire military? That's an awful lot that's excluded, for no good reason that I can see. "When a reasonable amount of sources discussing Hubbard and the military the title should be changed, not before."? Well, there's a verb phrase missing there; how should we fill it in? "When a reasonable amount of sources discussing Hubbard and the military has been provided for an article whose title has been deliberately chosen to exclude such information", does that cover it? That's not exactly a reasonable standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar the title "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" implies a discussion of L. Ron Hubbard and the Army, Navy, Marines, or certain parts of the DOD. Hubbard was never in any of them, except the Navy. When you say the title should be changed back to "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" it would be the same as creating an article called George W. Bush and the Nobel Peace Prize because neither one apply very well. Hubbard was in the military, but more specifically he was in the Navy. George Bush doesn't have a Nobel Peace prize, but he was nominated for one (I know it's mind boggling, but hey they gave one to Yasser Arafat so I guess anything's possible). It would be better to call his article George W. Bush's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm also not proposing anything as illogical as you think by asking for some references before the name change. First lets be clear, there is the us military the noun and then there's the adjective which can be applied to people not in the military: "Mr. Jones walked with the rigid precision which could better be described as a military march rather than a casual stroll."

Applying the noun to Hubbard is needlessly non-specific. When we discuss people like Clarence Thomas we could say he is a judge, we could more accurately say he is a federal judge, or we could say exactly what he is; a Supreme Court judge. Using Hubbard's example, we could say Hubbard served in the military (but those that don't know him might wonder if he was in the Army, Navy, or Marines), or we could more accuratly say Hubbard served in the Navy. If sources become available which show him to have relationships with the other branches of service (beyond his claims) it is then that a name change is appropriate. Or as I said "When a reasonable amount of sources discussing Hubbard and the military the title should be changed, not before." (I thought someone wanted to know when I would support changing the article name) Anynobody 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point you're just repeating the same arguments over and over -- worse than that, it appears you're actually just copy-pasting the same arguments over and over, complete with flaws which have already been pointed out to you. It seems that all the discussion that is going to happen has happened, and after that discussion, three people who have listened to all the arguments are agreed on "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" and the sole exception has been provably ignoring the arguments of the others. Accordingly, I am changing the title back. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Antaeus Feldspar has now added information on Hubbard's time in the Marine Corps Reserve, taking advantage of the broader scope allowed under the restored article title. -- HiEv 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been trying to be as non confrontational as possible, so I will now be as blunt to avoid confusion, please don't take offense.

You've created an Ambiguation Page by generalizing the title to say the military

the entire military? It has to be either his naval service, or the entire military? To a person who is unfamiliar with L. Ron Hubbard saying he was in the military means he could have been in any service within the whole entire military. It's a question of being specific about a subject which has many meanings. You're basically violating Wikipedia:List of policies#Content and Style

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Imagine a conversation between two people somewhere in the United States:

• 1:"What does Bill do for a living?"
• 2: "Bill is in the military."

2 said that Bill serves in the military, which means 2 might be talking about the Army, the Navy/Marines, or the Air Force. As far as 1 knows Bill could be: A) a SEAL, B) a M1A2 tank commander, C) a B-2 pilot, D) a LRRP, E) etc. (any job in the military).

• 1:"Which part of the military?"
• 2:"The Army."
• 1:"What's he do in the Army?"
• 2:"He flies an Apache."

1 had to ask two questions to receive the slightly ambiguous answer of Bill serving in the Army, and a third to get the specific answer of him flying a helicopter. Now I will apply this to the article name you've created,

• 1: "Who was L. Ron Hubbard?"
• 2: "He wrote books, served in the military, and created a religion called Scientology."
• 1: "Where in the military?"
• 2: "The Navy."
• 1: "What ship was he on?"
• 2: "Several..."

In short the title

"L. Ron Hubbard and the military" does not conform to the cited policy: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity,

If 2 had just said "Bill is in the Army" after the first question, 1 would not have been forced to ask another question to get an answer with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, saying someone was in the Army means they could have been doing many things. Saying someone was in the military adds many MANY more variables and does not conform to a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.

Antaeus Feldspar and wikipediatrix have been on Wikipedia so long I assumed they understood this fundamental rule of article naming, and I assume HiEv has been here longer than myself too. I didn't(and still don't) want to come off as a newbie telling veterans what's what but you're literally going against policy for no good reason. Anynobody 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. HiEv, the USMC is part of the US Navy. He could have added it under my title. Anynobody 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you don't understand, but if you actually mean the arguments you're giving us, then no, you don't understand. "To a person who is unfamiliar with L. Ron Hubbard saying he was in the military means he could have been in any service within the whole entire military." Yes, this is entirely true. And in fact, the title "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" could cover still other relationships between L. Ron Hubbard and the military besides those which are covered under "he was in the military". And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You've done a great deal of explaining about how, if the title is "L. Ron Hubbard and the military", people won't know just by looking at the title that Hubbard's major relationship with the military was his service with the Navy during World War II. But again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You are basically arguing "if we don't tell people in the title that Hubbard's major relationship with the military was naval service, they'll have to read the article to get that information!" But that is exactly what the article is there to do!

Your "fundamental rule of article naming" isn't one, and in the meantime you're trying to conflate it with the policies on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which are completely irrelevant here, because not a single one of them says to choose a title so as to make the scope of the article narrower. Not a single one. The goal of disambiguation is achieved if someone who knows generally what they're looking for can quickly, by looking at article titles, find the article which contains what they're looking for. Anyone who is looking for information on L. Ron Hubbard's naval service who sees in Category:L. Ron Hubbard the article title L. Ron Hubbard and the military is going to know that that's the article which would contain any information about Hubbard's naval service. Goal achieved. Instead of accusing editors whom you acknowledge as "veterans" of "literally going against policy for no good reason" you might want to ask why none of those experienced editors thinks the policy demands what you think it demands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should first address your contention that the naming conventions I pointed out aren't policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly says it is in fact a policy. It's not my fundamental, it's Wikipedia's.

Given your basic assumption that abiding by WP:NC is not a policy, ask yourself if it's possible that creating a needlessly ambiguous article name is inappropriate with the new perspective of sticking to policies. (The ambiguation page wasn't a conflation of WP:NC and a disambig page, it's what I'm calling a title that is more ambiguous than necessary. To illustrate how your points are all going against the general idea of the project.)

Earlier it was theorized that I have not been reading the posts here, I find the question amusing since nobody appears to be reading any of my points. (Again, I really don't want to be the one to point out that you're skipping a policy, but if no one else will I have to.)

I'll explain later why the stuff you want to write is just as appropriate in a page called Naval service. I've been trying to explain why A) The military title defies WP:NC and B) The idea that the new info can't be discussed in an article called Naval service of L Ron Hubbard, is wrong. I see now that trying to explain both in one post appears to have caused more confusion than it helped. For now, I'll just try to get point A) across starting with another reminder; it is a policy. Anynobody 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're becoming downright tendentious on this subject, Anynobody. It doesn't look like discussing this subject with you is going to do any good whatsoever, because you keep talking as if your interpretations of the policies you cite were agreed by all parties to be correct interpretations of those policies, and over here in the real world you seem to be the only one who interprets them that way. To be honest, this is behavior I associate more with trolls. "Why is So-and-so trying to defend the attack article X-Y-Z?" "Because I disagree with your claim that it is an attack article; here is how the policy in question defines what is and is not an attack article, and here is how the article X-Y-Z falls squarely under the 'is not'." "I guess So-and-so is trying to tell us he doesn't like Wikipedia's policies against attack articles." "As I have explained before, X-Y-Z is very clearly not an attack article." "Perhaps So-and-so might tell us why he wants to sabotage Wikipedia by keeping this attack article around, completely defying our policies against attack articles??" Do you think that's appropriate behavior, Anynobody? Do you think that it falls under WP:CIVIL to accuse other editors of "skipping a policy" and utterly ignore any possibility -- no matter how many times other editors try to get you to see it -- that you are interpreting the policy as saying something that it does not and was never meant to?

I find it deeply ironic that you are now saying that information about Hubbard's service in the Marine Corps Reserve can still go along with his service in the U.S. Navy under "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service", presumably because both are under the U.S. Department of the Navy. Deeply ironic because this would fail the commonsense test I talked about earlier: "The goal of disambiguation is achieved if someone who knows generally what they're looking for can quickly, by looking at article titles, find the article which contains what they're looking for." Can one contrive an argument that "naval service" means "service for the U.S. Department of the Navy"? Sure one can! Will a reader automatically know that we are construing "naval service" in this manner? Highly unlikely! So a reader looking through Category:L. Ron Hubbard for information about Hubbard's service in the Marines would be highly likely to mistakenly think "Oh, I guess Wikipedia doesn't have anything about Hubbard and the Marines; it only has information about his service with the Navy." This should be the first clue that perhaps you are not interpreting the policy as it is meant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To address your concerns about WP:CIVIL, honestly it is not a WP:CIVIL issue to point out a violation of WP:POLICY. I'm not saying you are doing it in bad faith, though I see you have made an emotional investment in this discussion. Your response indicates that you may be arguing from emotion rather than logic as you didn't actually say why my claim that the "military" title violates WP:NC is wrong. I understand your analogy about the attack article, but frankly it is unnecessary to use an analogy about another aspect of WP:POLICY when this is so clear.

WP:NC says the title should contain a reasonable amount of ambiguity

Saying he served in the Navy is ambiguous to an appropriate level (ambiguity: what did he do in the Navy?). Saying he was in the military is too ambiguous (ambiguity: what branch of the Military? what did he do in that branch?) because it adds another series of possibilities and generalizes the subject needlessly.

To address your concerns about irony re Dept of Navy, that would fall under B) from my previous post. Let's try to agree on part A) first so as not to increase the general level of confusion. Anynobody 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to continually talk as if your interpretation of policy was universally accepted as correct interpretation when in fact you are the only one who thinks your interpretation is correct. Your entire patronizing response is based on exactly one thing: your refusal to consider the idea that you could be misapplying WP:NC. Until you can come to grips with this pretty simple concept, what is the good of talking with you? You say "Let's try to agree on part A) first" but what you really mean is "Why don't you give in to my stubbornness and agree that WP:NC works exactly the way I say it does and no other way, because there's no way I will even entertain the possibility that it's me rather than three other editors who's mistaken." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. We need to calm down here. Now, does the title "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" really harm the article? Are people really going to be confused if it's this general? I don't see how they would be. On the other hand, I think that "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service" is not a "reasonable minimum of ambiguity," because I think that it's an unnecessarily restrictive title. Is it more accurate currently? Possibly, but I don't see it as being any more useful, and some may even interpret it to mean that there are other articles on other services Hubbard was in or possibly that it is referring to Hubbard's Sea Org (i.e. the naval service belonging to Hubbard.) Also, some (like I was) may not be aware that the Marines are part of the Navy. Due to that I think "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" applies (from WP:NC). Still, we can keep "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service" and redirect it to "L. Ron Hubbard and the military", thus effectively keeping both titles. If that isn't enough then I recommend we go through the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and hopefully we can settle this based on the article, the policies, and the guidelines, instead of wasting time and words discussing the behaviors of people involved here. -- HiEv 22:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

HiEv, I assure you I'm perfectly calm. I'm going to respond to Antaeus Feldspar first to keep things in order.

Antaeus Feldspar given our interactions in the past I would have thought it was obvious that I respect your opinion. I'm not trying to be stubborn, I would honestly agree with you if you could please explain how WP:NC does not apply to this situation. I don't want to offend you, but because you think I'm not being civil I must be. If I was trying to be uncivil I would not have offered such detailed explanations of why I think WP:NC applies. I also wouldn't be citing one WP:POLICY while intentionally ignoring ANOTHER one myself. I loathe double standards, so please understand I am not trying to cause any negative feelings.

I understand your skepticism since about 60% of the times I've seen a WP:POLICY cited by another editor in an argument it either doesn't apply or isn't a policy. It's becoming easier to take for granted a cited policy is probably wrong, so given your tenure I couldn't imagine how you see it. Especially considering how hostile people can become when you try to explain what the policy they cited actually does say.

Please take a moment to consider why you believe WP:NC does not apply. If you feel it is logical then please tell me, chances are I'll agree if it is. If you feel it is illogical, further consider that a basic misunderstanding has gone much further than it needs to because of mistakes by all. (I should have just come right out and said what I thought, I feel doing so would've made my intentions less prone to misinterpretation (really, I thought it would be offensive to come out and tell someone of your experience that you're making a mistake. I thought by subtly reminding you it would either spur you to reconsider or explain why WP:NC doesn't apply. Neither has happened.

Back to your point HiEv, I'm assuming in good faith you read my post about splitting my argument into A and B. I don't want to sound dismissive, but the points you made are part of B. I genuinely think it would be better for now to concentrate on A. I know I have confused the issue, but if you bear with me I can unconfuse it. You're of course welcome to explain why WP:NC doesn't apply too, I don't mean to sound like I only care about Antaeus Feldspar. Anynobody 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just explained why I think WP:NC does apply, but not in the way you are interpreting it, and I'd like to keep the discussion more focused on that topic. You didn't address that point at all, and you are now putting things in terms of saying we have to "explain why WP:NC doesn't apply," when that's not what we're saying. What you are doing is creating a straw man argument instead of addressing what we're actually arguing. Please, re-read our actual arguments.

However, my other point on needing to calm is that this is not the place to discuss people's behavior at length. If you want to talk to someone about their behavior, do it on their talk page, that's what it's there for. This section is for discussing the L. Ron Hubbard and the military article, not for repeatedly criticizing other users' behavior at length. I'd like to keep this discussion on topic. This goes for other users here as well, not just you. -- HiEv 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about getting off topic, I don't plan to discuss "other" issues in too much more depth. I just don't want you or Antaeus Feldspar to think I'm arguing just to be stubborn. I also understand your argument about the restrictive nature of my proposed title related to your understanding of WP:NC. My position is that it is not as restrictive as it might seem, but before I get into it I want to make sure we're all talking about WP:NC as a policy to be followed, Antaeus Feldspar appears to disagree that it is applicable in this situation. Since you and I agree it does apply, but disagree on just how, lets save the discussion about the "how" until a bit later. Anynobody 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Antaeus Feldspar is saying you have misapplied WP:NC. So, he's not saying it doesn't apply here, the way I read it he agrees with me, and what actually he's saying is just that you are applying it incorrectly. I think you have misinterpreted his words, and thus are arguing against something he isn't claiming. If I'm the one misinterpreting him then hopefully he will correct me. -- HiEv 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

HiEv, you're reading me entirely correct. I'm not saying that WP:NC should be disregarded for this article; I don't know of anyone in this discussion saying that. What I am saying is that I do not think Anynobody's interpretation of WP:NC is a correct interpretation. I believe that the goal of "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" is to title articles so that if someone goes looking for particular information, they can figure out which article would have that information. I do not think that the intent of WP:NC is for article titles to specify which information they don't have, especially since that places a limit on how that article can be expanded. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Diagram of proposal to call subpage L. Ron Hubbard's service with the USN.

Diagram of proposal to call subpage L. Ron Hubbard and the military.

You both believe that the clearest way to handle this for the readers is to devote the entire subpage to any mention of the military and L. Ron Hubbard. The amount of info discussed about his USMC/Nat'l guard service as I said above is less than two paragraphs worth of information. I've diagrammed the ambiguous nature of what you're proposing. (Visualizing this may be easier than trying to keep explaining.) Anynobody 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Department of the Navy - United States Marine Corps.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what those diagrams are supposed to represent. What is the blue line? What are the red lines? Why is the blue line good and the red lines bad? Why does Dianetics point to Dianetics, and what does that have to do with this article? The diagrams aren't helping clarify anything, they're just confusing. And why post the Marines logo here? It was added with no explanation. (Honestly, I don't really care about the answers to any of those questions unless it helps advance the discussion. I'm just trying to help you understand the ways your response is confusing.)
Anyways, none of that addresses any of the arguments we've put to you about how you're misinterpreting WP:NC, or about how the article will be expanded to include other military related material, or several other arguments. You've just ignored those arguments entirely and instead posted some confusing diagrams, neither of which helps the discussion progress at all. Also, I don't see how the length of the USMC/National guard service section matters, all that really matters is that it's there. Please go back and address the arguments you've skipped about why "military" makes more sense than "naval service" (preferably in text form). This discussion will continue to go in circles if you keep just repeating arguments without responding to part of our reasons why those arguments don't work. -- HiEv 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand Anynobody's diagrams. I think the point they are trying to make is best communicated by asking "If this article, the current article, did not exist, then where would the information in it belong instead?" If we make the name of the current article "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service", and restrict the content to that scope, then the answer to the question will always be "the main L. Ron Hubbard article"; the current article is thus kept as what we might call a "pure subarticle" of the main L. Ron Hubbard article -- it is an elaboration on the L. Ron Hubbard article and nothing else. If the name of the article is "L. Ron Hubbard and the military", however, and the scope is expanded to cover things such as how Hubbard's experiences and alleged experiences with the military influenced Dianetics and Scientology, then the answer to the question is no longer automatically "L. Ron Hubbard"; it might be "Dianetics" or "Scientology" that the information would be better found in. I believe that this is what the red arrows in the second diagram are supposed to represent.

However, what isn't explained is why the first scenario would even be desirable, let alone preferable to the second. If the connections aren't there then the point is moot; the content will all be what would otherwise fall under "L. Ron Hubbard" no matter what the title is. If the connections are there then why on Earth should we be structuring our articles to avoid them?? Just so that we can have a nice clean little hierarchy of articles which doesn't accurately reflect the messy contours of the actual subject? One is reminded of Einstein's advice to "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Moreover, I am a bit disturbed that Anynobody's early arguments against "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" were all on the theme that the title should "fit the contents exactly" and it was supposedly a violation of WP:NC to call it "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" if the entire military could not be brought in -- and now the argument seems to be that the article shouldn't be allowed to cover certain contents regardless of the title. If that was a concern then why was it not brought up earlier? Why did Anynobody in fact tell us "I'm not opposed to changing it back if there is a compelling reason" and then produce this opposition to the changed-back title? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar you have interpreted the diagrams correctly for the most part. (To answer your question about why this wasn't mentioned before; I've had these concerns along with my points about WP:NC, and others the whole time. Bringing up different arguments seemed like a last resort given the confusion we are experiencing.) Connecting military service to formation of Sea Org and Scientology from the subpage creates a fork, when readers finish with the subpage where should they go? Back to the Hubbard main article, or on to the Scientology article? This ties into the third part of WP:NC argument I was trying to make, linking between Hubbard-Military subpage-Scientology seems to be contrary to the principle of easy linking:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

My proposal is desirable because the subpage was created to discuss the very specific info about his naval career since it was eating up so much space on the main article. Now the idea of adding info from other sections of the main article into the specialized subpage is being favored by everyone, essentially defeating the purpose of the subpage. Anynobody 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Connecting military service to formation of Sea Org and Scientology from the subpage creates a fork" -- It seems to me that the only way one can think that this article creates a fork is if one takes for granted the proposition that any article which has a subarticle-to-main-article relationship must have that relationship with only that article; in other words, that all subarticles must be what I called above "pure subarticles". If this proposition was true, then one could argue that material which wouldn't go in "L. Ron Hubbard" (not because it's not relevant to Hubbard, but because it is more directly relevant to Dianetics or Scientology) should not be in any article considered to have a "subarticle" relationship with the main Hubbard article.

I don't agree with this analysis, because as I believe I have said above, there is nothing in guidelines or policy that dictate "pure subarticles" or even suggest that they are desirable. Wikipedia's policies against forking don't exist for the purpose of forcing neat and clean and artificial hierarchies; they exist to keep people from dodging consensus to sneak in material that violates consensus (or more accurately, to establish that when people do it anyways, it is a violation of the policies on respecting consensus.) There's no forking going on here, because there's no dodging of consensus.

"linking between Hubbard-Military subpage-Scientology seems to be contrary to the principle of easy linking" -- again, I disagree. Some subjects just do not have titles that would be easy-peasy for the average reader to guess. L. Ron Hubbard? Why, that's at L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology? That's at Scientology. Dianetics? That's at Dianetics, unless you mean Dianetics, in which case you're looking for Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. By contrast, neither L. Ron Hubbard and the military nor L. Ron Hubbard's naval service is particularly intuitive. If one is superior over the other in the matter of "easily linked to" then it's L. Ron Hubbard and the military; it was previously argued that L. Ron Hubbard's naval service was the superior title because it gave more information, but by that exact same logic, any reader trying to link to this article would have to already have more information.

"Now the idea of adding info from other sections of the main article into the specialized subpage is being favored by everyone, essentially defeating the purpose of the subpage." -- one more time, I disagree. What was the purpose of the subpage? It was to hold information about L. Ron Hubbard's military service that was deemed too much detail for the main article at L. Ron Hubbard. Will it hold any less of that information if it holds other information relevant to L. Ron Hubbard and the military? Clearly not; the purpose of the subpage is still being served. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What was the purpose of the subpage? It was to hold information about L. Ron Hubbard's military service that was deemed too much detail for the main article at L. Ron Hubbard. This is exactly correct, and exactly why the details of his Naval service should be dedicated to this page. The paragraph about his prewar USMC/National guard service is not detailed at all (compared to what we have on his wartime naval career.)

In the Hubbard article you've linked a couple of times the section the info came from is called: [[World War II and post war activities. Take a look at what was there before the move:Commission and service with the ONI

Some subjects just do not have titles that would be easy-peasy for the average reader to guess. Indeed some don't, but not this one. When discussing Scientology there are two areas to talk about; Hubbard and how he created it, and it's specifics/history. Again, you're proposing we extend that to three articles.

Hubbard and how he created it

L. Ron Hubbard AND L. Ron Hubbard and the military.

Specifics/history of

Scientology.

Anynobody 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

How about we move the page to L. Ron Hubbard's service in World War II? Anynobody 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So far I haven't heard a single argument against L. Ron Hubbard and the military that I find at all convincing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The information moved here from L. Ron Hubbard was about his service during World War II specifically because it went into too much detail. (Remember the Hubbard article is chronologically arranged and the USMC "service" occurred during his college years.)

Aside from being out of chronological order there is almost no detail discussing his USMC days in depth like his wartime service. Comparing the detail of this:

Hubbard's first military service was with the 20th Marine Corps Reserve, which he joined in May of 1930 before his enrollment at George Washington University. After only two months, Hubbard was promoted to First Sergeant, a leap of six ranks.[1] Hubbard himself explained this unusually rapid promotion by saying that his superiors "couldn't find anyone else who could drill."[2] Hubbard received a honorable discharge from the Marine Reserve on October 22, 1931; two unexplained notations on his service record (written in different handwriting) read "Excellent" and "Not to be re-enlisted".[1] The Church of Scientology's account of this service states that Hubbard joined "the 20th Regiment, Company G of the US Marines" with no mention of this being a Reserve unit and credits him with "turning out a prize-winning company" with no mention of what prize was won.[3]

Is this so detailed and large that it can not be discussed on the L. Ron Hubbard article? The naval stuff is for obvious reasons, so why must the USMC stuff be discussed here too?

Remember this subpage is going to be visited the most by people following the link from L. Ron Hubbard, so by insisting that the "military" stuff be kept together you're disrupting the logical flow of information which should go like this:
1911 Hubbard born - 1920's traveled to Orient - 1930's USMC/college/writing - 1940's US Navy/WW II - 1950's - 1986 Dianetics, more writing and Scientology until he dies.

You're saying it should be like this:
1911 Hubbard born - 1920's Orient - 1930's college/writing - military service 1930's-40's - 1950's - 1986 Dianetics, more writing and Scientology until he dies.

In short, why does the information you've added HAVE to be here? Why does discussing how his military experience formed the basis for the Sea Org also have to be discussed here? Again the Navy stuff HAS to be here because of the amount of depth it goes into, do you have more to add about his other "military service" that is as detailed as the Navy service? Anynobody 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I know understand the misconception that is the basis of this objection (I make no guarantees about being able to predict the objection that will be coming after this one, or the one after that...) It is the misconception that the current article is "really" just a part of L. Ron Hubbard, and is only located in a separate article under a different title as an administrative convenience. It's as if the whole L. Ron Hubbard article got too large and the decision was made to split it into "L. Ron Hubbard Part 1" and "L. Ron Hubbard Part 2" -- no one would make the mistake of thinking that either was an independent article; each one would of course be entirely dependent on the complete article composed of the two halves together. In the same way, I believe the perception here is that "L. Ron Hubbard and the military" should only be about "L. Ron Hubbard's naval service" or "L. Ron Hubbard's service in World War II" because that's all that was in L. Ron Hubbard.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it goes. Wikipedia articles exist to be their own articles, not to be appendixes or adjuncts to other articles. No wonder Anynobody keeps trying to put a {{main}} link to L. Ron Hubbard at the top of the page (despite the instructions for {{main}} very clearly stating that the template should not be used for that purpose.) The question was asked "What kind of article would be appropriate to hold detailed information about L. Ron Hubbard's naval service during World War II?" and the answer was "Well, why not an article about L. Ron Hubbard and the military? That both covers the material we're starting with and offers room to grow." There's a reason the answer wasn't "How about an article that will forever more be joined at the hip to a single section of L. Ron Hubbard, taking care to only cover the same material as that section except in greater detail?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right I did use {{main}} incorrectly, actually backwards...put it on the subpage rather than the main article. As to your point about how articles on Wikipedia work:

I'll quote the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style

Antaeus Feldspar, the way you're suggesting a spin off/sub article page works creates confusion and interrupts the logical flow of a biographic article. A lot of WW2/Navy info was spun off to it's own article in order to streamline the main article, since it happens to be all stuff from his Navy service you're advocating turning the spin off page into a storage area for ANYTHING Hubbard had to do with the military. I'm giving visual aids one more chance to prove my point: Anynobody 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article is mostly laid out chronologically but with a deviation that either ends in his pre-war writing career or skips that and goes to Dianetics. There is also the Sea Org proposal made originally but not yet implemented.

My proposal follows chronological events, makes use of the subpage to explain the detailed WW2 info, and then brings the reader back to when he wrote Dianetics.

Your proposal still takes for granted that this article is a "sub-article" whose only function should ever be as a sort of appendix to the main L. Ron Hubbard article. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason why the incredibly detailed account of L. Ron Hubbard's war years got spun off into an article of its own is that most readers don't need that much detail? and that if the NPOV summary in the main article is of the appropriate length, it may actually be very few readers who feel they need even more detail about Hubbard's military life? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's an appendix of the article, I'm saying it's part of the article in a different location in order to conform to the guidelines about how big an article should be for both technical and style reasons. Bill O'Reilly (commentator)-Criticism of Bill O'Reilly-Bill O'Reilly political beliefs and points of view has at least two of these articles...Are you saying these are 3 independent O'Reilly articles? If so, could you please quote that from a WP:MOS or something like it?Anynobody 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not saying it's an appendix of the article, I'm saying it's part of the article in a different location" -- and that's the crux of the problem, because that's not the way Wikipedia does things. Yes, those are three independent articles, all of which cover the subject of Bill O'Reilly, all of which cover him with a different focus. They are not a single article, merely distributed among three pages.

Consider what would be the case if your idea of "part of the article in a different location" was true. Right now the guidelines for "summary-style articles", which I know you have read, state with no room for ambiguity that when detailed material is removed from an article to go into a spin-off article, it must be replaced by an NPOV summary of the same material. Here's the question: WHY?? In your "It's all one article, just split up over different pages" paradigm there's no need at all! We just put all the good stuff about Bill O'Reilly into Bill O'Reilly and then put every scrap of evidence that anyone has ever criticized good ol' Bill into Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. And we put a single {{main}} line in Bill O'Reilly telling people "Oh, if you wanna know the things he's done that people haven't been happy about, go to this other article." In your paradigm this is perfectly fine -- because after all, it's all still one article, right? Even if one POV on the subject has been isolated completely in "a different location", it's all still one article, so it's all good! But of course, it is not all good according to Wikipedia; it is in fact a classic example of POV forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar please understand that what I am about to say is merely a statement of fact and not a snide remark. You didn't read the guideline you linked very carefully, POV forking, if you look further down the page you'll see a section called What content/POV forking is not there is a section about spin off articles like this with it's own link called WP:SPINOUT.

Also, respectfully, your argument about the O'Reilly article is coherent but doesn't sway me because what I'm saying can be found on Wikipedia rule pages I've quoted, most recently why this article is not a fork. I don't mean to insult you, but you keep saying "...Wikipedia doesn't work that way..." without citing any rules to back up your claim. (You did cite one that as I said does support my position) Anynobody 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you should look more carefully at both the history and the text of Wikipedia:Content forking before hilariously asserting that I have failed to read it very carefully. You should definitely go back and read it again, particularly the part where it says "meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork -- only that it is not necessarily a content fork."

In addition, you seem to have completely missed (or ignored) my point -- that there would be no reason for Wikipedia:Content forking to very clearly spell out "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material" if your theory that the moved material is just "part of the article in a different location" was an accepted theory. Since the guideline does spell out that requirement, however, it indicates that Wikipedia does not regard a spun-out article as still "part of the article in a different location".

Your idea that spun-out articles remain forever subordinate to the article they were spun out from (and in fact, should have their titles tailored to deliberately limit them forever to that subordinate status) appears to be a resurrection of the old idea of Wikipedia:Subpages, with the sole difference being not using the actual subpage facility that is built into the software but has been disabled for the article namespace for several years now. As you can read at Wikipedia:Do not use subpages, "the main (article) namespace does not have this feature [subpages] turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged". I don't know if one could point to an idea more emblematic of "strictly hierarchical organisation of articles" than your idea that this current article should deliberately be limited, not just to the hierarchy of L. Ron Hubbard-related articles, but to one specific relationship with just one other article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insult/amuse you I'm simply saying you're ignoring why this article was created: Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#Split off an article or two? There was enough info to warrant a spin off. I'll make the rationale as simple as possible:
1. WP:SIZE says:

Prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided up
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternately, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

2. WP:SS says outlines how large articles should be written. Summary style says that the main page summarizes and links to the spin off pages.
3. WP:CFORK says spin offs aren't POV or content forks. (The key word is says, Antaeus Feldspar you could be right about what the rules used to say, but we're concerned with what's on the page now. I also want to apologize for ignoring your point about the moved material and NPOV summary, but it flies in the face of WP:SS.)

Please consider that you might be arguing out of frustration/pride because your arguments continually only address the smaller parts of a bigger picture and are now citing the history of guideline pages. (Seriously, think of the analogy of a man busted with heroin who says "it used to be legal" as a defense. He is both right and wrong but more the latter. It used to be legal (late 19th century - early 20th), but that won't mitigate the current laws.) Anynobody 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've wasted more than enough of my time trying to get through to you. You've made it completely clear that you won't listen to anyone, except to pluck bits and pieces of people's arguments out of context to make it look like you paid attention while actually doing no such thing. It's too bad, I used to have some respect for you and now you've wasted every last little bit. Have fun nattering to the silence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar is there any way I can convince you that I do understand, yet still disagree with, your position? You could easily change my mind by citing current policies or guidelines that override the three guidelines I've pointed out. You've given evidence based on your logic (which is intelligent but must yield to WP:SIZE, WP:CFORK, and WP:SS.).

If you are right I had expected an argument that explains why the three guidelines don't apply, I'm not saying it's impossible just that there must be a reason spelled out here somewhere. And more importantly, which rules DO apply if not the ones I'm pointing to? Frankly I don't like the WP:SS either, I'm sure there have to be better ways to do this kind of thing. However my reading of procedure says that this article is for specific discussion of his time during WW 2 of which much controversy still remains to this day. Given the "detailed" nature of both what Hubbard and others have said about this time in his life the meat of the information was moved here and replaced by a summary on L. Ron Hubbard which links here for those who want to know more about the summary there.

I didn't want to take up anyone's time, or I would've suggested it sooner, but would a WP:RFC about this help resolve the dispute? Anynobody 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed ref

Misou's reference Hubbard endorsements record, page 4 appears to be a second hand non-USN summary of what Hubbard claims he was doing in Australia. If one compares the above document, with these official documents the differences are pretty obvious: Hubbard ordered back to the states. Anynobody 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II

Having served as an officer in the US Navy, I disagree with the third sentence in the opening paragraph of this section, "This elite division's sole mission was to "seek out and report" on the advancements in other nations' navies." The ONI (since renamed the Naval Investigative Service) was essentially made up of civilians and the only thing I ever heard of them doing was chasing down homosexual sailors and getting them thrown out with bad discharges. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

World War II, submarine incident/citations, alternative version

J. Gordon Melton writes in The Church of Scientology, ISBN 1560851392, p. 6: "It appears that (Hubbard's sub chaser) PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war." Should perhaps be mentioned as an alternative published opinion. Melton also states (on page 66) that Hubbard DID leave service with the number of citations he claimed to have received and mentions "expert evidence by military specialists explaining why discrepancies may occur for a number of reasons between an original notice of separation and the copy kept by the Veterans' Administration, insisting that the original should prevail". Melton is not uncontroversial, but according to our article on him he is the second most prolific contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica, as well as the author of their Scientology article. -- Jayen466 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Did he happen to mention who "recently substantiated" it or who the "military specialists" were? AndroidCat 05:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He does not say any more about the submarine issue in the book; for the "military specialists", the context is as follows: Critics rely on an alleged copy of Hubbard's notice of separation deposited at the Veteran's Administration and accessible through the Freedom of Information Act. This copy, inter alias, mentions four medals and awards rather than twenty-one. The church has replied by filing in a number of court cases both the original notice of separation kept in the church's archives and expert evidence by military specialists explaining why discrepancies may occur for a number of reasons between an original notice of separation and the copy kept by the Veterans' Administration, insisting that the original should prevail. I don't know more about this. -- Jayen466 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's interesting. The only military specialist I know of who's endorsed the CoS version is the late L. Fletcher Prouty, a former USAF colonel who later made a career out of pushing JFK conspiracy theories. If I remember rightly, he was retained by the CoS as an expert witness in the 1984 Gerry Armstrong trial to support the CoS's claims. He wrote an angry letter to Russell Miller (author of Bare-Faced Messiah) in 1987, in which he attacked Miller for criticizing Hubbard's account of his wartime service (see [1]). Unfortunately for Prouty's credibility, he draws entirely on the CoS's forged version of Hubbard's naval service record, even going so far as to explicitly cite the "British Victory Medal" which, er, doesn't exist. But in general I don't think anyone other than a few JFK conspiracy theorists (and of course the CoS) regards Prouty as a credible source on anything much. -- ChrisO 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you mention the name Prouty, I'd looked around a bit, earlier, and come across this – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200608/ai_n17175927 – perhaps this is some later incarnation of what Melton was referring to (his book is from 2000). But it does not list a single source, and thus is just as good as Harry Potter for present purposes. Jayen466 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that the author's anonymous, but the content is clearly based on the cross-examination and testimony given in the 1984 Armstrong case, when the CoS called Prouty and several other individuals as witnesses to defend Hubbard's side. And as you note, it's devoid of sources - it's entirely based on unsupported personal assertions and conspiracy theories. I've seen similar pieces before from Scientology sources, and I'd guess that they have some sort of standard set of quotes which they trot out whenever a publication questions Hubbard's wartime service. -- ChrisO 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know that as well, for two reasons. 1) It's essentially what the CoS has been saying all along so some proof would be nice. 2) It would mean that not only the US but Japan lied about not losing a sub off the coast of Oregon. (On a factual level, the Navy hasn't held anything back about enemy activity since the war ended. Japanese subs did bombard the West Coast a couple of times, the year before. Japanese, US Government, and civilian witnesses confirm this. Why would they lie about supposed activity the next year even after the war?)

To directly answer your question, I don't think he's a WP:RS based on his other experiences with non mainstream religion. Actually, I had never heard of the guy until you mentioned him, but given he's saying the same stuff as the church and he's been accused of apologizing/parroting other "cults", I'm guessing the critics may be on to something. Even if they weren't, a religious scholar is not a proper source for history, it'd be like using Kent Hovind as a source on the formation of the Grand Canyon. Anynobody 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong inasmuch as he is reputable within his academic field (sociology of religion), based on the judgment of his peers (not to mention Encyclopaedia Britannica), but I would agree that he is not reputable here as a historian. In the absence of further published evidence the passage is not worth including. Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify, when I said he is not a WP:RS I just meant his reliability for this subject is nil, but not necessarily in other fields or subjects. Anynobody 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Exactly so. Melton isn't a military historian, so he has no expertise in the matter, and his opinion contradicts everything that's known about the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine force. It's true that a few Japanese submarines did make it to the US west coast in 1941-42; this has been known for decades and hasn't been "only recently substantiated" (see [2] for an account). However, that was well before Hubbard's episode. The CoS doesn't quote any serious military historian in support of its claim for the simple reason that there's never been a shred of evidence for it - the rough dates and locations of all of the IJN's submarine losses are known from its records and none of them were within a thousand miles of Oregon. It's worse even than Hovind's views on the Grand Canyon - at least other creationists support those. I know of literally nobody except the CoS who supports Hubbard's claims. And of course, Melton's claim would fall foul of WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Unfortunately his credulousness in this matter doesn't say much for his general reliability as a source. -- ChrisO 09:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He may have asked the narrow question of "Was it possible for someone to receive a citation but it not show up on his record?" (no kidding, it's called bureaucracy), but never looked at the overall impossibility of Hubbard's vast claims. (You can't lose a citation in the system for a battle that you were never at...) Unless he cites actual records that no one else has come across so far, it's empty opinion. AndroidCat 14:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Melton also overlooks the slight difficulty of Hubbard claiming medals that don't actually exist, such as the "British Victory Medal" and the "Marine Medal". Two of the medals he claimed were supposed to have been awarded by foreign powers (the UK and the Netherlands), but surprise surprise, neither country has any record of awarding medals to Hubbard. There's also no way that a bureaucratic snafu could have led to Hubbard's purported service record being signed off by an officer ("Lieutenant Commander Howard D. Thompson") who didn't actually exist, or stating that Hubbard commanded the USS Mist (a guard boat which served during World War I and was returned to civilian service in February 1919, when Hubbard was only eight years old). The service record circulated by the CoS is an incredibly crude forgery and trivially demonstrable as such. -- ChrisO 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't J. Gordon Melton also received funding from the Church of Scientology ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

See Kent article, rebuttal and rejoinder here -- Jayen466 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the Cos paid Melton isn't germane when discussing a historical "event" like this. (Don't get me wrong, it'd probably be worth discussing in his article.)

Essentially, in order to support Hubbard's version of events official records or documents will be necessary which simply don't exist. Anynobody 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Page 1 title

Hubbard's report presents a bit of a problem determining which page is the first. There is a handwritten 2 in the lower right corner of the first page, but the next page has -2- as its title and each one after is numbered the same way. Anynobody 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of that report around the place somewhere. As I recall, it was a single filed document consisting of two elements - a covering submission, entitled "ANTI-SUBMARINE ACTION BY SURFACE SHIP, REPORT OF", and a narrative, which is what's cited in the article. The first thing that you see when you look in the file is the submission; the document as a whole was filed under that reference. Regarding the page numbering, I think what happened is that Hubbard wrote the narrative first and numbered it from 1 onwards; but when he added the covering minute he renumbered the narrative's page 1 as being page 2 of the overall report, thus inadventently giving the document two page twos - the original one and the renumbered one. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Navy tends to group reports about the same subject together. Is it possible that the cover was something like this:Image:NavshipsA374.gif that the author didn't write? (Given Hubbard's tendency to write more like a fiction writer than a Naval officer, the idea of him actually submitting it as Anti-submarine action by surface ship seems curious. Especially since he skipped the ASW-1 form of the same title.) PS would you mind deleting the linked image? Anyone who really wants to see it can download the pdf I just figured I'd save you the trouble. Anynobody 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch following concerns that the previous version was excessively POV and based on original research. (Compare before and after.) I'd appreciate feedback on the new version. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(added) I suggest that we centralise this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. I've taken the liberty of moving Jayen's comments and my response to there (hope that's OK with you, Jayen). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, Chris, I was thinking of doing the same. We should put a link to the peer review in the header, though. Cheers, Jayen466 12:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It already is in the header, it's just not easy to find since it's collapsed. The link here will suffice, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Was he in combat?

I think the article is fine. I found it interesting, and learned a lot. For someone so controversial, I have no problem with this as a separate article, apart from the L. Ron Hubbard article...Could you tell me (and forgive me if it's already been noted and I missed it)...has it ever been verified that he was in combat? If so, what were the circumstances of the combat he was in, and what was noted in his service record/DD-214 about it? Thanks...Rayjameson (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends which account you check. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right (and sorry), just after I finished writing last post I found USNAV and Scientology versions of DD-214 on article page. Nothing noted about combat on USNAV version...Therefore, he was probably never in combat. ThanksRayjameson (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge with L. Ron Hubbard Article

What is the point of having an article about the military service of someone not noted for this? Let this article be merged with L. Ron Hubbard or else deleted.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on the merits of your suggestion (have to think about that), note that the article is currently nominated for GA, and that a peer review of it is ongoing here. JN466 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is far too long to be merged into L. Ron Hubbard. It was spun out of that article in the first place - see Wikipedia:Summary style for an explanation of why subtopics get spun out from parent articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The L. Ron Hubbard article is now 85K in size, which indicates that spinning information out, rather than spinning it in, is the way to go. His military career is an aspect mentioned at length both in his own autobiographical claims and in third-party sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, per above comments by ChrisO (talk · contribs) and MartinPoulter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Hubbard is already way too long. This article is well-written, excellently cited and exhaustive in research. There is no foundation for its deletion. Supertheman ^(talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

References formatting

Would be helpful to reformat the References subsection formatting to something with separate Notes and References subsections (Notes for page number cites, References for full cites). These days I like something like that format used at The_Simpsons_(season_3)#Notes. I could do the reformatting myself if that is agreeable. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • all check out as far as is possible to ascertain

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • An excellent article, maintaining NPOV between official sources and Scientology sources. I have no hesitation in passing this as a GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be its own article

This is where WP wanders into OR and into POV advancement. Note...I'm a USN veteran, not a Scientologist...and enjoy seeing Hubbard skewered.

I just think something like this out to be an article on it's own, out in "real space". Not in WP. People are using the encyclopedia for non-encyclopedia purposes.

And it is soooo...high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.242.4 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been evaluated at Good article level of quality on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias are all about this facts, and this article is full of them. Sometimes, the truth is a bitch, eh?204.130.0.8 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopadias" and even "encyclopEdias" are full of facts too. However this is WP a self proclamed encyclopedias, the nexis of today. Just like Nexis, you can't use WP as a legitimate source, ie no self respecting college professor will accept it in your bibliography for a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

is soooo...high school What does that even mean? (Sincere question) Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It means he's a Scientologist and can't stand it when someone tells folks the truth about his cult.Ndriley97 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New findings on Hubbard's return from Australia

Howdy all. I've spent some time digging into Hubbard's military files and the public record, and believe I've found a few inconsistencies with the facts as presented in this article. In particular, Hubbard was not aboard the USS CHAUMONT on his return from Australia to the San Francisco in early 1942. This can be confirmed in a number of ways: (1) the passenger and crew lists at the National Archives confirm that Hubbard was not aboard. (In addition to being available on microfilm at most National Archives locations, they are also available at http://ancestry.com, which is one of the partner sites for the National Archives) -- I've checked these and confirmed that Hubbard was not aboard the CHAUMONT on its return to San Francisco from Australia in Feb/Mar 1942; (2) the CHAUMONT left Brisbane, Australia on Feb. 13, 1942 and arrived in San Francisco on March 29, 1942, according to files at http://fold3.com and http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c7/chaumont.htm -- but several documents in Hubbard's military record confirm that he arrived in San Francisco on March 23, 1942; (3) according to a number of documents in both Hubbard's military file and in the public record, Hubbard was in Australia until at least March 8, 1942. One document, a Navy diary (available at http://fold3.com, another National Archives partner site) has Hubbard giving a counter-intelligence report to the captain of the USS NEW ORLEANS on March 8, 1942 in Brisbane, Australia. Another document, in Hubbard's military file, shows that Hubbard bought a new uniform in Brisbane in late February 1942. With the CHAUMONT having left Australia in mid-February, there is no possibility that Hubbard was aboard. Further, with Hubbard being in Australia as late as March 8 and back in San Francisco on March 23 (via Honolulu, according to his military file), it does not appear likely that Hubbard returned to the US by ship -- even the fast ships in 1942 were not making the trans-Pacific journey between Brisbane and San Francisco (with a stop in Honolulu) in under three weeks, let alone two weeks.

Other researchers have correctly noted that Hubbard's military file makes reference to Hubbard returning to the US from Australia on the MS PENNANT, which did in fact leave Brisbane, Australia on March 9, 1942. However, the PENNANT then went to Chile, South America after leaving Australia and didn't arrive in San Francisco until the end of April 1942 -- a month after Hubbard's return. Additionally, the passenger and crew list of the PENNANT, which mentions the stop in South America, also confirms that Hubbard was not aboard. (This passenger/crew list is also available in the National Archives and at http://ancestry.com.)

I also checked the available passenger and crew lists of the other ships that arrived into San Francisco and other California ports in March and April 1942 (most of which are publicly available in the National Archives and ancestry.com), and have confirmed that Hubbard was not aboard any of these ships as well.

Finally, I dug into the airplane records, and in particular the planes that the Secretary of the Navy's office was using to fly officers (including some ONI officers) on trans-oceanic trips during this period of the war. It turns out that the "Clipper" planes by the commercial carrier PanAm were the primary planes that were used in early 1942, and the "Philippine Clipper" line was at least one of the lines used to fly some officers from Australia to San Francisco. Most of the passenger lists for these planes no longer exist, unfortunately, however there is a complete Index of all the flights that arrived into San Francisco in 1942 (available on microfilm in the National Archives). As it turns out, the "Philippine Clipper 41759" plane arrived in San Francisco on March 23, 1942 (via Honolulu) from Australia, and this appears to be the most likely candidate for Hubbard's return, as it fits with Hubbard's return dates and route as indicated in his military record.

For this reason, I propose that a change be made in this section of the article.

But before I propose/make a change, I would be interested in hearing others' take on the above. GreatGatzby (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Order of text in introduction

I don't know if wikipedia has a policy on this, but it's very odd when reading the article that it starts with the false/disputed claims of Scientologists and Hubbard himself before detailing his actual Navy record. Would it not make more sense to open with his actual record as revealed by the Navy documents and then follow this with "but Scientology publications claim..." and setting out the fabrications?

86.148.83.133 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/business/la-scientology062490%2C0%2C2050131%2Cfull.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124225356/http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf to http://www.antisectes.net/sp-times-scientology-special-report-pulitzer-price.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414060001/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/h8-list.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/h8-list.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Career of father Harry Ross Hubbard

I’m left asking why this is included and why there is so much detail. Does it tie into claims that LRH made later on? If so, this should be indicated. The only source is his navy record. It needs to be condensed. --Technophant (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Miller

@GraemeLeggett: Miller is 1987 as found on Open Library and linked to in the citation, not 1982.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can only blame my eyesight for that one. Thank you for spotting it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)