Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Photo rights etc

Question to everybody. How do I get scanned documents on here? I managed the scanning - ha! - but now I got lost in the license policies. Anybody has a good tip? Misou 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the document? The license has a lot to do with ownership rights. Anynobody 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Court documents (i.e. stuff written by the court) have no copyright. --Tilman 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the docs are court docs, meaning they were presented to the court, or newspaper articles or FOIA docs. For now I put them up somewhere else. More to come, whenever I get to it. Misou 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

DD-214

Anynobody, I do not seem to have the DD-214 forms (neither of the two you put up here). Where did you get them from? Misou 18:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Hubbard's purported DD-214, Dutch journalist Karin Spaink obtained it from the Amsterdam Church of Scientology several years ago. Here's a scan of it. The actual DD-214 from Hubbard's US Navy service file (I corroborated this myself a few years ago with an FOIA request which John Warner was kind enough to expedite) is here. -- ChrisO 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea when the fake one was produced? Forgery should be taken lightly. Misou 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean not taken lightly. :-) No idea, I'm afraid. However, I was told a long time ago by Gerry Armstrong (who had access to Hubbard's private papers when he was the LRH Biographer) that among Hubbard's papers were a number of blank US Navy forms, including DD-214s. Obviously Armstrong's claim can't be corroborated, so treat it with caution. However, note that the layout of the fake DD-214 is totally different to that of the real form. It's plainly not the same version that was being used when Hubbard was mustered out of active service. -- ChrisO 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said ChrisO :) Anynobody 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the DD-214's were of the same layout, when I created the color coded comparison I cropped them so that the layouts are identical. Anynobody 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, I meant not lightly. So Karin Spaink pulled it up and Armstrong chimed in. Who did use the forgery and where? Any data? Misou 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

It's one thing to see it on paper, but for the average reader I've prepared two graphics to represent Hubbard's fake and real ribbon bars as described by the respective DD-214s. Anynobody 08:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read your page, Prouty, CBS and all. The bottom line is that the fake form was presented to the court by Armstrong as one of the documents he stole from Scientology (and he left not copies behind if I remember that right). That doc then turned out to be a forgery. Now, is there any incident where Scientology or Hubbard claimed that this document it authentic? Misou 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is, [1]. Unfortunately the CoS has made it difficult to trace the exact source of the document. Anynobody 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually there is not the slightest trace of Scientology even knowing about the document before Armstrong pulled it out of the hat. That was Prouty giving it out to the media in 1985 (per the Spaink mirror page). He had gotten it from Armstrong in that court case you mentioned. I have not found anything that he was a Scientologist anyway. Wrote in Freedom Magazine. Ok, Clinton did, too. That's not a hint, usually. Help me out, but I don't think this form can be attributed to Scientology. Misou 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prouty was a consultant for Scientologists:

Not long afterwards, in early 1985, Hubbard's naval record again came under scrutiny in a case brought against the Church of Scientology by Julie Christofferson Titchbourne of Portland, Oregon. In an attempt to defuse the records as an issue, Scientology's lawyers turned to an old contact, ex-US Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (right). They asked him to provide "expert witness" assistance on Hubbard's military record, and in February 1985 he obligingly produced an affidavit to provide proof of the fact that the records, data and related materials provided by the U.S. Navy (USN) and other government sources, all said to be the complete record and file on the military service, active and inactive, of Mr. L. Ronald Hubbard, formerly Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy Reserve, are incomplete ... [and] to attest to the fact that those materials and records provided give ample evidence that proves the existence of other records that have been concealed, withheld and overlooked.

(Source: Prouty affidavit, February 1, 1985)from Ron the war hero. Anynobody 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Prouty was a consultant to check out if Hubbard's military record was complete and he testified that it wasn't - per his opinion. What's the relation for the forged DD-214 form? Misou 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW you are right when you said "Forgery should not be taken lightly." I'm pretty sure it's against the law to forge official DOD records. (If I'm right, it would explain why nobody is in a hurry to claim it.) Anynobody 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. If not for PR use, what good would such forgery be? Misou 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was PR, besides if it was something else we'd need a source otherwise any idea we put forward would be original research. Anynobody 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think anything about DD-214 right now is WP:OR or rather WP:Guesswork ;-). As neither you nor me nor anyone else here has a WP:RS at hand giving source to the claim that the fake DD-214 was used by Scientology or Hubbard, see? For what we know this might as well be an invention (c)Armstrong. Misou 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a RS. Saying that Scientology/Hubbard didn't forge it would be WP:OR. (Unless you can provide a link to a source, of course). Anynobody 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement that he (Hubbard) claimed this and he claimed that is FALSE! Asking here for WP:RS on an invention and false claim is ridiculous and just turns WikiPolicy upside down. COFS 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chill. But yes, at least the wording needs some overwork. Misou 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, the CoS was the source. This part is WP:OR but will explain why I know, despite the fact that I have a source that says so anyway, that it's a CoS document. Their consultant, USAF Colonel Prouty even used the wrong term for one of Hubbard's claimed devices (as the fake DD-214 did):

* 10. (Miller) A series of claims based on Scientology's purported copy of Hubbard's notice of separation. Prouty highlights some of the medals listed:

* "The official U.S. Navy record establishes that Hubbard had sustained wounds in action [and was awarded a Purple Heart with Palm] before Dec 1945."

The actual term is Oak Leaf Cluster, and he should have known that since this applies to all branches of service. Anynobody 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that prove now? COFS 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an explanation of why i think the website is right. (Bear in mind I'm not advocating my points be included in the text, they are offered to let you know why I'm on the side I am.) Anynobody 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I get it, thank you. But this is not a matter of sides, really, it is a matter of the information can be attributed to a reliable source and is verifiable. And somehow it is not. You see the "Ron The War Hero" page is not only dripping of sarcasm from title down (which makes it already questionable as WP:RS) but it is not giving any evidence or documentation that the Church or LRH have spread the fake form. I know you might think it is a pity that such a nice controversy just evaporated but believe me, you are better off not living with a lie. COFS 04:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP IT! This is ridiculous! Anynobody, we had this new way, calm editing, right? SO PLEASE, EVERYBODY, stop shattering this article! And that means COFS and Mr. Antaeus Feldspar - specifically. Misou 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everything on the site should be cited, that would be POV, but the court documents (which is what these are, Prouty was discussing the fake DD-214 in his affidavit, remember the "palm" reference) are usable since they can be corroborated. Perhaps you forgot that the PC-815 submarine battle as described in the commentary on the site is slightly inaccurate. The documents they have are accurate however.

Note:Misou I assure you I am perfectly calm, simply because I disagree with your views does not mean i have become agitated. Thank you for your concern. Anynobody 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The docs are "docs" but without their source they are useless. Because one of the two is a fake and which one and who faked it is all WP:OR. Thinking about it, it is hard to believe that Scientology forges a government document to use it in public space. I mean, how stupid can you be, that would be found out in a very short time.

I did not see you agitated, actually, but Antaeus showed up here like a red flag (and COFS hasn't learned her lesson yet on ignoring him). The last time this happened I pulled the plug (on Scientology). The article is "frozen" now. Misou 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am calm too, Misou, the only one here who thinks he can ignore the rules and and talk pages is Antaeus Feldspar. As usual. COFS 05:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Antaeus Feldspar, "claimed to have earned 27 military medals", is not even something Anynobody says. And he is on "your side". COFS 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So don't try to "prove" something when your source OBVIOUSLY is some parroting journalist with no clue what he is talking about. COFS 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS, by saying a journalist is parroting and clueless you are making a statement of original research. Say what you will about my points, but to prove what you are asserting, you will need a source that says said journalist is a parroting, clueless person. Anynobody 05:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this about now? COFS, I haven't seen any 27 medals-statement here. Anynobody, agreed, IF the source is orderly quoted, nothing left out. Misou 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. The one sure thing about this is that even the number of medals Hubbard claimed has changed. Right now I'm talking about the particular claim in reference to the DD-214 that came out in the Armstrong trial.) Anynobody 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC would be a good idea

• It appears that this issue could use a WP:RFC. Can someone please succinctly summarize the main points at issue here in this disagreement? Preferably in the form of a brief question, or at most, 2 sentences? Smee 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

If I understand the opposing argument, they are saying that this document unaltered copy from another site did not come from the CoS/L. Ron Hubbard. Anynobody 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, and trying to formulate a neutral-sounding question to pose for the RFC... Smee 07:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't quite understand the sudden problem with the fake DD-214, I think this is what they are saying. Anynobody 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(that it did not come from the CoS/L. Ron Hubbard.) Anynobody 07:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so a good question to get things going for an RFC would be something like: Can the article L. Ron Hubbard display a fake version of his DD-214 military form?. Smee 07:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

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

Okay. I have opened a WP:RFC, below. Smee 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Sara's recant

I don't really mind this edit [2] at all. I see that Sara's recant isn't in the article by Don Lattin, but it is mentioned in other sources [3]. And this document [4] is just SOOOO funny - if you take the time to read it until the last line, where the authorship gets obvious :-) --Tilman 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tilman, may I remind you that you better start contributing something here, otherwise you are just a little onlooker to a vandalism attempt of Antaeus (check WP:VANDAL, it's right in there). Misou 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, and your WP:OR statements should go where the sun never shines. Misou 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After doing the research, I simply didn't have the time to come up with a good sentence, because I had to go to work. I don't do many edits here, I mostly look for the changes and check whether I agree with them or not.

Your suggestion about inserting statements where the sun never shines are not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Especially since I didn't attack or criticize you - quite the opposite, since I was looking for a way to reinsert something that you inserted initially. Although our motives for inserting it may be different. --Tilman 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tilman I think this Misou Chimp just violated NPA VolcanoXeni 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, it seems that a few of the individuals involved here have done so, and could take a breather to look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before engaging in discussion here, (including yourself). Terms like "Misou Chimp", are not going to help the discussion, no matter how heated it gets... Smee 07:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

No that doesn't work- I think you need to ban me, the Chimp and the other two Volcano breathers for say 900 yearsVolcanoXeni 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Current edit-war

Just a place to discuss the current edit-warring. Please move disputed bits over here for discussion. Thanks. --Justanother 05:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

War? PLease tell me that he didn't steal $10k from Parsons, that he didn't marry Northrup while still married and that the judge in the UK was biased and I will give you a piece of blue skyVolcanoXeni 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish for this information to stay in the article, you may wish to add additional sourced citations from reputable secondary sources. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:CITE for some help. Smee 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• It does look that in the midst of this edit-war between User:Justanother, and User:VolcanoXeni, that some information that is sourced by reputable citations is getting removed, when it is relevant and useful in the article... Smee 06:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Protected

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

• Thank you. Under the subsection above, Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard#RFC_would_be_a_good_idea, I have put forth a request for someone to succinctly put down the main points of the disagreement at issue, so that we can start a dispute resolution process of some sort. Smee 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment - Hubbard's DD-214 form

• Talk:L. Ron Hubbard -- Can the article L. Ron Hubbard display a fake version of his DD-214 military form? 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Previously involved editors

Comment from Smee

This information and images/media should be included in the article. Many scholars, authors and other secondary sources, including highly-viewed television programs such as 60 Minutes and Nightline, have commented on the discrepancies that exist between the Church of Scientology's version and the actual United States Military versions of Hubbard's historical military documents. The images add encyclopedic value to the article, and illustrate the differences between the documents. As the images are public domain in the United States, they are free to use on Wikipedia. However, as the data contained in the images was entered into publicly available court records, it does not constitute original research, but verifiable information. Smee 08:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I also agree with Smee's comment. Anynobody 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you are the one who put it in there in the first place. I would have agreed to it if there would be ANY source confirming what you claim. But there is not. Smee coming along and claiming sources I never heard of does not help much. Smee, where is this stuff? Misou 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not already in the article? Oh well, I will find the citations and transcripts momentarily that deal with this the Church of Scientology's false claims about Hubbard's records. Bear with me... Smee 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Still waiting.... Misou 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Comment from Anynobody

I support the idea of a WP:RFC, but I'm not 100% sure what the contention is. Anynobody 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Why didn't you say this when you created the section to discuss edit warring? Anynobody 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for document being WP:RS

The document was circulated by the CoS around 1985, in an affidavit the consultant they hired (Col. Prouty) refers to Hubbard earning a "palm" for his purple heart as noted on the document. The explanation document that was distributed with it also makes the same claims the CoS has been making about commanding a corvette squadron etc: [5]. Given that this document has been out there for at least 22 years, if the CoS hadn't put it out they would have long ago cried "foul". Instead they just add more medals and put out new versions: [6]. While the Navy version stays the same: [7]. More can be found in the documents on this site: [8]. Anynobody 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from Anynobody

To those who are saying the form is not a reliable source, why didn't anyone voice these concerns when I first referenced it on 2 April? diff Anynobody 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That question has no relevance; there is no "time limit" on objections, no unacceptable material is "grandfathered in", and stuff is caught and discussed when it is caught and discussed. You are throwing out a time-wasting red herring there, Anynobody. --Justanother 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Justanother on this, aside from the insinuation about throwing out the red herring. The question is pretty irrelevant, whether purposely or inadvertently so.Phiwum 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother did answer my question though, the answer was he and others didn't look at it when I added the reference. Anynobody 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Justanother

Does it come from a reliable source? If the image comes from a reliable source then it can be included here; if not then no. Seems simple to me. --Justanother 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Antaeus Feldspar

I think there are obvious issues that urge caution if we are not 100% sure of the provenance of a document. Even if we are 100% sure that the document in question is Hubbard's faked DD214 (or one of them, since there could clearly be more than one) there's still the issue of it being a primary source, and primary sources sometimes requiring specialist knowledge to correctly evaluate.

However, one thing is for certain, and that is that this image must not be used as an excuse to try and sneak information cited to reliable sources on the same subject out of the article. There is no excuse for that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously un-involved editors

Comment from Phiwum

• User:Justanother asks whether the image comes from a reliable source, but it's not clear what he means. Does he mean that the original source of the form is reliable? If so, this is too high a bar. The question should be, instead, have any reliable sources claimed that this form has been passed off as real. If I understand correctly, some editors say that 60 minutes and other journalists have alleged that Hubbard/Scientology or someone has presented this as a real form. That is reliable enough for its inclusion in the article, I would say. (To be clear: my conclusion depends on whether the facts as I understand them are correct.) Phiwum 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your input. No, I make the same point you do. If the exact form that Scientology critics want to use here can be traced back to the 60 Minutes show or any other RS and can be traced back with certainty then it can appear here. Otherwise the form is not shown or referenced except to the extent it is referenced in RS. That is why I say that this does not seem that tough a question. --Justanother 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good to hear. Thanks for the clarification. Phiwum 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was uninvolved in THAT dispute, but involved in this article. I support having both the forged and the real DD-214 image. It is well known that scientology has passed a forged military form around to pass L. Ron Hubbard as a hero. --Tilman 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tille, your comment should go up there, to the involved, entangled editors. And you know what you should do with "it is well known". I don't know that one well until someone showed it in a WP:RS. Everything else may exist in your imagination only. Misou 17:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• My name is "Tilman" or "Mr. Hausherr", not "Tille" or whatever. As I said, I have not participated in THAT dispute. (I don't know the exact rules for RFCs, so maybe I am in the wrong section anyway. Feel free to move it if you find something in the policies) About the DD-124 form - you managed to get so many papers. Ask your source for the DD-124 form :-) --Tilman 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

<<inappropriate comments from Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), VolcanoXeni (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), removed.>> Smee 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

• I am interested to hear the opinions/commentary from additional un-involved editors on this issue... Smee 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• I am still waiting for a reliable source for the claim that "scientology faked Hubbard's military history". If this is "established knowledge", where is the proof then? The "War Hero" page is a personal page with the personal OR of one Chris Owen, hosted by one Karin Spaink, the latter known to be a "hero" herself for being involved in lawsuits with scientology. Requests for RS have not been responded since days. Objectively there is no reason to leave in the claims about the DD-214. CSI LA 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is some current evidence of their continued attempt to misrepresent his career, misrepresentations in bold. the CoS says:

With the outbreak of World War II in December, he was afterward put in command first of a corvette in the Atlantic, and then of PC 815, a subchaser in the Pacific Northwest. In both theaters, Captain Hubbard continued to demonstrate his prowess of the sea by drilling his crews to a precision team that could meet any challenge efficiently and effectively.

the CoS says:

On 29 March 1941 L. Ron Hubbard receives his Master of Sail Vessel license for “Any Ocean.”

On 2 July 1941 he is commissioned as Lieutenant (jg) of the United States Navy Reserve. With the outbreak of war in December 1941, Ron is ordered to Australia where he coordinates intelligence activities.

Returning to the United States in March, Ron takes command of a convoy escort vessel in the Atlantic, then a subchaser in the Pacific. He also serves as an instructor and chief navigation officer, and is selected to Princeton University’s Military Government School.

These are both CoS sources, and they actually contradict each other. One says he went straight to the YP-422, the other mentions how Hubbard must've seen his stay in Australia (the Navy's view was quite different, since he had been ordered to the Philippines.) Both talk about the YP-422 as a corvette or convoy escort, neither of which it was. The second fails to mention that he served as an instructor aboard USS Algol. I'd also like to point out that if the part discussing his training the crew into a precision team that could meet any challenge efficiently and effectively. were true, he would have been able to get through the ASW exercise in San Diego without causing an incident and by following his orders.

The CoS has made even more outrageous claims in the past, and then tried to eliminate all record of them once proven inaccurate. Anynobody 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I might miss the significance why this is so outrageous as it seems to me a goof in dates and claims. If I understand right you say that there is a discrepancy of reports in regards L. Ron Hubbard's whereabouts in March 1942? Now, what would be needed then are WP:RS for this time frame? CSI LA 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that even with the real record now available, the CoS is still misrepresenting his career for example; saying he did stuff he didn't, calling the yp-422 a corvette, leaving out the algol, etc. Anynobody 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair point. The CoS is definitely lying when it talks about Hubbard commanding a corvette; I doubt he ever went near one of the things (the US Navy did operate corvettes of the Flower class for a time, but not many of them). As for the Algol, the CoS does briefly mention it - see [9], which makes the absurd claim that "Aboard the USS Algol in the Pacific, as chief navigator he wrote a textbook for his crew, not only greatly simplifying the technology of navigation and its terms, but making navigators out of men who would have otherwise floundered." But of course this raises the question of why the Algol is omitted from other CoS-published biogs of Hubbard. As far as I know that's the only one which mentions it. -- ChrisO 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

From reading here there might be incoherent information online and that you demand absolute perfection from those publications. The "Ron Series" booklets have been published between 10 to 20 years ago and the text might not have changed even longer. Obviously the Algol is not being withheld if it is mentioned in one booklet but not in the other. Have you ever tried to write to the publisher to correct the information? COFS 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is incoherent. The thing is that if you have a look at the publication dates of the "Ron Series" and the official "L. Ron Hubbard: A Profile", they're all in the range 1991-1996 [10]. In other words, this is substantially after Hubbard's USN record was documented by Miller and Atack. Nor can the CoS claim that it didn't have access to Hubbard's USN service files. The real problem, it seems to me, is that the CoS biographers have chosen to rely only on what Hubbard said (even when it's provably false) without making any attempt to corroborate it. Writing to them to correct it is probably useless given their a priori bias that everything Hubbard says is indisputably true. -- ChrisO 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the Algol though; as I pointed out one of the sites claims Hubbard was sent to Australia to coordinate intelligence and called the YP-422 a convoy escort/corvette. (FYI a Navy ship with a name like YP-, YG-, YOS-, etc. that vessel is not meant for service outside a harbor or shipyard. Take a look at what kind of vessels carry the Y designator: Yard and District craft of the USN during WW II.) Anynobody 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the part on "not meant for service outside a harbor or shipyard". A "District Patrol Vessel" (YP) should be able to patrol a district (not only the harbor), or not? COFS 01:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an idea of what a Naval District is would help, all districts. Hubbard was outfitting the YP-422 for service in the 3rd District. (Naval districts are land divisions) Anynobody 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the YP-422 was destroyed by grounding off New Caledonia in the South Pacific on 23 April 1943. [11] (The ships under Hubbard's command didn't have much luck, did they? - both of them sank!) So it evidently went a bit further afield than Boston harbour. But the key point is that YPs were slow, very lightly armed and short-ranged vessels - they weren't physically equipped for anything more than patrolling inshore coastal waters. -- ChrisO 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, was it transiting to Australia or doing something else? (You're right about their capabilities, I imagine them as kind of like war-time security guards doing jobs that other, more capable ships would do in peacetime.) Anynobody 08:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it may have been transiting to Nouméa harbour, which was a key Allied staging base for operations against the Japanese. However, I'm very surprised that they would have chosen a vessel like the YP-422 for that, particularly considering that it was based on the east coast of the US and would have had to sail all the way down to Panama. That's a long journey for a little ship. :-) -- ChrisO 08:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a journey for a ship like that, nowadays they'd probably just load it on a ship like this for a trip that long. Anynobody 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. I would really appreciate to get an answer to this question. Have you ever tried to write to the publisher to correct the information? This refers to inaccuracies you list out here. COFS 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant COFS, but given the difficulty I've had making changes here I doubt it'd be any easier to go directly to Scientology to correct these issues.

I wouldn't hold my breath on finding out what YP-422 was doing when it ran aground, finding records about YP- craft can be very difficult. (Sometimes documents about famous ships can be hard to find). Anynobody 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You say given the difficulty I've had making changes here I doubt it'd be any easier to go directly to Scientology to correct these issues.. I doubt it. The Scientologists here are not representatives of the Church of Scientology (in a sense, yes, but not liable). You can claim that the Church does promote untruth if you have a RS that they know that their document is fake. So far you don't have such RS or at least I haven't seen one it. Yes, I might be overcritical in that point, but if I am scrutinized for each letter I faintly intend to change, we might as well apply this higher standard to everybody and every article. COFS 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the obvious RS that their document is fake is the US Navy itself. I wrote to Navy Personnel Command back in 1999 for their views on the authenticity of the DD-214. This is the reply I got, verbatim:

This is in reply to your Freedom of Information Act request for information on the veracity of the DD214 submitted by LaFayette Ronald Hubbard which was forwarded to our office by the Navy Personnel Command, for separate reply.

I am enclosing brief histories of USS ALGOL and USS MIST from this Center's Dictionary of American Navy Fighting Ships, as well as extracts from the Navy and Marine Corps Medals and Awards Manual, which list ALGOL as receiving two engagement stars for 1 April-10 April 1945 and 10 July-3 August 1945 to be worn on the Asiatic/Pacific campaign medal. However, USS MIST did not participate in World War II. The Ships' Movement Card for USS PC-815 stated that it was on the west coast of the U.S. until it was sunk in September 1945 by a collision with USS LAFFEY. Neither MIST or PC-815 received engagement stars for World War II. Thus Lieutenant Hubbard could not have received all the engagement stars claimed on the DD214. His official service records is held by the Military Personnel Records Center, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63132-5100. Because of Privacy Act concerns the information from these records is available to the veteran, or if deceased, to the next of kin. I enclose this Center's information packet on the service records which includes an order form.

I am also sending extracts from the 1944 Register of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Naval Reserve which does not have a listing for a Howard D. Thompson. In July 1944, Lieutenant Lafayette R. Hubbard is listed D-VS (Deck Officers, commissioned and warrant, including boatswains and ships clerks, qualified for specialist duties). The schools he attended by July 1944 were Sound for Sonar, and Subchaser Training Center.

Several inconsistencies exist between Mr. Hubbard's DD214 and the available facts. Your interest in naval history is appreciated and I hope that this information will prove helpful.

Sincerely,

Kathleen M. Lloyd

for

BERNARD F. CAVALCANTE

Head, Operational Archives Branch

Or in so many words, "it's a faaake!". -- ChrisO 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What I can see is that Kathleen M. Lloyd confirms that a document YOU send her is not verifiable in the files she can access. With some doubts remaining, we might say that what you sent her was a fake and she confirmed it. So who did forge the document? COFS 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? We don't have any evidence on that. What we do know, however, is that the CoS has been circulating that document since at least 1994 (when this was published). -- ChrisO 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to the author, exhaustive records show that the Herald’s Joseph Mallia “is either intentionally misleading his readers with patently inaccurate statements or was himself very sadly misled.”" is the caption of a thumbnail illustration showing half of two documents so small that they are utterly unreadable. They might be showing anything there, like Mallia's "documents" or anything official type looking but sure this couldn't be called a "circulation of documents". What's the document on the right? COFS 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the documents that ...are utterly unreadable. COFS, I mean no offense but, are you just looking at the thumbnail here? If so you have to click on the image to see the full size, when you do you'll notice that Hubbard's signature on both documents is quite legible. You'll also notice that the format is identical considering the thumbnail didn't get the left side or top completely. The proof is that the fields that can be seen are identical to those on the CoS DD-214. The award section is not entirely visible but as you can see in the CoS rebuttal, they claim 21 awards for Hubbard just as the CoS DD-214 form does. Including a Purple Heart with "palm", a mistake shared by the source quited online AND the document we've presented as the CoS released DD-214. (The other document in the Scientology thumbnail is probably the letter of explanation that went along with the CoS DD-214) Anynobody 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"CoS DD-214", ey? Old branding method, but anyway, no, I can't click on any image for "full size" on here. Can you? COFS 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fake DD-214 seemed to be confusing some editors, CoS DD-214 seems a bit clearer. The the full size image I was referring to is the one on this page, just a bit further down or linked here: [12] Anynobody 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Get it. Another turn in the same circle that does not solve who is spreading the forged document. See below. COFS 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CoS is still referencing the fake DD-214 + links

Searching through the CoS online biographies of our man Hubbard, I found these:a thumb of the form as seen on Ron the War hero [13] while Lt. Hubbard went on to earn 21 medals and palms for distinguished service through the war, Delmarmol went on to run that YP 422 aground on a coral reef. The CoS is still saying the fake form is accurate; I'd like to move that the RfC be closed, the page unlocked, and the sources and graphics stay. Anynobody 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Herald article the CoS is refuting: Boston Herald Scientology Unmasked 03/01/98 from www.apologeticsindex.org Anynobody 06:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent catch. I've looked at the two side-by-side, including resizing the RTWH version of the form to the size of the thumb printed in the Scientology mag. The two are identical; clearly it's the same form. I agree with your proposal. -- ChrisO 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Second

Very compelling evidence. I second Anynobody's motions. Most interesting that this fake form is still in use. Smee 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

- 3O

3O: Are we doing WP:OR when we determine which items are fake and which are real? If both are being cited as real, it would seem appropriate that both be listed with both points of view. Lsi john 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. With two sourceless forms floating around the internet and the Church using one of them as an unreadable website illustration all said is pure OR or at least a lack of WP:ATTRIB. 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you feel to have a WP:COI issue here? COFS 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Three questions here. :-) I don't believe this is OR. We're looking at two documents side by side and seeing if they're the same. That's no more OR than, for instance, looking at the cover of two editions of a book and seeing if they match or otherwise. It's trivial corroboration rather than OR. Second, neither form is "sourceless" at all. The authentic form comes from Hubbard's US Navy file (I should know, I've got the entire file and the form in question). The othe form's only known source is the Church of Scientology. Even if we don't know who created the bogus form, it's clearly distributed by the CoS. As for a COI, not really. I did a lot of research into this several years ago; I'm simply sharing my data with the rest of you. You're welcome to take it or leave it as you wish. -- ChrisO 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't looking at the documents side by side and seeing if they're the same called research? Isn't forming a conclusion that one or the other is fake, also called research? Again, I have no personal interest either way in the outcome. I'm concerned about following the rules and not deciding what is accurate or fake. Even if the correct decision is reached, it isn't our job to reach it.

I based my comment/opinion, on what appeared to be an intended use of the decision about fake/real. Not that a discussion was being had about it.Lsi john 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not WP:OR to present both sides of a controversial claim. As to authentication, it isn't just the thumbnail image but also the information described on the document in question. "Palm" is incorrect nomenclature for the oak leaf cluster unique to this fake form. If Hubbard had actually received one, the abbreviation would be "cluster". To understand further; read the Scientology website, then look at the document in question, and it should be evident that the writer is referring to the document in question. Anynobody 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I understand your concern about WP:OR, which is why I included the other pages where the contents are described. If you read it, the text is describing the DD-214 (Purple Heart with "palm", 21 medals, etc.).

As an interesting FYI, if you look at the black and white picture of the ribbon rack and medals you'll notice it contradicts the text, I theorize that the picture was of an older Scientology claim. Again this is to point out that the story has changed over time. Anynobody 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who are more visually inclined, here is a comparison:

DD-214 comparison, the image on the left is an enlargement of a thumbnail from the CoS source, the image on the right is the same DD-214 form. Since the image on the left was so small it is almost illegible, however Hubbard's signature is visible on both and I have highlighted three areas where the formatting is exactly the same, in fact the green highlight shows how info from the "awards" section is encroaching on the signature field for the officer signing it. To see it you'll need to view the whole image though.

Anynobody 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a Scientologist and do not have any idea what the specifics of this debate are. My concern, based on the comments, is that we are doing WP:OR to make a decision about which form is real and which form is fake. That is the very definition of Original Research. We must not do evaluation or confirmation about validity of facts. We must use cited material and identify its source. If someone has claimed one or the other is fake, then that can be said. As long as reliable sources make a claim, we cannot simply exclude it because we don't like it. Lsi john 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To be direct, it is not WP:OR to present both sides of a controversial claim. The COS says one thing, the Navy says something else. We are simply presenting both sides. Anynobody 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Smee 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually, that is what I suggested. Do not exclude either form as long as both are cited by reliable sources. If I misunderstood, then I apologize. It appeared that the intention was to exclude one or the other, based on wiki editor's research and opinion. If that was not the case, then I misunderstood. Lsi john 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the "something else", see my verbatim quote further up this page of the Navy's official statement on the fake DD-214. It's not us who's saying the form is fake (well, OK, it is, but it's not just us); it's the Navy as well. -- ChrisO 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, please read my text carefully. It was my impression that there was an intention to exclude one or the other based on editors' opinions of validity. If the navy has officially stated that one of the forms is fake, then by all means that should be included in the article if the illedged fake form is cited and included. If we are concluding that the Navy says its fake, simply by our observation that the navy form is different, then that would be research. Lsi john 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if that's the impression that you got, it was my understanding that we were going to post both sides (documents). If the CoS came out and said they were no longer claiming the 21 award version, I would then want to remove it. (Ditto with the Navy). Justanother and COFS wanted proof that the CoS was really saying he earned 21 awards which is what these links showed:a thumb of the form as seen on Ron the War hero [14] while Lt. Hubbard went on to earn 21 medals and palms for distinguished service through the war, Delmarmol went on to run that YP 422 aground on a coral reef. Now it seems like they want more verification of the Navy docs. Anynobody 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request unprotection?

Does anyone have a problem with me requesting unprotection? I'd like to get the new CoS sources into the article, and they were what the contention was about in the edit war. (Whether or not the CoS put out the document/info). Anynobody 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, unprotect. Just please do not think that you will continue your day trip into OR-land. --Justanother 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already said: To be direct, it is not WP:OR to present both sides of a controversial claim.. Would you explain your reason for calling it original research? Anynobody 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Please point me at the RS that shows either of those documents for a start?? --Justanother 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted them, but to make it easier for you I'll put them all together. Here is a copy of the form, I recommend opening it in a new window and referring back to it as you read the CoS pages. [15].

• Here is what the CoS says about an article the Boston Herald put out about Hubbard:[16]

[17] [18] Anynobody 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's Hubbard in uniform, wearing all six of his award ribbons: [19] Anynobody 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Actually in the photo Hubbard is wearing his six ribbons in the wrong order of precedence, see here for correct ordering: Order of precedence go from top to bottom, left to right (I realize this may be obvious to most but JIC). He's got his American campaign medal mixed up with his American Defense medal. Anynobody 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

To those who don't believe the Navy is a WP:RS, could you please explain why not? Also to those who may feel ChrisO, do you feel to have a WP:COI issue here?, if you are a Scientologist you're literally calling the kettle black. Anynobody 08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are simply repeating here an off-wiki non-notable OR piece by Chris Owen. The whole thing is a violation of WP:V to the degree that it goes so far beyond anything that shows up previously published in reliable third-party sources. All the material used here is material scanned in by unreliable people (as per wikipedia definition and that includes me) from unreliable sources (not the Navy, I mean the critic sites that store it). What if I do not believe that the copies you allege are from the Navy are true copies. Asking me and every single editor here to submit FOIA requests to verify goes beyond the requirements of WP:V. You are in OR land and the entire OR excursion and duplication of "Ron the War Hero" shall be the subject of RfC when you are done writing it. --Justanother 13:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, Chris Owen is a Wikipedia editor. He has stated for the record that he has himself requested and received the documents from the Navy. If you "do not believe that the copies you allege are from the Navy are true copies" then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your scurrilous accusation that Chris is lying to us all. I must also ask, are you advocating that you should be subjected to the same paranoid suspicion? I don't see why you should be held to a looser standard. Perhaps if you add a claim such as "L. Ron Hubbard was born in Tilden, Nebraska" and cite the New York Times as your source, the rest of us should castigate you for your OR. "Oh, sure, Justanother claims that the Times supports his claim, but how do we know that he isn't lying through his teeth about what the article actually said? Stop spreading your OR, Justanother!" Yes, there indeed might be an RFC before this is all through, but it just might be about your continuing unjustified personal attacks on the integrity of other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Owen is one of the greatest editors - possibly THE greatest - at Wikipedia. If Chris says something is true, I'm inclined to accept it, and I certainly don't believe he has any reason to falsify information. However, that doesn't mean Justanother has to agree with me, and it certainly doesn't mean he has to agree with you. If Chris Owen feels personally attacked by Justanother's wondering out loud about the verifiability of the chain of evidence, Chris Owen can speak for himself. wikipediatrix 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Get real, Antaeus. I know exactly who Chris is, of course. I am saying that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth" as in WP:V and asking that I submit a FOIA request to verify something is ridiculous and goes beyond WP:V and into WP:OR. Chris did original research and came up with his essay. The essay is non-RS, POV, and non-notable. It does not get duplicated here. And the material that he may or may not have received from the Navy is his OR source material. It is similar to interview material in that if I interview someone I could say that you could go interview them too but we surely agree that that is beyond WP:V and is WP:OR. --Justanother 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what you're basically saying is that even though ChrisO's evidence is verifiable, the fact that you would choose not to verify it allows you to make personal attacks on his integrity and openly allege that perhaps he is lying when he states quite plainly that he received it from the US Navy. I mean, when he has affirmed that yes, he received it from the Navy via a FOIA request, is there any other translation of "the material that he may or may not have received from the Navy" (emphasis added) than "I think that instead of treating ChrisO with civility, we should regard him as likely to be a liar"? Please inform me of which other editors you think that we should treat in a similar fashion; is there any reason that when you make an edit and tell us "It is supported by Source X", we should not respond by saying "Well, I haven't seen Source X, and I won't bestir myself to seek it out -- but as long as I haven't seen it, let me allege that Justanother is completely lying through his teeth about its contents"? I mean, let's talk turkey, Justanother -- you are not more trustworthy than ChrisO. In any sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please explain why any of the below are wrong as you see it:

1. Malia writes article for the Boston Herald explaining that Hubbard's command of YP-422 was not what he or the CoS claims it to be. (Not a corvette):[20]
2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards [21][22]
3. Real naval record comes out, I'm sure ChrisO can scan or show us the correspondence from the Navy: [23]. ChrisO requested this information before there was a Wikipedia, and has never been accused of falsifying information or acting in bad faith here. Why should we not WP:AGF on his part, can you show any evidence?
4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: [24].

If you refuse to accept the navy documents, maybe we ought to set up another RFC. Anynobody 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

If he gave or allowed the biographer* to use it, how is that different than him making the claim? If a biographer was going to put wrong information about me into my biography I'd want it corrected. Hubbard didn't, essentially saying that the 21 awards were his. Anynobody 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*This wasn't unauthorized either, the CoS hired him and gave him the info to use. Anynobody 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

To answer your question, I have two points:

1. Armstrong had to give the court the docs he took from the CoS as part of the ruling.
2. I do not know when the CoS hired Armstrong's replacement, what I do know is that whoever that was in 1998 wrote a rebuttal to a Boston Herald story about Hubbard's service on YP-422 citing the document as proof that said article was wrong.

I would have been surprised if Armstrong had stymied the CoS efforts to write a biography of Hubbard. Anynobody 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the first page of the rebuttal by the way: [25]
• And a bit more about who is making the claims: L. Ron Hubbard's official biographer[26]. Anynobody 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That PDF on Armstrong's site was the Church of Scientology's dubious claim [27] btw. AndroidCat 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. What a pity that the video of his subversion plans is not in better quality. A truly loyal biographer he is, proposing to fake LRHs issues. COFS 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Except this happened after Armstrong left, remember the trial was around 1984. The article I found at news.scientology.org is from March 1998. Anynobody 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Other gross errors or deception

In case I was wrong I went looking for WP:V CoS refrences about Hubbard. When I compared this version with reality the results were interesting. A comparison of a CoS site and reality...
Ron the Poet says:

Having entered the Second World War as a lieutenant (junior grade) in the United States Navy, L. Ron Hubbard spent the first months of 1942 as Senior Officer Present Ashore in Brisbane, Australia. His duties included counter-intelligence and the organization of relief for beleaguered American forces on Bataan. It was in this latter capacity that he eventually saw action on the island of Java, and only eluded capture through a daring escape on a raft. After fracturing an ankle in subsequent action, he was flown stateside (in the Secretary of the Navy’s plane no less) as the first American casualty returning from the Pacific Theater. After a short recuperative stint at the New York Cable Censor Office, he took command of an antisubmarine escort vessel with Atlantic convoys. Upon completion of seventy runs against enemy submarines, he received command of a submarine chaser in the Pacific, the sixty-man PC 815. It was aboard this vessel that he then engaged and destroyed two enemy submarines in action he would long regret:

Reality:

Having entered the Second World War as a lieutenant (junior grade) in the United States Navy, L. Ron Hubbard spent the first months of 1942 thinking he was Senior Officer Present Ashore¹ in Brisbane, Australia instead of finding transport to his original (and ordered) destination. His accomplishments were misrouting a transport and losing a submachine gun he had requisitioned while there. He never made it to nor was his original destination Java, he was sent back to the States with a less than glowing assessment of his command potential and suitability for continued work with the ONI. He was embarked on seagoing transport for his return to the states, I haven't verified this but I'm willing to bet money some guy wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack was the first casualty returned (remember Hawaii wasn't a state then). After a short stint at the New York Cable Censor Office, he took command of trawler being converted for use as a YP (Yard Patrol, yard being shipyard not convoys). Upon completion of about seventy days he was relieved and sent to sub chaser's school, he then received command of a submarine chaser in the Pacific, the fifty nine-man PC 815. It was aboard this vessel that he then engaged and destroyed a piece of driftwood as well as countless amounts of sea life during the expenditure of 37 depth charges, in action he would long regret: (¹This sounds more like a status than a position, for example when an Admiral (or General) steps ashore he would hold said status)

Anynobody 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(from about L Ron Huubbard.org and scientology.org)

At the outbreak of World War II, Mr. Hubbard was commissioned as a lieutenant (junior grade) in the US Navy and served as a commander of corvettes. He saw action in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and thoroughly distinguished himself in the eyes of those who served beneath him. Yet he was not a man who enjoyed war, and having seen enough killing to last him a lifetime–and the effects of that bloodshed on men’s sanity–he vowed to redouble his efforts to create a saner world. With this same sense of compassion, he also did all he could to safeguard his crews, prompting one of his men to write:

Prior to the outbreak of World War II, Mr. Hubbard was commissioned as a lieutenant (junior grade) in the US Navy. He saw no action in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and was relieved of a command in each theater.Yet he was not a man who experienced war, and having imagined enough killing to last him a lifetime, he vowed to redouble his efforts to create a saner world. With this same sense of compassion, he also did all he could to "teach" his crews, and cite their inexperience as reason to not return one day after an excercise off San Diego:

The CoS appears to contradict itself a bit here:

• Attack on Pearl Harbor 07 December 1941

December 1941 - around March 1942: Senior Officer Ashore, Australia/action in Java. Returned via SecNAV's plane
December 1941 - ?: Commanded corvette squadron escorting North Atlantic convoys.
Anynobody 06:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about Java is interesting, because I can say exactly where that claim came from. It's from the testimony of Thomas Moulton, Hubbard's second-in-command aboard the USS PC-815, in the 1984 court case Church of Scientology of California vs. Gerald Armstrong. Moulton said that Hubbard had made the claim while they were in training together in a naval training class in Miami. Here's the relevant passage from the transcript:

Q. Did he describe the circumstances under which he was injured by the Japanese machine gun?

A. Yes, in some detail; not entirely.

Q. What did he tell you?

A. That he had been in Soerabaja at the time the Japanese came in or in the area of Soerabaja and that he had spent some time in the hills in back of Soerabaja after the Japanese had occupied it.

Q. Now, Soerabaja was where, sir?

A. That is a port on the north part of Java in the Dutch East Indies.

Q. So you understood from Captain Hubbard that he had been in Java fighting the Japanese and was hit by machine gun fire?

A. Not quite as you put it. He had been landed, so he told me, in Java from a destroyer named the Edsel and had made his way across the land to Soerabaja, and that is when the place was occupied. When the Japanese came in, he took off into the hills and lived up in the jungle for some time until he made an escape from there. ...

Q. And did he tell you how long he remained hiding in the hills with these machine gun wounds before he was removed from the combat area?

A. I know that he told me he had made his escape eventually to Australia. I don't know just when it was. He apparently - he and another chap - sailed a life raft, I believe, to near Australia where they were picked up by a British or Australian destroyer.

This is particularly interesting, as it illustrates the CoS's "research" method: it assumes as fact everything that Hubbard says, and doesn't bother to check whether his claims are supported or indeed refuted by other evidence, as in this case. -- ChrisO 11:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot he was supposedly machine-gunned too, I was having trouble buying the whole "stood too close to a large caliber gun and suffered eye injury" but how could anyone believe he was machine gunned in the back. I wonder if he ever had a picture taken of himself in a bathing suit from behind, bullet wounds tend to leave nasty scars. Anynobody 23:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, neither his VA medical records nor his post-mortem found any evidence of bullet wounds. -- ChrisO 10:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

His version of events sounds like what the soldier described in this quote from Patton:

Thirty years from now, when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, "What did you do in the great World War II," you won't have to say, "Well... I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

...ould say to anyone who asked about his wartime service. I realize Hubbard did a helluva lot better than manual fecal waste disposal, what he did do was really not something to be bragged about. Even the bright parts of his career; the work sorting photos he did, and the absence so far of negative incidents acting as a censor are rendered almost patronizing when described to counter any number of his "uh-oh"s.

People tend to have trouble keeping track of such lies over a long period of time, and the lie tends to change with each retelling to fit the situation whereas the truth usually remains constant enough to keep a logical chronology possible. Eventually we end up with either an uber-man who was in two places at once or a mediocre officer who lucked out by having a good recommendation and interview. It's interesting to note that somewhere in the documents the officer who interviewed Hubbard states that he DOESN'T meet academic standards (his grades) but got in by virtue of his experience abroad (or something like it). Anynobody 11:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marriage and divorce dates

The article previously contained exact dates cited to reliable sources for Hubbard's marriage to Sara Northrup and divorce from Margaret Grubb. I'm assuming there are no objections to restoring this information when protection is lifted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Anynobody 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you missing? All three marriages and divorces are in the article with proper sources. CSI LA 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refresh your cache and look at the article again. The dates of Hubbard's marriage to Sara Northrup and his divorce from Margaret Grubb were in the article attributed to reliable sources, but they are not there now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bigamists Category

Category:Bigamists should be removed. There is no mention of being convicted of bigamy in the article, which is a requirement for the category. -SESmith 05:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are married while already married this is called bigamy. It is an English word, in the dictionary. One need not be convicted to be a bigamist. This is BIG of ME to explain this to youColScott 05:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Har, har, har, but No. Go to the category and read the definition. (We've been through this a million times on the Bigamy/Polygamy category discussions.) It is now agreed (finally) that no one is to be included in this category unless they have a criminal conviction for the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, unlawful cohabitation, or whatever. The cat. is NOT being applied to anyone who had more than one spouse at once, even if they admitted that this was the case. The category should be removed in this article, unless someone can provide a reference for a criminal conviction. -SESmith 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point SESmith, were there a lot of articles like this one in the category? If so would a subcategory called suspected bigamists be appropriate for them? Anynobody 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot where it was clear they had more than one spouse but were never convicted. Mostly early Mormon leaders like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. If you want to make a category like that you'll have a fight with the Mormons on your hands, and I don't have the energy anymore to push for it--though I'd support anyone else who tried. If we can't put Brigham Young in the category I don't think L. Ron should be in it either. :) -SESmith 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No conviction, but it might be mentioned in the papers of the legal proceedings of his first and second divorces. AndroidCat 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is so mentioned, but it plainly isn't a conviction and LRH can't be included in the "convicted bigamists" hall of shame. The category should be removed from this article. BTW, SESmith, I'd advise you to rename the category to "Convicted bigamists" to ensure that you don't get this sort of confusion in the future. -- ChrisO 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. -SESmith 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you need a hand with changing the category name, I'm happy to use my Admin-Fu™ to expedite the change. Just let me know if you need this. -- ChrisO 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good idea, if you need any opinions for a request for change I'll say the same there. Anynobody 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

now can I make a motion for a category called "Lunatic Religious Leaders who disrespected Matrimony" so we can take care of these other cases?ColScott 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline and sources of the documents

There appears to be some confusion about the documents in question and where they came from. One is a version the CoS claimed was Hubbard's record. The other is a version from the U.S. Navy documenting his record. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The fake/CoS DD-214

March 1, 1998 the Boston Herald publishes this series of articles, Inside the Church of Scientology. In one article the Herald points out that L. Ron Hubbard did not hunt u-boats in the North Atlantic during WW II: The Herald charges for archives. Here are two other sources to see the article: [28] Boston Herald Scientology Unmasked 03/01/98 from www.apologeticsindex.org After March 1, 1998 the CoS' official biographer claims L. Ron Hubbard earned 21 medals including a Purple Heart with "palm". As I've stated above "palm" is incorrect, the term is cluster. [29] [30] [31] [32] Prior to that time this DD-214 had also been circulated by the CoS since at least 1985. [33] In their rebuttal of the Herald article, the CoS included a picture of the documents they referred to, a comparison of this picture compared with the previous image show them to be identical in appearence. The rebuttal also mentions the "palm" claim just as the inaccurate DD-214 does as well. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to ask -- the "official biographer" keeps howling about his status as the "official biographer" of Hubbard, how could anyone be so unprofessional as to say anything about Hubbard without asking the "official biographer" -- does anyone know who this person is? I mean, seriously, it's written in the format of an open letter to Joseph Mallia and/or the editor but it's an open letter whose sender never reveals his own name. Prior to reading this, the only "official biographer" of Hubbard I knew about was Omar Garrison, whom the CoS ended up paying not to write an accurate biography of Hubbard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving off the obvious jibes about Googling (in light of your recent remarks on AN/I about how I missed the obvious); here is what I found when I googled. Gray-haired guy on the right. Dan Sherman. The link is just more evidence that Scienology is unwelcome, hated, and reviled everywhere it shows up. --Justanother 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

*tweet* Clumsy introduction of non-sequitur straw man; 15 yards penalty. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Google jibes, but I think Justanother is right about Dan Sherman. Here are a couple of examples of his "research":

Freedom magazine UK
Sherman concluded the anecdote by putting it in perspective. “The real point of these pages does not lie with his seventy-two depth-charge runs, the slivers of shrapnel he took in the chest or his molding of a criminal crew into sailors described as the finest in the fleet,” he said. “The real point of these years lies in how he viewed this war, and what that view tells us about him.”
Sunday Herald
Such as? He tells me about a former CIA recruiter he met in Washington DC who claimed he saw Hubbard coming out of a restricted area of the Pentagon sometime in the 1950s. Hubbard, says Keenan, was working for US naval intelligence. "When we talk about Hubbard's history the first thing people say is, where's the evidence?' Well we've got the evidence. I've got rooms bigger than this, full of evidence of what Hubbard was doing, including his wartime history, what he was doing in Australia with naval intelligence, what he was doing up in Alaska when he was chasing a spy up there who J Edgar Hoover was looking for."

As for the discrepancies in Hubbard's war record - most biographers claim he never saw active service with the US navy, was twice relieved of command and once shot up Mexico by mistake - Keenan has his own explanation. "I have in my possession five different records issued by five different departments in the military that say five different things about his war record. Not written by him or by us but by different departments."

And the reason? "Sheep dipping." Excuse me? "Sheep dipping. It's a standard intelligence procedure - you create several records for someone so that you can't get the clear picture. Hubbard used to say, I always told the lesser tale because I don't think a lot of people would believe me.'"

I wonder why he didn't identify himself in the open letter he wrote. Anynobody 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The real/Navy DD-214

I thought was obtained for the Armstrong trial, when I find out more I'll post it here. Unless anyone else knows of course. Anynobody 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Checkuser reveals COFS is also and CSI LA both edit from C OF S or CSI LA computers - Wow!

I had suspicions about these accounts when CSI LA first began editing when COFS was blocked earlier this month. When CSI LA returned after COFS was recently blocked again I decided to submit a checkuser request and it was confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS.

What does everyone want to do about this? Anynobody 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like the community already blocked both accounts. (The checkuser procedure said that I'd have to request action, which is why I posted since I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this before requesting action.) Anynobody 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that it is an error and they will both be back soon. --Justanother 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he isn't the first to say that:Sockpuppeteers dispute the results all the time; that doesn't change the fact that they did it. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) source Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 2#Doubt about the efficacy of Checkuser. Anynobody 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And throwing cliched phases around does not prove a thing either. Won't be the first time I've seen an error here. --Justanother 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Would you please get a diff or two for us to look at? Anynobody 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, whole lot of nothing. --Justanother 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

bot for auto archive?

This page is again getting huge, I was thinking of setting up a bot to archive the older stuff for us. So far MiszaBot III has worked for my talk page, but I am open to other suggested bots. Here are the perameters I suggest, these are also up for discussion:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}} 

Anynobody 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's Going On Here??

Since its a locked, controversial page, is this material worth reading? Gautam ^Discuss 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the most part it is, the page is locked because several members of the CoS refuse to accept that accounts of their founder are not all positive nor do they accept that he might have embellished his past. Anynobody 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gautam ^Discuss, the page was locked because one of the anti-Scientology group on Wikipedia asked for it after some other editor ran out of arguments (see in the history of this talk page where you find a relatively childish exchange of arguments on some stupid medals) for his unsourced changes. Otherwise, yes, this article is quite readable as L. Ron Hubbard was a remarkable man, knowing life from top to bottom and back. Enjoy! Makoshack 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A Heads-Up to All Independent and Critical Thinkers!

Should you unfortunately find yourself in a "debate" with a real CoS member, I would like you to know that they are actually trained to never, ever concede anything. They are actually trained to never give one small iota. They are trained in ways to evade logic, in ways to twist it on you. The minute you say anything the least bit negative concerning any aspect of the CoS you are not only persona non grata to them, but you could very well be considered an SP, or suppresive person. Either way, you will not gain any headway. I tell you this because I value independent, logical thought and I want those who value it as well to be prepared.

John 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I knew that there was something wrong with those Critics of Scientology (CoS) and you really nailed that down. Makoshack 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Very funny, Makoshack, and thank you for proving my point. John 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you.

• Thank you, this may explain a great deal of past behaviour patterns and methodologies. Most intriguing. Fascinating... Smee 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Just a Quicky

In the Ritual Magic section the last paragraph is basically a repeat of the parragraph before. It even repeats the same quote about 2 sentences after it has already been used. Could some clever person sort this out please?

Thanks

CaptinJohn 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, when the page is unlocked I'll take care of it and a few other minor errors. I apologize for the rough edges, the page was locked while undergoing changes. Anynobody 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Anynobody 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Hi all. I've just received a request to unprotect this page and, seeing as it's been almost three weeks now, I'm about to do so. However, have you come to some kinda consensus on this whole DD-214 controversy? I'm not entirely certain from reading the responsese here - Alison ☺ 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alison ☺, no further discussion has been made about it. I think those opposed to it are avoiding the discussion, though perhaps they are conducting research. Anynobody 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have pretty much run the course. I'm happy to unprotect the page myself. -- ChrisO 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the dispute was that the scientologists didn't believe that scientology was distributing the bogus DD124, and considered this unsourced. That kindof quited down when a scientology website was shown that had the form. --Tilman 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Ok - Chris has just unprotected it - Alison ☺ 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was really decided; we just kinda moved off to other areas. We can take it up again. --Justanother 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

...and should. Anynobody/ChrisO was friendly enough to pump his lie in the article, i.e. that "the Church" would circulate a fake DD-214 form but he could never prove that in a really looong discussion. ChrisO, you got almost two months now to come up with evidence. Did you? COFS 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• COFS, I am sorry but your perceptions are incorrect. User:Anynobody has deftly provided detailed rationale for this above. Smee 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

I've been told before that we can't use holysmoke.org as a reference, especially a holysmoke.org page that simply cuts and pastes an email or a usenet post - so can we or can we not, folks? My concern here is that the article is showing rather naked glee in exposing Hubbard's inconsistencies, and doesn't seem like something one would see in a real encyclopedia. I don't question that Hubbard lied about his military service (so did my Uncle Ned) but do we really need to devote such a huge section of it, complete with two huge images keeping a snarky tally? I think Hubbard's false claim of being a nuclear physicist is far more important to the subject but it only gets a scant sentence. wikipediatrix 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely we do, and I'll explain why. Hubbard's claims are either major errors on his part or lies, either way they serve to paint a portrait of the man inconsistent with reality claiming honors he did not earn. This DD-214 is pretty mild compared to some of his previous claims where he insists being awarded a Navy Commendation Medal or a defense medal one had to be on active duty in 1953 to receive.

I'd have no issue with his service if he hadn't told so many stories. I'm not intentionally giving a negative view of a his service to dishonor/discredit him for that sole purpose. He either discredited himself with a bad memory or dishonored himself by knowingly making claims of valor and service based on fiction. Anynobody 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying we need to keep it in perspective. Just because Hubbard lied about practically everything in his life - and he did - doesn't mean this article should feel obligated to spend so much effort dissecting and debunking them. There are plenty of sites on the web that do that just fine. There comes a point when debunking Hubbard becomes the real subject of the article, and I think we've passed that point. And I still think the tally images are gratuitous. wikipediatrix 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the point of the dissection is accuracy and some of the sites you mention go beyond debunking and make mistakes of their own while trying to show him in the least favorable light they can.

The graphics are the result of a conversation I had in real life where the other person wondered what his ribbon rack would look like relative to his various claims. Gratuitous would be including the other one I made from his earlier claims. Anynobody 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoring a complete chronology

It seems that anything about Hubbard's family life prior to his marriage to Mary Sue Whipp, and anything about his association with Jack Parsons, has been excised from the chronological account with which the article starts, and relegated solely to the "Controversial episodes" section. Obviously a reader would have no way of knowing that important parts of Hubbard's life story are being omitted from what appears to be a chronological account; the absence of these . This material needs to be restored to its correct chronological order, especially since much less significant episodes such as Hubbard's service in the Metropolitan Detective Agency, about which we have no non-self-published sources, are being included. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a radical idea. The circumstances of this article make me think we should explore a WP:BOLD employment of WP:IAR and create two sections for each topic. One for text from CoS sources and the other from non-CoS WP:ATT¹ sources. The two versions are so opposed that they are the literary equivalent of a person arguing with voices in their head.

I'm not saying it should be worded like my deconstruction of the CoS sources above. the idea would be to allow each side to have their say. The CoS is REALLY trying to get their side of the story heard, as long as the source of it's information is known (citeable to a CoS source we can all verify), we can preface it as their view. The other side could be prefaced too, but how to word it is eluding me so I'd appreciate suggestions.

Integrating the CoS sources with those of the Navy, Time, etc. in the ratio the pro-CoS want would make the article unreadable. Unless we're saying their view is irrelevant? (This isn't like one of the CoS accusation of persecution questions. I'd really like to know just how far we'll go to accommodate the subject's perspective. (¹ I mean it to include WP:V,WP:RS, and no WP:OR.) Anynobody 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm intrigued by the idea of presenting a two-lobed article that has both the CoS view as well as the opposing view, I still have the usual problem that I have with most CoS articles: the truth generally lies somewhere between the two extremes that usually play tug-of-war over these articles every day. Still, it might be interesting as an experiment.... wikipediatrix 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the anti-CoS side can go too far at times, and I'd like to keep that from happening. I can say I'll do my best on the military section but on many aspects of his life my expertise is almost nonexistent. Anynobody 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Two subsections for parallel history is a great idea...

...but these should be arranged so that they are side-by-side, either with columns coding, {{Multicol}}, {{Multicol-break}}, {{Multicol-end}}, or something similar to that... Smee 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Great idea. Smee 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I really can't say that I'm comfortable with this idea. It may be possible to do something like this on some aspects of the article, but on most of them, it seems it would equate to undue weight: giving self-published sources equal footing with reliable sources. When the Church of Scientology says "Hubbard earned 21 medals and decorations from the U.S. Navy" and the Navy itself is saying "No, he didn't, he only earned these four", how can we give those equal footing without violating NPOV? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A good point. Perhaps the side-by-side idea in this case would only be useful within certain subsections, obviously not the entire artice at that. Smee 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Maybe we can come up with a couple of trial versions of a couple of articles done this way, perhaps stored on the Project area for now? wikipediatrix 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not aware of any off the top of my head, perhaps others are. But further thinking, perhaps the side-by-side could be done albeit briefly in a bulletted format. Smee 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Not aware of any what? I'm suggesting we create a couple of trial articles in the suggested new format, but store them in the Project area before making them official, so editors can discuss. wikipediatrix 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Smee 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Changed my mind

After adding in the three CoS sources I discussed above they were easily worked in toward the end of the official account. No matter how we do this Hubbard is going to come off looking like a liar. It would be like trying to make Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin look like anything other than the murderers they were. (I'm not saying Hubbard is anywhere near their level, just that some people have left a very strong impression of who they were both in what they did and said.) Anynobody 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two sided experiment

How should we handle the CoS self contradictions I pointed out above? I was all set to make a page in my user space then realized this is an important question. Anynobody 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you create the article in your user space, and then we can discuss these issues further on the talk page of that user space sub-page, so as to not clutter it up here... Smee 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Ordinarily I'd agree, but the contradictory CoS sources will need to be resolved either way so we should probably discuss that aspect here. Anynobody 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you would have 2 sides, one for "CoS sources", and the other for something along the lines of "secondary sourcs and government sources". But in instances in which CoS conflicts with other CoS statements, you could simply make use of the second column, and just make a special note of this. Smee 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

If two CoS statements contradict each other, I'd go with the more recent of the two. Unless the second one recently contradicts something that had been in place since, say, 1950, then that should be noted also. wikipediatrix 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless the contradiction is something notable and glaringly questionable, that sounds about right. Smee 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

That would be ok, except in this case the CoS has him in two places at the same time and I'm not sure which claim is older. In one he's off to escort convoys as commander of corvettes after the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the other he's being Senior Office Present Ashore in Australia. Anynobody 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This would go completely against WP:NPOV; we don't present contrasting sympathetic and critical viewpoints in separate sections. As WP:NPOV says, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. I've seen this tried before and not only has it not worked, it's failed so badly that WP:NPOV was specifically written to exclude this way of dealing with controversial questions. We need to integrate the two points of view into a single narrative, not present two contrasting narratives. -- ChrisO 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ron the Rent a Cop

I just realized that the article states that Hubbard was a Special Officer for the Los Angeles Police Department in 1948, but the only two sources the article gives for this are from Scientology's own Hubbard website. Do we have any other evidence that he was a rent-a-cop besides this single primary source? Incidentally, we do know that Hubbard was arrested in California in 1948 for petty theft - see here. wikipediatrix 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually did know about his run ins with the law, but he wasn't a cop. (I don't think the church forged this ID, but I do think they're trying to make more out of it than appropriate.) He worked for a private detective agency as a security guard. To do that he had to be issued a license by the LAPD. I could see a petty theft collar, maybe even in a different part of LA being missed in circa 1948 law enforcement. Anynobody 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This Scientology shill site puts quite a spin on it: "In 1947-1948 Hubbard served as a Special Police Officer with the L.A. Police Department which gave him the opportunity to study the criminal mind. This led to the development of Criminon..." wikipediatrix 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Why is information about Hubbards conviction stealing from the church missing?

As above Chrisp7 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work it in if you'd show me where I can find sources that satisfy the three components of WP:ATT. Anynobody

cancellation of fair game

The sentence stating "Fair game was cancelled" is inaccurate and presents a biased conclusion unwarranted by further developments. The Hubbard quote makes it clear that it is only the use of the term that was cancelled and not the practice. Actually information that the church later admitted that the practice had continued and tried to present it as a core religious practice is missing. At least to begin, a more neutral "In 1968, L. Ron Hubbard stated..." is in order.--Leocomix 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Leocomix has a point, I reworded the sentence. Anynobody 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See Fair Game (Scientology). We should ensure that this article is consistent with that one. -- ChrisO 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Questionable sources on aviator claims

There was a statement added: After the University episode Hubbard works as a writer, aviator and heads further sailing expeditions which is referenced with some scanned images from 1930s era magazines. They don't look verifiable and their reliability concerns me too. I didn't remove it, but rather added includeonly commands around it. Anynobody 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate enough, but badly worded. I'll see what I can do with it. -- ChrisO 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Accurate enough? Hmmmm... for some reason I highly doubt that...John 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ugly ugly ugly

This image of two "artistic renditions" of Hubbard is highly problematic...... On the one hand, they make him look even more unattractive than he was in life (if that's conceivable), and one could see how an "artistic rendition" could contain POV when it seems deliberately trying to make him as ugly and unattractive as possible. On the other hand, to dispel such an accusation, one would have to acknowledge that these images are directly mimicking copyrighted photographs (and they are), And that is, in itself, just as much a copyright violation as if we'd used the photo. In fact, a copyright lawyer would probably say this is even worse because of its distortion and its unflattering use. wikipediatrix 03:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the third hand representing copyright. I'm not wild about the picture either, did any of his books show his picture on the cover? If we mention the book, using the cover would probably be solid fair use. Anynobody 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea... He's pictured on the front of "Notes on the Lectures".... wikipediatrix 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is strange. I've seen photos of L. Ron in numerous places, why have they been removed?John 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• After the whole YTMND thing, and the cease and desist letters they sent out to a site that was clearly a fair use parody, I'd imagine the CoS thinks it owns 99.9999999999999999% of images/media/audio/video/paper/air etc. relating to Hubbard... Smee 05:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

WP:LEAD

I'm conflicted on this issue. The guideline says the article is long enough to warrant a longer lead, but I'm not sure if we should make it as long as it could be since it would be a very repetitive series of Hubbard said this, the evidence says that. What should we do? Anynobody 06:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The lead should be four good paragraphs, especially for an article of this size. Something like early life and military/writing, developing Scientology/Dianetics, legal difficulties/marriages, etc., and later life. Smee 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Hopefully, if any of the major glaring problems I've pointed out are taken care of, this article will soon be a LOT shorter, so it's a moot point. wikipediatrix 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary

As per my concerns stated here, Here's just some of the text from the article which I regard as either being unnecessarily long, or just plain unnecessary. Note we have enough material about his war "career" here to start an article of its own!

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,[5] with editions of the biographical account published over the years differing from each other as new information came to light proving some claims to be inaccurate and many more false. Biographies of Hubbard by independent journalists and accounts by former Scientologists paint a much less flattering, and often sinister, picture of Hubbard. In many cases they contradict the material presented by the Church.

Contemporary records do not record the existence of "Old Tom". The white Blackfeet historian Hugh Dempsey has commented that the act of blood brotherhood was "never done among the Blackfeet", and Blackfeet Nation officials have disavowed attempts to "re-establish" Hubbard as a "blood brother" of the Blackfeet.

Critics have questioned many of the claims that Hubbard and the Church of Scientology later made about his university years. According to the Church's official account,

In 1941 L. Ron Hubbard followed in his father's footsteps and was commissioned as a Lieutenant, Junior Grade in the United States Navy after one of his professors recommended him for service in intelligence and a successful interview with the Office of Naval Intelligence. The position offered Hubbard the chance at a distinguished career, as intelligence officers were badly needed. It also allowed him to skip the initial officer rank of Ensign. After Pearl Harbor he received orders deploying him to the Philippines,[43] specifically Manila. While embarked on the SS President Polk Japanese forces cut off the sea route to the Philippines, diverting the ship to Brisbane, Australia. Upon arrival Hubbard asked the Naval Attaché if he could leave the Polk in order to secure faster transport to the Philippines. He was unable to locate other transport, and instead began working as a sort of liaison for a deployed Army unit. This duty had not been ordered and he made himself somewhat of a nuisance by working outside the established chain of command. He was then sent back to the United States, with a note stating: "This officer is not satisfactory for independent duty assignment. ... and will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any intelligence duty."[44][45] One Scientology website describes his position in Australia as "Senior Officer Present Ashore",[46] which is not the type of duty ONI officers would have been performing. Nevertheless this part of the CoS maintains he was wounded in action on the Island of Java, and returned on the Secretary of the Navy's airplane to the US as the first "returned" casualty from the Pacific. Other church sources state that during this time he was leading a squadron of corvettes in the North Atlantic.[47][48]

The situation cost him an opportunity to work as a Naval Intelligence officer, and he was subsequently made prospective Commanding Officer of USS YP-422. A fishing trawler undergoing conversion into a shipyard patrol vessel at the Boston Naval Shipyard, it had been called Mist by its civilian owners. Shortly after arrival a personality dispute there evolved into a situation which Lt. Hubbard did not feel was handled properly by the Commandant of the shipyard. Ignoring the chain of command, he then spoke with the Commandant's C.O. the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Subsequently the Commandant requested Hubbard be relieved of command noting he is: "...not temperamentally fitted for independent command."[49][1] He then repeated his mistake, and asked again for the intervention of the Vice Chief's office. The second request was not acted upon either.[50]These statements are in stark contrast with official Scientologist literature, which often portrays Hubbard as a role model sailor during the war.[28][51][52]

Being relieved of command, he was briefly sent back to the Bureau of Personnel for reassignment. After requesting training in the operation and command of PC class submarine chasers[53] he reported to a naval school in Florida. There he was trained in anti-submarine warfare, and graduated in the bottom half of his class. He was then assigned as prospective Commanding Officer of the USS PC-815. The vessel was in the last stages of construction, near Astoria, Oregon. His first duties were supervising her fitting out, training of the crew, and finally deployment to San Diego, California, her assigned port.

In the early hours of May 19, 1943, the crew of the PC-815 detected what Hubbard evaluated as first one then later two Imperial Japanese Navy submarines approximately 10 miles from the shore of Cape Lookout. Lt. Hubbard, his Executive Officer, Lt. Moulton, and the SONAR operator, all trained in the use of the equipment, evaluated the echo of an active sonar ping, combined with apparent propeller noises ("screws") heard through the ship's hydrophone as indicating contact with a submarine.[54]

Over the next two and a half days, the ship expended 37 depth charges and saw none of the telltale signs of a sunken submarine. Hubbard did identify "orange" oil "erupting" to the surface at one point, however the color and lack of other debris consistent with a pressure hull compromised submarine were not seen. The US Navy blimps K-39 and K-33, the US Coast Guard patrol boats Bonham and 78302, and the subchasers USS SC-536 and USS SC-537, were all summoned to act as reinforcements, and, according to Hubbard's battle report, placed under his command. On May 21, with depth charges exhausted and the presence of a submarine still unconfirmed by any other ship, the PC-815 was ordered back to Astoria.[55]

In his eighteen page after-action report, Hubbard claimed to have "definitely sunk, beyond doubt" one submarine and critically damaged another. However, the subsequent investigation by the Commander NW Sea Frontier, Vice Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, cast a skeptical light on Hubbard's claims. His summary memorandum to Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, stated:

'It is noted that the report of PC 815 is not in accordance with "Anti-Submarine Action by Surface Ship" (ASW-1) which should be submitted to Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet.[56] An analysis of all reports convinces me that there was no submarine in the area. Lieutenant Commander Sullivan states that he was unable to obtain any evidence of a submarine except one bubble of air which is unexplained except by turbulence of water due to a depth charge explosion. The Commanding Officers of all ships except the PC-815 state they had no evidence of a submarine and do not think a submarine was in the area.'[57] Fletcher added that "there is a known magnetic deposit in the area in which depth charges were dropped", as the responding blimps were equipped with a Magnetic Anomaly Detector for submarine detection and had registered an undetermined anomaly. It should be noted that the Imperial Japanese Navy did not operate its submarines near the West Coast on a regular basis. They were criticized by their German allies for not pursuing a policy of commerce raiding, which would target cargo ships and oil tankers, rather than adhering to their practice of fleet warfare which caused them to attack only large warships and aircraft carriers. Japanese submarines were in fact so dedicated to attacking warships instead of merchant vessels, that the shipping lanes in the Pacific did not use the convoy system necessitated in the Atlantic caused by u-boats.[58] After the war, British and American analysis of captured Japanese Navy records further confirmed that no Japanese submarines had been lost off the Oregon coast.[59] Hubbard, however, continued to claim that he had engaged the enemy, as did his Executive Office, Lt. Moulton, in later testimony. Years later, Hubbard told Scientologists:

I dropped the I-76 or the Imperial Japanese Navy Trans-Pacific Submarine down into the mouth of the Columbia River, dead duck. And it went down with a resounding furor. And that was that. I never thought about it again particularly except to get mad at all the admirals I had to make reports to because of this thing, see? This was one out of seventy-nine separate actions that I had to do with. And it had no significance, see? But the other day I was kind of tired, and my dad suddenly sprung on me the fact that my submarine had been causing a tremendous amount of difficulty in the mouth of the Columbia River. Hadn't thought about this thing for years. Of course, it's all shot to ribbons, this thing. It's got jagged steel sticking out at all ends and angles, and it's a big submarine! It's a -- I don't know, about the size of the first Narwhal that we built. And the fishermen coming in there and fishing are dragging their nets around in that area, and it's just tearing their nets to ribbons -- they've even hired a civilian contractor to try to blow the thing up and get it the devil out of there -- and has evidently been raising bob with postwar fishing here for more years than I'd care to count.[60]

A month later, the PC-815 was assigned to guard the new escort aircraft carrier USS Croatan (CVE-25) as it proceeded to San Diego, which would also become home port for PC-815. She arrived there on June 2, 1943 and at the end of the month was ordered to participate in an anti-submarine training exercise. Held on June 28, the exercise ended early and Hubbard took the apparent opportunity to order an impromptu gunnery exercise. Compounding what would later be revealed a huge blunder, was his choice to do this while anchored just off the Mexican territory of South Coronado Island. He would come to regret this decision as his orders included no mention of gunnery practice, staying at sea, or anchoring in Mexican waters. PC-815 was expected that evening in San Diego, according to his orders. The Mexican government also sent an official protest to the US Navy, as no gunnery operations had been authorized. Evidently Hubbard had seen two USMC F4F fighters bombing a set up practice target and assumed he would also be allowed to make use of it, which was incorrect.

On June 30 a Board of Investigation was convened concerning PC-815 which concluded that Hubbard had disregarded orders, by conducting gunnery practice, failing to return when expected, and by anchoring in Mexican territorial waters without proper authority. His orders stated that the PC-815 was supposed to return after completing that days training exercises, regardless of how early they ended. Hubbard argued that his crew was inexperienced, it was foggy, and he was tired so he was unable to follow his orders and return that evening. A month earlier in his after action report concerning the submarine fiasco off Cape Lookout, he had described the same men as "experienced" and "highly skilled"[61] Vice Admiral Fletcher, who both chaired the board and read the prior month's after action report, rated Hubbard "below average". His fitness report by Admiral Braisted noted:

Consider this officer lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation. He acts without forethought as to probable results. He is believed to have been sincere in his efforts to make his ship efficient and ready. Not considered qualified for command or promotion at this time. Recommend duty on a large vessel where he can be properly supervised.[62]

Hubbard was relieved of command effective July 7, 1943 and given a letter of admonition.[63][64][1] This is essentially the opposite of a letter of commendation, something he would later claim among other honors in a forged release form years later.

USS Algol (AKA-54) circa 1944This time his new post appears to have been decided after taking into account the advice of Admiral Fletcher as well as the previous officers, by placing him as a subordinate rather than commanding officer. His final ship was the attack transport USS Algol (AKA-54),[65] where he served as the Navigation, Training officer, and Ship's censor until a bizarre security incident caused yet another transfer. Lt. Hubbard said he had found a firebomb he believed a saboteur had placed in one of the ship's holds, consisting of a coke bottle filled with gasoline and topped with a cloth wick. The circumstances surrounding the apparent discovery of this sabotage attempt, by the ship's navigation officer aroused suspicion enough that he was removed soon after. This was an unfortunate turn for Lt. Hubbard, as his C.O. had given him a mostly positive fitness report with the only issue being a tendency to be temperamental and easily offended.

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 while still in the hospital.[66] He continued to draw disability pay for arthritis, his ulcer, and conjunctivitis for years afterwards,[67][68][69][70] long after he claimed to have discovered the secret of how to cure these ailments. About the time of his discharge, Hubbard was petitioning the Veterans Administration for psychiatric care to treat "long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations." He was also arrested for petty theft in connection with checks. When he wrote to the FBI that communist spies were after him, an agent attached a note to one of his letters: "Make 'appears mental' card."[71]

Hubbard's claimed awards per his fake DD-214. Note that he refers to the Oak Leaf Cluster of his Purple Heart as a "palm". Also several claimed Service stars for his campaign awards.In later years, Hubbard made a number of claims about his military record that do not reconcile with the government's documentation of his service years.[72] For example, Hubbard claimed he had sustained wounds "in combat on the island of Java",[73] but his service record offers no indication he came anywhere near Java, and places him in New York on the day (7 December 1941, the day of the attack on Pearl Harbor) he was supposedly landed on Java by a naval destroyer.[1] He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards,[28] including a Purple Heart[28] and a "Unit Citation".[72] The Church of Scientology has circulated a US Navy notice of separation (a form numbered DD214, completed on leaving active duty) as evidence of Hubbard's wartime service. However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record.[28] The Scientology version, signed by a nonexistent Lt. Cmdr. Howard D. Thompson, shows Hubbard being awarded medals that do not exist, boasts academic qualifications Hubbard did not earn, and places Hubbard in command of vessels not in the service of the US Navy. The Navy has noted "several inconsistencies exist between Mr. Hubbard's DD214 [the Scientology version] and the available facts".[74][75]

And once the article reaches its "Biographical controversies", it's really hurtling out of control, so I'd literally be cut and pasting the entire article from that point on, so I'll spare ourselves that here.... Hubbard's drug use! Hubbard said "chink" in 1928! Angry ex-wives! Allegations of sex magick! "International opinions"! (why??) "Legitimacy of Scientology as a religion" (why here??) wikipediatrix 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we also trim the questionable claims made in Hubbard biography versions from the Church of Scientology? I mean, we could drop the blood brother entirely, but it's in all the CoS bios, so it would be strange not to have it. AndroidCat 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're saying that this article has some sort of obligation to counter every wacky claim made by the CoS bios. I don't think it does. In fact, it would be best to minimalize and trivialize the CoS bios by simply reporting the facts and ignoring the hype. We needn't deconstruct the hype. wikipediatrix 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix could you create a version of what you believe the article should be in your user space? It sounds to me like you're saying the article should be gutted. Anynobody 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm saying. If you don't agree with me that the examples I already cited above are obviously ridiculously long (like the war bit), obviously ridiculously trivial (like Hubbard saying "chink" in 1928), obviously ridiculously biased (like the gleeful tally images) and obviously ridiculously off-topic (like the essay on "Legitimacy of Scientology as a religion"), then going to the trouble of creating my own "test version" isn't likely to change anyone's mind. wikipediatrix 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize it looks like debunking, but when the subject gives an account of his life which differs at almost every turn, from easily obtainable records the subjects claims must be addressed. Are you saying we should ignore verifiable evidence or Hubbard's claims?

Again I ask, can you create an example of what you think the article should be?

Truth	Hubbard's view	What we say
Boy Scouts don't keep track of the age a scout makes Eagle.	He was the youngest scout to achieve Eagle.	Explain both sides
Wasted 37 depth charges and later relieved	Wounded in Java and sunk two Japanese submarines	Explain both sides
Flunked a course in nuclear science	A nuclear engineer who wrote a book about radiation	Explain both sides

It wouldn't sound so bad, had he not made up so many details of his life that disagree with history. Your argument is based exclusively on your opinion ("gleeful tally") that we are out to debunk him which is not correct. I want to give an accurate account of his life, but don't want to ignore what HE said about it. Anynobody 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As Steven Wright once said: "Of course it's my opinion. I'm the one who said it." All you have to do is present the facts and leave it at that, you don't have to have all these epic essays filled with dueling he-saids. Take the medal thing, for example: list what medals he did get, give the sources for that info, then state that Hubbard and the CoS lied about other medals, and give sources for that, and you're done. Four sentences, tops. Truth still told, but mountain not made out of molehill. (And why, in God's name, do you think anyone on Earth should care about if he lied about his boy scout record? Could it get any more petty than that?) wikipediatrix 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Two quick notes: 1) I think it's a good idea to create an article on Hubbard's military service to hold all the details, and then restore the discussion of his service in this article to an NPOV summary. 2) The fact that Hubbard said "chink" in 1928 is not by itself significant. But that's like saying that it is not significant by itself that Mark Fuhrman used the word "nigger"; the fact that Fuhrman claimed in court that he had not used the word for the past ten years and the defense produced tapes showing that he used it repeatedly in a very ugly form made it significant. In the same way, the legitimacy of Hubbard's major legacy, Scientology, has often been defended by citing its alleged derivation from the Ancient Wisdom that Hubbard picked up in his travels through The Mystic East. That makes it significant that Hubbard's actual attitudes on those trips was clearly one of provincial contempt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)