Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I have archived the pre-revision version to preserve the embedded discussions therein here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Personality section (11-07-2007 revision)

Publicly, Hubbard was sociable and charming. After a 1940 sailing trip that ended in a three-month stay in Ketchikan, Alaska, Hubbard worked as the host of a popular maritime radio show, and is remembered as a "charismatic storyteller"[1]. Much later, at the beginning of a 1968 interview with him by World in Action, a series produced by Granada Television in England, Hubbard is described as a "charmer"[2]. Hubbard was also apparently interested in and talented at hypnosis[3][1]. In a 1948 demonstration for a gathering of science fiction buffs in Los Angeles, Hubbard successfully convinced one person he was cradling a baby kangaroo[3].

But during this same period, Hubbard was financially destitute[3], and suffered from feelings of depression as well as suicidal thoughts, according to a letter he wrote in 1947 requesting assistance from Veterans Affairs.[4] "Toward the end of my (military) service, I avoided out of pride any mental examinations, hoping that time would balance a mind which I had every reason to suppose was seriously affected....I cannot account for nor rise above long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations, and have newly come to realize that I must first triumph above this before I can hope to rehabilitate myself at all." And he wrote entries in his notebook like "All men are your slaves," and "You can be merciless whenever your will is crossed and you have the right to be merciless."[3]

Hubbard was prone to self-aggrandizement and exaggeration[1], and in 1938, he wrote a letter to then-wife Margaret "Polly" Grubb reading, "I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form, even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."[3] In 1984, during the Church of Scientology's lawsuit against Gerry Armstrong, Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. described Hubbard as "charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating and inspiring his adherents." However, the judge ruled against the Church, and in so doing said, "The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements."[3]

Privately, Hubbard was regarded as abusive by some family members and former associates. He married his second wife, Sara Northrup, on Aug. 10, 1946, without revealing his existing marriage and children[3][5]. This was one reason for her later divorce from Hubbard. During those legal proceedings, Northrup alleged abuse by Hubbard, and produced a letter she received from Margaret "Polly" Grubb during the proceedings recounting her treatment by him[3]. It reads, in part, "Ron is not normal... I had hoped you could straighten him out. Your charges probably sound fantastic to the average person -- but I've been through it -- the beatings, threats on my life, all the sadistic traits which you charge -- 12 years of it."[3]

And several of those trusted to be near him say Hubbard was prone to emotional fits when he became upset, using insults and obscenities. Former Scientologist Adelle Hartwell once described such an outburst: "I actually saw him take his hat off one day and stomp on it and cry like a baby."[3]

But the financial windfall that came with the success of Scientology allowed Hubbard to hide this and other aspects of his personality that contrasted with the image of himself currently celebrated by Scientologists[3], who regard Hubbard as "mankind's greatest friend"[6]. The few who worked at his side saw personality flaws and quirks not reflected in the staged photographs or in Hubbard's Church-produced biographies[3].

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ a b c L. Ron Hubbard's Alaska Adventure. Stories in the News. Retrieved on 2007-11-07.
  2. ^ World in Action. The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard [Television Interview]. North Africa: Granada Television (England).
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l The Los Angeles Times, The Mind Behind the Religion
  4. ^ The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power Page 2, Time Magazine. The founder of this enterprise was part storyteller, part flimflam man. Born in Nebraska in 1911, Hubbard served in the Navy during World War II and soon afterward complained to the Veterans Administration about his "suicidal inclinations" and his "seriously affected" mind.
  5. ^ San Francisco Chronical Scientology Founder's Family Life Far From What He Preached - Don Lattin - Monday, February 12, 2001 - Quote: "In divorce papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in 1951, Sara Hubbard said the founder of Scientology did not mention that he was already married - and had two children - when they exchanged their vows on Aug. 10, 1946."
  6. ^ "L. Ron Hubbard, A Profile" - Church of Scientology-produced profile of Hubbard

[edit] Discussion

  • A bit better balanced, I think, and more in keeping with the sources (mind behind and all that). I would like to get rid of those quote boxes; they look unprofessional to me and act as OR as we cherry-pick our favorite quotes to draw the reader's eye. Remember also that we are only writing a section for an already over-long article! --Justanother 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was sticking with the quotation tags because so much of this section is supported by direct quotes. On the other hand, for brevity's sake I'd be willing to see them all go. I mostly agree with your edits, by the way. --GoodDamon 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree regarding the nature of quotations being called cherry picked. This implies that other quotes are being ignored which might change the POV of this article. Which quotes do you feel are being left out Justanother?
On the use of quotes, I think they are the best way to ensure our POVs do not get into the article as much. The more we keep assertions made by Hubbard or witness' own statements the less POV we put in. Anynobody 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Which quotes do you feel are being left out Justanother?" Oh, how about the billion or so positive quotes by himself and others. Do you have trouble finding them? You picked the quotes and that is why I say you "cherry-picked" them. You seem to feel that you should write the POV part and the rest of us can try to catch you with the NPOV part. Why not do what both Damon and I are trying to do - write it NPOV from the get-go? --Justanother 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The billion or so positive quotes in these sources? Saying that someone cherry picked a quote from[1] implies that other more positive quotes exist in that article. I'm sure Scientologists have lots of positive things to say about Hubbard, but they aren't in the source. Anynobody 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Observation: This section is broken up too much, almost like a small article within an article. Also, and again I'm sorry to say it, CoS sources aren't RS. However, as a sort of experiment I purposely ignored some of the "nicer" aspects described in RS like the Times to see if the Scientologists were actually reading sources they expressed negative feelings about (in order to be neutral one must read stuff they ordinarily wouldn't, but that's how I found out some CoS sites contradict each other, by reading them). There have always been a few positive sounding points in each of the RS, like the camera story. I figured if they actually bothered to read the articles, surely they'd notice gems like that and use them in our article.
Sooner or later GoodDamon, not being part of my experiment, was bound to find and insert a couple himself. There aren't enough "positive" stories in the sources to make the Scientologists happy, but rather than use non-RS contradictory Scientology sources, lets use them instead. Anynobody 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, using Church sources is fine if you're trying to portray the Church's public stance. In the case of this article section, we were specifically delineating between the Church's expressed viewpoint and the viewpoints of pretty much everyone else. Don't worry, you don't need to convince me that Church sources aren't acceptable for anything but a general overview of the Church's opinions (to see a pointed example, go to the sandbox archive and see the conclusion of my original discussion with Justanother).
In any event, I strongly disagree with the version you have above, because it doesn't differentiate between the Church's presentation of Hubbard and everyone else's, it just portrays everyone else's. There's no reason to give the Church's opinions undue weight, but there isn't any reason to leave it out entirely, either. Heck, the contradictions you point out could only be mentioned in the article if the Church's stance has a presence in it. --GoodDamon 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your points, but can not reconcile them with the rules outlining what we can use as a reference.
WP:RS says:
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
    • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. For example the humanitarian and philosopher points in the previous version treat the Scientology sources like RS. Also please remember that many of the CoS sources can't be verified.
I would point this passage from WP:RS out: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details. WP:SELFPUB says:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The Church's claims about Hubbard are definitely relevant, regardless of their basis in factuality. The fact that the Church makes these claims isn't contentious, either. If stated in the article that the claims had any basis in fact, that would certainly be contentious, but I don't. Pointing out what the Church says isn't self-serving as long as it's balanced with what everyone else says and isn't given undue weight, although I can certainly see how it could be viewed that way. And the rest of the points are pretty straightforward.
Look, I'm not trying to establish any RS credentials for the Church, here. But I do believe this is one of the situations where WP:RS does allow for the use of questionable material, so long as it's made clear that in no wise does this material contain anything factual or verifiable. --GoodDamon 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make this neutral, I know it sounds counterintuitive, but keeping the CoS sources out is the best way to do it.
To include them, they must be identified as purely the church's view, and the fact that so many versions of Hubbard's life/personality exist in CoS sources also has to be discussed. All that to say the CoS thinks he's the greatest man ever from their sources, when in reality I doubt we need a source to say that as it's assumed they looked upon him positively. Anynobody 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might be too close to this. You're obviously pretty intimately familiar with Scientology and the Church's behavior, but not everyone is. The number of Scientologists is very small, and the number of people who don't know very much about it is very large. For a lot of people, their first exposure was South Park. Presenting a smattering of the Church's statements about Hubbard is fair, as long as it's made absolutely clear that these are the Church's statements, not facts. And it's not giving them undue weight in the context of the rest of the article. --GoodDamon 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To expand just a bit with a direct example:

[edit] The public face

[edit] Philosopher and humanitarian

The Church of Scientology describes Hubbard as a philosopher and humanitarian, and cite his programs for drug addiction and criminal rehabilitation as examples.

Leaving an assertion which gives the impression that his criminal rehab/addiction programs are more widely recognized and effective than they are treats the CoS source like a reliable source. There are plenty of RS discussing Narconon and Crimanon(or whatever it was called) in less than glowing terms. Leaving this in, without mentioning the controversy in it with RS, is actually POV for Hubbard. Anynobody 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Then adjust that paragraph with one of many references that counter it. You could say something like "The Church of Scientology describes Hubbard as a philosopher and humanitarian, and cite his programs for drug addiction and criminal rehabilitation as examples(ref). However, there's very little evidence that either program is actually effective as anything more than a Scientology recruitment effort (ref)(ref)(ref)."
That way you get the Church stance and the scientific community's stance. --GoodDamon 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick note:Rather than re-post inside the last post, I'll answer your points in this one in reverse order, and in installments I apologize but other tasks have me tied up a bit.
The thing is controversial Church assertions have been pretty much dismissed by the RS, so we have to do what you suggest cite the RSs that dismisses whatever claim they are trying to make, in the end proving him/them to be willing/capable of creating stories and evidence (after a few claims are shot down, one can't help but notice the trend.) If we discuss nice Hubbard stories, like the camera gift, another RS would have to dispute it in order to necessitate a rebuttal. (The more claims we can put in, which aren't shot down by the RS, the more we can counter act the tendency for Hubbard's past false claims to catch up to him.) Anynobody 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To explain my point about self referencing sources,
    • it is relevant to their notability;
    • it is not contentious;(If it wasn't, we would not need to add counterpoints from RSs for each CoS claim)
    • it is not unduly self-serving;(This is a secondary, but valid concern)
    • it does not involve claims about third parties;
    • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
    • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I've quoted this aspect a few times myself, and had decided it failed based on these results, but of course exceptions do exist which I'm happy to discuss with you.
The contentious part, respectfully, is about the nature of the claim made not who is making it. (That's what, there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it, is for).
Also, to reassure you I do not take your point about me being too close to this personally. However I do disagree, and will explain why briefly:
1) I haven't actually seen the Scientology South Park Episode.
2) My apparent experience comes from reading the sources, and editing this article. (Seriously, this time last year all I knew was that Scientology was Tom Cruise/Kirstie Alley/John Travolta's religion, they don't believe in psychiatry, and Dianetics has an erupting volcano on the cover.) It's because I know what it's like not to know that I point out my concerns.
In fact, looking back on it, I guess I've learned quite a bit about Scientology and Hubbard because I meant for this to be a quick list:
Anynobody 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)