Talk:Mary Sue Hubbard/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

I have reverted it back and included the original also

I have reverted it back and included the original also.

AS biography should be a biography not just a couple of terse statements of a jail term. THAT is not a biography.

As the President of the IFA and FANZA I own the copyright on the material I have posted I can decide if it is ok to post elsewhere. but perhaps you may not have been aware of that.


Michael International Freezone Association FANZA

Well, since you posted anonymously, I had no way of knowing or even suspecting that you had a legal right to contribute that text to Wikipedia. However, keep in mind that just because Wikipedia may have legal permission to use text that came from an external website doesn't mean it will be as appropriate for Wikipedia as it was for the external website -- Wikipedia operates under restrictions that your website doesn't, and your website can make assumptions about the reader that Wikipedia can't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes

Fair enough.

Also someone had put "" marks around the word Research. This makes an implication regarding Ron Hubbard's Research.

This entry is not about making slights on Ron Hubbard's research.

It is about a tribute to Mary Sue Hubbard.

Michael President international Freezone Association

No.
It is not about a tribute to Mary Sue Hubbard. It is an encyclopedic account of Mary Sue Hubbard. If it constitutes a tribute to her then something is wrong. That is why this article still needs revising; the information that she was convicted in one of the largest domestic espionage incidents in the history of the US should not be delayed until the very end of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree the point is to be an encyclopedia article. I pushed the part about her being convicted up a bit. I could put it prominently in the first paragraph, but I'm not sure about that. It might be going too far in the other direction.--T. Anthony 10:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Her conviction being pushed up a bit would be all right if it read smoothly. It doesn't. Also, the conviction is mentioned a second time later in the article. We want people to get a clue, have a glimmer about her life, what she did and so on. She was convicted late in life, why not put her conviction information later in sequence? In that way the article can read smoothly and the reading can digest something about this deceased woman's life. Terryeo 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
An article that "reads smoothly" comes second to an article that's well-structured. Like a good article is supposed to, the introduction gives a very short overview, including the answer to the question "why is this person notable enough to merit an article?" Because different people have different ideas of which of her "achievements" was the more notable one, two different answers are given to that question. Why is it that you only wanted to remove one? After all, MSH's participation in Dianetics and Scientology is also already covered in the article, in far greater detail than her conviction, so maybe we should remove any mention of MSH's Scientology and Dianetics connection from the introduction, hmmm? Sounds just as reasonable as burying any mention of her participation in the largest act of domestic espionage in the United States at the end of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Antaeus, thank you for the opportunity to reply to you. Certain events happened, a, b, , , z in Hubbard's life. By "read smoothly" I suggest events be presented fairly much in that order, linked once, etc. Did you wish to ask me something? Terryeo 02:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If I may answer to this one too. I get your point about things should most of the time be presented in the article in the order that they happened. But before the actual article, there is a short presentation to establish what the article is about, in this case, it's about Mary Sue Hubbard, and who she was and what here claims to fame were: She was the third wife of LRH, and she was convicted for espionage. Those are her claims to fame, I think that info should be in the introduction of the article. It gives a reader who is not familiar with MSH a better idea of the subject and what makes her an important figure, if things like that are mentioned early in the article. (Entheta 03:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC))
Yes, Terryeo, you already explained a rationale for why a reader should not be told until the very end of the article that the woman they've been reading about earned a conviction for domestic espionage on a large scale. It is a very unconvincing rationale, and merely repeating it over again won't do much. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the book, Hubbard covers his isolation of the dynamic principle of existence and provides his description of the human mind. He states the source of all human aberration is the reactive mind and its engrams. He then developed counseling (auditing) techniques for getting rid of engrams. This is still the technique used by Dianetics-trained counselors today.

L. Ron Hubbard stated:

Acknowledgment is made to fifty thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:
Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.

There are various schools of thought regarding the volcano on post-1968 editions of Dianetics. One conjecture is that it is a reference to the story of Xenu and another being that this image was used as volcanos are referenced in Hubbard's book "Scientology: A History of Man" written in 1952. Yet another is that it was used, as according to Hubbard, "Man responds to an exploding volcano." ("Assists", lecture of 3 October 1968)

So maybe those quotation marks should be put back there, or some readers may get the impression that it refers to actual scientific research. (Entheta 09:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC))
I would suggest replacing it with a phrasing such as "Hubbard's development of Scientology", which would be applicable whether you believe Hubbard was creating a development equal in importance to fire and the wheel, or putting the finishing touches on a colossal scam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I made some changes- (Entheta 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
I have placed the paragraph regarding the conviction at the end again.

This is a bio about Mary Sue Hubbard, not a treaties about her crimminal record. The paragraph concerning her convistion in later years comes after her time with Ron hubbard.

By placing the conviciton at the top gives it an importance out of propotion to the rest of her life. Her life was not about her conviction.

Most of her life was spent working with LRH and we are talking about years here not a couple of months in jail.

Michael Moore International Freezone Association

I can see your point of view; to one who believes that Dianetics is "a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and the arch", then certainly the most significant thing that can be said about MSH's actions on this Earth is that she helped with the development of Dianetics.
However, just as this is a biographical article about Mary Sue Hubbard and not a "tribute" to her, it is also not an article on her from the Dianetic perspective alone. To everyone but followers of Dianetics/Scientology, the fact that she violated the laws of the land on a record-setting scale is much more important than the fact that she "gave up a career in petroleum research to study dianetics, receiving her Hubbard Dianetic Auditors Certificate in Wichita, Kansas in 1951."
In terms of absolute time percentages, yes, the five years that MSH served in prison as a result of her federal crimes are a pretty small percentage of her seventy-one year life. This illustrates, more than anything, how fallacious it is to expect absolute time percentages to correspond with the importance of those time periods. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with AF on this one. Her conviction and jail time was not just "after her time with Ron hubbard", but a result of her work for Hubbard and the GO and it is what she is known for. (Entheta 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Two references are not required regarding her convis=ctin and jail sterm.

I have therefore removed the first one. The second to last para is sufficient. This is a entry about her life, not one section of it.

Michael International Freezone Association.

The first reference was added by AKMask [1], with a good reason in my opinion: her conviction is an important reason of why she is notable and thus worth to have her own article in wikipedia. I kind of agree with this, so I reverted the edit. By the way, disregard my summary line, I missed your edit here. Raymond Hill 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is in fact about her life, but like any article it should have an appropriate introduction. We mention it in the introduction because it is important enough to cover later on; we do not omit mention of it because it will be covered in more detail later. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it was entered twice. not necessary. once is enough. So I have left the reference to the conviction at the bottom. This is a history and this conviction came later so the proper sequence is that it should be at the end not the begining of the post.

I also have several pictures. Soon as I can figure out how to upload them I will add one.

michael IFA

Michael, it's really disrespectful for you to keep making the same arguments over and over, ignoring the fact that those arguments were already answered the last time you made them. Fact: This is a biographical article. Fact: Articles generally start with summaries that sum up what is important or significant about the subject. Fact: For many of our readers, the fact that MSH went to jail for her participation in the biggest domestic espionage incident in the history of the US is very significant indeed. Please stop trying to whitewash this article with the same arguments about "proper sequence" that didn't convince anyone the last time you tried them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antaeus,

Yes it would be if the arguments were adequately answered which I do not believe they are. onal espionage and loss of US information to the Russians in the cold war. There have been others relating more to loss of US vital information to the Soviet during the cold war. I doubt if this little piece of 'espionage' compares even with the watergate affair.

Michael IFA

What do you define as an "adequate answer"? Is part of the requirement of an "adequate answer" that it support your preferred course of action? That's certainly the impression you've given. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As Mary Sue's involvement in Snow White is adequately documented under the heading Snow White I have removed the surplus reference to it under the heading of First Lady.

Michael IFA

A Pic Would Be Nice...

Since there are several images of Mary Sue Hubbard on the tribbute site shouldn't we have at least one image of her on her wiki page? The Fading Light 9:48, 22 March 2006

An image would be good, but let's try to make sure it's one we can legally use -- we've had problems with that... -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Note to The Fading Light: The current image is good, and I've seen it on at least one freezone site, but you really need to regularize its status quickly or the pic will be deleted in a couple days. If the picture is old enough (wedding photo?), it might have slipped into public domain under the old US copyright system, or it might be from a critical book like BFM where people might be allowed to copy it. I don't know. I do know that the category it's in now is a grab bag created so that people won't just fake a copyright claim to upload it, and it gets swept clean regularly. The people and bots checking for valid copyright info on images show no mercy! AndroidCat 12:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no clue how to find out if something is copyrighed or not. The Fading Light 4:44, 1 May 2006

I see a picture from the marysuehubbard.com site has been put up. Just so you know, the RTC are claiming copyright on this particular picture and got the marysuehubbard.com site taken down recently. I got it back up within 48 hours, but I have received a C&D to remove it (among other things) from the site so Wikipedia may also get a notice to remove this picture.

I am getting legal counsel BTW so will not be removing the picture from the site anytime soon.

Michael IFA

I'm pretty sure I know where the pic comes from - a 1960s CoS publication called "Mary Sue Hubbard - Clear #..." (forget what the number was). It was a special issue of Source magazine, I think. As such, it's definitely a copyvio and needs to come off Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I did take a look in Bare-Faced Messiah to see if it was from there (it's not). Does anyone know if the terms where Russell Miller allowed the use of BFM on the net extend to any the photos? AndroidCat 13:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Found it. It's from this thing: "Clear 208. Mary Sue Hubbard", published 1967 by the Hubbard College of Scientology, East Grinstead. So it clearly is the copyright of the CoS.
As for BFM, I honestly don't know - I suspect probably not, as Miller didn't own the photos. My copy of BFM attributes some of them to "Rex Features Syndicate" and I've seen some (such as the infamous tomato pic) on Corbis. At any rate, I'd steer clear of the BFM photos for Wikipedia's purposes. -- ChrisO 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Firstly, just for the record, the marysuehubbard.com tribute site was up again in a few days. I received a letter that, amonth other things, asked for the photo to be removed. After some legal consultantion I asked the legal representgatives of the CSI for some proof of copyright for the photo and got none. That was several months ago. The photo stays.

I do have other photos which are from private collections also and they, being somewhat better than the current one, can be loaded up.

Michael International Freezone Association

L. Ron Hubbard was not solely responsible for founding the church

The Church of Scientology was founded in December 1953 in New Jersey by the late fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, his then wife Mary Sue Hubbard and John Galusha.

'Church of American Science' (incorporation papers); 'Church of Scientology' (incorporation papers); 'Church of Spiritual Engineering', (incorporation papers); 18 December, 1953

Claiming in a chapter about Mary Sue Hubbard that someone else actually founded the Church when she herself was involved in that very action is absurd. The neutral approach is simply to note that "her husband L. Ron Hubbard founded Scientology".

3 persons were involved in founding the First church of Scientology, which were L. Ron Hubbard Sr., Mary Sue Hubbard and John Galusha. The incorporation papers are clear enough. Therefore it should not say here

Mary Sue Hubbard (born Mary Sue Whipp) (17 June 1931–25 November 2002 [2]) was the third wife of American pulp fiction author and Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

An alternative would be to say that "she together with her husband and John Galusha founded the first Church of Scientology". If there are any objections or queries I would like to hear the arguments! --Olberon 09:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to weigh how much she should be considered a "founder". She was one of the three trustees of the corporation, but that was probably just a requirement of New Jersey non-profit corporate law at the time, and it's not uncommon to fill required director slots with a relative or spouse who gives automatic approval. Note that she wasn't present for the incorporation. It could just as easily be said that the other people named in the papers who "associate ourselves into a corporation" were the founders: LRH, LRH jr, Henrietta Hubbard (Nibs' wife?), John Galusha, Verna Greenough and Barbara Bryan. I'm sure that it was LRH's show, regardless of the names on the paper. AndroidCat 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
May be so, may be not so. We don't know. All we know is what it says on these incorporation papers. Either way she was involved. The neutral approach then would be preferred. Henrietta was Nibs' wife yes. --Olberon 08:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting to me that Olberon's earlier position was that LRH was absolutely not the founder of the Church, and now his position has drifted to acknowledging that the first church was founded by LRH, albeit with helpers. I am equally baffled as to why Olberon, who in one of his early edit summaries referred to himself as a "critic of the church", continues to edit-war over this trivial and contrived point. wikipediatrix 17:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I dropped a pile of references on his talk page last week. AndroidCat 22:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It is about being accurate. It is promoted by the present CoS that he only founded the subject and not the church. Why would I play stupid and ignore the findings of Android Cat. Now, would I do that, then it really would be interesting! --Olberon 08:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is noted here that this discussion is still conspicuous of the absense of any respons at all from user Antaeus Feldspar about this. In addition he continuous changing my edit. What personal issue does he have with this? --Olberon 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks, which is what you are doing by alleging that I (and presumably, every other editor who you have failed to convince) have some "personal issue" involved. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you participate in this discussion? No! Do you revert my edit without forwarding your arguments? Yes! --Olberon 19:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon's single-handed insistence on defying consensus

Olberon keeps stating as his justification for repeatedly making changes to the article that no one supports except him the fact that even though I have made my arguments against these changes on the talk pages of many articles where he has tried to insist on this change, my failure (or, rather, my not seeing the need) to repeat the exact same argument in response to his exact same changes HERE entitles him to repeatedly revert HERE. Very well; if these are the formalities he requires, so be it. Herewith, copied from User talk:Olberon, all the arguments I have already made against the changes he keeps trying to make:

Olberon, I can agree with you up to a point. If the Church actually claims that technically LRH was not the founder of the Church of Scientology, then that is perhaps interesting information that we should have somewhere. However, Wikipediatrix has a very strong point that you may come to appreciate more as you get more experience with Wikipedia: even if a piece of information is technically true, doesn't mean it should be mentioned everywhere it can be. It may be true that LRH wrote in many different genres besides just science fiction, but does that information really need to go in the introductory paragraph of Mary Sue Hubbard?? Before mentioning what's notable about Mary Sue, who unlike L. Ron Hubbard is the actual subject of the article? You have made that change several times now, and argued that it must be kept by saying "Wiki rules say improve not get rid of additions" -- but how does one improve "additions" that are misplaced?
You insist upon obvious incorrect information. This is about removing the word "science" from "science fiction". Are you querying the documentation that I provided? The addition that is misplaced was the word "science" in "science fiction". You have no argument here. --Olberon 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to the issue of Hubbard as the founder of the Church -- it may be worthy of mention, but you may also be overestimating just how much mention it's worthy of. When the District Court of the Hague makes the very first point of a ruling "L. Ron Hubbard is the founder of the Church of Scientology hereinafter CoS)" and the Church disputes other points but not that one, then it's hard to see why someone else's name occupying the place as "founder" on paper makes any practical difference. Perhaps you can explain why you see any more of a difference than we do, but just as Wikipedia only explain that some people believe the Earth to be flat on the pages about the people believing that, it really doesn't make sense to put the claim that Hubbard wasn't the founder of the Church in the introduction of every single Wikipedia article related to LRH. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"The same applies"? Incoherent. I have suggested the neutral approach. You want to persist on "Church of Scientology" instead of the general approach "Scientology". I do not care of some Court of the Hague. We have the incorporation papers! Do you copy? They say what they say!--Olberon 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nnnnnnnno. No, I'm afraid that the evidence is very clear that Hubbard was the driving force between turning Scientology into a "religion" and forming a "church" around it. Yes, I see very well what it would do to the argument that Hubbard founded the CoS to make money, and I have no doubts at all that that is why the CoS would like it to be believed that Hubbard didn't found the Church, simply "granted" permission for it to be founded. But it's about as believable a story as the one about how he "renounced" his "Ph.D" in "protest" against all the things done by other people who called themselves "Doctor" -- and not because it was about to be exposed as a phony degree Hubbard had purchased from a diploma mill. In fact, that's really sort of the core issue here: you keep referring to what the Church of Scientology claims about Hubbard supposedly not being the founder of the CoS as if it were the truth about whether Hubbard was the founder of the CoS. Surely, if you're describing yourself as a "critic" you know better than to think CoS has never told a falsehood it found useful? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that he solely Founded the First Church? Your opinion is irrelevant. Mary Sue Hubbard was involved in the Founding, you deny that involvement. "Ph.D" is not the issue here. Am I calling Hubbard for "Ph.D"? We have the incorporation papers of these churches! Are you denying the existence of these and the things they relate. Wiki is not about your personal opinion which you intend to push through here. --Olberon 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That he was the founder of the Church of Scientology has been found as fact by numerous courts of law. I'm afraid you're mistaken in your idea that "if the Church of Scientology doesn't admit to it, it can't be said". -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You have the incorporation papers to which you are in denial about what they actually say! You are seriously mistaken in what you perceive to me my idea! I am not using the argument here you claim me to use. Duplicate! Your courts of law (you only mentioned a single one by the way) can not change what it says in the incorporation papers. --Olberon 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is duly noted that user Antaeus Feldspar has not responded to the foregoing chapter on this page (3 L. Ron Hubbard was not solely responsible for founding the church), but instead created a new chapter where in he attempt to attack my integrity, apparently for attempting to push through his personal opinion. It is duly noted that he avoids to address that these incorporation papers actually exist and that they say what they say. --Olberon 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He also deleted this from his own talkpage:

"I pointed out to Antaeus Feldspar that I had opened a discussion on the talkpage, persistently however this person reverts my edit and does also not join the discussion. I get to hear "The discussion has already been had; the consensus was established. You cannot do an end-run around it simply by declaring "I've opened a NEW discussion"". He may if he wish clarify himself where in heaven's name he is talking about. FACT is that Mary Sue Hubbard WAS involved in Founding the First Church. Is this reverting of Antaeus Faldspar blind stubborness or is it something else. To my understanding Wiki is about putting together sensible information. Please leave your comments. --Olberon 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)"

We do not see any respons or query from user Antaeus Feldspar on the above. --Olberon 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Olberon, nothing has changed. You put forth a case for your point of view; no one was convinced by it, and therefore no one is supporting your insistence on changing the text. Nothing has changed that: not your personal attacks upon me alleging that I have some "personal issue" (emphasis in original) that keeps me from agreeing with you, not your opening a quote-unquote "new" discussion on the matter on this page, not your opening a quote-unquote "new" discussion on my user talk page -- nothing has actually changed. Anyone who looks at your edit history and sees how insistently, and on how many articles, you insistently reinsert material that no one supports except you, would have to laugh at seeing you accuse someone else of "blind stubbornness". -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
My point of view? You refer to what numerous (you only name one!) courts say. I refer directly to the incorporation papers of these churches. I think these have priority over your claim. Here you are making general comments about "no one was convinced by it" and "no one is supporting your insistence on changing the text"! Fact is that YOU are the one single person objecting! Where are your others that you refer to in your generalities? Furthermore you are agreeing or not agreeing with what the incorporation papers actually say! I ain't got nothing to do with that. You are again personally attacking me in your respons. I use arguments in form of official documents, you use general make wrong arguments and don't even address the issue! You saying: "Anyone who looks at your edit history and sees how insistently, and on how many articles, you insistently reinsert material that no one supports except you, would have to laugh at seeing you accuse someone else of "blind stubbornness"." is a falsity and plain smear. --Olberon 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think Olberon's wording is pretty much right - Mary Sue Hubbard was indeed "involved in the founding of the first Church of Scientology". While I've no doubt that her husband was the driving force, the fact is that she was a co-incorporator. I'm not sure we need to say that in the first paragraph, though. It might be better to include it in a new section on her role in the church's management. -- ChrisO 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Hmmm, I am not convinced that the primary force would have been Hubbard himself though. Both Mary Sue and John Galusha if you track them reveal quite some activity and initiative. Either of them may have forwarded the idea to Hubbard, and he may have said, "alright, good idea". It is claimed also by some that Mary Sue was involved in coining the word Scientology. I don't know if this is true though, it may have been so. I think the phrasing as it is now is alright. After all the founding (incorporation) of the first church was a happening worth mentioning. --Olberon 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)