Talk:L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?

Second infobox and WP:CLAIMS
Since information for both books is largely redundant, I'm not at all clear why the article would need two separate infoboxes. Additionally, the insertion of words like "allegedly" and "claims" is not acceptable, as these are both WP:WEASEL words being applied to a living person. The use of WP:PRIMARY court documents is also very troubling. If this is a legitimate controversy, there should be some sort of secondary coverage. Otherwise, this should be summarized in a single sentence or two, at most. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, any claims that DeWolf's lack of credibility undermines the book must be well sourced and neutrally described. Using words like "Unfortunate" is editorializing, and is not acceptable. Find reliable, secondary sources, please. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the infoboxes? If not, please do before reverting.  Those two books had different
 * Jacket
 * author list
 * number of pages
 * date of publication
 * publisher
 * publish location
 * title
 * How much was redundant in your eyes?
 * The current infobox names the first publisher, but shows the dust jacket from the second publisher without naming the second publisher, though it gives all the publishing dates as though the first publisher did all the publishing. Is this accurate Wikipediating?
 * Here we have a book published once saying DeWolf is one of the authors. Five years later the same book is published by a second publisher, and now DeWolf is not one of the authors.  One book argues with another book, or one edition argues with the second edition and both are "secondary" sources.  Which list of authors do you use?  If you can think of a better language than "allegedly," go for it.  But right now, the page names an author that the book jacket does not acknowledge.  Is this accurate Wikipediating?  Slade Farney (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DeWolf is not a living person. He died in 1991. Slade Farney (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about DeWolf, I'm talking about Bent Corydon, who is still alive, and is the person you were implying was being dishonest. The wording you used implied that he might not have done the interviews, or that he lied about them, which is not supported by reliable, secondary sources. The infobox portion is a trivial publication issue. Books get changes like this all the time, but they way you had presented it made it seem like a controversy or serious anomaly. Please find a source specifically explaining why these changes are so significant as to call the entire book's credibility into question. I don't object to adding the technical differences between the additions, but adding a second infobox is a confusing and cumbersome way to do it. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've switched to the photo of the first edition, which is preferred according to Template:infobox book. Oh, also, a book is not a secondary source about itself, it's a primary source about itself by definition. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let's start with basic principles. Did DeWolf co-author the book?  IF so, it is dishonest to leave his name off the second edition of the book and pretend that Corydon wrote it by himself. But that is what has happened. As soon as DeWolf died, it was republished without crediting DeWolf. This might happen by accident, but this book makes its name on credibility.  It calls Hubbard a wife-beater, a drug addict, a liar, a fraud, a thief, and just about everything else discreditable, so we should require the book to have clean hands.  But instead, the authors and publishers of the book contradict themselves on the very authorship of the book. Since credibility is the subject of the book, the book itself should be credible.  Its discrediting features should not go without mention, including DeWolf's lawsuit against the publisher before the book went to print -- information that you have twice deleted now.  Slade Farney (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I re-added that information, it's just my edits weren't as lurid as yours. "The book makes its name on credibility" What does that mean, exactly? Wikipedia articles aren't just for "credible" books with "clean hands", they're for notable books. Rather than proclaim whether or not a book is credible, we explain what happened in a neutral tone and let the readers decide. Again, books go through different publication histories. DeWolf originally hired Corydon to be a ghost-writer. DeWolf backed out after the interviews, Corydon went ahead with the book anyway. But that needs secondary sources. Yeah, it's weird, but if you want to claim it's none credible, you need sources. You're painting a narrative picture, but this ain't the place for that. Wikipedia isn't a place to try and prove someone was a fraud, or whatever you're trying to do. Articles should reflects the facts as they are represented by reliable sources according to due weight. No synth, no OR, just sources. Do you have any RS that discuss this issue? Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, the bit about the ghost writing. I keep finding that explained on non-usable anti-Scientology blogs and archives. It seems to be a rehosted from a news article, but I can't find the source. I'll add it when I can support it. Grayfell (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. As for credibility, this was my meaning: If we are both in the habit of lying about each other, telling one side of the story is not a neutral point of view. if I call you a liar, the allegation has meaning only if I "have clean hands."  Weekly World News, for example, is not a quotable source because it does not have clean hands.
 * I have added a few more details of DeWolf's complaint. I think it looks good now.  Hope you like it. Slade Farney (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more details of DeWolf's complaint. I think it looks good now.  Hope you like it. Slade Farney (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061023003934/http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/writers.txt to http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/writers.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050327104537/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n6_v22/ai_6703179 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n6_v22/ai_6703179

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023003934/http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/writers.txt to http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/writers.txt

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)