Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox/Archive1

Note: This is an archive of the original version of this Sandbox to preserve the discussions that were in place.

Personality
Like most aspects of Hubbard and his life, there is wide disagreement on his personality. He is called "mankind's greatest friend" by his followers and dubbed a humanitarian by others in appreciation of his contributions (refs on other page), but this depiction of Hubbard contrasts sharply with those of most journalists and biographers, and of others who knew him outside the context of Scientology.

Editor comments

 * Justanother: This is POV OR, Damon, it is not black/white like this and many of these think well of Hubbard
 * Better now. --Justanother 05:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's most, not some. That's just going to be unavoidable. And I've already pointed out the WP:RS problems with those refs. I have been trying, believe me, to find depictions of Hubbard in a positive light by reliable sources that aren't affiliated with the Church, but I haven't come up with anything. It really does seem to be largely the Church's view versus the view of journalists, governments, etc. I'm still open for good refs, though. --GoodDamon 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GoodDamon: I agree in part; this was my best shot at a compromise, but it's still biased. However, the vast majority of non-Church or Church-related reliable sources do paint a very different picture of Hubbard, and you're not going to be able to avoid that here. A severely minority opinion shouldn't be given undue weight. If the preponderance of RS depiction of Hubbard's personality is negative, then this will necessarily be a negative section, and that's not POV.

Hubbard according to the Church Hubbard as 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 Hubbard has been acknowledged as such by many third parties, both governmental and private.

Editor comments

 * GoodDamon: You'll definitely need to provide some extraordinary refs for that, and they'll need to be very high quality, such as the Red Cross and United Way, not small Church or Church-affiliated charities. Claims of humanitarianism by the Church are well and good, but if they're not backed up by solid organizations like that, they really belong in a "Hubbard according to the Church" section. I'll be very surprised and impressed if you can find significant backing for Hubbard as a humanitarian and philosopher from non-Church organizations. I swear, I'm not using rickross.com, and I can't find a single one. Every reference to him as such is either from the Church and non-specific about his humanitarian activities, or from sources like that gossip column that definitely don't cut the mustard.


 * I provided 3rd-party sources on the main talk page. We don't need the UN to say he is a humanitarian fer crissake, just RS. --Justanother 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you do. Well, not the UN necessarily, but a similarly authoritative source. From WP:RS: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. None of the 3rd-party sources you cited on the main talk page were authoritative on the subject of humanitarianism. You really do need a source that is, especially in light of the WP:RS stricture, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". In order to portray someone -- not just Hubbard, but anyone -- as a humanitarian, you would need a consistent, documented record of humanitarian works, not just the odd gossip columnist calling him a humanitarian. --GoodDamon 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said, if a community leader or two (or ten) calls him a humanitarian then he has "been called a humanitarian by community leaders". Nothing extraordinary about it. I could as well say that a journalist is not "authoritative" on the subject of the mental health of Hubbard. All we are reporting is what others said about him, not "what he is" (or was).
 * But if it's a tiny minority opinion -- and frankly, it is -- you can't use general language like he was "...dubbed a humanitarian by others in appreciation of his contributions..." Which others? What contributions? This is exactly the same kind of weasel wording you go after from other editors. And you can't give undue weight to extreme minority positions. This is why you need some extraordinary references, like I said. --GoodDamon 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, critical views of Hubbard are just as minority, basically the same few sources rehashed over and over again. Hubbard really does have thousands of recognitions from community leaders . Not about RS here, just want to give you some perspective. This is an honored man, well thought of by many, Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike that is continually maligned by a small group of critics, many of them active right here on Wikipedia, that have managed to create an internet meme of mocking Hubbard and Scientology. Since we are in an internet venue here, it may seem hard see the forest for the trees. --Justanother 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More, more, more, more, summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanother (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Hoo-boy... OK, I'm a little disappointed. Thank you for saying upfront that those aren't RS, but even in the context of this discussion they're pretty bad. What we need is real, solid, and reliable sources that describe Hubbard as a humanitarian in as specific detail as the negative sources, and are authoritative enough to be used in the article. Those awards and plaques and declarations would be a wonderful place to start if they were verifiable and of better authenticity than the Blackfeet document. Church-sourced generalities like those pictures themselves will never be acceptable.
 * The first link: A picture of a wall full of awards and diplomas. None of them can be checked or verified, none of them even named.
 * The second link: A similarly unverifiable picture of a wall full of plaques.
 * The third, fourth, and fifth links: Ditto.
 * The sixth link: Basically a statement that he won a lot of awards and proclamations, and that March 13th is L. Ron Hubbard day in some cities (it doesn't say which ones). I don't mean this derogatorily, but I'm pretty sure even International Talk Like a Pirate Day has more acceptance outside the Church.

On the topic of negative views as an internet meme, a lot of the reliable sources in the main article pre-date wide acceptance of the internet. Others are newspaper bios of Hubbard, scholarly books like A Piece of Blue Sky, Time Magazine, legal judgments, several LA Times articles, and so on.

Finally, there's another problem with those photos you should be aware of. They're Photoshopped. Look at the first link's picture. In the upper right, there's one that reads "Office of the (unreadable)" above Proclamation. The same one appears slightly lower, on the left side of the picture. Of course, that's not something I could include in mainspace, either, as that would be original research, but I thought you should be aware of it.

Here's the crux of the matter: It's time to be specific. The negative views of Hubbard are dominant right now, because they delve into specifics ("He did X at this time, Y at that time, here are the relevant sources"). To counter that -- and make no mistake, I want it to be countered, for the sake of balance -- you will need to go beyond Church sources, beyond gossip columnists labeling him a "humanitarian" in stories about what TomKat is up to. --GoodDamon 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the CoS as a sources opens up a whole new can of worms since stories about Hubbard vary between CoS sources. (Heck, compare the 1977 bio on Misou's site to the CoS source cited here.) Anynobody 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still some consistent things that they all say, and the fact that they disagree with each other can be mentioned as well. --GoodDamon 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That may actually be a taller order than it might seem, for example I found one CoS source that said Hubbard was wounded on Java and returned on the SecNav's plane in early 1942. Another source had him at the same time commanding a squadron of corvettes in the Atlantic. They are both lies, but even if one were true it would invalidate the other as they happened at the same time. The point is by trying to include the Church's POV, it actually ends up making them look bad because their stories are so wildly divergent it's obvious that at least some of it could not have happened. (Thus further painting the church and him in a negative POV). Anynobody 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard as an abuser
L. Ron Hubbard has been called a complex man, whose personality and past were issues he took steps to hide aspects of. (OR) Hubbard married his second wife, Sara Northrup, without revealing his existing marriage and children. This became a reason for her later divorce from Hubbard.

During those legal proceedings, Hubbard's first wife, Margaret "Polly" Grubb, said she had been treated badly by him.

Editor comments

 * Justanother: you cannot make these "according to" generalizations but you can show aspects that are explored in RS
 * GoodDamon: Fair enough.

Hubbard according to others
At the same time he was known to be very sociable, and entertaining such as the 1948 gathering of science fiction buffs in Los Angeles, when he hypnotized many of those in attendance. He was able to convince one person they were cradling a baby kangaroo.

With the eventual success of Scientology came money and legal trouble, which also brought isolation. Money gave him the means to hide from authorities by living at sea and then later at a private ranch in California, all the while keeping only select members near him whom he trusted. The reclusive and wealthy Hubbard was then able to portray himself as the man currently celebrated by Scientologists, while hiding aspects of his actual personality which starkly contrasted with this image. Several of the people trusted to be near him say Hubbard was prone to emotional fits when he became upset.

Editor comments

 * Justanother: This seems loaded with OR
 * GoodDamon: I agree on the text, but the references are sterling. And now I'm tired, and should probably go to bed. Anynobody, this is a sandbox for working on this section on the basis that your original version isn't going to achieve consensus. Please don't just replace the one we're working on with that. If you feel strongly about a certain piece of language, then change it.

A bout of depression
During the late 1940s, Hubbard was financially destitute, and appeared to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts, according to a letter he wrote requesting assistance from Veterans Affairs. During this period he also wrote passages in his journal like;

Not an aspect of his "personality" but an isolated incident following A WORLD WAR that killed 50 MILLION. --Justanother 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that is part of someone's personality, asking for help and identifying problems with oneself. You're also just rationalizing for him by saying it was an isolated incident caused by WW II. (By the way, you know he didn't kill or see anyone die during the conflict. He almost saw his XO killed by a wild firing 20mm cannon though.) Anynobody 07:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, here. And associating Hubbard's depression with WWII would be original research, Justanother. I think you'd be better served by trying to find balancing quotes describing Hubbard's charm and charisma. I've been trying to find them myself, but it's been difficult to sift through all the negative. --GoodDamon 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the original research is trying to make an isolated situation into "Hubbard's personality". There is no RS that Hubbard had continuing issues with depression. So if you want to title it "An incident of depression" then that would be accurate but shows the almost triviality of it. --Justanother 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not original research. It's from Hubbard himself, as in the above quote: "...I cannot account for nor rise above long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations..." --GoodDamon 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is sourced by one critical article and even that limited this episode to a relatively short period of Hubbard's life and did not try to present it as "his personality". That is the OR and POV-push. From the source:"'In the late 1940s . . .'; 'emotional problems that consumed him in the 1940s . . .'; 'in those little known years of his life'"I do not think that a one-sided article should show more perspective than an encyclopedia. --Justanother 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's both the Time article and the LA Times article, but I agree that as it was written it pushes the view of Hubbard as depressed for longer than the evidence indicates. Here's a preliminary reworking which I hope is fairer to the man and that period in his life. Let me know what you think. --GoodDamon 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is more evidence of Hubbard's depression, but I held off mentioning it because it also includes his drug abuse. (In the article it's already briefly mentioned.) Anynobody 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Personality (One voice)
L. Ron Hubbard was a complicated man, whose personality and past were issues he took steps to hide aspects of. An example of this behavior was seen when he married his second wife, Sara Northrup, without mentioning the wife to whom he was still married and their children. This became a reason for her later divorce from Hubbard, during which it was revealed that his first wife had been treated badly by him as well. At the same time he was known to be very sociable, and entertaining such as a 1948 gathering of science fiction buffs in Los Angeles, when he hypnotized many of those in attendance. He was able to convince one person they were cradling a baby kangaroo.

With the eventual success of Scientology came money and legal trouble, which also brought isolation. Money gave him the means to hide from authorities by living at sea and then later at a private ranch in California, all the while keeping only select members near him whom he trusted. The reclusive and wealthy Hubbard was then able to portray himself as the man currently celebrated by Scientologists, while hiding aspects of his actual personality which starkly contrasted with this image. Several of the people trusted to be near him say Hubbard was prone to emotional fits when he became upset.

Hubbard also battled extended periods of depression and suicidal thoughts, according to a letter he wrote requesting assistance from Veterans Affairs. During this period he also wrote passages in his journal like; Despite this, followers still think of him as "the greatest humanitarian in history." One spokesman for the Church says;

Discussion
Folks it is not OR to summarize what several sources say: 1. He lied about the nature of his college education and his real grades (remember he claimed to be a nuclear physicist)
 * L. Ron Hubbard was a complicated man, source: The LA Times: Hubbard, the judge said, was "a very complex person."
 * whose personality and past were issues he took steps to hide aspects of, sources: The Navy, LA Times, Time, etc.
 * This is not OR it's simply trying to be as respectful as possible, (substitute the words "hid" and "hide" for "lied" and "lie" to see what I mean)

2. He has lied about his naval career see sources in L. Ron Hubbard and the military

3. He lied about his association with Jack Parsons

4. He lied to Sara Northrup when engaing in a bigamous marriage with her

5. He only allowed his Commodore's messangers around him after he became established to hid episodes like his hat stomping or "soap smell" tantrums. Anynobody 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with you. But those are all very strong assertions that you're putting in a very POV-pushing manner. Just as an example, saying Hubbard was complicated is rather POV, while showing his complicated personality is not, but conveys the same information. I would rather Hubbard's complexity be shown instead of told to me. --GoodDamon 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I must disagree slightly with your assertion here. In both Time and the LA Times the 1984 Armstrong trial is mentioned, I think both cite the judge calling Hubbard a liar but one includes the judge's comment that Hubbard was a complex man. (Would that sound better? LRH was a complex man.) Anynobody 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, and I don't mean to sound flippant, why is complicated a POV word? It simply means that there is no simple way to describe him. (Can't just call him a crook because Scientologists love him, and some have actually been helped by him. Yet we can't say he was a great guy because evidence from independent sources indicate otherwise.) Anynobody 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, it's a matter of context. It's not that "complicated" is a POV word by itself, it's that it was immediately followed by nothing but negative detail about him. In a section specifically devoted to negative detail about him, an alternate lead would be more suitable. I'll see what I can come up with. --GoodDamon 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)