Talk:Sequoia University

Another possible alumnus
Check out http://www.usps.com/judicial/1976deci/4-172.htm for a possible avenue of research. ← Spidern  →  13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Hubbard ownership
In the lead section, 'British State papers then revealed that in fact Sequoia University was personally owned by Hubbard and that Hubbard had therefore awarded himself his "Ph.D"'. Cited and true so far as it goes, but that 1970s UK report is contradicted by later and more detailed information about Hubbard and Sequoia, such as the de Mille telegram cited lower in the article. (Hubbard would hardly desperately have to ask for a degree if he owned the place, would he?) Speculating, Hubbard's habit of adding Sequoia University after his name on business cards might have confused the investigators.

It makes a good story, and on two other occasions Hubbard did award himself degrees ( http://umbraxenu.no-ip.biz/mediawiki/index.php/Category:L._Ron_Hubbard ), but in this case, it's just not true. If kept, that text should be moved out of the lead and qualified that Hubbard didn't own Sequoia. AndroidCat (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018 re: citation [16]
Delete the citation [16] and related unverifiable quote.

There are 3 reasons for this deletion: 1) It is entirely unverifiable due to the fact that no "Expand!" magazine has ever existed.

2) It seems quite likely that the editor erred and intended to write "Advance!" for the citation, which did in fact exist. That issue however has no mention of Doctor of Philosophy or degrees. Full magazine here for reference - https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/advance-21-m.pdf

3) Furthermore, the full 1966 Rhodesian TV interview, which one can watch online or other locations, at no point mentioned a Doctor of Philosophy degree or any degrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXI4CBvtS2E Iamsnag12 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * According to this book, Expand Magazine was launched sometime shortly before June 1968. This Magazine was published by the St Hill org's publishing arm specifically on Hubbard's orders. The existence of Advance! may or may not be a coincidence, as magazines are often published in sets or pairs or with adjusted content for different locations or target audiences. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sourcing Kent's claim as the basis. Upon further review, this has created additional problems and questions beyond the original one posted, but in some ways may actually explain the dubious origins of the claim itself:

A) Using the same search criteria on Google Books - "Expand magazine" hubbard - only showed one other book by Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack with a different magazine title "Expand" (not Expand!) without dates and which placed it in Copenhagen, Denmark instead of St. Hill, England: https://books.google.com/books?id=OmkXAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Expand+magazine%22+hubbard&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Expand

B) Kent has cited the title as both "Expand (Scientology Magazine)" or "Scientology, EXPAND!" creating some inconsistencies.

C) Kent's only mention of Expand! (or Expand, or Scientology, EXPAND! depending on the claimant) appeared on page 308. Per his source note 19 on page 325, issue #1 appeared in June 1968. This date would necessitate it to be a quarterly magazine for Issue 21 to have been in 1973 (June specifically) as per the disputed citation on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, without a copy there is no way to verify.

D) Not one copy of Expand/Expand! magazine appeared online, on World Cat library, eBay, etc. The only known references are from Kent (and possibly Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack but I'm unable to see beyond the snippet).

E) It is interesting to note that in Kent's book he cited an alleged and still unreleased "secret lecture" (and thus unverifiable) as a basis for the origins of Expand magazine, either of which one cannot find. F) Further complicating matters are that the original statement on this article alleged that Hubbard had an April 1966 interview with Rhodesian television. No transcript nor video has ever surfaced to verify this alleged statement, while the only known Rhodesian interview of 1966 as mentioned earlier has no reference. Likewise, even the other known and unfavorable TV interview of Hubbard from 1967 "Scientology: The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI did not reference Sequoia University or the PhD degree.

G) It is also unclear whether the interview itself took place in April 1966 or merely was aired in April (i.e. it may have been recorded in or prior to March then released later), as no records show any interview took place in which Hubbard made such a statement to Rhodesian television per earlier link in (3).

H) It also begs the question as to what reporter(s) Hubbard spoke with, what channel(s)/station(s) the interview aired on, what day(s) or time(s) it aired, etc. If the interview did not air but was recorded, then on what was this claim based on? If using Expand! as the basis, then why do we not find a single copy of one issue, supposedly a result of a "secret lecture" which has never been heard or seen outside a select few, not even Kent himself?

I) As a result there are now three more unverified and disputable sources which form the foundation of this one claim:
 * 1) 1) A secret lecture, which not even Kent has heard, which has led to
 * 2) 2) Expand/Expand!/Scientology,EXPAND! magazine, of which nobody has seen one issue anywhere, which has led to
 * 3) 3) An interview nobody has seen or heard aired, or read a transcript, which has led to
 * 4) 4) citation [16].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear somewhat confused about how WP:V works. It doesn't matter if the sources are online since we know that at least a few issues exist. We are mainly interested in secondary coverage of historical sources, anyway.
 * The book Scientology in Popular Culture: Influences and Struggles for Legitimacy, edited by Stephen A. Kent and Susan Raine, published by ABC-CLIO in 2017, is reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Your original research is not reliable. I don't know who Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack is, and I assume Claudius Verlag is the publisher, but Pfeiffer is not a place as far as I know, and most passing mentions I've seen say the publisher is in München. Regardless, since neither one of us has access to the full publication, and I do not speak this language (and Wikipedia editors should avoid WP:MACHINETRANSLATION) this is not a productive or reliable source for challenging a known, reliable source.
 * If you know of, or find, reliable sources answering the questions you have raised, please feel free to bring them here for further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not confused, however I have already raised many reasons to re-examine the veracity of this claim in Kent's book.

The claim that "we know at least a few issues exist" - on what is this knowledge of their existence being based? Having confirmed that they are not online, can you or another editor direct us to where they exist in the physical world?

If we are using Kent's claims from his book as the basis for this knowledge, and seeing as how this book is currently the only reliable source for this magazine as Haack's is, as you said, not reliable for numerous reasons beyond the points I raised, then this is using circular logic beyond the flaws in claims raised as explained earlier.

Additionally, Kent's book does not mention any Issue 21 for that matter, which would at least form a reliable basis for the claim of [16] in a direct citation, but it does not do this.

(Just to clarify on Friedrich-Wilhelm Haack, my point with this is that this is the only other mention of Expand which is, as you said, not reliable for numerous reasons beyond the points I raised. Since it was mentioned, Haack authored "Youth Religions: Causes, Trends, Reactions" in 1979 as mentioned per the link in counterpoint A. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Haack_(Theologe) Also, I realize that the German citations may be confusing, but the Pfeiffer here referred to publisher Verlag J. Pfeiffer which became publisher Claudius Verlag, located in Munich (München) Germany - both seen on the front cover on the link provided.)

I'm not sure what "original research" is here as I used Google Books just as was done to dispute my points. Likewise, I cited the video links of the 1967 TV interview and 1966 Rhodesia interview which itself contradicts the claim in [16] as the fact that nothing else verifies it. Kent has provided unverifiable data for the claim. I recognize that the claim appeared in Kent's book but this does not make it valid in itself without examining the basis of the claim or lack of any other reference point against which one can and should verify data and claims.