Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [1].

---

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1

I rewrote this article from scratch a couple of months ago to resolve some outstanding issues and get it up to featured article standard. It's been through two reviews, first under the auspices of WP:MILHIST, the Wikiproject with which it is associated [2], and latterly a good article candidacy which it has passed with flying colours [3]. It meets the Good Article criteria and I believe it's of a sufficiently high standard now to be considered for Featured Article status. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick review

• Currently 4 dab links, see dab checker tool.
• Missing a number of access dates, see checklinks tool.
• Sisterlinks to relevant content like wikiquotes/commons?--Otterathome (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All now resolved. The checklinks tool shows a handful of false positives (essentially places where references include hyperlinks, but the hyperlinks are not themselves references). I've added a sisterlink to Commons; there doesn't seem to be anything relevant on the other sister projects. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)

• Comment WP:DASH: Instances of space-hyphen-space should be replaced with space-ndash-space. (The n-dash can be typed using Alt-0150 on a PC.)
• Comment Two paragraphs lack citations: the paragraph starting "In the early hours of May 19 ...", and the one following that starting "Hubbard stated ..." Some other non-trivial sentences lack citations too. This being a contentious topic, I would prefer seeing every sentence unambiguously cited.

I've resolved the two paragraphs. If there are other sentences which you feel need additional references, please list them and I'll sort it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that according to Atack, Hubbard "does not seem to have recounted" the submarine story to his followers (p. 77). It seems Atack was not aware of the tape we cite when he wrote his book. JN466 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have a WP:OR concern surrounding the I-76 submarine. We are putting together
  (1) an obscure talk from Hubbard himself, chatting informally about a submarine he believes he sank in May 1943, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that primary source;
  (2) a source which does not comment on Hubbard but says (on p. 258) that the Japanese "I-176" submarine (not "I-76", as it says in the sentence cited to it) was sunk at a particular date and location in 1944, i.e. one year later;
  (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard (cited in the caption for the submarine image on the right-hand side of the page), which says that the Japanese submarine "I-176" was named "I-76" while being built, but renamed "I-176" when it was commissioned in August 1942.
  The juxtaposition of these three sources – with the third one needed to establish the logical connection between the second and the first – implies that the "I-76" submarine Hubbard referred to and believed to have sunk in 1943 was in factthe "I-176" sunk in 1944. This represents a novel historical analysis, and is not found in secondary sources discussing the topic of this article, L. Ron Hubbard's military career.
• Comment The following links in the article lead to disambiguation pages: American Theater Battlefield Earth Coke Tilden JN466 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into the first, second and fourth issues you've raised. As for the third, I discussed this with you at length in the peer review, and I don't propose to continue the discussion with you here - as I have said before, you are misinterpreting the original research policy. I will just point out to other readers that there is no analysis, only a juxtaposition of autobiographical statements and the official record, just as with the rest of the article. The other peer reviewers and GA reviewer did not agree with your interpretation of WP:OR - I refer you in particular to The_ed17's comments. [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is quite possible to engage in WP:SYN by mere juxtaposition, connecting facts that are not connected in the secondary literature. Here an example: "3,000 disciples of Maitreya Yogeshwara chanted mantras to aid the world economy on Tuesday.(source 1) On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Index rose by 8% (source 2, not mentioning the chanters)." Only juxtaposition, but clear SYN.

Only 3 people ever commented at the peer review; the GA review, from transclusion to "Pass", took 20 minutes, and did not raise a single content query. JN466 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, we've been through this before. There's nothing further that I can say that I haven't already said to refute your arguments. I suggest that we leave this issue to one side, since we are not going to agree on your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:OR, and let others give their views. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, per my referenced comments above. An article on this subject which does not mention I-76/176's sinking date as given by the U.S. Navy is not complete; to give both sides, we need Hubbard's claim and the Navy's assertion. This isn't reaching "A and B [...] joined together in an article to reach conclusion C", this is "opinion A, assertion B, [C is missing]."

I like this quote from David Fuchs (talk · contribs) regarding SYN (link): "As long as you're not linking items in a suspect way (to advance a position, as WP:SYNTH says), you're find [sic]." Here we are not advancing a position; we are stating the opinion of a U.S. Navy commander that he sunk a submarine along with what the official record on the submarine states. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I note that Fontenoy too does refer to the earlier I-76 designation of the submarine on p. 257, and mentions the renaming on p. 258.

Still, I'd rather there were just one reliably published source out there, among the dozens of sources on Hubbard, which said, in essence,

"Hubbard always claimed to have sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine in 1943. But in fact, war records show that this submarine, which was renamed I-176 in 1942, was sunk in 1944 by someone else."

Given the absence of such a source, our article is ahead of the field. JN466 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point might be valid if the section in question - Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Pacific service: USS PC-815 - was phrased in the way you've just put it. But it's not, so your argument is based on a strawman from the outset. It's very carefully worded to avoid synthesis. It presents two principle facts, both from reliably published sources. The first is that Hubbard said he sank the I-(1)76 off Oregon. The second is that the US and Japanese navies recorded the loss of the I-(1)76 a year later on the other side of the Pacific. If there was a "however" in there, we would be introducing an analytical element - specifically a counterbalancing consideration. But there is no "however" and no analysis, merely a statement of two facts from two sources. Re-read what Ed says about synthesis. Your interpretation is at odds with how we conventionally approach such matters, since we're supposed to present conflicting perspectives non-judgmentally ("where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"). -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot "avoid synthesis by wording". Synthesis occurs by the novel juxtaposition of unrelated sources. Your very argument that you have avoided it by careful wording indicates that you are guilty of it. On the WT:NOR talk page, editors regularly argue that as long as they haven't used the words "but", "however", etc. when combining material from unrelated sources, they have successfully avoided synthesis. Here is an editor advancing that notion just yesterday in this post. See the replies by Blueboar (talk · contribs), not a novice when it comes to this: [5][6]

Here is an earlier discussion between SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), no slouch either, and Bob_K31416 (talk · contribs), again about the very same point. Bob is arguing that as long as there is no explicit conclusion drawn, only an implicit conclusion, there is no synthesis. SlimVirgin responds that an implicit conclusion is just the same as an explicit conclusion:

... it makes no difference. A SYN violation is when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached by synthesizing sourced material that wasn't explicitly reached by the source(s). (And a juxtaposition is just one form of synthesis.) SlimVirgin talk/contribs 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the current wording of WP:SYN. Another example was added recently. Check the WP:NOR talk page, too; e.g. the examples given here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#More_examples.

We have plenty of good sources explaining that Hubbard's superiors believed he and his crew were mistaken about the submarine. We have good sources stating that none of the other ships attending the action thought there was an enemy submarine in the area, etc. There is the safe and responsible ground to walk on in an FA; synthesising novel arguments from primary source research and army records that no other researcher has combined before you may make a fine book one day, if you ever want to publish your research, but the theory should not have its first airing in Wikipedia. The OR content should be removed; until it is I'll Oppose. JN466 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Following SlimVirgin's input, I'll Abstain for now, pending further discussion.) JN466 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that no other editors have supported your unusual interpretation of NOR. Your quotes don't support your case. Note that SlimVirgin, in the quote above, is speaking of a case "when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached". There is no comparison in this case; no conclusion, implicit or explicit, is reached; the two opposing positions are stated without any conclusion being drawn. Furthermore, the OR issue was specifically addressed during the Good Article review and was passed by the reviewer. As far as I'm concerned, a decision to oppose that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR is inoperative. The consensus of everyone who's commented on this issue is against you, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, ChrisO, the GA review did not comment on this issue at all. The only other editor who has ever taken an interest in it was Ed, who commented above as well, and commented once in the peer review, a few weeks after we had stopped discussing it.

The OR elements are
(1) the importance you attribute to an obscure primary source quote, for which I was able to find all of three google hits outside Wikipedia (all of these are on other Wikis). There is not a single hit in google books for "Ron Hubbard" and "I-76": [7];
(2) the assumption that Hubbard would have known that the I-176 was formerly briefly called the I-76, and that he was talking about the I-176 when he was referring to the I-76 (rather than just bragging, playing to his audience and pulling a plausible-sounding number out of the sky)
(3) the absence of any reliable source commenting on a claim by Hubbard to have sunk the "I-76" and countering this claim with extant navy records.

It simply is original research -- it may be brilliant original research for all I know, but you didn't summarise the existing literature on Hubbard. Instead, you aim to add to it through Wikipedia. WP:OR is policy. SlimVirgin's latest. JN466 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from existing literature. The fact that you can't find it in Google Books or via Google is irrelevant and is another strawman argument - Google does not (yet!) contain all published material, and actually has very little Scientology literature in it (presumably for copyright reasons). As for the GA review, you're dead wrong on that point - see Talk:Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1 and note point 2c. The reviewer checked for OR and passed it. Like I said, the only person who thinks this is OR is you, so I suggest that you accept that consensus is against you and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Existing literature, yes, but not existing literature on Hubbard! Rather than vaguely implying that there are secondary sources on Hubbard and his I-76 that don't show up in Google Books (nor Questia, nor google news, nor JSTOR ...), cite them if they exist.

To summarise, in my view Chris needs a secondary source that ties all his elements on the I-76 together, otherwise he is engaged in original research (he has self-published a lot on Hubbard's war record online). It may be genuinely interesting original research, but WP:NOR doesn't say that we allow good original research. JN466 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about someone solicits opinions from the FA director and the two delegates? It's rather obvious that none of you are going to budge :) To Chris: other cites you could use for the sinking of I-176 are the official DANFS entries: Franks and Johnston, although I note that they conflict; Franks says "In May, screening minelayers in Buka Passage, Franks and Haggard (DD-555) contacted, attacked, and sank Japanese submarine I-176 on 16 May.", but Johnston says "[...] she took up antisubmarine patrol off Bougainville. During this duty 15 May 1944, she depth charged and sank Japanese submarine I-176." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here on the SYN issue. I don't see this as a violation of SYN. SYN involves combining source material in a way that advances a position (a suggestion, argument, conclusion, implication) that isn't advanced by any of the sources. It's a form of POV pushing, often inadvertent.

What this article does is combine source material in a way that is purely informative. What position is being advanced regarding Hubbard? The article makes clear that he believed he had sunk a Japanese submarine, and that others disagree. It also says that the British and U.S. analysed Japanese losses and there appeared to be none missing during the period Hubbard says he did this, though a submarine called I-176 was sunk a year later than the Hubbard timeframe, and that same submarine used to have the name Hubbard gave for it. Is the writer of the article supposed to keep this information to himself? "Ha, ha, I know something they'd all love to know, but I'm not going to tell them!" Perhaps yes, if we were dealing with a sensitive BLP issue, and harm could come of it, but in an article about a historical figure, it's simply interesting, and I think it would be obtuse of us not to mention it, even if the sources don't make reference to Hubbard.

SYN does say that source material must explicitly refer to the topic, but that shouldn't be rigidly interpreted to mean, "must explicitly refer to the title of the article," because that would be very disabling. SYN exists to stop editors from sliding in their POVs with the poor use of source material that isn't strictly relevant, to say something none of the sources wanted to say. It's not there to stop editors from using source material to inform readers in a way that seems to flow naturally from the narrative. I admit that this can be a fine line, often based on intuition, but I don't believe it has been crossed here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. One concern I had is that we are giving a weight to an obscure primary source – i.e. the 1950s Hubbard audio talk referring to the "I-76" – that it does not have in the secondary literature, which ignores it completely. This may be simply because no one noticed the talk before Chris, but it could have other reasons too. For example, I don't know how often Hubbard talked about this incident, and whether the story and the submarine type were always the same, each time he told it. I have no way of finding out either. Yet we are devoting a sizeable part of the article to this material. We are giving a 225-word verbatim quote from the talk; whereas it would take just a dozen words to say that Hubbard once expressed a belief he had sunk the I-76 Japanese submarine. Thoughts? JN466 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the POV position put forward, such as I saw it, was that Hubbard was either a Munchhausen character, someone who enjoyed telling tall tales, or a fool; and put forward using sources that hadn't been used in that way before. Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but it reminded me of various Internet pages entitled "Ron the Nut", "Ron the War Hero" etc. All very good fun, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Then again, I am quite prepared to entertain the notion that I've asked too much of Chris here, as long as I also hear it from someone else than Chris. :) I've changed my Oppose on this issue to Abstain above, so we can leave it at that if you like. Cheers, JN466 20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. When you say the "1952 Hubbard audio talk," do you mean this ref: Hubbard, L. Ron (October 23, 1956). "CRA Triangle". Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Lectures. Bridge Publications? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. JN466 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We had this problem a few times with LaRouche quotes that hadn't appeared in secondary sources. One editor who was very familiar with LaRouche had back copies of one of his magazines, and would use quotes from it. Some of the LaRouche supporters said it amounted to OR. It boils down to two things: (a) is there any reasonable doubt that the subject really said these things? and (b) is the quote being used to bring him into disrepute, in a way that's unsupported by any other source? As the issue of whether he did or didn't sink a Japanese submarine is being discussed by secondary sources, I see no harm in quoting Hubbard directly on the subject. It's hard for me to comment in more detail, because I'm not familiar with the source material, so I can't judge whether the long quote is being used in a way that might be unfair or out of character for him. It certainly seems okay to me, based on the little knowledge I have. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There actually isn't any alternative to quoting Hubbard's published works directly, as there is no official biography of his life, and certainly no official coverage that addresses this period of his life in any great detail. On the other hand there is a great deal of critical coverage of this period of his life from unofficial biographers and exposés. The problem I faced in (re)writing this article was how to keep it balanced given the disparity of sourcing - a massive amount of anti-Hubbard material and sparse pro-Hubbard material. The only way I could find to resolve this was to quote what Hubbard himself actually said in his own works, such as books and lectures, and let the man speak for himself to supplement the otherwise sparse pro-Hubbard material on this period. There's no issue about the authenticity of his spoken words, since they're not only given on tape/CD but are published in transcript form (which I think would technically count as a secondary source?) by his official publishing organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it stretches credulity that you might have put that 200-word quote in to show Hubbard in a good light, and to balance the anti-Hubbard sources. He comes across like an ass. So if that is your intent, just say something like "Hubbard claimed in a 1956 talk that he had sunk the I-76.", bearing in mind that the research we can call upon today as to the fate of each individual ship was not then available, and delete the rest of the quote.

Also, coming back briefly to the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, during the peer review I pointed you to a 2009 (2000) Oxford University Press source that said it did seem like Hubbard had sunk a submarine after all: [8].

It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the War.

— J.R.Lewis (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 20, identical passage also in Melton (2000)

I suggested that because it was verifiable, and reputably published, we should think about dropping it in, with attribution, just to satisfy NPOV, but you were adamant and wouldn't have any of it.

Coming to the wider issue SlimVirgin raises, the use of primary source quotes is something that I generally prefer to see handled through the filter of secondary sources. In the German Wikipedia, where I sometimes do a bit of work as well, this is actually policy – the very act of selection from a primary-source corpus is considered an original analysis, and inappropriate whenever there is a sufficient body of secondary literature available. It is that body of secondary literature that should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, with due weight (e.g. what to quote) established by that literature. Personally, I think that makes sense. Bypassing existing analyses of a primary-source corpus in favour of making original selections from it strikes me as not in line with the spirit of WP:OR. So I'd have some sympathy for the LaRouchies there. Just think of a politician that you really like (if there is such a thing), and then imagine someone compiling a list of all the daftest things your favourite has ever said, all the stumbles, all the jet-lagged interviews, etc., and making these statements overwhelm the article with the justification, "But he did say that", and passing it off as an encyclopedic treatment when there are reputably published, rounded analyses available that the article could draw on. --JN466 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Jayen, this is just tendentious. We've discussed Melton before and the reasons for excluding his claim: the lack of any corroboration, the fact that he's not a military historian (or an historian of any kind) so has no qualifications to make such a claim, and the fact that it completely contradicts the entire corpus of WW2 Japanese naval history - a classic red flag situation. You've been obsessing over this one single point literally for months. Please just move on and let the rest of us get on with developing articles in peace without the constant wikilawyering and wall-of-text arguments. I do not propose to reply to any further comments you post, since there is clearly nothing that can be gained by doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Only pointing out the inherent contradiction in your bemoaning, above, the sparsity of "pro-Hubbard" material, while at the same time insisting that we shouldn't cite any such sources, even if reputably published, because you think they're wrong. JN466 00:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I agree with you about editors picking and choosing from primary-source material, and I have quite a lot of sympathy with the German position, though I wouldn't want to go that far. I certainly agree that, where an issue in someone's life is not mentioned at all by secondary sources, we shouldn't use primary sources to draw attention to it. However, in this case, the sinking or not sinking of this submarine is discussed by secondary sources. Even if this particular quote isn't in secondary sources, the subject matter is not something that a Wikipedian has unilaterally chosen to write about.

As for J. Gordon Melton, personally I would use that. The book is published by Oxford University Press, and the editor, James R. Lewis, is a specialist in cults. I would use it simply for the sake of providing balance, though I think I also agree with Chris that it's not clear how Melton knows this, and he doesn't seem to explain, so it's not ideal. Actually, what I would do in this situation is write to Melton to ask him what his sources were, and I'd try to follow up from there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just to clarify, I wouldn't see the disagreement over Melton as a reason to object to promoting the article. There are legitimate arguments for and against using him, and if anyone were going to write to him to request clarification, it could take some time, so I'd see that as part of the normal editing process, not something that had to be done for FA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I know what Melton's source is - the late L. Fletcher Prouty, an ex-USAF officer who was a fairly notorious JFK conspiracy theorist associated with the holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. The Church of Scientology turned to Prouty during the 1980s to comment on Hubbard's military career and he wrote a number of pieces for them arguing that there was a US government conspiracy to falsify Hubbard's naval records. Prouty has absolutely zero credibility as a reliable source for anything, so I'm not surprised that Melton has declined to attribute a claim that originated with him. But the main problem with Melton's claim isn't so much the lack of sources as the fact that it contradicts everything that is known about Japanese military history from World War II. The US, Japanese and Royal Navies and naval historians all state that no Japanese submarines were even anywhere near Oregon in 1943, let alone were lost there. Melton appears to be completely oblivious to the implications of his claim - one would think a responsible or competent scholar would attempt to verify it or cite a source. His claim contradicts over 50 years of scholarship and dozens of published works. As I said, this is a classic example of a red-flagged claim: "a claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community [in this case military historians], or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Even if Melton were to write back to disclose his source - he's not very responsive, I gather from others who've tried to clarify or correct his statements - the claim would still have to be excluded on the grounds of being way out on the fringe. There is nothing in any published literature that would back it up - I've checked - and a huge amount that actively contradicts it. It is literally a one-man viewpoint in opposition to all the published accounts of the Imperial Japanese Navy's history. It's not that I think Melton is wrong (though I do), but that he's making a claim in an area (military history) in which he has no expertise, without any sourcing, and which is contradicted by the entire corpus of sources on the IJN's submarine fleet. Note that it is not a claim about cults, so his (alleged) expertise in that field is not relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)(outdent) Some scholars like Melton and Frenschkowski say that critics lack access to "many pertinent documents housed in the Chuch's archives". Frenschkowski has written that "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Russell Miller [widely cited in our article] is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-faced_Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection)." But unfortunately, and somewhat maddeningly, Frenschkowski fails to give further details, except to say that "This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard." I still think it unlikely that Melton is right on the submarine. Even though he is a reputable scholar – he writes the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology – other scholars have commented that he tends to follow the Scientology party line rather closely. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on Melton being wrong either. ;) I'd be in favour of mentioning his view, with attribution, simply because it is a notable minority view, and in Miller and Atack we are ourselves citing sources whose accuracy others like Melton and Frenschkowski have at least partly questioned. It may not be a bad thing if the reader gets the impression that there are still disputes about some of the details of Hubbard's military career, and that future publications may shed more light on these. JN466 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be against this inclusion in the article—IMHO, this is clearly a fringe theory, so why should we include his viewpoint? If anything, it should be clearly shown in the article that he is probably wrong: "Although an overwhelming majority of sources support that I-176 was sunk in May 1944,<many refs> scholar (first name) Melton supports the claim that PC-815 sunk the submarine off of Washington on (date)." —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Melton does not refer to the I-76 or any other designation; he just says "a submarine". JN466 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) - ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Without providing any sourcing and contradicting the long-established facts that the Japanese navy withdrew all of its submarines to the western Pacific by the end of 1942 and didn't lose any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If Melton's source really is L. Fletcher Prouty, he shouldn't be used; Prouty is at the centre of a swirl of conspiracy theories. Chris also has a point about Melton not being a military historian, and it did rather jump out at me that Melton didn't cite a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall, Prouty made a statement on Hubbard's notice of separation and the number of his medals, rather than anything to do with the submarine story, but I am now out of my depth. Short of writing to Melton, I couldn't tell you what this particular passage is based on. FWIW though, what ChrisO said above about all Japanese submarines retreating to the West Pacific, and the Japanese not losing any submarines off the US west coast at any point during the war, is directly contradicted by this Naval Institute Press source, which says that

"a very few [Japanese] submarines continued to operate in the North Pacific after the loss of Attu and the evacuation of Kiska" [which was in May 1943] ... the I-180 was sunk during a late night attack in the vicinity of Kodiak by the USS Gilmore (DE-18) on 26 April 1944.

— The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II By Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160

Kodiak is jolly well not in the West Pacific. It's on Southern Alaska's west coast, so it seems overconfident to say that an Oxford University Press-published scholar can be discounted without second thought, because there "simply weren't" any Japanese submarines on the US west coast after 1942.

I would suggest we give the date of Hubbard's lecture and shorten the quote from the lecture to the essentials; 225 words is excessive. Let's leave the rest for another day. Thanks for looking in, Slim. Cheers, JN466 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that Chris' use of "west coast" is not meant to apply to the Aleutian Islands. Also, while Dutch Harbor is 2500 miles from Tokyo, the state of Washington is 4784. I-176—and I'd assume her aforementioned sister I-180— had a range of 8000 miles, meaning that to simply get to Washington and back would require more fuel than they could carry. To patrol off of a coast waiting for a target would take even more fuel! As such, I seriously doubt that any Japanese submarine would have been sent to patrol off of the west coast in the latter stages of the war due to the massive logistical problems it would entail. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kodiak Island is not an Aleutian Island. It's 250 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. A Japanese submarine was sunk there in 1944. Another Japanese submarine made attacks on the Oregon coast in 1942. The Washington coast is somewhere between those two locations, so it's at least conceivable for a Japanese sub to have been there in 1943.

If anything, the west coast would have been easier to reach for Japanese submarines in spring 1943, because from June 1942 until May 1943 they had a base on Attu Island, about halfway between Japan and the US. They didn't need that base though to reach the west coast in '42 and '44. Let's take any further discussion of this to the article talk page though. Cheers, JN466 08:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's drop the discussion about Melton; I am myself in two minds as to whether we should or should not mention him. Let's just assume it is irrelevant to this FA, as SlimVirgin said earlier. Okay? --JN466 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fixed; thanks. The alt text is present, but it contains info that is not that helpful (see WP:ALT). For example, the lead image's alt text is "Photograph of L. Ron Hubbard in naval uniform in Astoria, Oregon in 1943." but a typical reader won't know what L. Ron Hubbard looked like back then, or that the photo is dated 1943, or that it was taken in Astoria. Alt text should focus on appearance: it should say only what a typical reader would see and understand without looking at the containing article or caption. Better would be something like "Head and shoulders portrait of man in circa 1940 U.S. uniform of a junior naval officer". Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also fixed. One other thing: the reference to File:United States NR Seal.svg does not have alt text. That's OK, but as per WP:ALT it should contain "|link=", as this image is purely decorative. Eubulides (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the alt tags to take an approach which, to be honest, I'm more comfortable with than a vague description - a little bit of specificity to start off with followed by a description of the scene. For instance: "Photograph of the submarine chaser USS PC-815 viewed from the starboard (right) bow (front) aspect, showing a single-masted vessel running at speed with a large wake visible, a deck gun prominent on the bow and a crew member standing at the starboard aft (rear) railings." Let me know if you think this approach works. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is much better, but the visually-impaired Wikipedian that I've corresponded with has expressed a strong preference for brief descriptions, I suppose because they didn't want to get bogged down listening to info that's only marginally relevant. The alt text should not say "L. Ron Hubbard" when the caption already says "L. Ron Hubbard"; first, that will result in the same text being read twice to the visually impaired reader, and second, most people don't know LRH's appearance from a hole in the ground so saying that an image looks like LRH is not conveying useful information to them. I took a shot at trimming down the alt text somewhat so that it covers only what's visible in the image, and omits details (such as whether we're seeing the port or starboard side of a vessel) that aren't that immediately useful; please revert any part of this that strikes you amiss. That change also adds the "|link=" for the decorative image. Thanks for helping out with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that looks good to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am hugely reluctant to get involved in this area of WP, however File:Lronhubbard_1943.jpg fails to meet WP:NFCC, and therefore the articles fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• The source is dated significantly after the image was taken, is this source even correct? if it was taken by the military it is probably PD Fasach Nua (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: could you explain which NFCC criteria you believe it fails? Secondly, I don't really understand your concern about the source. It's a 2008 book which includes a biogaphical profile of Hubbard. The accompanying caption reads "Portland, Oregon, 1943. L. Ron Hubbard, captain of the US Navy subchaser PC 815". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The image fails to meet nfcc#8. Was 2008 the first time this image was published? Is the copyright of the image asserted by the publisher? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I've seen the image published in other publications dating back to the mid-1990s. There is no attribution of the copyright. However, it may be moot anyway - I've found an alternative copyright-expired image, published at the time by a now-defunct newspaper. Take a look at File:Hubbard and moulton.jpg and see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done on finding a free alternative. The original image may fall into this category, and it is of better quality, FA should be our "best work", but it is not an easy thing to prove the origin of some images. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Content queries

• Comment Our article includes the statement, "Their reports do not list any Japanese submarine losses for mid-May 1943, and do not list any Japanese submarine losses off the US coast during the whole of the war.[42]", cited to a June 1946 source.
  Later sources – Fontenoy, p. 258, Carl Boyd, Akihiko Yoshida, p. 160, [9] – list the I-180 as sunk off Southern Alaska, while Boyd + Yoshida (p. 211) list the I-31 as lost on 13 May 1943 off Attu (Aleutian island).
  Both halves of the statement cited to that 1946 source appear to be outdated and superseded by later research. --JN466 05:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the article to take care of these points. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tweaked the wording, please review. --JN466 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks OK to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodie. --JN466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Our article contains the passage,

  Among the other awards listed on the record released by the Church is the British Victory Medal,[70] an award issued for service in the British armed forces in the First World War and that was never awarded by itself.[71]

The record distributed by the Church is shown in the article. As can be seen, whoever typed it had trouble fitting everything in. The text runs out of the box on the right, and at the bottom. In particular, the line

• American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds.

runs out of the box on the right by some considerable margin. The entire word "Meds." does not fit in the box. Hubbard himself, according to this source ;), referred to the medal in question as the 1939-45 War Medal. This redlink would seem like a suitable candidate for a redirect to War Medal 1939–1945. This was a British World War II medal comparable to the World War II Victory Medal (United States) in that every Brit soldier who had served 28 days at sea got one. The assertion that the Church document refers to the World War I Victory Medal (United Kingdom) is sourced to the Church record itself, but surely represents a Wikipedian's interpretation of this primary source. Likewise, the source cited for background information on the British Victory Medal again does not mention Hubbard; its relevance to this article hinges on a Wikipedian's interpretative claim about the primary source. Now, a plausible alternative interpretation of the line in the Church record surely would be that it is simply short for

• American Defense Victory Medal, British War Medal 1939–1945, & Dutch Bronze Cross

At any rate, if I were the typist required to fit all of that in, and I was already on the last line I could fit into the box, and the box was only 35 characters wide, I might have decided to just call the British and Dutch things "victory medals" as well, because they were rough equivalents to the United States' World War II Victory Medal. Of course I am not suggesting that this analysis should go in the article; I am just saying that it is an alternative and equally plausible analysis of this document. Just like your analysis, it is not based on a secondary source, and has no business being in the article. --JN466 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, the document is signed by an officer who didn't exist, it lists Hubbard as commanding one vessel which didn't serve in the war and another which didn't exist, it shows Hubbard with a degree (civil engineering) which he definitely didn't possess as he dropped out of his course, and it shows Hubbard with multiple awards (including European ones!) of which there is no record of him ever having received. Your analysis is pure unsourced speculation. We are not in the business of speculating what might have been in the mind of the person who typed that document (probably Hubbard himself, actually); the facts are that the document attributes Hubbard with a number of things, and reliable sources state that those things either did not happen or did not exist. It is a parallel situation to the issue with the I-176 that was discussed above. I suggest you re-read the advice that others have given you, as you seem to have forgotten it already. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The document does not say Hubbard got the British First World War victory medal. That is purely your speculation, or the speculation of whoever added this passage. You are forgetting one thing here: by laying it on too thick, you serve no one. Just stick to the stuff that clearly is off base, without trying to turn the whole thing into a Laurel and Hardy pantomime. That may go over well on Operation Clambake, where you are preaching to the converted, but not here. --JN466 00:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It says he was awarded the "British Victory Medal" - fact one. There was only one British "Victory Medal" issued in Hubbard's lifetime, for service in the First World War - fact two. Both facts are indisputable and reliably sourced. Your speculation is based on supposition and no sourcing whatsoever, and your POV agenda is obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1939-45 War Medal has sometimes been referred to as the ‘Victory Medal’, though this is not its official title. Hubbard himself referred it to it as the "(British) 1939-45 War Medal", according to this self-published researcher. I think Hubbard had brains enough to tell apart the first and second world wars. --JN466 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The service record document we're discussing does not credit Hubbard with the award he claimed in the 1970s. Again, it's supposition on your part to suggest that the document's author was referring to that particular medal. We do not know what was in the author's mind and it's pointless and OR to speculate. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect JN, how can you say that "American Defense, Br.& Dtch. Vict. Meds." is the same as "American Defense, British 1939-45 War Medal and Dutch Bronze Cross"? I am totally at a loss as to how we got from A to B. —Ed ^{Talk • Say no to drama} 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had made myself clear? I said that this was just as speculative as the conclusion that "Br. Vict. Med." referred to the World War I Victory Medal, especially bearing in mind that the British 1939-45 War Medal is also referred to as the "Victory Medal" and Hubbard himself claimed quite clearly in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal. There is no secondary source cited that says Hubbard's notice of separation [is so badly forged that it] claims he got a World War I medal for his role in the Second World War. Given that there is no secondary source that has made this (rather odd) analysis of the primary source, it's original research. JN466 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think this arguement could go both ways; if there was only one "Victory Medal" given out by the Brits, and it was that WWI one, there is a strong case for linking it. What else could it be referring too, outside of something non-existant (like the Dutch one is)? —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have said several times now, the term "Victory Medal" was also current for the British 1939-45 war medal. Hubbard himself appears to have claimed in his writings that he got the British 1939-45 medal, as well as the Dutch Bronze Cross. JN466 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but Hubbard didn't serve with a British or Commonwealth force at sea, making him ineligible for the medal; also, while that page says that he claimed he got the 1939-45 War Medal, it makes no connection between that and the "British Victory Medal". Same problem with the Bronze Cross and the "Dutch Victory Medal". —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe Hubbard claimed he participated in some form of joint action with them in the South Pacific. What we should do is to look for reliable published sources that comment on Hubbard's claims and their likely veracity, and then we should summarise what they say in the article. We should not be looking at the primary source document and write what we think.

Please remember that we have multiple strong sources in the article that call Hubbard "virtually a pathological liar", that he had made "false claims", etc. It is not as though excising the original research will leave the reader with the false impression that Hubbard's claims are generally held to be correct, or that we are endorsing them. All I am trying to do is to keep the article honest, and that means no original research. JN466 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re War medal: Hubbard was not part of the British or any Commonwealth military—as a member of the U.S. Navy, there is no way the medal could have been awarded to him. I think that a mention of Hubbard's claim to be owed the medal followed by its requirements would be helful though, assuming we find an RS for the claim of the war medal.

Okay, so how about we remove the 'WWI Victory Medal for WWII' sentence, as I see that it could be ambiguous. Without the ambiguity, though, Chris' interpretation would certainly be justified. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a reliable source for Hubbard's claim to be owed the 1939-45 War Medal, which is why I didn't include that in the article; the only source for that claim is an unpublished letter which, as far as I know, has never been published or quoted in print. Miller and Atack refer to it but do not quote from it. Although I've got a copy of it myself, I purposefully avoided quoting from it as it's unverifiable for most people. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the "self-published researcher" you gave above really says this regarding the two medals:

• British Victory Medal
  • This medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. Furthermore, the British Ministry of Defence has no record of a Lt. L. Ron Hubbard ever having been awarded a British decoration.
• [...]
• Dutch Victory Medal
  • Like its supposed British counterpart, this medal simply does not exist. It does not appear on Hubbard's official file. —Ed ^{Talk • Say no to drama} 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I might point out that the Bronze Cross (Netherlands) was not a "victory medal". It's an award for bravery that has been been awarded in numerous campaigns since World War II. The Dutch did not have a "Victory Medal" as such; the Medal of Recognition is probably the closest equivalent. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we agreed that the 1939–45 War Medal is at times referred to as the "Victory Medal" for World War II? Can we agree then that it is perfectly plausible to assume that this was the Victory Medal referred to in the Church document? Is this not in fact more plausible than to assume the Church document is trying to refer to a World War I medal, given that Hubbard was seven years old when World War I ended? My concern is that we might be seen to be erecting strawmen to knock down which have no existence anywhere in the literature on Hubbard, except in your self-published online writings. JN466 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not agreed. That is unsourced original research. It stays out of the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I have never argued for inclusion of this in the article. I have argued that the assertion that the British Victory Medal must be the World War I medal should be deleted, because this assertion is not supported by the available secondary literature. (I actually deleted it, and Chris restored it.) JN466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is concerning the ship, "Mist".
• We first mention her in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section. We say that Hubbard lost command of her, but never mention that he was given command of her. Could that fact be added, perhaps with a date, if available? This section makes clear that the "Mist" was converted for military service, and that Hubbard commandeered her. Later on, when critiquing the supposed forgery of his military record, we say that the "USS Mist" referred to on that record "left US Navy service in 1919, when Hubbard was six years old". Clearly, the ship referred to on the supposed forgery is the ship we have described at length in the Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Atlantic_service:_USS_YP-422_and_after section, which Hubbard indeed briefly had command of, and not this ship here. JN466 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "USS Mist" in World War II, period. The USS YP-422 was never called the USS Mist at any point in its service. You are speculating again. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying is that it does not make a whole lot of sense to tell the reader, at length, about how a ship named "Mist" became Hubbard's first command, and then to say a few paragraphs further down that there wasn't ever such a ship, or rather, that it left US Navy service when Hubbard was a kid. We'll have to find some other way. JN466 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the lines in question to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The recent Scientology arbitration case concluded that

13) ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[10] and September 2007[11], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[12] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[13] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[14]; declined a CSD[15]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[16] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[17][18] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[19][20][21][22][23].

The last of the above diffs in which ChrisO cited self-published writings was this very article that is the subject of this FAC. ChrisO has reworked the article since then, but it still contains several lines of argument that are unique to his self-published research and not found elsewhere. I will oppose this nomination until these elements are removed. Our job is to summarise the reliably published literature. Any primary-source analysis, such as analyses of Hubbard's purported notice of separation, has to be based on secondary sources other than Chris's self-published research. JN466 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the last diff? It's from 2007, and he's reverting the addition of copyvio'd material. Perhaps you should let others comment on this FAC, because it sure looks like you are on a vendetta against Chris. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I looked at the diff. The article cited his private correspondence (!) as a source for an assertion, and ChrisO left it there as a reference. I am not on a vendetta against Chris, beyond this: I believe this Wikipedia article should reflect what is written about Hubbard's military career in reliable sources. It should not reflect ChrisO's self-published writing. JN466 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that he cited his personal correspondence then and reverted the copy/paste addition of his personal correspondence then, but does that have any bearing or effect upon the article today? Please give a list of the references you have problems with, please; it's difficult to reply without knowing which ref(s) you think are "ChrisO's self-published writing", especially as Chris' email is no longer a reference... Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It has no bearing whatsoever on the article today - this is blatant tendentious editing from Jayen in an obvious POV-driven campaign to sabotage this FA nomination. He's raising objection after objection, promoting his personal, unsourced suppositions. These are not good-faith actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The medals and separation notice are one example where I feel we are going beyond the analyses available in reliable sources. (There used to be much more original analysis of this in the article in earlier days, so there has already been a dramatic improvement.) Here is "Hubbard navy medals scientology" in google books and in google news. Those are the views we should summarise, in due proportion to their published prominence in the best and most reputable sources, and without going beyond these sources. No?

In these sources, there is wide support (with only a small number of sources dissenting) for the assertion that Hubbard claimed to have 20 or more medals, and that the Navy said he only got the four standard ones. That is all we need to say on the topic. There is no support in these sources for discussing British WWI medals. (There is well-sourced scholarly support though for the assertion that Hubbard was determined "to place personal truth before objective truth" and "believed his own lies" [24][25][26], if anyone were looking to add analysis.)

Here are the available news, scholar and book sources that specifically mention Hubbard's separation notice document: google books, google news, google scholar. Please look at them; the one source that discusses it takes the opposite view to the one represented in the article; so using this search term, there is no RS support for our analysis of the separation notice document either.

Given the history of the Scientology topic area in this project, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Characterising_the_dispute, I feel passionate about having responsible NPOV coverage of it in Wikipedia. In particular, it should comply with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Neutrality_and_sources:

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Passed 12 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Due weight being established by reliable sources means that we do not add analyses of things that have remained unanalysed in RS. Another example is the alleged non-existence of the USS Howland, or the history of the 1919 USS Mist; if it is not discussed in a single RS, how is mentioning it in line with the above arbcom principle? So unless such sources can be brought forth (the ones cited do not relate to Hubbard and do not establish due weight), I am in favour of deleting the material shown in red in this diff. I don't believe the article will be appreciably diminished by that.

Chris means well – he has researched this matter deeply, he feels passionately about this topic and has strongly-held opinions about it. Given this background, I believe it is very hard for him to not add further analysis beyond what the RS say. I can understand his passion. But for this to be an FA, it should comply with policy and arbcom principles, and it should comply scrupulously. This is the first Scientology article up for FA since the arbcom. It is not a bad article by any means, and I am sorry that tempers have gotten frayed. Despite the apparent heat of the discussion, in my view there is not much standing in the way of this article receiving FA status. I'll be taking a break from this review for a few days. JN466 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The first paragraph in the section "Western Pacific service" does not have any references for the most part. Could we add them? I think the material is mostly taken from Atack and Miller. JN466 04:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. You would be right about the sources, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on sources

• Many of the books lack publisher location information
• The Malko book lacks ISBN
• No need to give the page reference of the Corydon book in the source listing
• Citations lacking publisher details: [8], [52], [58], [70], [72], [73], [85]

Otherwise the sources look solid. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Publisher info has been added.
• The Malko book apparently doesn't have an ISBN. None is listed - it was apparently published just before ISBN was adopted.

According to Abebooks, the ISBN for this book is 1-112-96373-1. ISBN was introduced in 1966, but it didn't become universal until 1970, and I dare say some editions of this book (yours, perhaps) were printed without the code. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add that to the article. I was unable to find any ISBN details in the book. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redundant page reference has been deleted.
• Publisher details have been added for [8], [52], [58], [72], [73]. [70] is a bit complicated as it is a document attributed to the US Navy, which the Navy itself has disowned; I've done what I can with the reference. The citation format for [85] is correct - it's a series of reports called the Family Law Reports. They don't appear to be attributed to any specific publisher.ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Law reports in the UK are usually published by Jordans. In this case the xenu site webmaster probably got them from there. However, since Ealdgyth has struck on this issue, I don't think it's worth pursuing. My sources concerns are all met now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 58 (Scientology myths: Psychiatry....) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 64 is "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International" but this doesn't help me locate the reference. Is there a title missing, perchance?
• Current ref 70 is a scan of the document. I'd prefer to see the link to the newspaper article also given with this reference. What'd the Times say about it's reliablity?
• Current ref 85 (Re B & G (minors)...) is a court document, but I'm unclear on where exactly this was filed. Also what makes the xenu.net site a reliable source for court documents?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that this was an official Scientology website. Looking more closely, it appears to be either an unofficial or a semi-official pro-Scientology one. I'll try to find a replacement for this citation.
• The original story didn't have a title. Weird, I know, but there it is.
• I've added a reference to the newspaper article and the original source of the document (i.e. the Church of Scientology). Above reproductions of the two records, the Times says: "Records detailing L. Ron Hubbard's military service released by the U.S. Navy and the Church of Scientology contain discrepancies." It summarises the two records and adds: "The Department of the Navy says it has no record of the additional decorations the church says Hubbard received." Unfortunately this only appears in the print version; the online version (and copies in newspaper databases) doesn't include the images or the captions in question.
• The court document is from the Family Law Reports; the citation is in the approved format for this publication. The site is just a convenience link. I've got a hard copy of the same document; it could probably go on Wikisource if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• On the court record, can we expand the FLR into something non-acronymnish for those that aren't up on court publications. I gather this is a published law journal/etc. of some sort? If so, the title of the journal/etc. should go in italics so folks realize that the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I've expanded it. It's not a law journal as such, as far as I can make out (I'm not a lawyer myself), more of a published compilation of judgments. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good. I'll strike the last one when you get a replacement. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I traced the original primary source from which this apparently unofficial website was quoting, and quoted it along with a tertiary source which also quotes it via a secondary source. I think that covers all the bases. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.