Talk:Early life of L. Ron Hubbard

Article length

I would review this article, but (IMO) it's way too long. I just don't want to know so much (to me) uninteresting information about L. Ron Hubbard. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, why don't you review the article and bring up the level of detail as a 3b issue? I'm willing to try to trim some of the less relevant parts down a bit. In fact, I'll try to work on that soon anyway--if I take too much out we can just restore some later. This is a bit of an unusual case, since the article creator has retired. This was split off from the main article, which is now an FA, and I thought that this was pretty close to the GA criteria. I haven't read through all the sources used though, so let me know if that's an issue. The sourcing that I did read made it seem like this is pretty faithful to the sources though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that I just can't get interested in the guy, especially his childhood. Where I live now the Church of Scientology has a huge presence, but no one seems to care much about L. Ron Hubbard personally. I haven't heard anyone even mention Scientology for years. Because I visited a Scientology book store something like 20 years ago, once, I still receive weekly mailings from them (at least weekly). I'm curious about that, but not about Hubbard himself. I have no idea how much he is involved in today's goings on.

For me, the lede probably contains all I want to know. Talk me int thinking otherwise! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's actually not involved at all in today's goings on (he died in the 80s). What I found interesting about this was the way that the Scientology account of his life incorporates a lot of the aspects of traditional religions hagiography, clear parallels to the stories of Jesus and so on. It made me wonder whether a sort of "reformed-liberal Scientology" will develop that sees the details of Hubbard's life as metaphorical/allegorical, like Liberal Christianity or Reform Judaism have done with the Bible etc. Other than that, the story did have some pretty funny parts, "They smell of all the baths they didn't take" and so on... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the part that is crazy-making for me. And borders on OR, IMO because it has an agenda regarding the Scientology Church--that it includes myth etc. (Is that different from any religious take on history, e.g. Christianity and Christ?) How about leaving out all the self published sources, and just include reliably sourced material? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of that was just my opinion, things that came to mind after I read through this. The Christensen source does draw some comparisons to Christian Hagiography though. I agree that the article should not have a Scientology-related agenda. (I've never been involved in any anti-Scientology activism or anything.) I can be flexible with what sources to keep/throw out, I do dislike working with self-published sources. I think the article should include the Scientological view of his exploits, as well as notable views that independent journalists/academics have advanced. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• This article was originally created as a breakout article from the L. Ron Hubbard featured article, which was found too long and had to be shortened to be promoted to featured status. I think you'll find that this present article uses much the same sources, only in more detail.
• We should remember that this is meant to be a particularly detailed article (see WP:SUMMARY); ordinary readers who are not interested in that level of detail can read the account in L. Ron Hubbard.
• I'll drop User:MartinPoulter a note; he was instrumental in getting the Hubbard main article to FA at the time, and may be able to help us further here. Cheers, --JN466 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for weighing in, I saw that this was well made and figured I'd try to get it reviewed for GA, there are probably some more improvements that can be made though. I was pretty impressed with the parent article, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Early life of L. Ron Hubbard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Since the original review has been declared invalid I will conduct an individual reassessment of this article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Made a few minor changes as I went through (diff. Article appears to be in good shape.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Biographical accounts published by the Church of Scientology depict Hubbard as "a child prodigy of sorts", as Professor Ruth A. Tucker puts it. Why does this sentence say "biographical accounts published by the Church of Scientology" and "as Professor Ruth A. Tucker puts it". Which is it? I would choose one.

   Although the Church of Scientology states that Hubbard was awarded blood brotherhood "in a ceremony that is still recalled by tribal elders",[22] a Scientologist of fractional Blackfoot ancestry sought during the mid-1980s to prove that Hubbard had been a Blackfoot blood brother but was unsuccessful. He instead issued his own proclamation of Hubbard's blood brotherhood, which tribal officials disowned. I am not sure what this sentence is saying. I am wondering if there is a gramatical error somewhere. Did he someone who remembered the ceremony?

   "he worked as a supercargo and helmsman aboard a coastal trader which plied the seas between Japan and Java. "Worked as a supercargo and helmsman"? Maybe this could be taken out of a quote so it makes more sense. Or (sic) could be used.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Cite 17 "Tucker, p. 300" is not present in the references

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Is there more information about his early writings at University? Was anything published?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As far as the Good article criteria go I am happy with this. Everything is attributed as required.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few minor things that shouldn't take too much work to confirm the Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for the review. I think I have taken care of everything that you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sweet. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early life of L. Ron Hubbard. 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/20040624014725/http://lron.hubbard.org/pg002.html to http://lron.hubbard.org/pg002.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Early life of L. Ron Hubbard. 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/20110501184919/http://lron.hubbard.org/pg003.html to http://lron.hubbard.org/pg003.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316020911/http://lron.hubbard.org/pg005.html to http://lron.hubbard.org/pg005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416051004/http://lron.hubbard.org/pg006.html to http://lron.hubbard.org/pg006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311131716/http://www.lronhubbard.org/biography/adventures-explorations.html to http://www.lronhubbard.org/biography/adventures-explorations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416050959/http://lron.hubbard.org/pg001.html to http://lron.hubbard.org/pg001.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Buddhist Wikiproject

Does this really belong on the Buddhism Wikiproject? There is only a passing mention of Hubbard talking to Buddhist lamas in the page. This hardly warrants inclusion in the wikiproject. Even Steve Jobs and Orlando Bloom arent included in the Buddhism wikiproject and Buddhism probably had more to do with their lives than Hubbard's. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Topsy-turvy presentation

This Wikipedia article presents too much of the [false] narrative of the Church of Scientology about L. Ron Hubbard's life. It is perplexing to me why the article reads like a piece of Scientology propaganda with afterthoughts or light mentions of the well-known and broadly-published unmasked truth. Sounds bites like "He was unusually well-traveled for a young man of his time" (prominently placed as the third sentence, no less!) are ridiculous. Hubbard wasn't the only son of a US Navy man. Come on, that's just a military brat! If the purpose of this article was to present the real truth, or to puncture and debunk the Church of Scientology's exaggerated and mostly fictional story of Hubbard's life, it sure doesn't read like it.

Instead of presenting the Scientology narrative first, then attempting to debunk it, the article should present the real truth of Hubbard's early life, followed by a brief description of "what is a hagiography", followed by some of the Church of Scientology's rendition with individual points debunked. Grorp (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed this article has lots of problems. Feoffer (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely forgot I wrote the above post. LOL. Now that you've straightened out the bio since Hubbard's birth, maybe now this article is redundant. It is certainly overlapping the other articles of Template:L. Ron Hubbard life sidebar.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Early life of L. Ron Hubbard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrative GAR. This article has been merged elsewhere per Talk:Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950#Proposed merge of Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 with Early life of L. Ron Hubbard, which also noted that the sourcing was not tilted towards hagiographic sources. CMD (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.