Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Wikipedia or The burden of Sisyphus (Scientology in the media and on the Internet (3))

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

	“whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”
	Jimmy Wales
	(from Wikipedia rules ‘Neutral point of view: No Original Research’)

Scientology in the media and on the Internet   (page 3, Wikipedia)

Go to “Scientology in the media and on the Internet” index page

 
Index:

		The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’
			- A general overview
				(Includes:  A summary;  The vandalization problem;  The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation;  The use of warning banners in Wikipedia;  The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits)
			- ‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation
				(Includes:  Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’;  A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’)
			- Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it
		(a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia?
			- ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’ - ‘Creationism’
		(b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia
			- What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles - Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations:
				1. The ‘Scientology belief system’ 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’ 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’ 4. ‘Operation Snow White’ 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia
		The Swedish episode  (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)
			- Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia - My arguments - Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me - How my write up (report) was received - Having an ‘agenda’ - My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day & Final notices

The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’

	A general overview
		- A summary - The vandalization problem - The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation - The use of warning banners in Wikipedia - The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits
	‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation’
		- Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’ - A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’
	Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it

 
A general overview

• A summary
• The vandalization problem
• The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation
• The use of warning banners in Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits

 
A summary

A medium such as Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) and all its offshoots do add a very interesting twist to the information that is found on the Internet. Wikipedia has ‘earned’ credibility solely because of its popularity and the fact that in many searches with for example Internet search machines such as Google, Yahoo, Ask, etc. may present hits with Wikipedia first. The question is if this credibility is rightfully earned.
Wikipedia promotes itself as an open content encyclopaedia of some sort,but a kind in which any person –be it a fool or a literate– can contribute, write and actually alter information in virtually any article. And these edits you can get published instantly on Wikipedia. So, nothing that you will ever write on Wikipedia will be safe. You will have to monitor in eternity. On top of that you can even be anonymous. Well, how does that sound for an encyclopaedia? When in a real encyclopaedia it would be a requirement to be actually merited (having a proven expertise) before being allowed to contribute.
It has also been found that various individuals purposely seek to manipulate the flow of information for propagandistic reasons. Various outsets and uses for personal agenda's are effectively touched in the article “Political tricksters fouling up Web site” published on deseretnews.com on Saturday, 29 Apr 2006 (consult article here, pop-up window).

Probably in general the medium is fairly reliable, however controversial topics like religious and political issues, or for example Scientology and Creationism should be subjected to serious scrutiny. See, you can even work together with other people and add twists to the information found on Wikipedia. It has been found that routinely individuals monitor particular pages that instantly will revert something if it does not align their agenda.

 
The vandalization problem

A rather huge problem would be that you will not ever know for sure if you are consulting a vandalized article at the very moment that you are consulting it! The claim may very well be that vandalism gets corrected in some minutes or so, but may be already too long. Either way you can never, never, never be completely sure about the correctness of what you are reading on Wikipedia as you may be consulting a vandalized article prior to correction.
Take as an example this article here (external link) that had changed 2.5% into 25%. It took 1 hour 14 minutes to get it corrected. If you were consulting in this interim you would have been fed with false information.
A problem is though also that the vandals are many. This in essence denotes Wikipedia as an outright unreliable source of information.

You see, a true encyclopaedia does not and can not change information just like that in an instant (at a whim even) by some anonymous and usually highly unmerited individual! Alterations and improvements have to be looked into by various persons prior to implementation. Any and all of these verification lines prior to publication are gloriously skipped in Wikipedia. This Wikipedia instead is about correcting after the fact. The effects of this can be quite hazardous.

 
The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation

 
The use of warning banners in Wikipedia

 
The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits

Being an editor/writer on Wikipedia may turn a very frustrating business, as you may end up spending most of your time reverting and battling/arguing with opponents. However if you have to fight against the general opinion you are likely to get outvoted. Another huge setback of the Wikipedia set up as you can factually get outvoted! You see, they have this three-revert rule. It means that you have 3 chances to revert an edit, if you do more then you will get an 24-hour ban. If you persist after that the ban may turn more permanent. Technically thus you will get outvoted if you are alone and have at least 2 persons that you are up against.

Wikipedia has a whole system (a jungle basically) of guidelines, boards, ruling commissions, appeal, and so on. If you are getting caught up in disagreements with opponents and issues that need settling you can assemble a jury of some sort to come to some kind of solution or ruling, or you may request for the interference of such an Administrator. It all functions pretty much as some sort of courthouse. The question is if one actually wants to get involved in all that. It doesn't really matter though if such a justice sort of system intelligently has been put together. If you have few people that excel in good judgment you will either way not get very far in resolving quarrels! Generally it is rather easy to become such an Administrator. You just be active for a while cleaning up vandalism, then you get some people in favour of you, and then you can get voted. It is that easy. My experience has been that if you edit in more controversial sort of article, that you may find yourself 90% of the time battling with opponents.

The Wikipedia edit database. Interesting is that any previous version or edit is accessible in the database of Wikipedia. You just go to to the ‘history page’ (each article on Wikipedia has such, the link is somewhere at the top on each Wikipedia article). Here now you can in the greatest detail see what edit was made, who performed it, when it was done, and often a short note what the edit was about. This in essence means that you can track anything that ever was written on Wikipedia. If the editor was unregistered it will instead identify the user by its IP.

 
‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’  or  Wikipedia's questionable foundation

• Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’
• A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’

(all quotations in the below from Wikipedia are of 3 August 2008, if not mentioned otherwise)

 
Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’

I received the following response on some talkpage on Wikipedia’: “We have to go with what the verifiable, reliable sources say, whether or not its accurate. That's Wikipedia policy.”. This sort of adds an interesting twist in regards to turning Wikipedia into an objective and for all reliable encyclopaedia. So, what is the actual status quo on this?

a) No original research

b) Verifiability

c) Neutral point of view

“The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

Jimmy Wales (nicknamed ‘Jimbo’) is the founder of Wikipedia. Per this it could be perceived that Wikipedia may have been created with the intent to distribute false information and this with permission. After all the rule ruthlessly exercised is “whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia”! With this it adjusts itself to commonly accepted opinion, sort of to majority vote. All that what is required to get something implemented and accepted in Wikipedia is to get it referred to or mentioned in some sort of reputed reliable source. This reliable source can be dead wrong, nonetheless this is the only material you are allowed to use!

What follows here is that you only have to see to it that accordingly all criticism towards the thus far accepted/established standard does not get accepted/approved for publication in “peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses”. All what is left then is “mainstream newspapers”. Thus if you control the textbooks and also the media you will have it made, now you can actually start poisoning the planet with misinformation! We may have to start realizing that in fact the Wikipedia concept actively supports and promotes such a scenario by its own rules!

 
A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’

The ultimate outcome of such would still be a general agreement amongst Wikipedia members/editors, rather than correctness. Question is if an encyclopaedia (worthy of that name) should be composed of or be subjected to such submissions.

 
Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it

the blacksmith that can forge swords that will cut through the hardest armour

I do have some personal experiences with Wikipedia as I have been active for a brief interim on both the English and the Swedish Wikipedia. My username there was Olberon. Things at times became very hectic indeed. Many of my edits are for the larger part gone by now, although I did notice that various crucial additions remain intact. You also do find many of my postings on the various discussion pages (called ‘talk pages’ on Wikipedia).
Either way today I have boycotted editing on Wikipedia. I prefer to perform my own research and writing and that can not get vandalized and disrupted by any anonymous fool that has access to a computer! At the time of me writing this the Scientology related pages on Wikipedia still need some serious adjusting and for all more objectivity and alternate views on the issues it discusses. I however will not get myself involved with that.

By various so-called Wikipedia editors I have been accused as if my research into Scientology and findings thereof would be of an amateurish nature. As a comparison one may wonder how professional it actually is to write on Wikipedia where everything in essence may be of a very temporary and impersonal nature indeed.

(a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia?

• ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’
• ‘Creationism’

I picked 2 very different issues as examples which nonetheless both are considered controversial. The overtone however that is present in the treatment of the subjects addressed in these articles does go into one particular direction as if the arguments had been settled already. The question is in how far this approach affects the objectivity. Objective approach would be concerned about to not at forehand decide anything for the reader. As in you present the information, reference material, sources, provide for various options, and then let the reader decide upon this.

 
‘September 11, 2001 attacks’

Main 9/11 article:  ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’  (article, external link) 
9/11 conspiracy theories article:  ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’  (article, external link)

Indeed these September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 or twintower incident) are considered highly controversial. The reason why I bring it up here is solely to examine how these happenings have been dealt with on Wikipedia. Is it objective? Have all angles involved with this received appropriate attention? And so on ...

“Conspiracy theories

Interesting is that it says: “These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.”. Now how true would this claim be? There is no reference material given that would support this evaluation. A link however is provided for another article on Wikipedia that addresses the conspiracy theory version: “Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories”.

Often the use of the word theory implies that a flavour is given to this so that it is generally believed/accepted that it would have emerged from someone's imagination and therefore can not be considered to have any truth contained in it. The article linked to is sort of build around and presented as such. Nonetheless there are many supports from experts and researchers to various claims made. The way it is presented in this Wikipedia article is a direct invalidation to the credibility of various nonetheless valid arguments.

That which is interesting is that various pertinent and factually supported information is not implemented or referred to in the main Wikipedia article regarding the 9/11 incident. Instead these are relayed separately and mixed into the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and thus their credibility are effectively being invalidated. The folding out of happenings as presented in the main article could easily be perceived as the one that is government approved.

Strictly taken what actually determines which is the true conspiracy version, the officially endorsed version or the one that is purposely presented as being the conspiracy version? Then who decides which is to be either of these? Realizing with this that the one that is presented as the conspiracy version will automatically be perceived as the rather nutty version and will by habit and by the far majority not be given much credibility. These are interesting aspects to the issue in regards to the actual representation of something.

 
‘Creationism’

Main article:  ‘Creationism’  (article, external link)
Controversy article:  ‘Creation-evolution controversy’  (article, external link)

“Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.”

When it comes down to it, in regards to how it is defined in the above, it does not make creationism into something you can work with in a serious manner. It is simply not very workable as you have put it into a box. A box that received a label that directs amongst other to a preconceived idea. This preconceived idea being that this collection of 66 books (bible) tell the only true version of the events and thus should be taken as that by which everything has to be measured. After all here creationism is put as something that is “commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution”.

“The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1] between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus, particularly in the field of evolutionary biology, but also in the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[2] Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is overwhelming,[3] while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.[4]”

So it says: “Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is overwhelming”, which probably is fairly true, but why is that? It is also persistently claimed that the evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming, but this is rather a matter of presentation, not of fact. It continues with: “while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields”, which is not actually true.

Strictly taken there is no evidence for evolution. For the larger part it is based on a complex system of assumptions that in their turn are interpreted and presented in a particular way to confirm the preconception. This cardhouse of assumptions does not fall apart if an inconsistency is uncovered. Simply a re-interpretation or a new assumption is put in its place. However so-called mainstream scientists will tell you otherwise. That which I wish to draw attention to is that one should investigate and analyze how this system actually works and which criteria are being exercised! In essence you can not provide hard evidence for evolution and not either for creationism. It can also be seen as an utopia to use the often by evolutionist forwarded argument as if the facts fit best and confirm the evolutional view of things. This is simply a matter of how one goes about in regards to the presentation. The presentation can make people to adopt and believe about everything! Presentation has in essence and it its practical use seldom any relation with hard fact.

The focus should also be more on examining how one actually goes about things and not to just fold out the different systems of preconceptions that are in use. Also it should not be entirely based on what some mainstream scientist claims or says. The general agreement should also not be the determining factor. We should not have people or other dictating what is to be true to us through means of this kind of persuasion. This alternate view of how to look upon this is not offered in these Wikipedia articles. When going through the articles it becomes clear that a decision has already been made if it be evolution or creation, if it be a young earth or an old earth, or if it be Intelligent Design or just all a coincidence. These matters practically and factually may not be so obvious as many seem to believe or rather as we are told. Some may understand what I try to relate about here. Many, far too many questions and aspects have not been explained adequately with the proposed answer evolution. Also far too many arguments from these creationists are being washed over simply because they may not confirm the evolutional view of things. This is a simple reality. With this evolution-creation controversy we find ourselves on very shaky ground. Where then does the objectivity display itself in these Wikipedia articles about these matters? Again it is the presentation that bothers me.

(b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia

	What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles
	Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations
		- 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’ - 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’ - 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’ - 4. ‘Operation Snow White’ - 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia

 
What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles

 
Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations

• 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’
• 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’
• 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’
• 4. ‘Operation Snow White’
• 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia

As an annotation it could be judged quite noteworthy that neither of the Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard related pages on Wikipedia make any mention anywhere about if it really was L. Ron Hubbard that supposedly died in 1986. The happenings surrounding this and various time periods in the history of Scientology that are relating to later developed/released technology have nonetheless been questioned and with rather good reason. Alright, you don't have to buy any of these either. But at the time I am writing this Wikipedia makes no mention at all about it, where it is a rather developed topic of discussion elsewhere on the Internet. I personally find this rather exceptional! It is also noted that the version that tells that L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986 is the one supported by the Church of Scientology and odd enough also by the various anti-Scientologists. That the anti-Scientologist adopts it can be explained with that the person L. Ron Hubbard then can be held directly responsible for all bad that happened during the later years. It is found that anti-Scientologists primarily target the person L. Ron Hubbard for about everything.

(all quotations in the below are of 18 November 2007, if not mentioned otherwise)

 
1. The ‘Scientology belief system’

	‘Church of Scientology’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology)

 
2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’

	‘Scientology’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

A reference () is provided that leads to a website from the Church of Scientology (http://www.scientology.org). This is not even a good resource for the claims made in that sentence. Especially not in regards to “science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard.”.

A reference () given for this was “‘L. Ron Hubbard: Master Storyteller’. Author Services, Inc.” The link given here lead to http://www.writersofthefuture.com/lrh.htm. Now, this lasted for quite a while!

Accordingly references given were:
	Encyclopedia Britannica states “science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)” in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: [link]. The World Encyclopedia (2005) says “Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology. (World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.) The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology “was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955. THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that “A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories.”		A TIME magazine article from May 6, 1991 By RICHARD BEHAR states that “The Church of Scientology, started by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard to “clear” people of unhappiness, portrays itself as a religion.” Available at: [link] An article in the UK paper The Guardian from June 2007 says “The Church was the creation of L Ron Hubbard, the American science fiction author, as the religious development of his earlier secular ...” (link) The Scifi Horizons! magazine refers to him as “L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and founder of Scientology (link) MSN Encarta's article on Science Fiction states that “...Campbell’s magazine introduced many soon-to-be famous science-fiction writers, including L. Sprague De Camp, Lester del Rey, Theodore Sturgeon, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber, A. E. Van Vogt, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein.” (emphasis added). (link)

♠	Encyclopedia Britannica states “science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86)” in its coverage of Scientology issues. Available at: [link].

	We find at:  (as of 6 August 2008)  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard		And at:  (as of 6 August 2008)  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528983/Scientology
	L. Ron Hubbard American writer Main Aspects of this topic are discussed in the following places at Britannica. Assorted References    •  development of Scientology ( in Scientology ) international movement that emerged in the 1950s in response to the thought of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (b. March 13, 1911, Tilden, Nebraska, U.S.-d. January 24, 1986, San Luis Obispo, California), a writer who introduced his...    •  history of New Religious Movements ( in New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology ) ...biological evolutionary theory. Other groups, including the Church of Scientology, fashion spiritual teachings and mythology in the language of modern psychology. Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86), Scientology began as Dianetics, which was Hubbard's term for a kind of therapy that claimed to eliminate destructive imprints of past experiences, called...		Scientologyinternational movement Main international movement that emerged in the 1950s in response to the thought of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (b. March 13, 1911, Tilden, Nebraska, U.S.-d. January 24, 1986, San Luis Obispo, California), a writer who introduced his ideas to the general public in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950). Hubbard's stated goal was to analyze humankind's mental aberrations and to offer a means for overcoming them. He eventually moved away from Dianetics' focus on the mind to a more religious approach to the human condition, which he called Scientology. The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954. ... ...He married in 1933 and settled down to a career as a writer. His writing spanned various genres—from westerns to horror and science fiction—and he was a popular contributor to pulp magazines....

Now, this encyclopaedia does not carry an article at ‘L. Ron Hubbard’, but nonetheless he is here at the top only referred to as an “American writer”. This online version of this encyclopaedia therefore carries instead 2 assorted references in where mention is made of L. Ron Hubbard. The first one being the article ‘Scientology’ (partly printed on the right in above column). The second one being ‘New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology’, and he is only in this second one referred to as a science fiction writer, which is in relation and relevant to what this article focuses on. The main article ‘Scientology’ does not address him as such. Consult the above selected quotations from this article yourself in above column on the right.

For completeness it must however be noted here as well that this it is phrased in this Britannica Encyclopaedia article ‘Dianetics’ as: “Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-86)”, but this is not consistent with how it is relayed in some of the other articles in this same encyclopaedia! (the following text in this article fully matches the text as found in the encyclopaedia article ‘New Religious Movement: “Scientific” NRMs: UFO groups and Scientology’. This would clearly indicate that one of these articles has copied it from the other. We don't know however for which of these articles these lines had originally been written for!)

♠

The World Encyclopedia (2005) says “Hubbard, L. Ron ( Lafayette Ronald) (1911–86) US science fiction writer and the guiding spirit of the Church of scientology.(World Encyclopedia 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005.)

Encyclopaedia is a rather big word for this one volume book. Instead I have consulted the 22 volume ‘World Book Encyclopedia’ (2005 Edition) which generally is considered to be one of the finest general encyclopedias on the market today. Per reviews it continues to be a first choice for libraries, schools, and homes. It says at the entry ‘Scientology’: “a religious movement founded by L. Ron Hubbard, an American writer and visionary thinker”. I find not a word about science fiction in the whole article. There are no entries found for L. Ron Hubbard or Dianetics.

♠

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ( 2008) states that Scientology “was founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86) in 1955.

It quotes here from a pocket version. It is really not advised to actually refer to pocket versions of works and use that as a reference source. Note also that the subject of Scientology dates actually back to December 1951. Then the Church of Scientology was actually founded by L. Ron Hubbard and 2 additional persons (Mary Sue Hubbard & John Galusha), this was in December 1953. Just this one little sentence contains 3 incorrect/incomplete data.

♠	THe Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2008) says that “A prolific author, Hubbard wrote many works on Scientology and is also noted for his science-fiction novels and short stories.”
This is actually a correct presentation, and this does not support either to address L. Ron Hubbard as a science fiction writer in the Wikipedia article.
The remainder of these reliable sources as found in the Wikipedia article are deriving from magazines, and should accordingly be taken less seriously than proper encyclopaedical publications.

I list here another entry that is actually not listed in the Wikipedia article and that is found in the ‘Encyclopedia Americana International Edition’ (2001). It says at ‘Scientology’: “founded by an American, L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986)”. The article makes no mention of science fiction. No entries are found for L. Ron Hubbard or Dianetics.

There in fact exists a work that actually does present a detailed study into this matter:
	William J. Widder, M.A.; The Fiction of L. Ron Hubbard: A comprehensive bibliography & reference guide to published and selected unpublished works.; Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.; Bridge Publications, Incorporated, 1994; ISBN 0-88404-936-1
But this work is not even mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Why? Simply because it is not considered a reliable source as it was published by the church of Scientology. In fact this William Widder is not even a Scientologist or sorts. It appears to be so that one chooses to blindly focus on various chosen reliable sources that have been carefully picked at forehand. It doesn't matter if one knows or if it is proven incorrect, this is what we will follow either way! Well, at least we have a few Wikipedia editors here that are of that opinion, and that happily submit to this approach. However in regards to introducing L. Ron Hubbard simply as a science fiction writer turned to being an utter joke. Why? Just walk into a larger library or some Scientology organization and you see these many thick book volumes which do not contain science fiction by a long shot. Now, are Wikipedia's reliable sources senior to that?

 
3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’

	‘Mary Sue Hubbard’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_Hubbard)

“The furor over Mary Sue's trial and subsequent guilty plea, along with tactics employed by Mary Sue's Guardian's Office, were an embarrassment for the Church, and Mary Sue was shunned (or “disconnected”) from the Church where she once was a top leader.”

It says: “Mary Sue's Guardian's Office”. In fact she was at the time evidently not heading it. Per the information consulted we can confirm that the Guardian Office was actually run by Jane Kember. The role of Mary Sue Hubbard is noted and accordingly could be seen as that of an overseer. Nonetheless she could be considered overall responsible as she was hierarchically wise directly senior to the Guardian (Jane kember). However the way I present it here is not relayed anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I have seen. Mary Sue is pointed out as THE person. In fact I find it very hard to locate instances where Mary Sue Hubbard in person would have acted in regards to or relating to the Guardian Office. For the most I only find persons that claim to act on some written or verbal order that was said/claimed to be deriving from Mary Sue. It is an open question to me in so far she had anything at all to do with or was involved in the actual activities of the Guardian Office at least so since about 1973.

Further the quoted sentence and the text following it presents a situation. There in fact exists an alternate view and explanation to that. Things may not all seem to be as how they are presented here. Wikipedia makes no particular mention of this other interpretation. I touch various of this on my page “The story of Mary Sue Hubbard”, see chapter “A note about the ‘Guardian Office’ episode”.

 
4. ‘Operation Snow White’

	‘Operation Snow White’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white)

The ‘Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/History Article Project’ then actually makes a comment about this (visit here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It says:

Coincidentally on Wikipedia page “L. Ron Hubbard” we find to date in the introduction of the article: “In 1983 L. Ron Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an international information infiltration and theft project called "Operation Snow White".” (visit here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013) We see that not a single reference source is even given for this entry!

The entry makes 2 claims. One being: “L. Ron Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator”, which is just an unsupported opinion. Not at any time any paper has come forward that would indicate any involvement of this person in the matter. The second claim being: “an international information infiltration and theft project called "Operation Snow White"”. When we consult that actual papers that lay out the actual details of this “Snow White Program”, then this claim too appears just opinion. It is one thing to have so-called mission orders detailing an operation, it becomes en entirely different matter what some people in the Scientology organization may have made of it. If we read this entry on Wikipedia we are not particularly supplied with such a discrimination, instead we are prone to believe that the actual documented concept of Operation Snow White was all set up as it is presented in that entry. Of course this violates NPOV.

 
5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia

	‘Rundown (Scientology)’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rundown_%28Scientology%29) ‘Golden Age of Tech’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Tech)

And we could go on like this. We should never, never, never forget that there exist various ways of how something can be presented. Subtle ingredients may give you a seriously wrong impression of what some situation actually is about. Therefore any presentation should be as objective it possibly can be. Also alternate interpretations existing should be given appropriate attention i.e. if there be sufficient with reason for it. After all Wikipedia, as it is promoted and interpreted, aims to let the readers decide.

The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)

• Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia
• My arguments
• Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me
• How my write up (report) was received
• Having an ‘agenda’
• My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day  &  Final notices

Why did I decide to write about this here? Simply because there are some interesting observations to share about human behaviour. It folds out in what manner people can behave when they go in agreement with each other about things. I post it because a lesson can be drawn from this.

 
Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia

This Swedish episode was indeed quite shortlived and hectic. It required only 4½ days to get blocked. This was back in May 2006. I encountered an obvious monopole of various Swedish users that intended to maintain the flow of information on the Scientology related articles on the Swedish Wikipedia negative and subjective, 5 of these persons were actual Administrators. So what did I actually do?

Well, I simply attempted to introduce a little more neutral approach towards this rather heated topic of Scientology. See, the various related articles had a rather negative and subjective overtone in the way things were presented in them. Pertinent information was simply missing. It was that bad. It was my intent to just make a few additions/changes and then let it be. My edits however usually got reverted or responded to within just a few minutes.

In the same article I had also exchanged “Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard” to “fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard”. This in the end also was accepted. Today it says “USA born writer L. Ron Hubbard”.

The above 3 are the basically all the main changes that I implemented. By now as it appeared later I had earned myself to be considered a propagandist of Scientology. I was only there to run my agenda a variety of persons started to claim. Various discussions developed on the various Scientology article related ‘talk pages’. I participated in these discussions and simply folded out my view of things.

 
My arguments

 
Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me

 
How my write up (report) was received

 
Having an ‘agenda’

From the previous it can be seen that I repeatedly have been accused as if having some sort of agenda. So what is actually meant by that? It can be easily perceived though that it is used in the sense of something unfavourable.

 
My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day  &  Final notices

Per all my above experiences man still does not appear to have outgrown his efforts to hunt for supposed witches.

Vocabulary:

     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     CBO:
‘Central Bureaux Order’. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
     confront:
1. To stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation. (OODs 27 Apr 72)  2. To face without flinching or avoiding. (OODs 27 Apr 72)  3. To be able to see what is or isn't before one. (CBO 190)  4. Direct observation. (HCO PL 18 Sept 67)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     OODs:
‘Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
     OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
     valence:
1. What we usually mean by valence is somebody else's identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10)  2. the valence mechanism produces whole people for the preclear to be and will include habits and mannerisms which are not mentioned in engrams but are a result of the preclear's compulsion to copy certain people. (Science of Survival, Bk. 2, p. 202)  3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence. Then there are available to him the valences of all persons who appear in his engrams. (Science of Survival, p. 106)  4. a valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. (SH Spec 68, 6110C18)  5. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn't usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17)  6. there are many valences in everyone. By a valence is meant an actual or a shadow personality, one's own valence is his actual personality. (Self Analysis, p. 159).