Talk:Scientology: A History of Man

message: I love the idea of the article, but it needs to be organized a little better and some of the Scientology jargon needs to be explained a tiny bit before drowning the reader in a sea of it. Also could benefit from more sources than just the "History of Man" book. wikipediatrix 17:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the "idea of the article" ? Is it the idea of a history of man, which is a Book Title?  Is this article to present a book as Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health Presents a book?  Or is there some other idea ?   Terryeo 07:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's just what it says: presenting Scientology's history of man, not presenting a book. The book title is A History of Man, but it isn't the article's only source. wikipediatrix 13:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I didn't understand.  The book titled, "History of Man" by L. Ron Hubbard, or if the article is meant to portray some kind of "history of man" , alleged to have been presented by the Church ?Terryeo 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea of article

message: This article should probably be renamed Scientology history of man, or better yet, Scientology history of human evolution or Evolution in Scientology doctrine. wikipediatrix 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but this article is a mess. The "thetans" in humans have nothing to do with the evolution of humans. The only reason they're both discussed in this article is that they're both in "A History of Man", but this isn't the book's article. We need to split and merge a bit before renaming. --Davidstrauss 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I've been trying to fix it up here and there, but I've been kinda hoping that User:Gallup, who created the article, is still in progress on it. I pondered the rationale for having thetans in the article too, and I think it sort-of makes sense because, in Hubbardian terms, a human IS the thetan, not the body, so it may be important to define that. Also, the Genetic Entity should be described because it literally connects to the evolution issue, but at the same time, it would be confusing to the novice reader trying to make sense of Scientology if we talked about the GE but not the thetan. Maybe the 'Spiritual entities' subsection and Thetan paragraph can go, and we could just have a brief sentence at the end of the GE paragraph, stating something like "The GE is not to be confused with Scientology's concept of the Thetan"? wikipediatrix 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What about "Origins of humankind in Scientology doctrine"?  Hubbard's idea of evolution, after all, has fairly little to do with any mainstream conception of evolution.  We can link to and summarize from thetan and A History of Man as appropriate but make this article the "complete picture" of how immortal thetans and GEs and all the rest were envisioned as fitting together. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalized words in title 

message: Doesn't point to anything.  The link it should point to might be  which is the History of Man extention course offered by the Church of Scientology on thier site, or it could point to a link offering a direct sale of the book alone.  But I didn't find the book up for sale on a page all by itself.   In any event, the book is certainly sold by the Church today, it says so at that link.  However, there are some inaccuracies with the first sentence or two.  The sentence "The Church of Scientology bases most of their beliefs on human history from the information provided from the Church's founder, L. Ron Hubbard." is inaccurate because the Church doesn't state 'beliefs' about man's history, but instead presents information which an individual parishoner is encouraged to read with a skeptical eye, find it true or reject as the individual parishoner themselves decide.  A later sentence, "A History of Man explains that the human body is occupied by both a thetan and a 'genetic entity', or GE, which is a sort of low-grade soul located more or less in the centre of the body." presents that a 'genetic entity' is a "sort of low-grade soul" but History of man does not state that a 'genetic entity' is a "sort of low-grade soul" and so that is original research, an evaluation and conclusion on the part of an editor.  Instead, the orginal quotation should be used from the book, or, some published source of information rather than the original research on the part of an editor.  WP:NOR says so. Terryeo 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first footnote 

message: As much as I hate to point this out, the article does seem a little biased against Scientology. I can certinaly sympathesize with such a bias, but this is an Encyclopedia after all. In particular the sections about The Sloth and The Ape contain criticisms which may be a little biting. I believe the observations themselves are appropriate, but perhaps they could be rephrased. Any thoughts? Any takers? B.Mearns*, KSC 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your judgement seems on-target.  Would you like to take a try at finding a more appropriate rephrasing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a shot at rephrasing, comments and changes welcome. I also noticed a problem with the original critique regarding the communication between sloths and baboons...from what I understand, baboons are not apes, so I don't see any discontinuity. I realize that I'm the one who introduced the word "discontinuity" here, but it was based on the previous statement. So I requested a citation, if anyone can find an outside sorce for this critique, please cite it. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "discontinuity" is perfectly acceptable -- that's what's being described, after all.  I like your re-phrasings; I think you could have probably have been even more assertive with the uncited critiques (frankly, it has the whiff of original research to me) but it's not a bad idea, when in doubt, to err on the side of civility. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the word "discontinuity" is appropriate to the point of the critique, but I'm calling the critique itself into question. If baboons are not in fact apes, then there is no discontinuity, and the critique is unwarranted. I was also thinking original research...I did a quick google search, and haven't found anything. Perhaps it should just be removed? B.Mearns*, KSC 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the line in dispute is still intact, I think someone can remove it.  Baboons are monkeys, not apes; if sources are needed, a little googling on the definitions of apes versus new/old world monkeys and the taxonomical classification of baboons should provide. --4.254.113.17 06:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: I am taking the liberty of changing the suggestion that A History of Man be merged here to a suggestion that they be merged, not necessarily here.  I feel A History of Man is the better article and I have yet to see anything which could be presented in this article which didn't originate in A History of Man, making it appropriate for that article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. A History of Man is a perfectly valid article about an important book, but Scientology History of Man has always seemed very sketchy and iffy to me. On the other hand, I still think it could be cleaned up and rehabilitated, especially if retitled. wikipediatrix 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to merge into this article as it was the larger of the two. I'm happy either way. Grey Shadow 05:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A History of Man is also the older of the two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's merge them, especially since they are using the same source of information, the book. Terryeo 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: I'm going to attempt a rewrite of this article, building on what people have already contributed. Bear with me, please! -- ChrisO 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised, I've rewritten it and merged the duplicate articles - comments below, please... -- ChrisO 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, does anyone have a copy of the book that includes the jacket, and if so could you please scan it so that we can have a pic for the article? Unfortunately my library copy was de-jacketed long ago... -- ChrisO 17:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite on the way

message: Unfortunately, the editor who created this section did not understand that WP:NOR is a policy and can not be circumnavigated.  User:ChrisO states:
 
* was written as a guide to Scientologists undergoing auditing to uncover details of their "past lives"  That statement is not  anywhere in the book.  I believe that is Original Research, a conclusion drawn by our esteemed editor, User:ChrisO but presented as if Hubbard has said it.  In order to add credibility to the phrase which is User:ChrisO's own, original research and conclusion he immediately chases his original research conclusion with a phrase which Hubbard did state; it was a "cold-blooded factual account of your last sixty trillion years."  User:ChrisO's original conclusion should be removed unless it can be substantiated.  I challege it because I am pretty certain Hubbard never uttered nor wrote that phrase.  This statement, like many found in these articles is a slight misrepresentation of the actual situation.  There was a time when Hubbard ran into new information and published it straight away.  For a few months in 1952 it is possible there was some talk that History of Man was some sort of guide of what to audit.  But that is not its use today and has not been its use since 1954, perhaps earlier, too.  If this article were being writting in say, Janurary or Feburary of 1952, that might, maybe, at that time have been accurate.  It is completely inaccurate and misrepresentative, today.  These misrepresentations are not huge statements, people.  Why do you so strongly refuse to comply with WP:V's the threshold for inclusion is verifiability ? Terryeo 20:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just admitted that it was written as a guide for auditing. Heck, it was originally titled What to Audit. What it's used for now doesn't affect what it was written for. --Davidstrauss 06:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not fully trained, but I think it is true that if people audited today as they did in 1952 when the book was published, then people would get similar results to 1952.  If people used that book and did things as the book spells out, they would get some results.  I'm also sure the difference between those old methods and modern auditing could be compared to an old fashioned transportation method and a newer airborn transportation method. Terryeo 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: User:ChrisO's rewrite contains considerable mis-statement, this could also be called "mispresentation of what the book states" or could be called, "original research" or could be called, "almost right but dreadfully wrong".  These include:
* The book sets out a description of the areas to be audited. It proposes that the human body actually houses two separate entities. The most important is a thetan, the spiritual being said by Hubbard to be the "true self" of a person. According to Hubbard, this is accompanied by a 'genetic entity'
*: To say a human body "houses" a thetan is a misrepresentation of the relationship a thetan has with a human body.  Because I don't expect any other editor to understand this, I am forced to fall back to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is 'verifiability.'  Should you find a place that Hubbard stated that, then include it.  Else the statement should be removed from the article.  It is untrue.Terryeo 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement ("By attempting to reduce his words and summarize you are doing original research.") gives me serious doubt that you'd be satisfied with anything less than a copy of the book reprinted on Wikipedia. Your other concerns seem reasonable, but hardly justify calling the article "dreadfully wrong." You also don't offer much to help fix these alledged problems. --Davidstrauss 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to offer an alternative.  This idea of poking my finger at out points isn't nearly as effective as being able to re-state a sentence or two.  Is there a particualar place I could place a rewrite for your perusal that you would then consider, and, if you felt moved to, that you might place into the article ? Terryeo 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A positive suggestion at last! Why not add it to the bottom of this talk page in a new section? -- ChrisO 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties with the article 

message: Let me attempt to communicate a clue so that those editors who are not educated in the area have some reference what the book of this article's title is talking about.  In 1950 Hubbard begin Dianetics. People recalled past events.  With Dianetic procedures it proved to be successful, but the procedures have greatly improved since then.  As people's memory improved, people recalled things which were obviously not of the current lifetime.  At that time, say, Janurary of 1952, it was not completely clear what the source of such memories were.  Scientology: A History of Man talks about memories whose source is the human body.  About March of 1952, Hubbard lectured; Scientology: Milestone One.  At that time he was clear that a human body is motivated by an individual human spirit, the individual spirit is the source of motivation and intelligence.  Hubbard's subsequent efforts were mainly in the area of how to help the individual spirit, rehabilitation of the human spirit.  But there was a period of time, I don't know exactly, somewhere in late 1951, very early 1952 maybe, when it was unclear what the source of these strange, pre-this-lifetime memories were coming from.  I'm talking about "the clam" and the other oddities mentioned.  A trained auditor today studies this information in order to know how to handle a situation if it comes up in a session, but these oddities are rarely, if ever, addressed in auditing today.  I hope this helps put some perspective on a potentially confusing area. Terryeo 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what you say. Unsourced opinions do not help the editing of this article in any way.  wikipediatrix 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that's what I say.  And you just told me you don't find what I said to be helpful. Terryeo 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Talk page testimonials aren't helpful. --Davidstrauss 06:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Terryeo 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering you've just been preaching about the virtues of accurate citations over at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, it's a bit surprising that you don't seem to understand that the same rules apply to you. What you've stated above is purely your personal opinion. Unless you can cite and source it, it's useless to the article. It may or may not be right, but you aren't a reliable source any more than a personal essay on the web would be. -- ChrisO 00:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure I presented my personal opinion as my personal opinion.  yeah.  I did. And stated my motivation. And supplied the link below to Pubs.  My motivation about the link was the obviously false personal reasearch which implied the book isn't for sale to the common public.  Seems like any such silliness that gets in an article, sooner or later a personal website comes up with a statement which then gets linked to, as if the original research had substance.  What I don't get is why editors keep pushing their original research and personal website original research.  What's the problem with simply following Wikipedia guidelines? Terryeo 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The church is expanding like crazy. --131.107.192.152 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clue 

message: History of Man, hardcover is for sale at Bridge Publications.  Here is the link. .  This the book which the article is about. Terryeo 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book is officially for sale 

message: Specifically that the lectures and book were based on Hubbard auditing Nibs in early 1952. According to Bare-Faced Messiah, Nibs showed up "in Phoenix in the summer of 1952". There were lectures beginning in March 1952 and it was published July 1952. "Summer" is vague enough to allow a few weeks overlap before publishing the book, but not much more.
Likewise, Dincalci only seems to enter the picture when he was appointed medical officer of the Apollo in 1970. It's unclear how long he was a Scientologist before then, but there's no reference that he was a member in 1952 (18 years previous) to witness these events.
This isn't to say that Hubbard didn't base some of his other writings on auditing sessions with Nibs, just that the timing doesn't work for this book—unless there are other references earlier than summer of 1952. AndroidCat 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point, but inconclusive. Summer comes early in Phoenix. Nibs' clam incident could have been from late May, early June and still could have been  included in the book since it was being written at the time. Books came out near instantaneously since the first print was usually a mimeo copy. As Dicalci was a Sea Org member there is a good chance he was a long time scientologist as it used to be a requirement to join the Sea Org in the beginning. --Leocomix 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing problem with the Nibs account

message: I am in the process of doing a biography Perry Chapdelaine (almost 90 years old) who is expressing disagreement with the citation below.
:"The book reportedly originated in Scientology auditing sessions held in Wichita, Kansas in early 1952, involving Hubbard and his personal auditor, Perry Chapdelaine. According to Chapdelaine, Hubbard would "settle himself on a couch with a tape recorder handy and an 'auditor' who would be expected to provide appropriate feedback. In no time a flow of introspection - like the free association characteristic of a psychoanalytic session - would begin."Christopher Evans, Cults of Unreason, pp. 42-43. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (1974)"
The link to his (unfinished) biography has a quote he sent me via email. "I wouldn’t characterize my one time processing of Hubbard as you have..." "Taping by Hubbard was primarily for his work such as axioms and postulates, not for sessions. The History of Man came out of my one-time session with Hubbard."section on A History of Man
The biography, when finished, will include some recently taped interviews where he makes a similar statement as above.
The discrepancy seems to be a.) the characterization of Perry Chapdelaine as Hubbard's "personal auditor" when in fact, acording to Perry himself he only audited him once. b.) did Hubbard record sessions? The one session Perry gave to Hubbard was not recorded. According to Perry, recordings were used to document other research work not his auditing. c.) Did the single session given by Perry, who states in the forthcoming taped interviews that Hubbard "ran" the whole series of incidents included in A History of Man, constitute the entirety of sessions and research Hubbard put into the materials of the book?
At the very least the article should be corrected to indicate Perry Chapdelaine was Hubbard's auditor on a single occasion and not his "personal auditor" and that at least one witness will attest not all of Hubbard's research sessions were taped.
Please advise if more information is needed.
Dave88008 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication History section correction