Talk:Scientology: A History of Man

Idea of article

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)

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)

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)

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)

capitalized words in title

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)

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)

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)

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)

The first footnote

Doesn't point to anything. The link it should point to might be [1] 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)

Bias?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge suggestion

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)

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)

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)

A History of Man is also the older of the two. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge them, especially since they are using the same source of information, the book. Terryeo 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph's uncited, unpublished OR

It says: . . . as they are often told that Hubbard's "History of Man" is an upper-level book. They are discouraged from buying it until they are already well-conditioned and indoctrinated into the Operating Thetan levels Now, I know from my own experience that statement is false. However, should an editor find a publication which presents his Original Research WP:NOR as it is stated there, then he should cite it. Else such an utterly false statement should be removed. Besides, that's just silly. Terryeo 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In looking at when the second paragraph was edited into the article, I find: this edit has that second paragraph. (Revision as of 19:42, 5 May 2006; Antaeus Feldspar) While the immediately earlier edit here (Revision as of 11:52, 2 May 2006; Antaeus Feldspar) does not have it. Yet, oddly enough, no difference between edits will show which editor inserted that original research. Terryeo 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you would have found the answer if you had looked at the sources for those two revisions, rather than only looking at what Wikipedia rendered from those sources. If you look at my edit summary for this edit, you'll see that it reads "created Notes section, fixed ref markup" (emphasis added). With that in mind, examine the small but very important fix that was made to the first paragraph: "<ref>[http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/istore/index.html]<ref>" was fixed to "<ref>[http://www.scientology.org/html/en_US/istore/index.html]</ref>" (emphasis added).

The first paragraph should have ended with the reference text (in this case an external link to scientology.org) enclosed between an open reference tag and a close reference tag. Instead, because someone forgot the slash in the second tag, it was an open reference tag, followed by the reference URL, followed by another open reference tag. Because it never found the matching close reference tag, the parser had no way of knowing that the reference was supposed to end when the paragraph did, and instead it incorporated the whole second paragraph (including its own two references) into the reference text. Only when it hit the markup for the "Spiritual Entities in Man" header, apparently, did it conclude that the reference text must have ended.

In summary, my edit didn't create that second paragraph from thin air; it was already there. What my edit did was fix the markup that prevented that second paragraph from showing up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. I understand now. Terryeo 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph had good information from the article's beginning, it said: In the introduction of “The History of Man”, L. Ron Hubbard claimed the book was "a cold blooded look at your last 60 trillion years." [2]

On 21 April 2006, Wikipediatrx added her original research to the second paragraph. The added text was: Beginner-level Scientologists are often unaware of this data, as they are often told that Hubbard's "History of Man" is an upper-level book. They are discouraged from buying it until they are already well-conditioned and indoctrinated into the Operating Thetan levels. [3]. This editing difference shows her original research edit. her summary was: 19:53, 21 April 2006 Wikipediatrix (Talk | contribs) (added info and sources). So there is the source of original research. The weblink points to skeptictank whic is a personal website of Fredrick L. Rice. That information does not satisfy WP:V. WP:RS tells us that we must not use personal opinoin (lots of that in the link) on personal websites as a secondary source of information in Wikipedia articles. Wikipediatrix has had this discussion at WP:RS's discussion page, after sending User:SlimVirgin a message on her user page. She is aware that WP:V is not satisfied by personal opinion on personal websites. She has been told before that personal opinion on personal website can not be used as secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. Within its area of address, WP:RS is "set in stone". If Wikipediatrix has a problem with that, that discussion page is the place to change Wikipedia. Terryeo 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't original research if I provided a source, which I did. Even if the source is not a valid one (and I think it's perfectly acceptable), that still doesn't mean I inserted original research, it simply means I provided facts that were improperly sourced. The fact that you would spend most of your paragraph talking not so much about the article but about me in such condescending and disparaging terms, is very uncalled for, very bad-faith, and borders on incivility. This sort of behavior is partially why you're currently banned from editing Wikipedia's Scientology-related articles and now can only fling unfair venom at editors from the sidelines. wikipediatrix 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that I flung venom, nor that I wrote about you in a personal way beyond the necessity of stating the obvious, you introduced original research in that edit. I also understand that you don't take responsibility for the original research, but state it comes from another person. That person, of course, must be the person of the personal website which you quote, that person whose original research it is, must be Fredrick L. Rice. I understand that you have said so. Again, I have not spoken in a disrespectful way. I have stated the facts as simply as possible. Terryeo 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, saying that "Terryeo made an unjustified accusation that someone else is doing 'original research'" is like saying "Terryeo posted to a talk page." In Terryeo's own little world, "original research" is anything that the Church of Scientology's current management wishes to disavow. Therefore, a book written by Martin Gardner in 1952 which has gone through thirty-one printings over five decades is, in Terryeo's "understanding", "original research".[4] Of course, consider the source; this is someone who still claims that Scientology isn't a belief system... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you have said makes any contribution to the information which I am talking about. In addition, your statement which uses 'small' is not appreciated. My comment is toward a better Wikipedia. I raise the issue that personal opinion on personal website exists in the article and should be deleted, else a suitable reference found for it. I don't, myself, believe such a publication exists. Fahrenheit451 continually used a phrase which got him blocked for a week. You, Feldspar, are continually mentioning pre-arbitration events and providing links to those events. Terryeo 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite on the way

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)

As promised, I've rewritten it and merged the duplicate articles - comments below, please... -- ChrisO 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

A really really dispersive rewrite ! I doubt if anyone could understand any possible use in reading the book after reading this article ! One small point, the article presents, "many rewrites" but the actual "rewrites" have been small in number, perhaps less than 6 and the actual content hasn't been rewritten at all. Possibly you could find some small portion left out, but not actually rewritten. So, therefore, "many rewrites" is an inaccurate protrayal of its history. If you care to mention its history at all ! Terryeo 17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A second point appears at: The book reportedly originated in Scientology auditing sessions held in Wichita, Kansas in early 1952, involving Hubbard and his personal auditor. Scientology was not in force at that time, which explains why its title (at first) did not use that word. It would be correct to state: The book was origniated by Hubbard as a result of auditing sessions held in Wichita, Kansas in early 1952. Terryeo 20:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A third point: The book has, however, come in for considerable ridicule from critics of Scientology . . Yet Atack's book is the only cited critic and therefore is the only source of the claim considerable ridicule and is therefore, not a neutral presentation of information. It would be far better to say something like, "Jon Atack has ridiculed the book ...." when citing a single source and criticizing. Terryeo 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

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)

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)

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)

Difficulties with the article

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)

• Outlines the four areas to be audited: the subject's present life; the "genetic entity", a racial memory passed down through evolutionary history..

  This statement by itself directly conflicts with the above statement. The first says, "the human body houses an entity" and the second says, "the entity is a memory". These statements, you see, are direct contradictions. Because what memory is an entity, what entity a memory? The two words have no commonality, there is no part of "entity" which can be memory and no part of "memory" which can be "an entity". An entity is a stand alone thing, usually it has some actions it is capable of [5] yet this article states that an entity is a memory, a memory an entity. Terryeo 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chapter 5. Sets out key characteristics of the "theta-being", explaining that a human being is a tripartite composite of a material body, its genetic entity and a theta-being trapped and degraded into association with them. Hubbard explains that the goal of Scientology is to rehabilitate the "theta-being" and restore its original, virtually unlimited, powers.

  This again is a slight mispresentation of what Hubbard actually said. The statements as they stand set up a relationship between what User:ChrisO presents as a "theta-being" and a human body which is User:ChrisO's original research and which Hubbard did not write nor say. The relationship implied is just close enough to actuality that a reader could believe such sillyness if a reader were not familar with the subject. Again, WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability. If you find Hubbard actually wrote "a human being is a tripartite compose of ...." then quote and say so. I know otherwise and the article should not state so. Terryeo 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chapter 6. Describes the complete history ("whole track") of the theta-being and its various "spirals of existence" each comprising many individual lives. The "whole track" contains numerous pictures or "facsimiles" of incidents which happened to the thetan and to other thetans.

  These two statements misrepresent things. The individual words are used but the individual words are put together so they don't make sense. The relationship of the whole track to a thetan is misrepresnted, the relationship of facsimiles to the whole track, misrepresented, the relationship of facsimiles to a thetan misrepresented. Why not quote Hubbard? By attempting to reduce his words and summarize you are doing original research. WP:NOR The conclusions which you draw and the relationships your statements imply are simply false. Terryeo 20:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A clue

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)

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)

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)

Well, Talk page testimonials aren't helpful. --Davidstrauss 06:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. Terryeo 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The church is expanding like crazy. --131.107.192.152 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The book is officially for sale

History of Man, hardcover is for sale at Bridge Publications. Here is the link. [6]. This the book which the article is about. Terryeo 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Timing problem with the Nibs account

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)

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)

Publication History section correction

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.""

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."

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)

References

Fatal Contradictions

Grayfell (talk · contribs), you have reintroduced some fatal contradictions. The first paragraph states the History was the content of Hubbard Sr.'s auditing. The second paragraph (with two witnesses) says the book is the fantasies of Hubbard Jr. while on drugs. Any reader will see the contradiction, but your text does not acknowledge a problem: It leaves the reader to resolve the ambiguity. Even worse, with the words, "the book was written under the influence of amphetamines," your text seems to state either that Hubbard Sr. took amphetamines while he wrote the book, or that Hubbard Jr. wrote the book "under the influence of amphetamines." Since the source quote mentions only Hubbard Jr. taking drugs, we must presume Hubbard Jr. wrote the book while "LRH gave his son Nibs some amphetamines." But now we have the startling statement L. Ron Hubbard Jr. wrote the History, and yet the Wikipedia is not acknowledging this revolution in literary history. On serious reflection, I can't see that you have improved text. Please fix. Slade Farney (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the contradiction is obvious to any reader, then what exactly is the problem? When dealing with contradictory claims like this, which are very common in religion, history, and Scientology specifically, there's nothing wrong with explaining the claims and who is making them and leaving it at that. It's not Wikipedia's job to pick winners. This is all covered in WP:NPOV. I'll rephrase the article to clarify that Nibs was supposedly fed amphetamines, not LRH. The phrase "alternate history" was a bit confusing. especially when dealing with a sci-fi writer, and also a bit loaded, since it's implying that one history is more central than another, which is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Had not realized that "alternate history" might be loaded words for some people. Would "another history" be better? "Another version of that history?" Ex-scientologists seem to read each other's material, then misremember it as their own stories, like myth history. How else could two people like DeWolf and Perry have similar but not identical stories of the book? In the end, their stories are anecdotal, not scholarly, and seriously prone to both error and invention. Slade Farney (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It seems clear enough from context that there are both individual accounts of the book's history, but I don't have a problem with spelling it out like that. I'm still not really sure why the two accounts are contradictory. My interpretation of the quote is that it's saying Hubbard heard the content from Nibs and then recounted it later. As far as I know nobody is suggesting Nibs directly wrote the book himself, and Hubbard was a very prolific and rapid writer. I guess that's just OR though, so, if you're satisfied with it, we can leave it as it is.

It's almost a given that a scholarly history of an undocumented event will be built from anecdotes and oral history. Like I said, the history of Scientology might have to deal with this issue more often than some other topics, but it seems more like a function of human memory than something intrinsic to ex-scientologists. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)