Talk:Scientology bibliography/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbitrary section header
What is the purpose of this article? The free dictionary says: A list of writings relating to a given subject: a bibliography of Latin American history. [1] and says the same about an author. Will this project be only of Hubbard's writings or is it about the topic and to include those complications made by the Church of Scientology, Ruth Mishell (How to Choose your People) and others? Will it only be books or is it to include the thousands of HCO Policy Letters and Bulletins? How about Executive Directives and Ron's Journels ? And finally, is it to include critical writings such at Jon Atack's book ? Terryeo 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The answers to your questions are already clearly stated in the intro: "This is an incomplete bibliography of Scientology and Scientology-related books produced within the Church of Scientology and its related organizations." wikipediatrix 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. The reason I ask is that this is published information. It appears in What is Scientology (hardbound), chapter 48, "Complete List of all Materials" and in closely spaced text runs from page 891 to page 971. Published by Bridge Pubs, L.A. Calif. ISBN 1-57318-078-5. Will this become a partial of the published information, intended to be a reference for the Scientology and Dianetics articles ? Terryeo 15:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- A list of Scientology books is not "published information". Anyone can compile a list of Scientology books. wikipediatrix 15:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's right. Would you like a list, posted here, from the publication I mention ? Terryeo 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, not particularly, why? What is your point?? wikipediatrix 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The only point I have made is that I am willing to do as I did with the Dianetic's Booklist. That is, create a list of published books as I said. Terryeo 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there are books missing from the list on this article, feel free to let me know and I'll add 'em. Likewise, if I have any incorrect info. If you're simply offering to help improve the list, that's great, but your previous posts made it seem that such was not the case. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted you, but you are so easily misinterpreted. wikipediatrix 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Yes, that was my intention, to be helpful. I'm unsure if publisher, publication date, and ISBN is wanted or not ? Terryeo 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- My thought was that this would be a simple list, as it is now, just a title and very brief comment, each with a link to the book's article (since I intend to eventually have a separate article for every book).... publisher, publication date, and ISBN would then be in its rightful place on each book's own article. Some books, such as All About Radiation, have such a complicated publication history that it would make this article unwieldy and hard to slog through if we tried to convey the info here. wikipediatrix 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Yes, that was my intention, to be helpful. I'm unsure if publisher, publication date, and ISBN is wanted or not ? Terryeo 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there are books missing from the list on this article, feel free to let me know and I'll add 'em. Likewise, if I have any incorrect info. If you're simply offering to help improve the list, that's great, but your previous posts made it seem that such was not the case. Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted you, but you are so easily misinterpreted. wikipediatrix 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The only point I have made is that I am willing to do as I did with the Dianetic's Booklist. That is, create a list of published books as I said. Terryeo 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, not particularly, why? What is your point?? wikipediatrix 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's right. Would you like a list, posted here, from the publication I mention ? Terryeo 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- A list of Scientology books is not "published information". Anyone can compile a list of Scientology books. wikipediatrix 15:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. The reason I ask is that this is published information. It appears in What is Scientology (hardbound), chapter 48, "Complete List of all Materials" and in closely spaced text runs from page 891 to page 971. Published by Bridge Pubs, L.A. Calif. ISBN 1-57318-078-5. Will this become a partial of the published information, intended to be a reference for the Scientology and Dianetics articles ? Terryeo 15:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
List faulty
This "Scientology bibliography" contains several books not part of Scientology bibliography but some unofficial interpretations. Any reason to leave them in there? Misou 01:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Which ones? wikipediatrix 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess all not fitting the intro: "This is an incomplete bibliography of Scientology and Scientology-related books produced within the Church of Scientology and its related organizations." Which are - for starters - these:
1956
- Creative Learning: A Scientological Experiment in Schools
Written by "V. Silcox" and published in 1956 by Scientology Publications, London. Source of the "Death Lessons" scandal in 1960.
1965
- This is Life
By Reg Sharpe
1969
- Scientology for the Millions
Written by Walter Braddeson.
- Child Scientology
This book, written by OT VIII Denver Frater, updates Hubbard's precepts from Child Dianetics. Not to be confused with the transcription booklet "Child Scientology" that accompanies tape/CD recordings of a Hubbard 1957 lecture of the same name.
- Fundamentals of Success
By Peter Gilham.
- Tell it like it is: A course in Scientology Dissemination
By Peter Gilham.
- How to Choose your People
By Ruth Minshull.
There could be more which are not or have never been published by the Church organization. I got no means to check this right now. With "A Test of Whole Track Recall" I think this is just a subtitle to "Mission into Time". You got any of those books at hand? Misou 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I think "and its related organizations" definitely includes the Scientology Publications company who published "Creative Learning", and authors like Minshull and Frater who Hubbard specifically licensed and authorized. Minshull's books were even sold thru Orgs in the 70s. I don't know anything about Gilham, Braddeson and Sharpe's books, but the list was meant to be all-inclusive for Scn-related publications that were at least at one time sanctioned by Hubbard or the Church (while disincluding books about Scientology by non-Scientologists, and unauthorized squirreling publications by Freezoners). wikipediatrix 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Get it. There had been this fad of using org lines to sell off-beat books. Stopped some 10 years ago or so. Minshull and Gilham are FZ stars now (not really per their own choice), got no data on Braddeson or Sharpe either. What's the purpose of this article? Showing Scientology literature, the philosophy/tech or so, right? With that in mind those interpretation books should go. Misou 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the point of the list is simply to list sanctioned Scientology books that exist or once existed, period. For example, if DM announced tomorrow that Have You Lived Before This Life was no longer a recognized Scn text and should now be ignored, it would still belong on this list nevertheless. We can make it clear in the article that the non-Hubbard books are something extraneous to the official Church today, but the article isn't mean to present Scientology's books necessarily in the Scientologically "correct" way. It's intended to be more completist than that. A bibliography should inherently be geared toward bibliophiles and not the POV of the books' subject or author, and many Scientology book collectors are interested in all these books. However, I do draw the line at outright squirrelly publications that were never ever sanctioned by any true Scientology-related entity. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Got something wrong there. "DM" would not declare a LRH text "no longer recognized", not without being lynched. Please get your logic straight before you bash around here with "scientologically correct". Gilham or Minshull are not the same as LRH or Freedom Magazine or a compilation by the Church of Scientology International ("What is Scientology?"). The title of this list is Scientology bibliography and this is a lie. Because you got non-Scientology books on there. The books on my above list were never sanctioned as Scientology books, neither by LRH nor later by RTC. That is for sure. They might have been sold in an Org in Los Angeles (like some health books were) for some time. With such criteria the list should get some 40-50 more entries of useless books. Misou 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Misou, obviously I know DM would never do that - it was only an illustrative point. There's no getting around that these books do exist, and this list was intended from the getgo to include these kind of gray-area books. This is not supposed to be strictly a regurgitation of the Materials Guide Chart or compiled from an Scn POV. wikipediatrix 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then the article should be renamed. The title is misleading. Or do you want to determine what a "Scientology book" is in in the intro? You obviously think that there is a "Scientology" without L. Ron Hubbard and I don't. How about adding Dale Carnegie or Will Durant then? It's all the same anyway. Misou 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Misou, obviously I know DM would never do that - it was only an illustrative point. There's no getting around that these books do exist, and this list was intended from the getgo to include these kind of gray-area books. This is not supposed to be strictly a regurgitation of the Materials Guide Chart or compiled from an Scn POV. wikipediatrix 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Got something wrong there. "DM" would not declare a LRH text "no longer recognized", not without being lynched. Please get your logic straight before you bash around here with "scientologically correct". Gilham or Minshull are not the same as LRH or Freedom Magazine or a compilation by the Church of Scientology International ("What is Scientology?"). The title of this list is Scientology bibliography and this is a lie. Because you got non-Scientology books on there. The books on my above list were never sanctioned as Scientology books, neither by LRH nor later by RTC. That is for sure. They might have been sold in an Org in Los Angeles (like some health books were) for some time. With such criteria the list should get some 40-50 more entries of useless books. Misou 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the point of the list is simply to list sanctioned Scientology books that exist or once existed, period. For example, if DM announced tomorrow that Have You Lived Before This Life was no longer a recognized Scn text and should now be ignored, it would still belong on this list nevertheless. We can make it clear in the article that the non-Hubbard books are something extraneous to the official Church today, but the article isn't mean to present Scientology's books necessarily in the Scientologically "correct" way. It's intended to be more completist than that. A bibliography should inherently be geared toward bibliophiles and not the POV of the books' subject or author, and many Scientology book collectors are interested in all these books. However, I do draw the line at outright squirrelly publications that were never ever sanctioned by any true Scientology-related entity. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Get it. There had been this fad of using org lines to sell off-beat books. Stopped some 10 years ago or so. Minshull and Gilham are FZ stars now (not really per their own choice), got no data on Braddeson or Sharpe either. What's the purpose of this article? Showing Scientology literature, the philosophy/tech or so, right? With that in mind those interpretation books should go. Misou 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think "and its related organizations" definitely includes the Scientology Publications company who published "Creative Learning", and authors like Minshull and Frater who Hubbard specifically licensed and authorized. Minshull's books were even sold thru Orgs in the 70s. I don't know anything about Gilham, Braddeson and Sharpe's books, but the list was meant to be all-inclusive for Scn-related publications that were at least at one time sanctioned by Hubbard or the Church (while disincluding books about Scientology by non-Scientologists, and unauthorized squirreling publications by Freezoners). wikipediatrix 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If I could make a suggestion, why not split the list into two sections: One for official publications (those written by Hubbard), one for those written by others and no longer used in the Church?HubcapD 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because this article isn't long enough to support a split, nor would the resultant spin-off article be very long. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean two separate articles, but rather two lists within the article.HubcapD 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still can't see a good reason to do so. I understand that Scientologists would prefer books like Minshull's would not be listed here (especially because Freezoners make so much fuss over these silly and useless books), but the books exist and had Hubbard's approval at one time, so here they are. I have no problem with making it clear that the current Church no longer recognizes these works, but this is supposed to be an all-inclusive chronological list, period. wikipediatrix 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Like I said, it was just a suggestion.HubcapD 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I still can't see a good reason to do so. I understand that Scientologists would prefer books like Minshull's would not be listed here (especially because Freezoners make so much fuss over these silly and useless books), but the books exist and had Hubbard's approval at one time, so here they are. I have no problem with making it clear that the current Church no longer recognizes these works, but this is supposed to be an all-inclusive chronological list, period. wikipediatrix 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean two separate articles, but rather two lists within the article.HubcapD 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because this article isn't long enough to support a split, nor would the resultant spin-off article be very long. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Help request
OK, does someone know the dates of publication of the following: Ron a Portrait Ron, Master Mariner Vol. 1 Ron, Master Mariner Vol. 2 Ron the Poet Ron, the Artist
the title and exact date of a 1995 or 1996 table book with a lot of photos on the life of Hubbard
What's the policy for lectures? Do we put them in Bibliography (I see some in this list) or a separate listing (how is that called? Discography? Tape Library? There must be a term) I'd prefer a separate listing. I'd like some input as to which lectures we include. Do we include or omit Course lectures (I could omit them).--Leocomix 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- All my "Ron the Dentist", "Ron the Sous Chef", "Ron the Construction Worker", etc. books are put away but I can dig them out later perhaps. I also have the big coffee-table book you're talking about. Are they listed on Amazon with that info?
-
- I think released audio lectures, both on cassette and CD, should probably go on a third article of their own, and be as completist as possible. wikipediatrix 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, how does one create a new article? And what do we call it? Recorded Bibliography? --Leocomix 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can check my copies of the Ron Mags when I get home. As to what to call the page, Bibliography refers only to written works. I don't think there's such a word as "audiography", perhaps just call the page "List of Recorded LRH Lectures", or something to that effect.HubcapD 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can fry something up right now.... how about Scientology Discography? Discography is an accepted term for all manner of audio-source, be it records, reels, cassettes and CDs, all of which LRH made. (were there ever Scientology 8-tracks?) wikipediatrix 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Discography sounds good, especially as some lectures in the 50s were actually put on vinyl. No 8-tracks that I've ever seen (the format would be rather unworkable for study purposes). The 4 formats used that I'm aware of are LP records, Reel-to-Reel tape, Tape Casettes, and CDs.HubcapD 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, Scientology Discography is up, go wild. wikipediatrix 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Discography sounds good, especially as some lectures in the 50s were actually put on vinyl. No 8-tracks that I've ever seen (the format would be rather unworkable for study purposes). The 4 formats used that I'm aware of are LP records, Reel-to-Reel tape, Tape Casettes, and CDs.HubcapD 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can fry something up right now.... how about Scientology Discography? Discography is an accepted term for all manner of audio-source, be it records, reels, cassettes and CDs, all of which LRH made. (were there ever Scientology 8-tracks?) wikipediatrix 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, and let's create an article about "Brand names of shoes worn by Scientologists 1950-1970". Misou 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Puzzling response. I'm the first to say there's too many trivial Scn articles wasting space here, but lists of media releases can't be considered trivia by any stretch of the skull. wikipediatrix 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as I said above, I just expect relevant data in this article, not random trivia. And some of such sneaked in here, if you can see it or not. Maybe it helps if you read one of them and compare. Misou 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You mean read one of the books? As I said already, I've read Minshull and think her books are worthless junk. But that has nothing to do with whether they fit the highly inclusive criteria of this article. wikipediatrix 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as I said above, I just expect relevant data in this article, not random trivia. And some of such sneaked in here, if you can see it or not. Maybe it helps if you read one of them and compare. Misou 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Puzzling response. I'm the first to say there's too many trivial Scn articles wasting space here, but lists of media releases can't be considered trivia by any stretch of the skull. wikipediatrix 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, and let's create an article about "Brand names of shoes worn by Scientologists 1950-1970". Misou 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the name of the CCHR booklets. I found Psychiatry: Education's Ruin and Creating Racism: Psychiatry's Betrayal. Also two books were published in 1995 with a grant from the IAS, do they count as Scn books?: Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler and Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal I've seen that the DVD Industry of Death is included in the Scientology releases. I think it's a mistake. I suggest we say "see also CCHR Bibliography" (as a section of CCHR) or wherever this should go.
-
- "Related organizations" would include publications by CCHR, Narconon, Criminon, WISE, Applied Scholastics, ScnPL, the IAS, etc. wikipediatrix 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. You're right. Actually it was the work of Scientologists and Sea Org Members commissioned and paid for by the Church. --Leocomix 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I found my copies of Ron the Poet and Ron the Artist. I put them in, but I see that you have Ron the Artist in the year 2000, whereas the copyright of my copy says 1998.HubcapD 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure of some dates. Next time you can just go ahead. Ron Photographer is probably wrong as I think it was before Artist.--Leocomix 07:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
