Talk:Operation Clambake/Archive 1

Arbitrary section header
''It is worth mentioning that any Scientologist well versed in the Tech finds the idea of humans evolving from clams to be quite amusing. Later research found much of the Genetic Entity track recorded in "A History of Man" (including the Clam incident) to be false data. This is mentioned in a 1963 tape "Errors in Time" and is referred to as part of the "Darwinian Implant."''

What is this all about? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno. None of the info on the Web that I can find on Errors In Time says anything like this. In fact, this article is the only place I have seen the above assertion. I've commented it out of the article as it stands, pending better info. - David Gerard 13:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda
In the article Operation Clambake presents: What is Scientology?, numerous types of propaganda are being employed: appeal to fear, appeal to authority, demonization, glittering generality, obtaining disapproval, oversimplification, testimonial and damaging quotation, use of virtue words, slogans. SeePropaganda. Besides all that, Operation Clambake has very little credibility: Andreas has not corrected his website despite many arguments and discussion people have had about the innacuracies of his statements.--J.Tell 02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Word to the wise: those who resort to vandalism have difficulty in getting people to actually believe you. If anything, it leads people to believe that which you disagree with. Scumbag 02:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

What J.Tell claims is not correct. Changes have been made on the page over the years and even suggestions that were only opinions have been added to the mentioned page. Click the image "A SECOND OPINION!" and see. http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html

Seconded about J. Tell being incorrect as a person who remembered the site's opening --Rakista 06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Marbahlarbs
I noticed that there was no mention of the word "copyright" on this page. I added some more explanation of the Church's specific beef with xenu.net, and the nature of the Google takedown. (not the whole site, just the pages containing supposedly copyrighted information) Marbahlarbs 00:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Reason for edit by 64.82.252.43 on 20:36 23/10/05 Central US Time
I removed the link to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-432274,00.html due to the page not being there anymore. I also checked the Wayback Archive, and there was no page for it (forbidden by robots.txt). --64.82.252.43 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Added Category
I added the Category Scientology to this article, seeing as how the actions of some scientologists makes up a (possibly only) reason this website has gotten so much attention. Also, I'm considering moving the 'critics of Scientology' category as a sub-category of scientology, but im worried that may seem an attempt to deny critics equal standing, as well as an attempt to display the CoS in a negative light (After reading Scientology-related talk pages for the lst 2 days, im wary of the consequences of either way_ Any thoughts? =AKMask 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Category:Critics of Scientology actually is a sub-category of Category:Scientology already. As to the problem of how it should be categorized, I'd recommend bringing up the question at WP:SCN. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed that yesterday, my bad. AKMask 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"openly biased"?
While this is technically accurate, many (perhaps even most) people mistakenly think that "biased" is the same thing as "unfairly biased." Is there another way to clearly indicate that Operation Clambake is decidedly against Scientology, without creating the impression (which would be POV) that that stance is a result of unfairness? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That works. Thanks, Ciphergoth! -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Andreas is not opposed to people practicing Scientology
Andreas has on numerous occasions made a distinction between opposing Scientology and opposing the Church of Scientology. Andreas does not object to people that practice the religion of Scientology (provided they do so without harming others). Andreas does object to the repeated human rights abuses that the Church of Scientology has perpetuated over the years. I rewrote the first paragraph to make that point more clear, but perhaps it can still be reworded better. I'm open to suggestions. Vivaldi (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a glowing generalization of a man who first opposed Christianity on his site and then fell back to opposing a less recognized religion on his site. And the introdroduction mis-states his site's presentation.  He states that everything on his site is owned by him and is his personal opinion.  What is the definition of "personal website?"  The introduction might include the word "prominent" but should surely include the word "personal". Terryeo 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ... uh-hunh. Yeah.  He registered the domain name "xenu.net" and called his site "Operation Clambake" for the purpose of opposing Christianity.  riiiiiiight. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, he is a free speech activist and opposed to any religious organisation that hurts members and works against free speech, whether they are christian or the CoS. I have never seen him harrass any individual scientologist, although he has picketed against the CoS, which is a big difference. (Entheta 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Yahoo deleting/moving Critical sites now?
Last week it was noted that Yahoo moved or removed most of the critical sites from the top 20 results when searching for "scientology." A link within Clambake -- not even the main site -- only comes up at 20 on Yahoo search, while it's 2 on Google. Anyone feel like adding this info? 68.191.55.223 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I get 32 before any xenu.net page comes up . The problem is that it's difficult to say much other than speculation without any statement from Yahoo. I certainly think there's a huge bias in the results when compared to Google—but can I prove it or find a WP:RS to cite? AndroidCat 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whaaa? Maybe xenu.net got dropped from the first page, but factnet is on that first page, as is rickross. Looks like the Yahoo search algos dropped xenu.net down, but Scientology criticism is still on the first page... that's not a "removal of criticism", that's a change in page ranking. Ronabop 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a very selective shift in the ranking, but I haven't been tracking it week by week to know if it was a natural change due to their ranking formula or someone putting their thumb on the scale. That's the whole problem with mentioning it in the article—there are just too many unknowns. AndroidCat 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Year of establishment
Which year was this web site established? It should be categorized also by year of establishment. __meco 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be 1996 since the tenth year party was a few weeks ago. The domain xenu.net shows as created 20-OCT-1997, but the site existed before "moving" there. AndroidCat 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Attribution discussion
See here. I notice that Fossa has reappeared. This is the guy who claimed that scientology is based on Scientism. --Tilman 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead Link?
The last link under External Links (about CoS trying to get Andreas fired) goes to the Operation Clambake Message Board, which appears to be gone. I figured I'd post here before deleting the link, in case anyone knows whether the board is going to come back. Adam613 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just maintainance over the next few days according to an ARS post by Andreas. AndroidCat 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I'm a little uncomfortable with a website on a religious minority being called (something)bake. Sorry to break the talk page guidelines to make this comment. Steve Dufour 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

High Importance
What is the reason this article is classed as "high importance"? Just asking. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

zOMG Wikipedia is a Scientology cabal!!!!!!!!!111oneoneone
Regarding the statement "On Google Web searches in English, Operation Clambake is the highest-ranking result for "Scientology" that is not run by the Church.", something is wrong. Jon Harald Søby 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Such things as Google rankings, IMDB ranks, RottenTomatoes.com scores, etc. are subject to change - even constant change - and should be left OUT of Wikipedia articles. I'd just pull that sentence myself, but don't have time to see if there is a Wikipedia policy on the matter. - Rapscallion 14:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If Rapscallion removed the sentence, it's been put back. Whether such things as google search ranks are Wikipedia material or not may be up for debate, but as it is right now the article is simply and blatently wrong, which shouldn't be acceptable. We should either remove the material or correct it. I'll make a stab at correcting it because I personally thing the site's google rank is significant, but if it would be better removed, remove it. Just don't go putting it back to how it is now, since the current text is incorrect. 71.38.177.231 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

clams
While going through Hubbard's A History of Man the other day, plucking out some of the great Space Opera incidents that have been neglected for the Incident (Scientology) article, I actually read the whole thing closely for the first time and realized that what Hubbard is saying is that during Auditing, preclears may experience past-life reincarnation memories of being clams, sloths, cavemen, etc. and specific "Incidents" that caused Engrams. Though his knowledge of biology and evolution are still laughably stunted, he actually is not specifically saying that humans literally evolved from clams.

He does talk about the GE (Genetic Entity, not General Electric), which is a sort of "Group Thetan" spirit, and that the Genetic Entity links the clams to the sloths to the humans during Auditing because of these aforementioned incidents, but that's not the same thing as saying clams are a forefather of primates. I've corrected the article appropriately. And don't worry, those of you who liked it because it made Hubbard sound stupid - reincarnation memories of clam life is still every bit as stupid! wikipediatrix 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like OR.
 * "There are four general fields of incidents, four areas of past, embraced in this work. These are:Present life, from pre-conception to present time;The genetic line, being the evolutionary chain on Earth;Large, specialised segments of the whole track;The theta body line or 'whole track'."
 * Later Hubbard follows this with:
 * "GENETIC ENTITY, the 'GE', is the second area of address. This is the entity which carries forward from the earliest formation of the MEST body. It is this entity which has the 'genetic line' engrams. [..] A GE departs from the body much later than the theta beings abandon one, sees it through the death to the end and only then leaves to join the line once more some two or three days before conception."
 * Chapter Four (where The Clam incident is listed) "THE GENETIC LINE consists of the total of incidents which have occurred during the evolution of the MEST body itself. The composite of these facsimiles has the semblance of a being. This being would be called the GENETIC ENTITY or the GE.", followed with Hubbard "Vindication of Darwin". I don't see a source for the idea that when Hubbard was talking about genetic line, he was using his own definition. (Which wouldn't be the first time.) AndroidCat 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Reread what you just typed. You just typed Hubbard stating that the genetic line consists of "incidents". A "genetic line", in the true scientific sense, does not and cannot contain "incidents", so of course it's Hubbard's own special definition. Hubbard is talking about this vague and amorphous "genetic entity" that forms a "line" or "chain" connecting clams, sloths, cavemen, etc. and ends up buried in our banks. It's still malarkey, it's just a slightly different malarkey than the general misconception. wikipediatrix 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reincarnation is your own OR. AndroidCat 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer my point about what you just typed. And forgive me for saying "reincarnation" when Hubbard actually says "past lives". (Big difference, huh?) wikipediatrix 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not making any points, you're waving your arms. Hubbard is quite clear that he is talking about evolution, Darwin and the genetic line in his text. Most of the additional text you added seems extraneous for this article, and the definition of GE seemed to be cut short. AndroidCat 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Biology vs. metaphysics
My impression is that your conflict of perception here stems from opaque differences in understanding the relationship between what are here called "genetic entities" and the "genetic line" on the one hand and the conceptual shift from the biological concept of phylogeny to the metaphysical one of ontology on the other. Could it be that integrating this understanding would resolve your differences? __meco 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * AndroidCat and I seem to have agreed on a mutually satisying edit for the nonce. Hubbard's definitions of words, phrases and terms are rarely identical to the ordinary person's. His "genetic line" is a theoretical "chain of incidents" in past lives that show up on an E-meter, not a literal bloodline or evolutionary line. Some of the incidents, like the Volcano and "Being Eaten", aren't even life forms at all. wikipediatrix 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say mutually satisfying, just that I'm not going to expend more time slices on it today. BTW, the Volcano and "Being Eaten" incidents are as experienced by a life form. (Yes, the life form dies, but the GE hooks back into genetic line carrying the incident.) AndroidCat 19:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Way too much detail for this article, specifically the origin of the name. Besides, it all seems like an exercise in apologia and retconning of Hubbard's poor understanding of the subject of evolution. (The start of HoM, chapter four, is classic Hubbard bafflegab.) AndroidCat 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly think the short paragraph of explanation is "way too much detail"! I thought we'd laid this one to rest.


 * Hubbard repeatedly clearly states that these are incidents. "The Clam" is no more descended from "The Volcano" any more than "The Coffee Grinder" is descended from "The Obscene Dog". The fact that he chose to arrange them in semi-historic order, and listed more animal-named incidents than otherwise, seems to be the source of the confusion. (That, and the fact that Hubbard couldn't communicate his way out a bucket.)


 * I think Hubbard is clearly being his own apologist/retcon-artist here, because the whole vague notion of this "Genetic Entity" that is a real being yet somehow also isn't, that wanders around history inhabiting bodies and connecting random dots throughout all types of life forms from plankton to "Piltdown Men" sounds to me like an all-purpose cover story to pull out whenever he says something regarding biology that was either wrong and/or incomprehensible. wikipediatrix 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring
User:AndroidCat, (who usually is fairer and more astute than this), continues to revert my edit on the basis that Hubbard says "genetic line" in the course of his gobbledygook in A History of Man. That still doesn't mean Hubbard said man evolved from clams, and AndroidCat has provided no quote from the text that supports this common-but-wrong view. In fact, his own quotes from the text (see above) disprove his own case. It's unfortunate that this is again turning into a following-the-anti-Scientologist-party-line affair. If anyone else wants to get their copies of the book out, we can all sit together and read it page by page. It just doesn't say what AndroidCat says it does. I myself have been guilty of this assumption for years, up until two days ago, when I actually read the damn thing from cover to cover and realized there's no actual mention of direct evolution from clam to man - these are Incidents - memories of past lives. Does AndroidCat also think Hubbard is claiming man evolved from "Volcanoes" and "Being Eaten", which are also part of the chain of the "Genetic Entity" that Hubbard describes? wikipediatrix 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My last change makes no mention of evolution, and you're over the the line on WP:NPA. AndroidCat 14:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that didn't answer my points. You're not discussing, you're deflecting. wikipediatrix 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)