Talk:Scientology (Lewis book)

Contributors section

Maybe these names should be alphabetized, rather than in the order they appear in the book — unless you want to put the chapter titles next to their names.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp I would like doing chapter names more, however, some people wrote multiple chapters so it isn't workable. I'll alphabetize it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

did it PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny note

I found this review on accident while trying to find a non-dead copy of Manca's review to add to the page, and have added it to external links to incorporate later. The review by Franz Winter from Marburg actually mentions this Wikipedia article, which at least in my history of writing book articles is new territory to me.

"At last there is an academic publication with the simple title “Scientology”. It aims at covering one of the most controversial developments among newer religious groups, while it is being debated whether this phenomenon can be labelled a “religion” at all. James R. Lewis, well known and prolific writer and editor of many books on new religious phenomena, undertook the difficult task of bringing together various authors of different professions to give a state-of-the-art overview, although not a complete one yet. But the result though is an impressive collection touching many important areas of interest concerning this group. Its controversial nature however cannot be overlooked. This is obvious when we consider that there are not many academic books which receive their own private Wikipedia-entry after its publication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_(James_R._Lewis_book)). With this we are already in the eye of the storm: Saying something about Scientology means also taking part and being an actor in a problematic discourse."

It also notes that:

"On the one hand this absence is legitimized by the fact that there is a big sample of anti-Scientology-books and Scientology bashing articles, but – on the other hand – it may lead to the problem that the book is perceived in a “group legitimating” way (this is done in the review of this book by Terra Manca for the International Journal of Cultic Studies 1, 2010; and, on another level, in the satirical magazine Private Eye, April 2009, 16; both reviews are unfortunately the main source of the Wikipedia-article, by the way)."

Well at least that last point has been rectified by the addition of additional sources. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I thought it was funny. The book works off a featured article of Wikipedia in one section and praises us, which is interesting enough, but there are reviews of the book reflecting on the fact it has a Wikipedia article. All so very meta. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)