Talk:Scientology (Lewis book)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reviews

first, I admit a certain bias--I openly say on my user page that I have a "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science". Nonetheless, I've some problem with the balance of this rather negative article about a book sympathetic to Scientology. I decided not to put on a POV tag, but rather do the necessary editing myself.

"The Independent" review

I have put in a link to the actual paragraph--I cannot really call it a review. The text makes it totally clear, what the present Wikipedia article hints, that it is based only on reports of the book, and that the author of the review had not at the time seen the book itself. This is hearsay evidence , and should be removed or at least great clarified-- just saying "media accounts" is not enough. I further think that what he has said about the dubious credentials of one contributor is barely relevant, and the final sentence used as a criticism of that contributor totally irrelevant to the book. I do not think any columnist is a RS for the nature of a book he has not read, nor as a a source of information based on un-specified and unattributed "reports". Presumably he may publish a review some time after he has read it, and that would be usable. I have edited the paragraph accordingly; alternatively, it can be removed entirely.

Private Eye

I have put in a link to the best online source I could find. The negative pull quote is excessive weight; since it is duplicated in the text, I have removed it. I think the quoted portion might put excessive emphasis both on one particular contributor to the book-- the responsibility for the book is that of the editor, and also excessive emphasis on negative statements about scientology--this is an article about the book, not the subject of the book. I will do some rewriting here as well. (to be continued) DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the changes so far, thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Trimmed, per above complaint, [1]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Remaining concerns

Regarding this passage:

"the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested".[1] The Private Eye review called this notion "poppycock", writing, "Everything about Scientology's founder is contested, though no one reading this book would realise that."

For reference, here is a google books link to the paragraph that Hislop is quoting the snippet "the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" from:

Although the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested, the LRH persona has been a subject of particularly intense debate. Church critics have charged that many of the claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false.

--JN466 13:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, however the attempt at rationalization does not get around the fact that the first part of the sentence is asserted as if it were fact. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to read the book to realise that everything about Scientology's founder is contested, you just have to read to the end of the sentence of which Hislop chose to quote an isolated snippet. ;) --JN466 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not what the sentence says. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that whatever the sentence says, Hislop grossly misrepresents it, by selective quoting. There is a very clear reference to a "particularly intense debate", and the charges that "many of the claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false". That is a crystal-clear reference to things being "contested". --JN466 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. Especially because the first part of the sentence is quite clear. And because Hislop refers to two separate instances where contributors make this assertion. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Made this a bit clearer [2]. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

A reference to "particularly intense debate" and charges that "claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false" is not a reference to things being "contested"? Such references are unable to awaken in the reader any idea of things being "contested"? --JN466 15:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The other contributor, Melton, simply says that he will give "an overview of the life of L. Ron Hubbard anchored by the generally agreed facts". Of course there are some generally agreed facts about Hubbard's life: that he was an SF author, captained a ship, etc. Melton's treatment of Hubbard's war record in this chapter justifiably raises an eyebrow, but a reference to "generally agreed facts" does not. Incidentally, the chapter is taken from Melton's book, The Church of Scientology (Melton). It's a well-received book, used in dozens of university courses; but the LRH bio section has come in for some criticism. I could look it up ... but I guess it doesn't really matter here. --JN466 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the intention was not to say "the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" - then the book should not have been published with that controversial statement included. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"basic outline" is apparently being used by the author in a very minimal sense, the best thing to do is to use the entire 2 sentences, or it's quoting out of context. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, [3]. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Other reports on the book"

This concerns the passages:

1. other reports on the book state that it gives an "unusually sympathetic" portrayal of Scientology (in the lede)
2. he wrote that "reports of the book ... suggest that its treatment of the Scientology cult is unusually sympathetic" (3rd para in Reception)

The source reads,

• Reports of the book, however, suggest that its treatment of the Scientology cult is unusually sympathetic, one contributor saying that "the basic outline of L Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" when it is well known that L Ron's CV makes Lord Archer's look like a model of objective truth.

Ingrams' sentence has become inflated to create the impression that there had been several "other" (printed media) reports on the book, despite there being no evidence of any such reports (we all looked for them). That is, apart from the piece in Private Eye that appeared the day prior. Note that Ingrams uses the exact same out-of-context quote that Hislop uses. Ingrams and Hislop work in the same building, at the same magazine. The "reports" Ingrams is referring to may simply be those he heard over lunch.

All in all, more than three-quarters of the reception section is devoted to Private Eye. I would reduce this a lot. Ingrams is really no source at all, not even having read the book, and alluding to unspecified "reports". I propose we let Hislop say something about the book being unusually sympathetic, lacking mention of controversy, and covering Hubbard's military career differently from Miller's sourced account. That is all the first paragraph of the Reception section needs. The second paragraph, with the "tendentious drivel", could stand as it is and be combined with the first. Ingrams in the third para should go. Here is a proposal:

Scientology received a negative review from Ian Hislop in the British satirical magazine, Private Eye. Hislop's review criticized the book for its unusually sympathetic tone and for not mentioning numerous notable controversies surrounding Scientology. He also pointed out that Melton's account of the military career of L. Ron Hubbard was at odds with Russell Miller's Hubbard biography, Bare-Faced Messiah, based on naval records. The review criticized Oxford University Press for publishing the book: "What is utterly mystifying is why one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses in the world chooses to give its imprimatur to this tendentious drivel." When questioned by Private Eye, a spokesman for Oxford University Press responded, "Certainly this book was peer-reviewed."

Richard Cimino, founder and editor of the Religioscope Institute-published newsletter Religion Watch, wrote that the book "focuses less on the church's abuses than on its organizational dynamics and teachings, although its authors do broach controversial issues." Cimino commented that the book is "divided about whether the movement and its distinctive blend of science, psychotherapy and esoteric religion is growing". In an article about Scientology by B.A. Robinson at the website of the organization Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Scientology is listed as a "recommended book".

Further expansion will have to wait until there are academic reviews in. Does the above look like something we could agree on? --JN466 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note I also removed the sentence, "Private Eye joked that the peer reviewers of the book may have been controversial figures Lord Archer and Lord Black.[1]", at the end of the first para, above. While I don't think it is very encyclopedic, if editors are attached to it, I can live with it remaining. --JN466 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from the lede. I object to your characterization of the source. It is your own POV personal WP:OR interpretation. However, if you wish to suggest additional secondary sources to add to the article - that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Added a few additions from suggestions above. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the changes. Let's lose Ingrams altogether. Like DGG above I do not think any columnist is a RS for the nature of a book he has not read, nor as a source of information based on unspecified and unattributed "reports". --JN466 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Scientology (James R. Lewis book) → Scientology (book) — I fail to see why (James R. Lewis book) is necessary; as far as I can tell its the only book simply named Scientology Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) is incorrect. There are indeed other books of this same title, both some with existing Wikipedia articles, and still other books of the same title yet to have Wikipedia articles about them. Two with existing wiki articles are: Scientology: A History of Man, and Scientology: The Now Religion. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Created disambiguation page, at Scientology (book). -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I drop my proposal. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we scale down the "Private Eye" part?

I am fairly ignorant on British Pop culture, how serious is this magazine? As a Satirical magazine I am concerned about its weight in about an Academic book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of suggesting removal of sourced material, you could suggest additional secondary sources to add to the article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Cirt i would assume as one of your master pieces you would have already tracked down everything that so much as even mentioned the pre-fix Sci with the name "Lewis." in five dozen languages. ;-) I am not advocating its removal more concerned about the weight that it is being given compared to the other reviews. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by the first sentence. In order for you to demonstrate your view of "weight", it would be helpful for you to demonstrate this by a presentation of consideration of the spectrum of secondary sources covering the topic. -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE Weight, I am not sure it is appropriate for a book a review in "Satirical magazine" to be given such a prominent view of the book. I honestly dont mind as IMHO the criticism is well deserved. Typically acedemic books might include a book review from Time (magazine) but I would be more nervous about including John Stewart's opinion on his show. That is all my concern is. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let us quote from WP:UNDUE, which says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Weight is based upon a preponderance of secondary sources. Despite repeated requests, above, Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) has failed to present additional secondary sources for use in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are given "due weight," I was expressing concern that a "Satirical magazine" was given its "due weight." As in my experience "Satirical magazine" are not reliable sources to make such criticism. (though it varies on the Magazine.) Thats my concern Cirt, this is not a battle ground I would appreciate rather than demand I bring sources other sources address my concern. I have no idea about this source I dont know if its a british equivalent of Mad magazine(Not serious at all) or Playboy (humor wit but some good book reviews) thus I am asking about it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a significant viewpoint from a source which has a circulation of over 200,000. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mad magazine has one of 175,000–2,100,000 (according to our article), I have no idea what the reliability of the Magazine is and whether its qualified to give such a view. Since I cant find the article on its website I have no idea if its a legit book review or if its Crack.com thoughts on the subject. And since you added the source [4] technically the burden of to prove its reliability is on you. I am just asked a question here ok I am not one of Shutterbugs army here to "cleanse" the negative information out of the article. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, indeed - the User:Shutterbug reference is a most interesting one. Let us get out of the habit of removing criticism and adding spam/promo to articles on this subject. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind scaling down the Private Eye part. Given that it misrepresented the book at least in part (see above) I'm not too impressed with it. But the tenor of the Private Eye review -- that the book is too kind to Scientology -- should definitely remain in the article. --JN466 01:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Would like to instead discuss suggestions of other sources to add to the article, before scaling down this particular source. This source has already been scaled down quite significantly, upon suggestions from others - and then scaled down by myself, see above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)