Talk:Happy Science

RfC about the religion section

section and rfc started by sockpuppet, now blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it important fact or opinion that "happy science is cult?" Sorunikusu (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) It is an important and very well-sourced fact that it is a widely held opinion. Drop the stick, please. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you. But your opinion has no basis yet.I say that it is an opinion because there is no concrete, quantitative basis anywhere in the quotation source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) That's not how we deal with sources. If you think they fail WP:RS you can ask at WP:RSN. See also this source. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I read your source, which labels new religions as cults. That book was supposedly written in 2003? Today Happy Science has centers throughout the world and is accepted by many, maybe more than would define it as a cult. Are there any actual numbers to substantiate the claim that it is a cult, or is the wiki article's statement based only on the opinions of a few opinion piece newspaper articles and an almanac? Enscion (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Using sources

Could you please explain why this edit including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources were removed? Also, why someone criticizes this is PAID. Updating news source is PAID on Wiki? If you search Internet, these sources are available. Clear and logical explanation is required why all news sources were removed . Why is this conflict of interest ? Anyone can access internet news sources. Thank you, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Science&diff=prev&oldid=884166707 Akashi-ohashi (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you add information, it must a) be supported by the sources you provide (for instance, if a source should "she did this to try to get famous" you could of course not write "she got famous because she did this") and b) not be written as a promotional brochure for the organisation. Nobody has said a single word to you about being paid from what I can see, but as you obviously are involved with the organisation you should not edit the article directly, instead use this talk page to request edits. Please use the requested edit template which looks like this: {{Template:Requested edit}}. Remember that everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and some sources are not at all appropriate. Fox and Mirror are not prohibited, but they are generally very awful sources and we have to be very careful not to use them incorrectly. --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you are just saying based on your own assumption. There is no concrete explanation on why each item has to be removed. I didn't update like "someone did this to be famous"... Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Akashi-ohashi (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You updated exactly like that. One source said "“Stop the Hair Nudes” was staged to draw the public’s attention to this supposed indecency, and to win Kofuku-no-Kagaku credit for taking a moral stand", which you changed to "Through “stop the hair nudes!” campaign it gained the credit for taking a moral stand." Please read what I wrote above. Everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even if something is sourced it cannot be added in a promotional manner. Some of the information you added might be useful, if added in a neutral manner, but much of it is not. We have the info now and uninvolved editors can see about editing the article to add it as appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems you didn't reply to these questions yet.

>Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Thanks,Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I examined the entire edit carefully. None of the entries was appropriate as written. My opinion on Fox and Mirror is that they are generally awful, and many people agree with me here. However, Wikipedia allowes the (responsible) use of these sources and the revert of your edit had nothing to do with the fact that you used those two sources. My comment was a reply to your "including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources", something of a tangent and not directly related to the edit I made. --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Akashi-ohashi: you haven't admitted that you misused a source. The bit about translations isn't significant enough to include unless discussed (not just stated) by several independent reliable sources. Ditto the 6 new books. We need the Guinness source itself for the Guinenss claim. "Weird news" sections aren't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please list why each item is not appropriate? How should we rewrite it? Deleting information with the clear source must be carefully examined and improved. Thanks! Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done that. To see the policy basis read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. It should be obvious that we need a Guinness source, anyone can claim they've got a Guinness record. It's also obvious that "weird news" sections fail WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this article adhere to NPOV?

I have read the history of this article. There are some things that can be called into question regarding the neutrality of this article. It appears that this article has editorial bias - it seems to "take sides". Breaking this rule is against one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. While many of the edits have focused on guaranteeing one of the other principles - verifiability, it seems to have been at the expense of promoting a one-sided opinion of the subject, which is definitely against the rules. Also, many of the articles cited are outdated considering that pertinent developments are ongoing. In other words, there are many opinions sourced from current events or passing knowledge of the subject, and it is questionable whether they can be considered as reliable sources. I hope someone is reasonable enough to discuss this without closing the issue. If it is done so immediately, which seems happen quite often on this page, it will only prove that it really is not NPOV as I have made a thoughtful request here. I have quite a few issues I'd like to discuss, as I have reviewed 10 years of edits on this article. Enscion (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Do discuss then here. Zezen (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)