Talk:Scientology (Lewis book)

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 [1] 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)