Talk:The Way to Happiness

Precepts

I have re-added the precepts with citations after Cirt's comment that it was unsourced. I first thought it was silly to source something that obviously came from the booklet, but as I got them from the website myself I guess it does makes sense.

Cirt also commented that the list is non-notable and unencyclopedic. On the former, please note that notability does not directly limit article content; see Wikipedia:Notability for more on this.

The "unencyclopedic" claim needs further substantiation. The list is relevant knowledge about the subject and in concise form. It's not worded as advertising and doesn't break any other of the guidelines at WP:ENC.
—Leif Arne Storset 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed. This is unencyclopedic to list out all of these so-called "precepts" in this format. It appears to be WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT for the Church of Scientology organization. Let us also avoid adding completely unsourced information to the page. Let us avoid using primary sources on these sorts of controversial articles. Let us please stick to using secondary sources. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the materials you linked to on my talk page, I realize you are actually not a newbie and have been intimately involved in Scientology articles for a long time. Thanks for the links, they are interesting and useful.

In response to your citation of WP:ARBSCI, please note the following:

• Purpose of Wikipedia prohibits advocacy, but citing the views of an organization is not advocacy.
• Quality of sources states that "Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources." The stated views of an organization and the actual content of the booklet easily fall within this category.
• Most importantly, in my opinion, good-faith participation is welcome. It's essential for the future of Wikipedia (or any collaborative effort) that participation is welcomed and not discouraged. Now, in my case I have enjoyed casually contributing for years, but others may be scared away more easily by a hard-handed approach.

You say that the format is unencyclopedic. What format would be acceptable? Is the name "precept" the problem? (I know I'd never heard the word before...)

For the record (in response to your citation of WP:COFS), I am not affiliated with the CoS. A friend showed me the TWtH site and I was doing due diligence by looking it up on Wikipedia when I discovered (a) the organization is affiliated with the CoS and (b) the article had very little on the moral code itself.

I wish to avoid an edit war, and will await your response before taking further action.
—Leif Arne Storset 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that considering how naïve the organization and their precepts are, quoting them in the article is closer to ridicule than advocacy. ;)
—Leif Arne Storset 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to avoid WP:NOR violations, and inserting non-significant factors into articles on this topic, we should rely on secondary sources, rather than primary. Do any secondary sources devote significant commentary to these so-called "precepts" ? -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of the policies and arbitrations you cite make exceptions for primary sources in appropriate circumstances. In other words, WP:ARBSCI (section link) and WP:NOR (section link) specifically allow limited, careful use of primary sources to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects.

While I do not care much about the "precepts" specifically, a blanket ban on primary sources is unnecessary and harmful to an encyclopedia. Please reconsider your stance on primary sources; it is not supported by Wikipedia policy. In particular, it is not supported by Wikipedia policy on Scientology. Wikipedia allows restricted use of primary sources. If I have misunderstood policy you must explain how.

—

As for your other argument, if you believe the stated agenda of an organization is a "non-significant factor" you must bear the burden of proof on that claim. Why is the primary message of an organization "non-significant"? You must explain your thinking here. I cannot guess what your reasoning is.

I would encourage you to consider my arguments and read the linked policies before asking for secondary sources again. I have made it easy for you by linking to the relevant sections. Here they are again: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Quality_of_sources, WP:PRIMARY. Please read them, it only takes a minute.
—Leif Arne Storset 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The "precepts" are not noteworthy enough for inclusion as a list in this fashion. Have they been discussed significantly, in secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please

Let us please avoid primary sources and non WP:RS sources. Also, please avoid adding hyperlinks within main article body text. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Google books

Is Google Books considered ok to add? I added the booklet (this article is about a booklet) yesterday but it was removed without reason. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=RhvoT6B1GVQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+way+to+happiness&source=bl&ots=ECDsoa-fjp&sig=LtO-xsI-lNjz54AbjtxfrnyJcoc&hl=en&ei=dDRzTJX5AYiWsgPAismADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false . 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairyday (talk • contribs)

No, best to avoid primary sources, and stick to WP:RS, independent, secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand avoiding primary sources. But in this case it is the actual booklet. Isn't this relevant for the article? I mean, the whole article is about it... Fairyday (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RS, reliable sources. What is more reliable than the actual source? Oh, and why did you remove my other edits? Fairyday (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)