Talk:Ali's Smile

The Ticket that Exploded and The Nova Express

This article makes a false claim, NOWHERE in either of these novels is there any reference to Scientology. Having read both novels three or four time, at the top of my head I can think of shamanism, the occult, ritual magicks, and voodoo being depicted, but nowhere in any novel is there any direct reference to Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.203.132 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Going "off the top of my head" would be a violation of the WP:NOR policy. At Wikipedia we go by standards of WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Then how about this, the reference is someone elses interpretation of Burroughs text, it's not a direct quote from Burroughs himself. The problem being Burroughs writing style is so chaotic that no two people will interpret his text the same way. You can say Apomorphine, and sound had an influence on the novels, not only are they mentioned in nearly every chapter, but Burroughs himself talks about how influential they were in a interview conducted by Gerard Mangala that's usually included with the collected Cut-up Trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.203.132 (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the reference is a secondary source, not a primary source. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the article still say "For example, in both The Ticket That Exploded (1962) and Nova Express (1964), Scientology, along with the cut-up technique, silence, and apomorphine, allows the characters to resist social control." In that context it appears the article is saying that Scientology had a direct effect on Burroughs writing, and that's just not the case. Even when he was affiliated with Scientology he was never a strict practitioner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.201.60 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have independent reliable secondary sources to support your above claims? Cirt (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FA candidate?

I believe that this article completely fulfils all featured article criteria, and should be taken to FA review. I however have not contributed to it enough substantially to do so myself. Sir Richardson (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. You are right that the article fulfills the FA criteria, but I am of the opinion that the article should be more complete to be an FA - there is very little on the themes and reception of the book, as you can see. Unfortunately, there are no more sources - we exhausted them all. I tend not to take articles to FA that I feel are incomplete, even if I have exhausted the sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment by Awadewit (talk · contribs), at least for the time being, until our research comes across other appropriate WP:RS sources. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is with this article, for now. :( -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some additional comments by Burroughs in interview book The Job, in which he defends Hubbard and dianetics as a science, interestingly that can be used for both positive and negative human conditioning. This is additional content I can incorporate myself. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, this article has been through extensive and multiple reviews - perhaps we could first discuss and evaluate this new material, here on the article's talk page? Thank you for your interest, -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's suggestion sounds like a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Awadewit (talk · contribs) is in agreement here. We could even work on a proposed draft version from Sir Richardson (talk · contribs), for example at User:Sir Richardson/Sandbox, to analyze the suggested material. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how much additional material I could write, but it believe it could substantiate at least around a few sentences. I appreciate the interest thus far. Sir Richardson (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that like myself, Awadewit (talk · contribs) is also eager to see what you will come up with at User:Sir Richardson/Sandbox. :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably the best place for it. Sir Richardson (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, great, thank you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A rough outline has been established in the sandbox, with more to come. Feel free to edit yourselves. :) Sir Richardson (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All references to Scientology in The Job are now detailed. As of so far:

• Burroughs described Scientology's concept of erasing the reactive mind through techniques such as the E-meter, to achieve "a complete freedom from past conditioning and immunity against such conditioning in the future." p. 46
• Then criticizes L. Ron Hubbard for "overtly fascist utterances." p. 47 Scientology for "protecting the home, the church, the family, decent morals...(no wife swapping)...national boundaries, the concept of RIGHT AND WRONG." "Which side are you on Hubbard which side are you on?" p. 48
• Claims oppression of Scientology for undoing human conditioning, in the same fashion as psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich by the FDA. "The medical profession is suppressing Reich's orgone accumulator and his discoveries relative to the use and dangers of orgonic energy. They are suppressing Dianetics and Scientology discovered by Mr L. Ron Hubbard." p. 60
• "There is every indication that the discoveries of Scientology are being used by the CIA and other official agencies." p. 65 Compares to state and military experimentation with LSD, though does not mention the CIA's Project MKULTRA directly. p. 66
• An additional reference to Burroughs' belief in apomorphine to effectively treat heroin addiction. Claims it is suppressed by the government and medical industry for the same reasons as Scientology and Reich's orgone theories. p. 122
• Burroughs says that Hubbard claims "that certain words and and word combinations an produce serious illnesses and mental disturbances. I can claim some skill in the scriveners trade, but I cannot guarantee to write a passage that will make someone physically ill. If Mr. Hubbard's claim is justified, this is certainly a matter for further research, and we can easily find out experimentally whether his cliam is justified or not." Hubbard's "engram theory is very easily subject to to experimental verification. Take ten volunteer subjects, subject them to a pain stimulus accompanied by certain words and sounds and images. You can act out little skits." pp. 190–191

Now must be established is how they should be incorporated into the article. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this is useful. It appears to be primary source description, devoid of secondary source commentary or any indication at all as to why this particular material is specifically noteworthy of inclusion here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cirt. Since Burroughs is the author of the interviews, we cannot take this material and integrate it into the article. Only non-controversial, descriptive statements can be sourced to primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY) and in the case of Scientology on Wikipedia, everything is controversial, so we really need to have secondary sources. Thanks for your interest, though, Sir Richardson. Let us know if we can explain these issues further. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)