Talk:Scientology: The Now Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Scientology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


While the article looks to be well done in general I was a little worried about calling the book "objective" and having a full text link in the intro. Both of these seemed to be attempts to push this book onto users as something they should read to debunk Scientology--which is not the place of an encyclopedia. I just wanted to post this section in hopes that we don't let this type of language creep back into the article. gren グレン 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the word "objective", however this is how it has been reviewed in other sources. The link is fine in the intro, it has been freely released onto the internet. Smee 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
  • By the way, thank you for stating that: the article looks to be well done in general Smee 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, it was. After seeing 'objective' I expected the worst... but it looked good. I do disagree about the link. There is no precedence for external links in article text... in fact I think it's discouraged. If you want to write in the intro that after it was stopped from being published in print it was made avaiable freely online that would be fine and link to it in a footnote. External links in the text is just bad style and I'd be surprised if any of the featured or good articles do it. gren グレン 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, I will implement your suggestion. Smee 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Small suggestion[edit]

Not a bad article, although I wonder if it is really a high importance article as its tag says. I have a suggestion about this sentence:

Scientology decided to sue after they had sent a letter demanding a retraction to the publisher, but the book was subsequently reprinted in paperback.[13] The publisher later paid Scientology in a legal settlement and did not release the book again in a printed format.[6]

Would it be better to change "Scientology" to "The Church of Scientology" in these sentences? Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Not a bad article - Thank you for this compliment, coming from you, this is probably very positive for this article... I will implement the suggested change... Smee 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Smee. I think that will make the meaning more clear, since it was the church that sued and was paid, not "Scientology" itself. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No prob. Smee 15:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
By the way Smee, even though we are mostly on opposite sides on the "issues" I think that you have a good sense of style and we share a common interest in that we are both trying to make WP more interesting for the average person to read. Steve Dufour 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I try. I like creating new, very very highly sourced articles.  :) Smee 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Cool pictures help too. :-) Steve Dufour 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, especially public domain free images of documents produced by government entities.  :) Smee 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Are you planning on doing something with the horizontal info box thing? It would make the articles look better and would be more useful since it lets a person read the article first before telling him about other ones. Steve Dufour 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please post this comment to the relevant template discussion page. I am waiting for more feedback from others before making such a drastic change to horizontal footer, if that is what you are referring to, the Template:ScientologySeries. Please post further comments at its talk page if so.... Smee 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
I already said just about the same thing there. Steve Dufour 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment there, and post further comments there, not here, related to that. Thanks. Smee 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • FYI, the Raelian series, which was using a horizontal template just switched to a vertical one. (Yes, I did ask about the non-free image in the template. No answer yet.) AndroidCat 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to original topic of section I think this is now resolved so that "Scientology" is used for the general belief system/whatever and "the Church of Scientology", or "the Church" for short, is the corporate entity that can do things like sue, try to ban books, etc. Steve Dufour 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Still a fuzzy issue indeed. Hehe. Because doesn't "the Church of Scientology" dictate the belief system and change certain practices of "Scientology" as it sees fit, in addition to the suing and the attempts at book banning as you stated above, etc. ? Smee 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
I only meant to say that in this article the use of the two expressions was clear. :-) Steve Dufour 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Smee 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Additional source[edit]

The Village Voice. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scientology: The Now Religion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*14 citations, could use image of book's cover. Smee 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)