Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1

Cut 1

• Comment - The article is currently under peer review and as such should not be listed here at this time. Additionally, this nomination should be considered with this (permanent link). لennavecia 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - It never should have passed GA, whether or not it is under peer review, as it has no "Critical reception" section or equivalent. This is a basic section for an article on a literary work. I also think it is unnecessarily POV on the subject of Scientology. I brought up my concerns at peer review, and was told I was not WP:AGF. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears the issue is currently being worked on, so it seems understandable that one could take this action, for example, as a lack of AGF in that you apparently don't believe two of our best content creators are capable of including such a section in a timely manner, particularly considering they are apparently working toward FA. لennavecia 19:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut 2

That means that the article should not be a GA. That is a reason to fail an article for GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article brings together coverage in all available WP:RS sources, and satisfies WP:WIAGA quite well. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles have been failed for not having a "Critical reception" section. It is not true that because an article brings together as much information as it can, than therefore it can be a GA. Not all articles can be GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles may have been failed for not having a "Critical reception" section, if that information was available out there in unused WP:RS secondary sources but the GA nominator and other editors had not incorporated those sources. But for this article, which adequately brings together all available material from WP:RS sources, WP:WIAGA is satisfied. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are misinformed. Not all articles can be a GA. A "Critical reception", "Critical analysis" or a similar section is considered part of the "broad aspects" that must be covered for a work of art, literature, film, comic book, video game, etc. It is like having a biography with no details about personal life, childhood etc. For some articles, there is not enough reliable information available to become a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We cannot require articles to have information in them that is not present in reliable sources which would necessitate violating WP:NOR. The article amply satisfies the criteria laid out at WP:WIAGA. Mattisse's simply stating essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, saying It is a collage of ramblings and thoughts from years gone by and not a serious work of literature. It's like issuing an album of composed of various outtakes to get another Elvis Presley recording. - is not reason enough to remove this article's GA status. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I reviewed it. You don't fail an article for having no critical reception section if there's no critical reception. A book is quite capable of being sufficiently notable to warrant an article without filling every section from the guidelines and an article is quite capable of being a GA without slavish adherence to section headings for which there is no content.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Let's hear from some uninvolved editors. It is not a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have reviewed almost 200 GAs in the last several months. If I am wrong, I would like to hear that from Geometry guy or some other well regarded GA regulars, and if I am wrong I will accept that. Fainites may have a conflict of interest, not only because she passed this GA, but one of her articles that I nominated for GAR after it passed GA was subsequently delisted. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I possibly have a conflict of interest? You weren't involved in this article when I reviewed it. However, I note you had a very personal exchange with Awadewit just before you brought this review! Are you suggesting I can't speak to my review, but only GA heavies are allowed?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you just took the trouble to make nasty remarks on AN/I about me, which I would say puts you in the "involved" camp. I think you still resent me for putting your article Attachment therapy up for GAR and it was delisted. All I said was that I would like some opinions from neutral parties who are familiar with the GA process. I have reviewed close to 200 articles for GA in the last few months, and I would be interested in hearing from some editors with similar experience. I suppose I should not have requested any preference. I am sorry I offended you. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Mattisse it was purely factual - to which you responded with personal attacks. My point is - when I reviewed this article - you were not involved. Are you seriously suggesting I am debarred from explaining my review just because you previously GAR'd an article in which I was involved - and that that is a conflict of interest? That is absurd.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut 3

• • • This user was requested to comment here, by Mattisse. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • • (ec)So what? Be careful how you answer. --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • How did FloNight♥♥♥ magically know how to comment here, especially since it was removed from the GAR listing by User:Jennavecia? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I was not asked to comment. I saw the discussion you started on Jennavecia's user talk page when I left a post there. I was curious and looked. The topic interested me and I commented. As I said, I'm not commenting on this article, I'm commenting on the principle. Too rigid GA requirements of this kind make no sense because the reason that many articles do not pass to FA and never will is because one aspect of the review makes them always fall outside the criteria. Repeating that same criteria that makes these set of article not pass does not seem wise in the big scheme of things. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut 4

• I asked Pilcha to comment because the admin who is protecting you User:Jennavecia removed this from the GAR. So no one knows about this page, except the people that have commented from the peer review. How can I get this issue out to the community, so that there are more that those on your side commenting? Also, I see that User:Cirt has been described by an Arbitrator as having a known POV against Scientology.[1] How can I get the general community's input, since the administrators are protecting your point of view? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom hasn't listed any sanctions against Cirt, meaning they haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the way you have described Cirt (above) from that diff is somewhat out of context Mattisse.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to re-focus on the article. I noticed that the article's Talk page says nothing abut this GAR, and that should be fixed, otherwise this GAr risks being seen as an exercise in WP:CANVASS. --Philcha (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person I asked to comment, and that was treated as WP:CANVASS by User:Cirt (see above). As the GAR was removed from the talk page by an admin User:Jennavecia, all the editors who have commented so far learned about this GAR through magic. There is no means to get uninvolved editors to comment, an my request for such was taken as an insult or else ignored. Is there a way to get the GAR put back onto the talk page when an admin has removed it? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone starts another fight, I suggest that we should focus on "There is no means to get uninvolved editors to comment". Is that true? It looks very likely? If true, is it a bad thing? IMO, yes. --Philcha (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should be just shut down and forget about the article. GA is in the dangerous position of having an Arbitrator, User:FloNight, whom I have never seen participating in GA matters, dictating what a GA should be. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow! My words hold no more weight than anyone's when I comment on wiki. I want my words to be evaluated based on the ideas. It worries me that there is too much focus on "who" is commenting in this discussion rather than the meaning of their words. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I have never seen you comment on any GA issue. So it is worry some to me that you have such fixed views of GA without ever participating in our conversations about what should and should not be included in the criteria. Now I understand that the comments on this page come from everyone who watches certain talk pages, so no wonder it represents a narrow group. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that Awadewit is canvassing] per Cirt's warning to me above about WP:CANVASS because I contacted one editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought SandyGeorgia, an FAC delegate, could help us figure out what the FA criterion mean (see above discussion). She essentially decides what the criteria mean through her promotions. She is also aware of all of the discussions on the meaning of the FA criteria. I was trying to ask someone uninvolved in this dispute who is in a position to end the dispute. Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• We are not talking about FAC. This page is about GA. Sandy is not on good terms with GA. So that is not a good idea. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• See the discussion above initiated by Pilcha: "WP:WIAFA requires "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". IMO this article fails to place the subject in context, apparently because the real world unkindly provided no context. So it should fail FAC quite thoroughly." Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you not familiar with Wikipedia:Good article criteria? This has nothing to do with FAC, and GA has resisted being involved in any way with FAC, to the point that GA managed to get all mentions of it removed from an issue of Dispatches written for the Signpost. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am familiar with GA - I have about 30 GAs and have reviewed here for over two years. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Great! Then you are aware of the "issues" between FAC and GA, and you are thoroughly familiar with the fact that GA prides itself in not being like FAC. Good! So we can drop all that and get to GA Criteria 3 "Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Also, now I am aware that your co-author has problems with POV in articles regarding Scientology so I think we have to be especially careful that Scientology is covered fairly in this article. (By the way, I was thinking of GA criteria when I added "in context" to your suggestion for a modification of the FAC criteria, the one that was subsequently adapted. I figured it had a better chance if it seemed to come from you! :) )

Don't you think it would be better if the GAR were added back to the article talk page so that we could get more comments than just those from those that page watch you and your group? Especially since I am not allowed to contact other editors? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The assumptions of bad faith and mischaracterizations on this page are wild. First, my actions were not administrative actions. I acted as an editor who has reviewed hundreds of GAs and participated heavily in the GA project, including revamping the criteria and the GAR process, initiating the sweeps process, and starting two task forces under the GA project which I later merged and, last I checked, were still running. Similarly, FloNight comments here as an editor, not as an administrator. Mattisse, I have a heavily watched talk page, so you commenting there has brought it to the attention of some people. This is not shocking. Same thing with Casliber. He comments here as an editor, not as an arbitrator, so it's really quite absurd that you would attempt to characterize our involvement here as being something more weighty than anyone else's. Additionally, it's actually pathetic that you have to point out past interactions with others in order to attempt to paint their involvement here as being a bad faith grudge move. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if you avoid the typical behavior outlined in your previous three RFCs, and focus on the content rather than casting aspersions on others intentions. لennavecia 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know whether you are acting in an administrative capacity or not? I have not a clue. I know that I have been reprimanded by an admin, Cirt, because I solicited the input of one editor. I have reviewed hundreds of GAs in the past few months and copy edited them, plus participated in discussions and I have not noticed your presence. However, I am perfectly willing to cease all GA activity since that is apparently what you and others want. I will post a notice on the GA talk page that you and others wish me to desist. And I will do so. I will do so now. And I will withdraw from the GAs that I am in the process of reviewing. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My involvement all but ended in mid-2007, but the point is that I am extremely familiar with the criteria and processes, having helped revamped much of it. As far as administrative actions go, check for use of the tools. I neither used them here nor issued any sort of administrative warning. I think it's pretty clear when someone is acting as an administrator and when they are not. لennavecia 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is not clear to me. And I am certainly not going to look back through your edits. Your disrespect for me is clear. For fear of you, Jennavecia, and your admin tools, as well as your disrespect for my judgment and ability to contribute to the GA process, I have withdrawn from all GA reviews and will not complete the ones I am in the middle of, and will not take on anymore GA reviews. I am sure you are right. I will consider putting each of the almost 200 reviews I have done in the past few months up for GAR since clearly I am mislead. I want to make sure my faulty judgment did not result in an improper GA promotion. I have notified GA that I will review no more articles. I have dropped out of this mishandled GAR that only allows special editors to participate. I still think it was wrong of you to remove the {{GAR}} template from the talk page so that only the chosen few can participate. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

B or GA?

• Is this article cannot be GA, it is destined to be "B" forever. Are we saying that there are articles that can never be either "GA" or "FA"? This is the first time I have heard such an argument. The definition of "B" is: "The article is "almost there" but it may be missing one of the following: references, balance of content, NPOV or an important section. Alternatively, the English may need a comprehensive rewrite to make it flow, or it may need to be edited to follow standard English spelling and conventions. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Example: Antarctica (as of Oct 2005) is a good start but contains too many lists, and it needs more prose content & references." I find it strange to leave an article at this ranking that cannot include more content. Awadewit (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• We have discussed this many times and it is agreed among serious GA reviewers that this is the case. Not every article can become a GA. There are requirements that must be fulfilled to become a GA, just as there are for FAC. GA would be meaningless if every article, no matter how incomplete, could become a GA. It may be hard to understand that GA reviewers take some pride in their product, and that attaining GA status is a meaningful distinction. Like FAC, standards have tightened since 2007. That is why it was especially distressing when an admin tried to quash a GAR based on 2007 standards. In the past I have been encouraged by User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Geometry guy to start an immediate GAR if an article has wrongly been passed as GA. But now we have admins, even an Arbcom member and suggestions of FAC involvement. I think the pride and enjoyment of being a GA reviewer will wilt. As you know, User:Malleus Fatuorum has been an active editor in delisting GAs for failing to live up to the criteria. And of course you know that because other bad GAs exist is no reason to pass an article if it does not fulfill the criteria. Why is it so awful if some articles cannot be GA? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm afraid there are articles that can never be either "GA" or "FA". The most common reason is the lack of WP:RS on them. While editing Next (novel) I searched unusually hard, because I liked the book, but found only magazine articles (mainly reviews) shortly after its publication; I don't think that's quite enough for GA. For Amstrad PCW most of the available sources are pages by enthusiasts for old computers, OK to show the text is not WP:OR, but not WP:RS enough for GA; I found exactly one scanty source for one model on the series; and nothing about some important aspects of the technical design - it looks like most personal computers get "15 minutes of fame", no matter how large their impact at the time. It's particularly difficult for subjects that attract no academic interest and pre-date the WWW. --Philcha (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• But that would mean we have no "reviewed" level of article for articles that are by their nature developing or small. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think the potential small GAs and small FAs are on subjects of smaller scope than e.g. literary works. For example I might be able to get Signor-Lipps effect to GA with a couple of additional citations, plus possibly a bit on its relevance to the Cambrian explosion, because it's a principle that's obvious once someone states it. Dead Clade Walking is very nearly there as it's another insight that's obvious once someone states it; I think all it needs is an example or two. Crurotarsal (should probably retitle "Crurotarsal ankle") needs a couple of better refs, a supported statement that it's only a feature in therian mammals and some archosaurs (incl crocs), maybe a supported statement about whether these 2 forms can validly be regarded as convergent evolution, and that's about it. I created all of these as explanatory support for much larger articles. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedural comments

I'm sorry that I wasn't online last night to help reduce the furore that has erupted over this article. I will only make some procedural comments now, as I don't have time to respond to the details (although I have followed, read and absorbed several related threads). First some principles of GAR:

1. Articles can be nominated for individual or community reassessment at any time, be they under peer review or not. Nothing in the instructions states otherwise.
2. The only issue on which GAR can adjudicate is whether the article meets the GA criteria.
3. Occasionally nominations have been administratively removed because they have been poorly thought out, in bad faith, or would waste effort without contributing to improving the encyclopedia. However, this is extremely rare.
4. The motivation of nominators, content disputes, conflicts between editors, are generally matters for other fora, not GAR.
5. The GA criteria have no specific requirement to include "critical reception"; the relevant requirement is "broadness". Any challenge to the broadness criterion should demonstrate why broadness fails, not just repeat formulaic prescriptions.
6. There are only the GA criteria. B-Class criteria from WikiProjects may inform judgement on the interpretation of the GA criteria, but they do not dictate it; consensus does. <Continued on the reassessment page>. Geometry guy 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources on Burroughs and Scientology (moved from project page)

• Another source that may be useful: According to William S. Burroughs at the Front: Critical Reception, 1959-1989, by Robin Lydenberg and Jennie Skerl (eds.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, 1991, p. 113, Burroughs "discusses his attitude to Scientology in interviews with Daniel Odier in The Job (New York: Grove, 1970)". [2] Jayen466 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Harris has another mention of Scientology:

  Shortly after publication of The Naked Lunch, in October 1959 Burroughs wrote to Ginsberg announcing that he had a “new method of writing” and added: “In this game the point is to lose what you have, and not wind up with someone else's rusty load of continuity” (L 434). Quite simply, Burroughs' cut-up project of the 1960s began as a way to systematize the drive to lose the undesired past, to cut his way out of an old identity, if not out of identity itself. In his previous letter, he had spoken of discovering another new methodology, the therapeutic “method of Scientology, ” that would replay the past “until the trauma is wiped off ” (431); an attached “Biographical note” begins with the stark declaration: “I have no past life at all” (433). This ambition to make a complete break, to cut off history and dispossess the self, to kick the habit of what Walter Benjamin once called “that most terrible drug—ourselves—which we take in solitude” (Reflections 190), this ambition demands discontinuity as a historical as well as a formal principle. This is the meaning of the cinematic term that Burroughs chooses to express the “point” of his game: against the “continuity editing” of classical Hollywood film, a system designed to create the illusion of transparency and consistency for the audience's comfort, he proposes narrative cuts that can't be smoothed over, “sudden space shifts” that will not, as he put it in Naked Lunch, keep his reader “Gentle” (218).

  — William Burroughs and the Secret of Fascination. Contributors: Oliver Harris - author. Publisher: Southern Illinois University Press. Place of Publication: Carbondale, IL. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 8.

• It does not mention this book, but it backs up some of the content that is already present in the Background section, and perhaps adds a few more angles. Jayen466 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• A footnote that may be of interest (?): "(2) Burroughs's involvement came to an end when the Scientologists placed him in a "condition of treason" for running "squirrel techniques" on himself with an e-meter. Auditing sessions with an e-meter were supposed to be conducted by a Scientology auditor. Burroughs was always opposed to L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy but was interested in his techniques for deprogramming the mind and identifying control systems." Source: An Interview with Ed Sanders-1 October 1968. Contributors: Barry Miles - author. Journal Title: The Review of Contemporary Fiction. Volume: 19. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 13. COPYRIGHT 1999 Review of Contemporary Fiction; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group Jayen466 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

We already have plenty of background material on Burroughs and Scientology in this article. Other editors have commented on this very GAR page that they would oppose this article's GA status if we were to add more background material. Unless these sources comment directly on the book itself, giving it some sort of literary critique, this seems unnecessary, however it could be quite useful in the article William Burroughs. Cirt (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. There was also a suggestion to create an article on Burroughs and Scientology; it might be handy for that. If you feel these sources clutter up the page and detract from the review, feel free to move them to the talk page. There is one more: Conversations with William S. Burroughs has some comments by Burroughs about how he uses the e-meter, and he briefly mentions one of the essays ("I've written another little article since then where I criticise the reactionary policies".) Jayen466 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel that all this extraneous discussion is only serving to clutter up this page. Please move it to the talk page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Context from Harris for Awadewit

Here as promised the surrounding paragraphs:

MIMETIC SMILE

The final approach to what is going on between Levinsky and Dennison in Kerouac's scenario turns on the nature of the smile itself.

It is surprising how little has been written on the subject. In the literature of social psychology, there is a certain amount of semiotic and clinical analysis; but what neurologists call the “mimetic smile” turns out to be a distinction between spontaneous smiling produced by the hypothalamus and limbic system and the posed facial expressions that originate in the motor cortex (Husain 144)—not much help in this context. In fact, as Daniel McNeill notes, while there are “over one hundred theories of laughter” and other basic expressions, there are “few grand unified theories of smiling” (209).

The most relevant psychological enquiry remains Freud's essay on Leonardo da Vinci, where he analyzes the most famous and enigmatic smile of all time, that of the Mona Lisa. Freud addresses the meaning of the smile explicitly in terms of fascination, which he reads as a defense against loss, specifically of the mother: Leonardo is fascinated by the Florentine lady because she bears the maternal smile that he has lost. The relevance of this psychoanalytic case turns on the way in which Leonardo masters loss by an obsession that ironically resembles slavery. As Adam Phillips comments: “When we are fascinated by someone or something, we can acknowledge that it may have a cause, but it rarely feels like a choice” (184). The key point to Freud's analysis of Leonardo, however, is simply the extraordinary circuit of fascination itself: the painter fascinated by a smile paints the most fascinating of smiles; the biographer of a fascinated artist is himself fascinated by the life; the critic of fascination is drawn to scene after scene of fascination ...

Is fascination infectious, and are those who study it unable to escape its hex? It is surely no coincidence that there is only one case of the smile in Burroughs' fiction prominent enough to have attracted critical attention, which is the dreamy and deadly smile that reproduces itself like a disease in The Wild Boys (1971). As Jennie Skerl observes, “the image of a smiling boy becomes a popular icon that subverts the social order by recruiting more wild boys” (83). While this entire text is, in fact, structured from first to last by images of the enigmatic smile, the defining instance occurs in a short story, written at the same time as The Wild Boys, entitled “Ali's Smile.” Here, the smile is firmly tied to homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis, so that fascination names a perverse pleasure or pleasurable perversity: Ali loses control of his own body by becoming, for a crowd of mocking women, “a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement”; then he exacts revenge by running Amok, a state of lethal possession; finally, Ali is transformed into the haunting image that ends the story with an enigmatic ellipsis: “Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles” (Exterminator! 75, 84). Murphy's comment in relation to the murderous wild boys, that “they smile in invitation to the reader” (Wising Up 167), captures nicely the threat they pose within and beyond their Book of the Dead: mimetic smiles, fatally so. 8

What we are looking at in The Town and the City, where one character bears the smile of another, is an expression in the sense of an articulated communication: a cybernetic smile. Maybe then the paradox of the smile's presence on Levinsky's face and its absence from Dennison's can make a different sense. There would be no contradiction: Dennison lacks the smile not despite but because Levinsky now has it. That is, Levinsky has not just copied the expression but rather materially received it from Dennison, who is now relieved of it: hence, the paradox that the copy ceases to resemble the model, because the original no longer resembles itself. Communication as a form of control, or an act of sympathetic magic, becomes a means of catharsis: the smile has the “communicability” of a disease. And so finally we approach the autonomy of the smile, the smile that transmits itself, the smile that needs a face the way a ghost wants a body, and we might imagine some unwritten scene in Kerouac's novel where the smile passes from Dennison to Levinsky like a specter or a parasitic virus moving from one host to another.

---

Jayen466 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to get this book. As this is clearly psychoanalytic criticism, I have to read even more. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

:) Jayen466 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now obtained the book. After reading the first chapter, I consulted with another graduate student who specializes in 20th-century queer literature and psychoanalytic criticism, since that is not a specialty of mine and this is rather difficult material. As I suspected, this argument is rather poor. Neither of us could quite figure out what the author was trying to say. We sat down over dinner and tried to piece it together, but to no avail. I don't think we should include something that doesn't really make sense. The problem with the above argument is that it is missing too many pieces. My friend and I could guess at its meaning, but only by inserting parts of the argument that are missing. If I were to insert those explanations into this article, that would be OR, I'm afraid. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion, certainly as to the smile being "firmly tied to homosexual desire and compulsory mimesis, so that fascination names a perverse pleasure or pleasurable perversity". There is not enough there to make something worthwhile of it. It is why I did not include any more than the comparison to the smile in The Wild Boys in the original draft. Jayen466 09:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft

Here is a rough draft for summarising the first essay. It is what we currently have, with a new section added at the end:

"Burroughs on Scientology" is an opinion piece originally published in the Los Angeles Free Press on 6 March 1970. It begins "In view of the fact that my articles and statements on Scientology may have influenced young people to associate themselves with the so called Church of Scientology, I feel an obligation to make my present views on the subject quite clear." Burroughs states that some Scientology practices have value: "Some of the techniques are highly valuable and warrant further study and experimentation. The E Meter is a useful device ... (many variations of this instrument are possible)." He is critical of the Church of Scientology's organizational policy and organizations in general, and Scientology's attempts to keep many of its counseling methods secret: "On the other hand I am in flat disagreement with the organizational policy. [...] There is a basic incompatibility between any organization and freedom of thought. Suppose Newton had founded a Church of Newtonian Physics and refused to show his formula to anyone who doubted the tenets of Newtonian Physics? All organizations create organizational necessities. It is precisely organizational necessities that have prevented Scientology from obtaining the serious consideration merited by the importance of Mr. Hubbard's discoveries. Scientologists are not prepared to accept intelligent and sometimes critical evaluation. They demand unquestioning acceptance." Burroughs examines Scientology's criticism of psychiatry, devoting more than a quarter of his essay to a verbatim quote of an article from a Scientology magazine. He likens the text to anti-Semitist Nazi propaganda and notes the impossibility of appreciating Scientology technology and practice without being required to take on board Hubbard's opinions. Burroughs reiterates the value of Scientology processing, and the concept of the "reactive mind". He calls on Hubbard to make Scientology teachings and processing available free of charge, to be investigated and evaluated by researchers of consciousness along with other techniques.

Getting late here, running out of time for today. Feel free to tweak it. Best, Jayen466 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together, Jayen. I don't have time to carefully assess it tonight, but I will try to get to it either tomorrow morning or tomorrow night. Cirt, perhaps you could start? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Nazi mention is a bit over the top - a more relevant bit to include is the beginning of the paragraph after that which explains why criticizing Hubbard's politics and opinions is justified. Also, if we are going to go the route of doing our own summary, I think we shortshrifted the context in which Burroughs places this - the entire last part of the essay is a series of speculations about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between the mind and the body. We should probably give that more space. Cirt, thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We took our lead here pretty much from the intro, I'd agree with / defer to Awadewit on the nature of the summary here. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the summary is still front-heavy and that the two areas you mentioned (criticising Hubbard's opinions and mind-body speculations) are the main areas that have gotten short shrift. As for the Nazi reference, Burroughs directly refers to the "Nazis", the "Völkischer Beobachter" (twice) and "Der Stürmer", so he did not mince his words. Jayen466 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit (talk · contribs) that the bit about the Nazi mention is over the top. The current presentation in the article is fine. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just the issue that I was trying to point out to Geometry Guy on the main project page. We can't all easily agree on what is important for the summary. It is not a simple matter. I was about to start arguing why I think the Nazi bit is not all that important (to which Jayen would respond why he thinks it is) and right there we have an OR-based summary. I don't know what to do in situations like this - these debates can go on indefinitely. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not a simple matter, but just because something is difficult does not make it not worth doing. You rightly resisted the temptation to engage in analysis. The thing to do, in my view, is to return to the source and be more faithful to it, letting the source determine the balance. Another useful guide is to consider what serves the reader best. The current text of the article concentrates entirely on the first two paragraphs of the article. That is implicit analysis of importance. The text also wastes words on these two paragraphs by both summarizing Burroughs' words and quoting them. I would have thought that readers would find a summary of the rest of the article more helpful.

Jayen's reference to the Nazi propaganda could easily be toned down and made more faithful to the source: e.g., the criticism of psychiatry "reminds him of the Völkischer Beobachter". If, as we seem to agree, more is said about the second half of the article, then this would be an aside in the summary, just as it is mostly parenthetical in the source. Geometry guy 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, there is no problem at all. I have no investment in having the word "Nazi" in our summary. If you and other editors think the passage can be summarised better by citing Burroughs' references to the Völkischer Beobachter, without using the word "Nazi", I am perfectly happy to go along with that. JN466 19:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GG, you have said "The thing to do, in my view, is to return to the source and be more faithful to it, letting the source determine the balance". Interestingly, summarizing does not necessarily mean "give the same balance as the source". To convey a source's main idea and tone, one does not necessarily have to devote the same space as the original to the ideas that the source did. The first problem in summarizing is determining the main idea and with writing like Burroughs', that is quite difficult. For such a short piece, we should all be able to write one sentence describing the main idea of the piece. Jayen, Cirt, GG, and I shall all do that. We should go about this in a very patient, systematic way. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now I see why you find summary of primary sources so difficult from an NOR viewpoint. Deciding what is the main idea and tone of the piece may well involve original analysis, unless secondary sources provide it. If such sources were available they could surely be deployed to provide a much more illuminating and informative summary. In their absence, such a literary summary is not possible; we can only report on the content, and let the reader decide what is the main idea. I agree, though that the summary does not need to cover each passage in the source pro rata. Indeed direct quotation, which is certainly a good thing, does not do that.

If I had only a sentence, it would have to be a direct quotation of the first sentence of the article, as this is what the author states is the purpose of the piece, and I have no secondary sources which say otherwise. If you allow me a little more, I would begin with a direct quotation of sentences 1,2 and 4. The article currently quotes all of these, and I'm not against including sentence 3 for completeness, but the E-Meter doesn't get further mention in the source as far as I am aware, so could be cut. Geometry guy 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(out indent) As that was the essence of what we had when this GAR started, leading to accusations of gross misrepresentation, I don't think we can go back to that. I have tried to incorporated your suggestion's, Jayen's, and my own below. I have tried to shorten the whole thing. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A quote of 1,2 and 4 was only my proposal for the start of a summary. I would add that a GAR is not defined by what started it: a nominator's concerns can be off-base, but we try to improve the article and reach consensus on whether it meets all the criteria. Geometry guy 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Burroughs on Scientology" is an opinion piece originally published in the Los Angeles Free Press on 6 March 1970. It begins "In view of the fact that my articles and statements on Scientology may have influenced young people to associate themselves with the so called Church of Scientology, I feel an obligation to make my present views on the subject quite clear." While briefly acknowledging that there are benefits to Scientology that "warrant further study", such as the E-meter and elements of its psychotherapy model, the piece is dominated by criticisms of the organization. For example, Burroughs contends that "Scientologists are not prepared to accept intelligent and sometimes critical evaluation". He then proceeds to critically evaluate Scientology's position on psychiatry and its recruitment methods. At the end of the piece, he calls on Hubbard to make Scientology teachings and processing available free of charge, to be investigated and evaluated by researchers of consciousness along with other techniques.

• I am still worried about not having enough about the representations of consciousness, but I haven't come up with a good way to explain that succinctly yet. Thoughts, anyone? Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• I am also worried that the above does not really convey the confusing nature of the essay. It meanders from topic to topic, but we don't really explain that. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wouldn't say that the essay is "dominated by criticisms of the organization". That is an analytical statement that we would need a secondary source for. Rather, the dominant aspects of the essay should become apparent from our summary of it. So the beginning and end of the draft are good, and the middle still needs work in my view – including some expansion in length. JN466 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    This was also my reaction. I think the draft is a great improvement on the version in the article, but the middle needs work and expansion. Additionally, it is precisely the analytical nature of the 3rd and 5th sentences in the above summary which glosses over the meandering nature of the essay. The latter issue, just like the "dominant aspects" issue, requires a "show, don't tell" approach in the absence of secondary sources. First efforts at such a summary may well involve ugly prose (e.g. proseline), but I think it is more important to get the "no original analysis" issue sorted, then work on the quality of the prose. Geometry guy 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    • A summary always has analysis of some sort - there is no way to escape it (that is why all summaries are inherently OR). We can't summarize without doing some analytical work. Notice for example in Jayen's version that he states Burroughs examines Scientology's criticism of psychiatry, devoting more than a quarter of his essay to a verbatim quote of an article from a Scientology magazine. However, this is distinctly unhelpful to readers because it does not explain what Burroughs' views are. We have to choose between the unhelpful kind of summary (for which this article was already criticized, I might add) or the helpful kind (which is OR). Let me know which you want. Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

      (I don't want to rehash an argument as to what constitutes OR: I stand by my previous statements, but respect other views. I do want to find consensus at this GAR on making this article "broad": if previous criticism is relevant, it would be helpful to quote it.)

      I agree that on its own, the quote from Jayen's version is unhelpful, but the "show don't tell" approach can easily indicate to the reader who does not want to read the source what Burroughs' angle is. Burroughs immediately follows the Scientology magazine quote by supportive statements about psychiatry, and then provides his own analysis of the Overstreet quote. There's plenty of material here to show that Burroughs' disagrees with the hostility of Scientology towards psychiatry. He immediately changes tack to criticism of the lack of openness of Scientology. Then he returns to his view that Scientological methods have benefit, e.g., in "I would not be writing this article unless I was convinced that Scientology is worth serious consideration... In an earlier article in Mayfair I said that Scientology can do more in ten hours than psychoanalysis can do in ten years... Scientology is incomparably more precise and efficient than any method of psychotherapy now in use.". That's quite a strong statement and places his criticism of the closed nature of Scientology into context: he cares about the fact that Scientology is guarding its secrets, because he thinks these secrets are worth sharing. To bring home the point, he then returns again to the closed nature of Scientology. The meandering nature of the essay itself can show many readers what is Burroughs view. We don't need to tell most readers; all we have to do is show them the structure. That requires insightful choices of primary source material, just as a good analysis requires insightful choices of secondary source material. Geometry guy 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

      • Cirt will have to finish this up, as I am going out of town in a couple of days and will not have the time to appropriately respond. If Cirt would rather I do this, I can do so when I return, but that will be over a week from now. Awadewit (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft for the summary of Ali's Smile

"Ali's Smile" by William Burroughs is a short story originally published by Unicorn in 1971 and later republished in Burroughs's collection of short stories, Exterminator! (1973). Ali, the Malayan houseboy of a colonial official, is put under a spell by a group of malicious women, becoming "a Latah, that is a condition where the victim must imitate every movement". Once free from the spell, Ali runs amok with a kris, which his master keeps. Years later, after the official has returned to England, he too runs amok with the kris. The story ends in carnage: "hippies, locals, and scientologists fight and an intelligence official who is investigating scientology is killed. A mudslide buries everyone." Ali is transfigured into a disembodied smile: "Against the icy blackness of space, the ghost face of Ali ... smiles." Oliver C. G. Harris in William Burroughs and the secret of fascination notes that Burroughs' use of the "enigmatic smile" here parallels his use of the same motif in The Wild Boys (1971).

This wording –

• corrects the unseemly error we currently have in the article, describing the Malayan kris as a "Mayan" kris;
• provides a fuller description of the storyline, as summarised by available secondary sources;
• allows the reader to understand the origin of the story's title;
• adds the available tidbit of literary criticism.

We appear to have agreed that Harris' embryonic psychoanalytic criticism is not worth going into, so the above uses everything from Harris that we can use.

Any objections or improvement suggestions? JN466 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely better IMO. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. JN466 22:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: The "Mayan" part was removed already, by Ling.Nut (talk · contribs), so that has already been corrected. I'd still like to hear further from Awadewit (talk · contribs) on this summary, and on the appropriateness (or lack thereof?) of using a psychoanalytic source for literary summary in an article describing a fictional story. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Awadewit said earlier she would defer to you as regards the summary aspect of it. So obviously neither of you has any problem with the above summary unless the other one has. JN466 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, I do have a problem with using a psychoanalytic source for literary summary. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • See also this comment [3], above, by Awadewit (talk · contribs) about this work. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I am not sure what psychoanalytic source is supposed to mean here. This is a renowned Burroughs scholar and lecturer in American literature and film in the School of American Studies at Keele University, England. You were previously happy to cite Paulette Cooper, but a Burroughs scholar is not good enough? JN466 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
            • As Awadewit (talk · contribs) commented on this source, above, would like to hear her thoughts on its usage in this summary. It seems a stretch to use it in this manner. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• I would appreciate other editors' views on whether it is a "stretch" to quote a Burroughs scholar's summary of a Burroughs story. JN466 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think you quite understand the passage, Jayen. The scholar is not summarizing the story in the passage you quote - he is interpreting it, pulling out parts that are relevant to the argument he is making. Awadewit (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See above comment by Awadewit (talk · contribs): I consulted with another graduate student who specializes in 20th-century queer literature and psychoanalytic criticism, since that is not a specialty of mine and this is rather difficult material. As I suspected, this argument is rather poor. Neither of us could quite figure out what the author was trying to say. We sat down over dinner and tried to piece it together, but to no avail. I don't think we should include something that doesn't really make sense. The problem with the above argument is that it is missing too many pieces. My friend and I could guess at its meaning, but only by inserting parts of the argument that are missing. If I were to insert those explanations into this article, that would be OR, I'm afraid. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Response 1) I have a serious problem with the above summary. Note that it takes Harris' argument completely out of context at the end of the paragraph - it gives the reader no explanation for it. You cannot use such a short section of the argument - you are misrepresenting it to the reader. You not given the reader enough background to understand it. For example, there are Freudian undertones in all of Harris' argument, which you failed to explain. We must remove Harris' argument from the summary because it is misrespresented. Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Response 2) I would also like to point out again that we have not even come close to resolving the issue of how we are going to present this plot summary. One of the reasons I relied on a scholarly summary was because this was a controversial area and I knew that every sentence would be challenged. However, since the summary was deemed inadequate, we have to some serious discussion about what kind of plot summary we want. For example, do we want an event based summary (such as the one we started with) or a character-based summary? If we want a character-based summary (which is where we are leaning at the moment), we need to mention the main character, which we currently don't. Also, somehow we need to convey the ambiguity of the story, but the problem is that every reader finds a different part ambiguous. These are difficult issues to overcome and will take a lot of time. (Again, this is one of the reasons that I resorted to quoting a plot summary.) Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit that this summary is too short, and thus gives undue weight to Harris' comment (although I don't think we can explain Freudian undertones without a source). I think that an event-based summary is preferable to a character-based summary, because it is easier to be faithful to the source and avoid original analysis. Jayen's summary also incorrectly implies (it seems to me) that Ali was a houseboy to Clinch Smith before the Latah incident. It doesn't cover the initial paragraphs which introduce Clinch Smith. Geometry guy 18:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are quite correct. Ali only became Smith's houseboy after the Latah incident, and my version has it back to front.
• I understand your point about having a longer summary; I was still clinging to the idea of doing it with secondary sources, and the two we have leave out much of the plot.
• I agree that an event-based summary would be preferable.
• I am not attached to having the reference to the Wild Boys at the end – I agree that as a "one-sentence analysis" it looks rather forlorn. JN466 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Event-based it is. What events do we want to include? Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've almost certainly read the story less closely than others, so please do not attach much weight to the following, but just to set suggestions in motion, I think the following are worth mentioning.

    • The opening incident(s) establishing the character of Clinch Smith and his interaction(s) with Scientologists. This sets up the story, with the kris reminding Smith of Ali.
    • The Latah incident. Currently in the article and this establishes the first connection between two major characters.
    • Ali running amok with the kris. Currently in the article; Smith keeps the kris as a souvenir and later does something similar.
    • Introduction of Lord Westfield as a character who wants to find out about Scientology. I don't know how much to say here.
    • Clinch Smith's killing spree with the kris.
    • The mudslide and Ali's smile.

    The last three incidents are currently mentioned but somewhat conflated by the secondary source material quoted, which could perhaps be used as another tidbit of secondary analysis. Others will probably have better suggestions. Geometry guy 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a rough draft taking in the above elements:

"Ali's Smile" by William Burroughs is a short story originally published by Unicorn in 1971 and later republished in Burroughs's collection of short stories, Exterminator! (1973). Clinch Smith, a former colonial official, lives in an English town overshadowed by a giant slag heap. Smith has taken Scientology courses, but is left disenchanted when a Scientologist sends him a letter saying that he will disconnect from Smith, describing him as a suppressive person. A kris hanging on the wall of his room reminds Smith of Ali, whom he had met 30 years ago in Malaya. Ali had been put under a latah spell by an old hag. She had dressed Ali up as a woman and forced him to dance for the market women's amusement. Smith had rescued the young man and made him his houseboy. Ali returned to the market, however, and ran amok, killing several of the women with the kris. Smith had been forced to shoot Ali, and kept the kris as a souvenir. Rereading the Scientologist's letter, Smith feels compelled to take the kris from the wall and goes out. In town, there is a fight going on between hippies and local youths. Members of Scientology's Sea Org are there, and so is Lord Westfield, a Home Office official who has asked a private investigator to infiltrate a Scientology organisation. Smith appears on the scene and goes on a killing spree with the kris, which seems to have a life of its own. He stabs Lord Westfield, a woman and several Sea Org members, and then a bystander shoots him dead. Police and more combatants prepare to join the fight. As they do so, the slag heap collapses and buries everyone. The ghost face of Ali appears, smiling "against the icy blackness of space."

I'll return to it later and may tweak it further. JN466 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will look at this on Friday. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ali's Smile" by William Burroughs is a short story originally published by Unicorn in 1971 and later republished in Burroughs's collection of short stories, Exterminator! (1973). At the opening of the story, Clinch Smith, a former colonial official, is living in an English town overshadowed by a giant slag heap. He is upset when he receives a letter from a Scientologist friend saying that he will "disconnect" from Smith, describing him as a "suppressive person". A kris hanging on the wall of his room reminds Smith of Ali, whom he had met 30 years ago in Malaya. Ali had been put under a latah spell by an old woman, forcing him to dance in the marketplace. Smith rescued Ali, making the young man his houseboy. Ali returned to the market, however, and ran amok, killing several of the women with the kris. Smith was forced to shoot Ali, and kept the kris as a souvenir. Back in the present, Smith feels compelled to take the kris from the wall and goes to town, where there is a fight going on between hippies and locals, with members of Scientology's Sea Org in the crowd as well. Smith goes on a killing spree with the kris, which seems to have a life of its own. He stabs Lord Westfield, a Home Office official who has asked a private investigator to infiltrate a Scientology organization, a woman, and several Sea Org members, and then a bystander shoots him dead. Police and more combatants prepare to join the fight. As they do so, the slag heap collapses and buries everyone. At the end, the spirit of Ali smiles over all.

• Here is another option. Awadewit (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question: In town, there is a fight going on between hippies and local youths. Members of Scientology's Sea Org are there, and so is Lord Westfield, a Home Office official who has asked a private investigator to infiltrate a Scientology organisation. - That part of the story seems to jump around a lot - can we describe that better? Also, I have marked the story as jumping forward in time again - is that correct or not? I thought he was in Britain (so that he could be covered by the slag heap at the end). Please correct me if I am wrong. Awadewit (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that revised and improved summary - though we still have to fill in the missing middle bit. Another thing is, I had avoided quoting the end bit, because according to Harris, there is an ellipsis before the final word, "smiles". It sounds as though that ellipsis is there in other versions of the story, but was missed out in the version that we've seen online. An elegant solution would thus be not to quote that part of the story verbatim, lest the reader note a discrepancy if they have the other print version to hand. I'll think about the middle bit. JN466 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

... kept the kris as a souvenir. Back in the present, Smith feels compelled to take the kris from the wall and goes to town, where there is a fight going on between hippies and locals, with members of Scientology's Sea Org in the crowd as well. Smith goes on a killing spree with the kris, which seems to have a life of its own. He stabs Lord Westfield ...

JN466 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See revisions to above. If you agree, I'll add the summary to the article. Awadewit (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "the ghost face of Ali smiles over all" at the end, rather than "the spirit", but I agree either way. Thanks and well done. Please add. JN466 09:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed and added. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft of Background section

Perhaps I've put my finger on what's been bothering me about the Background section. I keep saying it's too long; others keep saying Nyet Nyet it's mahvelous dahling. I think in almost all writing there's a tension between creating a sense of flow on the one hand, and preserving coherence and cohesion on the other. This article may tip the balance slightly too much in favor of the former... I think a lack of coherence/cohesion contributes to my perception of a lack of relevance and a sense of lengthiness... Perhaps what it needs is a dash of reorganization and a sprinkle of cohesive devices. This will bulk up the impression of relevance of every paragraph, at the expense of making it sound a lot more flavorless, like an undergraduate paper... something like this.. NOTE that this example SUCKS, but it's almost 4 am here; I woke up 'cause thirsty ;-). You guys can make it all sound better Ling.Nut (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Beat Generation writer William S. Burroughs was an avant-garde author whom several important critics consider the most important American writer since World War II. Sometimes called the "Godfather of Punk literature", he adopted a [point of view? stance? tone? persona? I dunno the literary word] that Matt Theado, a scholar of the Beats, describes as "a tormented but supremely curious person who explored the dark side of the human consciousness." Burroughs often probed contentious social and political problems with "a cold-blooded, almost insectlike presence" that influenced popular culture as well as literature.

Burroughs believed that readers needed to take an active part in reshaping their own reality through reading. For example, works such as the controversial novel Naked Lunch (1959) dealt with his concerns regarding "the battle against control," including his perceptions of "the control that governments, religions, greedy human beings, and their own cravings for drugs, sex, or power often hold over them". Theado writes that Burroughs saw words as "instruments of control that allow evil forces to impose their will over people", and Burroughs attempted to use words themselves to combat this problem. He often attempted to use his work in a way that would allow both him and his readers to redefine words and thereby create new levels of meaning, liberating themselves from social control.

His concerns about social control led Burroughs to write at length about Scientology, although his writing in later years was in some ways diametrically opposed to his earlier works. He had been interested in Scientology since the early 1960s, having been introduced to the concepts of its founder L. Ron Hubbard by artist Brion Gysin. Burroughs's early (?) novels emphasized the power of Scientology to combat a controlling society. 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. These works reflected Burroughs's initial belief that Scientology could be an instrument of liberation from social control, much as he used his own cut-up style of writing. He sought to use cut-ups "to expose the arbitrary nature and manipulative power of all linguistic systems," and connected cut-ups to the theories of the self expounded by Hubbard's Dianetics. As religious studies scholar John Lardas explains, "the cut-up method was the evangelical counterpart of Scientology in that it was intended to alter a reader's consciousness".

In 1967, Burroughs became more serious about Scientology, taking several courses and becoming what the Church of Scientology calls a "clear" in 1968. In his works, Burroughs represented the process that Scientologists refer to as "clearing" memories as a step towards becoming an active rather than passive member of society. Scientology thus appealed to Burroughs because it "confirmed his belief that consciousness is akin to a tape recording that can be rewound, fast-forwarded, or even erased". Burroughs believed that Scientology's practice of auditing had helped him resolve some traumatic life experiences, and "came to regard the E-Meter as a useful device for deconditioning. However, he had "growing doubts about some of the other Scientology technology, and grave reservations about their policy as an organisation". He became frustrated by the authoritarian nature of the organization, and as biographer Ted Morgan writes, "... had hoped to find a method of personal emancipation and had found instead another control system." In a similar vein, Burroughs was both intrigued by Scientology's study of language, but felt distaste for the way it was being utilized:

They [the Church of Scientology] have a great deal of very precise data on words and the effects produced by words – a real science of communication. But I feel that their presentation has been often deplorable and that as a science, a body of knowledge, it is definitely being vitiated by a dogmatic policy.

By 1970, Burroughs had severed connections with the Church of Scientology. He was eventually expelled from the organization and declared to be in "Condition of Treason". He became increasingly disenchanted with the group and wrote a series of critical articles published in Mayfair. Burroughs also forced one of their headquarters to relocate by publicizing photos of it.

• I think that is a great improvement, well done! The first paragraph makes more sense to me now.
• The very last sentence of the last para (which you've just taken out above, as it was unchanged) "Burroughs also forced one of their headquarters to move by publicizing photos of it.[20]" still strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps we should expand on it [4][5][6][7] JN466 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• I still wonder though whether the article hadn't better be called William S. Burroughs and Scientology. The treatment of this book would be a natural subsection of that article. Given that the book is not that important, judging by the absence of literary criticism, this might more appropriately reflect its standing. The present article title would make a natural redirect to William S. Burroughs and Scientology. JN466 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose renaming/redirecting. Awadewit (talk · contribs) has already explained that the book itself is noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go there again: this has already been discussed. Ling Nut's proposed rewrite hasn't been discussed. Geometry guy 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for mentioning it. I've reread the earlier discussion relating to this proposal now. JN466 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to Geometry guy (talk · contribs) for pointing out that Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has again raised an issue that was already discussed and dealt with. This sort of repeated discussion and bringing up things that have already been discussed is yet another thing that slows down this GAR process. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Theado says that Burroughs "cleaved to the image of a tormented but supremely curious person ...". We could reuse the word "image" to fill the gap in your sentence:
• "Sometimes called the "Godfather of Punk literature", he adopted an image which Matt Theado, a scholar of the Beats, described as that of "a tormented but supremely curious person who explored the dark side of the human consciousness." JN466 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will look at this on Friday. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will not look into further into this until Jayen strikes his objection regarding this section from his comments at the project page. I note, for example, that when Cirt and I write this section, we are accused of synthesis and of including irrelevant information. However, when the very same information is presented by another editor, those accusations (which include accusations of SYN) are removed and instead the editor is praised. I cannot continue participating here when one of the main participants' views regarding what is OR and SYN changes from day to day. Awadewit (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The whole point of my contribution was to present precisely the same info, reorganized, with cohesive devices added... I believe that that scattered organization and a lack of cohesive devices lead to the perception of probs such as SilkTork mentioned: "feels like SYN...I don't see the direct relation between the first paragraph of that section and the topic of the article...". I think SilkTork and Jayen were verbalizing an impression rather than advancing a proven accusation... and to repeat, I think the impression was created by probs with cohesion/coherence.. new organization creates a new impression! ... having said that, if folks can't really establish SYN after a couple days, then asking them to strike it through is not unreasonable. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This relates to an age-old problem surrounding WP:SYN, documented in many discussions in the WP:OR talk page archives. The hardliners say that using sources that do not directly refer to the topic of the article and do not present the cited information in direct relation to the article topic is WP:SYN. Others in the WP:SYN debate have argued that the desire to present relevant background information may justify accessing sources that do not directly relate to the article topic. The hardliners counter that it is up to reliable sources to decide what background is needed to put an article topic in context, and that "adding relevant background", citing sources that do not present their information in direct relation to the article topic, introduces original research – establishing new connections not found in the literature. I think one can debate that one till the end of time, and Awadewit and I are on different sides of the fence on this. Having said all that, I felt that this rewrite established such a sense of purpose in the section that it really did feel like a background section that a reader would enjoy reading. So by my own standards it is WP:SYN, because the sources cited do not all present this information in direct connection with the book Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology (Miles, Murphy and Lardas, e.g., only mention the book as a source in their bibliographies). But I have now been charmed enough to feel that the above version would be a useful part of the article, and certainly an improvement over what is there now. The underlying problem, of course, is the lack of literature focusing on the book – if we had reliable sources devoting multiple pages to this book and its context, this discussion would be moot. JN466 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, I struck my comment re SYN and apologise for any apparent vacillation on this issue on my part. I certainly hadn't intended to make you feel bad about the section. Like you, I am keen to wrap up these proceedings soon, so please let's work together to finish what we started here on this page, if it's at all possible. JN466 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will look at this later today. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made very few changes:

Beat Generation writer William S. Burroughs was an avant-garde author whom several important critics consider the most important American writer since World War II. Sometimes called the "Godfather of Punk literature", he adopted a persona that Matt Theado, a scholar of the Beats, describes as "a tormented but supremely curious person who explored the dark side of the human consciousness." Burroughs often probed contentious social and political problems with "a cold-blooded, almost insectlike presence" that influenced popular culture as well as literature.

Burroughs believed that readers needed to take an active part in reshaping their own reality through reading. For example, works such as the controversial novel Naked Lunch (1959) dealt with his concerns regarding "the battle against control," and wrote that others "might see the control that governments, religions, greedy human beings, and their own cravings for drugs, sex, or power often hold over them". Theado writes that Burroughs saw words as "instruments of control that allow evil forces to impose their will over people", and he attempted to use words themselves to combat this problem. He wrote in a way that would allow both he and his readers to redefine words and to create new levels of meaning, thereby liberating them from social control.

His concerns about social control and language led Burroughs to write at length about Scientology. He had been interested in Scientology since the early 1960s, having been introduced to the concepts of its founder L. Ron Hubbard by artist Brion Gysin. Burroughs's early novels emphasized the power of Scientology to combat a controlling society. 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. These works reflected Burroughs's initial belief that Scientology could be an instrument of liberation from social control, much as he used his own cut-up style of writing. He sought to use cut-ups "to expose the arbitrary nature and manipulative power of all linguistic systems," and connected cut-ups to the theories of the self expounded by Hubbard's Dianetics. As religious studies scholar John Lardas explains, "the cut-up method was the evangelical counterpart of Scientology in that it was intended to alter a reader's consciousness".

In 1967, Burroughs became more serious about Scientology, taking several courses and becoming what the Church of Scientology calls a "clear" in 1968. In his works, Burroughs represented the process that Scientologists refer to as "clearing" memories as a step towards becoming an active rather than passive member of society. Scientology thus appealed to Burroughs because it "confirmed his belief that consciousness is akin to a tape recording that can be rewound, fast-forwarded, or even erased". Burroughs believed that Scientology's practice of auditing had helped him resolve some traumatic life experiences, and "came to regard the E-Meter as a useful device for deconditioning". However, he had "growing doubts about some of the other Scientology technology, and grave reservations about their policy as an organisation". He became frustrated by the authoritarian nature of the organization, and as biographer Ted Morgan writes, "... had hoped to find a method of personal emancipation and had found instead another control system." In a similar vein, Burroughs was both intrigued by Scientology's study of language, but felt distaste for the way it was being utilized:

They [the Church of Scientology] have a great deal of very precise data on words and the effects produced by words – a real science of communication. But I feel that their presentation has been often deplorable and that as a science, a body of knowledge, it is definitely being vitiated by a dogmatic policy.

By 1970, Burroughs had severed connections with the Church of Scientology. He was eventually expelled from the organization and declared to be in "Condition of Treason". He became increasingly disenchanted with the group and wrote a series of critical articles published in Mayfair. Burroughs also forced one of their headquarters to relocate by publicizing photos of it.

• Many thanks to Awadewit for her corrections etc. I have only two points, the first of which is trivial:

• "...dealt with his concerns regarding "the battle against control," and wrote that others "might see..." I think that either "he" or "Burroughs" is missing before the word "wrote".
• Awadewit omitted these words: "...although his writing in later years was in some ways diametrically opposed to his earlier works." Now, even when I was writing, I felt uneasy about the words "diametrically opposed." I felt they needed just a wee bit of softening/hedging, but for some reason I never got around to doing that. On the other hand, Awadewit opts to omit this clause entirely. Was this done because of shared misgivings about the strength of the position taken by the words "diametrically opposed", or because there simply was no semantic break between Burroughs's earlier and later writings? I think adding something to the effect that "in many ways, he would later reverse his views" is useful to help the reader make the connection (or spot the difference) between the early and later views. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Such a sentence may be useful, but I don't remember seeing it in any of the sources I've read. I also don't remember any of the sources taking this longer view and comparing Burroughs' writing on Scientology over time. Perhaps I have forgotten, however. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Nice work. I think this text could profitably go into the article, with or without such a clause. As Ling suggests, such a statement does prepare the reader for later paragraphs (in much the way the lead prepares the reader for the body of the article). As a concrete suggestion, how about "although the focus of his writing shifted considerably in later years"? His change of focus is more of a factual observation than his change of views, although (in conjunction with the rest of the background) the reader may readily deduce the latter from the former. Geometry guy 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that Jayen466, G-guy, Awadewit and I are OK with the rewrite, so I went ahead and added it, except for the clause being discussed above. I still think it would be good to add that too, but defer to others. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)