Talk:Scientology (Lewis book)/Archive 1

Reviews
first, I admit a certain bias--I openly say on my user page that I have a "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science". Nonetheless, I've some problem with the balance of this rather negative article about a book sympathetic to Scientology. I decided not to put on a POV tag, but rather do the necessary editing myself. I have put in a link to the actual paragraph--I cannot really call it a review. The text makes it totally clear, what the present Wikipedia article hints, that it is based only on reports of the book, and that the author of the review had not at the time seen the book itself. This is hearsay evidence, and should be removed or at least great clarified-- just saying "media accounts" is not enough. I further think that what he has said about the dubious credentials of one contributor is barely relevant, and the final sentence used as a criticism of that contributor totally irrelevant to the book. I do not think any columnist is a RS for the nature of a book he has not read, nor as a a source of information based on un-specified and unattributed "reports". Presumably he may publish a review some time after he has read it, and that would be usable. I have edited the paragraph accordingly; alternatively, it can be removed entirely. I have put in a link to the best online source I could find. The negative pull quote is excessive weight; since it is duplicated in the text, I have removed it. I think the quoted portion might put excessive emphasis both  on one particular contributor to the book-- the responsibility for the book is that of the editor,   and  also excessive emphasis on negative statements about scientology--this is an article about the book, not the subject of the book. I will do some rewriting here as well. (to be continued)  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Independent" review
 * Private Eye
 * No objections to the changes so far, thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Trimmed, per above complaint, . Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Remaining concerns
Regarding this passage:

For reference, here is a google books link to the paragraph that Hislop is quoting the snippet "the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" from:

[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MtW90YkkB3gC&pg=PA89&dq=%22the+basic+outline+of+L.+Ron+Hubbard%27s+life+is+not+contested%22&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22the%20basic%20outline%20of%20L.%20Ron%20Hubbard%27s%20life%20is%20not%20contested%22&f=false Although the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested, '''the LRH persona has been a subject of particularly intense debate. Church critics have charged that many of the claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false.''']

-- JN 466  13:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, however the attempt at rationalization does not get around the fact that the first part of the sentence is asserted as if it were fact. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to read the book to realise that everything about Scientology's founder is contested, you just have to read to the end of the sentence of which Hislop chose to quote an isolated snippet. ;) -- JN 466  14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not what the sentence says. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that whatever the sentence says, Hislop grossly misrepresents it, by selective quoting. There is a very clear reference to a "particularly intense debate", and the charges that "many of the claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false". That is a crystal-clear reference to things being "contested". -- JN 466  14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Especially because the first part of the sentence is quite clear. And because Hislop refers to two separate instances where contributors make this assertion. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Made this a bit clearer . Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A reference to "particularly intense debate" and charges that "claims that Hubbard made about his own life and accomplishments are empirically false" is not a reference to things being "contested"? Such references are unable to awaken in the reader any idea of things being "contested"? -- JN 466  15:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other contributor, Melton, simply says that he will give "an overview of the life of L. Ron Hubbard anchored by the generally agreed facts". Of course there are some generally agreed facts about Hubbard's life: that he was an SF author, captained a ship, etc. Melton's treatment of Hubbard's war record in this chapter justifiably raises an eyebrow, but a reference to "generally agreed facts" does not. Incidentally, the chapter is taken from Melton's book, The Church of Scientology (Melton). It's a well-received book, used in dozens of university courses; but the LRH bio section has come in for some criticism. I could look it up ... but I guess it doesn't really matter here. -- JN 466  15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the intention was not to say "the basic outline of L. Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" - then the book should not have been published with that controversial statement included. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "basic outline" is apparently being used by the author in a very minimal sense, the best thing to do is to use the entire 2 sentences, or it's quoting out of context.   DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, . Cirt (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, . Cirt (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Other reports on the book"
This concerns the passages: The source reads,
 * 1) other reports on the book state that it gives an "unusually sympathetic" portrayal of Scientology (in the lede)
 * 2) he wrote that "reports of the book ... suggest that its treatment of the Scientology cult is unusually sympathetic" (3rd para in Reception)
 * Reports of the book, however, suggest that its treatment of the Scientology cult is unusually sympathetic, one contributor saying that "the basic outline of L Ron Hubbard's life is not contested" when it is well known that L Ron's CV makes Lord Archer's look like a model of objective truth.

Ingrams' sentence has become inflated to create the impression that there had been several "other" (printed media) reports on the book, despite there being no evidence of any such reports (we all looked for them). That is, apart from the piece in Private Eye that appeared the day prior. Note that Ingrams uses the exact same out-of-context quote that Hislop uses. Ingrams and Hislop work in the same building, at the same magazine. The "reports" Ingrams is referring to may simply be those he heard over lunch.

All in all, more than three-quarters of the reception section is devoted to Private Eye. I would reduce this a lot. Ingrams is really no source at all, not even having read the book, and alluding to unspecified "reports". I propose we let Hislop say something about the book being unusually sympathetic, lacking mention of controversy, and covering Hubbard's military career differently from Miller's sourced account. That is all the first paragraph of the Reception section needs. The second paragraph, with the "tendentious drivel", could stand as it is and be combined with the first. Ingrams in the third para should go. Here is a proposal:

Further expansion will have to wait until there are academic reviews in. Does the above look like something we could agree on? -- JN 466  23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I also removed the sentence, "Private Eye joked that the peer reviewers of the book may have been controversial figures Lord Archer and Lord Black.[1]", at the end of the first para, above. While I don't think it is very encyclopedic, if editors are attached to it, I can live with it remaining. -- JN 466  23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence from the lede. I object to your characterization of the source. It is your own POV personal WP:OR interpretation. However, if you wish to suggest additional secondary sources to add to the article - that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Added a few additions from suggestions above. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the changes. Let's lose Ingrams altogether. Like DGG above I do not think any columnist is a RS for the nature of a book he has not read, nor as a source of information based on unspecified and unattributed "reports". -- JN 466  18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)