Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1

===Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved WP:GA quality status, looking for input to help improve writing style further, tweak prose, etc. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes left for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/archive1. I looked over the automated peer review, nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with WP:LEAD, the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from reliable sources after exhaustive researching. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on automated peer review

From Moni3:
 * Is there no reception or critical analysis of the book? If you're planning to take it to FAC, that would be a major obstacle.
 * I think the article so far is well-written and comprehensive until that reception and analysis point. What are your plans there? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and I have done a bit of work and research, but have been unable to find reception/analysis information. Perhaps you could try as well? Cirt (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs? Is Scientology such literary plutonium? I'll look, but the only glimmer of hope I can provide is that my library might have something that Awadewit's does not. I'll do some looking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, anything further as far as additional material from WP:RS sources about the book would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm stunned. Nothing on the writings of William S. Burroughs?" That should tell you something. 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. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, we are not here to critique and discuss our own analyses of Burroughs' work itself. That would be WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, that is more or less what has happened in the article, as you have the views of a few nonliterary POV commentors plus "biographical" use of the book. This is a book that is out of print now, and was never taken seriously as a work of art. Hence Moni3's comment about being "stunned" that after twenty some years, there is no literary comment. What reason do you give for a book written by a great writer receiving no critical comment whatsoever? Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the book. This peer review is number two. This kind of thing gives Wikipedia a bad name. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are the nonliterary POV commentators? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For one, Paulette Cooper. Is this article supposed to be a serious evaluation of Scientology? I would add the various anti-Scientology and brainwashing books quoted.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's two out of how many sources? Paulette Cooper's book is simply being used to quote Burroughs himself, that's not really an issue. And the other book you refer to is published by Kent State University Press. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget it. You do not appear amenable to change. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references. Why are even two readily apparent? Why introduct a blatantly anti-Scientology book into the article at all? I will repeat: Already this article and its POV is number one on Google if you look up the book. This peer review is number two. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, 2nd time now I have asked you to WP:AGF in your comments on this site. Please also avoid usage of bolding in this manner, it is inappropriate and unnecessary. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you is WP:AGF? Please, assume some WP:AGF with me and stop accusing me. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ''Forget it. You do not appear amenable to change. I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references.'' -- Disagreeing with someone is not a lack of AGF. However not bothering to even check the references in an article before arguing about them, most certainly is. As is language such as that you are using, as is usage of bolding, as is repeating yourself and stubbornly refusing to make specific comments as opposed to generalized complaints, as is taking your personal disputes with other users across multiple pages on this project, which in and of itself is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Note: Related ANI thread. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to think that it is extremely important how Wikipedia presents information to the world. You did not respond to the fact that anyone looking up this book on Google get as number one this article, and number two this peer review with the brainwashing and anti-Scientology books being quoted. How can I get your attention on this issue? I do not believe that saying I will take the article to GAR has anything to do with WP:AGF. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not wikihounding. It is a coincidence that I commented on two articles in which User:Awadewit was involved. I admit that I was offended by Awadewit's comments on the other article, which I felt were condescending to me and others. However, I did not realize Awadewit was involved in this article until after the dialogue between Cirt and me started. I apologize to all involved. I and User:Geometry guy have been involved in trying to keep Scientology articles from being POV and I carried those views learned from him to here. I feel strongly about this issue. I am sorry if I offended anyone. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, you can't "assume bad faith" the minute you show up at an article. You assumed both Cirt and I had a POV. You assumed the sources were POV. Both of these accusations were made without evidence. Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Sam Blacketer, one of the current arbitrators, opined in the current arbcom: "There is stacks of evidence that Cirt does not like Scientology, but we already know that". Let's not pretend otherwise. Jayen 466 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think is POV in this article, which was written by Cirt and myself, by the way? Awadewit (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I presented my evidence in the GAR. I said in my opinion the article is POV. Saying an article is POV is AGF? My goodness, how does one tiptoe around that? Criticism, it seems, means I have no AGF. I do not want to get into a discussion with you. In the discussion yesterday, you were condescending in your comments to me and to others. You said you knew you were right and that you knew what should be in the article from your own personal experience, and the rest of us were too dense and could not see what was clear to you. My opinion here has been disregarded. My AGF was called into question. If you want comments and help from others, I suggest that the ugly atmosphere set up by constantly calling someone's AGF into question is not the way to do it. This is the same atmosphere as FAC.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk)

Reception/Criticism sources:

JSTOR - Search terms "William S. Burroughs Scientology" yielded 12 results
 * 1 mention of Burroughs' span of subjects, including Scientology: Lance Rubin Reviewed work(s): Burroughs Live: The Collected Interviews of William S. Burroughs, 1960-1997 by Sylvère Lotringer; William S. Burroughs Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, Vol. 57, No. 2 (2003), pp. 88-90
 * 1 mention of Burroughs' focus on Scientology in a footnote: William S. Burroughs's Phantasmic Geography Kathryn Hume Contemporary Literature, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 111-135
 * "Burroughs is obsessed with control systems — from Mayan codices to Scientology — and control and sex begin to fuse more and more in his later novels." from The Quest and the Question: Cosmology and Myth in the Work of William S. Burroughs, 1953-1960 The Quest and the Question: Cosmology and Myth in the Work of William S. Burroughs, 1953-1960 William L. Stull Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Summer, 1978), pp. 225-242
 * Mention of a Scientology Auditing manual from Bill & Tony in "Word Begets Image and Image Is Virus": Undermining Language and Film in the Works of William S. Burroughs "Word Begets Image and Image Is Virus": Undermining Language and Film in the Works of William S. Burroughs Douglas G. Baldwin College Literature, Vol. 27, No. 1, Teaching Beat Literature (Winter, 2000), pp. 63-83
 * Search terms "Ali's Smile" yields one result, which ha ha JSTOR does not archive: Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America Author(s): Hugh B. Urban Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 74, No. 2, Religion and Secrecy (Jun., 2006), pp. 356-389


 * MLA International Bibliography and MLA Directory of Periodicals database search for "William S. Burroughs" AND "Scientology" yields no results. No results when the S. is dropped either. No results for "Ali's Smile" as the search terms.
 * Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (ABELL) database yields no results for previous search terms.
 * Ditto for Bibliography of American Literature database
 * Ditto for Essay & General Literature Index database
 * 243 hits for criticism on William S. Burroughs in Literature Online database, but no hits come up when Scientology added to search terms. No hits for "Ali's Smile" as search terms.
 * No results in ATLA Religion Database
 * No results in Religion and Philosophy Collection database
 * My library does not carry Ali's Smile, but there are 286 items by or about Burroughs. William S. Burroughs at the front critical reception, 1959-1989 is an e-book. I searched for Scientology and 3 pages came up. None involving Ali's Smile.
 * I have not searched Google. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have searched Google, but was met with limited results. It is one thing to find Burroughs' opinions on Scientology, but it seems that the only useful sources here are those dealing specifically with Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. ←  Spidern  →  16:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We could add even more about Burroughs and Scientology to the article, as there is more detail in the sources we already have, but I think we have adequately fleshed out his experiences with Scientology, which prompted him to write the essays collected in this book. What do you think, Moni3 and Spidern? Awadewit (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The question arose somewhere, apologies - I am losing track of where it started - regarding the notability of the book if no criticism has been published about it. Although it seems that this is an anthology of writings by Burroughs on Scientology. I am of the mind that just about anything Burroughs wrote would be notable. I wonder if searches were done in the original publications where these letters and essays first appeared to gauge response to them. If they existed, they would be popular response instead of literary criticism written by scholars. At this point, whatever there is would be valid since Burroughs wrote in a very common manner to a common audience. My opinion is that this is a perfect GA candidate because it can never get to FA without a criticism section. I will defer to consensus at WP:GA, however. If the consensus is that all books that are notable should have criticism sections to attain GA, then so be it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, like "Letters to the editor"? That would be a popular response and I would hesitate to include it, as I do not believe it would meet WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean. Beat poets wrote to the Woody Guthrie / Aaron Copeland common man. I think it's logical to conclude that Burroughs chose the audience by submitting work where the essays and letters originally appeared. If that audience responded, and nothing is available from literary critics, then such popular response would be valid if it were presented as popular response not to be confused with scholarly literary critique. --Moni3 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moni3 that we could probably do with more discussion of Burroughs as a writer here, as opposed to general experiences with Scientology that are not directly related to the book; perhaps if only to provide sufficient background to understanding the author and what shaped the literary style of this book. ←  Spidern   →  18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "Background" section describes Burroughs as a writer. Please understand that the non-fiction newspaper pieces that constitute the bulk of this book are not written in the same style as Naked Lunch, Burroughs' most famous work (and a novel). Also, Burroughs' experience with Scientology is what prompted him to write the pieces in this book, so that is directly relevant - it is the biographical context for the writing of the material. It is akin to something like this section, which explains the biographical background behind the writing of one of Mary Wollstonecraft's works. Without this biographical background on Burroughs, readers will not understand why Burroughs was writing these pieces attacking particular elements of Scientology. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From Geometry guy

I share Moni3's surprise that there are no reviews, literary, critical or other responses that we can reliably source, either of/to the compilation or the individual elements which were published separately and do not have their own articles. Is there not anything in Murphy that can be used?

I found the Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America article online, which may refer to Burroughs work. There is also another primary source,, which may have some insight and/or further sources. Geometry guy 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping! Here are my responses:
 * I consulted the Murphy book myself (I have it right here). There is nothing else in it than what we already have in the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We use the "Fair Game" article. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read the interviews in Conversations with William S. Burroughs - there is nothing about Ali's Smile in them. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * llywrch comments
 * Concerning the lack of reviews, has anyone considered the period this book came out in? during the 1970s & early 1980s, practically no news organization would touch Scientology due to their policy of aggressive legal action. (In plain language, they would sue anyone who published a critical opinion of Scientology, as well as find ways to harass them.) This only changed with the rise of the Internet. So I doubt any well-known newspaper, magazine, or literary quarterly bothered to publish a review of this book. While the fact Mattisse has a good point about notability standards, this is a special case.
 * As for content, the presentation of the material of "Publication and contents" confuses me. I'm guessing that the title essay alone was published in that small edition in 1971, & all of the pieces listed in the section appeared in the later edition -- but the section doesn't make this clear. I'm forced to ponder whether the section is presenting the book, & publications relate to Burrough's interest in Scientology. A little editing to make the structure of this section explicit would be a good thing.
 * Footnote 15 refers to a book ("Morgan 1998") which is not listed in the bibliography. Is this a typo for "Morgan 1988"? -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ali's Smile, Burroughs's short story on Scientology, was originally published in a limited-edition run of 99 copies by Unicorn in 1971.[20] A recording of Burroughs reading the story was simultaneously released.[21] Two years later, Expanded Media Editions issued a revised and enlarged version titled Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, which contained a series of articles, most of which had been previously published in newspapers and magazines - I added "in newspapers and magazines". How can we make these sentences clearer? Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I blind? Footnote 15 looks like it says Morgan 1988 to me. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed Footnote 15, thanks to llywrch for pointing that out. :) Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 requested that we investigate the publications where Burroughs originally published the articles that make up Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. I have now done that. Here are the results of my investigation. In my opinion, including this information would be original research and the letters to the editor are clearly unreliable sources. However, since Moni3 suggested we look, I did look and have now reported on what I found. Awadewit (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary source investigation
 * "Counter Culture: Interview with Dr. Ronald D. Laing". Los Angeles Free Press (3 April 1970). - This interview is about similar topics to Burroughs' opinion piece. It even mentions Burroughs and the E-Meter. The first question is "What do you feel about the various parapsychiatric movements and techniques around today--things like meditation, Scientology, etc.?" - This demonstrates that Burroughs was not publishing in a vacuum - these topics were being discussed at the time - even he and his connection to Scientology was being discussed.
 * "Letter to the editor" by Paul Alley. Los Angeles Free Press (10 April 1970). This long letter, which begins "William Burroughs' recent rap in the FP about the facism of Scientology can look like a pretty innocent putdown when you consider the history of this old con invented by Ron Hubband back in the 50's as midnight-hype called dianetics", is critical of Scientology, dissecting its financial practices, among others.
 * "Letter to the editor" by Michael Pearce. ''Los Angeles Free Press (17 April 1970). This short letter notes that "with all the back-and-forthing about Scientology, nobody's mentioned that they offer a money-back guarantee".

While I was doing the above primary source investigation, I discovered that Burroughs' book review of Inside Scientology was not published in Rolling Stone on 9 November 1972 nor was R. Sorrell's letter published on 5 December 1972. These are the publication dates listed in Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. What I am doing to resolve this problem: If anyone can help clear up this mystery, I would be much obliged. Awadewit (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Factual error
 * Find an index of Rolling Stone (apparently none exists)
 * Search Rolling Stone electronically (this can only be done if I purchase the DVD collection for $50 - I am unwilling to do this - anyone have the collection?)
 * Check to see if the printed edition is different from the microfilm (I've contacted someone with the print copies from the late 1960s and early 1970s - they are checking for me)
 * Check the Burroughs bibliography to see if it replicates the mistake (I have to recall this book from another library patron)
 * Email Rolling Stone and see if they can sort this out for me (last resort)
 * Read through all of Rolling Stone for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 (very last resort)
 * I've resolved the Burroughs date, but not the Sorrell date. Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now emailed Rolling Stone as well. Awadewit (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have received an automated reply from Rolling Stone - they don't respond to academic queries. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)