Talk:The Way to Happiness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of The Way to Happiness distribution campaigns, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Way to Happiness article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Additional sources

• Wilson, Mike. "Battlefield Tilden", St. Petersburg Times, 1997-05-11, p. 1F. 

Lots and lots and lots of info to add from this cite, will do that later. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Woodward, Kenneth L.; Charles Fleming (1993-06-14). "Scientology in the Schools: Is L. Ron Hubbard's morals text harmless?". Newsweek 121 (24). Newsweek, Inc.. 

Another good source of info. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sappell, Joel; Welkos, Robert W.. "Church Seeks Influence in Schools, Business, Science", Los Angeles Times, 1990-06-27, p. A1:1. Retrieved on 2006-08-07.  Additional convenience link at [1].

This one is already cited in the article, but there is loads more material that could be used from this source. The article in the Los Angeles Times itself has been cited by multiple other secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources for background on "The Way to Happiness". Cirt (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A more direct link:

• Wilson, Mike (1997-05-11). Battlefield Tilden. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-25.

Other refs AndroidCat (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As always, most helpful. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Farley, Robert (2005-10-30). Spiritual symbiosis: A surprising one. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.

Will add this to the article at some point. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] precepts (21): helping reader know what they are

Cirt, if there is a Wikipedia webpage that says that primary sources cannot be cited, then let's not. Bo99 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Preferably, secondary are better. In any case there are prominent links to the organization's website both at the top and bottom of the article. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS at the Verifiability Policy page. Secondary sources are preferred, when available for the same information as a primary source. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, I think just leaving both the primary and secondary cites for this particular one is fine for the time being. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the WP:SPS you cite above does not apply, because the citation to the 21 precepts is not trying to be "expert" in anything, but simply, tautologically, to say what the precepts are. It is so very strange for an encyclopedia article to talk and talk and talk about a booklet of principles and not simply state, or point the reader quickly to, what the principles are (and that lack was the case for weeks till today, when i noticed that you had weeks ago deleted the citation). Further, if you care about Wikipedia, and don't have some conflicting interest in scientology pro or con, then you should put the enormously-useful primary-source citation in front of the obfuscating secondary-source citation. Bo99 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)