Talk:Scientology (Lewis book)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology (Lewis book) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wik.ipedia.Pro? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientology (Lewis book). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientology (Lewis book) at the Reference desk.

This article is rated B-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Scientology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wik.ipedia.Pro's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wik.ipedia.Pro:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Scientology (Lewis book) appeared on Wik.ipedia.Pro's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the book Scientology edited by James R. Lewis includes contributions from J. Gordon Melton, Anson Shupe, and Susan J. Palmer? A record of the entry may be seen at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Recent additions/2010/February.

Maybe these names should be alphabetized, rather than in the order they appear in the book — unless you want to put the chapter titles next to their names.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp I would like doing chapter names more, however, some people wrote multiple chapters so it isn't workable. I'll alphabetize it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did it PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this review on accident while trying to find a non-dead copy of Manca's review to add to the page, and have added it to external links to incorporate later. The review by Franz Winter from Marburg actually mentions this Wik.ipedia.Pro article, which at least in my history of writing book articles is new territory to me.

"At last there is an academic publication with the simple title “Scientology”. It aims at covering one of the most controversial developments among newer religious groups, while it is being debated whether this phenomenon can be labelled a “religion” at all. James R. Lewis, well known and prolific writer and editor of many books on new religious phenomena, undertook the difficult task of bringing together various authors of different professions to give a state-of-the-art overview, although not a complete one yet. But the result though is an impressive collection touching many important areas of interest concerning this group. Its controversial nature however cannot be overlooked. This is obvious when we consider that there are not many academic books which receive their own private Wik.ipedia.Pro-entry after its publication (http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Scientology_(James_R._Lewis_book)). With this we are already in the eye of the storm: Saying something about Scientology means also taking part and being an actor in a problematic discourse."

It also notes that:

"On the one hand this absence is legitimized by the fact that there is a big sample of anti-Scientology-books and Scientology bashing articles, but – on the other hand – it may lead to the problem that the book is perceived in a “group legitimating” way (this is done in the review of this book by Terra Manca for the International Journal of Cultic Studies 1, 2010; and, on another level, in the satirical magazine Private Eye, April 2009, 16; both reviews are unfortunately the main source of the Wik.ipedia.Pro-article, by the way)."

Well at least that last point has been rectified by the addition of additional sources. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I thought it was funny. The book works off a featured article of Wik.ipedia.Pro in one section and praises us, which is interesting enough, but there are reviews of the book reflecting on the fact it has a Wik.ipedia.Pro article. All so very meta. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]