Jump to content

Talk:The Way to Happiness/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This one was simply redirecting to "Scientology"

This one was simply redirecting to "Scientology" which in turn had a linked here. Any criticisms or grammar/spelling improvements would be appreciated. Wikired5 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful and in keeping with NPOV if the link to the booklet was added at the end, so I have adjusted this. -- Harmonica 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Way to Happiness booklets distributed with forged endorsement

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101207dnmetpamphlets.2cc31a1.html

The front cover features a painting of a grassy field sweeping toward the Dallas skyline with the city's official "D" symbol hovering in the foreground. ... "Presented by Office of the Mayor," it states. ... But the booklet didn't come from the mayor, and no one at the city has anything to do with it. ... "Clearly we were not very comfortable and did not think it was appropriate to use the seal of the city of Dallas, the mayor's logo or my name on something we were not aware of," Mr. Leppert said in a phone interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.177.176 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This looks more like a promotional sample. Where is "forged" in here? Misou 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The word forged isn't used, but it's not much of a reach: "[..] and a ringing endorsement purportedly from Mr. Leppert." From the article, it sounds more like a print run than a single sample. (In bulk, according to TWTH documents, 14 cents a copy plus 7 cents royalty to CST.) It wouldn't be the first time that someone has been overly enthusiastic in attributing special editions of TWTH booklets.[1][2] AndroidCat 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
'I am happy to be able to offer this book as a helpful guide for every member of this community," the booklet states below the mayor's picture.' Is it common practice to place quotes on promotional samples from people who did not say those quotes? -- 209.6.177.176 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. This is no newsgroups. So I grabbed the phone and called them. It's 12 samples (promotion for individual covers), they went straight to the mayor and are not for distribution, except he uses the dozen he got. They sent out thousands like that, each set different. A hell of a job I guess. Anyway, this is OR, obviously. But interesting how Kitty uses rumors to spread trash. Misou 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You're way over the line, Misou. Oh and did you ask them how many cities they've done "a box full of the booklets" in? AndroidCat 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did. But for the number of mayors the lady didn't know, just "ten thousands" in total for the US, more abroad etc., with lots of requests for the print files coming in. I guess the next event will tell. Misou 22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not that hard to get any mayor's endorsement, and the mayor not know what he signed. Has whoever wrote this part of the article checked their facts? Have they gone in to the Dallas or San Frencisco Churches, for instance, and asked to see the document? 2. What makes unverified accusations more important than the subject itself? 3. I thought that "controversies" were usually near the end of a Wikipedia article. We don't even know what the Way to Happiness is yet. 4. Do these unverified "facts" have to take up over half the article? 98.196.117.157 12:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not show "endorsements" and there are no endorsements in Dallas or San Francisco, no false ones either. The whole thing is a promotion action, no booklet was "distributed", a box of samples was sent to these mayors, nobody else. A typical POV pusher lie, this article, that's all. Some people just believe anything. Go ahead and correct this crap. Misou 17:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have information from WP:RS secondary sources that refute the information from the current WP:RS secondary sources in the article, please, feel free to add them and expand the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Am I talking to the Monday Curt? Anyway: To start with, correct the misinterpretations of your own media articles, take out the double mention of SF etc. Can't believe that you messed up this article. And then, this is current happenings, needs appropriate tag, and should be at the beginning or bottom. Misou 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image on Wikipedia of the pamphlets with the "bogus" use of city seals ?

Cites placement

See WP:Footnotes, also as per Chicago Manual of Style. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It just looks awful to have a cite in the middle of a sentence like that. I guarantee that this is something that would be dinged at a future WP:GAC or WP:FAC review. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you please help me understand your reasoning?, with specific quotations and analysis. WP:Footnotes says "Some material must be referenced mid-sentence [as here, so as not to lose meaning], but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." -- yes, a citation belongs with the text it supports, or else meaning is lost. Substance is more important than form (perhaps far more important; the goal is to communicate to the reader). I'm very open-minded to any specific words supporting your view, in any style source. To me, the appearance looks fine, and looks not materially distracting to the reader. I believe i've seen mid-text footnotes a lot (even if there is no punctuation at the footnote point), including i believe a lot in serious publications. I can't predict what GAC or FAC would prefer. So let's focus on trying to find some specific guidance in style sources. Thanks very much. Bo99 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If we just adjust the sentence to add a comma, I could live with a cite in mid-sentence, I'll show you what I mean, but feel free to revert me. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. I wish i had thought of that good, creative idea; thanks. It's just a tiny bit clunky, but very do-able. So this issue is resolved i think. But i do suggest you keep a watch for instances of pure-mid-text footnote placement -- it's used a lot i believe (perhaps more so in hard-core academic and professional publications than general publications), because it has to be used, to connect specific footnote ideas with specific bits of the text and thus help the reader. Bo99 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad you are okay with the fix. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Humanitarian"

Citing Golden Era Productions to back up this info is inappropriate, as it is owned/controlled by the Church of Scientology. We need a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source please, and let's use the same conventions applied to the article L. Ron Hubbard as applied here, which is to say pulp fiction author. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

  • Wilson, Mike (1997-05-11). "Battlefield Tilden". St. Petersburg Times. 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)
Another good source of info. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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:

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

Thanks! As always, most helpful. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Will add this to the article at some point. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Parody quote

Regarding [4], I think that this is significant from a standpoint of the affect of this term in the popular culture setting. I would love to hear feedback from others though. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Variance from sources

The recent changes by Jayen466 don't seem to match the cited sources very well. I do have archived copies of hatzipanagos and kleinberg, but for reasons of copyvio and WP:V, don't intend to make these archives generally available at present. (Although they should be WP:V with print and file copies.) Wayback Machine has a six month Window of Silence, which should have expired by now.

I do have exact captures of the cited references. I won't take advantage of this to POV-push, but I urge Jayen466 not to play with the wording where sources disagree with these changes. AndroidCat (talk)

The copy at Rick Ross's site does appear to be accurate with a pre-coffee comparision, but he doesn't seem to have the other one. AndroidCat (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific? For reference, several copies of the two articles can be found online. Jayen466 14:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I was merely stating that I read those copies and compared them to my captures of the pages and that they appeared to be accurate. The OC messageboard certainly isn't WP:RS, and I suspect Rick Ross' could be a problem for some. I assumed that you hadn't read them and didn't realize that "personalized sample copies" wasn't based on the reference. AndroidCat (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I found several copies of each article online, among them the ones you linked above. The articles described them as "personalized", "samples" and "copies". It's obvious that's what they were. Jayen466 14:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I previously put a link to my talk on this subject ( http://www.philorum.org/speech/20090902JohnAugustWayToHappiness.html ) - it is the only attempt I know of to engage with the ideas in TWTH, as compared to others which just try to say bad things about it based on its associations. I did do a good search for such articles before I gave my talk, and could not find any. So, as something which I suggest gives a worthwhile commentary, I'd suggest including it, as giving a perspective on the ideas in TWTH. Yes, I've a vested interest, but that does not stop me from making a valid point, either. JohnAugust (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAugust (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not an appropriate source. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit moved info out of chronological sequence

[5] = this edit by Adamkwatts (talk · contribs) moved info in the article out of its previous chronological sequence, and was done with no explanation as to why. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Precepts

I have re-added the precepts with citations after Cirt's comment that it was unsourced. I first thought it was silly to source something that obviously came from the booklet, but as I got them from the website myself I guess it does makes sense.

Cirt also commented that the list is non-notable and unencyclopedic. On the former, please note that notability does not directly limit article content; see Wikipedia:Notability for more on this.

The "unencyclopedic" claim needs further substantiation. The list is relevant knowledge about the subject and in concise form. It's not worded as advertising and doesn't break any other of the guidelines at WP:ENC.
—Leif Arne Storset 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed. This is unencyclopedic to list out all of these so-called "precepts" in this format. It appears to be WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT for the Church of Scientology organization. Let us also avoid adding completely unsourced information to the page. Let us avoid using primary sources on these sorts of controversial articles. Let us please stick to using secondary sources. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Upon reviewing the materials you linked to on my talk page, I realize you are actually not a newbie and have been intimately involved in Scientology articles for a long time. Thanks for the links, they are interesting and useful.
In response to your citation of WP:ARBSCI, please note the following:
  • Purpose of Wikipedia prohibits advocacy, but citing the views of an organization is not advocacy.
  • Quality of sources states that "Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources." The stated views of an organization and the actual content of the booklet easily fall within this category.
  • Most importantly, in my opinion, good-faith participation is welcome. It's essential for the future of Wikipedia (or any collaborative effort) that participation is welcomed and not discouraged. Now, in my case I have enjoyed casually contributing for years, but others may be scared away more easily by a hard-handed approach.
You say that the format is unencyclopedic. What format would be acceptable? Is the name "precept" the problem? (I know I'd never heard the word before...)
For the record (in response to your citation of WP:COFS), I am not affiliated with the CoS. A friend showed me the TWtH site and I was doing due diligence by looking it up on Wikipedia when I discovered (a) the organization is affiliated with the CoS and (b) the article had very little on the moral code itself.
I wish to avoid an edit war, and will await your response before taking further action.
—Leif Arne Storset 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that considering how naïve the organization and their precepts are, quoting them in the article is closer to ridicule than advocacy. ;)
—Leif Arne Storset 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In order to avoid WP:NOR violations, and inserting non-significant factors into articles on this topic, we should rely on secondary sources, rather than primary. Do any secondary sources devote significant commentary to these so-called "precepts" ? -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Both of the policies and arbitrations you cite make exceptions for primary sources in appropriate circumstances. In other words, WP:ARBSCI (section link) and WP:NOR (section link) specifically allow limited, careful use of primary sources to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects.
While I do not care much about the "precepts" specifically, a blanket ban on primary sources is unnecessary and harmful to an encyclopedia. Please reconsider your stance on primary sources; it is not supported by Wikipedia policy. In particular, it is not supported by Wikipedia policy on Scientology. Wikipedia allows restricted use of primary sources. If I have misunderstood policy you must explain how.
—
As for your other argument, if you believe the stated agenda of an organization is a "non-significant factor" you must bear the burden of proof on that claim. Why is the primary message of an organization "non-significant"? You must explain your thinking here. I cannot guess what your reasoning is.
I would encourage you to consider my arguments and read the linked policies before asking for secondary sources again. I have made it easy for you by linking to the relevant sections. Here they are again: Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Quality_of_sources, WP:PRIMARY. Please read them, it only takes a minute.
—Leif Arne Storset 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The "precepts" are not noteworthy enough for inclusion as a list in this fashion. Have they been discussed significantly, in secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please

Let us please avoid primary sources and non WP:RS sources. Also, please avoid adding hyperlinks within main article body text. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Google books

Is Google Books considered ok to add? I added the booklet (this article is about a booklet) yesterday but it was removed without reason. Here is the link: http://books.google.com/books?id=RhvoT6B1GVQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+way+to+happiness&source=bl&ots=ECDsoa-fjp&sig=LtO-xsI-lNjz54AbjtxfrnyJcoc&hl=en&ei=dDRzTJX5AYiWsgPAismADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false . 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairyday (talk • contribs)

No, best to avoid primary sources, and stick to WP:RS, independent, secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand avoiding primary sources. But in this case it is the actual booklet. Isn't this relevant for the article? I mean, the whole article is about it... Fairyday (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
RS, reliable sources. What is more reliable than the actual source? Oh, and why did you remove my other edits? Fairyday (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shutterbug (talk · contribs), please appeal your indef block with your main account's user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Previously, I wrote :

I previously put a link to my talk on this subject ( http://www.philorum.org/speech/20090902JohnAugustWayToHappiness.html ) - it is the only attempt I know of to engage with the ideas in TWTH, as compared to others which just try to say bad things about it based on its associations. I did do a good search for such articles before I gave my talk, and could not find any. So, as something which I suggest gives a worthwhile commentary, I'd suggest including it, as giving a perspective on the ideas in TWTH. Yes, I've a vested interest, but that does not stop me from making a valid point, either. JohnAugust (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt challenged this with the claim it was not an appropriate source. Quite apart from the arguments I put forward here, it is my feeling that Cirt was operating in a knee jerk mode, not really considering the overall context at the time or seeking further information.

I'll here put forward my claim that it is an appropriate source. My background includes being president of the NSW Humanists and have involvement with the Sydney Unitarian Church and several philosophy groups in Sydney; I also have read widely in the area. As a result, I have become familiar with ideas in religion and philosophy (including ethics). I have some involvement in public intellectual and activist life in Sydney. A publication I am involved in preparing has involved communication with a prominent public philosopher. No content in the article would derive from the material in the link; it would be a link that would be there for the information of Wikipedia readers who wished to find out other perspectives on TWTH. Other articles do incorporate a range of links containing information for interested readers, without the article content itself relying on information in those links.

I reinforce that, as before, I did look for considered commentary from an outside point of view on TWTH, and I would have linked that into the WP article if I had found it. Such a review would have always been worthwhile, regardless of who wrote it. I prepared the commentary because I was keen to take an objective view of TWTH.

As far as conflict of interest goes : please keep in mind that I have made numerous contributions to the public domain; some audio recordings are available in archive.org from material I prepared for local community stations. I have also written numerous unpaid pieces for local media and news websites. I have a commitment to open source principles and donated several hundred dollars to WP in years past. This is not an attempt at bribe or ranson, but rather an attempt to illustrate my character and the position I come from, before you make assertions about my motives. I am certainly not someone who is running a business or otherwise financially benefiting from their works and promotion of it, and thus it would not be a conflict of interest in terms of the amount of benefit I would derive from the link.

I await comments from others; I will give notice before I add the link, if I do.JohnAugust (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anwk. It is a WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:ELNO and inadmissible. My suggestion is that if this writing will pass peer review then submit it to a professional peer reviewed journal and once it is published in such a journal then it can be used on wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I assert my publishing record and relevant involvement does mean I am qualified to write on the subject. If that does not float with you, what can I do ? Any suggestions ? At least you're not talking about conflict of interest. Would it be acceptable if someone else made the edit ? Coffeepusher, could you suggest an appropriate publication ? Would Australian Humanist be satisfactory (see http://search.informit.com.au/browsePublication;py=2009;res=IELHSS;issn=0004-9328;iss=95 ) ? An article I wrote on school funding has been linked by this database (a contribution in a separate publication, 'Impact' looks at abolishing state government). JohnAugust (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Subheaders

Re this revert, the headline wordings "Deceptive and misleading distribution" and "False claims of affiliation" appear like editorialising; they also go beyond the sources. The Buffalo mayor for example seems to have understood that the copies sent to his office were samples, and ordered more of them; and the cited sources do not say that the described claims of affiliation were all false; a number of companies were only reported to be looking into the matter. The overall section header is "controversy"; subsections named "unsolicited distribution" and "claims of affiliation" are sufficient, because there surely was some controversy about both. I propose restoring the wordings "unsolicited distribution" and "claims of affiliation". Cheers, --JN466 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Way to Happiness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Way to Happiness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Police

[[6]] Some police offices, particularly in Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, use The Way to Happiness pamphlets in trying to convince the suspected drug personalities to stop using illegal drugs and change their way of life. The Philippine National Police consider that using this booklet is successful approach resulting to decrease in the incidents of kidnapping and illegal drugs trade. Every police officer tasked to implement Oplan Tokhang encouraged the suspected users or pushers using the 21 moral precepts of The Way to Happiness[1]. Andantov (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Paul De Guzman. "NCRPO ADAPTS THE WAY TO HAPPINESS TRAINS MORE POLICE ON DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION". www.ncrpo.pnp.gov.ph. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Way_to_Happiness/Archive_1&oldid=1050348689"