| Revision as of 15:18, 1 December 2008 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Primary source content: roflmao← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 1 December 2008 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Primary source content: reNext edit → | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by ], ) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by ], ) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Similar to the fictionalized account of the ] by ] ? ''']''' (]) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | :Similar to the fictionalized account of the ] by ] ? ''']''' (]) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| does not actually say in so many words that "Scientology Sex Scandal" was "one of the more popular articles in Australian publishing in 2007", as our article states; the source merely describes it as one of a "slew of blaring headlines" in one of the "celebrity gossip weeklies". I doubt we'll ever be in agreement on the status of women's mags of this type as reliable encyclopedic sources. :-) <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The title of that article is "Selling off the rack". Also from the article: "A survey of the best-selling magazines of 2007 ..." ''']''' (]) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}. ''']''' (]) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Re the use of primary sources: I am fully in agreement with you, and have said so in the past, that ], as well as related Beliefs and Practices articles, should not quote from Scientology websites or books (unless these are sections that reliable secondary sources have seen fit to quote verbatim). To that extent, I am fully behind what Spidern has done in these articles. But the same thing then also applies to articles like this present one. If we're telling Scientologists they can't pick and quote "the good bits", but have to restrict themselves to what secondary sources have covered, then we can't pick and quote "the bad bits", but should likewise stick to what reliable secondary sources have discussed. I think this is a way forward that would benefit article quality in the long run. <font color="#0000FF">]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>'' 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :For the most part generally speaking, I agree. However for specific subsections in this article would like to wait to hear what others think. ''']''' (]) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:13, 1 December 2008
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| Before complaining about article content, please read: Misplaced Pages is not censored. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and sex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
An entry from Scientology and sex appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 May, 2007. |  |
Reuters reports on Scientology, sex, and the "second dynamic"
Scientologists say they recognize marriage as a part of the second of the eight dynamics of existence. The second dynamic includes all creative activity, including sex, procreating and the raising of children.
- Reuters (November 18, 2006). "What is a Scientology wedding?: TomKat nuptials bring renewed focus to controversial religious sect". MSNBC. NBC. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
{{cite news}}:|last=has generic name (help)
Cirt (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Primary source content
Cirt, you had argued at the AfD for pruning back the primary-source content. At the moment, there are still a number of paragraphs sourced only to Hubbard. Shouldn't we take those out now? Jayen466 14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. I think they are valid and are good complements at this point to the secondary sources. Prune/copyedit/trim, perhaps in places. Remove whole entire paragraphs? Disagree. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like to do the trimming then that you deem appropriate? Otherwise I am not sure what to make of your comment in the AfD. Jayen466 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Again, to reiterate: Prune/trim? Yes. I never suggested removing whole entire paragraphs in that comment. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like to do the trimming then that you deem appropriate? Otherwise I am not sure what to make of your comment in the AfD. Jayen466 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I will list some problems that I see: The second lede para is based exclusively on a primary source, which is not referred to again in the main article. Assertions like the decree being "controversial", a "key teaching" etc. are unsourced. The lede does not summarise the article. Jayen466 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The lermanet page "Scientology's Questionable Policies on Rape and Public Relations" (currently ref 8) is a WP:SPS page from an avowed anti-Scientology site. I don't think use of this page as a source is appropriate. Jayen466 14:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Gene Zimmer "Alteration of Scientology Materials Report" (ref 4) does not have publication data. Is that an RS? Jayen466 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The entire section "Tone Scale and "Know to Sex" scale" is sourced to primary sources. If we can't find secondary sources discussing this, I am in favour of dropping it. Jayen466 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of the first para in the Promiscuity section is primary-sourced. The second para is primary-sourced, as well, but luckily this can be fixed. Siker quotes the same policy letter on page 91: Jayen466 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The parts of "Abuse your Illusions" that we cite (by Russell Krick, published by The Disinformation Company, ) are from a fictionalised account. While it claims to be based on the actual "case history of a friend", I think we would be better off seeking corroboration in a more reliable source. (Note that the second source given, "One Hand Jerking", is another book featuring the exact same fictional account.) Jayen466 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Similar to the fictionalized account of the Jason Scott case by Anson Shupe ? Cirt (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This source does not actually say in so many words that "Scientology Sex Scandal" was "one of the more popular articles in Australian publishing in 2007", as our article states; the source merely describes it as one of a "slew of blaring headlines" in one of the "celebrity gossip weeklies". I doubt we'll ever be in agreement on the status of women's mags of this type as reliable encyclopedic sources. :-) Jayen466 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- The title of that article is "Selling off the rack". Also from the article: "A survey of the best-selling magazines of 2007 ..." Cirt (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". Jayen466 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- We could say, The article, which discussed the relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, featured one of the more notable headlines in celebrity gossip weeklies in 2007, being entitled "Scientology Sex Scandal". Jayen466 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Re the use of primary sources: I am fully in agreement with you, and have said so in the past, that Scientology, as well as related Beliefs and Practices articles, should not quote from Scientology websites or books (unless these are sections that reliable secondary sources have seen fit to quote verbatim). To that extent, I am fully behind what Spidern has done in these articles. But the same thing then also applies to articles like this present one. If we're telling Scientologists they can't pick and quote "the good bits", but have to restrict themselves to what secondary sources have covered, then we can't pick and quote "the bad bits", but should likewise stick to what reliable secondary sources have discussed. I think this is a way forward that would benefit article quality in the long run. Jayen466 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- For the most part generally speaking, I agree. However for specific subsections in this article would like to wait to hear what others think. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)