Talk:The Way to Happiness

2011

This article can’t make up its mind whether it concerns the book or the organization. Perhaps we should split it into one page about each. ―cobaltcigs 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Generally Derogatory and Uninformative

The article starts with a neutral posture, then turns derogatory. It focuses on the connection between the book and Scientology. It transparently seeks to discourage an unbiased reading by suggesting Scientology jams it down the throats of mayors, etc, and imprints it with mayor photos/names without authorization. It fails to disclose or summarize content, which it could do within copyright constraints. It thereby fails to encourage an unbiased reader to make a personal evaluation of the merit of its content. It provides insufficient analysis of

• the content as to merit,
• reaction of readers to the content,
• impact of reading it on the behavior of the reader, and
• impact of reading it on the happiness of the reader.

I suggest reducing the negative verbiage about

• how proponents promote and distribute it,
• reaction of mayors to methods of promotion and distribution,
• imprinting of samples with mayor's names and photos for promo value, and
• the connection between Scientology and The Way To Happiness Foundation, particularly if the author of the article cannot show a connection of the precepts in the book to religious dogma.

I suggest increasing the neutral and unbiased verbiage such as

• examples of content (quote some phrases)
• summary of content (listing some or all of the 21 precepts)
• discussing broadly quantifiable good that has come from reading the book
• impressions as to merits of the book by the leaders of any schools, prisons, or other organizations in which participants/members have read the book,
• actual before-and-after crime or other behavior statistics in areas where people have read the book
• reactions of parents whose children have read the book, as to impact on child behavior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flembok (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 May 2012

The connection between Scientology and The Way to Happiness is well documented in WP:RS. While I do agree that we could summarize the contents a bit better you should probably take a look at WP:NPOV which states what Wikipedia's neutrality policy is. In brief wikipedia asks that the content of an article reflects, in proportion, the views of the reliable sources available. This means that if 80% of the reliable sources ties this book in with scientology, while 20% tie it in with the Way to Happiness foundation then we don't offer a 50/50 distribution within the article, rather an 80/20 distribution.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers have one central question regarding any book like this:

DOES IT BENEFIT MANKIND AND COMMUNITIES??

No one cares about the connection of the book to any organization if it does good and does not pervert the thinking of the reader.

The subject article paints the book as a PR stunt by and for Scientology. It virtually ignores content merit while it creates controversy in the mind of the reader about promotion method and promoter motive. I would excise the bulk of the negative content and focus on the actual content, the functional result of reading the book, and the merit of distributing it.

Flembok (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

actually based on the WP:RS a whole lot of people care about the connection as a PR stunt for Scientology. Do you have any secondary sources which discuss "the functional result of reading the book, and the merit of distributing it" or were you simply proposing that we rely on primary sources?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)