Talk:Scientology: The Now Religion

message: While the article looks to be well done in general I was a little worried about calling the book "objective" and having a full text link in the intro.  Both of these seemed to be attempts to push this book onto users as something they should read to debunk Scientology--which is not the place of an encyclopedia.  I just wanted to post this section in hopes that we don't let this type of language creep back into the article. gren グレン 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the word "objective", however this is how it has been reviewed in other sources.  The link is fine in the intro, it has been freely released onto the internet.  Smee 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was.  After seeing 'objective' I expected the worst... but it looked good.  I do disagree about the link.  There is no precedence for external links in article text... in fact I think it's discouraged.  If you want to write in the intro that after it was stopped from being published in print it was made avaiable freely online that would be fine and link to it in a footnote.  External links in the text is just bad style and I'd be surprised if any of the featured or good articles do it. gren グレン 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, I will implement your suggestion.  Smee 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Not a bad article, although I wonder if it is really a high importance article as its tag says.  I have a suggestion about this sentence:
:Scientology decided to sue after they had sent a letter demanding a retraction to the publisher, but the book was subsequently reprinted in paperback.[13] The publisher later paid Scientology in a legal settlement and did not release the book again in a printed format.[6]
Would it be better to change "Scientology" to "The Church of Scientology" in these sentences? Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Smee.  I think that will make the meaning more clear, since it was the church that sued and was paid, not "Scientology" itself. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob.  Smee 15:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way Smee, even though we are mostly on opposite sides on the "issues" I think that you have a good sense of style and we share a common interest in that we are both trying to make WP more interesting for the average person to read. Steve Dufour 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I try.  I like creating new, very very highly sourced articles.  :)  Smee 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool pictures help too. :-)  Steve Dufour 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you planning on doing something with the horizontal info box thing? It would make the articles look better and would be more useful since it lets a person read the article first before telling him about other ones. Steve Dufour 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post this comment to the relevant template discussion page.  I am waiting for more feedback from others before making such a drastic change to horizontal footer, if that is what you are referring to, the Template:ScientologySeries.  Please post further comments at its talk page if so....  Smee 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said just about the same thing there. Steve Dufour 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment there, and post further comments there, not here, related to that.  Thanks.  Smee 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I only meant to say that in this article the use of the two expressions was clear. :-)  Steve Dufour 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Smee 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small suggestion

message: The Village Voice. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional source 

message: Substituted at 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment