![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101207dnmetpamphlets.2cc31a1.html
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)
See WP:Footnotes, also as per Chicago Manual of Style. Cirt ( talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Additional convenience link at
[3].A more direct link:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Other refs AndroidCat ( talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) No luck there.{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) No luck there either with Wayback.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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, -- J N 466 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
[ [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)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Way to Happiness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101207dnmetpamphlets.2cc31a1.html
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)
See WP:Footnotes, also as per Chicago Manual of Style. Cirt ( talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Additional convenience link at
[3].A more direct link:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Other refs AndroidCat ( talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) No luck there.{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) No luck there either with Wayback.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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, -- J N 466 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
[ [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)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Way to Happiness has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |