Talk:Happy Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Predictions by the group

I don't see nn si capisce un cazz vi prego di scorreggiare contro faustino ogni volta che lo vedete being questioned; when reading it, I appreciated that someone took the time to include the predictions of the group. Personally, I think they should do it for every religious or spiritually themed page that is connected to fortune-telling. 75.73.45.230 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms/controversies?

anyone? They seem to be getting involved in Japanese politics?andycjp (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to a Japanese friend, in one of his latest speeches, Mr. Okawa has declared his desire to run for the Japanese Parliament. He claims that only he can defend Japan from the hostile intentions of North Korea, as he predicts that a missle attack is forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.57 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Prediction

I consider the prediction section to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. In my opinion, encyclopedias should write about what people have done, not what they say might happen. Does anybody else agree? Should it be removed?--Mycomp (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: PREDICTION
I'm going to add the prediction section back in because it gives insight into the theology of the subject. For instance, no overview of Christianity is complete without a reference to future prophesy (second coming etc.).--99.231.112.97 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single serious encyclopedia that has prediction paragraphs. Comparing the generality of "the second coming" with the speculations in the predictions paragraph here, is IMHO not correct.--Mycomp (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe the formatting of "Predictions" as a section is unusual, but I believe that the specific nature of the prophecy and the fact that other faiths include a very specific prophecy is reason enough to include it. Your opinion as to what is "encyclopediable" isn't justified by the fact that this is knowledge specific to this topic; as such it should be allowed. --99.231.112.97 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to hear the opinion of other editors.--Mycomp (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do understand and would even share Mycomp's concern regarding the impropriety of predictions under the fact oriented nature of encyclopedias. Nonetheless, within most encyclopedic works the account of the Bible's Book of Revelations demonstrates how predictions are a key element within the theological structure of many religions, and this is indeed a fact. Predictions are not facts, yet it is a fact that they have been stated. We should not ignore this in any further discussion on this topic....--Luxgratia (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section should've been renamed and reformatted but Luxgratia is right that in articles describing religious movements it has its place, as it forms important part of their "agenda" or teachings and beliefs. - Darwinek (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Temple

The so-called San Francisco Temple is actually located in Redwood City, California, which is south of San Francisco but part of the San Francisco Bay Area. No local would refer to it as part of San Francisco, though. It's considered to be on the peninsula, part of the suburbs. No sure if this bears inclusion. Also, it's located in a former Salvation Army church, and still looks like one. They just removed the cross. I've never been inside. BookishAcolyte (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving content of Happy Science page

Hi, I am new to Wiki. I am not sure if this is the right page to post this, but I would like to help improve this page.

Looking at this page, I think there can be many improvements made. From what I have learned so far, Wiki has graded this page class as 'start' meaning, as stated, it is "quite incomplete", the "prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic". Also, for suggestions on how to improve: "Provide references to reliable sources" and "the article needs substantial improvement in content and organisation."

Quickly looking at the Japanese page, there seems to be more information there than the English version. If someone can read Japanese (mine is so, so), perhaps they could improve and expand the English version by using references from here? Or other reliable independent English sources? I will have a look…

If anyone else has any ideas to improve this Wiki page, let's share! SFTokyo (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Happy Science. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=19408:clerics-call-for-probe-into-happy-science
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111248/http://www.happyscience.com.sg/index.cfm?GPID=3 to http://www.happyscience.com.sg/index.cfm?GPID=3

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) 00:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stream8

@Stream8: The material that you are currently edit-warring to remove has been in the article for many years, and so the onus is on you to seek a for its removal on this talk page, not just keep reverting. Incidentally, if you have any kind of professional or otherwise relationship with the subject, then that is considered to be a conflict of interest, and any contentious edits you wish to make should be discussed here first. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Furthermore, @Stream8:, I can honestly tell you that if you don't join this discussion—such as it is—then the only impression you will give is of someone who wants to revert but not discuss. That's not a good image. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@SerialNumber54129: OK. The sources say that some people criticize it as a cult but also says that there is no basis for that. You should not emphasize only the former. That is not a fact but a controversy. And it already appears on the controversy section. If they say it is a central information, it should be written as it is. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Thank you. Stream8 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stream8: Please revert your last edit while this discussion takes place. If you read WP:LEAD—which User:Bonadea has already directed you to in this edit summary—you will see that the introductory section must be an overall summary of the main contents of the article. Since the controversy section is so big, it is absolutely inadequate to have no mention of it all in the introduction. Unfortunately, just because one one does not approve of the contents of an article, one cannot remove whatever one likes. Incidentally, regarding my earlier question about your connection to the subject, what say you? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The cited sources support the statement that HS is "widely criticized as a cult". They do not in fact make any claim that there is "no basis for that"; in my opinion it would be fine to describe HS as a cult in Wikipedia's voice, but the article doesn't do that, it merely reports the well-sourced fact that it is described as such by other people. There are three(!) sources for that in the lede, even though the lede doesn't need sources as long as sources exist in the article - and they do, there are three or four additional sources that support the phrasing "widely criticized as a cult". Of course the HS leadership does not subscribe to that description, but that does not mean that the lede should include that viewpoint. Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean "represent every possible point of view with equal weight", it means "represent the mainstream, sourced viewpoints and do not give undue weight to minority or fringe viewpoints". There have been multiple previous attempts by multiple single-purpose accounts and IPs to remove the phrase from the from the lede and from the "Controversies" section. Because of that, I've made sure to read the sources carefully, so I am very confident that there is no policy-based reason to remove the text. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The source of the cult notation is inappropriate.

Dear people. The source of the cult notation lacks concrete examples that the science of happiness is a cult. It is only that someone said it was cult. The notation of cult is a strong word, so if you use it, you need to list more evidences that are cults and concrete examples. Since the case is lacking at this stage, should the cult notation be withdrawn once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, since there are multiple strong sources that clearly show that the religion you represent is characterised as a cult. Please read the discussions above, and also the multiple explanations you have received at Talk:Ryuho Okawa. Do you see that there is a difference between "X is a cult" and "Many people say that x is a cult"? --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Who is a lot of people? There are only quite limited number of opinions in the source. It can not be said that a lot of people. First we need concrete evidence if we call it a cult. Orugaberuteika (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The explanation was insufficient. Sorry. I will supplement it. A sentence appearing in a citations article is written that several people said "it is a cult." But this is not a lot of people. I think the following two points are necessary. ① How many people said it was a cult? Is it a number that can be called a lot of people? ② Which facts have we concluded that the science of happiness is cult? There is a lack of "specific facts" in this article. Articles lacking "specific facts" are less verifiable. Therefore it is inappropriate as a source article. First of all we need to find more objective and concrete facts. Otherwise, at least in the wiki, an expression of the extent of "there is something written with some articles in the article" is appropriate. "Widely criticized as a cult" is excessive. I have read the source article many times, but there is no objective, numerical or logical basis anywhere. It is said that other religious people do not like the science of happiness. . This is an ordinary story. It is natural to criticize people who believe in different religions. The important thing in editing WIKI is to find "objective, numerical, logical evidence" that the science of happiness is cult from this article. But there is no cult evidence anywhere in the article. "It is written that I thought that Mr. A was a cult, but the basis of the cult is not specified anywhere." If there is a part that describes the basis of the cult, please show it.I am waiting for your opinion.Orugaberuteika (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? There are six sources currently in the article that use the word "cult" to describe it (and if you have read the sources you'll be aware that multiple people and organisations are quoted in them) and one or two others who discuss it as such without using the exact term. The sources are publications from several different continents. Thus, it is a verifiable fact that it is "widely described as a cult". To avoid citation overload there is no reason to add even more sources, even though they are very easy to find. --bonadea contributions talk 14:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I was waiting for your opinion. The fact that some people say so is not a logical basis for being a cult. It is not objective. It is not logical either. It is not numerical either. It is very ambiguous. A more accurate cult basis is necessary. If this logic goes through, "If there are articles that criticized hundreds of any religion as a cult, it will become a cult," "Who said what, what a person called a cult, It is not an evidence. "It is a personal opinion, it is not grounds. We need objective grounds for why we call the science of happiness a cult. I am waiting for your opinion.Happiness science is an organization with 12 million believers. Therefore, some criticize. However, "I think that the science of happiness is a cult" and "The science of happiness is a cult" is another. Even if "the number of people who consider the science of happiness to be cult is large, the science of happiness is cult" is not the basis. What you need as an editor of WIKI is to find logical evidence that the science of happiness is a cult. The evidence is not written in the source. I think that the source is inappropriate. No matter how many people regard the science of happiness as a cult, it is not evidence that the science of happiness is cult. No matter how many articles it is, if it is just a opinion, it is only an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not evidence. What we need is to qualify as a source from among many articles that have the grounds to say that it is truly cults, if we can not make it out, ywe should not write in the article Is not it? What do you think？Thank you for reading it for the time being! Orugaberuteika (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The article does not say that it is a cult. --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sorry I do not understand a little. Do not write a cult in this article? Is not it not possible to write in Wikipedia that it is widely criticized as cult if it does not say cult? What kind of logic widely calls criticism as a cult? I am sorry for the questions only. If it says "It is not said to be a cult in this article" it is irrational to write this article as the basis and saying "widely criticized as cult". If it is written that "The science of happiness is cult in this article" is different, the sentence itself "this is widely criticized as cult" becomes inappropriate sentences. Is that something like that? I would like to know your opinion on what is written that this "widely criticized as cult" is written. I'd like to know the reason why it can be written as "Widely criticized as cult" while "this article is not written as cult".What is the meaning to write that being widely criticized as cult? Just if we do not judge anything and do not investigate grounds, collect articles that the happiness science is culty unilaterally, so if ywe put it in WIKI as it is, there is no point in discussion. There is no significance of existence of WIKI editor. It is only copying. Based on the source we need to consider whether widely criticized as the science of happiness is cult. And the definition of "widely" itself must also be accurate. The followers of happiness science is 12 million. On the other hand, can we write that it is widely criticized as a cult only by presenting some articles? More logical, objective, numerical grounds are necessary to judge it. I feel a one-sided intention in this article. I feel the desire to write badly more than necessary for organizations of happiness science. Especially when writing criticisms on Wikipedia, should we be more careful? Does it make sense to describe this matter more than having some people criticizing this cult? One sentence "that is widely criticized as a cult" has the same meaning as "being a cult". The way that it is widely criticized as cult is misleading the user. The responsibility for misunderstanding is with the editor of WIKI. We have a mission to write accurate articles. There is no benefit for WIKI to put wrong information on WIKI. People will not believe WIKI. Just do not do it as an editor of WIKI. Especially when criticizing someone, sufficient verification is necessary. There is no WIKI to slander people and organizations. And we should not write criticism on the basis of some opinions, which is not sufficiently validated. It is too risky to write such criticisms at the stage we do not have enough arguments to assert that the science of happiness is cult. It is inappropriate. we should be particularly cautious when writing criticisms. Is not this cult representation inappropriate at the present time?Thank you! I know that you are busy, but discussions are moving forward in your constructive opinion! Orugaberuteika (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is based on the fact that the word "article" is used about different things. The Wikipedia article says "is widely criticized as a cult". It does not say "is a cult". This is based on multiple source articles that say that it is a cult, and also that it is widely referred to as such. For this reason, it would be against Wikipedia policy to remove the text from the Wikipedia article. Does that make it clearer? --bonadea contributions talk 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:VNT might help explain this misunderstanding. Keahapana (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. However, as a rule of WIKI, there are things that need to pay particular attention when writing critical content.

First of all, is the sentence "widely criticized" appropriate? There is definitely a critical article. But can you describe it as "why" widely? This "wide" is ambiguous. What can you write "broad"?

Moreover, there will be people who are critical of any organization. There will be people who think it is a cult for any religious organization. For example, there may be people who think that Buddhism and Christianity are also cults in the world. But is there a necessity to dictate that there are people who are critical of the science of happiness as a special note on the top of the page? Is not this a neutral writing style? It is natural for all organizations that there are critical people. Some people dislike the Republican Party, others do not like the Democratic Party. It will have many criticisms. There will be criticism articles. But why do you need to dare write about that science of happiness?

Why are you dare writing here? It is necessary to clarify the reason. I want everyone to have an opinion. Thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Widely criticised as a cult" does not mean "is a cult". It means that a lot of what we call "reliable sources" have said that. And if they have, it has to be in the article. If it was just one person, it doesn't. Asking people why they dare write here suggests that they have no right to edit this article. Please don't do this again. The bottom line is that our articles reflect the views of sources that meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Just your answer has not answered my question. Although I have not answered, I can not accept that I will not propose. There are such criticisms dared. And it is not inappropriate to list on wiki only. This is neither included in both arguments. I thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, what is the basis for this broad word? It should be clarified, and if there are several articles, can it be said that it is wide? Just not only gathered some critical articles. It can be said that I gathered articles in a one-sided manner. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for everything, I understand that you are busy, but I want some kind of reply. In order to make WIKI better, we need your opinion. Thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear folks. I've been waiting since that, but I want some reply. If you do not participate in the discussion, please just let me know so. I am waiting. I'm begging you.Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Orugaberuteika. I'd like to know about a relation in happy science with you. It's very eager, but should oh be even called sticking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen love22 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion Do not post evaluations of some people at the top of the article.

There are various evaluations. Provide items on evaluation. It is fair and neutral. Sorunikusu (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this page should have Evaluation section? For what? It seems this org is not a movement but a religious group.Luckyaudrey (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be various opinions about this organization. And the evaluation has not been confirmed. The top of the article is a summary. It is non-neutral to describe some opinions in the overview. Establish a category of evaluation at the bottom of the article. I think that it is more appropriate to show that it is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. You are going to have to be more specific. "Category" doesn't make sense to me, for instance. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The explanation was insufficient. For example, create a descriptive column for evaluation like history and teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In comparison with other religions, this wiki page seems not well organized. Also, it looks like this is in the scope of WikiProject Japan, so I just compared with JP Wiki page.

• Teachings and Object of Worship should be merged into the one same contents, comparing it with other examples. It's redundancy.
• The first paragraph contains a text description, which should be moved to Controversy. "that has been characterized as a cult.[2][3][4]".
• Maybe it might be good to have ==Activities== category for wiki fellows and readers. It makes easy to update the recent events, such as, their movie being number one spot at the box office in Japan and widely known last year.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/THE-LAWS-OF-THE-UNIVERSE-PART-I-Takes-Number-One-Spot-in-Japan-20181016 Does it make sense to do? Luckyaudrey (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the introduction, which we call the lead, must summarise the article and any major issues. See WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller is right, and there is strong consensus among experienced editors who are not involved with Happy Science that the sentence belongs in the introduction. In addition, a section for the organisation to promote its own events would not be appropriate. The "number one spot" info can't be added to the article for three reasons: a) it is a trivial piece of information since it only refers to a single day in October last year, b) there are no independent sources verifying it (the link above is a press release), and c) there is no indication that it would even be relevant for this article. Happy Science isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is why using only English source is likely biased because information in Japanese lang is not reported or covered in English thoroughly.

https://www.cinematoday.jp/news/N0104390 https://eiga.com/news/20181022/17/ These news articles say the movie had been number one for two weeks(no a single day) in Japan market, which doesn't mean this movie is good or bad, or promotional. This is just a fact from a third party source. Also I suggested the poor content organization compared with EN and JP, but it seems like experienced editors like you don't feel like it needs updating, or there seem to be a strong opinion the page should not be improved. Anyway, I am just helping Japan related information on Wiki so that information is listed correctly!! Luckyaudrey (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing better sources. I think this might merit a brief mention even though the film itself doesn't appear to be notable, but would like to wait for more input. Regarding the other question, the structure of the article could be improved, but note that English Wikipedia has its own guidelines and policies, and we can't apply guidelines from other language versions to the articles here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I think that the current page is not summarized. how is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think is missing in the lead? --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for the argument being misaligned. The thing I want to say is that the cult notation at the top is only an opinion. It is non-neutral to post one opinion at the top. Cult representation is an opinion, not a definite fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. This is addressed at some length in the section above this one. --bonadea contributions talk 14:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the section above. The argument has ended somehow on the way. The agenda presented by me is not answered even if I read the above section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You have not presented any new questions or arguments that have not been exhaustively discussed above. As you can see, that discussion was ended but one person refused to accept that, and kept repeating the same thing over and over until they were blocked - that's not a discussion, it's disruption. Everything you have posted in this section has been directly answered in the section above, and it would be a huge waste of volunteer time to re-hash it again. We wasted months on it already. --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not know the existence of the argument then. Then, is it the rule of wiki that once decided it can not be discussed forever? Why was that person blocked? Also, what I am talking about is not to delete the cult notation, it is misleading to write assertively, which is different from the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. It was hard to understand. Cults are listed in the "Controversy" column. The top notation is unnecessary. I have not talked about whether this group is a cult. The top notation is non-neutral. I think that should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

By "Controversy column" you mean the section called "Controversy"? Yes, that is part of the article, and thus the main information presented there should be part of the introduction (the lead) as Doug Weller explained above. It would be against Wikipedia's guidelines for how articles are written to remove an important fact from the lead, and it is very neutrally written. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

yes There is no proof of the fact that it is a cult. That is only one opinion. It is different from an important fact. Of course, I read a quoted article. But it lacks clear evidence that it is a cult. Opinions are written in articles. But there is no evidence of cult. It does not change as a malicious person in happy science wrote a bad mouth. There is no problem to introduce that there are opinions. But I think it is non-neutral to acccribe it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk contribs) 13:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Answered, repeatedly and at length, in the section above and in this section. Please stop posting the same thing. It is becoming severely disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I of course read the discussion above. But, to this question you have not answered clearly. I want an answer. Please do not avoid the discussion. I do not want to fight with you. I just want to discuss. What is the basis for this group being a cult? It does not show it. There is an opinion in the citation source. But there is no basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea You sent me a message individually now. "If you discuss further, block it." That is strange. Let's not threaten to block. I want to discuss with you. If you are an administrator of wiki, please do not intimidate but continue the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Using sources

Could you please explain why this edit including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources were removed? Also, why someone criticizes this is PAID. Updating news source is PAID on Wiki? If you search Internet, these sources are available. Clear and logical explanation is required why all news sources were removed . Why is this conflict of interest ? Anyone can access internet news sources. Thank you, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Science&diff=prev&oldid=884166707 Akashi-ohashi (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you add information, it must a) be supported by the sources you provide (for instance, if a source should "she did this to try to get famous" you could of course not write "she got famous because she did this") and b) not be written as a promotional brochure for the organisation. Nobody has said a single word to you about being paid from what I can see, but as you obviously are involved with the organisation you should not edit the article directly, instead use this talk page to request edits. Please use the requested edit template which looks like this: {{Template:Requested edit}}. Remember that everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and some sources are not at all appropriate. Fox and Mirror are not prohibited, but they are generally very awful sources and we have to be very careful not to use them incorrectly. --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you are just saying based on your own assumption. There is no concrete explanation on why each item has to be removed. I didn't update like "someone did this to be famous"... Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Akashi-ohashi (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You updated exactly like that. One source said "“Stop the Hair Nudes” was staged to draw the public’s attention to this supposed indecency, and to win Kofuku-no-Kagaku credit for taking a moral stand", which you changed to "Through “stop the hair nudes!” campaign it gained the credit for taking a moral stand." Please read what I wrote above. Everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even if something is sourced it cannot be added in a promotional manner. Some of the information you added might be useful, if added in a neutral manner, but much of it is not. We have the info now and uninvolved editors can see about editing the article to add it as appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems you didn't reply to these questions yet.

>Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Thanks,Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I examined the entire edit carefully. None of the entries was appropriate as written. My opinion on Fox and Mirror is that they are generally awful, and many people agree with me here. However, Wikipedia allowes the (responsible) use of these sources and the revert of your edit had nothing to do with the fact that you used those two sources. My comment was a reply to your "including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources", something of a tangent and not directly related to the edit I made. --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Akashi-ohashi: you haven't admitted that you misused a source. The bit about translations isn't significant enough to include unless discussed (not just stated) by several independent reliable sources. Ditto the 6 new books. We need the Guinness source itself for the Guinenss claim. "Weird news" sections aren't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please list why each item is not appropriate? How should we rewrite it? Deleting information with the clear source must be carefully examined and improved. Thanks! Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done that. To see the policy basis read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. It should be obvious that we need a Guinness source, anyone can claim they've got a Guinness record. It's also obvious that "weird news" sections fail WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the religion section

section and rfc started by sockpuppet, now blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it important fact or opinion that "happy science is cult?" Sorunikusu (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) It is an important and very well-sourced fact that it is a widely held opinion. Drop the stick, please. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you. But your opinion has no basis yet.I say that it is an opinion because there is no concrete, quantitative basis anywhere in the quotation source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) That's not how we deal with sources. If you think they fail WP:RS you can ask at WP:RSN. See also this source. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I read your source, which labels new religions as cults. That book was supposedly written in 2003? Today Happy Science has centers throughout the world and is accepted by many, maybe more than would define it as a cult. Are there any actual numbers to substantiate the claim that it is a cult, or is the wiki article's statement based only on the opinions of a few opinion piece newspaper articles and an almanac? Enscion (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The Gay Science

Reprinted from User talk:Cadenza025

[Copypasted discussion removed]

A search on Google Scholar shows that The Gay Science has 19,700 hits, The joyful Wisdom has 845 hits, and The Joyous Science has only 186 hits. Even though the translation of The Joyous Science and Happy Science are similar, it is unlikely to be confused with The Gay Science itself. Cadenza025 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Another, more useful piece of evidence I found was that The Joyous Science had only 25 views in the past, while The Gay Science had 846,086 views. If the hatnote is needed for a mere 0.003% of views, then, as mentioned earlier, a hatnote for The Gay Science is needed for all other branches of the sciences. The evidence is here (snapshot).

--Cadenza025 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: If you still think the hatnote is necessary, please feel free to explain why after you have added The Gay Science hatnote to each article about science. Thanks,--Cadenza025 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the copypasted content again. The best way to refer to a previous discussion held elsewhere is to provide a link leading straight to that discussion; I have now done so above. If there are any posts that you made here after copying the content, feel free to restore them. There are situations where it is appropriate to move other users' posts to a different page, but there is no reason to do so when a discussion is simply continued elsewhere. Please respect requests from your fellow editors when they ask you not to move their posts to another page. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I respect your request. I've restored only my own comments that only exist on this page. So please don't remove the evidence to refute you. If there is a policy that allows such behavior, please indicate it. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversy

Maybe these should be added to `Controversy` too. I'd like to hear from you fellow editors. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In 1996, Kodansha, one of the largest publishers in Japan, published a defamatory article about the construction of a religious facility by Happy Science.[1] Happy Science filed a lawsuit, and the court questioned two witnesses, including the reporter, who pointed out in detail that there were various questions about the statements; in 2000, the Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of Happy Science, finding that the article was not based on facts.[2][3]

[1] Shūkan Gendai January 1996
[2] Tokyo District Court Judgment of July 18, 2000, Case No. (Wa) 876 of 1997, claiming damages.
[3] Tokyo High Court Decision of May 31, 2001, Case No. (Ne) 4367 of 2000, appeal for compensation for damages.

In 2007, Shukan Shincho (magazine) published an article titled "Happy Science is intimidating and terrorizing elementary school principals and PTA presidents.[4] As a result of a lawsuit filed by Happy Science, the court ruled that the content of the article was neither true nor that there were reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.[5]

[4] Shukan Shincho, New Year's special issue on January 4 and 11, 2007
[5] Tokyo District Court Decision of October 1, 2008

In 2012, Bungeishunjū has published an article claiming that there were female problems in this organization.[6] Happy Science filed a lawsuit claiming that it was false. The court found Bungeishunjū responsible for publishing the defamatory article with no basis in fact, and ordered it to pay damages and publish a full-page apology advertisement in the magazine. On February 5, 2013, in an apology ad, Bungeishunjū stated that "all of which were contrary to the facts."[7]

[6] Shūkan Bunshun, July 19, 2012 issue, released on July 5, 2012
[7] Apology advertisement, http://justice-irh.jp/docs/20150205_bunshun-apology.pdf

Are there any secondary independent sources covering these lawsuits? Otherwise this is original research based on primary sources (court cases and the “controversial” articles themselves). Politanvm ^talk 13:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any media that can cover this kind of evil of theirs. The article is seriously lacking in neutrality. Is there any way to source court cases? Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the organisation "evil" even if they have been involved in some very controversial activities. Anyway, notable court cases are very often covered in secondary sources: newspapers, academic papers, books, documentary films. The only coverage I find of any of these court cases in English-language media is a brief mention in this article, which has no details but does say "... its five-year court battle against Kodansha, a major Japanese publishing company that had dared to publish an article in one of its magazines which was seen as insulting to Okawa." I'm guessing that is the first of your examples above. We couldn't add any details that are not in the secondary source, but a mention of the fact that the group has engaged in litigation against news media might be relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I’ll think about this. Thank you for finding it, bonadea. —Cadenza025 (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The opinion on The Jakarta Post

Happy_Science#cite_note-thejakartapost-4 (Happy Science, a new cult offers celebrity guide to heaven / (the original)) As is obvious to all, this anonymous source is clearly unreliable. Please only comment if you disagree with it, if not, we will move on. Regards, --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is "we", and what does "we will move on" mean? It is not at all obvious why you consider it to be an unreliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 05:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the source is an opinion piece, which isn’t reliable for statements of fact. Opinion pieces can be used sparingly if the viewpoint is clearly attributed to the author, but this opinion piece has no author. Politanvm ^talk 06:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the statement it supports is that HS has been characterised as a cult by media in Indonesia. Context always matters. --bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Context always matters. Reliability always matters too. It's not that one takes precedence over the other. If we disregard the reliability of our sources, Wikipedia will lose its reliability as an encyclopedia. We are not playing word games. Please clarify your own opinion on whether the source is reliable or not. --Cadenza025 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"we" means the people involved in editing the page, "we will move on" means "we will take down this source". So you think the source is reliable, right? Is there anyone else? --Cadenza025 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will remove the source within 24 hours. --Cadenza025 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not do that. This is an ongoing discussion, and there is no urgency. And it is clearly not the case that there is no objection! There has been a fairly extensive sourcing discussion, which you can read in the talk page archive, Talk:Happy_Science/Archive_1; as you can see, there is a general consensus among experienced editors with no connection to HS, in favour of the existing sourcing. Following Politavm's comment above I am on the fence about this, but it requires more thought and input. Repeated talk page posts requesting reactions from other editors, demanding a particular kind of reaction, or setting a deadline, have a chilling effect on the discussion. There are six million other articles on Wikipedia, and so far you have only edited articles about this topic; this means that it would be better if you left controversial edits such as this one to more experienced editors. If you want other opinions on the Jakarta Post source, you can always post to the Reliable Sources noticeboard about it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Link to RSN discssion --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve made the edit suggested by Austronesier in the discussion, but welcome any further refinements, as I don’t have that much experience using explanatory footnotes. Politanvm ^talk 04:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I object to Politanvm's heavy-handed editing without a rational refutation of the two points: the context makes it likely that WaPo's reference to cult is a quote from the NYT (at least, we can't rule out that possibility), and the NYT's reference to cult is a quote from JT. In context, it is highly likely that the "international media" WaPo is describing is referring to the NYT, and this should not be mentioned.As the text clearly shows, in fact, the relevant part of WaPo is a summary of the NYT article. This isn't just a play on words, because it's very important, please provide clear evidence that WaPo does not actually refer to the NYT, not your wishful thinking. --Cadenza025 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Politanvm – that looks good, and is clearly backed up by a very strong consensus. I moved the references from the lead to the explanatory note. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind, looks good now. –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Asagei

[22] 清水富美加と結婚させられそうになった！？大川隆法長男「独白」報道の衝撃 (2019年2月21日) https://www.excite.co.jp/news/article/Asagei_122169/

@Politanvm @Bonadea This source "Asagei" is Japanese gossip magazine (WP:QUESTIONABLE). Why do you accept the credibility of this gossip magazine? Also, this source cites the contents of an article in Shūkan Bunshun(週刊文春), which is the currently pending in court with the organization. Isn't there a risk that this falls under WP:BIASED? What's more, Shukan Bunshun has published court-ordered apology ads in the past for publishing false articles. Moreover, starting from the next page of the apology ad, they even made a four-page excuse for ignoring the judiciary. If you are involved in the editing of this article, could you please clarify why you are leaving such problematic sources in place. --Cadenza025 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In the judgment, the court ordered that "Shukan Bunshun should apologize because it wrote a false article and hurt Happy Science and hearts of its believers," and although it rescinded the article and apologized, immediately afterwards it said, "But that article is correct," and wrote again the contents of the article without any facts, doubly hurting Happy Science and its believers. Please explain where exactly you feel the credibility of these media is. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Asagei is only cited for the time when Hiroshi Okawa left Kōfuku no Kagaku, the rest is supported by the NYT, a reliable source. Yes, Asagei is a crappy source and should not be included here. Does anyone cling to the explicit mention of "October 2018"? If so, we indeed need a better source. –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that the only reason? Isn't the fact that Bunshun is the other party in the dispute also a reason? You can find the source here. 最高裁で「幸福の科学」勝訴確定、「週刊文春」に損害賠償と謝罪広告命令 --Cadenza025 (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone cling to the explicit mention of "October 2018"? No, I don't think it's necessary to include that detail. --bonadea contributions talk 11:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The above source indicates that there is a dispute between Bunshun and HappySciense, and I am putting it up to let you know about it. I'm not asking you to cite it. I think it is natural for information sent out by a disputed party to be biased, don't you agree? If you can't admit that, then I have to say that you have a problem with a neutral point of view. −−Cadenza025 (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, I would like the above question to be answered by three people from Politanvm Austronesier Bonadea. −−Cadenza025 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

You took the pains to distribute the discussion over four sections. This section is called "Asagei", and we have discussed Asagei, no? –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

To recap, Asagei's article cites Bunshun's article, and since Bunshun is in court with HappySciense, that means there will be bias in its content. It asks three people if they agree with this very simple statement. Do you agree or not? If you don't agree with this question, then you are not neutral. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reduced the number of items, but there are still many problems with this article.--Cadenza025 (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. To recap, the only information cited from Asagei not found in other sources was "October 2018". Since this is of peripheral interest, I have removed it. And since no other information was extracted from the Asagei article, all other points are moot. Bunshun itself might merit a separate discussion, but not in the context of the Asagei source. –Austronesier (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this article adhere to NPOV?

I have read the history of this article. There are some things that can be called into question regarding the neutrality of this article. It appears that this article has editorial bias - it seems to "take sides". Breaking this rule is against one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. While many of the edits have focused on guaranteeing one of the other principles - verifiability, it seems to have been at the expense of promoting a one-sided opinion of the subject, which is definitely against the rules. Also, many of the articles cited are outdated considering that pertinent developments are ongoing. In other words, there are many opinions sourced from current events or passing knowledge of the subject, and it is questionable whether they can be considered as reliable sources. I hope someone is reasonable enough to discuss this without closing the issue. If it is done so immediately, which seems happen quite often on this page, it will only prove that it really is not NPOV as I have made a thoughtful request here. I have quite a few issues I'd like to discuss, as I have reviewed 10 years of edits on this article. Enscion (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Do discuss then here. Zezen (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Enscion. The article is:

• Cites as an unbiased source media articles that are in the midst of a legal battle with the organization.
• Cites as sources only the claims of entities with conflicts of interest in the organization
• Cites sources that have obvious false information about the topic
• Draws a single conclusion from a collection of these sources and includes it in the lead sentence
• Suspected COI in users taking editorial initiative

Despite presenting these problems, it continues to use clearly inadequate sources and lacks a neutral point of view. --Cadenza025 (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The POV tag I added was reverted by Bonadea, who is himself a suspected COI user.

1. Is there a clear Wikipedia policy that prohibits tagging by WP:COI users? If there are neutral users, it would be helpful if you could indicate the policy.

2. Is it allowed for COI users to revert tags that others have added?

--Cadenza025 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

kakaku.com generated contents (from Bunshun)

[23] "価格.com - 「大川宏洋」に関連する情報 | テレビ紹介情報" https://kakaku.com/tv/search/keyword=%E5%A4%A7%E5%B7%9D%E5%AE%8F%E6%B4%8B/?act=input

@Politanvm @Bonadea This source is just an automatically-aggregated content. Also, the sentence is taken from Shūkan Bunshun. (WP:BIASED). And, Shūkan Bunshun is gossip magazine too (WP:QUESTIONABLE). I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but can you please explain why this is also being allowed to go unattended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenza025 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The remaining disputed content was added here[1]. Apart from the reliability issue of these sources which has been raised: does this gossipish stuff have sufficient WP:due weight for inclusion here? It's a personal issue and IMO of peripheral interest in an article about a new religious movement. –Austronesier (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm @Bonadea @Austronesier Bungeishunjū, a major Japanese media, has a history of court cases with Happy Science, and is still in the midst of a legal battle, so its content can be biased. Would you agree to this? I think it is obvious that you guys want to keep the biased articles, which is not neutral.　--Cadenza025 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: This sentence should be removed In an interview with Shūkan Bunshun in February 2019, Hiroshi said even though he was brought up in the faith, he had never viewed his father as a god. Hiroshi also said he left Happy Science because he felt pressured by his father to marry Fumika Shimizu, and his refusal to do so had angered his father. Happy_Science#cite_note-23
• Why it should be changed: It's taken from the Shūkan Bunshun, a Japanese media that is in court with the topic (WP:BIASED).
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): (Japanese, translation below)

"On Friday, January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled in favor of our organisation in a lawsuit against Bungeishunju, the publisher of Shukan Bunshun, and a former believer (Mr. Osamu Tanemura) for damages for seriously damaging his reputation with a headline and article that had no basis in fact. This judgment confirmed that the article based on Mr. Tanemura's statement in the July 19, 2012 issue of the Shukan Bunshun was a complete fabrication and contrary to the facts." --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I don't think it is entirely irrelevant, but there might be some undue detail there. The basic facts as described in the NYT and Vice refs should be enough – I'll go ahead and remove the stuff that's sourced to kakaku.com. --bonadea contributions talk 08:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Diverse attestations of usage of the term "cult"

Vice

A Japanese Cult That Believes Its Leader Is an Alien From Venus Is Speaking at CPAC

@Politanvm This article says It also includes the political head of a Japanese religious cult that promotes nationalism, xenophobia and the belief that its leader is the reincarnation of an alien from Venus who created life on earth millions of years ago. But he has nothing to do with Happy Science. It was over ten years ago that he was the head of HRP, for only two weeks. The other things it says are also bullshit. Could you please explain where do you find credibility in this article, which is written as if it were the current head? --Cadenza025 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that. You said There’s no reason to believe WaPo is only talking about the NYT article that quotes JT. Other non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult in their own words, including Vice and The Daily Beast among the others already cited in the Wikipedia article. I would be grateful for your opinion. Why did you trust that article? --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Independent

[19] Japanese cult representative is speaking for the 10th year in a row at CPAC
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cpac-japanese-cult-leader-hrioaki-jay-aeb-b1808229.html

Just like Vice, this article also states that On the same day the Conservative Political Action Conference rolled a literal golden idol of Donald Trump onto the floor, a representative for a Japanese cult - whose leader is viewed is a messianic figure from the planet Venus - will address the crowd for the tenth year in a row.

As mentioned earlier, he was the head of HRP for only two weeks, more than ten years ago. This is a clear mistake, even though it should be obvious with a little research, and it is evidence that they have not done their due diligence. @Politanvm @Bonadea: Could you tell me why you found this article to be trustworthy?

Comments

Do we include any statements from Vice and The Independent in this article in Wikivoice? No. We do not even cite them individually. We present them as easily verifiable attestations (wikt:attestation, definition 4) of usage of the term "cult" in international media. So why do you even ask whether we "trust" Vice and The Independent in this context? This is once again a fallacy and an implicit straw argument. We trust the Washington Post (and do even more so after an effortless web search for attestations), and that's why we paraphrase it Wikivoice here. –Austronesier (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that the article itself could be wrong? So you don't accept the credibility of the article because it has nothing to do with the context you have to prove here? -Cadenza025 (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What do I admit? Which article? Please specify. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy_Science#cite_note-22 These media. Am I correct in assuming that you only checked for the presence of the word "cult" and not the authenticity of the article itself? Because you only need to trust the WaPo and not check the credibility of other articles, right? --Cadenza025 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This question is leading nowhere (because we have already explained it to you at length at RSN), right? –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

COI disclosure

Unproductive, nonsensical digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm a Happy Science believer, so I think I fall under COI as I disclosed by myself here. This is about my "ideology". By the way, the idea of Happy Science and modern philosophical thought such as Nietzsche's are incompatible. In fact, Happy Science has mentioned that Nietzsche was an atheist and that he has been trapped in hell for the sin of leading many astray by saying things like "God is dead". @bonadea is a philosopher, as he himself discloses, and his insistence on putting hatnote on Nietzsche's writings makes me suspect that he is devoted to Nietzsche's ideas. This is probably why he insists on Happy Science being treated as a "cult" and why he wants to show that the organization is controversial by collecting various kinds of information. If my "ideology" qualifies as a COI, then anyone who is devoted to the "ideology" of modern philosophers such as Nietzsche clearly has a COI with Happy Science. This is because modern philosophy does not recognize the existence of spiritual things and is at odds with such ideas. This is not meaningless speculation, etc. It is a fact that modern philosophical thought that denies spirituality, not only Nietzsche's, is incompatible with the thought advocated by Happy Science. Probably, he'll deny it, but unless the profile he has published is false, we can say that he has a clear conflict of interest in his Ideology. Therefore, I hereby raise Bonadea's conflict of interest allegations. I'm not here to glorify or promote this organization. I just want to reveal the whole truth. That is why I am honestly revealing my position, even if it is to my disadvantage. So I hope that Bonadea will be honest as well. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC) New posts should be placed at the bottom of the page, not the top – see the talk page guidelines. Secondly, I am not a philosopher, nor do I pretend to be one. Thirdly, please take a look at your user talk page, where the hatnote issue is explained – again, it has nothing to do with the content of the book by Nietzsche. Fourthly, there is a very handy template to use when referring to another user by a pronoun: if you type {{pronoun|username}} (replacing "username" with the name of the user you are referring to), the user's preferred pronoun will be used, if they have specified it. Users who have not specified a preferred pronoun will be referred to as "they". Next, thank you for disclosing your COI. And finally, you have already been advised on your user talk page to avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. --bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC) It is only deceitful to state that you hold a degree in philosophy, but have nothing to do with philosophy. It would be like me advocating that I have nothing to do with Happy Science, even though I have studied the teachings of Happy Science. If your argument stands, then I'm not a COI too. --Cadenza025 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I have not pretended to hold a degree in philosophy. I was hoping you might want to double-check your claim, but since you are doubling down on it instead: Doctor of Philosophy is the name of an academic degree given in a range of subjects, most of which have nothing to do with philosophy. This talk page is not the right place to discuss this or any other topic unrelated to the article Happy Science, so this will be my final comment on this. --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Bonadea What a surprise, a Doctor of Philosophy is a degree that can be awarded without studying any philosophy. I did not know that. Please forgive my ignorance. However, I will check with your employer to see if this is a common practice. I would like to confirm that your statement that "Doctor of Philosophy is the name of an academic degree given in a range of subjects, most of which have nothing to do with philosophy" is a bit vague, so just to be sure, am I correct in understanding that "a doctor of philosophy does not study philosophy at all"? All of this is an important discussion regarding your COI allegations. It is never irrelevant. --Cadenza025 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC) No, this is the wrong approach. If you aware of your limitations, do overcome them first. Make use of WP and other easily available online source for that purpose. Don't hassle about the the term "Doctor of Philosophy" if you are not familiar with its usage. –Austronesier (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Why is the person who gave me a third party opinion on RS/N in such a hurry? Do you have any connection with Bonadea? This section has been renamed COI disclosure, so if you have something to add, could you please disclose it? --Cadenza025 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Cadenza25, if you have evidence that Bonadea, Austronesier, or myself have some conflict of interest, please share it. Otherwise, please stop leading all of us in circles. We are here to discuss improvements to a Wikipedia article, not to debate the subject of the article. None of us are connected by anything other than an interest in improving Wikipedia in accordance with its policies and guidelines. Politanvm talk 15:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Cadenza025, read WP:COI well. Philosophy is not an organization. And your wild chain of association "Happy Science > Nietzsche > philosophy in general > people who hold a PhD degree" in order to construe a COI of someone apparently perceived as your opponent is beyond anything which you have delivered here so far yet. Your statement I just want to reveal the whole truth is an indication that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)