Talk:On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Authors' previous political affiliations

Hi - I notice that an anon user has added information on the authors' previous membership of some of the groups about which they were writing, while other users have removed that information. Personally, I can see the relevance of a brief mention of the authors' prior experience of the field about which they wrote. Could someone who feels that it is irrelevant give a bit more information as to why they feel it should not be in the article? thanks, Warofdreams talk 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before that information is added here, it should first be added to the articles about the authors themselves. Then, when stable and cited by reputable secondary sources in the proper formatting, a brief mention from those articles may be added here. Smee 05:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- See the article on Tim Wohlforth, the biographical information has been there for a long time and is stable and I've just sourced it. Sheffield Steelworker 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a great stable book article that another Administrator once recommended to me: Ishmael (novel) - Check it out and see how much there is in that article of biographical information about the author. To my knowledge I have never edited that article. Smee 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - I think the question is whether the biographical information is relevant to the subject of the book. Clearly, much of the author's lives are not relevant. However, if they were member of two of the groups which they detail in the book, that is relevant and interesting. Warofdreams talk 16:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, the book you mentioned was a novel and it's hard to see how the author's life would be relevent. Compare to Advise_and_Consent, an article on a political novel, where the author's anti-Communist background is discussed. Clearly, when the author's life or activity relates to the subject matter of the book it is acceptable to discuss these details. This is particularly the case here were both authors write about organizations that they were active members in. Sheffield Steelworker 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael (novel) could be said to be a political book of sorts as well. And I'm not saying that there should be no biographical info about the authors in the article, just that we should not focus so so heavily on that, and maybe have a sentence or two of description per author. Smee 19:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I have added back in the brief bit on the Authors, however this bit seems to be almost POV pushing, but I'll allow it for now until/unless others object... Smee 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added the fact that Wohlforth wrote a memoir of American Trotskyism and that the Workers League was affiliated with Healey's WRP. Since four of the leaders of political groups profiled in the book, including the WRP, were Trotskyists, or came out of (or were influenced by) Trotskyism, this information is directly relevant.--Dking 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth adding this link to Indymedia Ireland (which is to a long debate about this book):

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60690&search_text=cwi

Rosa Lichtenstein 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Scientology

The article only mentions Scientology as one of a list of groups covered in the book. No other information on it is given. I know that in the USA some Scientologists support the Republicans (Sonny Bono), and some support the Democrats (Tom Cruise, I think). I doubt that Scientology is a political cult. Steve Dufour 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are right. Scientology is not a political cult. Although I don't have a copy of On the Edge in front of me, it would appear from the T of C and index (only two page references) available at Amazon that Scientology is only mentioned marginally. I am removing it from the list of organizations profiled in On the Edge.--Dking 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*15 citations, one image. Smee 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Substituted at 02:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)