This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
First, I know my anonymous address detracts from my credibility. I'm honestly not a sock-puppet or otherwise need to hide my identity, it's just that I used to waste too much time editing so I got rid of my account to curb the habit. I'm also not an anti-Scientology (let along an anti-New Religious Movement) activist, although I've read a lot of the journalistic commentary on the Church and my opinion of it is generally negative. I saw this new book in the "new acquisitions" shelf of my university library, checked it out, and read it. I was struck by the apologetic tone of the book. J. Gordon Melton's overview of the Church's history, in particular, reads almost like a PR account. Throughout the book, discussions of the Church's payment policy for auditing are brief and offhand and don't contextualize it comparatively, i.e. they do not note that few if any other churches charge so much money so their essential religious rituals. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, for instance, expects a significant financial commitment from members, but they can still participate in all aspects of the Church (including, if I'm not mistaken, Temple rituals) while declining to contribute money. Almost none of the book's essays, furthermore, refer to the Church of Scientology's aggressive and explicit policy of suing critics. The well-researched article by James Richardson on "Scientology in Court," for instance, ignores that subject to concentrate exclusively on the Church's struggles for religion status in various countries. And Anson Shupe's chapter on "The Church of Scientology versus the Cult Awareness Network" seems to take clear sides in favor of the Church. I do not for an instant question NRM scholars' good faith, but I suspect that the nature of the research, beginning from an explicit (and appropriate, for scholarly research) posture of non-judgment, can slide towards apologetics -- especially since the Church makes an effort to win scholars' good will, as it does with celebrities. I wish that researchers would be scrupulous about declaring any financial support for their research from the Church (including paying travel costs and subsidizing conferences). The situation, I suspect, is similar to that of medical researchers who overtime become more or more compromised by the support for their research provided by pharmaceutical companies. I intend this comment in the spirit of honest discussion, and would be interested in others' opinions on it. I'm cross-posting it to other relevant talk pages. 152.160.39.70 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am James R. Lewis. I am a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin and I am published by the best academic presses, such as Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. The fact that I provide neutral, scholarly information on controversial topics has caused people to attack me, most often in an 'anonymous' fashion. Wikipedia should require individuals who attack other people in their entries to identify themselve and to provide documented evidence of accusations.ProfLewis (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)James R. Lewis
"The scholars' [well-intentioned, but unjustified](removed fluff) defence of Aum Shinrikyo led to a crisis of confidence in religious scholarship" Seriously? Every religious scholar everywhere suffered a "crisis of confidence" due to this? I suspect that the crisis was a little more focused that that. AndroidCat (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I added a section to the article about the criticism on Dr. Lewis' work. This was removed by ResidentAnthropologist with the following message on my user page:
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to James R. Lewis (scholar). Thank you.
Here's the removed section:
Lewis is a proponent of the view that critical former members ("apostates") of new religious movements are unreliable sources on the movements teachings and practice, based on work done on deprogramming.[1][2] Having been a member of the yoga related 3HO and later formed his own breakaway group, he has been accused of downplaying abuse in various groups.[1] Particularly his relationship with Scientology has lead to sharp criticism from the anti-Scientology movement.[3]
Considering Lewis work in one of (if not the) most controversial fields of religious studies, I thought it relevant to put in a section of both the scientific and public criticism of his work, similar to that on Melton. I hope ResidentAnthropologist or others would help me make this section acceptable. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Where we link to his "publications list", the list here is a bit of a waste. Collect (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James R. Lewis (scholar). 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) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James R. Lewis (scholar). 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) 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James R. Lewis (scholar). 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) 06:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Is he? The article does not say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)