Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altered texts in Scientology doctrine

Altered texts in Scientology doctrine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Title is not neutral point of view. The changes in text could have been from Scn Founder, if relevant it can be merged with Golden Age of Knowledge which is the official name for reissue of Scientology materials Leocomix 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete As the nominator pointed out the title of the article itself is POV. Besides that, the article itself is basically original research. Older and newer texts of Scientology publications are put side by side to show that they have been "altered". Steve Dufour 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV in the fundamental premise of the article. The text in the books have verifiably been changed, and the cited sources are the books themselves. Now, analysis of the ramifications and meaning of the changes might be POV, but that can be dealt with in editing - we don't nominate articles for deletion over content disputes. wikipediatrix 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The solution for what you allege is not to delete, but to source. What you describe is not original research. Plus this topic is getting more and more important, now that David Miscavige altered the scientology texts once again a few weeks ago. --Tilman 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Mr. Miscavige. But WP is not the place to expose his misdeeds. Steve Dufour 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the point of the article that Dave did it. The point is that it was done. --Tilman 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourced to apparently reliable third parties, including Gene Zimmer, who seems to be an accepted and widely published authority on doctrinal Scientology matters. The solution to NPOV issues is to fix them, not to delete the article. JulesH 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV pushingBalloonman 18:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
All of the sources quoted seem to be websites pushing one side or another of the controversy. Are there any neutral sources that even recognize the controversy exists? Steve Dufour 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This article denigrates religions that feature alien-posession. LONG LIVE HIS GREATNESS GALUMPTEL FLUBERNAUSS OF THETICON VII  !!!!1!! ~ Infrangible 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This is actually a dispute between two factions of alien believers. Steve Dufour 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • not for AfD this is an editing problem. We do not delete articles because of POV disputes. especially because of POV disputes between what would appear to be different tendencies internal within a movement. DGG (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
But the dispute is over if the topic exists or not. Steve Dufour 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there have been alterations, of course the topic exists. Any dispute is over the reasons for the alterations, which should be worked out in the article. AndroidCat 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The mainstream of Scientology, that is the Church of Scientology, says that there have not been alterations. They say they were just following Hubbard's instructions. If the article is not deleted it should at least be renamed. Steve Dufour 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I think they have been altered. I am not an expert on these things however. Steve Dufour 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Someone could write an article on "Altered Texts in the King James Bible" by comparing the first edition with a modern edition. However, I don't think it would last long on WP. Steve Dufour 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per above comment - Of course, religious literature is altered from one edition to the next, and so are the meanings etc... What is this trying to prove? Should we have a article which lists all the differences between the guttenberg bible and the latest edition? Corpx 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC) - Changed to Neutral Corpx 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's too bad that Wiki actually has pages about the differences in various Bibles. Maybe they should be nominated for deletion too? Bible errata#KJV AndroidCat 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep As above, WP does have articles on the different translations and textual variants of the Bible. In response to Corpx, that's why we don't just have the Bible article - we have Gutenberg Bible, Bible translations, Masoretic text, Septuagent, Tanakh at Qumran and dozens of others. Though in this article "altered texts" is probably fine as is, but if it absolutely can't be accepted, at least change the name to something like "updated texts". This is a valuable article and ought not to be vanished because of such a comparatively small objection. Vonspringer 06:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
How about "Variant texts", then, which is a phrase that recurs in many religious articles? wikipediatrix 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Variant texts would be a great improvement, if you can establish that that is a notable topic. Steve Dufour 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, I think it would be a good variant article title. ;) Vonspringer 03:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The neutrality of this article is highly suspect, as it makes very weak claims that these changes are viewed suspiciously by "some" Scientologists (always a red light, wording like that), and is sourced, really, only by Scientology watchdog sites that have a bone to pick. Plus the St. Petersburg Times, which seems to be unusually focused on Scientology, but in this case, the source barely relates. This level of sourcing gives the strong impression that this is OR and this article is a mouthpiece of watchdog sites. In theory, this might be a viable topic, but comparing this to articles on Bible errata is not reasonable, given the popular importance of the bible vs. these various Scientology texts. Mangojuicetalk 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is simply not true. At least one of the sources is a practicing scientologist. That he disagrees with the official line of the Church of Scientology does not make him a "Scientology watchdog site", whatever that may be. JulesH 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that it's a private website, with no editorial reputation we can count on, and as it exists to serve a related issue, its independence is also a problem. Maybe "watchdog site" isn't accurate, but the quality of the source is still a big problem. Mangojuicetalk 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per user:Vonspringer Thanks Taprobanus 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete somewhat insignificant, unsourced and POV pushing. Makoshack 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, if for no other reason than the nominator's rationale is quite incoherent. There is no POV in the fundamental premise of the article. The text in the books have verifiably been changed, and the cited sources are the books themselves. wikipediatrix 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To my understanding of the concept, putting two versions of a text next to each other (as the article does) and saying, "Look! The words have been changed!" is the essence of original research. Not that it's a bad thing to do, outside of WP. Steve Dufour 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
the excessive detail there is indeed a problem, but an editing problem. The polemics of the factions are the secondary sources. DGG (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My rationale is not incoherent. I'll assume good faith from the doubters and explain it here for their sake and for the sake of those who are not familiar with Scientology terminology. The word 'altered' in Scientology terminology is not neutral but has a specific connotation of "not going by the source material" ("off-Source" in their language). 'Source' itself is defined as L. Ron Hubbard in their dictionary. So 'altered' does not just mean 'changed' but 'changed contrary to the intention of the Founder.' However, Hubbard himself revised (sometimes continuously) his own writings but none of those revisions are called 'alterations' within the movement. They are "in-Source." The title is a biased POV (from former Scientologists, especially Freezoners) because it already assumes that these changes are 'alterations' instead of 'revisions' (the word Hubbard used when he changed a text). From my own experience as a past Scientology editor, virtually all the changes mentioned in the article are from Hubbard. I also happen to have contacted another past editor (working in the unit preparing the texts) who confirmed there were no 'alterations,' i.e. no rewriting of the text by others. --Leocomix 22:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation of your explanation is still not so coherent to me. And your own personal experience as a Scientology editor is not relevant to Wikipedia articles, as per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. wikipediatrix 22:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Although Lecomix's personal experience is not admissible here, his point that "Altered texts ..." is not a neutral title remains valid. "Variant texts" would be a neutral statement as is normally used in literary and scriptural studies , but "altered" implies deliberate changes. The claim that L.Ron Hubbard's writings were knowingly altered by the Church is central to the Freezoners' rationale; it is contentious, a partisan issue that must be treated with care to maintain a NPOV. The exploration of textual variants in the publications of L.Ron Hubbard would be an interesting study (generations of academics might build careers on it, as with works of other famous authors) that could become the subject of a Wikipedia article once it had been written up and published in secondary sources. But the page under discussion is OR because it consists mainly of Wikipedia editors' comparison of quotes selected from the texts in question with the purpose of demonstrating their contention that alterations have been made. DavidCooke 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal experience may not count but the contention that there have been "alterations" is not proven. The mere fact or statement that there are variants does not establish the existence of alterations. None of those who pretend they exist can put forth a document to the contrary (like an affidavit from an ex-member that such is happening). In addition, the opening segment of the article doesn't even care to reference the Scientology text that states that the "the word of LRH is incontrovertible." The article (before I started to revise it) also omitted to mention 1. that Hubbard used to revise his own texts, 2. that he left editing instructions that can be found in the publicly available OEC volumes. --Leocomix 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Well-sourced. May need some NPOV cleanup, but that is an issue for editors.--Fahrenheit451 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Or, at the very least, delete the section that makes comparison, as it is OR. If the article is kept, I agree that the title needs to be changed to make it more NPOV.HubcapD 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is a before and after documented page. Altered is a before and after. No need to delete unless the before and after meaning of altered is not factual. Looking a little more into this area I found that in most Scientology promotion material the central thread is that all organizations sell a standard LRH technology. If it was knowingly altered then the advertising would be fraud. It is very important to the Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) to have this page knock out as it is documented evidence of this Scientology advertising fraud. It is OSA's job to go after material like this. This page needs to remain and stand as factual evidence. There probably should be nothing in it except dates and before and after materials to show what changed. The hair splitting over calling it altered or variant is silly. It probably should be called evidence of fraudulent advertising, which would be a proper legal description. ThomasPaine12323:18, 2007 July 27 (UTC)

Still Delete. The church claims that the changes have been made according to their founder instructions and that any previous version was either a mistake introduced by an editor or transcriber or a datum that Hubbard revised himself. What you propose is not an encyclopdia article (which is why I required deletion or failing that classifying under another title) but a mouthpiece for a very specific viewpoint associated with Freezoners. Said viewpoint not being supported by facts, proofs nor experience with the editing department. Said article being only sourced by Freezoners apparently not aware of the circumstances of the changes in text and filling that void in information with their outrage that somebody has meddled with the word of their prophet. By the way, it is also in the interest of Freezoners to present their "we have the pure tech" pet theory to attract customers. They can claim they use first editions, but first editions in publishing are notorious for containing the most mistakes. Their claim of "pure tech" could as well be the one that is fraudulent. You are obviously partisan. The statement from DavidCooke is the most reasoned one I have seen so far. --Leocomix 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.