Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus in Scientology

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 keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus in Scientology

Jesus in Scientology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The goal of Jesus in Scientology is to give Christians reasons to hate Scientology. The "article" is clearly NPOV in it's very nature.

The "article" is a soapbox for those who oppose Scientology. WP:SOAP

This "article" is unencyclopedic. It is a series of quotes from Scientology possibly taken out of context. It doesn't give insight to the subject since it contains no information about how Scientologists feel about Jesus. It is simply inflammatory.

Ultimately, this type of article lowers the repute of Wikipedia from an online encyclopedia to a collection of smear blogs. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Scientology has a long, strong arm when it comes to silencing non-positive material, so it doesn't surprise me to see this at AfD. That said, there's nothing within this article that isn't verifiable by a quick read of Hubbard's earlier works and lectures. Lots of sources of this type can be used as sources in these. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep; Scientology's beliefs about Jesus would qualify as notable. I disagree with Colonel Warden's suggestion that it be merged to an article about Jesus. Although merging may be appropriate, it would be better to merge this with another Scientology article. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; Agree with Nominator, however, if the article is kept, it should me merged with Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth, inasmuch as much of this appears to be myth.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The references are there and I think it more than justifies it's existance as an independent page and shouldn't be merged. Alberon (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The problems listed in the nomination can be fixed without the article being deleted. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - This should go into the existing Scientology article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Article is well-sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, even if the one subsection regarding the Operating Thetan material is not taken into consideration. Cirt (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed from Keep to Strong Keep, per some cogent points made by John Carter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Article contains a variety of clearly encyclopedic material. Suggest that the article be kept first. Discussion of where which material could be merged to should take place elsewhere and probably later. I can see material from this article being merged into one or more articles, or being allowed to stand on its own. Jesus in Islam is a similar article about the views of one religion about a leading figure in another religion. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• John, Scientology does not say anything about Jesus. This is not analogous to "Jesus in Islam". What we have here are irrelevant snippets where LRH mentions Jesus in passing in some lecture or other. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Hubbard specifically says that Jesus and the other vestiges of Christianity are part of the film programs used to give a false reality. The context is quite clear. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that what Hubbard said is not formal Scientology doctrine, which might be true. In any event, the statements of one founder of a religion about another founder of an earlier religion are significant and seemingly to some degree notable. We just got through a discussion elsewhere about whether the article on Krishna should mention how the subject is viewed in other belief systems. Indicating what religions or religious leaders think of each other, positive and negative, is if verifiable useful and encyclopedic information. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• KeepI can't see any good reason to delete it other than it makes someone unhappy, which isn't good enough.Doug Weller (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Strong WP:OR flavor to this article. Inherently WP:POV with cherry-picked snippets from Hubbard that do not in any way represent "Jesus in Scientology". If anything this article is L. Ron Hubbard on Jesus. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So improve it:) Merkin's mum 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything this article is L. Ron Hubbard on Jesus. So then are you saying that the current administration has squirreled LRH tech? Interesting. Z00r (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep even if as Justallofthem says (I wouldn't necessarily agree with him) the article doesn't show many Sci's notable perspectives on Jesus, that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. Merkin's mum 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources seem decent, the topic seems notable, and if you see problems with specific parts of it then correct the mistakes and improve the article. It is not worthy of deletion, in my opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as an article, although I don't subscribe to its present state.--Berig (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject appears valid, and content (whether disputed or not) appears encyclopaedic. If nominator has NPOV concerns they should be addressed by improving the page. If page is mis-named, then get consensus for renaming it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: There is nothing here that cannot be fixed. {{sofixit}}. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable subject, encyclopaedic article. What's to delete? X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominator attributed a comment taken from WikiScanner and this source to me. I'm not sure why he did so, but I quickly reverted it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the history and it got added when you voted. Sorry for the confusion. I assume it is some sort of glitch and I have removed it completely. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This was what happened when I voted. This was when you added that extra bit in the nomination. It didn't happen when I voted, but you didn't add it, either, apparently. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what happen when you voted. Your citation was when DragonFire1024 voted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

However I see now that I should have checked with you first, I do apologize. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Jesus in Islam and plenty of reliable sources. --Explodicle (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Problems with the article (such as whether it complies with NPOV) can be fixed, and arguments based on such issues are at best transient in nature. More constant are questions of subject notability and the availability of reliable sources. Since Scientology has presented itself as compatible with Christianity, this is a likely area of research for anyone wishing to learn more, and although some of the sources are clearly partisan, others seem to be scholarly works and quite reliable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Escape Orbit. Z00r (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per John Cartner DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and well-sourced.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: You all seem to miss the point;

Of course the article is well sourced. You can always find some "expert" willing to misrepresent Scientology or any other religion. The same as the tobacco companies found experts willing to say tobacco is safe, Nazis found experts to say that Jews were a threat to the gene pool and slavers found experts to says blacks were inferior to whites. You wouldn't publish this information without ensuring it is understood in context. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why we strive to maintain a neutral point of view. By doing this, it prevents Wikipedia from taking one position or the other by including all relevant information, both in favor of a group and against it. By doing anything else, we risk applying UNDUE weight to one argument or the other, which we, as editors rather than experts, are not able to do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In the subject of religion people are willing to believe all sorts of strange things. Sure Christians believe God spoke as a burning bush and the Hare Krishnas believe God appeared as a blue man. But people outside of religions will believe strange things as well. In the middle ages it was believed that Jews used baby blood to make their bread. I went to see the Dali Lama and people were protesting him, claiming he practiced rituals involving human blood and human skulls. And, apparently, anyone is willing to believe that children brought up in a religious community are automatically abused. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a good look at what is going on in Texas with these plural marriage communities. Polygamy has been going on for thousands of years and practiced by various Mormon groups for almost a couple hundred years and there is no evidence they produce traumatized children or that their parents would allow their children to be abused. If there were, where are the thousands and thousands of traumatised adults resulting from these marriages. If you went into any American community and took all the children away from the parents, how many would you find had been sexually abused by adults? More or less then the FLDS community? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of odd religious beliefs. It is up to us to include them in the most neutral way possible. Ultimately, it is up to the reader, not the editors, to figure out what they want to think for themselves. Until there is court-verified, RS-published evidence to the contrary, the only thing that can be said about the recent polygamy raids is that there were accusations of child abuse. But that's an entirely separate issue here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This sort of website incites these sorts of injustices. It is not a question of "is it sourced". It is a question of should we allow Wikipedia to be a soap box for hate groups. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that talk about how weird and "dangerous" Scientology is. I'm not saying delete them all. I'm saying this one goes too far. It shouldn't be merged or renamed, it should be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it a soap box? Again, you have to think of maintaining a neutral point of view. Scientology's system of beliefs, Hubbard's lectures and writings on the space opera are all quite notable. To include only the bits and pieces that paint Scientology as a sustainable belief system compatible with other religions is inane. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a soap box for religious groups just as much as it is to not be a soap box for critics. The function of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. The safe route is to include anything and everything, preventing positive or negative undue weight and let the reader decide for themselves. Anything else is, essentially, varying degrees of censorship, undue weight, and POV-pushing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the point has been missed. It is a requirement that articles be as neutral as possible. The facts of the matter is that this is one of a series of articles on how Jesus is viewed by the various religions of the world. The article does state Scientology's claim that the allegations are rubbish, and if they comment more on the matter that should be added to the article. There is nothing wrong with stating claims by detractors as long as any reply by the religion in question is also added to balance the article.

If an article is unbalanced that is not a justification for deletion, but for working on it to restore neutrality. The claims have been made and there is nothing wrong about having a page on the subject. If you think the article is unbalanced, then edit it with counter-claims. But deletion is not waranted. It's sourced and it's notable. Alberon (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The nominator appears to be operating under a very clear failure to assume good faith regarding the people who have worked on this article. That is not good. None of us are necessarily in a position to be able to state what the thinking of others is. I suggest that he perhaps alter his tone regarding his opinions regarding the motivations of others in his future comments. If however he wishes to make such claims, there are other, better, places to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam uses Islamic and Christian scholars as it's references. This article uses references like Mark Driscoll, who has implied that non-Christian cultures practice cannibalism, and Steven Fishman, who would have us believe that the Church of Scientology put assassination contracts out on people. The bulk of the other references are journalists and interviews. The only scholars are Christian Ministers who exhibit no neutrality. To delete these will just result in someone putting them back. The context of LRH's quotes are not clear. You can implant someone that "2+2=4", that doesn't make it false. Scientologists are not encourage to have an opinion one way or the other about God or Jesus. I believe these people post in good faith, I just don't think the article belongs in an encyclopedia. The result of this page will be to smear Scientology and it will never have any other result. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Notable and well referenced. If you want to contradict it, cite a reliable source to the contrary. Good luck with that, since the Church of Scientology tries to claim copyright on all of its documents and scriptures. Some topics are just so bad that it even the most neutral, logical, verifiable article will tend to make people dislike the subject, e.g., Hitler. NPOV does not require that we present everything in a light that will not induce dislike of the subject, e.g., Hitler. NPOV merely requires that we accurately present information from reliable sources on the subject, including all viewpoints that can be gotten from a decent number of reliable sources on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (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.