Talk:Jesus in Scientology/Archive 1

Other sources

Other sources that could be used in this article, listed below. Cirt (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Malko, George (1970). Scientology: The Now Religion. Delacorte Press. pp. 97, 101, 102.

Not exactly sure if this info is directly relevant. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• O'Neil, Deborah (September 8, 2001). "Northpinellas: Scientology in sermon title raises eyebrows: "Why Scientology Isn't a Church" is just a provocative title, and the sermon may not even mention Scientology, a pastor says". St. Petersburg Times. www.sptimes.com. Retrieved 2008-04-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This cite is relevant, not sure how to work it into the article yet. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Science info that was removed from the article

Followers of Christian Science seek to avoid public confusion between themselves and Scientology, and point to their observance of the teachings of Jesus as described in the New Testament when asserting this distinction.

Riess, Jana (2002). Spiritual Traveler: A Guide to Sacred Sites and Peaceful Places. Boston, Massachusetts: Hidden Spring. p. 15. ISBN 1587680084.

This info was removed from the article due to a perceived lack of relevance by Childnicotine (talk · contribs). We can leave it out for now, and revisit its relevance later, perhaps when there are other comments like these from other groups regarding Scientology/Jesus. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Above "Clear" yet below "Operating Thetan"

This type of heading reads more like a book chapter, as opposed to an encyclopedia article's subsection header. Operating Thetan is a much simpler and more succinct subsection title, and works better in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why have a subsection of that title when a key point of the article is to express that CoS clearly regards Jesus as some levels below and therefore precisely -not- OT? More informative titles are 'Below Operating Thetan' and 'Above Clear' .. or most accurate to incorporate both factoids as either 'A shade above Clear' or 'A Sub-OT "Clear"'Childnicotine (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the reader can figure that out by reading the subsection itself. No need to have the subsection titles be overly long, better to have them be short and succinct. This is something that has come up previously in WP:FACs that I have participated in. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When you start citing from the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I'll start giving credibility to that. Having a subsection title 'Operating Thetan' leads someone who initially reads the index to presume 'Wow, Jesus was an operating thetan', but when then read it they find the exact opposite. It's like having a section in the article on Elton John titled 'Heterosexual' (or a section in Al Gore titled 'President')that reveals that the term never could honestly or factually be applied to the subject. If a section title in this article is going to refer to Operating Thetan, it better also clearly reveal up front that Jesus is/was -not- one.Childnicotine (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Operating Thetan material" works fine with me. Cirt (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but an alternative would be "Above Clear". DigitalC (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoid wikilinking within quoted text

Please avoid wikilinking within quoted text. For more on this, please see Wikipedia:Quotations_should_not_contain_wikilinks#Quotations. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that reference says -not- to do is to "link or update the formatting of dates inside quotations". I'm not persuaded that the best edification for our readers is for them to read through to the end of the article and get to the "See also" section before they're benefited to understand that there is information in the form of linkable articles handy to explain what on earth a Thetan or a Marcab may be. They're entitled to ask .. why couldn't I find out that then (ie. when the innovated term first popped up in the article)?.Childnicotine (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't. Too much of it becomes an issue later on down the road at a potential WP:GAC or eventual WP:FAC, and if we allow a little then it's a slipperly slope. Plus, the original integrity of the quoted text itself, whether from a book, newspaper articles, whatever, did not have the wikilinking in it in its original form, so we shouldn't either. Cirt (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyperlinking doesn't affect the 'integrity' ie. 'wholeness' of a quoted section, it merely provides linking to information tending to aid a reader's understanding of terms that may be arcane, obscure, specialist, or a little ambiguous with the section otherwise kept whole. It's a way of adding to the value and potential for understanding of information presented in an online format.

At the moment we're not yet at WP:GA, so can you establish that -any- part of the Good Article Criteria establishes that the existence of a hyperlinked term within a quoted passage can -ever- be asserted as sufficient cause to deny GA status to an otherwise 'Good Article'? Can you??Childnicotine (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I can not, this is merely my own opinion from going through the GA and FA processes before. I really think that hyperlinking within quoted text just looks ugly, and I would rather like to avoid it, if at all possible. Cirt (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GA is not based on opinion, it's permitted to be based on everything in and nothing beyond the Wikipedia:Good Article Criteria. As, by your own admission, nothing in that justifies delinking terms from within quotes then I say that somewhat 'wacky' CoS terms like "Marcab" and "Thetan" deserve to be defined immediately rather than by leftover inclusion in 'See also' at the tail of the exposition. You may find hyperlinking 'looks ugly' but I see it ALL OVER the internet and Wikipedia itself and I'm glad that it's there as a way of demonstrating links between concepts and accessing fuller information about terms.Childnicotine (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it ugly in general, just within quoted portions of text. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we can table this issue for now, and revisit it at some point if/when the article goes up for more rigorous review in the future. Cirt (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fishman OT-VIII again?!

The "jesus was a pedophile" stuff is from the Fishman Affidavit, and the OT-VIII part is disputed by Scientology and ex-members alike. AndroidCat (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case that should also be mentioned with a secondary source, and the quote itself should be shortened from a blockquote to an in-sentence brief quote. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Fishman should be removed because, as AC mentions, it is well-know that he is not reliable, especially on that claim. We do not make articles out of known bad material and justify it by including a one-word disclaimer. That is POV at best. I won't remove it but one of you should. I will however tag the article as POV pending its removal though. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On all the other Fishman material there is agreement by Scientology and ex-members that it is accurate. Or have they dropped all copyright claims on the rest of it as well? AndroidCat (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based upon this reference which reveals that "The Fishman Affidavit was confirmed to be a true and correct copy of the OT levels when a court clerk compared originals supplied by RTC to the Fishman Affidavit found on Karin Spaink's website", I am removing the dispute tags because it confirms the reliability of the affidavit as a source. Also note the following at this reference:

During the hearings about the question whether confiscating Arnaldo Lerma's computer had been justified, Kendrick Moxon was ordered to identify the files that were an infringement of RTC's copyrights. Moxon himself is one of Scientology's lawyers and is an advanced member, who is apparently considered able by RTC to judge the authenticity of the higher material. One of the floppy disks that Moxon labelled as an infringement, contained only one file: OT VIII. Cooley, the lawyer representing RTC in the case, objected against this and stated once more that OT VIII is a forgery; but he wasn't appointed by the court to judge in that matter - Moxon was.

That leaves us with only two options:

Cooley is right (and OT VIII is a forgery); but in that case RTC's own expert Moxon can't tell the real OT's from the faked ones, and therefore his judgement has no value;

Moxon is right (and OT VIII is original); in which case Hubbard actually claimed that Jesus was a pedophile, and RTC's lawyer Cooley has lied to the court when he stated that OT VIII is a forgery.

Childnicotine (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the article glosses over is that by the time RTC got to the point in the case where it provided originals to the clerk, it had already dropped its claim with respect to OT VIII. So it is false to say that the Fishman OT VIII has been corroborated. WillOakland (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the OT VIII section. Since the OT VIII section of the Fishman affidavit is not a reliable source, citing it here is WP:COATRACK -- it's using this topic to talk about another (the dubious validity of that section). --FOo (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we not use the wikileaked documents as a source for the OT VIII section? DigitalC (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags restored

I have restored the {{POV}} and {{disputed-section}} tags and they should not again be removed before a consensus is reached here. Childnicotine reinserted the Fishman section against the advices here. I am busy IRL and cannot much involve myself here but I appreciate the efforts of fair-minded editors no matter what they may believe about Scientology. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to mention Fishman's allegation just for the purpose of clarifying the issue. WillOakland (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed {{POV}}. It doesn't apply as the article now includes BOTH claim & response about the contended portion of the Fishman Affidavit on OT8. Let's now address the fact-dispute on the single section of the article, narrow it down, and indeed determine whether it can even be said to exist within the current presentation of the information re what the FA says and what the concerns about its accuracy/currency are.

[My information] suggests it derives from a bulletin of May 1980 of which "Church officials have remained silent" re the actual content.Childnicotine (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact dispute

So playing this one by the book, which fact or sentence in the following is claimed to be false? Rather than the section being tagged I would like the disputant(s) to fact-tag the individual sentence or words so this can be narrowed down because as far as I can see the representation of what is in the affidavit about OT8 on the particular point is entirely accurate, as is the representation of the CoS's attitude to it:

When Steven Fishman included descriptions of the Operating Thetan levels in a 1993 affidavit, he alleged that the OT VIII level included revelations from Hubbard that Jesus was hateful, ill-tempered, and a pederast: "For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting." The Religious Technology Center accused Fishman of infringing the copyrights of all eight OT levels, but later dropped its claim with respect to OT VIII and called Fishman's description libelous.

I'll check back in 24 hours to see if it can still be said that a dispute exists. Childnicotine (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You seem to be ignoring the fact that knowledgeable editors have already voiced the opinion that this material does not belong in the article. So we could say that discussion is adequate and consensus has spoken to remove the material.
  
  To elaborate, the reason that it does not belong in the article is that it is entirely fiction that has not been corroborated by other ex-Scientologists that have done OT Level VIII. So you have one made-up story and one mention of said made-up story the press. The point here is are you trying to write an article on the subject or are you mainly interested in smearing Scientology even to the extent of using known false material? Which is it? --Justallofthem (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a recording of L. Ron Hubbard saying that... I can't remember where it's originally available, but several people have put it up on YouTube.--Relyt22 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

I've proposed this article for deletion. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

non editor comment

there are several ex-scientologists that have talked at length on www.enturbulation.org, and they mention not just the difference between the fishman affadavit, but also the OTVIII they experienced... and there were many, many tales of Davy "squirreling the tech". It seemed that when any teaching became to controversial or actionable, they changed it. You have had a great discussion here so far on the subject, I just wanted to bring that up. I can provide contact information of these people if needed. Otherwise, feel free to ignore the info as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msheekhah (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless it is published in a reliable source (ie - not enturbulation), it can't be used on Wikipedia. DigitalC (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept "salvation" in the Church of Scientology

• Pretorius, S.P. (2006). "The concept "salvation" in the Church of Scientology". Sabinet. 62 (1). South Africa: Sabinet Online: 313–327. ISSN 0259-9422.

Abstract

In one of its publications the Church of Scientology (COSI), a well-established religious movement in South Africa, claims to be not only the fastest growing religious movement, but also to be an active force for positive change in the world. The Church of Scientology's utilization of familiar terms such as "church" and "religion" can be misleading. It can create the understanding with some that Scientology might be related to, or even be an extension of the Christian tradition. This understanding is further enhanced by their assurance to Christians that joining the church will not distance them from, but instead, strengthen their own faith. This article, however, concludes that closer investigation of the philosophy of Scientology indicates that there is a distinct difference between the salvations offered by Scientology and that of the Christian tradition.

Could be a useful source, will try to get access to it. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LGBT category

Why is this article in the LGBT category? Lionelt (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fishman is back

An affidavit is an opinion. It needs another reliable source or it should be deleted. Again. Lionelt (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That section already has two WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the primary source that to me has an issue. We all want to see high quality encyclopedic content on WP.

1. Is Fishman a reliable source (WP:RS)? The affidavit is technically self-published, and therefore "largely not acceptable." There are exceptions, however. Is Fisher an "established expert?" Has any of his previous work in the field been published by a "reliable third party?" No to both questions. WP:RS#Self-published sources
2. The claims about Jesus are "surprising" and are "not covered by mainstream sources," thus raising a red flag WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
3. Fisher does not directly support the quote about Jesus. He only supports the fact that Fishman filed an affidavit. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article."
4. Denver News also does not directly support the quote about Jesus. It also supports only the filing of the affidavit. In fact, it presents the opposing position. WP:DUE

The sources support only the existence and the filing of the affidavit. However, they do not reliably support the quote about Jesus. Since the quote is "surprising," ie WP:REDFLAG the source must be exceptional. Without the quote, the section is not notable, and should probably be deleted. Lionelt (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article only quotes what is said in the affidavit, and it is attributed as such. In that particular usage it is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you are referring to: WP:Reliable_sources#Quotations? What this means is that if the material is a quote it must be properly cited as such, in addition to the source being reliable. This does not abrogate the requirement that the source be reliable. The Fishman affidavit is a poor source, as others have noted, and certainly not exceptional. Have you been unable to find just one more independent source (Fisher is not independent) on the entire Internet since April 2008 when this issue was last raised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

The affidavit itself is notable. We are merely using it to note what it says, for its own sake, and attributing it as such - not using it as a source to support some other claim in the article separate from noting what it itself says. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the notability guideline WP:NOTE applies to whether a topic should have its own article in WP, not to article content. The guideline which applies to content, or in this case the affivavit, is WP:NPOV. I.e., WP:NOTE dictates whether or not "Jesus in Scientology" should exist in WP. WP:NPOV dictates what content should be in the article, e.g. the Jesus quote. Of course, this brings us back to the issue of the Fishman source being unreliable. WP:NPOV says that content must be "published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable." It seems we're back where we started: WP:RS. I'm going to be bold, very bold and delete the Fisher material. I hope we can put this back when we have a second reliable source.Lionelt (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it with you over this because it seems you wish to revert over this issue, however the affidavit is verifiable as a court document and can be used to verify statements made in it itself. It is an NPOV presentation as the statement is followed by a rebuttal from a representative of the Scientology organization. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I see your point. Since the document exists, to which I concur, the material should be presentable if quoted properly, and let the reader come up with their own conclusion. I think we have to be careful in these cases. A reader may not realize that even though the affidavit was submitted under penalty of perjury, in this case it was not examined in court by opposing counsel; there was never any ruling made by the court on the evidence. Incidentally, Fisher doesn't say that Kobrin said documents were forgeries, it says that "The church calls the four-page briefing a fake." Lionelt (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The sourced material you removed from the article also included a rebuttal from a representative of the Scientology organization from a different secondary WP:RS source stating Fishman's material was inaccurate. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pouw's alleged statement

I had thought there were secondary sources backing up Ortega's claim regarding Pouw confirming that "Jesus is a figment of the imagination," but after spending some time on Google, there are none. It's not reliable enough for inclusion and even more so due to WP:BLP issues as Pouw does not seem to have acknowledged what she is alleged to have said. Laval (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable sources and non-noteworthy opinions

Christian devotional books and spiritual guidance books are not reliable sources for facts. Those statements have been removed; please do not restore them without a reliable source, preferably scholarship or at least journalism. The statements which have serious factual sources have been left in the article, though I have not verified they back up the statements they ostensibly support. Individual opinions are included on WP when reliable sources establish an individual as noteworthy for their views on a specific subject. When someone is not noteworthy for anything whatsoever, a complete unknown, we do not include their view ever. WP is not a series of pointless voxpops of nobodies. Cambial foliage❧ 10:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)