Talk:Xenu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

No Volcanos In Australia

I noticed that there was no listing of an affected volcano in Australia. Does this mean that Australia has a protected standing in the eyes of the Church of Scientology? Htcs (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think Australia had any volcanoes... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah Australia does have volcanoes they're just extinced but in Xenu's time would have still been active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.70.14 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Robertson

The article says "[Bill Robertson] formed the Galactic Patrol, the FreeZoners and Ron's Org, all squirrel groups." Since "squirrel" is a highly pejorative term, isn't it a violation of NPOV to use it in this fashion? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone, as the phrasing was indeed pejorative... but there really ought to be some neutrally stated reference to the fact that the Church of Scientology calls them squirrel groups. --GoodDamon 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply link to the Free Zone and let that article tell anyone who's interested that the CoS has this pejorative term it uses for all non-CoS Scientology groups? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try not to violate any regulations. This article is amazing. I love the semi sarcastic tone (in a good way). It beats just saying things any day. This is awesome because of the level of interest, level of helpfullness, knowledge in content, how funny it is(that this is what actual people believe) (not directed as an insult), and formality. The creator should be awarded. It is extremely clever how the article states that the story of xenu was high priority classified and how no one should no about it, and then states that many people now know about the story via internet (paraphrasing not quoting) this is genius because it is slyly getting away with what you want to say. I found what i wanted to know with this article plus more. Now i'll be sure to tell many people about this article so that they don't waste any money on a series of object i'm unsure about mentioning due to copyright infringement and the possiblity of being interpreted as influencing marketing or sales. -Peace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.143.153 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenu's fanless DC-8s

While I think that those who created the DC-8 pictured now from NASA's aerial lab did a pretty good job removing the engines, adding a star field, and removing NASA from the tail did a great job converting it to say Xenu - it still looks like the NASA DC-8 sans engines. I was thinking about creating an illustration of many DC-8s approaching Earth using this model for the planes, the paint job is negotiable of course and actually if anyone knows how Hubbard described them apart from being "fanless" I'd be happy to use his description. Anynobody 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That picture on this page is horrible. I think it would make the article more credible if it was removed.

Dig through the discussion history. The picture isn't going anywhere. 90.128.26.208 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like Anynobody's suggestion. There ought to be a visual representation of the concept -- it's certainly common in encyclopedias to illustrate the ideas presented in the text, and I think Xenu's fleet of space planes qualifies -- but the current picture is rather shabby. Alternatively, we could include a detailed picture of a real DC-8 with a focus on the engines, and indicate in the descriptive text where the differences lie. --GoodDamon 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, I was bogged down with offline commitments in addition to other images elsewhere on Wikipedia. I modified the X on the tail to include his whole name and added markings to the wings. Anynobody(?) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

But was it Xenu or Xemu? :) Looks good! AndroidCat (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) It's funny you mention that, I toyed with the notion of somehow integrating that issue, like having one side of the X read enu with the other showing emu but it looked a bit busy. Then I thought of crossing out the "n" on a couple of the wings and adding a "m" done in a messy correction. (Even thought of adding a "?") In the end I decided that since Hubbard wrote Xenu and it's what everyone seems to be best familiar with (courtesy of South Park), Xenu was the way to go. Plus the messy correction just looked too much like comedy ;) (that was a typo, should have been :), I've tried to keep this as serious as possible so doing the crossed out Xemu would've been over the line.) Anynobody(?) 03:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)) Anynobody(?) 06:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You people are doing a disservice to people looking for information. 90.136.199.82 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not the article, and I don't see a problem with bringing a little levity to the subject as long as it stays out of the article. --GoodDamon 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That refers to the article, of course. Is the semi-protection really necessary, by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.50.224 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The semi-protection is necessary due to repeated instances of ongoing vandalism. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. A lot has been happening since I last looked at this page. Do you have any ideas as to why people would vandalize this page so frequently? 83.189.50.224 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 83.189.50.224 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The image, like this article, isn't a joke

Folks I really am not interested in poking fun at Scientology, never have been. (Seriously, I'm one of the supporters of the banner on this page explaining that this isn't a joke, check out Talk:Xenu/Archive 3#Tag.)

The text says Xenu sent people to Earth in ships that look like DC-8s, this isn't my way of insulting Hubbard or the CoS, it's simply what they say. Aspects like the design on its tail, color, etc. I'm open to changing, but I can't change the Xenu "saga" so whatever happens we're stuck with what Hubbard described. (Meaning airplanes in space) Anynobody(?) 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed it

Come on guys. This is becoming an OR-fest. I disagree with the image as a valid interpretation. With the "X", with the number of craft, with the windows. With any number of aspects and that is the definition of an unacceptable OR interpretation of primary materials. Fun is fun but this has gone on long enough and y'all know it. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly upset to see the picture go, but I'm not sure how it qualifies as OR. The descriptions of Xenu's spaceplanes are all over the media. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of reliable media descriptions of the planes. Humorous? Yes. But OR? Probably not. In any event, I'm not going to contest the removal. Instead, I've replaced it with a reference image of a real DC-8. --GoodDamon 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A pic of a DC-8 is fine. The criteria for primary materials is whether any reader of the primary materials would agree that what is added to the wiki is what the primary materials say or describe. That pic has always been an OR violation of that and this latest incarnation is just too far beyond what the material describes. It very clearly constitutes original research. The material allegedly says they looked like DC-8's. OK, then show a DC-8. Good job on your part. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well technically, it's spaceships that looked like DC-8s, so having DC-8s in space, approaching Earth, isn't off from the primary materials. I still don't see the OR. Someone reading "Spaceships that look like DC-8 aircraft flying towards Earth" would probably imagine exactly that, complete with starfields. Still, I think having a real DC-8 image for reference is more in keeping a properly encyclopedic tone, so good riddance to the old pic. --GoodDamon 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOR, specifically WP:PRIMARY

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

There are other relevant lines in that section of the policy but it boils down that any interpretative work based on the primary materials is verboten. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your time is valuable. Don't waste it. DC-8 pictures are deeply desired by people who hate Scientology. They are non-negotiable. 83.189.50.224 (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Is this a friend of mine? --Justallofthem (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You really must have a look at WP:OR more closely Justallofthem, specifically the part specifically about images just like this: Wikipedia: Original Research#Original images. Essentially original images are allowed as long as they DO NOT propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the idea is ships that look like DC-8s per Hubbard (minus engines, as described).

Perhaps you could help by providing illustrations or descriptions from Scientology sources, I'd be happy to adjust the color/windows/etc. As to the number of planes, I actually felt that there are too few (after all Xenu was sending billions of people, you'd need a lot of DC-8s to accomplish that.) 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you are missing this:

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

Your image is OR. But tell you what. Don't put it back, that is contentious, and let's see how the discussion goes here. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And the removal is contentious too. Shall we count noses now? AndroidCat (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't count your nose until you make your case one way or the other. Anyway, what I meant was that since inclusion is contentious and there is an active discussion here, it would be best to take the conservative path and leave it out pending some resolution here. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) I'm in the odd position here of agreeing with the deletion while also agreeing with AndroidCat. Sorry, Justa*, but the policy is very clear. The image doesn't constitute original research because it's not depicting anything that isn't in the reliable source descriptions. It doesn't equate to the example of the particles in the hydrogen atom. It's a silly picture and a silly idea, but it definitely passes muster. All that said, I think having a real DC-8 as an example makes for a better encyclopedic entry overall. --GoodDamon 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said Justallofthem, I'd be more than happy to include anything you have source wise to make the planes look more like Hubbard described. Anynobody(?) 06:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(PS would it make you happy if I removed the Xenu and made the planes just plain?) Anynobody(?) 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Justallofthem here — the artist's rendition of the space planes was never a good idea. It frankly looks like a deliberate poke at Scientology.

Now, in general I don't have a problem with people taking deliberate pokes at Scientology. I have a pretty low opinion of Hubbard's role in creating it. I don't know if it was a conscious fraud to make money or (worse) gain power over suffering people, or if he was so drugged out at the time that he actually believed it, but anyway I'd be happy if people read this article and it kept them from getting sucked into the thing.

But the article has to be scrupulously fair. The bare facts by themselves are plenty embarrassing to the Church; there is no need to go even a nanometer past them, and a very strong need not to. The page cannot have even a whiff of "hit piece" about it. The plane pictures, amusing as they are, suggest that editors are yielding to an unprofessional temptation. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. There are plenty of places where we can crusade against Scientology. This simply is not one of them. There is a long list of neutrality issues throughout the Wikipedia articles related to scientology. Browsing the discussion pages, I see the same handful of people that have clearly taken sides against Scientology aggressively staking editorial claim in the articles. 90.128.5.227 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trovatore Really this isn't meant to be a poke at Scientology (if you read the earlier discussion about the Xenu/Xemu issue hopefully you'll notice I intentionally left out embarrassing aspects which could have been included).

Is there anything one could do to illustrate engineless airplanes from space coming to Earth and not have it look a bit absurd? If so I'm happy to accommodate.

There are plenty of places where we can crusade against Scientology. I'm not trying to ignore you, but the above comment addresses this too. Anynobody(?) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyeverynobody, when you say it's not meant that way, quite frankly I don't believe you. But I admit I could be wrong. The thing is, whether it's meant that way or not, that's the way it's going to be perceived, and that reflects negatively on WP's objectivity.

As to how to illustrate them, that's getting ahead of ourselves. The question is, why do we have to illustrate them? I say there should be no illustration of this at all, as it is not needed for understanding for any reader who knows what a DC-8 looks like; the rest of it's in the text. For the readers who don't know what a DC-8 looks like, a picture of a real DC-8 is sufficient, and I don't think anyone is going to object to that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) The question is, why do we have to illustrate them? Are you familiar with this article's history? I ask because the image replaces Image:Xenu space plane.jpg. By saying ...there should be no illustration of this at all... do you mean not even replacing the old image? Anynobody(?) 05:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. The idea of illustrating the concept was incorrect from the start, and the error should be rectified. However, a picture of a real DC-8 would be useful. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A link to the DC-8 article would be useful. People know what airplanes look like, for goodness sake. If they need to know exactly what a DC-8 looks like, it's on the top of the DC-8 article. Non-neutrality is the problem, and having an airplane as one of the pictures in the article has WP:UNDUE issues. 90.136.188.97 (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the image

Anyeverybody, you have replaced the image despite the very clear majority of editors here saying it is inappropriate and against my specific objections and request that you wait for discussion here to play out. That is rather tendentious on your part and invites edit-warring. I remind you of the article probation here. Please remove it now and see if you can change the consensus here. GoodDamon, I think you mean you agree with Anyeverybody as he is the only one that has made an argument for inclusion. The image very clearly, IMO, goes beyond the illustration provision of WP:NOR. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with your deletion of the image, actually, although not for the reasons you list. The image is not a violation of the prohibition on original research, because the policy explicitly allows for just such images to illustrate concepts as long as there is no original research in them. The image has planes, in space, approaching earth. That's it, and that's what Hubbard described.

All that said, I agree with removing the image, because I think using a photographic example of a real Douglas DC-8 gives the reader a better article overall. While the original image was technically fine for WP:NOR, it illustrates such a silly concept that it couldn't help but bring an unencyclopedic tone to the article. --GoodDamon 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. People here disagree with the image for different reasons but it is clear that, other than the creator of the image, editors do not think it belongs in the article and my statement that AN should not have reinserted it is a valid one. How about you, as a neutral party, go ahead and replace it again? Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon I understand your logic but if you look at the article itself you'll note it doesn't discuss the DC-8 aircraft. You were actually closer to the point when mentioning it as a silly idea. (I assume you meant the idea of an armada of DC-8ish planes descending on Earth 75 Mya is silly.) If we were editing the DC-8 article, absolutely a picture of one or more photos of DC-8 aircraft are called for.

Justallofthem ...other than the creator of the image, editors do not think it belongs in the article... uh, were you intentionally ignoring AndroidCat? Anynobody(?) 02:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles I could point out where the use of a picture is similar to the use of the DC-8 picture in my edit. In the article on humans, for example, there is a picture of someone plowing a field with horses in the section devoted to the rise of civilization to provide readers with some idea of what some of the new developments were. A picture of a real DC-8 provides readers with a perfectly acceptable image that they can then imagine hurtling through space (yes, a silly idea) however they see fit, without bringing a very silly Photoshop pic into the article. --GoodDamon 06:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AndroidCat simply stated that the removal was contentious; he did not take a clear position one way or the other. As I have already mentioned. You really should remove it pending the outcome of discussion here because, as things stand now, you are pretty out-numbered. Being obstinate about that is tendentious. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AndroidCat simply stated that the removal was contentious... I had assumed you read the thread before adding this subheading, I was talking about the discussion around the time this image was posted. (Though really it shouldn't be a huge mental leap to equate calling removal of the image as contentious with support.) Anynobody(?) 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would I read the entire page? Would you have me read the archives too, there has been discussion about the previous image too going back years likely. No, I don't have to read all that and neither does anyone else. We are having this discussion here and now based on my removal and GoodDamon's replacement with a generic DC-8 and consensus is clear that your image should come out. Instead of being obstinate why not just remove it? Why make someone else do that for you? --Justallofthem (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should read the whole page and the archives where you (or your other aliases or other people's proxies) have continually raised the issue of an image and the consensus has always been against you. AndroidCat (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.

Consensus can change and it is clear that this one has. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is necessarily clear on that yet, but I certainly think re-adding the picture at this time was rather POV-pushing. For me, it all comes down to which is the more useful picture, a real and detailed DC-8 without the space background, or the technically acceptable but rather shoddy Photoshopped image with the space background? My vote's with the picture of the real thing. --GoodDamon 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Justallofthem: I highly recommend reading the relevant archived discussions! They are interesting reading, and I think you could find them very enlightening. I know I did. 90.136.188.97 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I seriously doubt that there is anything in the archives here that I am not already familiar with but if you think I am missing "vital data" you are free to bring it to my attention on my talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(left) Well my experience is that getting five or six editors to discuss an issue is pretty darn good and four of them clearly saying the illustration is not the way the go and only the creator of the illustration arguing for its inclusion (and a sixth ambiguous !vote) is a pretty clear call. I think that your solution was entirely appropriate and in keeping with the comments raised by the bulk of the editors here so would you please replace the existing illustration with the DC-8 picture. I do not think AN will undo you again. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I really wish when topics like this come up for discussion, people on both sides would keep knee-jerk reactions and reverting down to a minimum. --GoodDamon 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon the least contentious image would actually be the one I originally replaced, as it had been there for months, including during one of Justallofthem's previous incarnations. Anynobody(?) 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some missing information

There is also a lot of missing information about the history of the Xenu story and OT3 which might be good to research and add to the article.

For example there is the alleged incident in which activists dressed up in toy sailor suits to look like Hubbard's insane "Sea Org" elite commandos who walked in to a Scientology business office and demanded that the people on staff there hand over their copies of the NOTs which included at least one copy of OT3.

The Scientology customers and staff allegedly dutifully rounded up all their copies and handed them over without question or wimper after which the activists walked out and made some of the materials well known on the Internet as well as out in the real world, allegedly by seending copies to law enforcement agencies and news outlets.

Also the anonymous remailer records that were seized might not have been exactly an effort to identify the name and location of the individual who posted parts of the once-secret bait-and-switch bunko fraud but was allegedly an effort to identify a Scientologist rights activist who had infiltrated Scientology's main business offices in Los Angeles by getting "hatted" or otherwise hired to work with the company's computers.

Infiltration of Scientology's business offices was at the time a major project undertaken by the fledgeling ARSCC and the rumors were that the identity of the Scientologist working with Scientology's computers was allegedly contracted by a law enforcement agency after the individual started contributing to and participating in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup.

The primary goals of the anonymous remailer raids might have been an effort to unwrap the allegedly infiltration, and the secondary goal might probably have been to punish the alleged leaker. If nobody was ever tagged for that leak, that might well mean that the alleged successful infiltration of Scientology's computer rooms by a Scientologist working for law enforcement and the ARSCC was something too embarrassing for the Scientology Corporation to handle if the infiltrator was taken to court -- which I don't believe the person ever was.

As usual, this is all my own opinions and nothing but my own opinions. A great deal of history about OT3 and how it was made public widely on the Internets is available all over the Internets, and it's possible that someone with better research abilities and a better memory than I could trach down original postings to a.r.s and update the core article with some of the verifiable history. As it is, all of this is my own opinions and only my own opinions taken from my failing memory.

Incidentally, archives of a.r.s are available, most notably the 1995 messages for many months. Google turns them up on The Skeptic Tank.

Fredric Rice (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a joke.

It should be written in way that makes the "This article is not a joke." template unnecessary. Yet there is adamant resistance to doing so. Why is that?90.134.127.99 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the Idea is so err how do I put this? incredibly stupid written by a novelist sounds like science fiction Would make a semi-decent movie Very, ummm, unconventional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

People think it's a joke because of the subject matter, not because of how the article is written. Foobaz·o< 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some topics which are just inherently funny - Xenu, Exploding whale, Neasden etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding the "this is not a joke" on Talk:Exploding whale. Where'd they put it?--T. Anthony (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We know that the template is a backhanded way of saying that certain alleged beliefs are funny. Regardless of how funny the authors of this article think the subject is, they should still try to be objective. In this case, it looks like they are some of the worst POV pushers on Wikipedia. Combined with the fact that criticism of this page has a great way of disappearing from the talk page, it is pretty clear where a few of you stand on this issue. My personal feeling is that a few of you are really trying to get one over on us, the Wikipedia community.90.134.112.44 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The template is there because several people have asked in here if it is a joke. The general public is unfamiliar with Scientology dogma, and since it's so different than what they're used to seeing in a religion, they have trouble believing it. The Church of Scientology eases its members into the religion a little bit at a time to avoid this kind of culture shock.

Can you suggest any specific improvements to the article that will address your concerns? Foobaz·o< 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

People do not generally assume that Wikipedia articles are jokes. Are these inquiries in the removed or archived comments? If people are getting that impression, then that is a clear signal that there is something seriously wrong with the article. There have been many suggestions (by me as well as by others) that have been archived or otherwise removed from this talk page. Time is valuable to us all, so here are two in a nutshell: 1) Do not write the summary in a way that purposely punches the reader in the face with cherry-picked aspects of the topic written in the most direct manner imaginable. Instead, writing a summary that provides context would be very helpful. I am all for having all the gory details in the body of the article where they belong. 2) Make an effort to get critics who use Wikipedia to voice those criticisms off-message. Remove or at least reword them so that there is more neutral use of language. For instance, are L. Ron Hubbard's beliefs about Christianity relevant? Are criticisms of the business practices of the Church of Scientology relevant to "Xenu"? Do insinuations that Xenu was a drug-induced delusion belong here? The entire article is loaded with this stuff and more.90.135.185.227 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this has all been hashed out over and over.

1. Yes, Hubbard's statements regarding the R6 implant -- which Xenu supposedly inflicted on his victims, and which contained the images of Christ and the crucifixion -- are very relevant to an article about Xenu and what he is supposed to have done.
2. Yes, the amount of money one has to pay to achieve OT-III and learn the Xenu story is relevant.
3. Yes, because of the previous two inherently controversial points, well-researched critical material, such as indications of drug activity, do belong here (although I would say that section needs some cleaning up for both NPOV and readability).

Furthermore, I take issue with your reading of the introduction. It does put its content in context, specifically saying that this is all according to the founder of Scientology. The fact that some readers take the article as a joke (and yes, that's been asked repeatedly here, but you'd have to dig through the archives, since the notice has deterred people from asking) is not, in my opinion, a reflection on how well it's written. The content of OT-III is not familiar to a lot of people yet, and to those unfamiliar with Scientology it is startling to learn that content is associated with a religion. --GoodDamon 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A joke: something intended to evoke humor. Writing style. People can debate endlessly, so this discussion may be moot. This article is the second result when googling xenu. People with an axe to grind against Scientology using this article as a public platform to air their grievances should not be tolerated. Preventing that is far more important than those minor sticking points.90.135.217.80 (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the one with the axe to grind. Foobaz·o< 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

@GoodDamon: You are almost totally right. As far as money, OT-III could cost ten dollars or a million dollars and yet that would not change who or what Xenu is supposed to be. Maybe it should go on the Operating Thetan article instead. The article as a whole goes out of its way to focus on small related points (like L. Ron Hubbard not being able to decide on a name, which gets an entire section). Again, it is that the entire article is slanted. And as for hashing thing out over and over, I checked the archive and having it all off the discussion page gives the illustion of concensous when there are clear disputes. I am surprised there is not a neurality dispute template heading the article.

@Foobaz: I promise you, It would not bother me if those who have dedicated their lives in demeaning, belittling and otherwise warring against the Church of Scientology won their war and not another person converted that that religion. It does bother me, however, to see them take their fight to Wikipedia. I came across this article wanting to learn more, not to have my intelligence insulted.213.29.115.8 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if you look into an article on scientology and hope not to have your intelligence insulted, you're going to be disappointed. Prophaniti (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a pattern of slanted articles on the subject. Do you know of any off-hand that are worse than this one?90.134.113.170 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Again, no. The article is, if anything, lenient towards Scientology. The vast, overwhelming majority of media coverage -- the coverage we have to use as our reliable sources -- portray Scientology in an extremely negative light, and with the appearance of the so-called "anonymous" group, the coverage has become even more negative. How one might feel about Scientology itself is moot; we have to go with the content available to us from reliable sources. --GoodDamon 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the POV issues are unrelated to the media. By the way, do you know what Anonymous is?90.135.149.106 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The original Xenu Wkipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenu&oldid=40569

Is there really a big difference between that and its current incarnation? It is simply a more sophisticated version of the original article, and its aim is still the same. I will quote from the original article (near the end):

"What? You thought it was a stupid story?

Well so do we. However, this story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology*. If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on extremely low pay for many years).

We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and fully aware of the sort of material it contains."

This discussion page history could be a case study in bad faith, false consensus and stonewalling. We still actually have people who pretend they don't even see what the problems are.

I don't even care about Scientology, but the people who made this areticle sure do. Evidence of this is in their work which can be seen all over Wikipedia. Why are these people still allowed to make edits? This is not the place for them to evangelize their beliefs. 85.160.4.180 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, six years worth of NPOV edits mean nothing. That seems rather unlikely. --Modemac (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on illustration of this article

Archived RFC - Ran from 21 July 2008 to 20 August 2008.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The subject of this article describes rather unique imagery and events including a fleet of spacecraft described as looking like DC-8 airplanes without engines descending to Earth. Which is more appropriate, an illustration of numerous DC-8 looking ships without engines approaching Earth, a picture of a real DC-8, or no image at all? The understanding I have of our project is that images illustrating our articles are encouraged, and as long as they are based on published sources Wikipedia:Original research#Original images approves illustrations like mine, and the image which preceded it. The reason either of these illustrations is preferable to a random picture of a DC-8 stems from the fact the spaceships weren't DC-8s, rather according to L. Ron Hubbard they looked like modern DC-8s. The concern seems to be that we are somehow satirizing Scientology by including such an illustration, however if this is true then Scientology is in fact satirizing itself since a similar image could be expected if they were to illustrate the events described by Hubbard. In short he said ships which looked similar to an early jet airplanes came to Earth (under another name) to exterminate the excess population of an interplanetary civilization. That's what the image depicts, so saying it parodies/satirizes Scientology is wrong because it's a comment free illustration of their text. Anynobody(?) 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Comment - Please review the discussion in the above threads for another point of view shared by the majority of editors here. The clear majority of editors either favor no image at all or an image of an actual DC-8. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC) RFC comment. Get rid of the image, it's original research (that is, it's a drawing that cannot be confirmed by consulting the sources, which are silent on many of the creative details in the image). L. Ron Hubbard didn't draw it, and neither did his adherents; you did. A stock image of a DC-8 would be appropriate, but please respect our reader's intelligence. If you think that readers are too stupid to imagine an airplane without engines, it's not your place to imagine one for them. If this is not acceptable, include no image at all, but certainly do not concoct a fanciful photoshop rendering complete with Xenu "X" logos on the tails. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) As I said above I've always been flexible on the details not covered by Hubbard, I remade the image with blank planes, the X was included because the image I was replacing Image:Xenu space plane1A.jpg included similar identification on its tail. I'm not proposing our readers are so dumb they can't picture a plane with no engines, what I am trying to illustrate is what Hubbard described; not one engineless plane but many of them approaching Earth. The idea is to illustrate what the text describes Anynobody(?) 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) The fact that we could offer an infinite variety of equally plausible depictions of this supposed event suggests that the image is not really helpful. We should just stick to Hubbard's anemic and baffling remarks, along with a good image of the plane so that readers can at least see what that's in reference to. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) an infinite variety of equally plausible depictions of this supposed event suggests that the image is not really helpful. Uh, so you're saying because something could be depicted in several ways we shouldn't? I really don't want to sound like a smart ass but that could be said of almost any topic being illustrated. I also don't mean to sound repetitive but I'm not illustrating the plane, rather the event. Hubbard's anemic and baffling remarks... describe space ships that look very much like airplanes arriving on Earth 75 Mya to deliver Xenu's victims. You're essentially suggesting we simply include a picture of the plane they looked like to illustrate them coming to Earth with billions of thetans? Anynobody(?) 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I'm suggesting that any illustration of this event are prosthetics that detract from the very best sources for it: Hubbard's baffling remarks. See my new section below. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Comment - Upon some reflection I agree with Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) and GoodDamon (talk · contribs) - keeping the image of the actual Douglas DC-8 in favor of personal interpretation from a Wikipedia artist is probably the best way to go here at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Comment - Just wanting to get on record here in the RFC that I think a picture of a real DC-8 makes the most sense from an encyclopedic perspective. While WP:OR has an exception for drawings and the Photoshopped one more-or-less falls in line with it, Luke pretty much nails the logical reasons it should go. --GoodDamon 05:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Question: Are you saying that the idea of illustrating this goes against the principles outlined in WP:OR? Anynobody(?) 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Not at all. Like I've said, the image passes muster. I just think a picture of a real DC-8 is superior and more helpful to readers. To me, it's more of an editorial decision. --GoodDamon 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Then how can you advocate substituting a picture of an airplane for a depiction of space planes arriving on Earth? This topic is about Xenu, the associated scripture, and the related issues of Scientology trying to keep the lid on it. Anynobody(?) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Comment - The purpose of these illustrations is to promote a negative point of view regarding Scientology. The problem with the first image is that it was uploaded by a Scientology critic well-known outside of Wikipedia. The problem with the second image is that it is too far over the top to be plausibly neutral. The main problem is that the entire article suffers from issues like these, and it probably isn't fixable. A picture of an airplane makes the POV worse. I originally came here looking for information, and a link to DC-8 would have been completely satisfactory to me. 90.128.35.92 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Would you care to be specific on which issues the article has? To be blunt, to non-Scientologists the idea of Xenu at all is generally regarded as preposterous, so the entire article seems rather silly... except... The reliable sources Wikipedia must use make it clear that these are some of the things Scientologists actually believe or learn when they reach OT 3. (Before you get mad, Justallofthem, remember I'm saying the majority of reliable sources say this, not that it's true. I personally make no judgment on that, and I'm fully aware that the Church of Scientology has alternatively denied OT 3 completely or downplayed its significance). So... An article based on a preposterous, yet notable, idea is inevitably going to read pretty preposterously. Don't believe me? Try Raëlism, which I think is frankly too nice to its subject. Try reading it with a straight face. --GoodDamon 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I generally agree with GoodDamon here. There may be intractable issues with bias, but our concern is to make the best encyclopedia in accord with our policies. It so happens that these images add an unnecessary interpretive gloss to a very airy and strange description of an supposed event. I agree that interpretive glosses might be used to push a POV, as the original image apparently did. I would dislike these concoctions in any case for adding a novel creative layer between our readers and the best available sources. A photo of the aircraft doesn't suffer from this interpretive problem, and it gives our readers everything they need to imagine the purported event. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I'm also curious how the new image is over the top, given this is what Hubbard said: "...Boxed them up in boxes, threw them into space planes which are the exact copies - DC8's, the DC8 aeroplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. No difference. Except the DC8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't." - Class VIII 10 Assists Xenu transcripts 1968 page 14. He goes through the whole story, just as we've reported it. The drawing does the same, except one assumes since our DC-8s copy the space DC-8s in every way but engine type, they had windows/doors/etc too. Anynobody(?) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) unverifiable, unsuitable I will grant for the sake of argument that the image is compliant with WP:OI. It seems doubtful to me, but I'll but put aside. There are two qualities lacking in this image that we generally look for in an encyclopedia: Verifiability Suitability for illustrating the subject This image is a concoction of mostly-invented details that detracts from the original and best sources for this purported event: Hubbard's own words. We should exclude it from the article. In my remarks above I said that the event could be depicted in an "infinite variety of equally plausible depictions." Anynobody says that any image can be depicted multiple ways. That's true, but the fault is in "equally plausible." There is no verifiable standard to evaluate this image. Contrast this with other user-generated images. Say, for example, a comparison of the world's tallest buildings, or a map showing the currency inflation in each country. There are countless ways to visually depict this information. An image isn't less correct for the color codes its author uses, or because its author choose to use certain sources of raw data at the exclusion of others. This synthesis is a kind of original research, but it's allowable because the images cleave to their sources and are therefore verifiable. If they don't—say, if someone depicted the Sears Towers as being proportionately too tall—then the error could be corrected, or the image could be replaced with a more accurate portrayal of the information. This image, on the other hand, is more art than data. It is, in a sense, not falsifiable. We can't know how the planes might have looked on their approach, what earth might have looked like, and we certainly wouldn't know what logos, if any, were on the tail fins. What's more the image is unsuitable because it obscures the original and best source for this purported event: Hubbard's words. By creatively filling in the details, we may confuse readers into believing the Hubbard described things that he did not. For example, he never said the planes were white, or that they had logos. In fact, he never even said they looked like DC-8's without engines (an error that has been repeated numerous times in this discussion—partially, no doubt, because of the misleading images). He said "without fans". For all anyone knows, they could have had engines (maybe rockets) in the same place, just without turbofans. I'm not on enough drugs to know for certain, and I'm sure Anynobody isn't high enough either. We shouldn't color the original source with this creative adaptation. This image might have a valuable place in expressive media, but not an encyclopedia that strives to present information accurately. The image distracts users from the more reliable text, so it should be axed for that reason alone. This is a grown up encyclopedia, and we should trust that our readers have some modicum of reading comprehension. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Comment I'd go for a picture of a real DC-8. The user-generated picture is marginal from a WP:OR standpoint, and it doesn't really help a reader understand the article. OI seems to be more for cases where there is no appropriate image and an image is helpful. The DC-8 isn't a plane that most readers will immediately have a mental image of, so it helps to have an image, but for just explaining what a DC-8 is we have a lot of reasonable photos. SDY (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Above WP:RFC discussing illustrations in the article pertaining to DC-8 airplanes/spacecraft ran from 21 July 2008 to 20 August 2008, and is now archived. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Bill

It seems like there is far too much Capt Bill stuff (poorly referenced) that has no relevance to this article. WP:COATRACK in other words. AndroidCat (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well. It seems to have been all added by one user, 66.245.109.74, back in October 2007, and unless I'm mistaken it was actually taken from a site rather infamous for pushing the Scientology-favored version of issues as opposed to a reality-based version. (To given an example, the site claims that the answer to "Was L. Ron Hubbard involved in a satanic cult before he founded Scientology?" is "The facts: Hubbard was not involved in the group, but was sent in to investigate it. The following from the Times explains it all." However, the reproduced article from the Times begins with the following: "ON 5 OCTOBER, 1969, Spectrum published an article “The off beginning of Ron Hubbard’s Career.” The Church of Scientology has sent us the following information:" In other words, the remainder of the Times article is not "the facts" at all; it is in essence just a press release from the Church of Scientology -- and as many of us aware, the original of that document later showed up in a trial, written in longhand in L. Ron Hubbard's own handwriting.)

Now, I do believe that the actions that Robertson took in relation to the Xenu-related doctrines of Scientology, both when part of the Church of Scientology and afterwards on his own, are relevant to this article. However, we need material that is well-referenced and we need to cut out anything that is not actually relevant to Xenu or the Xenu doctrines. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, one thing that struck me as especially needing fact-checking was the claim that Robertson founded "the Galactic Patrol, Ron's Org and the FreeZoners". Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the organization Robertson founded called "the Free Zone" later rename itself to "Ron's Org"? Emphasizes the importance of fact-checking everything that originated with that hatchet site. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

bombing spirits in volcanos

Thought this was interesting: "why don't we drop some atom bombs into the deepest volcano on Earth, just to see if there are any devils inside of the old globe." Upper Purgatory (1955) by Edward Longstreet Bodin, page 17. A bit of original research, of course. Шизомби (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would be original research, except I doubt you just thought up the idea. What's your source connecting the two? Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it actually is just my own original research. The fact that Bodin was a mentor to Hubbard is suggestive. I'm guessing this would be a fruitful connection to study. Шизомби (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting though, a quick google search does show Ed Bodin to be LRH's literary agent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.216.233.241 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Revolt in the Stars

Is there some reason the fact that Xenu comes from a work of fiction has been glaringly omitted from the introductory material? 62.226.252.29 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no reliable source that says that? It could just as easily be said that Revolt in the Stars comes from Incident II (aka OT-III aka Wall of Fire) and that Hubbard intended it as a dramatization (or perhaps a first-hand account) of a true story. AndroidCat (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional information and sourced material at Revolt in the Stars. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore following changes regarding Bill Robertson

{{editprotected}}

The edit that I request be made to Xenu can be found at the following diff: [2]. I marked a statement about the groups founded by Bill Robertson as needing citation, and I included generally-known information about the origin of one of the group names, and subsequent use of that name as an umbrella term.

I made this edit on September 14th. On September 15th, a series of IP and sock editors made repeated vandalistic edits to the article. Five minutes after the vandals began, slakr (talk · contribs) put the page on semi-protection, and despite the fact that my edits clearly bore no resemblance whatsoever to those of the vandals ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) decided to revert my edit along with those of the vandals. Slakr has stated that he is "not well-versed in the topic and usually stay[s] out out content disputes/issues" and somehow counts these as reasons not to restore a good-faith edit to which no one has posed any objection whatsoever. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [8], removed unsourced content, let me know if I got it all. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

Inline Citations needed for quotes, a basic GA criterion. Inline refs needed for all of them, giving whether primary or secondary references are used. If primary references, publisher, page numbers, date of source needed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were a little more selective in use of the {{fact}} tag. Adding multiple tags to a single sentence is excessive (one at the end will suffice). Also, sometimes the text in the article says what work the quote is from, but you tagged it anyhow. If a source is given, but you feel it's not adequately detailed, then it's more helpful for you to discuss what's needed for each individual case. One of the worst uses of the tag was the sentence that starts "In 1987{{fact}}, the BBC's investigative news series...". You're actually demanding a source for a source (e.g. the BBC). If we cite a CNN story on the BBC documentary, saying it really did occur in 1987, would that be better? --Rob (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's my personal view, I may be wrong. The question is open to the scrutiny of other editors. I would not add the again. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Please see Xenu. It would be helpful if others could help out with this. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Volcano

Davis, Matt (August 7, 2008). "Selling Scientology: A Former Scientologist Marketing Guru Turns Against the Church". Portland Mercury. Index Newspapers, LLC. Retrieved 2008-10-29.

Good source of info. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Now added to the article in the "Influence of OT III on Scientology" sectionMartinPoulter (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove Volcanoes section?

I think the article would be better if this whole section were removed.

• The article is already huge and discussion of the individual volcanoes takes us away from a mere introduction to the article's topic
• It breaks up the flow of the article
• It's based on a single source which, though apparently based on mainstream science, has been questioned in the Featured Article Review.
• There is already some mention of the geographical locations in the previous section.

The image and caption could be kept and moved into the previous section MartinPoulter (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though FYIW, there are some much better sources for this sort of stuff listed in the article Revolt in the Stars. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good source:

• Savino, John, Ph.D. (2007). Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event That Changed the Course of Human History. Career Press. p. 55. ISBN 1564149536. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Cirt (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree identifying every volcano is a distracting waste of space, we can remove. I also feel Image:Krakajawiazerohour.png should be removed, as it's an inappropriate introduction of creativity. Readers can imagine for themselves what a nuclear blast looks like and ascending thetans looks like. The image is not a "notable depiction" (like the South Park image is) or an "official image" (like the Dianetics cover). --Rob (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nip/Tuck

I'm wandering how notable the Nip/Tuck episode is. I think there's justification for only about one sentence, max. I don't think the picture is justified. It's a fair use image, that doesn't add substantially to the understanding of the topic. This isn't like South Park, which actually had a major effect on the image of Scientology and Xenu for many people. --Rob (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the image. I think the current treatment as far as the 2 sentences is fine, it probably does not need its own subsection in that case. Could always revisit at some point if someone creates the article for the Nip/Tuck episode "Willy Ward", with appropriate referencing. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

At the conclusion of an RFC I participated in this summer, it seemed generally agreed that we should use an image of a real DC-8 with a caption. This allows users to interpret Hubbard's quite incomprehensible words themselves. It doesn't engage in any original research; no need to imagine what an accurate depiction might look like. Just the plane, and the caption—the most accurate depiction of what he intended, a direct quote.

I like the current image because it shows the plane in flight with an undistracting background, and a good view of the turboprops (in many profile pictures it's hard to tell that the DC-8 has four of them). I also like Image:Douglas DC-8 Airborne Laboratory in flight.jpg for similar reasons, but I'm happy with any image as long as it's of a real DC-8. Cool Hand Luke 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good rationale to me. Let the reader interpret what "fans" are. Keep this image.MartinPoulter (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MartinPoulter (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we can't use images with the NASA logo. This was also covered previously. AndroidCat (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, then I disgree: it is better to have a real picture of a real DC8 than a mocked up picture of what Hubbard's version looked like, which would be WP:OR. Any real DC8 will be owned by some organisation and have that organisation's logo on it. There is no need to infer a link between that organisation and the topic of the article, so long as the caption makes clear that the image is only there to show what a real DC8 looks like, which it presently does. In its context on the page, the logo is so small as to be practically invisible. As for your frustration that things are going in circles: for myself, I can only apologise that I'm relatively recently actively editing this article, and I haven't read its entire history. At least I'm not asking if it's a joke.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care if we use the spaceplane image or not, but the DC-8 image that was being used was deleted for copyvio. I put the old image back as a placeholder. As for using images with the NASA logo, there are restrictions its use. (See Image:DC-8_72_overflight.jpg, Warnings: Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems are restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221.) My re-read of it is that we are ok on this one: We couldn't use an altered spaceplane image with a NASA logo, but the NASA logo on a NASA plane, captioned as such, should be fine. AndroidCat (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What a strange regulation. Like a Federal agency trademark. I think the previous problem was that the logo was on an image of a spacecraft not "owned by, leased to, or contractor-furnished to NASA, or produced for NASA by contractors" (14 CFR 1221.110). I agree with you, AndroidCat. Since this doesn't purport to be anything but a contemporary NASA-owned DC-8, I think it should be fine. If anyone is worried about it, there's a whole category of DC-8 photos, but I like the NASA ones best. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Verification of sources

WP:V establishes that questionable sources can be used as sources for themselves under seven specified conditions. That is the intended role of some of the crucial sources in this article:

• The "Revolt in the Stars" screenplay
• The "Assists" audio lecture, given 3 October 1968
• Ron's Journal 67, audio lecture given in 1967, also known as RJ67

These sources are cited only for their own content as it relates to the subject of the article, not as a basis for claims about anything external. It seems to me that the conditions are satisfied (but I offer this for debate) although we need to establish point 7. "the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source." Are the requirements for WP:V met?

• The Revolt in the Stars article includes a number of examples where the screenplay is mentioned in secondary sources. I don't know how we establish that the quote in the article is actually from that screenplay. I don't have a copy.
• I haven't located a paper mention of "Assists"
• Apart from the many mentions and alleged leaks of RJ67 online, it is cited on pages 401 and 409 of Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky (1990). Atack specifically cites a 1983 release of the lecture audio tape, published by Golden Era Studios.

The remaining issue from the featured article review, it seems to me, is the page number from the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. I don't have a paper copy of this source, but it's available for sale to the public and has been cited in academic literature so I hope someone who does have access will come forward.MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh! There is a secondary source for "Assists". ABC Nightline 14 February 1992 broadcast an extract of the tape in its "Conversation with David Miscavige" episode. The audio in the broadcast, identified as L Ron Hubbard, matches the audio that has been released online more recently. The quoted extracts concern Hubbard's visit to the Van Allen Belt and the Xenu story, "Boxed them up in boxes, threw them into space planes. DC-8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. No difference, except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it, and the space plane didn't." [9] MartinPoulter (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue about the Tech Dictionary has now been solved by someone with paper copies of the dictionaries. The Featured Article review has reiterated the need to remove self-published internet sources. I've gone on the attack against these, but it's lengthy work. Any help appreciated.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This Gawker item from the External Links section has an eight-minute extract from "Assists" which seems to contain all the relevant quotes from this article, and more, and which matches the audio in the Nightline broadcast The History Of Xenu, As Explained By L. Ron Hubbard In 8 Minutes. What's the status of Gawker- is it counted as just a blog or as a online publication with an editing process?MartinPoulter (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is in dispute. Some say Gawker is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com. I think it's considered a tabloid equivalent. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's immaterial, as the Nightline source is sufficient for WP:RS/WP:V on its own. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another confirmation: RJ-67 is mentioned in the Janet Reitman Rolling Stone article: "Indeed, as even Rinder himself points out, Hubbard presented a rough outline of the Xenu story to his followers in a 1967 taped lecture, "RJ 67," in which he noted that 75 million years ago a cataclysmic event happened in this sector of the galaxy that has caused negative effects for everyone since." "Rinder" here refers to Mike Rinder, at that time a Church of Scientology spokesman.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Galactic Confederacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Xenu and Space opera in Scientology scripture. -- Justallofthem (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Proposing to merge in Galactic Confederacy. That piece is an unnecessary WP:CFORK based almost entirely on primary materials. The only bit of it that has secondary sourcing is a mere mention in reference to Xenu ("Back then Xenu, who was apparently the Galactic Federation ruler") so it fits best here. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Galactic Confederacy might warrant its own section in this article and then we can redirect Galactic Confederacy here. --Richard (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Galactic Confederacy (along with other related Wikipediatrix stubs) might fit better with Space opera in Scientology scripture. AndroidCat (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs) - this would not be the best place for a merge, but Galactic Confederacy could perhaps be merged into Space opera in Scientology scripture. Suggest removing the merge from tag from the top of this article, and changing it to point to Space opera in Scientology scripture, instead. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the Xenu story according the little bit of secondary sourcing we have. It does not really matter though because it can be (and will/is) merged to both places - the only difference is where the redirect goes. Again the sourcing puts it with Xenu - "Space Opera in Scientology" is an OR effort; an original concept not appearing in secondary materials. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Galactic Confederacy article is basically a coatrack for another copy of the Xenu story; it doesn't say anything that isn't already said here, because Hubbard doesn't appear to have written anything specific about the Galactic Confederacy other than OT III. A setting or character that exists in only one work is pretty limited in independent notability. --FOo (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents... Xenu is notable enough in pop culture references and mention in news stories to merit a stand-alone article, but the other two are good candidates for merging, in my opinion. The space opera isn't an OR effort, although there needs to be some work on it. See here for a scholarly mention of Hubbard's space opera from none other than James R. Lewis's Oxford book on new religions, with a significant snippet of text from Have You Lived Before this Life? I'm of the opinion that the Galactic Confederacy material should be merged into the space opera article. --GoodDamon 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this some kind of joke?

This article is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.216.135 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See banner at the top. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much ridiculous as it is the epitome of POV pushing. I don't believe there is an article on Wikipedia as unbalanced as this one. If anybody knows of one, please show it to me. 90.135.103.105 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Cirt (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to put in your own sources to "balance" it. In fact, please do. What POV do you think it is neglecting? The official Church of Scientology POV (in fact, all of them) is represented in the article.MartinPoulter (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No. A truly balanced article would be highly unwelcome to many people. Just check the discussion page history for deleted suggestions. People were fighting tooth and nail to keep pictures of airplanes, volcanoes with funny captions and nuclear explosions in the article because "images add so much to an article." Just tell me of a more unbalanced article than this so I can work on that on instead. 90.135.144.74 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, those images were removed, therefore making it more balanced. If they were removed then there should be no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.175.62 (talk • contribs)

Here you go: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Now get out of here and get to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.13.191 (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is all true. I can vouch for it, since I'm a Thetan myself. As a matter of fact, I'm a close personal friend of Xenu himself! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.129.156 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone of article

Compare it to this explanation of "Christianity in a Nutshell" 45 seconds into this short video: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHFAsY6rSA]. The first paragraph of this article comes especially close. 90.136.131.114 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The video is an insulting caricature of Christianity purporting to summarize the entire belief system as basically a zombie cult. The article is about a single character from the Scientology mythos, rather than an overview of the entire belief system, and the first paragraph describes that character in a summary of the rest of the article, per the Wikipedia manual of style. So... huh? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. If you find the description odd, well... Xenu is an odd character, and is largely described as a dictator of a "Galactic Confederacy," guilty of terrible acts, in reliable sources. James R. Lewis describes him in that manner. What changes would you propose to this article? --GoodDamon 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a good point is raised, by that video example, about how haters and critics use loaded and POV terms to describe something unsympathetically so as to mock it. Such treatment has been common in the Scientology articles as they were originally created by haters and critics and Scientologists were ruthlessly driven off. The situation has improved somewhat with more "neutralish" editors and some Scientologists working on these articles. However we still need to be alert to the efforts of haters and critics to make articles a mockery of Scientology through the use of non-applicable and loaded terms such as "alien" or "UFO", to name just a couple. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is far better than in its previous incarnations, but those previous incarnations were vociferously defended. A pattern within the Scientology-related Wikipedia articles has emerged that look very much like a highly-motivated, organized group of "haters" (hate group?) could be behind many of the problems. It also looks like the improvements were made in the knowledge that some of the more obvious POV pushing would not be tolerated forever.

The most glaring problem in the article is that the first paragraph is an overly-direct "summary" of what people want to portray as the belief system of Scientology, followed by the statement that Scientologists "widely deny or try to hide" it. This article is not mostly about Xenu; it is about the "Story of Xenu" as told by people trying to steer people away from Scientology. For example, mentioning at the very beginning of the article that it is only revealed to Scientologists who have contributed a large amount of money, which has nothing at all to do with Xenu the character. Instead, why not have a paragraph in the article stating Scientologists deny the story, possibly because they do not know about it because it is only revealed to large contributors? I suspect the reason is because it was important to someone in the "early days" of the article to have that information be the first thing people read when they read this article.

The article titled Xenu should be about Xenu, not a "Scientology Exposed!" piece. There are other Wikipedia articles that retell the incidents. Isn't it strange that in this article, the wording has been changed to "the story of Xenu." It is not strange when you take into account the vast number of hits this article gets in comparison to those other articles. I don't see how it could be anything other than canvassing one point of view to the largest possible audience.

Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with UFO or alien, but now that I think about it, UFO is not accurate because there is nothing unidentified about them, and extraterrestrial is more politically correct. I do think that calling religious beliefs "paranormal" goes over the line, and shouldn't be used in any religious article (nor would it be accurate).

Finally, Revolt in the Stars should be in the very first paragraph. Literary works in which a character appears are of primary importance and should be among the first pieces of information given when introducing a character. Again, I suspect that the first paragraph was constructed with other goals in mind. 90.136.31.181 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about Revolt in the Stars. As for the other points: Context is needed to explain who Xenu is supposed to be and why people believe or not in his existence. The article about Merlin is mostly about the Merlin story because that is what the reader needs to know about to understand who or what Merlin is. Do you interpret that as a hate-group's campaign to "expose" Anglo-Saxon folklore? Some of the context needed for Xenu is why, if the story is part of Scientology beliefs, is it not mentioned in the huge volumes of publicly available Scientology paper and online materials.

Xenu is supposed to be a being from another planet, so there's no controversy that he is "alien". It's a bit extreme to say that the term is "loaded" or non-applicable. There is academic literature, cited in the article, in which the Xenu story is listed among "UFO religions". If academic study of religion can use the term, then WP can. If this is the best that Justallofthem can find to justify the claim that the article is hateful or mocking in tone, then that suggests the article is doing a good job of being neutral.

Careful about using the term "hate group". It's a very harsh term and you haven't justified its use- you don't even seem clear what group you are labelling as such. You risk being accused of hate, or at least incivility, yourself.

This article has already been a Featured Article and recently passed a thorough Featured Article Review. By all means improve it, but it's highly dubious that the article fundamentally violates WP policy.MartinPoulter (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making about mocking was not about this article in particular, it was a comment on the tone and tactics of that YouTube video and their parallels here. Since Christ rose from the grave, the hater called him a "zombie", a loaded term that overlaps the concept of a resurrected being but is not simply the word for someone that has risen from the dead but carries a lot of extra "baggage" that would create negative connotations in the reader's or listener's mind. Bringing up those negative connotations was the point to that video and that purpose makes it propaganda. The Scientology articles are full of such. It is always important to the critic of Scientology that L. Ron Hubbard is always identified first as a "science-fiction writer"; the fact that Scientologists believe that we (not aliens) have existed previously in other, non-Earth, civilizations is referred to as belief in "aliens" and UFOs. Scientologists have no interest in aliens or UFOs, we are interested in our spiritual growth and our history as spiritual beings. Anyone that has more than a passing familiarity with Scientology as opposed to the criticism of Scientology knows that it is not about aliens and UFOs. Constant inclusion of those loaded terms might be forgiven as an error by some but plenty of the original creators of the Scientology articles here knew better. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xenu article."MartinPoulter (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked over the Merlin article. I do not agree that the article primarily about the "story of Merlin." That article is not at all similar to this one. Do you think that editing the Merlin article to make the introductory paragraph have the same form as the one in this article would be a welcome change? That was not even the point, anyway. The point was that there are Wikipedia articles explaining the "incidents", yet this one uses the term "story of Xenu" as a reason for completely retelling it in the article titled Xenu.

I thought the word alien was avoided in contemporary discourse about extraterrestrials because that word has been used to mean foreigners and immigrants (as in, illegal aliens). It would be a problem if the words were intentionally used to purposely bring about a "UFO cult" kind of feeling.

I think the problems are: tone, overly-direct structure (in an unbelievably obtuse manner), and undue weight. The thing that really bothers me the most is that there are plenty of places to get the "beware of Scientology" message out, but Wikipedia is absolutely not that place. I do think the article is slowly improving, but rather than "toning it down a little", it needs some major reworking. Surely the earlier edits to this article demonstrated extreme bad faith. I see no need to build upon any of them. --90.134.168.40 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Add to those problems some content that would be better in other articles. For example, "OT III also deals with Incident I...", "Hubbard uses the existence of body thetans to explain...", "...the Scientologist holds both cans of an E-meter...", "...find a cluster of body thetans, address it telepathically...", "Critics and some Christians state that Hubbard's statements regarding R6 prove that Scientology doctrine is incompatible with Christianity...", "...the Church of Scientology receives a significant amount of its revenue from fixed donations paid by Scientologists to study the OT materials." The "story" itself merits its own article. --90.134.27.124 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Critics and some Christians state..." are weasel words. They also do not fit within the paragraph to which they are appended because it is a paragraph about space opera. Does anyone else think that the remark is out of place? 213.101.232.112 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What is the source for the pronunciation of X as /z/? Can't it be /ks/?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced bit for specific pronunciation of "Xemu" (though presumably quite similar to "Xenu"), and added three cites for pronunciation of "Xenu". Cirt (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Confederacy Org Board is never mentioned in OT III

I have removed the paragraph regarding the org board from the "Influence of OT III on Scientology" section because it is totally inappropriate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people here who seem to think that OT III is the complete source of everything regarding space opera and the Galactic Confederacy, etc. The first mentions of these elements occur years before OT III in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The "org board" idea mentioned here is first brought up by Hubbard in a 1963 lecture.

Also, OT III documents do not mention at all the "org board" or its connection to the Galactic Confederacy. This is pretty basic stuff in Scn. Laval (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that removal, not only because it is apparently inaccurate, but also because it is sourced entirely to primary sources, which are best avoided if possible. --GoodDamon 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Favourable mention in Oxford University Press book

This article has received a favourable mention in James R. Lewis (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press, in a chapter authored by Mikael Rothstein (p. 371ff.): "The most sober and enlightening text about the Xenu myth is probably the anonymous article on Wikipedia ...". Jayen466 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting. I wonder what dated revision they were looking at when they made that analysis. :P Cirt (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 384 mentions a June 2007 date. (Amazon have Look Inside enabled.) Cheers, Jayen466 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually mentions that the article was locked at the time; which it was (for new and unregistered users), from June 7 to July 7. Jayen466 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Miscavige interview

We say, "When asked directly about the Xenu story by Ted Koppel on ABC's Nightline, Scientology leader David Miscavige said that this was not a part of current or modern Scientology". I've looked at the interview text and I think we're overreaching here. First, at no point was Miscavige asked directly about Xenu, whose name isn't even mentioned. Second, what Miscavige says is not part of current Scientology is a Hubbard lecture where Hubbard talked about having travelled to the van Allen belt. That is what Miscavige comments on. If I've missed the relevant bit in the Koppel interview, please point it out. Jayen466 19:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look at the source info. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Modified [10], as per source [11]. Cirt (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I rechecked, and David Miscavige was played a version of the Xenu story, which is what Koppel was referring to, in addition to the separate Van Allen Belt story:

---

Sawyer: Hubbard also announced he had gone beyond psychiatry, by literally traveling in space to Venus and Mars, and to a distant radiation belt.

Hubbard: I was up in the Van Allen Belt. This is factual. And I don't know why they're scared of the Van Allen Belt, because it's simply hot. You'd be surprised how warm space is.

Sawyer: Hubbard said he had discovered secrets of the universe so powerful they could only be heard by Scientologists who had spent hundreds of hours studying his programs. Anyone else would be struck dead by the knowledge. He told stories of how, 75 million years ago, an evil tyrant collected beings on other planets to be stored in volcanoes on earth.

Hubbard: Boxed them up in boxes, threw them into space planes. DC-8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. No difference, except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it, and the space plane didn't.

Sawyer: As this film depicts, the spirits' bodies were destroyed by hydrogen bombs, and today their troubled spirits are attached to human bodies by the thousands. Called "body thetans," they cause endless problems. Only Scientology knows how to shake them loose.

Friend: You talk to them, and when you find out who they are and what they are, what they're doing and what's making them stick around you, then they blow. And so you pay a lot of money. I mean, you have lots of body thetans, so this process takes lots of time.

Sawyer: Scientologists today consider these sacred writings, the story of how mankind's problems evolved millions of years ago on other planets, and so they need to be kept secret. Defectors claim there is another reason for secrecy.

Rose: I really think that instead of handing out personality tests on the street, they handed out a story that said, you know, "What's really plaguing you is that you're encrusted with little spirits and these spirits are suffering from an incident that took place 75 million years ago, and if you come on into our church we'll cure you of this," I think that there would be a high rate of people saying, "No thanks." [1]

---

This intro piece is what Koppel and Miscavige were discussing. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayen466 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

FOX News has an interesting piece, if this gets covered further could use a brief mention. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Body Thetans and Humans

Okay so I'm a bit confused by one part of the whole Xenu story. So Body Thetans came from dead aliens, okay I got that. But is this story saying that the humans the body Thetans attached themselves too are the aliens that survived the cataclysm brought on by Xenu, meaning that all humans are also physically descended from aliens? Because I've heard other versions of this story say that body thetans attached themselves to primitive humans that naturally evolved on Earth. I feel that this article is somewhat vague as to where humans came from in all of this. Or is this just something that L. Ron Hubbard never fully elaborated upon? –Nahald (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is the latter, not the former. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, by the "latter" are you referring to the part about body thetans attaching themselves to primitive humans, or the part about L. Ron Hubbard not elaborating on this? –Nahald (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably both, but more likely the first thing you said in your reply. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Hubbard also made a point of the belief that the spirits (thetans) of humans living today could have past lives on other planets ... as well as other Earth species on the evolutionary time track. --FOo (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice

{{Off topic warning}}
{{Warning|'''This article is not a joke.'''
Several editors have previously asked here if the [[Xenu]] article is a joke. Please do not ask or start a section about the article as a joke; doing so is disruptive and inflates the size of this page unnecessarily. Please see [[WP:TPG|Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines]] for more information.}}

---

I moved the above from the top of the talk page to MediaWiki:Editnotice-1-Xenu. Hopefully this will be a more prominent warning for users. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This was moved to Template:Editnotices/Talk:Xenu. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And that was moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Xenu. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly in need of an update, Tommy Davis acknowledges the Xenu Story.

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=9996728

This is the the fifth part of a story covering Scientology.

Relevant part here:

NB (pulling out 650 page book of "Technical Notes of Operating Thetans"): Looking at Mr. Hubbard's own works, what seems to be in a sense curious is at least, according to L. Ron Hubbard's own words, and I quote, "the head of the galactic confederation. Seventy-six planets around larger stars visible from here..."

TD: I can stop you. I know what you're talking about. I'm familiar with the material. I think what you're getting at is the confidential scriptures of the Church.

(NB is Nathan Baca, the reporter, TD is Tommy Davis. You can click the link for confirmation of that)

"the head of the galactic confederation. Seventy-six planets around larger stars visible from here..." This part quoted here is clearly part of OTIII, which is the Xenu story. I think an edit is needed, to confirm that this is, indeed, Scientology doctrine.

Edit: Whoops, forgot to sign. Senavan (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does show that an official from the organization is acknowledging that this story involving "the head of the galactic confederation. Seventy-six planets around larger stars visible from here...", is, as he calls it, part of the "confidential scriptures of the Church". Cirt (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, do you think that you could possibly handle the edit? I'm entirely new to wiki editing, and I don't think I'd want my first edit to be on a previously featured article, in case I mess up. Senavan (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since this article is about space opera in Scientology, I propose that it be merged with Space opera in Scientology scripture. There is too much redundant material in Wikipedia. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about only one element of space opera in Scientology, so it's inherently unsuitable for such merger, and it's far too long to be merged back into its theoretical parent article. And since when did we merge featured articles anyway? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see a case for a merger. The two articles overlap, certainly, but there is plenty of Scientology Space Opera that has nothing to do with Xenu, and it's not as if this is a short article. Articles inevitably contain some overlap because topics overlap. That doesn't mean all articles need to be merged. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. It's a bit disruptive to propose merging a Featured Article into an article of lesser quality. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. For reasons above. --Bobak (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose featured. For reasons of "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," the language must be changed to indicate in each case that these are the views of a particular religious text. Or are we honestly claiming that the Hawaiian volcanoes are most likely to be 75 million years old? User:You have my IP anyway, 10:10, 2 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.155 (talk)
• Oppose merge. Would you merge 'Jesus' into 'Christian Mysticism'? Of course not - it's a substantially notable topic on it's own. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Grounds cited are cause to differentiate articles, not merge them. As it is, the two subjects are sufficiently different in scope, especially in regards to popular interest/refrence, to warrant sepperate coverage. There is a great deal of info on xenu, plenty for its own article. If the other article is duplicitous, then trim it. --Δζ (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Xenu is a sufficiently interesting topic to have it's own article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert regarding what, according to Hubbard, is designed to cause pneumonia

Cirt reverted an edit of mine, saying the present wording is backed by the sources. For reference, the present wording is:

"Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that this material was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc)[sic] anyone who attempts to solve it."[10][11]".

The words "this material" here logically relate to the OTIII materials. I referred to both the sources cited; neither backs up our version. Corydon quotes from the confidential OTIII material, which says

"Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. [...] The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development"

Lamont (on p. 50, in fact) speaks of

a past trauma so horrendous that anyone trying to absorb it without Ron's guiding light would die of pneumonia.

Both sources are clear that it is not the OTIII materials that are calculated to kill, but the implant of false data humanity is supposed to have received in remote prehistory.

Later on in the article body this is how our article presents it as well: "OT III contains a warning that the R6 implant is "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it."[18][25]

The lead should be consistent with the article body, and the cited sources. Views? --JN466 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked lede, also added a 3rd source to the end of the sentence. [12]. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Better, but the "it" still seems to relate to the materials, whereas Corydon and Lamont – and indeed the original text by Hubbard which we quote from – are clear that the thing to be "solved" is the implant. Perhaps you could see your way clear to letting my edit stand? I think it had this right, and was borne out by the sources. --JN466 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was your own personal interpretation of the primary source material, a violation of WP:OR. Your edit removed the quote from Hubbard. Best to quote Hubbard's confusing words themselves, instead of injecting POV. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "it" subject is quite clear now. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't, because we had "implants" in plural, and "it" in singular. The text has to be clear that what is being referred to as being "solved" is the implant, not the OTIII material. The original context is, "The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development." (Hubbard) --JN466 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Another way we could put it is,

  "... warning that an implant of false memories people had received in these prehistoric events was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it."

• I think this would be an accurate summary of what we say about the R6 implant in the article body (cf. the "Summary" section and the "Scientology doctrine" section). --JN466 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like it might be good to me, with one request for clarification regarding these "implants". Are all the implants exclusively of false memories, or are there other types present as well? If there are other types, then I might consider dropping the phrase "of false memories". It's kind of hard to see how false memories would be able to kill anyone by pneumonia. But, if the implants as described are exclusively of false memories, then that's what it is. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this change [13] is fine. Let's keep it like that. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re false memories, Reece has "misleading circuits and false memories", so it may indeed be safer to stick with Hubbard's own wording in OTIII, which is "various misleading data". I'd like to get in the notion that this implant was supposed to have happened a long time ago, and is supposed to be present in everyone. How about this:

"... warning that people had received an "implant" containing "various misleading data" in these prehistoric events, and that this implant was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it". Hubbard claimed that his "tech development"—i.e. his OT materials—had neutralised this threat, creating a safe path to redemption.

Sources: The wording "various misleading data" is taken from Scientology scripture quoted by Corydon, as is Hubbard's claim to have developed the tech to deal with the problem (see Corydon/OTIII quote above, at the beginning of this thread). The part about Hubbard's having created a safe path is additionally citable to Rothstein in Lewis, pp. 375–376. Lamont has "a past trauma so horrendous that anyone trying to absorb it without Ron's guiding light would die of pneumonia", already quoted above, followed by a description of the OT levels. Does that sound okay? JN466 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything more is needed in the WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we have,

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that an "implant" (past trauma[10]) discussed in these materials was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc)[sic] anyone who attempts to solve it."[11][10][12]

That will leave the reader needlessly mystified, until they read the article body. The proposal is to replace it with

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that people had received an "implant" containing "various misleading data" in these prehistoric events, and that this implant was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it". Hubbard claimed that his "tech development"—i.e. his OT materials—had neutralised this threat, creating a safe path to redemption.

It's a more accessible summary, putting the implant in context. JN466 11:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As you acknowledge, this is put in greater context in the article body. The lede is fine, as per the changes already made. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the history of the lead. If you look at the 7 June 2007 version that Rothstein liked so much, that passage was perfectly clear then: "These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of Scientology. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." Things went awry when an IP edited the article a few weeks later: [14]. Those edits were not helpful. The June 2007 wording was clearer than what we have now; going back to that would be an option as well. --JN466 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My one main concern here is that someone seeing the memories/pneumonia link might think that it is vandalism, which is something I think we want to avoid. So maybe going back to the quoted section above would solve that, or just shortening it to something like "Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that people had received an "implant" which was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it". Hubbard claimed that his "tech development"—i.e. his OT materials—had neutralised this threat, creating a safe path to redemption.," with possibly some change to "calculated" (I think "designed" would flow better, personally), and some indication as to what the "it" to be solved is. But the one thing I really want to ensure we do is not give anyone the impression that the content has been vandalized by having it say something that strikes the average reader as a non sequitur. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked lede to be more in line with the June 2007 version [15]. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out a stray "an" and have added the sentence about Hubbard claiming his tech solved the problem, per John above. --JN466 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved that sentence down into the body text of the article, where it had not been previously, per WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Xenu story in anti-cult discourse

Scholars have commented on the significance of the Xenu myth in anti-cult (or anti-Scientology) discourse. That is something we should expand on. Scholarly sources available online include:

• The Xenu Myth as Anticult Target (subsection of Mikael Rothstein in Lewis 2009)
• Lorne L. Dawson & Douglas E. Cowan 2004, page 261, p. 264, p. 265, p. 266

Please have a look at the sources; I intend to come up with a paragraph or two on this. --JN466 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What suggested wording did you have in mind? Cirt (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten sidetracked with other things for now and will have to come back to you on that later. If you guys want to have a go at summarising these sources in the meantime, please feel free. --JN466 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Willms

Another interesting source on Xenu is Gerald Willms, also in Lewis (Oxford University Press), p. 248 and p. 249. Key points:

• Body thetans are sometimes referred to as "demons" (making BT auditing akin to exorcism).
• The primary function of the Xenu myth is not religious, but practical (getting people to use specific auditing techniques—i.e. Scientology products).
• The myth is never used as a legitimisation of Scientology's religious status.
• The myth in fact has no transcendental content; the things in it supposedly happened a long time ago, and people carry whole track memories of them, but they involve material events with ordinary flesh-and-blood actors, and there is no "otherworldly" principle driving these events.
• The Xenu myth plays a more prominent role in the Free Zone.

Please review the source. I think Willms' insights would make a useful addition to the article. --JN466 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this sort of thing could be fodder for a subsection called Commentary, with commentary and analysis from scholars and other WP:RS sources about Xenu. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the sort of thing I had in mind. Rothstein comments too, on pages 374ff., also referring to a "demonology", comparing it to other UFOlogical myths, etc. Useful stuff to put the story in context. --JN466 01:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Job

Added {{Good Job}} template note, about mention in Scientology, Oxford University Press, USA. There are actually several other positive mentions of Wikipedia in the book. :) Cirt (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cool. We discussed this here on this talk page a few months back, at Talk:Xenu/Archive_4#Favourable_mention_in_Oxford_University_Press_book. --JN466 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Has it occured to anyone else that WP articles about religion should not be "sobering"? 213.29.115.6 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really much to discuss about it, it is just this particular scholar's analysis. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even when it is used as evidence of a "good job" when it is actually evidence of the opposite? 94.222.102.44 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not make sense. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job--on the sobriety. Would the injection of "sobriety" into other WP articles on religious topics be tolerated? 213.29.115.6 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this getting to a specific suggestion about something to change in this article? If not, this discussion is not productive. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of things, it will not be productive in any case. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be dangerous?

I am not a scientologist by any means (whatsoever) of the imagination.

Still, wouldn't it be just simply nice to write at the very top of the article:

'WARNING - If you are a scientoligist, according to your beliefs the following text may be detrimental to your health'. Or something.

I know you and I don't believe reading it could hurt us. But some people do and that needs to be respected. I see warning these people about the article as very similar to warning a vegetarian about meat being in a dish. Sure we all know it'd be totally harmless for them to just eat the meat -- but still it's nice they be warned rather then be subjected to something they don't want to do.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the existing lede serves this purpose. It informs the reader of what the article is about, including the belief that the content is dangerous, and they can decide whether to go further. Lots of people have belief systems according to which specific information (about sexuality, culture, other beliefs etc.) is harmful, corrupting, offensive or otherwise unpalatable. If we were to put warnings to each of those belief systems at the tops of all the articles, they would fill the whole first screen. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, it describes "official Scientology dogma" in the most direct, implausible language imaginable. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

this cannot be any more dangerous than reading the bible or koran which are just as idotic and nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MartinPouler, the lead gives all the information necessary for individuals to assess wither the article will inform, offend, fail to interest, or cause them to catch pneumonia and die depending on their personal interests or beliefs and no additional warning is necessary to further inform those parties. Now if there is actually a wave of deaths directly linked to this article then maybe we should revisit this conversation but till then it should stand as is.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As a one time Scientologist and having transpassed or transcended the auditing of OT III some years ago, one finds this approach/article & discussion amusing on a number of counts. A recent count of our apparent time track as beings found its length to be nearly 10^110 earth years equivalent, having been through 11 Big Bangs and some 19 Incident II's. The reason OT III auditing works simultaneously on all those "that long ago's" is their singular similarities it would seem, too. As it, "Incident II," breaks out into the culture, knowing creatures are subtly and not so subtly reminded that 65 times in our past we have developed Scientology & Scientology-like organizations to deal with our pasts, including 55 iterations of Christianity, for "confession," "repentance" and otherwise dealing with our past errors. With the presence of the several thousands of validly audited OT III persons in the earth environment, the risks of danger or "infection" become less as the 1) incidents are audited by valid auditors and 2) more able, valid OT III's are produced to stabilize the conscious, analytic mind fields. The risks may remain in place for some, who by virtue/vice of their own self-constructed ignorance and/or puzzling karma cells act mainly as "bad samaritans" for those earnestly seeking freedom. And that can include overly enthusiastic Scientologists who "spill the beans" to lower level persons perhaps just discovering that they may have a personal engram... 71.51.73.23 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenu / Xemu additions

Regarding [16], I do not doubt info from Operation Clambake, but let us try to stick to independent reliable secondary sources for additions of new material to this article please. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't edit war but I don't understand your reversion as Operation Clambake present: OT III Scholarship Page was the source of my material and you say Operation Clambake is a reliable surce. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but can you present other corroborating sources? That would be the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenu (Xemu) in Scientology could be helpful. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an WP:RS source, and I think that is a replica of some page at xenu.net anyways. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know what is an acceptable source better than I do, please find one. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Scietologist, having been crudely rejected by them long ago but later rewarded with a friendly audience with Hubbard in his office on Hollywood Blvd and in his airstream elsewhere, I think. The Xenu page strikes me as revealing that a lot of hard feelings by former members and affiliates are being jumped on by the opportunistic press and that this bad press is what concerns the religious leaders. I think if the press were friendlier, the current leaders would be more open about such things as are discussed here. This fact should be mentioned in the end of the article. The media in this country has become very propogandistic, not that it wasn't already, being so opportunistic as it is. It loves bad news and this is one reason Catholic pedophilia is big news. The public free press has always had little to do with the truth and much to do with what people want to hear. If Hubbard had to be colorful, it is understandable. That he had had a caffiene habit it would have gotten him in a whole lot of trouble in a few years from now had he lived to experience it ... everyman is on the cross; it's an idea and a symbol much older than christianity itself. BTW, I'm catholic but didn't live through the old style catholicism Hubbard had to live through as a child. It's amazing he was as clearspoken as he was. He should have been completely screwed up and digging ditches for a living after his childhood praying for his freckles and green eyes to go away, I've read somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.5.75 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DC-8s without the fans.

DC-8 engines are called fanjets became they use giant fans to force air into the combustion chamber. Hubbard probably meant that the space ships had rocket engines, in place of jets. The basic difference is that rockets carry their own oxidant, instead of sucking in air.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, but note that Hubbard corrects himself - "the DC8 had fans, propellers on it." Jet planes of any kind do not have propellers, obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Hubbard was near an airport or looked up in the sky, and saw a DC8, and decided it would be a nice prop for his science fiction book. Yep, that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.232.172 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sciologos, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Scientific support for the OT III story

In the K-Pg boundary (65 million years ago) shocked quartz and iridium have been found all over the world. Shocked quartz appear only at nuclear and meteorite craters and iridium exist in heightened levels in volcanoes and in meteorites. Scientists believe that a giant meteorite created the heightened levels of shocked quartz and iridium, but it could theoretically also be linked to nuclear bombs in volcanoes. 65 million years ago (K-Pg boundary) and 75 million years ago (Xenu) is not so far from each other considering the overall time span. Hubbard published OT III in 1967 but the heightened levels of iridium was found in 1980.

— Sciologos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

Shocked quartz: http://www.scn.org/~bh162/shocked_quartz.html

Iridium source1: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Pollution/Volcanoes/Hawaii-Iridium-Enrichment-in-Airborne-Particles-from-Kilauea-Volcano-January-1983

Iridium source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium

K-T layer: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

Alvarez found iridium layer 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.243.112 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering sources. After reviewing the article I think I'm still not sure about what exactly you want changed. This doesn't seem to be an article about the truth or fiction of the OT III story. Can you explain more precisely what changes you think should be made? Tim Pierce (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to change anything, I want to add the above material with a separate headline "Scientific support for the OT III story" since the Xenu story is generally regarded as sci-fi mumbo-jumbo totally made up by Hubbard. I'm trying to find some scientific evidence for his claims and have found the above which is pretty interesting. I think it's important as objective verification evidence against the general belief that the Xenu story is totally made up. Many Scientologists apparently think its true from my understanding. Scientific evidence for such a wild story should be regarded as important. We're all looking for the truth. Wikipedia strives toward improving the world and offering several perspectives and multiples of scientific evidence, right?

There's A LOT of information in the article that "doesn't seem to be an article about the truth or fiction of the OT III story", e.g. South Park etc.

I'm just trying to be scientific and objective about these things, offering multiple perspectives for the reader to ponder. By the way, the K-T boundary is called K-Pg boundary nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.243.112 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have read your sources and your argument for their inclusion. Unfortunately the articles themselves make no reference to Scientology, Xenu, the existence of these volcano's 75 million years ago or hydrogen bombs. This would be WP:SYNTH (the same rule that keeps out sources that reference the accepted age of the volcano's cited by Hubbard ). If you can find a WP:RS which both states what the above articles argue and ties it to the Xenu story then it can be included.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see on your profile that you work on South Park and Scientology articles. Not particularly independent. I would prefer another "judge" that has nothing to do with Scientology, Anonymous, Freezone, South Park etc at all. I read about the WP:SYNTH but comparing "UN and 160 wars" is something else in this case. Basically what you (or rather Wikipedia) are telling me is that I have to write my own article about this using serious resources, make some serious conclusions, publish it on the Internet and then have somebody else come back and say: "Hey, this articles in itself make references to Scientology, Xenu, the existence of these volcano's 75 million years ago or hydrogen bombs." About the same thing as what I do right now.

It feels like you're being really hard on the rules here. There are many other articles that have more loose conclusions than this but are allowed.

Shocked quartz and iridium are both EXTREMELY rare at the earth's surface, we're not talking about grass and rocks here. Those are TWO INDEPENDENT RARE ELEMENTS at the same time, coming only from asteroids or meteorites, vulcanoes and nuclear weapons. Those articles not being Scientology improves the independency. What would you say if L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology had written those articles, would that be more appropriate? Striving for sources independent from the Church of Scientology should be regarded as highly important.

Well, I don't know of any such article written so I guess I'm the first. :) A guy called Peter Forde has written "A Scientific Scrutiny of OT 3" and I guess that's where I got the idea of checking these things up. He mentioned shocked quartz and iridium (but only attributed iridium to asteroids) and never investigated more thoroughly where these elements actually could be found, which I did. He did not know (or omitted the fact) that volcanoes emits iridium as well. Some scientists have actually attributed the dinosaur exctinction to large volcanoes due to this.

What is your advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.242.164 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Coffeepusher: what you propose does seem to conflict with WP:SYNTH. It is true that not every article on Wikipedia is held to such a strict standard, but Scientology-related articles are intrinsically under a higher degree of scrutiny due to the controversy that surrounds Scientology wherever it goes.

The only reliable source I can find (not a blog, message forum, etc) that attempts to address the shocked quartz and iridium questions in the context of OT III is http://www.xenu.net/archive/ot/peter_forde.html. I could use that as a reference if you think it will help. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What ever works for you. I've done my best to try to provide the evidence. Not much more I can do. Here's a better resource regarding K-T layer describing only two main sources of iridium and discussing "blasted rock": http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.242.164 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recognize this tone...Justa? Is this IP coming from England?

So, I disagree with you and suddenly I am a bias editor because I am familiar with both scientology AND south park...(and you will also notice that I am familiar with wikipeda policies)??? dude? south park also busted on AA which is another article I edit (as well as the catholic church, and I edit exorcism...participatory democracy and I edit Habermas and public sphere...Obama and I did some stuff with Rhetoric...University of Colorado...yah they busted on everyone) I must be a wikipedia POV FIEND!!!! SOMEBODY BAN ME BEFORE I RUIN WIKIPEDIA WITH THE INTERNATIONAL SOUTH PARK AGENDA!!!!! I believe that is called an ad hominem fallacy otherwise known as the "yah, but you smell funny" retort. In other words who I am and what I edit doesn't matter, you are attempting to preform WP:SYNTH if I was a scientologist, a mason, or a green guy with three arms that came from the center of the earth who told you such, it is still WP:SYNTH OH Oh...wait for it...still WP:SYNTH again. here is my hand in a hat telling you it is WP:SYNTH and he doesn't even watch south park or have a brain, and he is still right, its WP:SYNTH. so my advise is to read the rules and not attack editors who are just letting you know the policies with overly transparent fallacies in logic (some of us got an education and can recognize that crap). Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas, that is in the rules we all agree upon when we work on this site, get over it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a main note, I don't think we can use that source because as far as I can tell it is published exclusively on line from a biased site (I seem to remember that same source coming up when an editor tried to insert a section stating that the entire story was completely debunked because the volcano's weren't even in existence according to that article, the article was not a WP:RS due to the fact it was published by a bias source Operation Clambake.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the source has expressed a pretty strong anti-Scientology bias. I didn't know whether that would preclude us from using it as a source for this article. It is definitely the most careful examination I was able to find of this issue. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never brought this up on Wikipedia before. Amusingly, I must say the tone of Coffeepusher's polemic and sarcastic discussion reminds me of South Park. Asking for an independent judge was not ment to be offensive at all. Scientology is, like Pierce stated, a highly controversial subject and for that reason only I believe the "judges" should have no connection whatsoever to any pro or con Scientology beliefs.

Actually, I have to agree with both of you regarding the WP:SYNTH idea. This is somewhat an "original research" since I concluded the facts from earlier sources and articles. But it is not a wild, far-fetched idea like "methane have been found on both Jupiter and Earth so I make the conclusion they must have been the same planet once in history". My conclusion is pretty much narrowed down. That's why I asked you what you think I should do.

Regarding sources I can found PLENTY of other resources that will state the same thing: Shocked quarts are only found in nuclear and asteroid craters and iridium only comes from volcanoes and asteroids, at least according to current scientific knowledge. There are also other resources that have "pictures" on Earth from around 65 million years ago and it looks about the same as now with the difference that the continents are closer to each other, but the main points of volcanoes (Andes, Western North America, Himalaya, Kilimanjaro etc) are still there. Example of Earth 65 million years ago: http://forum.celestialmatters.org/userpix/5_065Ma1k_1.jpg (Many more sources could be found.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.240.62 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a far-fetched conclusion, but I still think that it's wise to stick closely to the letter of the policy in WP:SYNTH in this case. What I think you should do is look to see if there are other sources, either online or not, which have addressed this question and can be used as a source for the article. If none can be found, it may just not be possible to justify adding it to Wikipedia yet. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So we're going to stick "closely" to WP:SYNTH but I see not so closely to WP:NPOV. That's a double standard. One of Wikipedias fundamental cornerstones is Neutral Point of View. I find the article not neutral and with more paragraphs against the Xenu story with nothing on the positive side backing it up. While a great deal of the article is describing the story in a neutral way, Hubbard is also speculated being on drugs when writing the story, South Park sarcastic episode is mentioned etc. One can always claim independent reliable sources but putting it all together in a neutral, objective fashion is also of relevance. I find nothing in the article that supports the Xenu story or that talks about wins from auditing people have had from it. It lacks neutrality. Can you see anything positive (meaning supporting it)? I can't. It's either neutral or negative.

I would like to add some positive issues that balances the article making it really deserve a golden star and according to the WP:NPOV policy. E.g. auditing wins from OT III, the scientific evidence I've tried to support, a list of celebrities who has completed OT III or similair. I personally think the scientific evidence is far more important than anything else. These cornerstones should be balanced against each others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciologos (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually think that the article violates WP:NPOV. The article appears to cover the basics of the Xenu story in a pretty straightforward way. Both the history of Xenu and the popular reaction to it are meticulously sourced. It is true that the article includes some criticisms of Hubbard and less praise, but the criticisms are also very clearly cited -- if it does not include more material favorable to Scientology, that may be because there is simply less pro-Scientology independent third-party coverage to draw upon. I realize that it must be very frustrating to feel that the article is unfair to Scientology. If there are reliable sources to counter some of the content of this article, then I for one will look at them to see how they can be used to make the article more balanced. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out anything in the article that supports the Xenu story or say anything positive about it? Sciologos (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

we have 7 sections dedicated to the story and its influence upon scientology as a depiction of events "unlikely to have occurred in real life", but which assume meaning after years of contemplation and study (quote from the church of scientology), while only 2 sections on its critical reception by the public at large. how is this not a "neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." NPOV does not mean that you have to have one negative statement for every positive statement within the article, or that everyone who has an opinion on the topic be given a free section to expand upon their viewpoints. The church of Scientology does not support the Xenu story, going so far as denying or downplaying its relevancy to their own doctrine and the WP:RS that they offer support that while it is part of their doctrine (or possibly a hoax, maybe it doesn't even exist, or maybe something similar to what was said but it is horribly out of context, or maybe you shouldn't be talking about that at all, etc.) they do not offer anything positive about it. In fact the church position is that it is complete mumbo jumbo or a fabrication (at least that is what the church constantly says). so there actually is no positive position regarding the Xenu story, both the church and the critics have publicly stated it is unlikely to have actually happened and should be taken as just a story, and this article represents both of those positions well offering separate sections for both the church of Scientology and its critics to state why the story should be completely ignored.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I just found something interesting from the Ex-scientologist forum. They apparently have discussed these things over there: (Original Source: http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/06_02.html)

"Incident 2 IS the great dying, and it is a few million years earlier than is indicated by radio carbon dating because the nuclear explosions raised the background radiation level temporarily. The scientists calculate their dates with the assumption that the radiation level is constant, so that if they see a higher count, they think the object being dated was buried more recently because it hasn't decayed as far (rather than starting from a higher radiation level). So they date the iridium layer (which is indicative of a planet wide catastrophe) and the billions of bone fragments (see books like "Digging Dinosaurs") at around 67 million years ago instead of 75 million. Of course the current scientific explanation of the layer is that a comet hit the Earth (a really large body planetary impact will probably generate enough heat to go nuclear)."

The above is not my conclusion but comes from a Freezone article on the Internet. Is that considered not original research? Why don't you have an end section in every article where advanced speculation can occur and where it clearly states it is some kind of advanced speculation? I believe some articles have that. It still have to be based on facts of course.Sciologos (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:NOR. Let us instead rely upon independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cirt, allowing original research is a boomerang that will come back and cut every position to pieces. it is not a matter of who said it (scientologist, freezone, critic, scientist, mason, green three armed man from the center of the earth) we have established WP:RS guidelines to maintain consistency and make sure that the claims in the article come from sources that have been examined by a critical second party (editors, scholars in the field, green men, etc.). I could make a freezone website today and type up anything I wanted. The church of scientology has a dogmatic interest in this topic and could put anything on the web using their websites which may or may not be factual. the critics of scientology could and have put any number of claims on their websites. WP:RS and WP:NOR keep all of these positions from turning this article into a mad hatters party where anything can be included by someone who owns a website.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Mr. Pierce and Mr. Cirt, could you point out anything in the article that supports the Xenu story or say anything positive about it? 2. I accept the idea of no original research. 3. Coffepusher: Neutral means neutral, it does not mean slightly negative. As of now, it is more negative than neutral and that is a violation to the WP:NPOV. If we're going to stick closely to WP:NPOV I believe we should stick closely to the definition of words as well. 4. The Church of Scientology not supporting the story does not mean the Freezone does not support the story.Sciologos (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The definition of WP:NPOV, according to wikipedia policies, is to accurately present all of the significant arguments that can be found in WP:RS. again it is not to whitewash the tone of article or present a equal amount of pro's or con's, it is to reflect what the significant reliable sources say. this article accurately reflects both the content and the tone of those WP:RS so what WP:RS are out there that support this story or says anything positive about it?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion thread involving Sciologos (talk · contribs) is beginning to get repetitive and circular in nature and is quickly degrading in any hope for constructive dialogue, especially with regard to multiple insisted proposals of violation of site policy. -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, it's a little bit repetitive, but we're actually getting somewhere. I suggest you answer my question nr 1 in a constructive way so that we can get somewhere. I'm actually trying to sort this out in an intellectual fashion which means going into great academic detail. What I'm trying to acknowledge from Cirt and Pierce is that the article is slightly negative. Do we agree on that, Cirt and Pierce? Yes or no?

Another big problem with your combined cornerstones from an overall perspective is that (to put it simple) if Person A claims something and an article is written about it, and Person B is against it, Person B could be quoted as a reliable source from someone supporting him, but Person A cannot be quoted from someone who supports him since Person A is not considered a reliable source (conflicts of interest). This creates advantages for those who are against an idea. Overly simplified: It's like two teams with two people in each team, but in one of the teams they are not allowed to support each other. Not Fair Game (no pun intended). How do you solve that issue?Sciologos (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article reflects and is backed up by numerous independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the overall tone of the article is negative. I agree that it cites some negative reports about L. Ron Hubbard, but I think the overall tone of the article is actually quite balanced. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with those resources. Now please, Cirt: Do you consider the article slightly negative? Yes or No?Sciologos (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

well since the article accurately reflects and is backed up by WP:RS, the requirements for a WP:NPOV which has been pointed out several times, I think it has become obvious that you don't have any WP:RS which would change its tone.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Coffeepusher. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I earlier stated, I would prefer "judges" who are independent. Cirt seems to have participated in many anti-Scientology articles on Wikipedia.Sciologos (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not attacked anybody. I have demanded independent judges. That is not a personal attack. This discussion can hardly go on unbiased without judges having no connection either pro or con to Scientology. (Cirt, you still haven't answered my question).Sciologos (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: WP:NPOV states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
• This article is a reflection of significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
• Therefore, this article is WP:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? "Cirt seems to have participated in many anti-scientology articles on wikipeda" is not backed up by anything that has occurred in his edits in the few days you have participated as a member (and I know you would be able to make that argument by his editing patterns in general), but is very reflective of several claims made by people who are no longer with us.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I stated: I would like to communicate with an independent judge, Tim Pierce seems to be one. (Cirt: You still haven't answered my detailed question but is answering in broad generalities, avoiding the subject: Yes or No, is the article slightly negative?)Sciologos (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone has added: "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." I have not another account. Falsely accusing me of having several accounts is "illegal" I presume? Who did this and on what basis? Again, I would like an independent judge.Sciologos (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am here and am happy to communicate with you if you have any issues that need to be addressed, but you do not seem to have any issues that require immediate attention. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have any questions about the outstanding sockpuppet investigation, you can follow the links from your own user page yourself. Your questions are answered there. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, it appears that your qualifications for an independent judge is someone who doesn't ask you to provide a reliable source for your requested edits, since you were in conversation with Cirt until he agreed that you should provide such evidence...then suddenly he is bias. Other fallacies you have presented are the Loaded question fallacy otherwise known as the "yes or no" fallacy, in addition to your "yah but you smell funny so the truth no longer applies" fallacy...for that matter, what anti-Scientology pages do I edit besides south park? since we have already established that the international south park agenda is either complete bull s@!t used by people who just want someone to accuse of being responsible for their own PR disasters or the most evil influence upon our society bent on the destruction of all free thinkers out there...come to think of it, can you engage in a discussion without engaging in a Fallacy in logic? Since we are talking about impartial judges, I recall that Scientology training endorses these lines of argumentation as ways to "engage in superior argumentation" (note the statement "lack of reason or sense"), and that you obviously mirror those behaviors...and that you only edit the Xenu talk page with a pro-Xenu story bias...so you fail to qualify as an impartial editor as established by your own set of criteria, in fact you are the least qualified editor based on your own criteria...??? interesting, you appear to be accusing us of behaviors that you yourself hold dear.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my first contribution to this article was to ask Scilogos to provide reliable sources. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

yes but you haven't asked him to provide sources in the nature of his Loaded question, so watch out, you may be part of the international south park conspiracy yet.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to the intellectual gentlemen Mr. Coffepusher and Mr. Cirt, you are probably descent and nice fellows but due to the highly controversial subject of this matter I prefer to communicate with Mr. Pierce only.

Tim Pierce: I read the sockpuppet investigation and I happily welcome it. I can assure you I have never tried to edit the Xenu article prior to these current chats. This has been a long talk (sorry for that) but partly because I've had to understand how Wikipedia works. I had no idea about the cornerstones, controversial articles etc so I've partly had to figure that out first. I'll try to be brief.

Controversial articles require neutrality and high demands. 1. Do you have any cornerstone about "judges" (or editors) having no connection either for or against an article? 2. Church of Scientology is not an independent resource since they are biased. Would any of the following resources be good enough regarding claims about the story?

A. Auditing sessions from Freezoners (Scientologists not connected to the Church of Scientology). E.g. Freezoners who claim they remember the volcanoes or other events connected to the OT III story etc from their auditing. B. Celebrities who have accomplished OT III. C. A general discussion about K-T layer, iridium, shocked quartz etc taking place on a ex-scientology forum. I would then not be doing any original research but referring to that quite elaborated discussion with lots of resources. (Source: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=13097&highlight=iridium)

Thank you in advance for your answers.Sciologos (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there's a "See also" headline. Could these things be included there if I write another article about it?Sciologos (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that none of us are paid to work on Wikipedia; this is something that we do in our spare time. I may not have time to keep up with a long content dispute on this article. To some degree you may need to take what you can get, in terms of which editors will work with you.

As to your question, Wikipedia does have a conflict of interest guideline, which recommends that editors not participate in editing when they have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. It is not a strict policy and allows for editors to exercise their own judgment. The Wikipedia policy on not using primary sources is similar: a primary source is not considered reliable since the source has a vested interest in readers believing their story.

For the claim at hand -- scientific evidence supporting the OT III claims -- I do not think individual testimonies such as (A) or (B) would satisfy Wikipedia's need for reliable sources. What I requested was for a third-party source (i.e. not affiliated with the Church of Scientology) who have studied and written about whether there is minerological support for the OT III story, who have addressed the claims about shocked quartz and iridium in the context of OT III. If you have identified such a source I will be interested in seeing it, but so far there do not seem to be any. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

you have made it very clear that you don't want to talk to anyone who disagrees with you, employing personal attacks in the process. But as for conflict of interests, the only editor who actually has a conflict of interest is the one who is editing with a single purpose account, and who is claiming that the only reason the other editors are interpreting the policies exactly how they are written and asking for reliable sources from him is because they also edit other articles that may not hold strictly to Scientology dogma. I personally don't have a conflict of interest and will support any edit in the Xenu article that is backed by WP:RS, something you have yet to provide.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting to see such a great resistance against anything positive or confirming about OT III creating a more balanced article. Coffepusher, please watch your words. You are also under scrutiny by the community and I ask you to behave politely. Again, asking for independent judges is not a personal attack. Calling somebody a "moron" or "stupid" is. Ever heard of the Strawman argumentation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

My final judgment as a Wikipedia reader is that the article does not hold up to WP:NPOV since it is slightly negative and there is absolutely nothing positive or nothing at all that confirms the material of OT III, despite numerous successful auditing stories in the thousands and some geological confirmations. The slightly negative touch could be further examined by counting words and sentences and analyze which are positive, neutral and negative and that way in great detail come to a conclusion. For that reason the article does not deserve a gold star in my personal opinion since it is not balanced well enough. I suggest the responsible editors ponder this fact. I'm considering going all the way to the top if necessary to make the article more balanced. I will save this entire conversation and the entire Xenu article.

You editors probably feel you're just doing your job by sticking to reliable sources and no original research etc and I feel I'm sticking to NPOV. That means there's a conflict in these cornerstones. For that matter I suggest you implement an order of what cornerstone is more important than the other.

I will see if I can find any supporting material. I'm not affiliated with the Church of Scientology or Freezone by the way. So long for now and thanks. :)Sciologos (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't agree that the article has a "slightly negative tone." I think the tone is quite balanced. Some of the material has negative connotations, yet is addressed in a very even-handed, nonjudgmental way.

It is not necessarily a contradiction for an article to include negative material about a subject and yet satisfy a "neutral point of view." Examples include: Hindenburg disaster, 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls and Catholic sex abuse cases. A manufacturer of zeppelin airships could argue, reasonably, that Hindenburg disaster casts zeppelins in a negative light. And yet the article is written from a neutral point of view, for a person considering the matter from a neutral position will find countless verifiable third-party reports confirming the events described in the article. So it is here.

If your goal is to present the Xenu story in a more positive light, then you should be looking for reliable sources that confirm the positive story. If you find and present them here I will be happy to look at them. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles you mention is something different. Basically, an article describes the issue X. This issue could be positive in itself (cure for cancer), negative in itself (Holocaust) or neutral (Earth's diameter). An article having a naturally negative issue is going to have a negative feel. You're talking about the subject in itself (e.g. Hindenburg disaster). What I'm discussing here is the evidence and hard facts for or against an issue, not the subject itself. Two different things. This is especially important when it comes to something not being a hard fact, e.g. the Earth's diameter.

I notice in the O.J. Simpson murder case article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case) there's a great amount of factors describing both pro and con helping the reader make up his own mind, some of them verbal in nature (like auditing is).

Quote: "In the letter Simpson said, "First everyone understand I had nothing to do with Nicole's murder…" Pierce said: "I do not think individual testimonies such as (A) or (B) would satisfy Wikipedia's need for reliable sources." How come O.J. are allowed to be quoted? Isn't he biased? I'd hardly consider him a reliable source since he was charged with murder. So why couldn't a Freezoner confirming something out of the Xenu story be regarded as reliable as O.J.?

Mike Gilbert and Yale Galanter are allowed to be quoted against each other, why couldn't freezoners, critics and ex-scientologists be allowed to be quoted against each other? Sometimes facts are not so obvious and clear and verbal testimonials are a natural part of the overall picture (e.g. trials and auditing).

By totally ignoring verbal testimonials, especially if they're a major part of the issue, and by obeying the rules too strictly, I believe less truth will be found.Sciologos (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

your right, OJ is biased thats why we dont present that information as a fact, but as a quote. We don't endorse it as truth, rather we state the fact that he said something. as for "I'd hardly consider him a reliable source" your right! especially because he is not the source in your example, CNN is with this ref , CNN reliably reports that OJ said something, we relay that OJ said something in quotation. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As for what you are asking you will require, just as your example did, a Reliable source that actually specifically states what you are saying. Not several documents that one can extrapolate information from wp: synth forbids that as Original Research. And i highly doubt a publication from within scientology would hold up to scrutiny as a reliable source if disputed on the RS boards. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if O.J. is quoted directly or via CNN he still says the same thing and he is in fact the source of the opinion, CNN just videotaped what he said and would be regarded as a via. With your way of thinking a mythomaniac, crazy psych patient recording OJ saying what he said could not be included since that would not be regarded as a reliable source, despite the videotape looking exactly the same as if CNN would have recorded it.

Auditing stories shouldn't be treated as facts either, but as quotes, and not be endorsed as truths. I could find many quotes from people on different blogs (not their own) confirming parts of OT III. I realize blogs are not as highly regarded as scientific papers, so how do you solve that when no scientific papers exist? Shut down communication?

Like I said, I fully accept the idea of No Original Research (i.e. making no conclusions) but people should be able to be quoted against each others. You do realize you're using the means to prevent the truth?

I think the Moon landing conspiracy theories article (and probably the JFK murder as well) is a great example of facts, testimonials etc being put together and quoted directly from different sources without doing original research. Why couldn't a similair article be constructed about Xenu? I'm not saying it has to be incorporated in the original Xenu article but perhaps something like "Proof and testimonials for or against Xenu" or something similair. The subject in itself is based only on auditing testimonials and some weak geological evidence. That's it. How is such an intangible subject treated at Wikipedia where not much scientific research exists?Sciologos (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Auditing stories shouldn't be treated as facts either, but as quotes, and not be endorsed as truths." Agreed.
• "O.J. is quoted directly or via CNN he still says the same thing and he is in fact the source of the opinion, CNN just videotaped what he said and would be regarded as a via." Disagree. Fact = OJ said stuff, Source = CNN said OJ said stuff. Its highly relevent because OJ is the subject of the article specifically, random audited people need more scrutiny but i dont disagree if they are sourced properly (not some random self published blog, see wp: rs
• Auditing stories shouldn't be treated as facts either, but as quotes, and not be endorsed as truths. I could find many quotes from people on different blogs (not their own) confirming parts of OT III. I realize blogs are not as highly regarded as scientific papers, so how do you solve that when no scientific papers exist? Shut down communication?" short ansewer is Yes, no source no reporting it wp: verify. However your making a huge leap in logic to compare OJ murder trial article containing a quote from OJ, to article on Xenu containing some random guy's quote....if you care to quote Xenu go for it if you can find a source...that would be analogous. I'm obviously not serious im just trying to point out that not all peoples opinions are equally relevant to an article for instance if CNN reported MY opinion of the OJ trial it would not go in the article because im just some guy.
• "Like I said, I fully accept the idea of No Original Research (i.e. making no conclusions) but people should be able to be quoted against each others. You do realize you're using the means to prevent the truth?" Don't Care at all about whats true, just whats verifiable per opening line of wp: verify.
• "I think the Moon landing conspiracy theories article (and probably the JFK murder as well) is a great example of facts, testimonials etc being put together and quoted directly from different sources without doing original research. Why couldn't a similair article be constructed about Xenu? " because wp: fringe says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You may find this interesting, and this.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

indeed I do.... thanks. Smitty1337 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mythology

To read the story of XENU as a mythology, it seems Scientology has a habit of removing heritage, because that is how the Thetans would be interpreted; those past values of history & heritage coming into our conscious after being brainwashed by some kind of alien movie theatre; therefore, we are harmed as past events mixes with current events--must be painful to have those memories. Are there trends of former Scientologist being forgotten by their group, after all it must have been a Thetan, causing leaving the group a terminal event for your Scientology identity? With all due respect to Scientology, the larger religious groups do something for their past lives, upon entrance, as the past is considered a lower state of living and entering into enlightenment creates some kind of forgiveness; thus, the Thetan, those memories are just no good, forget them. Also creates a standard doctrine that nothing ever happened and to acknowledge it is harmful, must become bizarre to discuss past events at times; because all human history, society, civilization, law, and language has history. Does Scientology have perjury problems, really, I did Notary work, and our witnessed events have a history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.60.178 (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested WP:RS source for this? -- Cirt (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Introduction

Sporadic parts of the introduction and article itself seem to employ words whose connotations imply some sort of judgment that isn't rationalized by neutrality. Most particularly, the usage of the word "dogma" in the introduction implies some sort of stubborn-held and unjustified tenet. Other parts of the article include well-cited pieces of information that also dispute the neutrality of the article, including one side of information but not the other. Perhaps if these were edited to improve neutrality and remove the insinuation that Scientology's teachings aren't true, the article would be cured. A simple link to the disputation of Scientology's validity as a religion would suffice in providing this information, without constant inference and reinforcement. Poxywallow (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested WP:RS source for this? -- Cirt (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

Although I'm sure I take quite the same view of this subject as many, I was still surprised to see that the hatnote describes Xenu as a "Scientology character," which really, I think, implies a strong POV that he is fictional. The hatnote on Apollo describes him as a "Greek and Roman god." I'd suggest, perhaps, "This article is about the figure in Scientology". Comments?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable change. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally "character" sounds MORE appropriate to me, not just neutral, but true to intent. Since the church denies his existence, despite video of Hubbard describing him in detail... he must simply be a character, like any other character in all his other books, right? Magicbologna (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 for "figure". "Character" is misleading. I don't agree with the either the premise or the inference in Magicbologna's comment above. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed it, to "subject". Hopefully a satisfactory compromise. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

POV? Does anyone seriously dispute the fact that Xenu is fictional? It wouldn't be POV to refer to Donkey Kong as a "character". Why would this be any different?Mk5384 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the change to "subject" not acceptable to you? -- Cirt (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's acceptable. It's just that this breaches the confines of anything that could reasonably be challenged as POV/NPOV. It seems that Scientologists themselves deny Xenu, so I think it would be fairly universally regarded that Xenu is a ficticous character.Mk5384 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis is sound, I just think that "subject" is an acceptable compromise, and also, more encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.Mk5384 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "subject" sounds awkward (compare with "... about the Christianity subject" - doesn't flow). My suggestion would be "... about the figure in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard". This side-steps the questions of whether Xenu is part of Scientology, and which of Hubbard's writings are fictional (obviously the body of the article can address these points). 63.81.2.130 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is most definitely a Scientology subject. It is given significant discussion as such, in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

I attempted to move the pronunciation of "Xenu" to immediately following the word "Xenu", rather than immediately following "Xemu" (note the 'm'). This change was reverted (albeit "good faith"-reverted) with the helpful comment: "Nope". See Muslim for an example of what is, in my opinion, the correct style. 63.81.2.130 (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change by 63.81.2.130 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A month goes by. So does two "yes votes" beat one revert? 63.81.2.130 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as no objections were raised on the talk page. See also, WP:BRD. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ice-cubes

I thought the souls were bought to Earth frozen in ice cubes, which were dropped into the oceans and thereby released, rather than being blown up by H-bombs. Source: The Mind Benders.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Although cf Incident_(Scientology)#Ice_Cube_Incident --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some WP:RS secondary sources have both accounts occurring. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

spolier tag

Won't looking at this before proper preparation mess them up? Shouldn't we have a tag so that people who don't want to see OT3 tech, don't see it? For those that want to ruin their chances at a billion year Sea Org voyage, then they could just go past the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.124 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia. -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegory?

As no public information (as far as I know) is available on how this story is disseminated to longtime members is it apt to present it as their literal doctrine? It seems more likely the story would be presented as allegorical in nature, perhaps meant as a cautionary tale. While my personal speculation obviously isn't encyclopedic, taking the South Park style approach might not be ideal here. For the record I am an atheist and regard all religion as superstition and mysticism, lest this viewpoint be labelled POV. --NEMT (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We go by what is stated and backed up to multiple reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples? --NEMT (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article at present is already appropriately cited. Additionally, you have failed to provide any reliable secondary sources, to back up the points you are attempting to put forth. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything in the article, including how well cited it is. I'm asking which citations specifically refer to the article subject being categorized as a literal belief by followers and not just a fable- which I can't find in any linked source. --NEMT (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This article actually doesn't say that it is a literal belief by the followers, the only time this article makes claim on the church's position...is in the "Church of Scientology's position" section which is well cited and at no time states that the Xenu story is the literal belief of the followers. Read the first paragraph of that section.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted that section makes its nature clearer, the rest of the article is definitely written as a description of things seen as fact by believers, notably in the opening paragraph, even the opening sentence. You wouldn't, for example, begin an article "The Country Mouse and the City Mouse were, according to Aesop" suggesting an authoritative statement of their existence by the story's originator. --NEMT (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We could use some of what Melton says about it: "J. Gordon Melton suggests that these elements of the OT levels may never have been intended as descriptions of historical events, and that, like other religious mythology, they may have their truth in the realities of the body and mind which they symbolize. He adds that on whatever level Scientologists might have received this mythology, they seem to have found it useful in their spiritual quest." (from the Scientology article). --JN466 03:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Melton here appears to be vaguely discussing "elements of the OT levels", and not specifically, the subject of this article, Xenu. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's about the Xenu story all right. There is also a whole chapter by Mikael Rothstein about Xenu in Lewis, Scientology (2009, Oxford University Press). I meant to do some work incorporating his points a few months ago, but never got round to it. --JN466 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, for a Commentary subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By that logic- subject matter experts' musings on Greek mythology at large wouldn't belong on articles about specific deities? Irrelevant anyway, much of article's body discusses what's presented as Scientologists' view of history. In any event you appear to take the subject matter personally, Cirt, perhaps it would be best to get some outside opinions. --NEMT (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@NEMT (talk · contribs), it is possible that the same could be said for most of the commentators on this talk page, and indeed in this particular subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

perhaps it would be best to get some outside opinions --NEMT (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rothstein could be said to be an "outside opinion", and one who has commented quite positively on the nature of this particular article on Wikipedia, interestingly enough. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rothstein stated of this article: "The most sober and enlightening text about the Xenu myth is probably the anonymous article on Wikipedia ..." — Rothstein, Mikael (2009), "'His name was Xenu. He used renegades. ...' – Aspects of Scientology's Founding Myth", in Lewis, James R. (ed.), Scientology, Oxford University Press, USA, p. 371, ISBN 0195331494 — so it appears Rothstein would disagree with the characterization of this article's quality by NEMT (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Who?
Anyway, once again, I'm not questioning the quality or validity of anything here. You obviously have some dog in this fight and appear to take any criticism of the article as a personal insult for some reason. Furthermore, cherrypicking praise for your work to support your position has to be some kind of intellectual dishonesty. --NEMT (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@NEMT (talk · contribs), request you please avoid focusing your comments on individual editors, and instead address specific content issues. So far, you have failed to make any specific recommendations backed up to any reliable secondary sources. Would be most happy to discuss, if you were to actually do that. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Cirt (talk · contribs), request you address the points I've already raised with more than vague, specious comments about yet unnamed reliable secondary sources. -NEMT (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

NEMT (talk · contribs), at no point here have you made any specific comments, so there is nothing to address. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) dude, the article says specifically that the church of scientology does not claim that the events described by Hubbard are to be viewed as factual accounts, rather they are to be used for a higher spiritual significance. what you were looking for in this discussion was "which citations specifically refer to the article subject being categorized as a literal belief by followers and not just a fable"...and there are none because the article itself states, in cited statements, that the church presents it like a fable. what you were looking for is written in the article and what you claim is there is not written anywhere. the reason it looks like it is "presented as scientologists view of history" is because the main body is taken from Hubbards recordings and writings...and I have not found anything where he described it as a fable but rather hubbard presented it as actual history.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well all right then. Thanks for clarifying. --NEMT (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could mention in the lead that it is some sort of esoteric creation myth. At present there is nothing to provide that context. If it's an important point in the article (and I'd argue that it is), it should be in the lead. --JN466 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, best to first have that in the body text of the article. And should go into a Commentary subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Added new sect, Commentary, with significant discussion of Xenu text within context of creation myth, see diff link. Added info to lede/intro of article, per WP:LEAD, summarizing Commentary sect, see diff link.  Done. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done, that looks very interesting (will have a look in more detail later, just completely snowed under with work). One thing I always thought we could still cover more fully in the article is the teaching's esoteric nature, i.e. the idea that it requires preparation on the part of the Scientologist to understand the esoteric meaning of the myth correctly. Rothstein covers this on page 368 (and its role in underpinning Scientologist ritual on page 381); and there is also something to that effect in Streeter (and also note the alternative explanation as a "mystery sandwich" just above that paragraph). Rothstein's comments on the role of the Xenu myth in anticult discourse (pp. 382 to 384) also might be worth a paragraph, but I also see you have already touched upon some of these issues in the material you have added. Great job! --JN466 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed do the research to include some of the sources, and material, that had been suggested, above. Thank you for this response to my efforts. It is much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to present this story as an allegory or a myth. I've been checking what former scientologists say about it, and according to several statements it's supposed to be taken literally. I'm not sure if these statements qualify as wiki material without being reported by a journalist or a researcher, but it doesn't seem right to avoid mentioning it. --Codex01 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Some WP:RS sources say it is literal, others a myth or allegory. The article presents views from multiple different WP:RS sources, in order to be WP:NPOV. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what I'm looking for is a more obvious word for word phrasing. Having re-read the article several times, I still see three points in it. First is the description of the Xenu myth and the controversy, second is the statement that it's supposed to be an allegory, and third a statement that it's an auditing level (which can mean anything you want). -Codex01 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated already in my prior response, differing WP:RS sources say that it is all of those things. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Sea Org logo

It seems that the Sea Org logo has been removed because it is a copyrighted image and User:Beao does not think there is a Fair Use rationale for its inclusion in the article. It seems to me that there's just as good a rationale for its use in this article as for the two articles (Sea Org and Symbols of Scientology) that Beao thinks it applies to. I wish this removal had been discussed, or explained in the edit summary. Is there consensus behind a Fair Use justification for the image? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question, it seems that the article passed FAR with the logo included (albeit in PNG rather than SVG form. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Just replace it.-Digiphi (Talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the geological ages of Hawaii and the Canary Islands

A reference to the geological ages of Hawaii and the Canary Islands should be added to this article where mentioned under the heading "Summary" in reference to hydrogen bombs being used to blow up the volcanos on these.

That is, the current scientifically accepted value for the formation of these islands (i.e. geological ages of about 5 and 1 million years old respectively) seems to have occurred well after the described event i.e. by about 70 million years.

This reference is in line with the reference to the age of the universe already present in this article i.e. "OT III also deals with Incident I, set four quadrillion[34] years ago (or roughly 300,000 times longer than the current scientifically accepted value for the age of the universe)."

Like the above reference to the age of the universe, this is not original research, just scientifically accepted facts that seem to be in contradiction to the accepted doctrine of Scientogy. 122.150.200.116 (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Xenu or Xemi

Based on what I just saw in the manuscript, it is either Xenu or Xemi, there is clearly a cursive n, but if not, then it is an m, and an i at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.95 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough I saw the image first on a different source, and I read it as 'Xeni'. 175.36.3.29 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the printed sources seem to refer to it as Xemi, and there are audio recordings of Hubbard lectures in which the word definitely has an "oo" sound. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

The "in popular culture" section seems childish and largely inappropriate to me in the context of an encyclopaedia. I suggest condensing it considerably, linking to the relevant cartoon episodes etc., and doing away with the cartoon screenshots in this article. --JN466 21:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a summary of attempts to depict Xenu is "childish". Given the history of attempts to keep knowledge of Xenu out of the public domain, it's integral to the story that Xenu has been depicted in television, stage drama and books. The cartoon screenshot is from Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park), itself a highly notable broadcast (see the many references in the FA about it). You at least need to give a substantive reason for suggesting the removal of images that depict the subject of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology discussions. --JN466 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on how the issues you've raised are neutrality issues? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I ask just to get you to clarify your objections and give substantive reasons for them. I've nothing against listing this debate on NIS, so long is it's made clear what neutrality issue is being debated. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While we need to say that the Xenu myth has been satirised, we are presently giving WP:UNDUE weight to Xenu satires, in both text and images. --JN466 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I only counted four examples, the paranormal episode, Nip/tuck, the unauthorized Christmas, and South Park of which all of them, with the exception of nip tuck which can just be deleted, had a significant impact on how Xenu was perceived by non-scientologists (and were met with protests and threats of litigations by the church). So I think that the popular culture section represents weight especially since that was the way in which most people have come into contact with the xenu mythCoffeepusher (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Three cartoon images are simply too much in what should be a serious article. We would not (I hope) illustrate wormhole with a screenshot from Star Trek. There is also Parker's and Stone's satirical press release, for example, complete with Hail Xenu! Would anyone argue that this press release in Variety was how most people first heard about Xenu? The section needs trimming. --JN466 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

on the press release, it is not a stand alone incident but rather is tied to the Scientology/South Park controversy. It provides context to the situation as a (semi-)direct(-public) communication between the creators of South Park and the church regarding the aforementioned episode.

The images are appropriately placed and not a random selection from the episodes. The Paranormal image is placed in the "Leaking the story" and was the first time the Xenu story was televised in spite of the churches wishes. The south park image is the one with "this is what scinetologists actually believe" and is the screenshot directly referenced in the body of the article and quoted by reliable sources. The Nip Tuck image also corresponds to the subtopic in the popular culture section which talks about different representations, and the three together back up the different representations with a Humanoid representation, gray alien, and a "Psycho/troll thing"(?) that south park used.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that right now the popular culture is less than 10% of the total article which I think falls under WP:WEIGHT...in fact based on how many reliable sources reference the examples provided in that section we may need to expand it a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment in this section by MartinPoulter (talk · contribs), a skilled researcher who worked with me to help save this article and improve its quality at Featured article review. The discussion and inclusion of the Xenu story in popular culture is extremely significant - and has been given a significant amount of discussion in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sections such as "popular culture" should be illustrative and not exhaustive; they should provide a few significant examples of how a topic has become part of popular culture and not a comprehensive list of every mention. I would say this article does a very good job of adhering to that ideal. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, TechBear (talk · contribs), for this helpful comment and analysis of the present situation. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Other problems

Quite apart from our disagreement over due weight with the images here (which represent half the images in this article), the section contains a couple of unsourced statements that don't seem to check out.

• I cannot find anything to back up "The channel stated that the substitution was intended to pay tribute to Isaac Hayes." in the cited source (MTV). FWIW, Hayes died in 2008, i.e. two years after the cancelled rebroadcast.

• Further, we say that
  "The creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, disagreed and asserted that Comedy Central's owners Viacom had replaced the episode because the Church of Scientology" intervened (or interfered) and, more specifically, because Tom Cruise (who was himself lampooned in the episode) threatened distributor Paramount (also a Viacom property) with refusal to cooperate with the promotional campaign on the upcoming film Mission Impossible 3."
  This, too, is not in the source. The source merely states
  "rumors began circulating that the network had pulled "Trapped" after noted Scientologist (and "Trapped" co-star) Tom Cruise threatened to not promote his upcoming "Mission: Impossible 3," the big summer release from Paramount Pictures, which is owned by Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central and MTV".
  The attribution to Stone and Parker is unsourced.

The South Park episode is notable, not because of the rumours over the delayed rebroadcast, but because Isaac Hayes quit over it, stating that "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins." (Leslie Stratyner; James R. Keller (February 2009). The deep end of South Park: critical essays on television's shocking cartoon series. McFarland. pp. 7–. ISBN 9780786443079. Retrieved 21 January 2011.).

This was a far more widely reported quote [17] than Stone's and Parker's "Hail Xenu!!!" statement to Variety [18], which attracted close to zero attention from reliable sources, yet find itself elevated to encyclopedic importance in our Featured Article. Note that it is described as a "statement" rather than a press release both in the source we cite, and by Variety itself: "While the "South Park" creators didn't directly comment on Comedy Central's decision to pull the episode, they issued an unusual statement to Daily Variety indicating the battle is not over."[19].

The Edinburgh fringe musical is not notable; I can only find two sources in Google News that reference it, [20], the one we cite, and a review that roundly pans it as "a disguised school production, since that would explain the general amateurishness." Please let's drop that; we are scraping the barrel.

I'll do a rewrite for editors' consideration here on this talk page, but would suggest that we should remove unsourced or erroneous material in the meantime. --JN466 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement from the South Park creators actually did receive quite a bit of secondary source coverage. The above assertion otherwise, is incorrect and a factually inaccurate claim. More serious attempts at research of the quoted text from Matt Stone and Trey Parker, will reveal this, quite obviously, without much effort. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about ten more Google News matches looking for the first part: [21] --JN466 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And did the above user even attempt to find this in books, as well? -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if the above user addressed me in the second grammatical person, as is customary in human intercourse. ;) Yes, I did: [22] 2 matches, one of them not exactly an RS. For reference, Hayes' quote in google books [23]. --JN466 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall Jayen466 (talk · contribs) once saying he tried to avoid messing with me on articles in the topic of Scientology where I had worked on FA and GA projects. This after I did note that I had purposefully avoided and not interacted at all in a dispute Jayen466 was himself involved in with an article on the topic of Scientology he had tried to take to GA, Scientology in Germany. Apparently my efforts to not enter that dispute, went unappreciated. I see that prior statement by Jayen466 appears to be factually inaccurate, similar to other claims and assertions made by the same user, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember now, Jayen466 had said: "However, I do appreciate your having stayed away from the article, but then I don't tend to edit your FAs or FACs either. If the community says it's an FA, I am quite happy with that." I guess he did not mean that at the time, or changed his mind about following me and my quality contributions to this project - to multiple pages across Wikipedia, even, across multiple websites and multiple associated Wikimedia projects. Interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We've met here on this article's talk page many times before, and have worked together quite satisfactorily. Besides, you recently promised to take a step back from Scientology, given that a topic ban was contemplated against you. At any rate, I am happy to work with you and others here on getting this section right. --JN466 02:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article I saved from FAR, and improved its quality and kept it at FA status. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And a good job you did. This article is one that has won praise from scholars; I just added another "good job" comment the other day, above. Nevertheless, this section does need work, as I hope you will agree. --JN466 02:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was worried that certain people might be tempted to use the non topic ban as a weapon to bring up repeatedly and hang over my head, when we are only right now participating in talk page discussion itself and not even engaged in any sort of editing disruption. I was pointing out that I had agreed to scale down my contributions within the topic in areas not devoted to GA and FA quality improvements. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Stone once said "I only know what we were told, that people involved with M:I:III wanted the episode off the air and that is why Comedy Central had to do it," Stone says in Variety. "I don't know why else it would have been pulled." The episode was eventually rebroadcast in July 2006, two months after the release of Mission Impossible III on 4 May 2006. It seems quite plausible to me that the company wanted to protect its investment in MI3 by not screening a South Park episode lampooning Cruise just weeks prior to that movie's release. All the material about Cruise having been to blame for the cancellation of the repeat in late March is characterised in the cited source and others as rumour, and it's not our business to air rumours. I've also found a source here that quotes a Comedy Central spokesman as saying that the repeat was pulled because Isaac Hayes quit just the week before: "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for." That is likely at the bottom of the "tribute" wording we have in the article. We need to mention that Hayes quit for that to make sense to the reader. --JN466 02:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be most interested to hear what MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) has to say, after viewing the proposed text by Jayen466, perhaps at User:Jayen466/Xenu in popular culture. -- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Here is the promised re-write of the "In popular culture" section; sorry it took a little longer. I think it's a neutral and sober account of notable depictions of Xenu in popular culture:

In popular culture [[File:South Park Xenu.jpg|thumb|Xenu as depicted in ''[[South Park]]'']]

Versions of the Xenu story have appeared in both television shows and stage productions. An Off-Broadway satirical musical called A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant, first staged in 2003, featured children in alien costumes telling the story of Xenu.

The Xenu story was again satirized in "Trapped in the Closet", a November 2005 episode of the animated television series South Park. The episode, which lampooned Scientologist Tom Cruise, depicted Xenu as a vaguely humanoid alien with tentacles for arms; the sequence had the words "This Is What Scientologists Actually Believe" superimposed on screen. The episode became the subject of controversy when Scientologist Isaac Hayes, the voice of the character "Chef" in South Park, quit the show in protest just prior to the episode's first scheduled re-screening in March 2006. Hayes stated that "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins." Comedy Central cancelled the repeat at short notice, choosing instead to screen two shows featuring Hayes; a spokesman said that "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for." Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, felt that Comedy Central's owners Viacom had cancelled the repeat because of the upcoming release of the Tom Cruise film Mission Impossible 3 by Paramount, another Viacom company: "I only know what we were told, that people involved with M:I:III wanted the episode off the air and that is why Comedy Central had to do it. I don't know why else it would have been pulled." Comedy Central did eventually rebroadcast the episode on July 19, 2006.

Xenu also appeared in a dream sequence in "Willy Ward", the penultimate episode of season 4 of the FX show Nip/Tuck, first broadcast December 5, 2006.

References

Views? --JN466 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Most interesting that this version neglects to mention or include the response of the South Park creators to Isaac Hayes, namely their statement that he "cashed plenty of checks" from work on episodes that parodied all sorts of other religious beliefs... -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Intentionally so. I tried to restrict myself to one pertinent quote from Hayes, Comedy Central and Stone/Parker each. This is the article on Xenu, not the article on the falling out of Hayes and Stone/Parker. We shouldn't make this article a platform for a three-way slanging match, or take sides in the dispute by trying to make one of the parties look bad. Having said that, Stone and Parker certainly made statements of the sort you mention, and perhaps with some justification; one of the sources for example opines that the South Park episode on Mormonism was considerably more unkind to Mormonism than this episode was to Scientology. On the other hand, Hayes' statement did not mention the Scientology episode in particular. According to the Times, Hayes condemned the show's 'general attitude towards religion as part of what he regarded as “growing insensitivity toward personal spiritual beliefs” in the mass media, including the recent controversy over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.' [24] --JN466 15:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To be respectful to all the various WP:BLPs involved, and for NPOV, the summary must include the rejoinder to Hayes by Stone and Parker, or nothing at all about Hayes's claims. To do otherwise is POV-pushing Hayes's-channeling-of-the-Scientology-organization position, often parroted out about so-called "bigotry...". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The above proposed version neglects to mention that the play mentioned above won the Obie Award, and that the South Park episode received a nomination for an Emmy Award. These facts should be included. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here are some sources:
  • Reuters:
    'Soul music veteran Isaac Hayes, the voice of the libidinous character Chef on the satiric cable TV cartoon South Park, says he is leaving the show, citing its "inappropriate ridicule" of religion. "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs and others begins," Hayes said in a statement issued through his spokesman in New York. Hayes, 63, a follower of the Church of Scientology, did not mention a South Park episode that aired previously, poking fun at Scientology and some of its celebrity adherents, including actor Tom Cruise. Rather, the statement said the show's parody of religion is part of what Hayes sees as a "growing insensitivity toward personal spiritual beliefs" in the media generally, including the recent controversy over a Danish cartoon depiction of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.
    It then cites a Comedy Central spokesman saying:
    "Obviously, Matt and Trey are disappointed that he's not going to be part of the show, but they're not going to make him do something he doesn't want to do," the spokesman, Tony Fox, said. However, he said Stone and Parker "feel that it's a bit disingenuous (for Hayes) to cite religious intolerance as a reason for him pulling out of the show" because the series has lampooned religion since the start, dating back to the short film, The Spirit of Christmas, on which the series is based. "Their premise is as long as you can make fun of everybody, then everybody is a potential target," Fox said. "The minute you start pulling punches, than the show's reason for being sort of gets compromised."'.
    Reuters, The Age, also in ABCNET and others. Reuters gave about equal space to Hayes' statement, and Stone's and Parker's rejoinders. It is a good model to follow.
  • The The Guardian quoted Stone directly:
    'Matt Stone, said in a statement on the show's website that Hayes' resignation "has nothing to do with intolerance and bigotry and everything to do with the fact that Isaac Hayes is a Scientologist and that we recently featured Scientology in an episode of South Park". ... In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews," Mr Stone said. "He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show. Of course we will release Isaac from his contract and we wish him well."'
  • The Scientology pageant did win an Obie award, which was fairly widely reported; we can add that. The South Park episode was nominated for an Emmy, but didn't win. FWIW, the discussion of the episode in Stratyner and Keller (2009) doesn't mention the Emmy nomination (though it mentions three other South Park episodes that won Emmy Awards two pages further on). The present article text mentions neither award. But okay. Revised proposal below. --JN466 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Revised proposal

In popular culture

[[File:South Park Xenu.jpg|thumb|Xenu as depicted in ''[[South Park]]'']]

Versions of the Xenu story have appeared in both television shows and stage productions. The Off-Broadway satirical musical A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant, first staged in 2003 and winner of an Obie Award in 2004, featured children in alien costumes telling the story of Xenu.

The Xenu story was again satirized in "Trapped in the Closet", a November 2005 episode of the animated television series South Park. The Emmy-nominated episode, which lampooned Scientologist Tom Cruise, depicted Xenu as a vaguely humanoid alien with tentacles for arms, in a sequence that had the words "This Is What Scientologists Actually Believe" superimposed on screen. The episode became the subject of controversy when Scientologist Isaac Hayes, the voice of the character "Chef" in South Park, quit the show in March 2006, just prior to the episode's first scheduled re-screening, citing South Park's "inappropriate ridicule" of religion.

Hayes' statement did not mention the episode in particular, but expressed his view that the show's habit of parodying religion was part of a "growing insensitivity toward personal spiritual beliefs" in the media that was also reflected in the Muhammad cartoons controversy: "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins." Comedy Central cancelled the repeat at short notice, choosing instead to screen two shows featuring Hayes. A spokesman said that "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for."

Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, felt that Comedy Central's owners Viacom had cancelled the repeat because of the upcoming release of the Tom Cruise film Mission Impossible 3 by Paramount, another Viacom company: "I only know what we were told, that people involved with M:I:III wanted the episode off the air and that is why Comedy Central had to do it. I don't know why else it would have been pulled." Responding to Hayes' statement, Stone said his resignation had "nothing to do with intolerance and bigotry and everything to do with the fact that Isaac Hayes is a Scientologist and that we recently featured Scientology in an episode of South Park ... In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews. He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show. Of course we will release Isaac from his contract and we wish him well." Comedy Central did eventually rebroadcast the episode on July 19, 2006.

Xenu also appeared in a dream sequence in "Willy Ward", the penultimate episode of season 4 of the FX show Nip/Tuck, first broadcast December 5, 2006.

References

Views, suggestions? --JN466 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Emmy Award nomination of the South Park episode is notable, and should be mentioned. Other than this, no objections, once that change is added. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks, pleasure. The nomination is mentioned: "The Emmy-nominated episode, which lampooned Scientologist Tom Cruise..." --JN466 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --JN466 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting source

There is an interesting paper by Melton here. The paper is also included as a book chapter in Derek Davis; Barry Hankins (2003). New religious movements and religious liberty in America. Baylor University Press. ISBN 9780918954923. Retrieved 25 January 2011.. It contains some information which might be worthwhile adding to the article.

First, the paper/chapter contains the following passage (p. 47 in Davis/Hankins): "In the process of pursuing the OT Levels, church members are given access to a set of confidential materials that include the instructions for the spiritual exercises to be followed to gain the particular benefits of that level as well as the most complete statement of the religious myth underlying all of Scientology (a myth that is required for making an overall evaluation of Scientology's place on the large religious landscape). [22] This presents an obstacle for any outsider who wishes to understand the Scientology worldview. [23] Fortunately, with the continued publication (in both audio and literary formats) of Hubbard's many lectures, all of the elements of the myth have been made available and can be accessed by anyone without reference to the confidential documents, though some diligence is required as the references are scattered in a variety of sources. [24]"

Footnote 24 (25 in the book) then reads: "Those who wish to understand the cosmology of Scientology should begin with L. Ron Hubbard, The Factors (Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications, 1990); and the guide to the OT materials, Ron's Legacy of OT (Los Angeles, Calif.: Golden Era Productions, n.d.). Further definition of the cosmology is found in Ron's Journal 67 (Hubbard's annual report for 1967) and in several of his tape sets such as The Dawn of Immortality, The Time Track of Theta, Secrets of the MEST Universe, and A Series of Lectures on the Whole Track."

The paper/book chapter also includes references to the "Fourth Dynamic Engram", an alternative term for the Xenu events which we currently don't have in the article. According to Melton, a statement on the "Fourth Dynamic Engram" forms part of the Sea Org swearing-in ceremony ("I promise to do my part to achieve the Sea Org's humanitarian objective which is to make a safe environment where the Fourth Dynamic Engram can be edited out"). Cf. the reference cited in our Operating Thetan article, but note that the publication date given by Wikipedia there seems to be wrong. From my online research, it seems that the 70s version of the book contained an entry on the Fourth Dynamic Engram which was dropped from the 90s edition. I haven't been able to verify the wording quoted; does anyone have access to the 1978 version of the book? --JN466 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Melton actually mention the word, "Xenu"? -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you know that Melton attempts to respect the Church's desire for confidentiality. Here is footnote 23: "The Church has gone to great lengths to prevent the publication of the confidential documents, which it made the subject of a set of court cases in the mid 1990s. These cases were especially directed toward several former members who attempted to post the materials on the Internet. A small cadre of former members who had access to the documents prior to their leaving have dedicated a significant amount of time to various attempts to publish the materials in such a way that the Church could not prevent access to them. On the legal front, the church has continually moved against such attempts (that include dumping the documents into court records to entering them into various government proceedings)." The equation Xenu legend = fourth dynamic engram is made in a couple of other sources, e.g. [25]. Melton describes it thus: "The Fourth Dynamic Engram refers to an event in the pre-historic past according to Scientology's understanding of the evolution of the human race. A disaster befell humans some 75 million years ago and its effect is universal. Removing the negative effects of this disaster is part of the ultimate work of the Sea Org." The fact that this is part of Sea Org members' oath of allegiance would nicely complement some of the materials we already have in the article about the Sea Org. --JN466 04:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That source could be used on some other article, perhaps Operating Thetan, but not the article "Xenu", from a biased source that does not even mention the word "Xenu". -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be attributed directly to Melton, as his opinion, from a questionable source. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? As far as I am aware, Melton is widely acknowledged as one of the foremost Scientology scholars. His books on Scientology are required reading in university courses. He is widely quoted in reliable news sources. Widely cited in academic books. He is the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology. The book we are discussing is published by a university press. In short, this is a highly qualified source, the sort of source we should be using. There is no conceivable doubt that Melton is speaking about anything but the Xenu myth here. His pointers to non-confidential materials outlining the mythology are valuable. The fact that the Xenu incident is the "Fourth Dynamic Engram" referred to in the Sea Org's oath of allegiance is likewise an interesting fact, and ties in with the material we present on the Sea Org's symbology already. --JN466 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If Melton himself does not say, "Xenu", we should not use it. It is synthesis, and a violation - not to mention from a questionable source. -- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cirt, We all know that despite the Rhetoric of "Cult Apologist" and all the baggage that comes with it. Melton is considered a leading American Scholar in the NRM/Cult arena. Now whether or not you agree with his opinions to pretend that he is an unreliable or too biased a source for us to use here is silly. When essentially his POV matches that of most members in the American Academy of Religion, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Association for Sociology of Religion, the American Sociological Association and to a lesser extent (due to freudian influence) the American Psychological Association. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Melton is known for simply taking source material from the Scientology organization, material that is widely disputed regarding its factual accuracy, and then passing it off as not contested. This is extremely inappropriate and makes the source unreliable for this subject matter, due to the biased nature of the source in question. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the Best you can do is the ICSA a fringe group in the Social Sciences. The Journal is not even Abstracted by any Academic Databases. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Melton does not even mention "Xenu" in his works. I am not aware of any other scholar that is subservient to the demands of the Scientology organization in such an odd manner. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that this precise paper is required reading in this university course for example. It is referred to as a "fine study of Sea Org" by Jeffrey Kaplan here (in Eugene V. Gallagher; W. Michael Ashcraft (October 2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 116. ISBN 9780275987176.)

Melton is described as someone "criticized by the church for being too harsh" in this news article. He is not as harsh as the ICSA, formerly known as the American Family Foundation, but then they are historically hardly a mainstream scholarly organisation, their recent rapprochement with more mainstream scholars notwithstanding.

Religious scholars do try to be respectful of the groups they study, including their esoterica, within reason. Douglas E. Cowan for example expressed similar qualms here.

It becomes very difficult to have a reasoned discussion when an editor dismisses the judgment of the entire academic and journalistic mainstream, insisting that their personal opinion should prevail. It is even more difficult to understand in this case, considering that Melton is in perfect agreement with devoted anti-Scientologists on the factual points at issue here, and actually points to sources never classified as confidential by the Church which lay out the whole thing. --JN466 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should table further discussion of the source itself, and entertain here on the talk page what proposed text should be added to the article, as suggested by Jayen466 (talk · contribs). I will await that proposal here. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Denial

The statement "members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story" would perhaps be better if "members" was changed to "leaders". There is no doubt that those at the top of this organization have attempted to cover this up. However, common members who deny this may very well be stating their honest beliefs based upon what they have been told, rather than attempting to engage in deception. Also, sholud "story" perhaps be changed to "narrative"? Although it seems utterly absurd to many, including me, this is apparently the actual religious belief of some people. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

from what I can tell this follows the WP:RS do you have an alternative source which would specifically identify leaders?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not illustrating my point very well. It is true that this story about Xenu exists. It is true that Scientologists almost universally deny that it exists. However, as it is apparently only made known to those at Scientology's highest levels (which this article documents with WP:RS), common Scientologists who deny the story are not "trying to hide its existance" in the same way that those at the top of the organization are. This seems to be unnecessarily discrimnatory against most practicing Scientologists (for whom I am certainly no apologist), and I feel that the article should make some form of distinction. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In the practicing rank and file Scientologists I have met and discourse with... It has very application to their religious experience and life. Generally the ones I know deny it more in public because they feel its used more to mock them. I have had a few who acknowledge his likely existence in CoS mythos but it doesnt bother them. I hear it compared to ritualistic cannibalism, Genital mutilation, and Religion of violence, baby throwing. Totally taken out of context and reported for mockery. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not wise, nor does it seem in good faith, to make assertions about a source one has not read. Of the two sources cited for the sentence, Jordison says Important Scientologists have denied in the past that this is the literal basis for their religion. This is actually more in line with OP's suggestion than the present text. Urban is available here and here; the closest I can find to what is in the article is "The fifteen higher grades of Operating Thetan thus become increasingly esoteric, as the individual is prepared to receive more elaborate teachings and techniques. Little of this information is known with any certainty by non-Scientologists, and most of what has been divulged has been denied by the official Church; however, there are numerous reports by disaffected Scientologists, as well as several court testimonies, that claim to reveal quite a lot of this esoteric information." Have I missed anything? --JN466 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to make any assertions about the source, which I admit readily, I have not read. It was my assertion that a couple of sentences in this article seem to portray rank and file Scientologists in a light that may be unnecessarily negative. It certainly was not my intention to deny the assumption of good faith. My apologies to any who feel my comments were out of line. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's quite all right. I was chiding my colleague Coffeepusher, who confidently asserted that the wording followed the cited sources, when as far as I can see it doesn't. The sources actually say something more closely akin to what you were thinking the article should say. --JN466 10:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was bold and made the change. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

__ In hindsight probably should have put this here first so it would be written better before reaching the article lol I changed a fact' that was cited to an article about a lawsuit. The only thing the citation was being used for was to back up a paraphrased quote where "Scientology lawyer Earl Cooley hinted at the importance of Xenu in Scientology doctrine by stating that "thousands of articles are written about Coca-Cola, and they don't print the formula for Coca-Cola", drawing a parallel between the Xenu story and the secret recipe of Coca-Cola." Clicking the citation I found the article was about a lawsuit over some fair use quotes in a washington post story reporting on a previous lawsuit, where the quoted bits had been obtained from court records(fits with another part of the wiki article that mentions people trying to publish the story ways scientology couldn't stop it ex:public record from court cases.) but I digress...the point is the quote being paraphrased from the article wasn't actually saying that, the paraphrase was a bit misleading(inferred a bit much beyond stated facts for a encyclopedia entry(unintentionally obviously, somebody was probably tired or misread and accidentally put words in the guy's mouth when trying to paraphrase(also imo for perceived neutrality it sort of has a clearly not intended "ha, caught in a lie" feel(no offense) as text(that no tone of voice, incorrect emotion interpretation problem text always has) but that may just be me))). Anyway...it was only a metaphor were cooley was really just saying he felt the quotations went beyond fair use and could be damaging to their trade secrets or whatever. And it isn't like the quote was a main point in the article, just something the reporter added to finish out the final paragraph. I didn't want to remove the citation, it has good info so I tried to edit it in so the facts in the article were being used rather than just the one quote. but reading it now I don't think my sentence its really up to the wiki's writing though... 149.152.132.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

Please help me.

I'm not usually one to vandalize and break rules but this NEEDS to spew out right here. I knew Scientology was phucced up before I stumbled across this page, but now? Oh please save me God. That's not even funny, these people BLATANTLY (without humor) need medical help severely. This is pure insanity and to allow people to be sucked into such broken, mentally ill BS is unarguably morally wrong. I do not know how to express myself in response to this. I know i'm breaking the rules and this will be deleted quickly, but to know at least one person, you, the deleter, read this, makes me feel quite a bit better. Please understand the extreme power of BS I feel from this whole thing. This page alone causes significantly more distress to me than all of the countless amounts of videos of extreme violence, executions and deaths that have accumulated online over the years all put together. And then some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.184.57 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

• 8 images, 38 citations, Featured Article. Smee 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Quote box types

The mixture of {{cquote}} and {{quotation}} are rather inappropriate in a FA, which presumably should follow MOS. Colored backgrounds are now discouraged just as the pull marks were. See Wikipedia:MOS#Block quotations. They should probably both be changed to plain {{quote}}. Thanks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

FAQ spoilers

The FAQ states that spoiler warnings are used only on fiction articles. Except that we don't use spoiler warnings anymore, and have not done so for many years now. Should the FAQ's wording be changed to state that Wikipedia does not use any form of spoiler warning in articles except for the content disclaimer? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)