From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Xenu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Scientology (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.


Any objections to my proposed adding to the end of the lede that there is no evidence for "Xenu"'s existence, or indeed for anything in the article? (I won't go as far as to say he's not real for fear of the scientologists, but the scientific consensus is that the subject of this article is of that nature)--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

which reliable sources do you propose to use to state that there is no evidence for anything within this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The programme which this refers to, which was produced by the BBC, a neutral and reliable news outlet.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Or this, a 1987 panorama programme, again by the BBC, which at the very least heavily implies that he is fictional?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
neither one of those sources backs up your claims that there is "no evidence for Xenu's existence or indeed for anything in this article." We have to be careful not to engage in WP:OR, especially in the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
look, we need to follow WP:NPOV. What that says basically is we need to represent information in an article based on the amount of coverage that information recieves. The truth is that there hasn't really been any sustained debate over the factuality of Xenu. The most we have is a few reporters asking Scientologists if Xenu exists, and them dodging the question, with one instance of a Scientology leader stating that the space opera stuff was kinda like the parables of Jesus which give teachings but shouldn't be considered 100% factual. I would actually be shocked if Scientists are doing research into pre-pre-pre historic nuclear detonations or archaeological digs to find the brainwashing facilities set up by Xenu, and 75 million years is more than enough time to turn DC-17 spacecrafts into rust. So, no. Based on WP:NPOV I don't think your statement deserves mention in the WP:LEDE.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no concrete evidence that the Christian/Jewish god exists either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So, an analysis I read recently on shocked quartz, which is produced "only be asteroid impacts and nuclear explosions", finding it at the KT boundary 65 mya, but nowhere 75 mya, could be used as scientific evidence that the events are scientifically implausible?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source that uses the analysis of shocked quartz as proof the events in the Xenu story are implausible (both statements must be in the same paper) then it can be included, otherwise you would be engaging in original research.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for that. I hadn't realised that that came under WP:OR. :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries, the truth is that you are trying to reproduce the first edit I ever did on this page, I had an extremely similar conversation with a nice admin where he cited exactly what I have just said to you. About once every six months someone tries the same thing, I am glad you are established enough to understand the principles of wikipedia and why we can't do it (most of those other editors just get banned or pissed off).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is another Wikipedia where things backed by zero evidence do not get protected just because some bunch of people believe who believe in them. For example, read their example for Easter: [1] Honestly, who on Earth do people believe in this type of stuff? (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FAQ spoilers[edit]

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)

Revolt in the Stars[edit]

That should be mentioned in the lede, probably as a sentence in the first paragraph. (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


OK so right above where I am typing is a template which says "This article is not a joke" but is this part of the joke? An old April Fool's? Elsewhere in the archive someone has written that saying such things is "insulting to Scientologists" which is also surely a joke? Scientology isn't a religion (well, it may be classed as such in a few countries but not in most) and it is widely ridiculed by the media, ordinary people, online and elsewhere so it seems to be OK to be insulting to Scientologists. It's like saying that telling a pedophile that he has a problem or telling a racist that he's wrong is "insulting". Apologies if this really is not a joke but it should be made far clearer in the article. The article should also try to be less "neutral" as it seems to be pretending that this is something normal to believe in - Wikipedia don't be afraid to tell things as they are.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientology may be a joke, but this article isn't.--Auric talk 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It’s because many people may find this article so outlandish that they may reasonably believe it is a joke. When I first came across it, I was one of them. The template may be insulting to someone who genuinely believes it to be a matter of historical record, but considering the real confusion that there has been over the article, I for one think it’s necessary. — (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold in the lead[edit]

I don't want to mess with a featured article, but why are so many words bolded in the lead? I thought we only did that for the subject of an article. Andrew327 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think we could replace several of those with wikilinks, otherwise I think the only thing we should bold is Xenu and Xemu.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)