Talk:Xenu

• FAQ for Talk Page readers

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. http://books.google.com/books?id=q_dHbk7CdOkC&pg=PA7. Retrieved 21 January 2011. ).

This was a far more widely reported quote [1] than Stone's and Parker's "Hail Xenu!!!" statement to Variety [2], 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."[3].

The Edinburgh fringe musical is not notable; I can only find two sources in Google News that reference it, [4], 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: [5] --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: [6] 2 matches, one of them not exactly an RS. For reference, Hayes' quote in google books [7]. --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.' [8] --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)

Y 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. http://books.google.com/books?id=up5fnY7Wp1wC. 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. [9]. 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. http://books.google.com/books?id=ClaySHbUEogC&pg=PA116. )

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).

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)