Talk:Galactic Confederacy

Is this a joke?

I was doing a report on the civil war when I came upon this ... Is it a joke or not? It doesn't make sense at all! 71.135.78.215 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

---

No. As one episode of South Park coins it, 'this is what Scientologists actually believe'. However, it is a concise and non-biased analysis into what Scientology is centered around in terms of basic backstory.The Chibi Kiriyama

NO, this is not "what Scientologists actually believe". There is some mention in rare instances in Scientology text of "Galactic confederacy". It is obviously untrue to state, "this is what Scientologists belive". It would be akin to finding some remote passage from the Old Testement of the Holy Bible, "so and so begat so and so" or something like that and presenting, "this is what Christians believe". Anyone who tells you that Scientologists believe every character of Scientology texts literally is having a good laugh on you, like your 'Xenu' reference, of which the Church makes no statement but which Scientology Critics have made huge with. Would you accept it that Christians "believe" every word of the Holy Bible? You could say, "Scientology texts say ......" but you can't accurately state, "Scientologists believe ..." because there is no reference for such a statement. In fact, because "Scientologist" is a self proclaimed state, you would have to interview Scientologists to find out what (if anything) they believed. No such study has been done, to my knowledge. Terryeo 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find it prudent, there are other references to this in the 'R6 Implant' and 'Xenu' articles, though from the sounds of it our sentiment on this is the same. The Chibi Kiriyama

Thank You. I thought it was only a south park joke :/71.135.35.5 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not revealed???

If the Galactic Confederacy's history is not revealed to Scientologists until they reach the level of OT III (whatever that is - I know very little about Scientology) then how does the author of this section know about it? Surely by writing this article, that statement has become untrue - as it is now public knowledge, available to anyone reading this article. Walton monarchist89 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article itself already answers your question: the OT III documents and info have been made public in court cases via the Fishman Affidavit and other sources. (Also see the External Links section.) Just because it's out there on the net, though, doesn't mean that prospective Scientologists know about it when they join the Church. wikipediatrix 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's a pile of nonsense too, since there doesn't exist a reference to "Galactic Confederacy's history is not revealed ..". Only rabble rousers and critcs would attempt to find a the only extant references (which have been previously stolen) to be valid, encyclopedic references. Since the source of that information doesn't comment on what is contained in OT III, there is no reference. However there is the word of a thief who says that he stole some documents and who says he presented them intact, unmodified and whole. Terryeo 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not one "thief" but many. Many others such as Tory Christman have come forward to verify the info. In court, the Church didn't even deny it, but maintained it was a "trade secret" that shouldn't have been revealed. It doesn't matter anyway because Hubbard has also mentioned the Galactic Confederacy in publicly-available lectures and writings. But you know all this already because it's been explained to you many times back before you were banned from editing Scientology articles. wikipediatrix 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are saying. "Two or three thieves make a more encyclopedic reference." The Church makes no comment on that. To imply that "Scientologists believe" some page or two in millions of words and thousands and thousands of pages is plain silly. As long as the article presents things in context and presents information without bias the article can work. But when the article attempts to present stolen (possibly modified / manufactured) information as if it were peer reviewed and while simultaneously criticizing peer reviewed, factual information, presented by the Church, the article most certainly isn't NPOV. Terryeo 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I put "thief" in quotation marks, see, that denotes sarcasm, see. Meaning I obviously don't think they're thieves. wikipediatrix 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you seem to have slipped off-topic again. You're making cryptic references to "a thief who says that he stole some documents and who says he presented them intact, unmodified and whole". However, you have given us no idea who you mean by this. You were replying to a post about the Fishman Affidavit, so one would think that you meant Steven Fishman, except that Fishman made no claims of the kind you are attributing to "a thief". So either you don't have your facts straight, or you have somehow slipped off-topic and are discussing something entirely different from the rest of us. Can you clarify which it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I see the article does indeed answer my question. I should have read the article more carefully. If no one objects, I will delete this discussion as it is not highly relevant. Walton monarchist89 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, might as well leave it. wikipediatrix 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, the article could be tweaked to clarify that the Church of Scientology does not reveal this "information" to Scientologists until they reach OT III, but plenty of sources other than the CoS now have the same "information" and distribute it more freely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, since when does being a thief make you a liar? You reject these documents on the basis that they were leaked by a "thief", yet you trust a religion created a convicted criminal. Yandman 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I had no intention of starting another POV debate about the merits or otherwise of Scientology. From now on I will refrain from raising obscure points, lest this never-ending battle be repeated again and again, as it has been on numerous talk pages - viz. Space opera in Scientology doctrine, Xenu, Scientology etc. Those of us who are trying to find out actual information about the subject end up getting bogged down in this debate every time. Walton monarchist89 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it happens every time. That may even be an effect deliberately aimed at by certain people who bring up the same rejected claims such as "Scientology does not have beliefs" over and over again even though this tendentious insistence on these mendacious points has never produced anything of value (unless you consider developed traffic to be of value.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V tells us the sorts of information we should build articles on. WP:RS hammers out specifics such as "newgroup postings can not be included" and this is because such postings are unattributable. Personal websites information can not be included because of the poor reliability factor. My comment is toward building the quality of Wikipedia and should not be construed as a personal attack, either on the theives who stole documents, nor on their friends who put them on their websites. My comment is about WIKIPEDIA, and how our policies work, not about personal opinion. Terryeo 18:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your comment is about how many falsehoods you can work into a sentence so that people don't even bother exposing every falsehood you slime out, just the more obvious ones. Your comments are never aimed at building the quality of Wikipedia, only of exploiting policies that are intended to build the quality of Wikipedia to your own ends, which have more to do with suppression of information than the quality thereof. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems very much to be speaking from the viewpoint of a Scientologist. The content is stated as a fact, rather than a belief, as it should be to be NPOV. --68.227.199.6 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to give examples? Everything I see here is presented with phrases like "In higher levels of Scientology doctrine," "mentioned in a number of publicly available L. Ron Hubbard books and recorded lectures," and "As Hubbard tells it,", all of which clearly shows this is stuff one guy said and not presented as fact in any way, shape, or form. wikipediatrix 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Space opera in Scientology Scripture

Let's merge this one with the Space Opera article. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the CoS space opera information is all inter-related S. M. Sullivan 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of the confederacy

Other articles say the confederacy "ruled a broad swath of the galaxy, and lasted for eighty trillion years", yes it consisted of only 76 planets. Does anyone else find this a bit odd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Kirk (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge notes

Here are the reliably sourced bits:

Lure of the celebrity sect: "Back then Xenu, who was apparently the Galactic Federation ruler, dropped thousands of human souls into volcanoes on Hawaii and in the Mediterranean and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs."

That is it. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)