Talk:Xenu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

a joke?

Just wondering if these people are serious, lol.

Turbo Jets and Fan Jets

I'm not expert on aircraft propulsion, but it's my understanding that the DC-8 (as do most commercial jets) use Turbo Fan engines, which actually do get most of their thrust from the fan in front the turbine, not from the jet exhaust. So L. Ron's description does make some sense. I draw the line at accepting that anybody would design a spaceship that looked like a DC-8!

Except that there is no air in space for the front turbo fans to pull in! In space, all the thrust has to come from the jet exhaust. Hubbard ain't no rocket scientist, that's for certain.

Good example, :O) The more you know. --Depakote 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that there can be no Bernoulli force in the absence of a fluid medium. Hence, the wings are completely useless.

Just an observation, but do Scientology article talk pages kind of waive the rule about signing posts? If not, why do so few seem to do it? --DreamsReign 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has inserted the following quote in the space plane section "Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy batshit? -{IC}" I am unable to figure out how to remove it but I think it should be removed. 8, May 2006

Since that was removed hours before your post, I'm not sure how you are still seeing it. AndroidCat 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

2007 Continuation

Hubbard never said that the spaceships WERE DC-8 airliners, just that they LOOKED like them. Shralla 07:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if he mentioned why it had wings, horizontal stabilizers, a vertical stabilizer, or how it was powered? Anynobody 08:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Xenu responsible for famous OS?

Spell Xenu backwards and you get Unex. This guy evidently has a lot to answer for... ;-) -- ChrisO 2 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

I had just noticed that Xenu's last name "Etrawl" is an anagram for "Walter". Can anybody make something useful out of that? -- Lurlock 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Xenu isn't responsible for Unix. Rather, just as Linus Torvalds made Linux, Xenu made Xenix. --FOo 04:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a Joke?

This is not intended as a criticism, as I know virtually nothing about scientology, or it's articles of faith. I just wanted to make sure this article is not a joke. Reading it, I am more and more certain that this page has been affected by vandalism of some kind, although I am not able to compare it with any proof of scientological beliefs. Is this true, or false? Whoever wrote this, if it is a joke, has certainly fooled me, and ought to be congratulated. If this is serious... I sincerely apologize for being so ignorant of this aspect of religion. Is there any way to ascertain the veracity of these beliefs being honestly accepted as truth by members of scientology? It seems to me (again I know nothing about the religion, this article just strikes me as a joke) that this article is someones idea of a fun way to make jokes about the religion. So, I'm just wondering... is this for real? Thanks for any insight!!! Jesse 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

I don't know about the whole "Space Opera and Scientology" thing, but Xenu was mentioned on an ABC news program, 20/20 I think, long before I'd ever heard of Wikipedia. This was a story where they talked with Scientology celebrities about the faith so they must have dropped their objection to it being mentioned. Now all they said was that Xenu was an alien warrior that Scientologists believe had tremendous importance 75 million years ago. I can't confirm the whole of this article right now, nor do I want to, but most of it I think fits with what's known of their Xenu-related beliefs. Although I have kind of disparaged their faith in the last few hours so I'm sure they hate me now. It was a lapse in judgment doing so and I'll happily erase any post where I did so if they wish.--T. Anthony 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Some things, when you read them... you've still just got to enquire "is this article a joke!?" no matter how many references. I mean.... what the... :}ممتاز 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. Look at all the references and sources, in particular the Fishman Affidavit. --cesarb 6 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Definitely not a joke. I've now documented the broader context - see Space opera in Scientology doctrine. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

I love how people keep asking if this is a joke or not. Well, it's certainly not one played by Wikipedia... Maybe we need a disclaimer at the top of the talk page: before you say anything, no, this is not a joke... 82.92.119.11 8 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Added :-) - David Gerard 14:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad David Gerard added that disclaimer. :P I've read some far fetched and imaginative theological theories before, but this totally blew me away. Jachin 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This is by a large margin the most farcical and ludicrous story ever concieved. the fact that many people believe this is most depressing. MaximusNukeage 01:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that whole thing about some lady giving birth without having sex and then having her son rise from the dead three days after being nailed to some pieces of wood was pretty funny. The fact that so many people believe it 2000 years later is really depressing too. I don't know if you are a christian, but is it any more ridiculous than christianity or any other major religion? Actually, I shouldn't say any other major religion since scientology is not major, but you know what I mean. Either way, religious stories of this or any kind should only be viewed symoblically, and people who take them literally scare me.

Umm yes it is in fact more ridiculous, on a number of levels. It invokes events which can be proved or disproved. If Xenu was a spirit who spiritually harmed the Earth in some unspecific manner 75 million years ago then it'd be different. It wouldn't contradict any material evidence so it'd be less ridiculous. Instead there are claims of technological gadgets, nukes, volcanoes, etc. These can be proven or disproven rationally and in this case most would agree they are disproven. Added to this asexual reproduction and survival after being deemed dead three days are things that can occur even in nature. There is no evidence in nature so far that aliens could reach Earth in a single lifetime let alone commit nuclear holocaust.

Maybe Monty Python should reband and film a parody called "The Life of Xenu:}"? ممتاز 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've safety disproven the ridiculous notion that the Earth (and the universe) are only 6000 years old. We have disproven the idea that there was a massive world wide flood in recent history. Logic can rule out the idea of every type of animal on Earth can fit onto a boat with a few thousand year old technology. Logic also tells us that a woman can not become pregnant without having sex. We have proven beyond a reasonable doubt (emphasis on "reasonable") that evolution is, in fact, real. We have proven the world is not flat (a Christian belief, whether you like it or not) and that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. We have shown that there are no major biological differences between humans and animals. We know that language was developed by man, not handed to us by some guy in the clouds.

Don't forget the Adam and Eve story, how could two people populate the Earth to 6 billion people? And, What about incest? And, after the whole 40 day long rain, there was just Noah and his sons and the son's wives. Each of Noah's sons are of a different race. (So the bible tells us) How could it be possible that three races came from one man of one race? And your right, it is entirely symbolic. This actually brings up something I thought when reading this article: How come this story gets ripped apart with science, when no other religious stories do? I don't know, maybe they do, I haven't read every religious article wikipedia has. 70.35.204.78 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

All those old, false beliefs you mentioned largely died off centuries ago, long before humankind had the technology to prove or disprove such things. True, there are still wackoes on the fringes of Christianity who believe all of those things, but the story of Christianity is very theologically consistent and ultimately involves one man, whereas Scientology invokes, among other things, aliens and intergalactic travel and other things that would have made Ed Wood proud. And for the record, no serious Christian believes that God is an old man in the sky. I really don't know where everyone gets that from. Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel still everybody's authoritative source on the religion? --205.146.141.238 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole Jesus story is just as ridiculous. If you spend 3 minutes critically analysing either of these stories, you can see they're bunk. The only reason they're still here is that they prop up people and organisations, which in turn prop up the stories. --Dave420 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support scientology (I don't) but I can't see why it's any more ridiculous than Christianity. Most major religions are based on ludicrous stories like this one.

It is more ludicrous than Christianity because it is meaningless, the story of a virgin birth or rather birth from conception with a numinous godhead is so widespread and well understood an archetype I barely need to mention examples: every greek Hero, some versions of the Buddha story, Mithras... And the Hero God conquering death is just as widespread. These stories have a deep meaning relating to our inherited understanding of the universe and are obviously symbolic. On top of this the recorded teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) are of astonishing beauty and well repay deep thought by anyone interested in human life. These stories on the other hand are less profound than Star Wars and are the blithering psychobable of a technology obsessed madman. --Rogue Jack 10:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The closest approximation to the first part is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They make claims about Pre-Columbian history which can be confirmed or denied and so far most credible scholars would agree they've been denied. However that Jewish people could have(meaning that in theory they had the capability) came to the New World is nowhere near as ridiculous. Extraterrestrials themselves are so far speculative. That Jewish people and the Americas exist is not in question.--T. Anthony 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Before you make a blanket statement on what "most credible scholars" have concluded, you should refer to Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon. I am a mormon and make no pretenses for some of the archaeological weaknesses of our claims, but there is also a lot of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. Anyway - I digress from the purpose of this article - but as far fetched as you might think some religions might be, I agree with 205.146.141.238 - whereas most of the credible religions cannot be categorically proven as false.

• I want whatever Hubbard was smoking when he came up with that. :P--Kross^Talk 21:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I must ask, why wouldn't Xenu just make the thethans loyal to him for enternity while he was brainwashing them. Maybe then they could rescue him from the magic enternal battery powered force field that was made utilizing technology much like that of 1960.

To me, the real problem is not that the belief is outlandish, but rather that it MUST remain a SECRET! The bible, koran, and torah are all available at your local bookstore. Going to [christian] church is free. There is nothing "available" to higher levels of the christian church members that are not "avaliable" to the lowliest member. Plus, having to PAY the "church" for your shot at salvation is ludicrious to me. Understanding that religions all have their costs, I think Scientology takes that to a new level. (Last time I checked, Christians can be "saved" even if they can't afford to put any money in the collection basket. Perhaps not if they remove money, though...) --P.J.

Has anyone ever noticed how very Lovecraftian all this talk of Xenu/Xemu is? Sochwa 05:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one of the things that has always struck me about the Xenu mythology is how prosaic it is. Lovecraft wrote about things that were so terrifyingly alien that we couldn't come to terms with them and would go insane if we tried. Hubbard wrote about aliens that wore business suits and fedoras, drove cars, had income taxes, flew in space planes that looked like DC-8s... All of the diversity of life forms on Earth, all the breathtaking variety of culture throughout human history ... and Hubbard's imagination couldn't come up with better than "yeah, these alien beings ... they look and they dress just like us -- but see, it's really us copying them! Yeah, DC-8s don't look like DC-8s because someone sat down and designed an excellent plane, but because they were recalling unconscious memories of the Marcab Confederacy!" That's depressing. If Lovecraft had started his own religion it would have been so much classier. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lovecraft was a good writer. Arguably a BRILLIANT writer. Hubbard, on the other hand, was so lame it makes me want to vomit. Prefer Nyarlathotep over Xenu any day- Ragnarokmephy144.131.139.111 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[1][2][3]... Ronabop 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Jesus story was at least told by many different people, as opposed to this one being told/written by just one. How would Ron L. Hubbard know what happened "trillions" of years ago is beyond me. Is it a coincidence he also happens to be a science-fiction writer? Am I the only one that sees how ridiculous this sounds? But, alas, I'm just a teenager so don't get mad, I don't know much about life, and yes I know this is for discussing improvements to the article, I just felt like expressing my thoughts :) Apologies if I offended anyone. Lordofchaosiori 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing people believe a science fiction novel writer and his fantasy religion. He was some wacko that feeding ideas into gullible minds. Space ships that resemble airplanes come on people? If I were to say something like this today would you belive me probably, I don't know why but I know this story is of the wall. I might as well watch star wars and call it a religion! DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE FORCE? Pop4any1 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be amused to know that a few years ago, some Aussies pushed through a petition and got enough signatures, in order to force the Australian government to recognize "Jedi" as a religion in the census. Now they know how to have a good time.  :) Kasreyn 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also one of the people who thinks that the idea of Christianity is rather far-fetched. However, it has some sort of documented proof that has been in existance for over a thousand years. Scientology is based upon what a science-fiction author sat down and wrote less than 100 years ago. To me that is the equivalent of George Lucas suddenly saying he's a prophet and Star Wars is real. I honestly find Scientology to be a mockery of other faiths. Hanshi 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The most unusual part of this story, to me atleast is the fact that he flew over on a passanger jet? A DC-8 to be exact. I find this hard to grasp. Maybe someone would want to clear this up. How are passanger jets able for space travel. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.127 (talk • contribs)

The space planes on which the kidnappees were flown to Teegeeack weren't actual DC-8s. Hubbard said they were "exact copies" of DC-8s, with the difference that DC-8s (supposedly) had fans/propellors and the space planes didn't, but elsewhere he clarified that he meant the modern DC-8 was the copy, a copy of "the space plane of that [past] day". Of course I think it goes without saying that the space plane would be using a different propulsion system than the modern DC-8; it's unreasonable to interpret "exact copy" to mean that it was exactly like a DC-8 in all respects including not having space capabilities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a joke when I first heard about this but evidently there are some people that are so stupid that they actually believe this. Extremely terrifying to think that anyone could be taken in by this.

Anyone think it's funny a galactic empire drives Packards? I do. 70.174.155.76 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is priceless. I haven't laughed so much since I read "Slashdot trolling phenomena" (sadly long since deleted). Extra kudos for being both a featured article and an article for deletion. Axl 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The mythology of most religions are intended to get across the defining philosophy of that religion in terms and stories that will get across to the common man and make him remember them. Most people will just yawn if you give them Philosophy 101 as a means of explanation. So believing that aliens literally invaded earth or that Jesus literally was resurrected is, well, sad. (Being a Hindu, I would know. If you were to start taking hindu mythology literally, you are really going to get messed up) Having said that, I honestly dont know what underlying philosophy Scientology is trying to convey (and I am extremely tempted to call it crap) but I sure hope its a damn good one. AravindAxn

Hmm I think a fair amount of Christians do literally believe Jesus was resurrected. Me for one. I don't think that's sad, it's just how the religion works. Most religions have a transcendent or supernatural aspect. I assumed that was true of Hinduism as well. (A slight confusion I have with Scientology is it doesn't seem to see any of this as supernatural, per se, but as some kind of super-science)--T. Anthony 09:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess I have to agree with you, Anthony. That is, if you are the types who believes supernatural things are/were possible. Quite a large number of people, even in hinduism, do believe that the stories in the mythology really happened. My opinion is one of, well, a skeptic. I dont believe supernatural occurences are possible. But I definitely believe they can be used to illustrate philosophies that lead to better quality of living. And if (mind you, i said if) Scientology does that in some way, well I think then the whole Xenu story can be excused. AravindAxn 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Xenu in pictures

Someone's been getting creative... http://www.livejournal.com/users/ashgromnies/17484.html -- ChrisO 22:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I added the link to Kaufman's online book at: [4]. Kaufman made this work publicly available before he died. I also corrected the spelling of his name from Kaufmann to Kaufman.

I added the link to [5] because the author of the article Richard Lieby gave permission for this to be made publicly available. The Clearwater Sun newspaper where Lieby worked in 1981 is no longer in operation. The only remaining copyright interest in this article is Leiby himself and he has granted permission. Leiby currently works at the Washington Post and I can provide his e-mail and phone number to back up this claim.

Proof that Scientologists are not Wikipedia Savvy (at least for the moment)

Why is it that Scientologists have not tried to eliminate the information on Xenu? Given their solicitous effors to rid the internet of any anti-scientology or even neutral-scientology information (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_vs._the_Internet), I would think that some enterprising Scientologist somewhere would've written a script to deface all Scientology-related pages on Wikipedia (since they contain the truth about Scientology). This leads me to two possible conclusions, at least as far as I can see (please let me know if I'm missing something): #1, the Scientologists have now embraced the internet and informing the general public of Scientology beliefs or #2, they are just not wikipedia savvy. Since they still maintain the revenue model of decades ago (charge potential scientologists large amounts of money before they are made aware of such lore as the Xenu story, lest they are scared away from the get-go), I think #1 is highly unlikely. #2 seems more plausible. However, wikipedians, and contributors to the NPOV scientology articles, should be prepared for an onslaught of Scientology cyber-vandalization when they (the Scientologists) become aware of Wikipedia, its resources, and its authoritative status on the internet as a source for NPOV information. -- Vikas==

The reason revolves about the court case which resulted in the Xenu document coming into the public domain and being no longer protected by copyright. It was copyrighted, it was presented as evidence at a trail, later Scientology attempted to have it withdrawn from public court record. And failed because the judge considered it a fairy tale and irrelevant to a church's copyright protections. Terryeo 06:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Terryeo, you are not presenting the facts of the case correctly. The issue revolved around OT3 being a "trade secret". However, one cannot have a trade secret that involves actual events that occured in history, you can only have a trade secret that involves processes (or ingredients). The story about Xenu was not presented as a "fairy tale" by Warren McShane, testifying on behalf of CoS, but rather, McShane stated the Xenu holocaust from ~75million years ago was an historical event that CoS was not claiming trade protection for. CoS only wanted trade protection for the processes involved later on in OT3 that taught people how to remove the Body thetans that were unleashed by Xenu. Copyright protection doesn't give the author the right to prevent people from reading his works. If a work becomes available to the public via a library or court system, then the public has a valid and legal right to read that copyrighted work, no matter what the author of the work feels about it. Vivaldi 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, now - we have plenty of Scientologist editors on Wikipedia, including some who've edited this article. The CoS is well aware of Scientology coverage on Wikipedia - David Gerard 23:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that they'll be tracked and caught if they mess with wikipedia - it's a lot harder to get away with defacing the 'pedia than it is threatening "SPs" on the streets. --Dave420 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the reasoning and/or history of removing the discussion of someone quitting South Park for Hayes? I saw a screenshot that listed the information in this entry, and now that information is gone. --71.196.227.79 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplication, probably. There are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia that all repeat pretty much the same details of the South Park/Hayes story, such as Isaac Hayes and Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode). It's really kind of bad that the story is repeated in all those places in full detail; there's just simply no need for it to be repeated in full again at Xenu, which isn't even about one of the primary actors in the story. (Yeah, I know, you can make the jokes, but I said "primary", not "involved in some way, shape or form"...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Replying to the initial poster: For most Scientologists, the material contained in this article is strictly verboten. I can only speak for those at the lower or introductory levels, which comprise a great deal of Scientology's public: the prevailing mood is one of reverence. Scientology's in-house PR machine is very successful at what it does. Small examples: L. Ron Hubbard smoked Kools, I don't know how many packs a day. This was, for a long time, an advertised fact. His proxy "offices," a staple at each org, were regularly stocked with fresh packs. When smoking became politically incorrect, photographs of L. Ron Hubbard and his cigarettes simply vanished. The trait is not included in any official Scientology biography (hagiography). More recently, the so-called "Introduction to Scientology" interview, conducted in the early 80's (estimate), was re-released, remastered, on DVD. It is advertised, and I will post a photograph of this, as "L. Ron Hubbard's ONLY filmed interview." A simple YouTube search will show that this is a flat out lie (see "The Shrinking World of Scientology," Granada Production, 1967).

The pervasive reverence for L. Ron Hubbard is fostered by Scientology's PR machine. As you rise higher on the paint-by-numbers chart to "Total Freedom," the simple common sense advices (co-opted from Buddhism, mostly) gradually drop away, replaced by abstract scifi doggerel of the type shown in this article. Doggerel that is treated like the Ark of the Covenant; shrouded in mystery and festooned with bright warning labels, cursing all who would enter unprepared. It seems the only requisite is to NOT judge the "OT" materials, to accept them completely. The curses are binding Non-Disclosure Agreements, prohibiting talk of the "OT" matters even to fellow students, and especially not to people at the lower levels, on pain of (at least) $10,000.00. All of this conjures a powerful mystique for the uninitiated at the lower levels, and trust in L. Ron Hubbard abides; thus, sites which contain this material are avoided quite cautiously. Those who are trained enough to confirm the content probably only gape. It would be too risky to involve themselves in a discussion where this material is available to even the absolute uninitiate, the non-Scientologist (or "pre-Scientologist"). Forgive me where I come short in eloquence and rhetoric; I will try to make up for it with truth. Ask me anything.

(Renyseneb 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

"Xenu? What is Xenu? Perhaps you could tell me what Xenu is..."

I've been seeing a lot of "Free Stress Test" Scientology tables around Manhattan recently, on sidewalks and even inside the larger subway stations—these merely have stacks of Dianetics with no references to Scientology and its associated mythos. I've taken to asking the employees manning the tables to tell me about Xenu, and the header above is basically the literal response I've gotten every single time. They obviously have heard of Xenu, though it's open as to how much they know or believe, and have been told to deny it. The article doesn't currently document awareness and denial by low-level followers/employees; my obnoxious encounters unfortunately constitute original research...but does anyone have any information to follow up on this issue? Postdlf 23:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll tell what I know Postdlf. I begin Scientology about 1980 and have been more or less active in it in various ways including working alongside Sea Org members. I had never heard of Xenu until I begin to chat religion on Yahoo. That was maybe 8 years ago. Xenu is an issue that some group(s) (myself, I read psychiatry but hey, whatever), some group(s) who hope to discredit Scientology uses. The amount of Scientology education, reading materials is perhaps, 30 linear feet of shelf space. The Xenu document is about a page. In about 20 years I heard no mention of Xenu. And hey, I'm still drinking water like everyone else. heh Terryeo 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the Scientologist's disingenuous affirmation, Xenu is a very central figure in their mythos. Why else, of all of their tenets, would those involving the prehistoric space alien warrant far and away the most secrecy? Why were they hitherto unwilling to even mention the name? Why else would so many of the lawsuits revolve around the "trade secrets" ostensibly contained in the Xenu documents? Few of their deceptions hold up under the slightest scrutiny, and for that we can be thankful.

I thought it was not made common knowledge amongst Scientologists, and that knowing about this before you were ready could kill you :) Perhaps you haven't spent enough money to be ready? --Dave420 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only state that the Church of Scientology has what is called the "Awareness and Gradation Chart". When new people come in they are more or less at the bottom of the chart, handling such things as drugs or their present time problems. The level where Xenu (or Xemu) is mentioned is called "OT III" (Operating Thetan III" and those who are dedicated members or staff of the COS do not get any information about Xenu until they have done the different steps on that chart, past the state of Clear, so they are not privy to the "confidential materials".

Obviously, someone has told those who give the "stress tests" to answer that question in that fashion. It doesn't mean that those who do so know anything of the Xenu story, for few who man the booths are OT III or above. It would be a violation of group agreement to look up Xenu on the Internet, and as most are decent folk, they stick to the rules. There is a "net nanny" they can install on their computers to keep out Xenu information as well as information on many other former Scientologists.

- Most Scientologists below the OTIII level do not know about Xenu. This is not revealed to them until they have reached that level. So most are doing this honestly - because they really don't know. I can't find the link but there is an excellent set of videos covering a discussion with one of the former leaders who left the church and her experiences. So many of these foot soldiers of Scientology who exist below the OT-III level will probably give you an honest answer about it. It would be akin to being a Christian but not knowing anything about Christ until you are baptized (non-Catholic baptism). aoco 19:50, 6 April 2006 CST

Thetagal, January 22, 2006

There exists a genuine fear of reading or hearing so-called "leaks" among lower level Scientologists. References make clear the dire consequences of doing so. L. Ron Hubbard died before the Internet was prevalent, otherwise I'm sure some new policy would surface to reduce the psychic punishment incurred. Seeing such sometimes qualifies as an ethics violation, also. (Renyseneb 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Perpetual motion phrase

While an eternal battery may seem implausible, we don't mock the implausibility of virgin birth, a trinitarian godhead, transubstantiation, a worldwide flood, or any number of fairly "implausible" religious beliefs found on wikipedia. Sure, other religions may have beliefs that you find implausible, or outright bizarre, but the goal of wikipedia seems to be more about NPOV *descriptions* of beliefs, rather than *evaluations* of the plausibility of something as whacky as an unimportant poor jewish carpenter somehow being the savior of all of mankind, or a perpetual battery, or an "undying soul" or any number of other religious beliefs. Ronabop 14:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Two problems with your theory. First off, Christians and Jews tell you the entire story straight up, as soon as you join the religion. Scientology, as evidenced by the evidence on this talk page of asking low-level Scientologists, does not tell you the really crazy stuff until you've spent so much money and gotten so far into the religion that you can't back out (at least not without the ego-piercing admission that you were royally duped, which no one wants to do). To my mind there's a problem with a religion that pretends to be less extreme than it really is to the public. The other problem with your theory is that Christianity and Judaism are not profit-driven corporate entities like Scientology, and their founders never whimsically quipped about starting their religions to "make a million bucks". Cynical profiteering is not a very fertile ground to till if you're expecting to reap revelation and insight. To my mind, the underlying dishonesty of L. Ron Hubbard pervades and undermines any value Scientology could ever have had as an honest religion to help people in their lives. That which is founded upon secrecy and lies can't help but be spiritually harmful. -Kasreyn 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WRT "getting the whole story straight up" from christians and jews, see Kaballah, and Gnosticism, and any number of other esoteric secret branches and suppressed revelations of those faiths. Low level people in most mystery religions learn as they advance. Some people pay with money, some pay with labor, some pay with missionary work... but in the end, most existing large "non-profit" modern religions don't seem to have poor leaders who live in a van down by the river. Some christian religions even go so far as to have their own city-states filled with priceless precious art, and even leaders who wear golden, bejewled crowns, all financed and paid for on the backs of their faithful followers, while millions of those lower-level members, and recent converts, starve in abject poverty while being exhorted to give money, time, resources, etc. to their church. Some churches scale down, and just have the local leader live off the wealth of the local congregation, other churches scale up, but it's by no means limited to Scientology, or any other faith.Ronabop 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think you see mine. I really doubt Jesus of Nazareth intended for there to be Vatican Cities and Papal Tiaras and tithes and millions of people starving in poverty to support the church - all true, and good on you for pointing it out. In contrast, L. Ron Hubbard did intend for there to be fees for joining his religion, and the Sea Org to use its members as profitable slave labor. To my mind, the difference is in original intent of the religion's founder; that founder can't be blamed if their followers in later millennia completely misinterpreted the core of their message. The original intent of Jesus Christ was to cast the money-changers out of the temple, remember; the original intent of Hubbard was to make a million bucks. I see a clear difference. -Kasreyn 12:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're now totally off topic in some ways, but in reference to Jesus and/or early christianity (not later millenia) and enriching their church .... Acts 2:45 is pretty darned clear on giving everything you own to the church, which combined with 'render unto Caesar...' is an amusing tax dodge, enriching the church while likely impoverishing the believers themselves. Also (for another example of interpretation of belief) dealing with SP's and disconnects, there's Mark 3:31-35, Mark 9:40.... religion often makes people act in unusual ways. Getting back to the earlier point (about a battery, right?), when a faith is viewed through a perspective which is assuming that one's motives were evil, or non-sensical, christians were portrayed as cannibals (Eucharist), tax-dodgers, and all sorts of (now) amusing things. They had "ludicrous" and "implausible" beliefs. That still doesn't mean that wikipedia should be a tool to mock those beliefs outright, does it? Heck, christians believe in an eternal soul, which is just as plausible as an eternal battery, or for that matter, a perpetual motion machine... would you add such a comment to all metions of the word 'soul' in the christian articles? Ronabop 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we *would* look a little differently at the virgin birth, trinitarian godhead, transubstantiation, and worldwide flood IF they were concepts created (and copyrighted) by a failed Science Fiction author in the 1950s. Don't fall into the Scientologists' trap of "You have to treat us with the same respect as Christianity or Judaism". wikipediatrix 17:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd put it a tad differently. Christianity or Hinduism are not even claiming anything remotely scientific with their beliefs. Transubstantiation, virgin birth, wars of Gods, etc are supernatural or miraculous events. Scientology has mythos which is in fact falsifiable with a veneer of science and therefore I think they open themselves up to more scrutiny. Added to that when a Christian Fundamentalist group insists the Earth is 6000 years old and calls that "scientific" does Wikipedia just ignore the conflict this has with mainstream science? I don't think so.--T. Anthony 15:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, Hi, welcome? There are people arguing the validity of cold fusion, trinitarianism, young earth creationsism, and all sorts of "theories" here... Have fun! Ronabop 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Two quick points. One, unlike L. Ron Hubbard, the person who set the ball in motion for the Christian faith, namely Jesus Christ, never made a dime from his spreading of his doctrine. Nor did He keep any part of his doctrine secret or make people pay before they could learn of it. Something about the truth setting you free, and all that. Two, in the King James version of the Bible, Acts 2:43-45 say "(43) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. (44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need". Note that it did NOT say "And they were forced to sell all their possessions" or "the leader of the church made them sell all their possessions". They sold their possessions to give to the poor, not to enrich any member of the church hierarchy. Nor did it say "if you must be a Christian, you must sell all your possessions" (and before you quote Jesus' words to the young rich man at me, be sure and read what happened after, and what Jesus said that it meant). If you want to be a greedy bastard and be a Christian, feel free -- but that is not the best way to be a Christian. That said, I must commend the people who contributed to this article, since it is one of the clearest, most NPOV'd articles on Wikipedia. Well done. -- Jalabi99 11:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in the early days of Christianity, wasn't the Bible pretty much kept secret from the common folks? Something about only the priests were allowed to read it, and then [i]they[/i] told people what to believe, I'm certain I heard that somewhere. It's only more recently that Christianity has become more open in that anybody is allowed to read the Bible. (And who knows how much resemblance the modern Bible has with the one the priests used back when they were keeping it secret?) I mean, it's only in the last century that the Catholic church stopped using Latin as the only acceptable language in their services, which originally was done specifically so that most people wouldn't understand it. I don't know, just don't feel like doing the research on this right now...

Not true. The Bible was in Latin because Latin was the language of the Roman Empire, the nation that took Christianity from the status of any other belittled and spat-upon wilderness cult and made it into a world religion. Religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, being notable for their conservatism, it's not surprising at all that they continued to use a dead language for centuries rather than change. You also underestimate the provenance problem. The Old Testament predates the life of Jesus by an amount of time best measured in centuries. The Jews who wrote the Torah are also possible suspects for any alterations that may have been made by mortals. Whether the priests lie to people about what is in their holy books or not, the trustworthiness of those holy books is already such a mess that any trust in scripture is an act of faith. It matters nothing that your priest is deliberately misinterpreting a book of the Bible, after all, if that book was actually forged in 500 or 1700 BC to further some petty contemporary political aim. Either trust, or don't trust. Kasreyn 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this, but no. The place you heard it is likely anti-Catholic (I say that because I recognise it, and there are plenty of sites which rebut it). To address the most relevant bit, when the Bible was first translated to Latin it was the common language - look at Vulgate; the term comes from a phrase meaning "common version". -- Jamoche 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Series Template

Removing from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview 11:20, 10 January 2006 (PST)

This is not a random set of pages, this has to do with pages that are important to the subject at hand. The Xenu entry is listed under the section on "Controversy," as it is a very important part of the controversy surrounding Scientology. Xenu and OT III were the cause of the Scientology war with the Internet, Xenu was featured heavily by media pieces on Scientology in 2005, and Xenu is a prime example of the "secret" doctrine of Scientology. Therefore, it is essential for use in the Series Template. --Modemac 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's (the series) was an effort to try and make a similar series box to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Islam or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Judaism which are both series listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion . (Wikipedia also defines series and navigational templates in similar ways, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Series_templates ) However, I'm not quite sure about the whole controversy section in the template itself... we don't have controversy about Islam in their series box, or controversy about Judaism in their box... It's already come up in discussion once, and will likely need a few voices chiming in to get consensus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronabop#The_Scientology_series_box Ronabop 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the Xenu article be placed in the "Beliefs" section of the navigational bar? There is little discussion that it is really part of their beliefs, from court cases and testimonies of former members. Povmec 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The series template will be almost impossible to get NPOV. That's what did for the old series template, from last year. The category tree does the same job much better IMO - David Gerard 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Trapped in the closet

I know it's a scientology article, but...

"During most of the story the words "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE" appeared onscreen in an effort to prevent viewers from making the (very understandable) mistake of assuming the story is not actually part of Scientologist dogma." (emphasis mine)

and

This is obviously a reference to the potential impending lawsuit that revealing the Scientology space opera on TV may instigate.

...may be a little below the belt. comments?

-nsh

I believe someone brought suit against the episode being shown in England, so it's not too much of a stretch to think legal action might happen in the US as well

I cleaned up this portion and rearranged the "Xenu in Popular Culture" section, but is such a long discussion of the South Park episode really necessary for this article? The discussion of the backlash is interesting and informative, but assuming it's adequately treated under the South Park epidode article, it's not clear to me that it needs to be in the Xenu substantive article. Comments? DCB4W 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that long discussion of South Park is completely unwarranted in this article. Vivaldi 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Xenu

Are you people telling me that "Xenu" exists outside of South Park? I searched for his name as a joke. Xenu? Why not Zenu? JackO'Lantern 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Did you read the line at the top of this talk page? This is not a joke article. And Xenu is spelled with an X because that's how Hubbard spelled it.--Xyzzyplugh 03:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I read that at the top of the page. I had no doubt that this was an actual article - that was the problem, in fact. Why did L. Ron Hubbard spell it was a Z? Why not a X? Why not two XX? Xxenu? JackO'Lantern 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who knows why, but that's how he spelled it, except when he spelled it as Xemu. (Entheta 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

It may not be a joke article, but it made me laugh. Thank you scientology.Bengalski 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha Terryeo 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you could have failed to see it; you must not have searched very hard. Xenu.net is the very first hit if you Google for "xenu". Did you actually try or were you just kidding around? -Kasreyn 09:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's a nice scifi story, but you mean there are really people who BELIEVE this crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.93.182 (talk • contribs)

That's the reason for the article, and the reason for the controversy. Scientology opponents claim that the Xenu belief is an example of why Scientology is crazy; Scientologists, ever since the controversy broke in the news, have diligently claimed that either they've never heard of Xenu, or that it's a very unimportant part of their beliefs. And of course both sides accuse each other of being liars, as always. -Kasreyn 06:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably inappropriate to discredit people's beliefs, no matter how much you may not like them. And it also probably inappropriate to classify these beliefs as "crap". After all, some people might also claim that, say, drinking the blood and eating the flesh of one's God is also pretty weird (see transsubstantiation). Lokiloki 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I discredit the beliefs of people that believe that having sex with children brings them closer to God? Can I discredit people's beliefs if they preach that black people are "mud people" that do the bidding of Satan? Can I discredit the beliefs of people that encourage their members to remove their testicles and then drink poison in order to jump on a passing comet? There is no reason why people's religious beliefs deserve any special protection from criticism. Vivaldi 06:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can do that if you like, as long as you use fact and citation. And, as well, I haven't seen any claims that Scientology is castrating people, drinking poison, etc... But to simply dismiss something by saying "do people actually believe this crap" is inappropriate and POV. I believe in no religion, but I can respect peoples beliefs in even the "craziest" things... Lokiloki 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page. This is where its okay to mention that we have a POV and talk about it openly and honestly. As for the wacked out and dangerous things that CoS has done: Did you know that Scientology is actively killing people? If not I would like you to read Why are they dead? and Perkins Tragedy. Have you seen the claims that the Church of Scientology actively threatens, attacks, and intimidates critics? Check out Fair Game (Scientology) and Suppressive Person. Did you know that the Church of Scientology encourages its members to break off all ties with non-believing family members? Check out Religious Shunning dot Org and view the video from David Sweetland. Also, check out the article here called Disconnection. Did you know that the Church of Scientology paid out $800,000 in a settlement to keep people from learning about its secrets? Did you know that CoS paid out over $8.7 million for their treatment of Wollersheim? Did you know that people actually pay tons of money for OT3? The CoS tells them that they will gain super powers by taking the course. I call that fraud by deception. Did you know that CoS actively promotes a "drug rehabilition" program called Narconon that is unproven and in fact dangerous to one's health? See Narconon Exposed. Did you know that many people were harmed when uneducated dolts like Tom Cruise go on national TV and pretend that they are doctors because of a fringe CoS front group called CCHR. How many people have to kill themselves because their parents won't let them take anti-psychotics or anti-depressants because of CoS demands? (I can go on an on and on about all the whacked out crazy beliefs and abuses of the CoS). So in light of this, if User:80.137.93.182 thinks that this church and its beliefs are crap then that seems perfectably reasonable to me. Vivaldi 11:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of all of this. I am aware of the purple towels filled with supposed drug excrement after massive doses of niacin; I am aware of mansions created for the return of L Ron Hubbard; I am aware of the current boss' penchant for fast cars. But I am also aware that, say, the Catholic, Protestant, and Anglican church persecuted and killed many more than this little religion; that the Catholic church outlaws contraceptives in rapidly populating Africa and South America; that Catholic and Anglican monks feasted on rabbit foetuses to avoid bans on meat; that some Jews kill red heifers to enter temples; that Shiite Muslims slice their foreheads open in reverence to Ali; that Parsiis let vultures feast on their dead; that Buddhists give water and alms to statues; and on and on. It simply seemed inappropriate to call Scientology "crap", not least because in the grand scale of all religions it seems to have had very little impact compared to the aforementioned, and not least because these aforementioned have equally bizarre practices... presumably Wikipedia is about respect and neutral POV. Even if this is the discussion page, where criticism is allowed, calling something "crap" is hardly respectful or neutral.

Its a big world, and certainly more evil things exist than CoS. And many things are more "crappy", but luckily there is also an article and discussion page about Catholism where you can discuss your disapproval that priests molesting children account for 2% of all priests. And likewise, other "crappier" things than CoS also have their own articles. The existence of things more crappy than CoS does not make it unnecessary to at least point out that CoS is crappy. And again, this is the discussion page, where I don't think it is wholly inappropriate to mention that one has a particular POV. Vivaldi 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please understand, I myself have always been very anti-Scientology (just as I have been anti-every-other-religion too). But calling them "crap" and denigrating those who believe in them is inappropriate. Also, I will state, the descriptions of Scientology ignores the fact that many people are attracted to them, and that many people remain with them, and that, therefore, those many people presumably extract some benefit from this religion. That fact is quite clearly missing from these articles, and, at the very least, for that reason they are POV. To be honest, I really don't care one way or the other as Scientology, compared to many other religions, wields very little power at all: they can file some lawsuits, print ads in German newspapers, and get Tom Cruise mad... but they can't require a whole continent to restrict family planning.

Lokiloki 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we point out that ~55,000 people profess to be Scientologists in more than one article. I'd be happy to point out that many of these people profess that Scientology "works" for them (if it can be cited). In fact, I believe that in many of the Scientology articles it is already quite clearly pointed out. I disagree that these articles are all POV. We frequently discuss the NPOV aspect of the articles and attempt to improve them all the time. I would encourage you to cite specific examples of POV or better yet, remove POV edits yourself and make the articles better! Vivaldi 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 83.236.12.58

As a practicing Xenuist I want to protest this article. Xenu is not just an invention of the evil church of scientology. Xenu is the good an descent ruler of the galactic confederacy. The church of Scientology has tried to paint him as evil for quite some time. Xenu did not curse humanity, he blessed it. I would like to remind everybody here of the NPOV. The article in its current form is an insult for all Xenuists. --83.236.12.58 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 83.236.12.58. As a devout Xenuist of the 23ʘ, this article is extremely offensive to me. It casts Xenu's righteous galactic cleansing as some sort of holocaust, and worse, doesn't even explain how much we as a species owe to Our Lord. I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't some sort tube structure you can just dump on. It's a place where real people, young and old, go for unbiased information. --Pewpewlazers 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

For a religion called SCIENtology there is very little scientific proof for the existance of Xenu or anything related to it.

It is my understanding that this subject, and pretty much everything about Scientology, has been kept fairly secret by the church itself. This article is therefore based on the information that has been made publicly available to everybody. If the Church of Scientology would like to dispute this article on Xenu with their own facts on Xenu, they could always counter what is accepted widely as Scientologist beliefs with actual beliefs - but, still, extensive measures are taken to maintain the story's secrecy. What is out there now can be seen here, in the way it has been interpreted by many, many people, which makes it conforming to NPOV standards. Should the facts change, the article should change, but until then, Wikipedia should continue to show what is seen as fact on the beliefs, as accepted by a large body of people... the wiki format, as it is. David DIBattiste 12:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Xenuism joke page

Xenuism isn't even a good joke page. I suggest the mergewith notice be taken down until after the speedy deletion on that page is resolved. I don't see any reason to encourage elaborate forms of vandalism. AndroidCat 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I'll remove the tag and if anyone objects please feel free to revert. File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC Image

Look, I really like the BBC image - its from mainstream culture and its a lot better than the South Park one (Xenu was clearly imagined by Hubbard to be human...ish). BUT, I really think it should be moved down. Having a cartoon visible from the top gives a bias that the story is just a comic book fairy tale. We need to present this info as fairly as possible - considering that many people believe it. A serious artwork is fine (as in Adam and Eve article) but a cartoon could be seen as insulting. I really believe that we need to be able to point to this article and say "This gives a factual account of what Hubbard wrote." The image of the modified DC-8 is PERFECT for this. But the BBC image has got to be moved down to mainstream culture where it belongs. I'm certain it was moved up due to our great desire to have a good image up high (the article IS called Xenu) but for the above reasons I think it needs to be reverted down. Comments? --DreamsReign 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the image is specifically relating to the BBC's potrayal of Xenu, the image is valid. If the image was not captioned "as depicted by BBC Panorama", then I would agree with you. Alas, whether it's insulting or not - and I don't think it is - the BBC's portrayal exists and to omit it because it might be unfavorable to Scientology would also be a POV problem. The job of Wikipedia articles is not to ridicule its subject, but it is also not to protect the subject from the ridicule of others. wikipediatrix 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been misunderstood. When I said "reverted down" I was refrring to the fact within the last couple of days it was moved up. I *never* suggested that it should be removed; it definitely should stay, but it should be in a later section. The picture is valid, but it's out of place in the main history section, since it is not based on what Hubbard wrote. It is a much later pictorial representation that is far removed from the sphere that takes Xenu seriously - YET this is what the history SECTION is supposed to be about - and therefore the picture belongs elsewhere. We should put in a serious image under the history section, not a cartoon. In the absence of one, people have to live with the painful reality that there is no appropriate picture available to illustrate Xenu based strictly on what Hubbard wrote and what Scientologists believe. The DC8 pciture meets this criteria perfectly. But until we have one of Xenu we need to wait and not put a cartoon in the wrong section simply for the sake of having a pciture "because every article needs a picuture" (I'm not quoting or mocking you in any way, wikipediatrix, just trying to voice the unstated assumption that I think moved the picture up in the first place). --DreamsReign 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted external link

I'm removing this PDF file from the external links section because it's inappropriate. As ridiculous as the story of Xenu is, this is an amateurish document making fun of the story, which wouldn't be an appropriate link for a legitimate religion. More importantly, it ridicules L. (Lafayette) Ron Hubbard by altering his name to "Lafagette Ron Hubbard", which is an allusion to a pejorative term for gays. Not cool. If you want to restore the link please justify yourself here. --The Famous Movie Director 08:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

formal religion

Is it a formal religion? In many countries it isn't recognized as such. Nonetheless it should be dealt with seriously and jokes belong elsewhere. But please refrain from claims about it being religion as this is not fact but POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What's a "formal religion"? Various countries may have laws defining what is and is not a religion, but I don't see why WP should pay any attention to them. (Note that the United States, where WP is hosted, has no such laws, though there are IRS rulings for tax purposes—Scientologists like to cite such a ruling to support a claim that the US "recognizes" them as a religion, but in fact there is no such thing as recognizing a religion.)

In any case I think WP should, as a rule of thumb, treat as a religion any group that claims to be one. I say this not out of any particular love for Scientology; I just don't see how we're going to make such distinctions. If there are specific parties actively making the claim that Scientology is not a religion, those claims can be noted and attributed to their authors. --Trovatore 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Typically religious researchers accept that a person's religion is what they say it is. For example the U.S. Census Bureau cites these researchers into the religions in America: American Religious Identification Survey. Listed among all the religions is Scientology, because 55,000 people in the United States claim that Scientology is their religion. According the principles outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this group of people should be allowed to identify themselves as a religious group and they should have the freedom to practice their religion alone or in consort with others. Whether or not particular governments "recognize" the legitimacy of a religion should be immaterial. We shouldn't allow governments to make that determination for the individual. If a individual says their religion is Scientology, then it is. If you want to argue about whether Scientology is a religion according to some other definition of "religion" then this article isn't the place for that discussion. Even the most ardent critics of Scientology grant that it is a religion (with a very currupt Church of Scientology running it). Vivaldi 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note before jumping down my throat that I'm not saying that this is necessarily what I believe, BUT: What the more strident Scientology opponents that I've read or spoken to seem to feel, is that Scientology uses mind control and or brainwashing methods to gain its converts, and thereby is not a legitimate religion because its members did not make a free choice to join the religion. Therefore I have to disagree with you; the most ardent critics of Scientology explicitly and specifically do not grant that it is a religion; they call it a cult, which (to them, at least) means a very different thing. See the Cult Information Centre for an example of this. This viewpoint naturally causes a complete breakdown in communications between Scientologists and these opponents. I'm aware that religion researchers don't generally pay attention to this detail, but if the claims of these Scientology detractors are true, then the Declaration of Human Rights does not cover Scientology, because the converts did not freely "identify themselves": someone else identified them. Compare this, if you will, to the recent decision by Afghan authorities to drop the charges against Abdul Rahman by declaring him "mentally unfit to stand trial": while clearly a face-saving move of political expediency, it is also a revealing glimpse into the contempt Islamists hold for an individual's free choice of religion: obviously, they feel that to choose a religion other than Islam must be the act of a madman, rather than a deliberate and wholehearted choice. -Kasreyn 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the question is moot. There are people who believe in it and it occupies the same space in their life as a religion. It quacks like a duck, even through some elements are contrived for display purposes like vacant "Sunday Services" or one-week course "Reverends". Perpetual attempts to devise a universal definition of religion that includes unusual but unquestioned religions and excludes Scientology usually fail, as does the defintion of a cult debate. Since these questions pops up so often, many critics have long since become tired of it and ignore the back and forth, leaving mainly the "strident opponents" that Kasreyn observed. There is a suspicion that CoS sometimes raises the issue as a time-wasting red-herring.

Many critics feel that the question "Is Scientology a religion?" is seperate from "Is the Church of Scientology (and all the attached maze of companies and operations) a legitimate religious organization?". Another question: Are the people who have left the Church of Scientology and joined groups like the Freezone, still practicing Scientology? In the past, CoS has spent much effort to shut these groups down. Was that for commercial or for theological reasons? AndroidCat 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a religion and the Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult. The most prominent critics of Scientology grant that Scientology is a religion. I can start listing off the names, but it is list that encompasses nearly every critic of Scientology. The entire "is it a religion" debate is a silly meaningless distraction. Why waste our time argueing over competing definitions of what a religion is? Scientology is a religion AND the Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult. There is a distinction between Scientology and the Church of Scientology. And while some people do assert that CoS uses "mind control" and other techniques, very few critics assert that members are not given free choice to join the religion at the beginning. Many assert that undue pressure and coercion is placed on people to remain in the cult, but that doesn't negate the fact that Scientology is a religion with a set of beliefs, rituals, and practices. Vivaldi 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Canadian law holds that the same group cannot be both a For Profit Organization and subject to the tax shelters and incentives granted to a religion, so there is a standard beyond what people say their religion is. If that allignment cannot be reconciled with a religion (my church cannot be microsoft, for example) then there is no legitimate grounds for calling it one. Moreover, organized religion, the only kind that can be recognized in any sense of the word, must be fronted by an administration which can be held to emperical standards of what religion "should be" by society/the charter's standards. Freedom of association is a very different matter.--65.95.244.76 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article severely slanders Scientology. How can article, based on SF story, claim to be part of Scientology, yet that the doctrine itself is SECRET. That is clearly not NPOV, and lacks credible sources. The most that CAN be said is that someone claims that doctrine is this. Weather this is true, cannot be determined in NPOV way if secrecy is claimed. CeBuCCuCmeM 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology has already admitted in court that the OTIII documents are owned by the Church of Scientology. In fact they tried to claim trade secret status (in addition to copyright protection) for the parts of the story that explained how people were to deal with the information learned in incident 1 and incident 2. Besides the court documents, there is external confirmation of the existence of Xenu doctrine by CoS executives in various radio and TV appearances over the years. Besides that, there are numerous OT3s that have discussed the existence of the doctrine and provided verification of its veracity. Are you trying to suggest that Scientologists are now DENYING that Xenu is a part of OT3? If so, then I would like to see some citations for that claim. Vivaldi 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... Yeah. Only not. The Xenu doctrine was uncovered in court proceedings, as is well documented. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Where it is documented? What is documented? Is xenu doctrine proved to be this IN COURT. I think that you have to prove this. And to state who claims what, not to present it as facts, according to NPOV. CeBuCCuCmeM 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's here [6], and here [7], and here [8] for starters. --Modemac 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you read any of the documentation, existing or additional if we do? It seemed to take you 4 minutes to read one of the Scientology articles, decide the Scientology template was biased and toss in a npov template on template botch, without so much as a comment as part of the change. AndroidCat 23:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you claim slander, please read the various court documents available. The story was provided as testimony in a court case and offered as evidence. Secondly, the story has been claimed to have been validated by Scientology council themselves. See here.. Also, many of the court cases have been indexed by Operation Clambake. The documentation is a matter of public record and as such, can be reprinted unless the judge has sealed the evidence. In this matter, the public records support the claims made in the article. With there being adequate support for such commentary and disclosure, any beleif that there is slander involved is grossly incorrect. --Aoco 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of exploded aliens?

The "Scientific critiques" section throws out the number "13.5 trillion" for the number of aliens that were destroyed by Xenu. This is the only instance in the article in which this number is given. It seems strange to me that it is only brought up once in the entire article. Is this number accurate to Scientologific (sp?) lore? I would think that the death count of helpless aliens should be very important to this article and important to know. 66.41.212.243 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The number comes from OT3: Incident 1:

The head of the Galactic Confederation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet -- 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H Bomb on the principal volcanoes (Incident 2) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic Area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged." His name was Xenu.

--L. Ron Hubbard

If you multiply the average number of space aliens on each planet ( 178,000,000,000 ) * the number of planets ( 76 ) it equals 13.528 trillion space aliens that were killed by Xenu. It is odd that LRH says "250 billion per planet or so" and then contradicts himself with "178 billion on average" (unless he is talking only about inhabitated planets in the first number? but why would the galactic confederation contain uninhabited planets? Or if it does contain unhabited planets, why not just say that all uninhabited planets are a part of it?) Oh well, that's what you get from a man that is drunk and popping "pinks and greys" all the time. Vivaldi 08:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The planets were overpopulated -- it doesn't say that Xenu had the entire population of each planet transported and killed. Could have been just some of them. --FOo 07:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think Xenu had anybody killed. I think Hubbard made it all up. BTW, have you read the entire OT3 document? Vivaldi (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cover cram

I managed to get a scan of the intriguing 1972 cover of Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science which was already mentioned in the text. I crammed in it as best as I could by shrinking the covers and trimming a little text from the Dianetics:TMSoMH caption. The layout could be better, but the two covers have to be balanced against the length of the text so not to flow into the next section. As well, it isn't as much of a problem with less than 1280 pixel screen width. If anyone can arrange them better, g'head. (P.S. I personally have a Galaxy Science Fiction magazine with that cover used as an advert. Feb 1976, p.117.) AndroidCat 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Xenu story a Distraction?

At a Recent Mensa meeting a fellow member was talking of how the story of Xenu and the galactic opera was basically code for the true Scientology beliefs. He explained how Xenu was really just a cover name for A leader from the Mid-20th cenury and that the events of the space opera are representations of real world history. This information was in response to other freinds of his heckling him for his beliefs. The idea intrigued me but I think he may have only been trying to protect his religion by making it appear deeper then it really is. As hard as it is to believe this story it's even hard to believe that intellegent people would commit themselves to such a story. That's why I think their could be something more to it. anonymous edit left 21:43, 28 April 2006 by 69.243.22.10 (talk · contribs)

And you are in Mensa? There's nothing to your fellow member's assertion. There's plenty of existing people that have taken OT3 and are willing to talk about it. The Xenu story is presented as a true event from the whole time track during OT3. If somebody personally came to the conclusion that LRH meant something other than that, then that is their own personal conclusion and not one supported by the church. Vivaldi (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

very interesting idea though... it would also mean that people who call the Xenu story nonsense are actually secretly Holocaust deniers/crypto-Nazis (in Hubbard's private delusions). Or maybe Hubbard himself was a Holocaust denier, and he wanted to discredit the idea by making a stupid story about it to makes it look ridiculous? --Krsont 22:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn 06:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC) blows a loud raspberry at anon's not-so-subtle Mensa argument from authority.

Usually, Mensa level people are capable of properly distinguishing between then and than, as well as their and there. Mensa members, especially after denoting themselves as such, usually make sure not to misspell words such as century, friends, and (most notably) intelligent. I won't even address the horrendous punctuation. --Anonymous with an above average IQ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.85.214.192 (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

This story is not entirely without merit. A fundamental tenet of Scientology, codified or not, asserts that nearly every aspect of modern civilization is simply an unconscious reheat of something already done, in the galactic past. This phenomenon goes by the prosaic term "dramatization". This applied to everything, especially the physical look and feel of modern society. It is not unlikely that L. Ron Hubbard intended the Xenu story to mirror, perhaps satirically, true characters and incidents in present history. He may even have inferred that Xenu existed somewhere in resurrected form. I seem to recall that he implied this of himself . . . (Renyseneb 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

wait

For real? WTF? I seriosly thought southpark was joking. MegaloManiac 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park never jokes. It's all a straight-up documentary about a real little redneck mountain town. Matt and Trey are actually working undercover for the Discovery Channel. You heard it here first! -- ChrisO 21:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn... thats kind of... I don't know... Stupid... I mean I am all for respecting every ones religion but I would rather believe in the flying spahgetti monster. MegaloManiac 18:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're all for respecting everyones religion then why are calling a belief in Xenu stupid? There is just as much evidence for Scientology space opera as there is for Jesus, God, Tooth Fairies and all manner of popular beliefs, so dont be so quick to discount it simply because it seems absurd (though personally I do not believe in any of it).

Please don't use this page as a general discussion forum, but rather for the improvement of the related article. For the content of your reply, there is more information at Historicity of Jesus, Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, etc. --GunnarRene 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

please, is this for real? i can`t believe that people like tom cruise and john travolta whom i thought were sane and intelligent actually believe this nonsense.

I have been reading all this for the last hour, I can't believe that anyone actually believes this stuff at all, it sounds like one of those 1930 space alien stories. OMGIROFLMAO 198.70.201.220 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheild my eyes for it reguires anonymle fee

taking from what south park said is true and it 9/10 is, certain part of scientology remain quiet until many years of practice and "fee" paying, so may suggest it's part of the 'fun' of scientology recently claimed to me on an internet forums, does anyone beleive taking into acount scientology is totally serious, that some spoiler templates should be implemented, Jamie-planetx 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jamie-planetx writes, "does anyone beleive...that some spoiler templates should be implemented?" My response: We do not need spoiler templates. No need to ruin the surprise that the entire Church of Scientology is a global scam. Vivaldi (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There used to be (alas, all too briefly) a spoiler message at the top of the article:

Note: Scientologist confidential doctrine follows. The OT III materials contain the warning that going through ("running") the Wall of Fire without proper preparation and supervision is likely to cause death by pneumonia or other means. Wikipedia disclaims any responsibility for any deaths or injuries caused by reading the remainder of this article.

Fortunately it's been preserved for posterity at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense: The Return of the Nonsense. :-) -- ChrisO 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At first I was scepticle. but after looking into it i decided it made so much sense. So I decided to convert.... To Xenuism! Muhahahahhaha Hail Xenu!!! MegaloManiac 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Hubbard every on any presciptive drugs? Where did he make up all these dates? They're theories and I'm trying to work out who he was trying to kid..... Tom Cruise.

When Hubbard died they found Hydroxyzine (brand name Vistaril) in his system. The Fading Light 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If he were on drugs, maybe his story wouldn't have been based so much on stuff in the 50's/60's. I mean really, an acid trip will make you more creative than DC-8's with no engines... Mewsterus 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First Church of Xenu... Should it have an Article?

I have looked at the website for the First Church of Xenu and I was wondering if anyone besides me think that we should have a seperate page for this new "religion". The Fading Light 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---------As i follower of The First Church of Xenu, i demand an article of my religion, for So Help Me Xenu, i will destroy another trillion souls, this time on top of Everest. Transportation, huh, no problem, now we have A380, better than those DC8 used before, so we can fit more people. Did i mention we offer free bar and casino games on board of A380? 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Air Pig A380? I'd go with the Boeing 777 or the 787 Dreamliner in a pinch. Id never fly on an Air Pig, you just cant get rid of that smell of French workers who never bathe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Firstly, if you want to comment, do it under the headings, not above. Secondly, do not be sarcastic. I am not a follower of Scientology, but I respect their beliefs. Thirdly, check your capitalisation.--Orthologist 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

list of know scientologist

someone should make a page for that. It would be interesting to know who are all the known famous scientologists.

There probably already is a wiki category for scientologists. Kasreyn 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And so there is: [9]. Enjoy. Kasreyn 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

At first I was scepticle. but after looking into it i decided it made so much sense. So I decided to convert.... To Xenuism! Muhahahahhaha Hail Xenu!!! MegaloManiac 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be a Catholic Xenuist like you can be a Catholic Scientologist? MegaloManiac 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Trade secrets?

Without getting into the already lengthy debate over whether scientology is a valid religion, I have one question: can a group that claims to be a religious organization also claim that its very doctrines are "trade secrets" that must be protected via copyright? Doesn't this imply that the "religion" discriminates against those who cannot pay, thereby making it inherently ineligible for tax-exempt status? I just can't believe the IRS allows the CoS to maintain its status as a religious organization. anonymous edit left by 207.198.239.111 (talk · contribs · count) on 14:59, 17 May 2006 207.198.239.111

Not in a sane country it can't. If that implies anything about the mental state of the United States of America, I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide. Kasreyn 09:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, their lawyers can always claim it's the equivalent of requiring clergy to have theology qualifications- at church-run organisations or otherwise. They're more than large enough to just use tax-havens anyway. And if that says anything about the mental state of the lawyers and judicial system of the United States of America than it does about anything else....Nimmo 12:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology has sometimes made rather a hash of copyright and trade secret claims. For instance, its advocates have sometimes claimed the published redactions of OT III materials to be a forgery promulgated to mock Scientology, and other times claimed them to be a copyright violation or trade secret. These claims contradict one another: In order to be a trade secret violation, the published redactions must authentically represent the secrets. In order to be a copyright violation, they must be literal copies (not merely expressions of the same ideas) of copyrighted works.

On top of that contradiction, Scientology advocates have sometimes claimed -- even here, on this very talk page -- the following: Critical sources which have published OT III materials are violating copyright, and therefore are untrustworthy or criminal, and therefore their claims about OT III's content are false or not to be believed (and should not be cited as sources). This is the very same contradiction expressed differently, since the conclusion (critics are falsifying OT III materials) contradicts the premise (critics have published true copies of OT III materials).

I'm not sure where this contradiction comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with the notion of suppression in Scientology. A suppressive person can't do anything right. As a logical consequence, any harm can be attributed to a suppressive person, even when those harms are seemingly contradictory. --FOo 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed sites with copyvios. --Spanked 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Costs of advanced levels

The costs of the advanced levels to reach OT-III are already covered and referenced at Church of Scientology#Finances, possibly elsewhere. Wiki pages shouldn't be used as references, but neither should there be needless duplication of information (with attendant maintainance problems). Would a (See also Church of Scientology#Finances) wiki link be acceptable for anyone who seriously questions that getting to OT-III is expensive? AndroidCat 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AndroidCat. That makes sense to me. It would have helped if the editor in question had provided a brief explanation in the edit summary, saving us both a bit of time. HistoryBA 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Paralysed With Alcohol/Glycol?

I'm not even going to touch the DC-8 spaceplanes, nonexistent volcanoes, or post-mortem soul brainwashings. However, I am curious -- is it even possible to paralyse someone with an injection of alcohol and/or glycol? I'm not very medically minded, but that doesn't sound correct to me. Anyone know for sure? Skybright Daye 23:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard claimed acquaintance with prohibition bootleggers, so perhaps he sampled bathtub gin laced with ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and felt paralytic afterwards? Strangely, this combination also freezes an immaterial thetan into a meat body. Some of his accounts indicate that it's possible to "icecube" the frozen thetan without the whole body, making Xenu's transportation problem a bit easier. AndroidCat 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke or something?

I saw a ytmnd about this and thought someone made up this. Is this what Scientologists actually believe or did someone edit this page/make a joke page? posted without a signature by Superway25 (talk · contribs) on 17:35, 16 June 2006

see top of this talk page. This is a completely genuine and actual Scientology belief. --Krsont 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think these "is this a joke" sections are just away to make the point that the poster thinks this idea is a joke/bogus. I also see it as bogus, but the repetitions of "is this a joke?" are starting to grow tiresome. It'd be better to just say "This is a joke, what idiocy" or something.--T. Anthony 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that a warning saying "This isn't a joke" implies that the author thinks it's a joke?--Orthologist 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This article sacrifices NPOV

The entireity of this article sacrifices NPOV, not because of the authors, but because of the pure nature of the content...unless you're a die-hard Scientologist, this all looks like a bunch of uncreative, completely unimaginative crap and lies. In fact, that's probably why Scientologists don't tell the complete story of Xenu except to those within their religion who have proven they will believe anything their masters tell them. Not to make fun of the gullible bastards at all...

On a separate note, is taking excess population by spaceship to another solar system and killing them with hydrogen bombs REALLY the most cost-effective form of mass genocide? (nof four tildes) Anonymous at 9:31 PM GMT July 3 2006 actually added by Mewsterus (talk · contribs) at 15:30, 3 July 2006

I couldn't disagree more. Anything can be presented in an NPOV manner, even the most far-fetched of beliefs: all you have to do is say "person x believes y". There you go. Kasreyn 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Kasreyn.--Orthologist 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason most Scientologists don't discuss Xenu is because most Scientologists do not know the Xenu story. It is only told to those with the funds and time to reach the upper level called OT3. The number of these people is very limited. The vast majority of Scientologists tread water in the lower levels until they figure out they are being scammed and then blow the Church. Vivaldi (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles like this fall under the weasel words category. Dpbjinc 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the "weasel words" category comment has to do with the entire article, but if weasel words exist then it's appropriate to request a proper citation. Can you be more specific Dpbjinc? Vivaldi (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I must disagree with Kesreyn when he writes: " Anything can be presented in an NPOV manner, even the most far-fetched of beliefs: all you have to do is say "person x believes y". " However, if X believes that writing or saying the word geschmurph will kill the speaker instantly, you must either (1) use the word "geschmurph" in your description of X belief and thus demonstrate you do not believe it will kill you or (2) you must use a lengthy sematic detour of explaining the word without actually saying it and thus strongly suggest that you consider the claim sufficiently credible to warrant some caution on your behalf. If I understand things correctly scientologists consider knowledge about Xenu highly dangerous to people without the proper education. By making this information available to anyone, we strongly suggest that we do not believe it is highly dangerous. Thus we are not NPOV in the strictest sense. That said, I don't think the article should be removed. It is fine as it is. It's just that it cannot by its very nature, be perfectly NPOV. We shall just have to live with that. -Sensemaker

I would question the need for the section entitled Scientific critiques. Its inclusion hardly seems consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy - as it reads as a list of reasons why the religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific observations. Surely the implausibility of the story can stand on its own?

For example, would the Jesus article tolerate a section explaining why walking on water, turning water into wine and raising the dead are considered impossible in modern science? I would doubt it - these are all self-evidently impossible things.

Don't get me wrong - my personal beliefs are that Scientology should be shown up to be the sham that it is... but Wikipedia surely isn't the right medium for that. The alternative would be to add "Scientific critiques" to articles on every mythological, allegorical or religious figure. - MykReeve T·C 12:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the Church of Scientology tries to have it both ways: they claim to be a religion when it suits them, and they also claim to be based on the allegedly "proven and infallible hard science" of Dianetics and Scientology. This is why their systems are subjected to scientific analysis more often than the miracles of Jesus. This religion is based around the E-meter, which is in itself a pseudoscientific device. Since Xenu figures into the specific E-meter Auditing process to reach OTIII, it gets the same treatment. wikipediatrix 17:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipediatrix has it about right. A possible comparison might be Creation science - another belief which is claimed to be a scientifically provable fact. Wikipedia has several articles which provide lengthy scientific critiques to creation science assertions - see e.g. Flood geology, Creation biology and Creationist cosmologies. Many other pseudoscientific claims are made in Scientology (e.g. that radiation can be sweated out of body fat), but the important point to note is that they're not stated as beliefs - our own Terryeo claims that Scientology doesn't have any - but as definitive, scientifically proven facts. -- ChrisO 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with wikipediatrix and CrisO. A child knows that walking on water, raising the dead and walking on water is impossible (that's the point of these miracles). Believers in miracles certainly does not claim such acts are scientifically possible. Scientific critique would be pointless. However, it is less than perfectly obvious why a world-wide flood, a six day creationor mass murder by hydrogen bombs and volcanoes are impossible. There are also those who claim that these events are scientifically possible. Thus a scientific critique is needed. -Sensemaker

Veracity

To me, the conjecture seems unlikely, but I scored lowly on a Scientology IQ test. Rintrah 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would advise you to pretend it's Opposite Day whenever you have anything to do with a Scientologist. Kasreyn 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone scores lowly on a Scientology IQ test - it's intended to produce poor results, so that the mark can be sold Scientology books and courses to fix the "problems" that it "identifies". -- ChrisO 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was attempting subtle irony. Rintrah 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Show

Last night Jon Stewart mentioned Xenu during a commentary about the similarties between Tom Cruise and the President of Iran, can someone find a source so we can mention it in the article? The Fading Light 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Let's also begin tonight with quick updates on two men with that have more in common than you might think. Each is an outspoken defender of his religion. Each embroiled in heated negotiations. And each is tiny [on screen: Tom Cruise and Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]. The difference, of course, is only one denies the Holocaust ever happened. The other simply believes the galactic overlord Xenu flew humans to Earth in DC-8s and then hydrogen-bombed them into volcanoes. What's next for the two men? Well, Cruise will be soon heading up his own independent production company, while Ahmadinejad will soon have a nuclear weapon." --Jon Stewart [10]. Rintrah 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's really not worth a mention, since he wasn't even talking about Xenu. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowser=Xenu?!

Might want to block unregistered users from this page as well. Never knew Bowser was the leader of an "Intergalactic Confederacy".

LOL! He gets around a bit, doesn't he? -- ChrisO 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely a sitting dush for alterations. Now Xenu's alias is "Fake."

OR tag for Scientific Critiques

I'm going to add one. It makes a lot of claims without citing sources.

This paragraph:

"Assuming the people were about the same size as humans, 76×178 billion×2 ft³ per alien is 184 cubic miles (766 km³). This is about ten percent of the volume of the Chicxulub Crater, the site of the asteroid impact that is credited with killing the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event 65 MYA (million years ago). The frozen bodies would have had to have been stacked a mile (1.6 km) deep, covering an area more than six miles (10 km) across around 6 volcanoes. Even assuming that they were all killed, their fossilized remains would certainly be visible in geological strata today. There is no sign of any such remains."

...is particularily bad. 199.126.137.209 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to google, we may see that '2 (feet cubed) = 56 633.6932 centimeters cubed'. Using an average density of 1.0 g(cm^3)^-1, this gives us the approximate weight estimated by the calculation, 56 kilograms (to 2 sf). Do you dispute that the average human body mass is 56 kilograms or higher?

'2 (feet cubed) = 5.66336932 × 10-11 kilometers cubed'

Thus 76*1.78*(10^11)*5.66336932*(10^-11) = Volume of Aliens not found.

78*1.78*5.66336932=786.302196 kilometers cubed (or 188.643929 cubic miles) of Aliens not found.

It seems that the volume calculations tend towards what I believe you'd call the generous side. The area cover figures, by comparison, look to be inaccurate in the other direction. Should you wish to metrify measures and make mildly more accurate calculations, I'm sure we'd be all grateful. Simple calculations are NOT research. Nimmo 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is still unsourced original research. WP requires cites. While everything in the section is quite reasonable, WP is not the place for it. Someone should provide 3rd party criticisms or remove most of this section. Ashmoo 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Church favorable towards Xenu?

Shouldn't "Favorable sites" in the External links section reflect the topic of the article? In what way is CoS favorable towards Xenu? (Other than teaching it as part of OT-III) On a number of likewise pages this seems a bit inaccurate and POV. What's really being said is "favorable towards the church viewpoint", but that's probably too long and blunt to use. Suggestions anyone? AndroidCat 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to Non-hostile-to-Scientology sites. The External links are made of Xenu TV (times 2), 2x Operation Clambake, The Fishman Affidavit: OT III Karin Spaink (times 2), Revolt In The Stars summary Grady Ward, South Park and the parody of the Church of Scientology with Xenu as the leader. I don’t see how this would be favorable to other Scientology related organizations. Jpierreg 12:05, 2 November 2006 (GMT)

I think that by the time the reader gets down to the links, he's made the connection between Xenu and scientology. I reverted "non-hostile" because it implied that the others are "hostile" to Scientology, which is in my opinion a Word To Avoid for PoV reasons. yandman 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think this article is definitely a sitting duck for subtle or obvious alterations. Someone just said an alias of Xenu was "Fake."

This article is well watched by plenty of folks who are aware of the possibility of vandalism. We have reverted vandalism that mocks Scientology's beliefs as well as vandalism that tries to whitewash or conceal Scientology's beliefs. Feel free to lend a hand to help this efforts though! --FOo 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question from someone who has mocked, and yet finds the entire concept of Scientology fascinating, on an academic level: I am wondering how a "faith" that has so agressivley sought to harm peoples lives via overactive litigation, and one founded by a very controversial yet ordinary man, has become so mainstream? Is it the promise of awakening supra-human abilities? Does scientology play to people's desire for power? I am just asking, I find the whole thing fascinating, because it has become so mainstream. It seems to me however, that while I am not a supporter of any religion, that the most positive of faiths do not need to advertise and market, nor do they need celebrities to act as primary converting agents. I would like to read some literature that might explain the appeal of this phenomenon, which really seems to be a fad to me.

Scientology is nowhere near mainstream. It's basically a cult, but with enough lawyers that no one bugs them, and a habit of targeting Hollywood stars that have no idea how to survive in the real world. Like most all religions, it promises to 'enlighten' people to the 'truth', to help them become some perfect lifeform, or achieve eternal happiness. Talk pages aren't forums, so if you want to discuss it i'd find someplace else, but I wouldn't say that scientology is mainstream, just well known about. -- feb^talk 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've only seen this subject discussed in text. Is the correct pronunciation of Xenu closer to Zeenu or Zennu? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ZEE-new. ---Slightlyright 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Someone misused the citation template. I have removed it. The entire section is quoted mainly from: Peter Forde's paper A Scientific scrutiny of OT III and this is mentioned.--24.185.110.216 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate?

Well it is a religion and a belief. --AnYoNe! 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many other New Age type groups which believe in this kind of thing. Many of them even converse with representatives of alien civilizations. Nobody else has such a cool WP article however. In fact Xenu's article is even better than God's. :-) Steve Dufour 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and even more serious-minded. Personally however I find the Devil page to be somewhat more real and grounded. MarkThomas 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Ming the Merciless

Has anyone else noticed that the BBC Panorama depiction of our subject greatly resembles a certain heavy from the old Flash Gordon comic strip? S. M. Sullivan 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

HAIL XENU, I mean MING, 86.6.207.111 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You also might compare Xenu with: Satan, Devil, Lucifer, Sauron, and Cthulhu. :-) Steve Dufour 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominate article for deletion?

I am considering nominating this article for deletion based on the non-notability of the subject. The article, nor any of its secondary sources, does not assert that Xenu really exists. (If he did he would certainly be notable!) Xenu also does not seem to meet the guidelines for notability as a fictional character as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Nor does he seem notable as a mythological being since so few people believe in him. All of this is in marked contrast to his potential peers, whom I listed in my last post here and who mostly have shorter WP articles than Xenu does. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag, as this article should certainly not be listed for deletion. Those people believe that Xenu existed, and however absurd it may sound to you, he must be included. Maybe you don't believe in ghosts, for example, but some do, and we have to include them in an article. Orthologist 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Millions of people believe in ghosts. (Thanks for answering BTW) From the information given in the article it seems that only a few dozen people in the world believe in Xenu. For all we know some of them might be "going along with the program" and not really believe. Also belief in Xenu seems to have had no effect on human culture, in contrast to other mythological beings. Steve Dufour 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on individual, alleged, ghosts see The Blue Lady. Even if relatively few people believe in this thing it can be of some note due to cultural significance, see Yakub or J. R. "Bob" Dobbs.--T. Anthony 19:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the (previously featured) article meets the primary notability criterion, and your speculation about how many people who have taken OT-III and do not really believe is speculation—nor is it a criteria for notability. AndroidCat 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is well sourced and mostly well written, and represents a lot of hard work. It just does not establish the notability of the subject. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the primary notability criterion. AndroidCat 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have. Which section pertains to Xenu? Is he a person, a fictional character, or a myth? Steve Dufour 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not part of the primary notability criterion. AndroidCat 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are more Scientologists than you think. They surpass 600,000, and their beliefs are certainly notable. South Park mentioned him, and these people donate millions of money to be "saved". Would they do that just to go along with the program? This is surely notable enough to be included. Also, the Latter Day Saint movement and Amish culture number less followers, but are mentioned as notable.--Orthologist 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology itself is certainly notable. However, the Mormons number in the millions. In this article it says that only Scientologists who have reached the higher levels of the program are told about Xenu. That's why I am guessing that they are "dozens". It is estimated that there are only 50,000 Scientologists in the USA, so there are probably not 600,000 in the world. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous, of course, but I guess we must dance through the forms. Steve's suggestion, besides depending upon quite questionable figures, makes the quite surprising suggestion that the notability of a belief is measured solely by its supporters. Steve tries to suggest that only "dozens" of people have ever reached the level of OT III, where they have learned about Xenu from the approved outlet of the Church of Scientology, and that these are the only people who matter for purposes of notability. What exactly is the logic behind that? Would Steve's logic declare N rays utterly unnotable because no one believes in them now? Would it declare the Pentagon Papers insignificant because only a few people were ever supposed to know about their contents? This is just plain silliness. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would consider a "belief" in which almost no one believes to be rather unnotable. In what sense is Xenu important to non-Scientologists? They don't believe he exists in real life; they have never read a story with him as a character; he is not a part of their personal religious belief. Steve Dufour 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A belief that almost no one believes in is not necessarily unnotable. Very few people believe in solipsism but it is an important philosophical concept. Hume demonstrated that we cannot really be sure we exist, but no one truly believes they do not exist. However, the fact that this belief is as logical as the opposite says something important about the human condition. Likewise, we should keep this article, not because many people believe in Xenu, but because it says something important about scientology and religious psychology. -Sensemaker

Interesting point. However, I think it falls into the category of original research to say Xenu is himself not important but he should have a WP article because he says something about the human condition. Steve Dufour 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that might be original research (though I am not sure the guideline would apply here-I believe the guideline is against using original research in the article itself, not against using an argument based on original research to motivate the very existence of the article. Aren't all arguments for motivating why an article should exist to some extent original research. E.g. "It was in the Encyclopedia Britannica thus it should be in Wikipedia". "YOU looked it up in Enclopedia Britannica and made this argument. It was not some noted scientist who looked it up in Enclopedia Britannica, made that argument and published the argument. Thus your argument constitutes original research, thus it is invalid.) Anyhow, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Xenu says something about scientology and religious psychology. -Sensemaker

On the contrary: they do believe he existed, and that his actions affected humanity greatly. They claim that he was a galactic emperor who was responsible for our suffering as of today, because his actions made thetans enter our body some way or something like that. I'm not very familiar with Scientology doctrine, but I do know the basics, and I know it's absurd, but we have to include it.--Orthologist 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This nomination is completely misconceived. The subject of Xenu is dealt with in numerous primary and secondary sources - hundreds of newspaper articles, scores of books and scholarly papers. The subject may not be quite as widely discussed as Jesus but it easily meets our notability criteria. Frankly, I think the nomination is a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- ChrisO 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's difficult to believe that anyone with as much Wikipedia experience as Steve Dufour could make this misinterpretation of notability guidelines in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary source independent of Scientology which says that Xenu is important then I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. 168.137.100.21 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy. The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (an Oxford University Press publication) describes Xenu as central to "Scientology's secret mythology" and has two summary descriptions of the Xenu story (pages 360 and 427). -- ChrisO 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said the belief in Xenu is already covered on WP where it should be: In the articles on the beliefs of Scientologists. As for Xenu himself there is almost complete agreement that he does not exist. Steve Dufour 01:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and especially Ming the Merciless don't exist either, but that doesn't stop them from being WP:Notable. AndroidCat 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And conversely Steve Dufour exists (probably), but that doesn't make him WP:Notable either. :-) -- ChrisO 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability and importance are very much different. I don't think anyone's ever called Bullet hell an important genre of games, but it's certainly notable. -- feb^talk 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:ANI#Violation_of_WP:POINT. - Thanks for your time. Smee 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
• Are you joking? Of couse Xenu is notable enough. --James, La gloria è a dio 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't hurt his feelings by saying he wasn't. :-) Steve Dufour 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The figure of 600,000 Scientologists comes from the Church's usual propaganda sources and is dismissed by most independent experts, who believe it numbers no more than between 75,000 and 100,000 adherants worldwide. Like a lot of cults, Scientology is prone to exaggeration. It used to claim "10 million or more" but as that was easy to debunk, they reduced the figure to a more believable-sounding total. MarkThomas 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some critics also like to inflate the number. Steve Dufour 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the misinformation, I meant to say that the Scientologists claim to be that many; they're probably fewer than 60,000, anyway.--Orthologist 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Xemnu

Is there any direct evidence that the creators of Xemnu had Xenu in mind? As far as I can see, the similaries are that he's big and bad and comes from space. It's the sort of name that might be independently invented by writers in this genre. Without some evidence -- or at least, some published analysis -- I think this section might be veering into speculation and original research. --Trovatore 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They probably both come from the Greek word xenos, meaning "foreign" or "alien". Steve Dufour 04:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

added pictures

I added a couple of pictures which were removed. I was not trying to make a point doing this. I still think Xenu should not have his own article. However, I have made lots of other improvements to articles which I disaprove of. Please judge the pictures on their own merits. I thought the one of the atom bomb blast fit in well with the one of the volcano. The one of Las Palmas was a nice picture but maybe not really important enough for this article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that Las Palmas didn't exist 75 million years ago. Thus a picture of Las Palmas is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. -- ChrisO 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I included it because the article mentioned it as the place where Hubbard came up with the idea. Like you say it is not really needed, so leave it out if you want. Steve Dufour 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the H-Bomb picture: [[Image:Nuclear fireball.jpg|250px|thumb|Fireball of a nuclear explosion, like the ones said to have been set off by Xenu.]]

I put the picture back in the article. It is just as relevant as the volcano picture. Steve Dufour 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hope for fairness

Shouldn't it @ least be noted, in interest of fairness, that most or all of these words appear in the scientology tech dictionary, except for xenu. Even if scientologist didn't consider xemu to be something that should notbe talked about for restimulative reasons, there would still be other reasons it doesn't get in the tech dictionary, I suspect. It's just a bit in the ot 3 materials. Helatrobus implant is in the tech dictionary, ximu or not. People have tried to paint a picture in the past of scientologists as a bunch of ximuans, sometimes as a cruel joke, but sometimes, they have seemed to actually beleive this. The real story is people think about ximu (assuming ximu really is the ot iii secret. I wouldn't know) during the running of 0t iii, and not much @ all before, & I would guess, not alot @ all after, only during. So thats why I think it should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 00:24, March 28, 2007 (GMT). Also, ximu strikes me as more of a gnostic claim than an esoteric teaching from a comparative religion perspective, I suspect. It is never taught, it is run in an OT III session. Also, all of this is what hubbard called para-Scientology. Thaddeus Slamp 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that Xenu's point of view isn't mentioned, only Hubbard's version of the story. :-) Steve Dufour 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Xenu lost and the winners write the histories. BTW Steve, flare-up in Aisle L. Ron Hubbard. --Justanother 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil airliner in space

Can I just say that I love the picture of the passenger jet in outer space. I haven't laughed so much in ages. Thank you Wikipedians, thank you Scientology and above all, thank you L Ron Hubbard. However, I have a serious question, probably just one of many. If passenger airliners were swooshing around "under the pretense that they were being called for income tax inspections" could they not permanently have removed all IRS inspectors from Teegeack or whatever the heck Earth was then called? And thereby relieve us all of one heck of a lot of engrams potentially? One more question. Anyway. Why the heck is Tom Cruise not featured in this article? Surely he could buy his way into this OT level? Thanks for all serious-minded replies to seriously intended and sincere questions. MarkThomas 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A self-declared Scientologist editor, Justanother is removing important and interesting material, such as my new photo of a Dakota interior, which I think any mediation committee would agree at once is of great significance to this article given that it was used to transport the income tax inspectors. I would be grateful if other editors of a more objective and NPOV disposition could monitor the situation. Thanks. MarkThomas 23:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if other editors of a more objective and NPOV disposition could monitor the situation. I'm already on it. --Justanother 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Err. Surely there's an error here. I'm trying to contact some Thetans to try and track down what it is. MarkThomas 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to contact some Thetans . . . OK, you got one, what can I help you with? --Justanother 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

File:00910460 073.jpg

A Dakota space plane interior; the seats would have received income tax inspectors in a prone position, ready for unpacking near volcanoes.

Sorry. This is the disputed image - I should have displayed it here to assist in fact-finding and intelligent discussion. Thanks. MarkThomas 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan at all of Scientology, but I have to say that it's not at all clear to me that the interior of the plane has much relevance to the article. Even if it did, the accompanying text is questionable -- tax inspectors received in a prone position? Where does that come from? The article doesn't talk about tax inspectors being unloaded near volcanoes, but rather ordinary people taken in on the pretense that their taxes were being inspected (or something like that). And are you sure you know what "prone" means? --Trovatore 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I look at it, I'm more worried about the "unpacking" part. Were they "packed" and if so, how were they "unpacked"? Did they just sort of lie around near the volcanoes or were they actually sort of manhandled in but neatly? Sort of like bits of string being packed into a cat's mouth or something? Justanother, you control this page - can you or your Thetans help with my query? MarkThomas 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you control this page . . . Now I've had my wikismile for the day. Thanks. --Justanother 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• A Dakota is a military transport version of a Douglas DC-3. Hubbard's space planes look like Douglas DC-8, so your image has no relevance. AndroidCat 02:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yes, thanks AndroidCat, you are right. I am going to see if I can get a shot of the Douglas DC-8 interior complete with tax inspectors. Brilliant! MarkThomas 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, to be honest, I get the impression you're being deliberately provocative. That attitude is not welcome on WP.

As I've said, I'm not at all pro-Scientology. In fact I'd be very happy if this article deterred a few people from getting sucked into that belief system. But we can afford that viewpoint only if the article is scrupulously fair. That means, as I see it, that we can report accurately what Hubbard said, even if it comes across like self-parody, as long as we don't try to make it any more so. And we can even report on notable parodies by others, like South Park. But we absolutely must not create new parody ourselves. And that's the direction I see you going with the Dakota pic and your proposed DC-8. --Trovatore 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How very true! I of course am genuinely interested. How on earth did those DC-8s stay up there? What was their fuel? Did the passengers sit relaxed with no breathing equipment, were they stacked up in a sort of coma or did they just sort of die in the plane before, you know, it crashed into the volcano or whatever? I really do wish we had some knowledgeable Scientologists on hand to help us with all this! Then we could put the right material in the article with suitable references. A starting point would be helpful pictures showing how the passengers (were they tax inspectors - I'm confused on that point!) were arranged. That's what we're trying to get to here. Please help. I won't give my phone number though as I don't want calls from other cults. MarkThomas 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Stardate?

Okay seriously I have noticed an edit just recently caused by RipMan (Whom is now banned) on the date of March the 5th, where the founding of the Galatic Empire or something like that was in Stardate (etc), I reverted the Vandalism but my question is how did everyone else miss that for almost a month? 66.131.20.223 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Sometimes they just slip by or maybe they don't. --Justanother 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From time to time I've noticed either bad faith tag-team edits to change a bunch of things around to hide one change or a partial good faith fix by an editor that doesn't catch everything. Unless you go through a mess of edits, sometimes bridging them to see the net change, they're hard to catch. AndroidCat 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Critique

"It has been suggested that Hubbard meant to explain the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event through the Xenu story, but got the dates wrong — 75 mya as opposed to 65 mya — though this is unproven."

Where does it ever say this? I'm curious, I want to learn more about this if it is true.

Otherwise,

I vote for deletion.

Sorry, you came a little too late for that. :-) Steve Dufour 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific critiques section

This section appears to be based almost entirely on Peter Forde's web-published analysis, flavored by a little original research. At a cursory glance much of the analysis looks good (the bit about easily-detectable radioactive traces is garbage -- most by-products of nuclear explosions are much too short-lived for much to be left after 75 million years -- though I suppose we could probably find a layer of the stable end-products). But whether the analysis is correct or not is not the point; the point is that it doesn't seem to have been published in any peer-reviewed source, and therefore should not be published here. Unless someone can find a peer-reviewed source, I plan to remove the entire section.

(Note that "peer-reviewed source" doesn't mean things like finding a source for the age of the universe, unless that source was specifically refuting the Xenu story. That would be an original synthesis, also disallowed. It's the refutation itself that needs to be peer-reviewed, not its bits and pieces.) --Trovatore 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Steve Dufour 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinda thought you might, Steve. But I think our reasons are a bit different. --Trovatore 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question for the reasons stated above. --Trovatore 02:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point.Grrrilla 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a left-over paragraph in the section on the volcanos by the same reasoning. Steve Dufour 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Negative statement removed

I took this off of the end of the last sentence in the article: "..., and not the core of the movement's belief system." Has anyone said that Xenu is the core of Scientology's belief system? Steve Dufour 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Joke

Considering there are at least two sections here asking if this is a joke, a warning seems appropriate. I noted previous attempts at one, this one seems more appropriate. Anynobody 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem could be that people will think the "this is not a joke" notice is part of the joke. :-) Steve Dufour 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the tag in question look like a joke?:

I could see where the last one, in non warning form could be seen as a part of the joke, but this makes it clear what the intention of both the tag and the article is. Anynobody 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, you have said in the past that entire article (and even the concept of a volcano on the Scientology project tag for implying mention of it) is disrespectful. Some people seriously think this article is a joke, read the talk page for yourself. We should try to prevent this from happening. Anynobody 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If we posit that Xenu forms any part at all of Scientology then this snicker snicker jab jab crap is disrespectful and coming from you, Anynobody, downright trollish and you have been warned about trolling me. So please don't. Thanks. --Justanother 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think the occasional editor popping in to ask if this is a joke isn't a poor use of the page? The problem here is you are definitely editing from your bias, as I can prove from what you've said before. diff "he who must not be named" diff my question diff my follow up, your deletion of it. In early March you rejected a proposed Scientology project infobox that included a picture of an erupting volcano because you found it offensive. Your reason was that it implied the Xenu story, but you wouldn't explain anything more despite the point that a picture of one is on the cover of Dianetics. Clearly the mention of Xenu by non-Cos editors is causing you offense. In cases where the information is valid but you can not bring yourself to agree with the consensus, please understand that is the reason for the conflict of interest guideline. Anynobody 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please knock off the crap - the wink wink nudge nudge is offensive and trollish and, funny thing is, my concept of what consensus is around here seems to be a lot sharper than that of some others. Tell you what, I will wager you a month's editing that consensus will go with me on this one too? Care to put your money where your mouth is? --Justanother 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Betting aside, Justanother lets set up an RFC. I'm trying to improve this talk page by solving a recurring problem. Once people see how many times this has happened since "Trapped in the closet" came out, I feel they will understand why I propose this. joke joke joke joke Anynobody 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can RfC if you want, I can take it to AN/I - it is that obvious a misuse of the talk page. Please save us both the trouble and leave it off. Who cares if a joke shows up now and again, just delete. What you can do is something like you see at Talk:Don Imus. I think that you do not see how off-consensus this critic crap is - you guys are in your own little wikiworld and all it takes is a bit of light to blow your delusions about what is consensus here apart. --Justanother 05:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the ball is in your court, what'll it be? I want to resolve a dispute, which ANI is not part of. Anynobody 06:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I want you to stop trolling and misusing this talk page to snicker at Scientology - that is not a content dispute; that is an admin matter. You can put up a respectful warning like at Imus if you care to; for me, I don't see a need as we can easily delete jokes and that sign will not stop clowns. --Justanother 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've been saying, this is a content dispute.

• Editors have started to make pointless posts here:

1. joke?
2. joke?
3. joke?
4. joke?

• I suggest an obvious tag, respectfully but sternly worded.
• You suggest: I'm snickering at you?

Would you mind suggesting an alternative? Anynobody 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Four little straw men lined up in a row. I have better things to do then blow over straw men. --Justanother 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, bear in mind for the moment that I'm a student, who generally only has time to LOOK at Wikipedia, let alone bothering to log in when I make various edits to articles within my limited expertise. That said, from the position of an outsider (and not wanting to draw any incivility from Justanother, or give them offence), I do have to say that it is a necessity that both of you involved, -chill-.

The warning was there for some time uncontested, BUT it looked like it might be part of a joke. The box above this, or an approximation of it, seems far more apt, and I -would- agree with its inclusion on the talk page at the top. Primarily because I've known many people, remembering this from South Park, to think it a joke article, and foresee much confusion on the part of those who come here for research and information. The article is NOT a joke, but I can easily see how it could be conceived to be one. So... why don't we get opinions from other editors, since (Justanother and Anynobody, I mean -no- insult, and am sorry if it seems so), a concensus cannot be formed by the statements of only two involved editors. How about it, who besides Anynobody and myself thinks that the warning has value and will prevent questions like those helpfully cited above? Who agrees with Justanother, that the warning has no true value and just serves to clutter the already-cluttered top of the talk page? Raeft 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raeft. What would make you think that you might "draw any incivility from" me?? I am a total pussycat. Meowww. Now my alter ego, User:JustaHulk, is perhaps another story but he is over there playing in the corner by himself for quite some time now. --Justanother 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly? I'm more a lurker than a poster because I witness so much of what has just happened above. It could be you're not aware of it, but I dread getting into a serious discussion about article improvement, and risking running aground on accusations of "just trying to disrupt", or else hitting the interminable wall of "no compromise". I mean, I honestly was always a supporter of the tag at the top of this article, BUT, it would hardly be concensus if compromise weren't an option. The prime root of my believing I may become target of incivility, is the fact that I support the tag being there, and just above you made statements to Anynobody which would frankly -hurt- if they were directed at me over something so minor. Such as "your own little wikiworld", "my concept of what consensus is around here seems to be a lot sharper than that of some others", "Please knock off the crap - the wink wink nudge nudge is offensive and trollish", et al. I'm afraid that since my position on a warning in about those same words is similar to Anynobody's, you might (and again, no offence meant, seriously), call me a troll, accuse me of being out of touch with reality, et al, when I simply feel that its inclusion would benefit the article. (It's been there for a while, and certainly seems, to me, to do no harm). Just wanted to clarify. Again, I -really- don't mean to offend, but I kept from piping up earlier because I don't deal well with accusations or insults (Not that you HAVE been rude to me, it was moreso anticipated based on above, and still want to contribute. Cheers. Raeft 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Raeft, sorry if I offended you. Those comments were obviously addressed at Anynobody, who has made himself quite obnoxious with an apparent obsession with me. He maintains his little notebook at User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3. Trust me, that is all one-sided and out-of-context but you can see the obsession there. That is just the tip of the trollish iceberg. He has been warned specifically to stop trolling me. Re the subject remark: I removed that remark as it is offensive and would not be placed on the beliefs of another group, i.e. you would not see that on Talk:Transubstantiation. The Xenu article is over-the-top and a mockery of an relatively minor (possible) Scientology issue. See, we believe that we have lived before, and have existed in one body or another since the beginning of this universe. We believe that one can contact these previous existences in memory using Scientology techniques and free oneself from hidden past influences. We also believe in life on other planets. The natural combination of those two beliefs would be that we would contact some past life incidents from other societies, non-Earth societies. Xenu may or may not be part of an incident that you look at when doing higher levels in Scientology. No big deal. But it looks funny when put under a microscope so here we are. The article needs work but let's not carry the ridicule over to the format of this talk page itself. That is just too much. --Justanother 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I come into this with the advantage of ignorance. I only signed on over at WP:SCN because I decided to pick a set of articles and study with the intent OF contributing. That and I have a certain affinity for recently-popularized religions (given that I'm a Discordian, though that is happily no conflict of interest). I'd posit that, and I do not mean offence,you are reading too much into this. Irregardless of background beliefs, I believe that stating the article, through the above banner, is not a joke, would be useful to those coming here with no prior knowledge. I don't know how large or small an aspect of Scientologist belief it is, I just know that it's here, and what we have NOW is often mistaken for a joke, possibly due to parody, possibly on its own merits. As such, I AM in favor of the box at the top of the article (Which is MORE respectful than the previous "informal" warning, one thinks), but am open to the views of other editors. It's just that if we go by majority concensus (though stating that such has been reached before a week or so passes is laughable), it's going back in by current tally. However, if a dichotomy of two is unacceptable, a concencus of two thirds out of three is equally so, so, we'll wait and put it on the back burner until more people contribute, no? Raeft 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Raeft, the Scientology series is an interesting case study. IMO, a small group of highly biased editors have hijacked the Wikipedia project to the extent of using it as best they can to discredit Scientology. Please read my User page for more on that. That note was originally put there by one of them. The reason that such a note might have any relevance at all is because the article is written as a joke to ridicule Scientology. Can I change it? Perhaps and perhpas I will. But for now I just want the wink wink note off this talk page. We are quite capable of deleting any vandalism or other misuse of this page. --Justanother 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I agree vandalism or other misuse -can- be removed, I'm reminded of the cliche'd old adage about an ounce of prevention compared to a ratio of cure. As such, I'm in -favor- of this page. I don't know about highjacking the page. I DO know that many articles on Wikipedia use only published sources despite everyone -knowing- they are counter to the truth, and if this article is a case of same, I'll be right next to you trying to make it as accurate and factual as possible. In the meantime, this is an instance where informed adults will evidently have to courteously disagree with one another: I feel the note at the top, irregardless of its originator, has value. No hard feelings over it, and I'll be the first to abdicate my position to community concensus once more people weigh in, if it goes counter what I desire to add. Take care. Raeft 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I can't speak for the motives of the other editors of Scientology articles, but this belief has probably made you enemies you needn't have. The people you see as trying to hijack the series, or trying to insult you are really not trying to do either. The truth is that third party sources like governments, newspapers, science, medical, history books. etc. tend to disprove a lot of what the CoS claims. Raeft is a great example of a neutral party who does not believe the article is a joke or ridiculing Scientology. Would you consider the article Shiva to be a dig against Hindus? If Xenu is not a part at all of Scientology then it would indeed be what you are saying it is. If Xenu is a part of the CoS beliefs/teaching he/it should have the same attention as other religions.

Raeft thank you for speaking up. I was/am afraid that there are many editors afraid to speak up because Scientologists show a tendency to become hostile when discussing the CoS. Anynobody 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, Anynobody. You are as one-sided as any of the Scientology critics. If I ever see you write a balanced piece, Anynobody, I will be happy to acknowledge it. Raeft, when an editor clearly shows that they are not interested in writing encyclopedic articles but only in highlighting whatever one-sided POV-pushing material that can be found then I do tend to stop treating them as valid contributors to the project and consider them more as hijackers of the project. They can also usually be spotted by consistently voting in an anti-Scientology block that will usually hold the opposite opinion to any neutral "consensus" that can be scared up. Anynobody's specific technique is to seem to misunderstand the point being made and to fill the discussion with [red herring]]s and straw men. Witness his example diffs above that do not stand inspection. Witness his example of Shiva. That is a straw man. I do not say that Xenu article has no place in the project, I say that it is written in a manner to ridicule Scientology. Anynobody says "If Xenu is a part of the CoS beliefs/teaching he/it should have the same attention as other religions." yet I doubt that Shiva is written in a manner that holds Hinduism up to ridicule. Of course, Xenu has nowhere near the important of Shiva. Shiva is a God; Xenu is perhaps a character in an incident addressed on some advanced level and then forgotten about. Bet the Xenu article is longer than Shiva, though. --Justanother 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't care much about Xenu one way or the other, although I hope that he is not real. My interest is to point out how unfair, unjust, and for that matter irrational the anti-Scientology trend has become. I'd like to vote for a joke notice at the top of this page. Thanks. Wishing everyone here well. Steve Dufour 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We're getting off topic for this section, I've created a new section to discuss your concerns about the article being an insult. This section is to discuss the no joke tag, so could you explain what about the tag you object to. If it's the whole idea, we should set up a WP:RFC to see what others think. If it's the wording, please suggest what you'd be comfortable with? Anynobody 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm voting for the no joke tag. Steve Dufour 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Justanother's issue with the whole article being an insult to the CoS. Sorry about the confusion, Steve Dufour. Anynobody 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in light of the above, and apparently at the risk of having Justanother treat me badly and as if I were a "highjacker" and "not a real contributor" because I agree with Anynobody and the anti-Scientology voting block which I know nothing about (I'm still 0_o-ing at that one), I STILL support a "This is not a joke, it is a serious and legitimate belief" tag, or similar, at the top of the article. Not because I seek to ridicule Scientology, but because if the mistake can be made, it can be made. So, to formalize it, (Sorry, Justanother, you seem by all accounts intelligent and a legitimate contributor, and I hate to make it onto your blacklist of trollish, highjacking editors so soon. That's not sarcasm, I mean this honestly, by the way.) I vote for the abovestated notice being placed among the already-numerous information templates at the top of this discussion page. Take care, all. I'll pop back in later in reference to my forthcoming post in the section below. Raeft 15:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Raeft, your feet stink. Nanny nanny boo boo. There, now you have had Justanother "treat you badly" and we can move on (laff). Trust me, amigo, it takes a lot more than agreeing in good conscience with a critic of Scientology or with the anti-Scientology clique to get on my "blacklist" (assuming I even have one). What it takes is a single-minded refusal to look at any side but the highly biased Scientology critics' side and to continually stand against simple, basic, wikipedia policies in the interest of using this project to present as much anti-Scientology material as possible while thoroughly discounting any balancing pro-Scientology material. Listen, if you like the notice then fine; I will count you as one neutral editor for. No big deal, my friend. Maybe next time you will agree with me on an issue. I have no fear of neutral editors; I love them. Even when we disagree. People of good faith can disagree. And believe or not, I do not even count all Scientology critics as "bad faith editors"; only those that like WP:IAR when it suits them while enforcing the letter of every rule when that suits them. --Justanother 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the phrasing and placed the warning back at the top of the page. For all the discussion here Justanother you haven't explained why the tag (or the article itself) is offensive to you. Nobody wants to offend you, but we can't edit around your feelings unless you explain them (your feelings). If you feel the wording is wrong, by all means change it. Right now your solution of removing the joke questions isn't working. Anynobody 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"If we posit that Xenu forms any part at all of Scientology then this snicker snicker jab jab crap is disrespectful and coming from you, Anynobody, downright trollish and you have been warned about trolling me. So please don't. Thanks." Ring a bell? --Justanother 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I'll number my responses:

1. I'm not the only one who thinks the tag is a good idea.
2. You still haven't explained why coming from me it's disrespectful
3. I'm not trolling you, I'm trying to improve this talk page.
4. You are using your belief that I am not editing in good faith to block attempts to fix a problem without citing any diffs where I have disrespected you in the past. Anynobody 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, Justanother? If you'd look below, you'd see that I was asking what specifically you thought was incorrect about the article, and if you could provide some kind of lists of your core problems with the article so we could fix them? It isn't good that an editor so obviously devoted to making the article -work- has such concerns.

Additionally, I too wish to know what your above comment:

"If we posit that Xenu forms any part at all of Scientology then this snicker snicker jab jab crap is disrespectful and coming from you, Anynobody, downright trollish and you have been warned about trolling me. So please don't. Thanks."

Even MEANS. I really cannot comprehend it. You've just accused Anynobody of being a troll for trying to resolve this issue. Frankly, right now? I DO believe the tag should go at the top, so does he, and I feel, and no offense, Anynobody's doing a MUCH better job of presenting why the tag should be there than you are of why it should not be. Steve Dufour has said above that:

I'm voting for the no joke tag. Steve Dufour 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I too support it being there. Now, this is not to say that any of us disrespect your view on this, on Scientology in general (well, I can't speak for others, but _I_ certainly don't disrespect you or Scientology), but it is currently concensus that the warning box at the top of the article is appropriate, and the presented reasons why, as I understand them, can be summed up like this:

Due to the prevailing myth regarding Xenu in popular culture, many view it as a mere parody. Something intended to defame the Church of Scientology, rather than a legitimately held belief. Through many resources, both factual and fictional, popular culture has held up what, to the uninitiated, and for all I know, to the initiated also, looks like something easily ridiculed and humorous. I do not hold this belief, but acknowledge that others do, and may come here not believing the information in the article to be factual. While their occasional nuiscanceful questions on the Talk Page about whether or not the work of many editors on this article is "meant as a joke", is NOT harmful to the project in and of itself, having people come here and not believe the truthful information contained in the article (and if anything is not truthful, Justanother? Please do inform me, as I've requested at the start of this comment, and I'll darn well do my best to amend what is false -immediately-, within my power. Promise so.), is antithetical to the idea behind any encyclopedia, to inform. The article is here. Having its information be factual, believable, and as inclusively accurate to the truth as our sources allow, is the best we can do. The talk page is likely the place those doubting its veracity will come, and such a warning, (not the joke-ish loose font one of before, but the box above this which says: "Yes, people believe this. Yes, editors have worked on this. You can trust it to not be a joke, we are not, to paraphrase, pulling your leg", is a good idea. (Note: I know it doesn't contain those exact words at all, but that's the message it puts forth)).

I believe that sums it up, but if anyone else believes otherwise, PLEASE comment. And Justanother? I ask you again, in case you missed that bit, to -please- let us know what's wrong with the article that makes it false or un-encyclopedic in any way, so we can darn well fix it. If you don't voice your concerns specifically, we're left in the dark.

In light of all of the above, I have not been so hasty and callous as to re-add the box at the top myself (Not that Anynobody was hasty or callous to do so, just, after I've said the above, it would be for ME to do it). Rather, I am asking for Justanother, barring dissent from other informed editors on this article in the time between now and when they read this, to please replace the box. In short, reverting ones own edits in the face of concensus, which does exist to keep the box (as far as I know, others could chime in), and reopening it for discussion if new arguments come forth from new sources, would be the best way to resolve this conflict and stop getting caught up on the minor clerical error of the box (though concensus being used to determine whether it stays or goes is best), and move on to improving articles? Cheers, all. I'll pop back in later. If anything comes up that I might need to see, there's always my talk page. Raeft 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Raeft, I will give Justanother a bit of time to decide what he wants to do. I'm not saying he won't, but in case he decides not to replace the tag I am posting the two I've posted thus far so that it can be decided which one is more appropriate. Obviously since I created them I'm fine with either:

<<<moved prospective tags to next subsection>>>

Justanother honestly, if you just explain your grievances we're willing to listen. Anynobody 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I think we have given Justanother plenty of time to explain his view of the article and how it is insulting. Of course if anyone else wants to give him more time we can, but does anyone have a preference on which tag to use?

Number 1:

Number 2:

Anynobody 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the tag either, but for different reasons than JustAnother. It's just plain tacky and bad form. It should go without saying that are no joke articles on Wikipedia. I can also see how someone who believes in Xenu might be offended by "this is not a joke", just as someone might also be offended if a similar tag were to be placed on the Miracles attributed to Jesus article. wikipediatrix 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but in this case, I believe that it's a case of heading off the incredulous sputtering in advance, thus saving the questions and affirming that it's NOT a joke. Also, I do not believe the talk page of the Miracles attributed to Jesus article has gotten as many "Is this for real?" questions on its talk page, despite, of course, Family Guy and South Park each having poked laughing tribute to them in some episodes, to name just a few examples. But, if you think the tag shouldn't be there, I don't see that it's THAT important one way or the other.

This said, see [[11]] for Justanother's reply to my question about it, unless anyone else has complaints, I like the "This is not a joke" over the "This is not satire", if we're going to put it up there. Raeft 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns wikipediatrix, but can you suggest another solution to address the general reaction that seems to draw people into asking the question the tags attempt to address? Anynobody 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always simply ignored them. Such idle chit-chat can always be deleted as disruptive since talk pages are for discussing edits, not asking questions about the subject. This ain't "Yahoo Answers". wikipediatrix 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such posts are unhelpful, but some of them may be genuinely wanting to know if this is a joke of some kind. Ignoring or deleting them seems to convey an arrogance or incivility to a curious person.

Is the whole idea of a tag something you disagree with, or is it the wording/appearance of the ones I've added so far? I was also thinking of a tag saying something like

"This article is a genuine encyclopedic entry, please do not ask questions about it's possible motives or implications."

Anynobody 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's just tacky and looks bad, like when you go a classy private club and there's a sign that says "not responsible for stolen articles". Or when you're in a restaurant and you find their restroom has a sign that says "Employees!!! Anyone caught not washing their hands will be put on probation!! This means you!!!". It just lowers the class of the whole place, know what I mean? Besides, even with the tag, people will still come to the talk page to still belabor the point with comments like "no, you gotta be kidding, this HAS to be a joke". I gar-on-tee. wikipediatrix 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it takes away some of the class to have to remind people to wash their hands, but still if a sign can prevent me from getting e-coli then I'd sacrifice class. The sad truth is that humanity needs signs to at least tell us what is prohibited and dangerous (wash your hands, stay away from downed power lines, or avoid a large open trench in the sidewalk). There will also always be people who either don't see or ignore the sign, but there are also people who pay attention to them as well. There must be some way to warn editors not to ask if this is a big joke and do it in a tasteful non-offensive way. Anynobody 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix I'm not trying to instigate Scientologists, and I'm not saying it'll stop every possible future "Is this a joke?" post. The idea is for those editors who may really wonder to get an answer to their question. People out to insult Scientologists or just troll this discussion will still do it and those can be ignored. Anynobody 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FA a ridicule of Scientology?

Could you be specific about what is so insulting about the article in general?

This is a featured article Justanother, are you saying Wikipedia in general has an agenda against Scientology? If you believe there are insulting parts, please point them out so we can discuss removing them. If you think the whole article should be deleted as it is an insult to Scientology, submit it for deletion. Anynobody 02:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You could take out the section "Xenu's volcanoes" Steve Dufour 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would like my opinion, there is way too much detail about the story. Nobody believes in it except, we are told, a few people who have taken high-level Scientology courses. I personally doubt that very many of them really believe in Xenu in a literal way, not that it is just a story. Steve Dufour 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry friend but Xenu and the OT 3 insident is central to your faith. This is wear the "theatens" that you are paying thousands of dollars to have removed come from. Xenu was the one who brainwashed the alien ghosts which, you believe, clump together in your body and cause all your pain and suffering.

If so I am in trouble since I don't believe in them. :-) Steve Dufour 14:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, this is meant in no way as insult, but IS a minor rebuke: You -started- this section with a biased premise, and without giving Justanother a chance to state their specific reasons for or against specific portions of this article. This article being biased against Scientology and ALL of Wikipedia being biased against Scientology are -not- logically conjunctive via it having achieved FA status. An article CAN be biased if the specific editors most interested in its subject matter engage in the process of cherry picking secondary sources while steering around valid sources which present a conflicting point of view. And the WHOLE community does not speak in FA processes, just a cross section of it, and thus it is fully possible that a well-written and encyclopedically inclusive article is not as inclusive as it SHOULD be, or is predicated on unfair sources. So, your accusation against Justanother is not predicated on enough evidence.

Now though, I must be clear, I don't think this has happened here, and I've read the article thirty times now, seeking where it is inaccurate, or where other sources/views could be added, but I'm just a guy doing some research. Other viewpoints may have considerably more value. I'm asking Justanother, when they see this, to -please- write in this section which specific parts of this article are out of line with Wikipedia policies, and I'll damn well do my best to help right the wrongs which the article's editors can achieve concensus on. Nonetheless, thus far, and this is not meant as rebuke or insult to Justanother, those reading this discussion have seen continual references to "highjacking", and "bias", but may, like I, be at a loss to find it without aid?

Peace be, and Eris bless. Raeft 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your respectful feedback, Raeft I genuinely appreciate being told when I may be acting in a biased or unfair manner. Please don't think because I disagree with you in this instance that I would do so every time an attempt at feedback is made to me. I honestly would accept your point were it not for the fact that Featured articles go through a review process to be determined worthy of being featured. (Please look at the link to WP:FA I provided). Part of that is a review by people not involved with the editing of the article. Which means neutral editors have decided the article is NPOV, respectful, and informative enough to be set apart as a really good article. Justanother is saying that everyone who voted for that decision approved of an insult to Scientology, a very serious claim. Anynobody 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just saying it's -possible-, likely or no due to the FA process (Which I was familiar with when I posted that, don't worry, I'm not spouting off uninformed), that we've all overlooked LEGITIMATE facts which ought to be added to this article, and I was expressing my sentiment that if Justanother has problems with this article, the problems of one editor are the problems of all of us. We may row at counter purposes, but only a fool would make a hole in the bottom of the boat. That is to say, if presented with a list of contradictions within this article, of Wikipedia policy, you and I both, Anynobody, would be remiss to not attempt to amend any logical fallacies or irreputable statements in this high-importance article. Justanother has raised the question of bias, and just because WE don't see any does not mean it's not there. We're none of us infallible. Raeft 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the featured article process. However I did notice that Bulbasaur was a featured article recently. I, myself, would never use an article's featuredness to try to prove something. Steve Dufour 01:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I wouldn't go that far. Featured articles are some of THE best produced by Wikipedia in the community's eyes. It doesn't make them infallible, but it does make the versions which were approved as "featured", the product of a rigorous process which included airings of points of view from all interested editors. As an online encyclopedia, our articles aren't going to necessarily be what are -traditionally- considered classic encyclopedia articles. I'd say Bulbasaur being a featured article is a sign of what editors have elevated to Featured Article status, not any kind of comment on the validity of that ( well written) article. Ideally, all articles would eventually hit Featured Article status, and if that seemingly impossible thing ever happens, just about ANYTHING could be on the front page, as a random oscillating cross section ran its way through the myriad approved articles. Raeft 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When I used to play Pokemon with my daughter Bulbasaur never did me any good. :-) Steve Dufour 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour I agree that the subject seems pretty irrelevant, but the article itself abides by all applicable policies and guidelines, that's why it's featured. Anynobody 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing directly to do with Xenu, however to me the Pokemon character articles seem to go against the policy of no "inside the universe" writing about fictional characters. Steve Dufour 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the no inside the universe policy on WP:NOT, where did you see that? Anynobody 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's part of the notability policies for fiction. Steve Dufour 05:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's where it is talked about most: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Steve Dufour 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bulbasaur article reads like the Palpatine article, which is cited by the MOS as an example of an out of universe perspective. Anynobody 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Palpatine article was quite interesting! However, I don't think we need an article on each of 493 Pokemon characters any more than we need 52 articles for each card in a deck of cards. The point I was trying to make is that just being a featured article, like Bulbasaur, does not seem to mean much in terms of the article following WP policies. But that's just how I understand the policies. BTW I have spoken out in favor of the Pokemon articles since they probably bring people to WP. Steve Dufour 06:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understood your point was how you feel the Bulbasaur article is not written according to the MOS. My point is that it does follow the MOS, for example mentioning in the article that there are 493 characters is an outside universe description (Palpatine is written in the same way, which is why I pointed to it as an example.) Anynobody 08:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is only important within the universe of Pokemon. He has no influence outside of that. My point was that just being a featured article does not seem to mean very much about the quality of the article. There was one a while ago about a communist group that was written entirely from their point of view. Steve Dufour 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which goes back to what I meant about being irrelevant, which I think was a poor choice of words on my part. The point being that just because you and I don't feel that a Pokemon character is very important doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Since the article is written in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines it's been featured. The worthiness of the article isn't the subject, it's the compliance with what an article "should be". Anynobody 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Raeft what you have said is indeed correct in that we must listen to the concerns of all involved, it's a big part of what assuming good faith is about. Before I say more, I don't want you to think I was offended by what Justanother said earlier. You expressed your opinion that his remarks would have offended you, which is why you've held off editing. Since I have experience editing with him -he has/had a userbox indicating he is a father- and know he is a Scientologist I'm not offended. (Most people would act the same way in a similar situation involving a closely held belief.)

In this case Justanother is repeating a behavior I've seen before. In order to get an idea of our history you could see our first interactions on the Barbara Schwarz article. To make sure the conversation makes sense, I'd recommend looking at the article first to get your own impression of it then see Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 10. Obviously there are specific parts I'd want you to take note of, but for neutrality you should probably look at it as you want. Anynobody 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware some people have a conflict of interest on some issues, and CAN see how Justanother may be considered to have such. But, if we couldn't edit anything we cared about/believed in, the cupboard here at Wikipedia would be quite bare indeed, as far as intriguing fare goes. Nonetheless, I don't find that the FA process is meant to ridicule anything in particular, but I DO think that if Justanother sees legitimate faults in the article, he should state them here so all editors can work on making a concensus regarding them. I'm surprised this article doesn't have a FAQ for concensus like on the article about Evolution. It seems issues ARE frequently revisited here. Raeft 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, I am interested to hear what about the article he finds offensive (that's why I opened this section.) No issue is truly ever settled here, people with a conflicts of interest can edit articles they care about, and whatever Justanother finds offensive should be discussed. However we must also be willing to accept the possibility that his COI could be the source of his statements, especially if he can't/won't explain what he thinks is inaccurate to the point of insult. By pointing out that it is a featured article I am simply saying that this article has received much more scrutiny than the average article. Anynobody 04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism?

The information can be viewed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenu&oldid=119529159

What happened to the Scientific Criticism?. I don't see any reason that should have been removed, it was extremely usefull. Of course one could say that all religions should have Scientific criticism and I would agree that there is no reason not to. The difference to me is that religions of most types are speaking about spiritual/supernatural phenomena that clearly has no scientific validity itself. Scientology on the other hand is saying that the have unearthed ancient truths, historical facts, as well as quasi spiritual techniques. When Scientology is talking about things that are actually supposed to have happened within the confines of the physical world as we are certain it exists, I see no reason not to have scientific criticism.Colin 8 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the section was taken out because it was original research. Steve Dufour 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't belong here anyway, unless scientific criticism is to be applied to all religions of course. Anynobody 22:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it, and it wasn't about fairness between religions. It was about WP:OR. Anyone who can find this material published in a peer-reviewed journal is, from my point of vies, more than welcome to restore it. Of course I think that's very unlikely -- who would bother writing a scholarly article refuting Xenu, and who would publish it? You might as well try to publish an article proving there's no tooth fairy. --Trovatore 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Xenu's volcanoes

I took out the interpretations of what some of the volcanoes Hubbard meant. I think Krakajawia probably means Krakatau also, but we can't make that connection without some kind of source that says the same thing. Without a source, it's original research. Anynobody 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Krakajawia" is actually one of the worst examples of something we can conjecture about - it sounds like a portmanteau of Krakatoa and Sacajawea. I do think it's within common sense to state that "Kolomonjero" is "apparently" a misspelling of Kilimanjaro, and listing South Japan's volcanos seems encyclopedic as long we don't make "probable" guesses about them. wikipediatrix 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Hubbard could've meant volcano Indian, it's no more unreasonable than assuming "Kolomonjero" is a portmanteau of Kolombiya and Kilimanjaro. Whether we're right or wrong it still shouldn't be in the article unless we can cite a verifiable source Anynobody 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We do need to say, though, that some of the volcanoes he names don't exist; likewise we need to note the confusion about Mount Washington and it seems reasonable to mention Kilimanjaro as the probable analogue of "Kolomonjero". -- ChrisO 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree he mentions mountains which don't exist, are misspelled, and a bit vague in location. My problem is that since this occurred on Teegeeack or whatever he said earth was called then he may have really meant "Kolomonjero". I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying with what we have to work with trying to interpret what he meant here is our research/beliefs. (If this was music it'd be like finishing an unfinished symphony because we know what it should sound like. Please understand my use of symphony here implies no positive or negative light on Xenu). Anynobody 08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He was taking acid at the time, so I presume he was finding it a bit hard to concentrate on the actual names of volcanoes. Plus I guess his ratlike little brain figured that slightly off-piste names would gull a few of his more dumb-ass scienos into thinking he had a personal take on Alien Names for Earthy things. Even more amazingly, this type of thing works. MarkThomas 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why xenu? response

Xenu is Latin for alien. L. Ron Hubbord might have different views on religion, but he wasn't supid. he was actually quite smart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.148.107 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually that's xeno, as in xenophobia, and it's not Latin, it's Greek... -- ChrisO 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that very interesting, is it possible that he meant Xeno (spelling wasn't his best subject "Kolomonjero")? Or is it possible that these are not very creative names based on the words with different spellings? Anynobody 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget there was also a sci-fi comic-book alien in 1960 named Xemnu who travels thru space as a Thetan-like non-corporeal form after being destroyed. wikipediatrix 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that either, for whatever else it was I did think the Xenu story was pretty original until you pointed this out. Anynobody 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So... does Xenu have a brother named... lets say.. predutor or.. Zurg or...the more obscure freeza? WARNING THIS IS NOT A JOKE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.156.193 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

why do scientologists deny xenu?

"In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu), pronounced /'zi.nu/, was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" is the first sentence. but the scientologists I meet on the street say "who is xenu? that is completely wrong." So maybe our first sentence is not NPOV. It seems that only non-scientology people say that xenu is the scientologist's dictator of galactic confederacy. i'm confused why they would deny it if it's part of their doctrine.--Sonjaaa 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Xenu is not revealed to them until they reach a level called OT III. The people you spoke with may not have attained said level. Anynobody 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, they're specifically told to deny it if anyone asks. Scientologists are forbidden to discuss OT-level material with anyone or even to acknowledge rumors of the contents. wikipediatrix 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Even if true this seems slightly convenient or at least difficult. That way both their denying or admitting it proves they believe it. I think they do or did believe it, but I'm just saying the path you indicate sounds tricky. If they are completely untrustworthy about their beliefs then I think that makes saying anything about their beliefs becomes problemattic. After all they could be lying in the tapes about Xenu. There could be super-secret tapes that say it's a metaphor or it could be an elaborate set-up that lets them sue people for stealing info they actually consider worthless. I know of Indian tribes who intentionally tell false stories to anthropologists because their real stories are sacred and can't be spoken to non-members, but that doesn't tell us what the real stories are. I don't know. I actually think you're right, but I'm saying it makes it tricky. How to write about a belief that's held by the dishonest and untrustworthy?--T. Anthony 04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the main sources we have for thinking the Xenu story is important to Scientologists are ex-Scientologists and Scientology critics. These groups also have not had perfect records for honesty. Steve Dufour 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the principal source we have for thinking it's important is L. Ron himself. If it's not important, why did he hype it so much? -- ChrisO 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. On the other hand, I don't think Hubbard is much of an authority on what is important to present day Scientologists. Steve Dufour 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you on that one Steve Dufour, Scientology is still mostly about Hubbard if his standard tech is used as he described it should, if you're talking about people who practice in the Free Zone I'd agree 100%. Hubbard seems important to several Scientologists on Wikipedia. Anynobody 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Hubbard is important. I'm not so sure that Xenu is as important as people seem to be saying. One thing I noticed in the Space opera (Scientology) article is that Hubbard gave some wild figure for the age of the Universe, like in the trillions of years. Since he was a professional science fiction writer I would think that he would know the real number. So maybe we shouldn't take his stories all that seriously if he didn't. Steve Dufour 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One would assume he'd know the theorized age of the universe, but even if he did he chose to make it much older. Dissecting the story vs. science works about as well as applying science to the bible in order to pick it apart. My point is Hubbard said it was important, Scientologists believe what he did, ergo Xenu is important. Anynobody 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Hubbard considered the Xenu story fiction then? Steve Dufour 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what he considered it to be (fiction for money or a real insight), but he thought it needed to be included in his OT literature and shouldn't be discussed with outsiders. Saying a tenet isn't important because they don't discuss it is not very logical, after all they aren't supposed to discuss it. (Information does not need to be discussed in order for it to be important). Anynobody 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should say that Xenu was just something that Hubbard made up off the top of his head if that is the case. And if he made no attempt to make it scientifically accurate then what is the point of scientific debunking? Steve Dufour 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, just show me the reliable, verifiable source that says this so we aren't creating original research. Anynobody 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

I've read this is because the information will kill anyone who tries to understand it without preparation, is that accurate wikipediatrix? Anynobody 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Like the article says, Hubbard said you could die of pneumonia if you learned the secrets of Xenu too fast and too soon, and tried to undo the implant. I suspect, however, that the real reason most Scientologists don't talk about OT III is not because they fear pneumonia from the curse of Xenu, but because they obviously don't want to look insane themselves. wikipediatrix 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it would be hard recruiting people with Xenu as a selling point. I thought I also read something about him claiming the knowledge would cause chronic insomnia and then suicide. (The curse changed I guess) Anynobody 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Xenu" is just some typically half-baked rambling sci-fi idea that Hubbard dreamed up in an idle moment and as was his way (after all, cf Aleister Crowley "my will is the whole of the law" and "as my will so mote it be" - check out the super-cool psuedo-medieval-english spelling, bet that convinced a few more suckers) made policy on a quiet day, presumably whilst on that ship somewhere bored out of his mind and not even distracted by all the girls in hotpants waiting on his every whim. It's fun to be a cult leader! But not as much fun as actually trying to think of something intelligent. MarkThomas 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually heres a question: After the South Part episode where the creators showed the story about Xenu to millions of viewers around the world, how large of an epidemic did we have with people contracting pneumonia, etc? If L. Ron was correct then there should be mass chaos around the world right now.

The authorities seem to be worried about it. Steve Dufour 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to be rude here but I must ask, would that question be worth talking about on the actual page? I mean if L Ron said this to be true, it would be worth searching to see if a reporter made note about the fact that nothing happened.

Or even having a warning box on the article:

I could hardly say this is disrespectful, after all isn't it in the best interest of a young scientologest to be warned before reading the article?

Lodders 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your idea makes sense, but doubt that some Scientologists will see it as a good faith warning rather than something else. In short, I dunno. Anynobody 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a bigger improvement could be made to the article if some of the "in universe" stuff was taken out. Steve Dufour 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please put me down for a for vote on the "it may kill you" tag. I wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone's death in case that is true. Steve Dufour 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also supoort' such a tag. It's a serious matter. And I can't see how anybody would have any oppositino to it. Supporters of Scientology would in any case see it as a genuine warning. Whereas it's opposers would think it serves the purpose of ridiculing scientology. Wikipedia's position would be neutral, given the wording of the tag. Everybody's happy. Yay! Let's go homeAmit 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocating use of the "article could kill you" tag without believing the article could kill you is hypocritical and an example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I believe we should work to make Wikipedia a good resource of information, not a place for comedy, especially at other people's expense. Foobaz·o< 07:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour I think it's fiction too, just like Genesis and Revelations, but some people think of it as a religion and when discussing religion we don't follow rules for writing about fiction. Anynobody 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For instance, in the article on the story of the Prodigal Son there is not a discussion of the pain and suffering the fatted calf felt when it was killed. Steve Dufour 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, this seems like an inappropriate tag to have on an article like this, it disrupts the page. Especially a featured article. I would not be opposed to having this tag at the top of this talk page if need be, but not on the article itself. Smee 05:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Here's the dilemma, do we take what Hubbard said seriously about the knowledge being dangerous? If we do then it would be unethical to not warn people. If we don't then no other religions should be either. (It can no more be proven that there was no Xenu than it can be proved Jesus walked on water.)

Personally I think we should take no religion seriously, but this is definitely something I'd want to hear from as many people as possible on. Anynobody 08:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The story of Xenu has been out for over twenty years. So far, there have been no waves of pneumonia deaths. Has the Church of Scientology issued a health warning? no? Then enough of this. AndroidCat 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, as much as I'd love to see the tag on this article, it is inappropriate. Really, WP:CENSOR -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AndroidCat, it's been out long enough that if the danger were true http://www.xenu.net would have killed almost everybody who accessed it and that should have made the news. For that reason it is inappropriate as pointed out by Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION!, it'd essentially be drawing attention to the fact that the hazard is bogus. Anynobody 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. This article did have such a warning briefly, back in 2005, but it rightly got moved to WP:BJAODN. -- ChrisO 07:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. Smee 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

First, i would like to say that i've never edited a talk page before and i'm not at all sure i'm doing this right , so i apologize if i'm doing it wrong.

second, i think the idea of some sort of warning at the top of the Xenu page is a good one, if only for people who are new to scientology, who think it would be wrong, unethical or even life threatening to read it. It needn't be something snarky or rude, like a "this article may be hazardous to your health" type of thing, as this would seem kind of backhanded and insincere, and is not backed by any facts. However, something more akin to the "spoiler warning" that i've seen on many pages may be more appropriate. like "members of the church of scientology who are lower in level than (OT III is it?) are discouraged by church doctrine from reading about Xenu before they get to the appropriate place on the bridge. I'm sure some one else could get that general idea across with better wording, but i think the basic idea i have is sound and the gesture may be appreaciated by members of the church who may stumble over this article by accident. (Nimue the mighty 12:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

i have never read a more rediculous story in my life —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.63.48 (talk • contribs).

Nobody forced you to read it, did they? :-) Steve Dufour 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wiki-regs prohibited (or at least strongly advised against) the placement of any form of warning or disclaimer tag (other than the plot spoiler warning for movies, books and TV series etc) on the grounds that they were unnecessary and that they could be abused (for example, somebody putting a "Pornography" warning tag on an entry about puberty or about a famous nude sculpture). If a warning tag was to be put on this page it would probably be removed with extreme prejudice quite quickly. - perfectblue 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a special case, though, and i don't think that it is abusive at all. Since the tag i was proposing was going to be similar to a plot spoiler tag, i would think it would be okay. I don't think that we are communicating anything that carries a moral judgement, such as the pornography tag that you site as an example. I think it is important to let scientologists know that reading this article may conflict with thier faith.

The last time that I was involved in a debate over warning tags it wasn't actually about anything nearly as controversial as Scientology (or as emotive as pornography), it was actually over whether or not Wikipedia should have a disclaimer tag on medical entries warning users (in so many words) that Wikipedia was no substitute for a good HMO. As far as I recall the Wiki-position was that there would be no special cases because when you made one exception people would demand more.

If we are allowed to add a tag warning Scientologists about this entry then somebody could well ask that we put up a warning tag on a page about creationism (or evolution) warning that it might offend certain peoples' sensibilities, and so on. It would be a free for all of people demanding that their pet cause also be made an exception, which is why the answer has historically been that there should be not warning/disclaimer tags beyond the plot spoiler one. - perfectblue 18:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, as having that things tagged all over the place would very soon become distracting and highly annoying. i'm dismayed that some people's need to indiscriminately tag everything had to lead to such a strict ruling, when i feel that in this case my proposed tag would be justified, but i see where that kind of thinking can lead. pooh. ah, well. I guess the scientologists will just have to work it out for themselves.

(Nimue the mighty 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Nice little sign you got yourself folks.. but I think that wikipedia needs a bit of... bri I mean help with "donations" to accept such a sil uh.. nice sign of yours.. why would anyone post info that can kill you? And why hasnt anyone used it as a psychological weapon as of yet? (this is just a little example I am certain that you will not feel offended) WARNING READING THE NEXT STATEMENT MIGHT KILL YOU: boo!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.156.193 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

Looking back through the archives, this talk page has a lot of repeated questions -- not just "Is this a joke?" but also:

• Discussions of posting a "spoiler warning"
• Questions of how many Scientologists are OT III
• Engineering questions about space planes
• ... and a few other topics.

On at least one other featured article talk page, namely Talk:Evolution, it has proven useful to have an FAQ for talk page contributors. Talk:Evolution/FAQ addresses some of the most common repeated questions about the article -- questions that new contributors keep raising because they haven't read the Talk archives. It's unreasonable to expect new users to read all the Talk archives before asking a question or raising an objection that has already been more than adequately discussed ... but an abbreviated FAQ seems to help.

Thoughts? --FOo 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea to me! Steve Dufour 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started one at Talk:Xenu/FAQ. Unfortunately I don't have time to add much at the moment. --FOo 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that spoiler warnings are only allowed on self professed works of fiction (episodes of Lost etc). I don't think that they are really appropriate for alternative theology. - perfectblue 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How many people believe in Xenu?

Is it in the millions? Thousands? Dozens? One or two? Zero? The article does not make this clear at all. Do you think this is a question that should be addressed by the article? Steve Dufour 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably all scientologists (even those who aren't OT3 have probably heard of Xenu), so however large the church is. I'd assume at least a few thousand. We shouldn't mention it though, I don't think we make comments on how many people believe in Jesus, or God, or Allah, or Mohammad, etc., because it's a rather useless figure and impossible to have it be correct. Numbers of members scientology has is useful, as any other religion, not people that believe in a certain figure. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Hubbard himself believed that Xenu was real? I would think that there are some readers who are asking this kind of question. Steve Dufour 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia is not a forum, and this would be a huge chunk of OR on the matter. If you wish to talk about the subject, my off-wiki contacts are on my user page -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I do think the question of Xenu's status as something in which people sincerely believe or just a story is a topic that the article should address. People have left Scientology who were OT3 or above, have they not? Maybe a quote from one of them could be found saying that they really believed in Xenu (or not) while a member. Steve Dufour 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizens

The opening sentence talks about Xenu's citizens. Is that the right word to use? Wouldn't a dictator have subjects, not citizens? Steve Dufour 11:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's OK with me. I put the word in there as an alternative to "alien" because I felt that alien conjured up images of ET and greys probing people while Scientology speaks of them as alternative versions of human. - perfectblue 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "people." That might not be the best word, but they were not citizens because to be that implies certain legal rights which people living under a dictator like Xenu would not have. Steve Dufour 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish to suggest that your discussion contains elements of OR. With all due respect, contemplating the legal rights of those folks would amount to pure conjecture. --Amit 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. Steve Dufour 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caney Creek, KY?

Not seeing this listed in volcano locations in any of the links. Is this an addendum, vandalism, or is there some citation I missed. Fraid it really piqued my curiosity (ie "Why the hell Kentucky?"). T L Miles 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kentucky volcano was only added recently. I can't find any mention of it either, so i removed it. Foobaz·o< 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some survived?

Near the top of the article where it discusses the A-bomb blasts it says: "Only a few aliens' physical bodies survived." It is true that some survived? I don't see how this could be possible. Steve Dufour 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the sentence off. If I was wrong about this please put it back. Steve Dufour 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

After Later in the article is said "When the thetans left the projection areas, they started to cluster together in groups of a few thousand, having lost the ability to differentiate between each other. Each cluster of thetans gathered into one of the few remaining bodies that survived the explosion. These became what are known as body thetans, which are said to be still clinging to and adversely affecting everyone except those Scientologists who have performed the necessary steps to remove them."

As it is said, some bodies "survived", and they ("infected" with a group of brainwashed souls) would become, well, we, humans. 201.30.204.3 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I will put the sentence back. Steve Dufour 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"No Joke Tag"/UK

I gotta say, although I understand the perceived necessity for the Joke tag, it should go without saying that there are no joke articles on WP, or at least certainly not one this long. Isn't the best way to treat people asking whether or not this is a joke by responding "no" or not responding at all. By adding the tag, you have allowed the Anti-Scientologists to win, including myself. Think about it, this tag is even more offensive. It is an insinuation that the article actually is a joke but everyone's just being politically correct. I would be offended if I browsed through the Jesus talk page and found a tag like that.

Also, that tag in unintentionally hilarious. I laughed out loud. It's funnier than the article. In fact, I think most people that look up Xenu are doing it for laughs. But that is besides the point.

Secondly, I'm sure the Scientology controversy is a bigger deal here in the US, but in Canada and the UK (and most other powerful countries) it is considered fiction. Only in America and Australia is this considered religion. So why are we being all hugsy-wugsy and writing in the past tense as if it actually happened? Thanks a bunch.--Asderoff 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. However, I suspect the reason to have the "not a joke" tag is that a number of people have felt compelled to ask on this talk page whether the article was a joke. --FOo 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Asderoff, I think it's outragous on your part to suggest that most people that look up Xenu are doing it for laughs. In fact you betray your contempt of the doctrine by admitting that you "laughed out loud". Wikipedia has no place for intolerant people, if I may add. Amit 05:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Amit, I thought the fact that he is an anti-Scientologist, and that he claimed the residents of most countries believe Scientology to be fiction, “betrayed [his] contempt of the doctrine”. And how does laughing at the “not a joke” tag illustrate contempt for the cult anyway? —Frungi 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not a joke" tag

As I predicted earlier, vandalism of the talk page and pointless "hay man is zenu for real ha ha" posts have only increased since placing the unnecessary and deliberately controversy-stirring "This is not a joke" tag. It's as much a derf-magnet as posting a "No Skateboarding Allowed Here" sign. I can't see any reason to retain it since it is demonstrably failing to achieve its purpose. wikipediatrix 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so i've boldly removed it. Foobaz·o< 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I stumbled upon this article, read the first paragraph, and—I mean no disrespect to ScientoIogists or their beliefs—I honestly laughed. It sounded ridiculous. So I went to the Talk page to make sure it wasn’t a joke, and fortunately, the first thing I saw (after a considerable amount of scrolling—tags are too big, can’t Wikipedia add a sidebar for them?) was a lengthy and mostly unproductive discussion about the fact that it wasn’t a joke. So I would be in favor of a “not a joke” tag, but not if its presence attracted vandals.
Also, wikipediatrix, it’s bad faith and bad logic to say the tag was “deliberately controversy-stirring”. —Frungi 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?

I'm not a scientologist, but even I think this article is biased. For example, "A common tactic used by Scientologists is to dismiss Xenu to outsiders as a joke" reminds me of a direct attack on Scientologists, who need "tactics" to explain their religion. Rm999 09:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Welcome to Wikipedia's Scientology articles, where the vast majority of the editors openly make no bones about their active opposition to Scientology. Impartial voices are greatly needed here in this tug-of-war between "Scientology Rules!" and "Scientology Sucks!", so please jump in and start editing if you feel so inclined. wikipediatrix 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reordered and rewritten the section to remove some of the more egregious prose. Hope it helps. --FOo 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that the bias in this article has a lot in common with slavery. How often do you hear people complaining they can't find someone who is willing to see the neutrality on using slave labor? I think the situation is similar in a sense and its hard to find people who are going to take an unbias side because one of the sides sounds absolutely absurd despite what people believe it. I understand its not a joke to them but to everyone else it is and that else is 99.9999% of the world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.86.14 (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check out my previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination). I made the point that the article does not assert what the heck Xenu really is. p.s. Slavery (unlike Xenu) had a very important role in human history. The article on it should mention that, not just how bad it is. p.p.s I am no longer advocating that Xenu's article be deleted, just that it should make itself more clear what it is about. Steve Dufour 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article already makes it pretty clear what Xenu is. Xenu is a personage mentioned in Scientology's OT III auditing level, who is claimed to have been the emperor of the Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago. --FOo 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article does not assert that anyone believes that is true, perhaps even Hubbard did not. Steve Dufour 04:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To claim that nobody believes it is true would be original research. In any event, we cannot get inside anyone's head and prove if they believe it; what we do know is that it is taught as part of OT III. It would be original research to claim that it is merely a parable or fable, after all, unless there are sources to support that claim. --FOo 09:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the point of my nomination for deletion. The article is way too long for something about which so little is really known. Do we really need a list of volcanoes? Steve Dufour 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New external link

An anon has added a new external link Galactic Patrol http://www.galac-patra.org/ Galactic Patrol. I don't think it's appropriate Amit@Talk 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it off. It seemed to be just a personal website. Steve Dufour 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

right|thumb|250px Almost all WP articles seem to start out with a picture of the subject, if there is one, on the upper right hand corner. I moved this picture, which is a picture of Xenu to that place in the article.

Here is the picture of that starts off the article on Jesus. Notice that, like the one of Xenu, it is just one artist's opinion and probably wrong about what he really looked like. Steve Dufour 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's another difference, though. The picture of Jesus was produced by Christians for use in a Christian church. The picture of Xenu was produced by non-Scientologists for use in a report about Scientology from an outside perspective.

The only image we have that "depicts" Xenu in a way created by a Scientologist is Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png which shows the word "Xenu" as written by Hubbard. Generally, the iconography that Scientologists derive from OT III is not pictures of Xenu, but rather pictures of a volcano, as used on current copies of Dianetics. --FOo 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. On the other hand, the BBC is certainly a reliable source. ;-) Steve Dufour 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

• Please see Image:Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg, and discuss at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_October_21#Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Recent user:Ashmoo edits

Recent edits by Ashmoo (talk · contribs) actually make a lot of sense. We should have a goal of staying tighter to citations within this article. After all, there are actually not that many in-line citations compared to other articles of this length and assessed quality. I am going to see if there is some interesting info in other sources not yet used in the References of this article to expand in interesting areas. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Much of article is off-topic

I was rereading the article and I noticed that much of it is not about the character Xenu at all, but rather about legal battles between the church and critics and freezoners over the OT3 material. There have also been legal battles recently over Gone with the Wind, but I don't think that belongs in the article on the character Scarlet O'Hara. Just a thought. I don't plan on doing any major edits to the article myself. (p.s. Looking over it again, maybe it is not so bad.) Steve Dufour 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is a featured article, a radical change of its topic structure would probably be counterproductive, and I don't support it. However, if it were to happen, the logical place to put that stuff would be OT III, which is currently a redirect to Operating Thetan -- and that page refers readers to this one as the primary article on the OT III / Wall of Fire / Xenu material. --FOo 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right. Still, still it is not very logical. Steve Dufour 06:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenu is largely "secret knowledge". Were Scarlet O'Hara a secret figure central to a secretive religion, documented only in a closely guarded text titled "Gone with the wind", which said secretive religion had battled long and hard to attempt to keep secret, then your analogy would hold.

There would be no public knowledge of Xenu, were it not for said OT3 material. As such, the topic of how this material has been made public is central to any discussion of Xenu. 67.164.1.228 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archival

• I have used User:MiszaBot to add automatic talk page archival to this discussion page. Threads where there has been zero activity or new posts for over one month will be archived to the current archive. When the current archive reaches more than 250K, a new archive will automatically be created. Please comment here if you have any objections to this, but this discussion page tends to get rather long and filled with unrelated threads. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Volcanos

I have found some resorces that claim that some of the volcanos didn't exist 75 million years ago...I am currently trying to varify that through non-inflamitory sources, however I am wondering if that information would add to this page at all, since it is primarily a critics point of view. If i find independant sources, do you think I should add it?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Be best if this was a secondary source. Does the source discuss the Xenu story directly, or just the volcanos? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

the origonal article was critical of scientology, I wasn't going to use that as a citation, it hardly seems like a non pov site. However I am trying to validate that information from a geological resource or some other non Xenu source. I take it that it would be worth noting if it is foundCoffeepusher (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Better if it is a secondary source that itself discusses the issue, and not a Wikipedia editor drawing a synthesis from other primary sources about volcanos. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

I fact checked the source, and it appears that his reserch can be backed up by secondary sources not related to Scientology. I added the information as it read, and incerted the quote by the author about his data. additionaly I cut two of his bibliograpy sources to provide some scientific source to the quote, as well as a former scientologists statement on why the volcano history is important. I want to emphisise that all of this is only ment to expand the article, hence the back checking.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• The sources you added don't seem to work. Some of them do not refer to OT3 or Xenu, and thus are WP:SYNTH/WP:OR sources (pulling conclusions together yourself from original work of others). The one source that does seem to fit, does not fit the qualifications of a source on Wikipedia - it is a personal paper posted by someone on their own website, not published. This new info should be removed, sorry, because it is interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

The ones that don't refer to OT3 are pulled from the referance page of the source, and back up the claim made in that source...and they are peer reviewed articles from scolorly sources, however I have removed those sources. and the one that is published is also reproduced on other cites, I just used a primary source for the link. I have given new sources, and ones that don't reference the article to show that this is information that comes from more than one soruce. thank you for helping me out with the references, I will definatly double check the requirements in the future.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, the source you provided does not seem to satisfy the source requirements on Wikipedia. As this is a Featured Article, sources should have even higher standards and this info should be removed, I'm sorry. I agree that it is an interesting analysis, but it just doesn't satisfy source policy. See WP:V and WP:RS for more info on why. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for giving me the oppertunity to delete my own writing. I will note some frustration in this situation, but it isn't directed toward you. if anyone can find a source that can be used to verify the analysis, please let us know, because I believe it did add somthing to the article...however this isn't a page for contriversy, and I understand that.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I agree with you, it is a very interesting analysis. If you ever do find another good secondary source for it, please let us know. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Clothes contradiction

The article starts off by saying that people in the Galactic Federation wore the same clothes as people in the 1950s, but then shows various drawings with increasingly outlandish costumes and even alien features. Is there a different description given somewhere else that explains these artworks, or is it just artistic license/humor? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good question. We'd have to find more information on that in valid WP:V/WP:RS sources in order to say so. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

POV Images

The images (except for the one of Xenu/Xemu in L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting) on this page are unnecessary and serve mostly to embellish upon attacks made upon Scientology. The worst image is the one that substitutes DIANETICS with "DONOTWANT." They are an eye-catching way to bring attention to their ridiculous captions.90.134.23.146 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dianetics image appears to be vandalism. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the obvious vandal image, the others provide illustrative commentary on reflections of the doctrine in popular culture. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

opening image

justahulk has delieted the picture of the space plane, and moved the paranormal xenu picture down into the body of the article. his reasoning is that the space plane constitutes wp:OR and that the paranomral picture shouldn't head the article.

I disagree with this statement, however he does pose a valid argument that should be discussed. I wanted to see what the active editors belive should be done.

note that I have already reverted the edits, however justahulk reverted back, so in order to avoid a clash of egos I submit the delema to the active editorsCoffeepusher (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ego, who has an ego (laff)? Clash of ids might be more like it. Monsters from the Id. Seriously though, the spaceplane art by whomever is clear WP:OR and the mockery image does not belong in the lead and I suspect that Steve was being tongue-in-cheek when he put it there. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a cut of my post from the image debate, that summerises my view on the matter. "the image is recognised as a depiction of Xenu by most people who are familiar with the topic...pro or con, they know what it represents by looking at it. an origional work would not hold the same value to the public eye. that should be the point of an image on the top of the page, recognition of the topic presented. if the church of scientology had an image they used regularly I would say use that one...however no image exists so we should use the next best thing which is a recognised depiction of Xenu." it is in this articles interest to discuss Xenu, not the churches dislike of the depiction of Xenu. as for the space planes...L.Ron said they looked like DC31's with rockets...the picture is of a DC31 with rockets...in the WP:ORsection it states that as long as photos are accurate, and only used to illistrate the article, it dosn't connotate origional reserch because it dosn't conflict witht the spirit of that policy...at least that is my reading on the matter.Coffeepusher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any rockets on the space plane image. It's one thing to create an illustration of a simple point, or to use a well-known pre-published illustration even if it is from an opponent, but this may be a bridge too far. Where do the rockets fit on the plane? How big is the flame? Are the wings exactly the same as a familiar commercial airliner or simply something like them? Specifically, do they have the commercial airliner shape that is clearly unfit for reentry? This may be a silly topic but Wikipedia does have standards. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard's words from a tape are "[..] threw 'em into space planes which were the exact copies of DC8's, the DC8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. And, no difference, except the DC8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't." There's no mention of rockets. AndroidCat (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That actually does sound like strong support for the image, but I'd still be wary of misinterpretations. Certainly if that exact quote were in the caption I'd be less worried. Perhaps you could restore the image captioned with that quote followed by (Wikipedia dramatization). 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Critics of Scientology place tremendous emphasis on the space planes to underscore the point that much of the story has a mid-twentieth century veneer and is therefore fictitious. To have a funny picture of an airplane flying through space not only slants the article, but places undue weight on the topic as well.90.134.23.146 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead? Cirt (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. I have gone over many WP articles about creation stories. The only ones I found with opening images are "Book of Genesis" and "Biblical cosmology." All the rest have no opening image. It is notable that those two images are historical art. Most of the creation story articles have a tab showing that they are part of a series on that particular religion. Here are my current suggestions: 1. Create a series on Scientology, have that banner (along with the Sceientology logo) at the beginning across from the Contents. 2. Remove the space plane image. If people insist that people must see a funny image such as this, place it somewhere in the article where it is actually relevant. (The summary should be completely rewritten, as it focuses on superficial facts such as aliens wearing 1950s clothing and flying Douglas DC-8s through space, along with having many other problems. 3. Remove the volcano image/caption in the Xenu's Volcanoes section and replace it with Dianetics book cover image with a caption about how the exploding volcano relates to them and the hydrogen bombs. (Rename the section to something like "List of Volcanoes" and place it near the end of the article.) 4. Remove the nuclear explosion image/caption. It is irrelevant and patronizing. 5. The Sea Org logo is nice. Make it more prominent. 6. Was the image of Xenu by BBC Panorama critical of Scientology? If not, then it should be either removed or placed in the popular culture section. Alternately: remake this article into one about the character Xenu and create another article about the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.249.238 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions are ... interesting. As to the idea about a "series" box at the top, the navigation footer is at the bottom of the article. As for the other stuff, I can only say that some sound plausible, but this article is a Featured Article and thus has been very highly reviewed by many editors already, and this stable version represents a semi-consensus as to images, though of course more free-use images would be welcome. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do not believe that being a Featured Article (three years ago) is a good argument for not changing an article. There have been hundreds of changes since then. And not to get off thread topic too much, there are many other major problems in this article. Given that this is a very controversial topic, we should be vigilant. I will post a few of the problems in another thread.90.135.249.238 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A Few Problems

Summary, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Scientologists believe... Not all Scientologists believe this. It is overly simplistic. Xenu in Scientology doctrine, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: (roughly 300,000 times longer than current scientific consensus holds the age of the universe to be) Do the creation stories of other religions get debunked while they are being explained on Wikipedia? This is an outside criticism and should be in that section. Just about every section of this article is either loaded with references from "critics" or seems to go out of its way to explain things in a non-plausible, almost humorous manner.90.135.249.238 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I interpret the second paragraph somewhat differently, in that Scientologists generally do know that there is a "Wall of Fire", although they don't know the contents of it. However, I think you're generally right about it. It should be made clear in that paragraph that Scientologists only learn about it when they reach OTIII.

As for other religions, I would point out that Creationism gets the scientific debunking treatment.

On the rest, I disagree. I just read it, and it seems to have a pretty matter-of-fact tone, and uses a lot of direct Hubbard quotes. --GoodDamon 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there an official position on anything in this post? If there was, it would show for a better comparison, if the "leaders" of the "religion" of scientology could be quoted. Atebo88 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting an official position on Xenu is difficult. Scientologists strongly believe the contents of the OT levels shouldn't be shared with people who haven't actually reached the OT levels. The now-publicly known text of OTIII has been verified as accurate in court proceedings, but outside of court they generally prefer not to talk about it. Unfortunately, that means all we really have to go on for reliable sources on it tend to be negative. --GoodDamon 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph: "critics say the story should be made public, given the high prices charged for OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to members who have already contributed large amounts of money to the organization." This is a barely relevant slam of Scientology that references a catch-all anti-Scientology news series. Does the reference make the direct claim that "critics" of Scientology believe that the story should be made public because they take advantage of people? Since critics can say just about anything, it might be better to just stick to the story and leave the controversial methods of the church out.90.135.28.185 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

On this page, L Ron Hubbard is noted as a "speculative fiction" writer, however on his own Wikipedia page he is noted for writing "pulp fiction" novels. Shouldn't this page be standardized to match the other, more accurate wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.153.116 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Speculative fiction" is a good way to summarize what he wrote in a shorter form on articles that aren't specifically devoted to him. On his biographical page, it makes sense to go into more specific details about what market he was writing for, although it might be a good idea to standardize the introductory references to his fiction career. --GoodDamon 05:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the Xenu story, second paragraph: "Critics of Scientology have suggested..." This references "Why Christians Object to Scientology, Christianity Today: A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction." That does not lend itself to even a shred of objectivity. Fourth paragraph: How does the remark about Christianity coming into being due to evil beings have any relationship at all to the origin of the Xenu story? Is there a reason to bring up Christian objections in this section?90.128.54.56 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the second paragraph of that section, it's in the second-to-last paragraph of the previous section, and is used to support the statement "Critics and some Christians state that Hubbard's statements regarding R6 prove that Scientology doctrine is incompatible with Christianity." It's there alongside a bunch of other citations from other reliable sources. I think it's perfectly valid in that context. --GoodDamon 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my mistake. The point remains, however, because in that section it goes from talking about "Xenu in Scientology doctrine" to its relation to Christian doctrine without even a segue. This topic is further talked about in the "Origin..." section. How is this information at all relevant? Should we pepper Islam articles with similar observations? How is Christianity even relevant except to Christians contemplating Scientology. At the very least put it all in the critics section. Even then, I would not consider self-described Evangelicals with ordinary critics because they very publicly believe that non-Christians burn for eternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.54.56 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Four section

Removed the new Fantastic Four section, as it was not sourced to any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and was completely WP:OR conjecture. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Forum posts are definitely not acceptable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. It was a reference to an external post giving an example of the sort of criticism mentioned in the section. As for not linking to verifiable sources, I'd love for you to explain how giving the exact issue and comic title in which the character appeared is not verifiable. Also, how is this original research? I gave a link to where the idea came from. This is not my idea. It was someone else's. Nightrose (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue itself is a primary source, need secondary sources discussing this in relation to "Xenu". And the forum posts are not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, in fairness the South Park section should be removed as well as it cites no sources relevant to the discussion of Xenu.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightrose (talk • contribs)

Actually, it does cite a secondary, WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, not to mention that it is also a summary of a Featured Article. But you are correct in that that particular paragraph could use some more extensive sourcing. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it dosn't belong for all the reasons given above. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent quote placement changes

Please see WP:MOSQUOTE. Quotes go before punctuation, for fragments/anything other than full-quoted sentences. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spaceplane and Volcano images

The inclusion of these images in the article has been discussed at length in talk page archives, and they should both remain in the article. I agree with the removal of the nuclear explosion image, however. Cirt (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Big Boss Inc., please discuss large, controversial changes on the talk page first. --GoodDamon 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dianetics cover has both a volcano and an explosion. A caption could point this out and make the link to the story very clear while also providing a visual.90.135.28.185 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

After I restored the version of Big Boss Inc. (talk · contribs) with the 2 images removed, Foobaz (talk · contribs) added the Space Plane image back in. The Volcano image, however, is still missing. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the space plane image deserves to be in the article as it is directly supported by Hubbard's writing. For full disclosure, I should mention that I contributed to the image. I have no opinion on the volcano image, which is why I didn't add it back at the same time. Foobaz·o< 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The visuals add so much to the article and are completely in proper context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.67.187 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

After thumbing through an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia, which had hundreds of illustrations, I think we can safely say it's standard operating procedure for encyclopedias to illustrate their concepts -- tastefully, please! -- where appropriate. --GoodDamon 23:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You have it exactly right! Would it be okay to have in the evolution article a humorous photograph of an ape or an illustration of a chimera? I once saw a spoof article on the Hmong people that depicted them as Sasquatch or predecessors to Homo sapiens that was full of smarmy images like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.28.185 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be different, for evolution do not say chimera have ever existed. I do not understand what you mean about the ape, because it would not be a representation of the evolution of a specie. Hubbard described the space-dc-8, they're supposed to have carried 13'500'000'000'000 aliens on earth. That is not nothing, therefor these space planes are importants. I think an image is important, for it also show how they did look like. 84.226.97.26 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Critics of evolution want supporters of the theory to endlessly produce evidence of a "missing link" between species. As new species are found, they demand a link between them and other known species. They are "looking for" a chimeric fantasy creature that they know does not exist. The Southpark intelligent design episode shows this when the children are taught about the monkey-fish-frog. Or imagine an image of the Sistine Chapel with the caption "Old man in the clouds?" and you can see the massive potential for abuse by clever people. The space plane image is important if you want to really make clear that this story could not possibly be true. That should not be within the scope of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.54.56 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, here is a link to Scientology protest video and over 1/4 of it is the image of the spaceplane. http://youtube.com/watch?v=VLJ9lt7eh8s90.128.54.56 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle, here. Your analogy to humorous Sasquatch photos is spurious, because those would not even remotely illustrate the evidence regarding evolution. And as for the space plane making it "clear that this story could not possibly be true," the illustration simply represents what Hubbard described. Unlike the theoretical picture of Sasquatch, the picture is an accurate depiction taken directly from Hubbard's words. Whether you find it to be ridiculous or not is immaterial. And frankly, whether you find it ridiculous or not would really depend on whether you believe it or not, wouldn't it? --GoodDamon 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I do not believe it at all and I consider the picture laughable. I have shown evidence that this image is used primarily to make fun of or denounce Scientology. It is for this reason that it should not be included in a neutral presentation. For a final example, look at the Wikipedia article on Don Lapre. Look at the main image and look at the discussion page. The picture of him is a farce, but it must stay because that is the way people insist it simply has to be.90.128.54.56 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Small note, this entire discussion is a perfict example of the Red Herring falicy in logic.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, how ridiculous the image appears to you is immaterial. What's important is whether it accurately depicts the concept it is trying to convey. Which do you find laughable, the image or the concept it represents? It's an important distinction. If you find the picture itself laughable... Why? It's true to Hubbard's words, contains no insulting images of cartoon space aliens or anything like that, and in my opinion is actually a very tasteful portrayal of a concept that many people find difficult to treat with neutrality. If it's the concept of space planes itself that you find laughable, then I'm afraid that's a non-starter. The concept is, according to the reliable sources, a part of Scientology, so it has to stay.

Look... We have to go with what reliable sources we have concerning Scientology's OT III beliefs, and Xenu's planes figure heavily in those sources. As Wikipedia editors, it isn't up to us to insert opinions about sources, or the information they provide. So I guess what I'd like to know is what, precisely, is wrong with the picture, if it's tastefully done and accurately rendered? --GoodDamon 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think any part of what I said hinges on what I think (and I realize that what I think does not matter). You asked if thinking a certain way depended upon believing the story. It seemed as if you were implying that I was a Scientologist. I wanted to answer your question, show an example, and make clear that I am not a Scientologist. I apologize for any confusion. As for the image, just google image search "xenu space plane". You will see several websites with this picture. I visited each one and did not find anything constructive at all. It was pure Scientology bashing. I clearly am not the only one who finds the image amusing. As for being tasteful, is it tasteful to have an American flag on it? The Douglas DC-8 WP article has a fine picture of the aircraft that was not edited to support critics of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.78.161 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the image appears on a bunch of critical websites. They may have appropriated it, but that doesn't invalidate it.

However, you have made a good point about the flag. I don't think it was placed there by the artist, as some DC-8 planes no doubt have American flags on them, but certainly an improved version of the picture could be made without it. However, I personally have no artistic skill in that area. I suppose you are free to replace the image with a more appropriate one if you can find or make one. --GoodDamon 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What US flag? I don't see one on the plane. Please point out where it is. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's on the tail fin, very small, over the NASA logo... which come to think of it, isn't really suitable for the image either. I think there should be a space plane image, but I'm beginning to think this one's just a tad too messy for encyclopedic content. --GoodDamon 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They use it because it is funny. Wikipedia should have higher standards than that.90.134.197.77 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, and figure they use it because there aren't very many pictures of spaceplanes out there, and no one with any artistic skill has stepped forward to fill the void. I'd like to replace it, but I have the artistic talent of a gnat. --GoodDamon 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point any longer. Thank you for your efforts. Google image search spaceplane for early 21st century designs of orbital aircraft. What I was trying to get across is that cleaning up the image will not fix the problems with this article. I have pointed out several, and there are many more. They are primarily neutrality issues, and their consistency makes assuming good faith a challenge to me (which is why I have not edited (and will not edit) the article myself).90.134.86.192 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cynical Biase

This is just one big slap to scientology, hell even the Nazi page has more indifferent narrative than this. The tone throughout the article is insinuating that Scientologists are stupid, crazy and actually believe the Xenu story to be real. This is unjust, and I'd like to see some changes made to it. I'm not a Scientologist, but I believe that EVERYONE is needed to be given a fair article from an unbiased viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.164.167 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources indicate that the OT III material is about Xenu and the space opera. We have to go by what they say, and thus far they do seem to indicate that Scientologists have to assimilate OT III before they can advance to OT IV and higher. I think what you're seeing is something that the church could clear up if they allowed the contents of these levels to officially become public knowledge, along with the actual mechanisms for advancement. Right now, the reliable sources can only use leaked material and information from former members, which in my opinion tends to slant them negatively. Thus, you end up with articles like this one, that only have negative reliable sources to rely on. --GoodDamon 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a great point. As for cynics, my sheer speculation is that the church has good intentions and their belief is that their material simply must be digested one step at a time for it to work. A theme is that we all have a false sense of reality. If they can break a person down, get them to believe a story like this and then work them through unlearning this belief through rigorous mental training, then the person may be able to unlearn other irrational beliefs. But that is sheer speculation.90.135.28.185 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely speculation. We have the text of OT III, and reports on how it's treated by former members of the organization. What we don't have is the church's actual stance on the material, so what you describe is total conjecture. --GoodDamon 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have confirmation that the CoS thinks the leaked OT III text is authentic. They've repeatedly sued claiming that it's a copyrighted work being distributed without permission. But it can't be a copyright violation if the text is inauthentic -- if it were a forgery written by an opponent of the CoS, then the copyright would vest in that opponent, and the CoS would have no standing to claim copyright violation. Therefore, by so claiming, they admit that the text is authentic.

That doesn't demonstrate how they think about the text, how they interpret or relate to it: whether it's considered to be history or allegory, for instance, which is an important distinction in other religions. --FOo (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section covering the CoS position on Xenu and the accounts of former members of the organisation, many of whom have been high enough in the organisation to know the Church stance on the subject is included. Those accounts might be false but given the well cited policy of the organisation to lie about the nature/existence of their belief in this topic I think presenting both is an acceptable solution. It's not as if a press release from the CoS saying "Xenu is not and never has been taken literally" would prove the rest of the article to be false. --AlexCatlin (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

True. What we know about Xenu is that Xenu is described in certain Scientology training materials (OT III). What we don't know is the ontological status that believers ascribe to those descriptions.

Consider the difference between how a liberal Christian and a fundamentalist Christian might discuss the figures of Adam and Eve in the Bible. The two Christians agree on what the Bible says about Adam and Eve: they agree on what the text of the Bible is. They work from the same text. However, the liberal Christian sees the story as an allegory, a morally instructive but not literally true tale about sin in the world. The fundamentalist sees it as history: as a true claim that an actual man named Adam and an actual woman named Eve existed in the world.

Scientologists do not offer interpretations of Hubbard's teachings; indeed, it's specifically forbidden, as they're always supposed to refer to "Source" and not to "alter-is". (This, by the way, seems to be an idea Hubbard cadged from Aleister Crowley, whose "Comment" on the Book of the Law says the same.)

So, in any event, we should (and do) describe what OT III says about Xenu. But we should avoid offering any interpretation, for instance claiming that upper-level Scientologists believe the Xenu story. --FOo (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, Uncyclopedia has an article about Xenu, and they recommend the readers to read this article instead. Why? Because it's actually funnier! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herr Böse (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Have there actually been any deaths due to people knowing about the Xenu story?

Have there ever been any deaths proven to have originated via people hearing about this story? If not, then that saps from the credibility of Hubbard's warning. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe any have been documented. However, it's noteworthy that OT III does not seem to claim that merely hearing about Xenu without preparation is harmful. It seems to suggest, rather, that attempting to clear the "implant" (suppressed spiritual memory) planted by Xenu would suffer such consequences. The implant isn't just the Xenu story itself, but specifically your body thetans' past-life memories of being captured, frozen, bombed, and then subjected to brainwashing movies. --FOo (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should this article sap L. Ron Hubbard's credibility?83.189.78.161 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics book cover reference to Xenu story?

... volcano on the cover of Dianetics refers to the Xenu story, according to court statements by Church of Scientology representatives ...

Does anyone know what the source is for this caption that was removed? Cirt (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 479 of the cross-examination of Warren McShane, Religious Technology Center vs Factnet et al, September 12, 1995. See http://web.archive.org/web/20070213225805/http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/coskit/faegre/injunc/mcshane3.html and search for "Dianetics". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add that back with cite info. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling?

ChrisO, how could discussion about the merits of a caption that reads "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE" be trolling? Especially when it is possible to post an image of Xenu from the same South Park episode that does not have those words printed on it? I apologize if it looked like trolling, although I do not see how it could have been interpreted that way.83.191.182.105 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is how the screen was shown for the episode's initial broadcast. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It was interpreted as trolling because during the discussion it became clear that no point was actually being discussed, rather individual points where being brought up in order to bring up arguments. the post started with remove the picture...then remove the entire section...then save the section but remove the picture...then the question of wether the screenshot was an accurate portrail of the origional show and it was suggested that either a anti-scientology website may have superimposed it onto the show...or the creators did it after the fact. none of these points are invalid, but the fact that they all appeared, disjointed on the same post indicates that a possible troll may be loose.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned getting rid of the enitre section because "in popular culture" sections are frowned upon. The main point that I was trying to make is that even though I did not see the original episode (I caught it on an anti-Scientology site, as I mentioned) there is a brief clip of Xenu that does not have the statement. I think that one would be better, unless the consensus is that the statement adds something to the image (such as South Park humor and point of view). The points were in no way intended to bring up arguments. The whole reason I am spending time on this is because this article is (in my humble opinion) heavily slanted throughout.83.189.114.70 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The NASA Connection

While I can see the arguments for having a picture of a DC-8 in space in the article, could you please get rid of the NASA logo? I spend an unreasonable amount of time to figure out what the connection was between Xenu and NASA was. Answer: Apparently none, except that NASA created the image for another purpose, and that image has been re-(ab)used here.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, except I'm not a talented enough artist to generate the replacement artistic interpretation. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? --GoodDamon 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stab. That's the word. :) I've removed the flag, NASA symbol and name. The image is in commons, so I had to create a new 1A version. AndroidCat (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. It's a better "stab" than I could ever have taken at it. :) --GoodDamon 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you better strike out "xenu" as well. The idea of DC-8's in space is pretty ridiculous in itself, there is no reason to add to the hilarity by suggesting Xenu was using a Latin alphabet (unless Hubbard also made that claim).--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is less rediculous that the nasa logo, and the sea org logo may fall under copyright violation (which I believe has already been discussed...but I can't remember). its Xenu's space planes and the Xenu name represents this...unless you have a source that gives a more acurate logo.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The logos are just the icing on the cake. I have looked over more Scientology-related WP articles lately and it seems that this cake is being served at a birthday party.90.134.56.2 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for flying Xenu airlines! Even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.115.180 (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My 'shop-fu is weak, and I needed something to cover the smudge left from removing the NASA name and logo. How about a headless man in a black suit? AndroidCat (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to emboss the image with "This is what Scientologists really believe."213.29.115.10 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

um...that would be counterproductive to this entire discussionCoffeepusher (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you need something? Why not plain white?90.134.215.70 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

see three posts above youCoffeepusher (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. To clarify, I was referring to the choice of what to use, as a plain white something would be better than something clearly detrimental. By detrimental I mean things like national flags, aircraft identification numbers, insignias of aerospace agencies and the word Xenu written in the Latin alphabet. These things highlight the fact that this picture is, in fact, an airplane on a background taken from the Hubble telescope rather than a space vehicle.

That is a small issue, however, since the picture quite clearly is an airplane, and airplanes certainly do not fly through space and therefore the meaning is clear in any case.

By the way, I looked at the original image an now believe it may have been uploaded by this person: http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/owen1.html .90.128.44.24 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)