Talk:Rundown (Scientology)

message: Scientology has a bunch of rundowns, so I made an article and a category for them. --Davidstrauss 06:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Creation 

message: The cites need to be upgraded to the new ref style. --Davidstrauss 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Okay, this is a new one on me, or maybe we could impprove the phrasing. I don't recall anywhere in the higher OT levels asserting that creatures with horns on their head and spikey tails rise from a "hell" (located at the center of the planet earth) to wreak havok in their fight against an Abrahamic god....Was perhaps Hubbard using the word "demon" in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one, or explaining that humans percieving demons are actually percieving something, but they don't realize that what they think of as a "minion of the devil" is actually a BT, or other non-demonic entity? I happen to believe in daemons, as a real, existing, thing, they handle processing on my Unix servers, but that doesn't mean I believe in a christian "demon" or muslim "djinn" concept. Ronabop 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey there... I believe LRH begins to use the term "demon" as interchangeable with "Body Thetan" in the NOTs... I'll search for a source on that. I also know he talks about demons in a very literal sense in some of his lectures, including the Para-Scientology one. wikipediatrix 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary gives 3 definitions of "Demon". Two of them specify, Slang, Hubbard uses the term in a slang manner and not a literal manner.  "Demon, Slang. a by-pass circuit in the mind, called demon because it was long so interpreted. Probably an electronic mechanism."  And by that Hubbard means to say, the guy is talking at a telephone pole, he is manifesting "demons", circuits or things of the mind which he is not entirely concious of.  The same dictionary goes on to define "Demon circuits" with more detail, basically they are mechanisms which an individual is not fully aware of but which acts on him so that he does things which, if he were fully aware, he would probably not do.  Such as talking to post or pushing a shopping cart down the street while talking to himself. Terryeo 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see it was added by Wikipediatrix . I'd agree that this edit is somewhat suspicious, and not well-sourced. The CCRD is about having the requested cognition "I mock up my reactive mind", I never heard about "demons" in that context. --Tilman 07:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest we wait a few days to see if anyone can bring up sources, and if not, delete it. --Tilman 07:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm deleting it. This has been questioned here for a long time, no source has been brought, and does not sound like scientology. What we really need now is a RS for the cognition. I'll paraphrase from the "state of clear" policy at a later time. --Tilman 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demons? 

message: Can anyone find an additional online reference for the quote starting: "In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip..." - http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/015.html 
It is from Professional Auditor's Bulletin No. 119, 1st September 1957, "The Big Auditing Problem," as published in "Level 0 PABS," by L. Ron Hubbard (c1968, The American St. Hill Organization), pages 80-81
-- Firefishy (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African Rundown Quote 

message: I've looked for some evidence that the "Sunshine Rundown" involves taking or administering LSD as this page's current state suggests. I haven't found any, in any literature or any anecdotes, anywhere, period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Sunshine Rundown" - removal 

message: Per this claim by Mark Rathbun , is there evidence of the existence of an actual rundown called the Truth Rundown that is verifiable based on a reliable secondary or tertiary source? Laval (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of "Truth Rundown"?

message: Substituted at 05:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The topic has value. Some of the rundowns are obscure and can be deleted. Others are important and well documented, including: Clear Certainty, False Purpose, Introspection, and Purification. The Super Power Rundown is an anchor for some wikilinks in other articles. I will be working on this article. Although the word "rundown" is used all throughout the wiki scientology articles, there is no place where "rundown" is explained or defined. Grorp (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion is not value: it’s notability. These “rundowns” do not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify a separate page from Scientology beliefs and practices, where the available secondary information (not significant coverage) can be described with ample room to spare for other aspects. There is some brief discussion of this in Urban and I think Reitman. Atack described them. There’s not enough to make a separate article. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally got around to writing a section for "rundowns" which I put into . I put it over there not because I thought the topic wasn't notable enough for a standalone article, but because there are far too many "bits and pieces" of the Scientology topic annoyingly scattered across the wikiverse and it fit nicely over there. I wanted some content that would describe/define "rundown", give some examples, and show the breadth of the topic—without going into too much detail like the older version of this article did.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  11:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrecting article from redirect