Talk:Xenu/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Turbo Jets and Fan Jets 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Xenu responsible for famous OS? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proof that Scientologists are not Wikipedia Savvy (at least for the moment) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Series Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that long discussion of South Park is completely unwarranted in this article.  Vivaldi 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trapped in the closet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment from 83.236.12.58 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree - I'll remove the tag and if anyone objects please feel free to revert. POW! 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Xenuism joke page 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BBC Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted external link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ummm... Yeah. Only not. The Xenu doctrine was uncovered in court proceedings, as is well documented. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, there's here , and here , and here  for starters.  --Modemac 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cover cram 

message: 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  
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Kasreyn 06:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Xenu story a Distraction? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First Church of Xenu... Should it have an Article? 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  ---------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) 

message: 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)
replies: text: And so there is:  .  Enjoy.  Kasreyn 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of know scientologist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Removed sites with copyvios. --Spanked 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade secrets? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Costs of advanced levels 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paralysed With Alcohol/Glycol? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this a joke or something? 

message: To me, the conjecture seems unlikely, but I scored lowly on a Scientology IQ test. Rintrah 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I know. I was attempting subtle irony. Rintrah 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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 . Rintrah 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Daily Show 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bowser=Xenu?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. -- febtalk  23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Well it is a religion and a belief. --AnYoNe! 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legitimate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: HAIL XENU, I mean MING, 86.6.207.111 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also might compare Xenu with: Satan, Devil, Lucifer, Sauron, and Cthulhu. :-)  Steve Dufour 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperor Ming the Merciless 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  added pictures 

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

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Scientific Critique 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning.  Steve Dufour 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda thought you might, Steve. But I think our reasons are a bit different. --Trovatore 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.Grrrilla 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a left-over paragraph in the section on the volcanos by the same reasoning. Steve Dufour 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific critiques section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Negative statement removed 

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: I think it's part of the notability policies for fiction. Steve Dufour 05:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's where it is talked about most: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Steve Dufour 06:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:FA]] a ridicule of [[Scientology]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: As I understand it, the section was taken out because it was original research. Steve Dufour 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific Criticism? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Xenu's volcanoes 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why xenu? response 

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea to me! Steve Dufour 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FAQ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 WrightOBJECTION!  01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 WrightOBJECTION!  05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people believe in Xenu? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You are probably right. Steve Dufour 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizens 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caney Creek, KY? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "No Joke Tag"/UK 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, so i've boldly removed it. Foobaz·o< 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Not a joke" tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV? 

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

message: *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)
thread_title:  Image nominated for deletion 

message: Recent edits by  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)
thread_title:  Recent [[user:Ashmoo]] edits 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Talk page archival 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Volcanos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clothes contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Dianetics image appears to be vandalism.  Cirt (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: What would you suggest instead?  Cirt (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  opening image 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Why should this article sap L. Ron Hubbard's credibility?83.189.78.161 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Have there actually been any deaths due to people knowing about the Xenu story?

message: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add that back with cite info.  Cirt (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dianetics book cover reference to Xenu story? 

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