Talk:Space opera in Scientology/Archive 1

message: If one crefully reads the only paragraph in this article that talks about outside scientology opinion one finds that it is written in a way that disguises its lack of neutrality: out of roughly 1500 characters of this paragraph only 100 deal with non scientology opinion. one sentence of content is actually related to what the paragraph is about, while the remaining 11 sentences talk about other content, not related to Non-Scientologists in any way. i therefore mark this article with the Neutrality Disputed Flag.
:I don't know who the anonymous editor was the left the tag, but I don't think the article deserves an NPOV tag based solely on this minor and unintelligible objection by this anon.  Provide an explanation on how we can improve the article or better yet, edit the article to be more NPOV.  We have lots of editors here that are willing to participate in improving it.  Vivaldi (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality in "Non-Scientologists and space opera"

message: This does not even deserve to be called CHURCH..This is nothing but science fiction. It is surprising how many fools follow this.
::The same could be said of any religion.
:::Most scriptures are better written. As sci-fi, this is some pretty inane (albeit trippy) stuff. It's like he wasn't even trying. At any rate, this isn't the forum for a critique; let's try and keep this article's talk page uncluttered, 'kay? 82.166.53.176 15:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheer waste of time

message: Some of the order of the sections needs to be brought together for a logical focus. Right now it is somewhat haphazard, with juicy bits pushed out of sequence to the detriment of article integrity. 
Also an analysis of the actual point of contention from a NPOV vs is important. See the version with the section (The Roots of Space Opera) that section is informative, logical, and should included.
:Stating "Space Opera forms a major portion of Scientology beliefs" is an opinion.  It is an opinion that might be well founded but it is an opinion and not an opinion that any qualified professional person has stated.  Qualified professionals would be Scholars, Doctors of Divinity and such.  Persons of that education and level of competence have been queried and they have written their professional opinions about Scientology.  May I provide the link? None of their opinions include "Space opera forms a major portion (or even a minor portion) of Scientology beliefs"  That statement is purely the opinion of the author of the article.  It is not documented, it is not stated as an opinion and yet no one takes the slightest hint of responsibility for it.  That's just wrong, whether supported by Wikipedia or not.  It might even be legally actionable by the COS unless stated as an opinion. Terryeo 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please heed the advice given to you on Talk:Scientology and adhere to the official Wikipedia policy of not making legal threats. We can discuss this issue rationally without anyone trying to bully their POV into the article. If you are arguing that the Space Opera is neither a major nor a minor portion of Scientology beliefs, then are you saying that it isn't a belief at all? If that's the case, then what is it? -Silence 07:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read and understand not making legal threats and thank you for once again restating what ChrisO earlier told me :)  I mean to put space opera into a context because an understanding of what Scientology is would include things like this.  Scientology has beliefs. Basically it believes that humans are capable of knowing.  On this single starting point the rest of it rests.  The controvery arises when people view informations which are bonafide Scientology informations, but take them out of context without understanding the significance of such bits and pieces.  Yes, there is space opera and it comprises maybe 5000 words of text out of 25 million words of text. That's my rough guess at it. Terryeo 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: True Encyclopedic Format

message: Nice one. I think we can get this up to FAC status in a week if we try hard. Maybe run it past Peer Review as well - David Gerard 7 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
Chris, this version of the article is even better - a featured article standard already. VWD :-) --NicholasTurnbull 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
I've just nominated it for Wikipedia:Peer review. Let's see what the horrified masses make of it - David Gerard 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
:Good overview, though not as outrageously insane as Xenu (I was pulling my hair when I was reading that).  I have two small comments to make:  Do you think Space opera in Scientology would be a more concise title?  Also, about the sentence  beginning with, "Many science-fictional references...":  Wouldn't Hubbard's view of these be more like similarities or parallels than references?  CanadianCaesar 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I've made your title a redirect, fwiw. You can of course make that change yourself :-) - David Gerard 15:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know, but I know nothing of Scientology, or the terms they use.  CanadianCaesar 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Count yourself lucky. (/me sporks own brain out) - David Gerard 10:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Did it ever make the front page?--218.223.193.144 11:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article push

message: I've moved a general para on space opera from Xenu to the intro. Could do with some untangling, though - David Gerard 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it untangled. :-) -- ChrisO 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: [below was content of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine as at 21:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article comments 

message: Just after the FA request was closed, Dave above added:
*Could you add a descriptions of the confusion the goals allegedly cause?  For example, if I'm supposed ""To End", "To be Dead", "To be Asleep", "To be Solid", "To be Sexual" and so on," what problems would that cause in me today?  Why is it important to "clear" all of these?  If this is added, I think I'll be ready to support. Dave (talk) 14:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 14:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify the goals (FA request)

message: Image is on the Main page but doesn't show on the Article page. hydnjo talk 02:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep reloading the page until it does :-) I've left an HTML comment in the source for the next person who think's it's just a dead image ... - David Gerard 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Xenu space plane.jpg]]

message: I am so glad this article was featured.  I might have missed it otherwise.  It shows just how impressive the unvarnished facts can be -- much more effective than any argument against them.  And, even more important, it shows how the beliefs of any religion look to a non-believer.  Compare the beliefs of Scientology, for example, to the story about the big boat with all the animals in it.
--Anonymous
: Yeah, they're both silly myths, but promulgators of the flood myth have pretty much left their vicious adolescent history behind them a couple of centuries ago.  These days, you only occasionally hear about the Xtians offing someone in an exorrcism when they should have consulted a competent psychiatrist instead. --Anonymous
:: The easiest way to discourage someone interested in scientology from getting into it is to get a hold of their advanced teachings and showing them what kind of kookiness they are actually getting into. The webmaster of skepdic.com made an intersting observation about these sorts of things, not an exact quote but the idea was this: at first these kinds of cults, or religions, or organizations, or whatever you want to call them, get people intersted by presenting knowledge, which most people who have a secondary education, and paid attention, learned as basic psychology and philosophy, as the religion's own ideas. So people are at first fascinated by these "insights" and think there must be something to the religion. When they get to the higher levels it makes it easier to swallow since a trust as already been established in the mosr mundane lower levels. 
:: They also use another intersting tactic: I took the so called "IQ" test (which it is not really)at the CoS headquarters in Hollywood once. (I stayed the night with a friend who happened to live down the street and we were bored in the morning.) The questions they ask are full of Scientology jargon that nobody who hasn't taken the courses could expect to know ("wax enthusiastic" is one of the most often used ones).Inevitably anyone not already initiated into Scientology is going to be left with a lot of "room for improvement." People who don't know it's a real IQ test will think they are stupid because they think it's a real IQ test, so they take the courses, thier supposed "IQ" score improves and then they think Scientology is making them smarter, when really the courses just made the familiar with the jargon. --Brentt 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What a delightful article

message: This article is a shining example of NPOV and is about as good as an article could get.  Much thanks to the writers.  Paul 19:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is one of the funniest things I ever read. Enough so I was pretty confident it was a joke at first. I'm still uncertain that it really isn't a joke, but I imagine when any belief is relatively new it looks peculiar. I know the Druze's actual beliefs seemed very weird to early Muslims. Anyway I just hope you guys don't get sued:)--T. Anthony 10:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent article

message: I don’t know if it’s openly known but it would be great to have an article about how the money flows in the church of scientology.  To answer questions along this line:
# Is there a central board of directors? If so who are they and what exactly do they do.
# I there a single individual on top or a family? Who?
# From what I understand the church has assets and investments worth in billions of dollars.  Where or how is the money invested?
# With that kind of money there must be major financial planning.  Who is in charge and how is it distributed thought out the organization?
# Does the money stay at the colleted church or is it centralized at a main location?
# Do they have collection goals?  What things require members to pay and how much do they cost?
# As I understand there is a larger number of members on the payroll, who, why, and how much?  
I am guessing with the amount of money they deal with it should not be to difficult to find out investments, who the people involved at the upper level are.  Basically who is on top of scientology, a group of individuals? A family? A single person?  Who are they and a little bit about them.
:I'm assuming you've had a look at the articles on Scientology, Church of Scientology, Scientology controversy, and some of the others in Wikipedia's Scientology category. Those articles have some information about the church's finances and powerful figures such as David Miscavige. If you feel they're lacking in the information you're looking for it might be a good idea to bring it up on the talk pages of those particular articles, as this one concerns the role of space opera and isn't really the place for detail on some of the things you mention. Having said that, the people who work on our Scientology articles are bound to come across your comment here. — Trilobite 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a fantastic idea for an article. Hmm ... - David Gerard 01:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Article- I’d like more on the church’s financial structure. 

message: This sentence is in the Scientology and science fiction section:
"Many science-fictional references can be found in Hubbard's Scientology-related works. Scientologists could find themselves living in "robot bodies" in past lives, being killed by "zap guns", living aboard spaceships or flying "space wagons" capable of travelling "a trillion light years per day". ("The Helatrobus Implants") "
What is the parenthetical reference at the end supposed to mean?  It seems like it might be an orphan from some past edit, as it doesn't seem to connect at all to either the sentence before or after, nor does it look like a citation... . Blurble 15:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference to the lecture in which those things are described by Hubbard. -- ChrisO 19:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Helatrobus Implants - misplaced comment? 

message: It's the obvious source of Hubbard's usage, which may not be obvious to many people, so please put the link back. AnonMoos 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's so obvious, then the link isn't necessary. Hubbard turned hundreds of words and phrases into his own, and we don't link to generic articles for Hubbardized words like "Clear" and "Hat". If you want to start a "Hoipolloi (Scientology)" article and link to that, that would be appropriate. wikipediatrix 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you misinterpret what I wrote above?  Nevertheless, if "Clear" and "hat" were less-commonly used words whose traditional meanings were not  necessarily understood by everybody, then there would indeed be links to those articles from the Scientology articles. AnonMoos 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it depends on your level of erudition. "Hoi Polloi" is a perfectly common term to me and it would never occur to me that it needed defining or clarifying. Nevertheless, the Hoi Polloi in Hoi polloi is not the same Hoipolloi that is being referenced in the article, so unless you want to create a disambiguation page, the link only creates confusion. wikipediatrix 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't there be some mention of the connection? If Hubbard is stipulating that Hoipolloi was in fact the name of a real pre-historic group, then the obvious derivation undermines his credibility and the claim that the stories are real history. If that wasn't their name and Hubbard is just using the term to identify them as a group of common folk, then there should at least some mention of the connotation for the less literate among us. 66.122.73.102 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoi polloi

message: Someone obviously did a great deal of original research to put this section together. They deserve a lot of credit for their efforts. I hope they will provide the citations so the reader can verify these statements. I am familiar with a couple of the terms, such as Marcab Conferation and Fifth Invader Force, but most of these incidents are a complete mystery to me. Where did they come from? dcottle561 17:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no original research here: the sources are already given appropriately in the article. For example, if you look carefully and slowly at the article again, you will see that the Marcab info is from Hubbard's Auditing Comm Cycles, E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing, Create and Confront, A History of Man, and Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah. Further references are made available at the bottom of the page, in a section cleverly titled "References". wikipediatrix 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, Bare-Faced Messiah, by Russell Miller !  Was there some secret which Hubbard whispered to him about some Marcab Federation back in the 50's sometime or another?  Some little tidbit which Hubbard did not publish except through word-of-mouth to Miller? Terryeo 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, simply making snide and unsupported insinuations about Miller's work (insinuations which you would realize were false if you actually read the book, or if you even did a halfway careful reading of the article) is not helpful to the process of editing the article.  In fact, it's pretty disruptive, just like your constant nonsensical insistence that Scientology is not a belief system and your sneering attacks on other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology's history of the universe 

message: The image caption notes that "Hubbard said that Xenu's victims were transported in interstellar space planes which looked exactly like Douglas DC-8s."  But this fact isn't mentioned at all in the body of the article.  I'd like to see a citation for the DC-8 thing. Patiwat 09:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Xenu. I'll see if I can make this clearer. -- ChrisO 10:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DC-8 thing 

message: Most of the titillating quotes about alien civilizations come from transcripts of Hubbard's lectures. These lectures were not always necessarily Scientology-related, and were often simply about whatever fanciful stuff popped into his head. Is it wacky and kooky? Of course. And if you listen to the recordings, the audience is laughing good-naturedly about it and so is Hubbard. Was it ever intended, then or now, to be absolute Scientology doctrine he was spouting? Absolutely not, and there's no proof otherwise. Attacking Scientology today by way of holding it literally accountable for goofy jokes, stories and allegories told in 1950's/1960's  Hubbard lectures is not only wrong, it's a very desperate kind of wrongness. This article's entire premise is based on the false assumption that "if Hubbard joked about it in a lecture in 1956, then it's serious core Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will simply copy over my comments from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Space opera in Scientology doctrineComment - The article is NOT neutral. It gives inordinate emphasis to casual remarks by Hubbard as being part of Scientology doctrine. Arslycus is a good example; that was a casual remark in the PDC lecture made to illustrate a point (I actually listened to that very lecture not long ago while on a long drive). It is not a part of Scientology. Hubbard was always careful, IMO, to distinquish between his opinion or his self-admitted tendency to act the raconteur and what he considered to be the technology of Scientology. Additionally; he specifically excluded space opera (as a general topic) from Scientology; lumping it in, along with lots of other "unprovables", to what he termed "para-Scientology"; meaning that most Scientologists have VERY little intersection with space opera and it is by no means a core belief (the core belief being that you are an immortal spiritual being inhabiting a body and using a mind and that you can improve your state of being, by-and-large, using very concrete techniques that have nothing to do with space opera). The only actual alleged example of space opera that I know of that has any relevance to Scientology is the claim by ex-Scientologists that OT 3 includes the Xenu incident. But if that were the entirety of the article, I guess it would not be as "interesting" (although it might be a lot more accurate). Interestingly, I just looked again at the article and see that critics like to pooh-pooh Scientologist's protestations that LRH's far-out stories, anecdotes, and jokes are not a part of mainstream Scientology. So I guess we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't". Anyway, the article needs a lot of work to bring it to a neutral state. --Justanother 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is confused. 

message: The article states: "The following descriptions of space opera incidents are seen as nonfiction in the beliefs of Scientology", and then justifies this with a link to http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm#SPACEOPERA, which does say that there is such a thing as space opera and that it "It is not fiction", but what it doesn't say is specifically that it applies to the jokes and stories told in Hubbard's lectures, which are gleefully recounted in the article and presented as "Scientology doctrine". It's not the same thing. The Scientology glossary link used as a reference is non-specific, so it cannot be used to back up this article's highly specific and outrageously misleading claims. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that Hubbard told "jokes". What I know is a policy "Joking and degrading" which advises against making fun of things. So, can you tell a few Hubbard jokes? --Tilman 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Hubbard is allowed to "J&D". --Justanother 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea that Scientology and/or Hubbard are against humor is ridiculous. "Making fun of things", i.e. ridicule/satire, is a whole 'nother thing and not relevant here. Hubbard frequently used humor and levity to make a point in his lectures. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientologists are ill-advised to joke about Scientology, esp. staff members are not to joke about their posts or fellow staff members. Jokes about other subjects are, of course, common. The reference is HCOB 5 February 1977 "C/S Series 100 Jokers and Degraders"A recent investigation, however, into the backgrounds and case condition of small handful of people who were joking about their posts and those around them showed a somewhat more sinister scene.In some cultural areas, wit and humor are looked upon as a healthy release. However, in the case of orgs, this was not found to be the case. Intentional destruction of the org or fellow staff members was the direct purpose.My point is that this policy did not apply to Hubbard especially as it was written in 1977, after most of his taped lectures that might contain the subject material. The point Tilman makes is one that deserves an answer so there it is. While the policy might seem harsh, I can also see the benefit of not making sarcastic remarks about your job or fellow workers and such restraint is now the norm in the workplace. --Justanother 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all just a diversion anyway. Isaac Hayes worked on the most mean-spirited satirical "make fun of everything" TV show on Earth for almost a decade, and Nancy Cartwright still works for the second most "make fun of everything" show, so obviously Tilman's argument is a non-argument. And don't forget John Travolta's current role in another major "make fun of everything" production, John Waters' Hairspray on Broadway. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know any "Hubbard jokes" anyway though I do know a few Scientologist jokes, e.g. "How many Scientologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb". --Justanother 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is confused, pt.2 

message: Well, I'll tell you: This is doctrine, and it has nothing to do with the Obscene Dog Incident or the anonymous past life memories in HYLBTL. You will never, never, ever, ever find reliable verifiable sources that state that these things are "Scientology doctrine", and yet that's precisely what this article is presenting. Talk about original research and conspiracy theory!  Highfructosecornsyrup 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Whole Track and past lives are certainly part of Scientology doctrine. The "anonymous past life memories" in HYLBTL were the ones selected by L. Ron Hubbard as examples and published in a book with his name on it. The Space Opera parts are just part of the Whole Track, even before Incident II in OT-III. AndroidCat 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still don't get it. You're talking about the CONCEPT of past lives, in general. These SPECIFIC ANECDOTES about past lives are not in themselves "Scientology doctrine". Highfructosecornsyrup 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they are examples of incidents run by preclears on the whole track, meaning past lives. But they are not doctrine any more than the hamburger I had for lunch is "cooking". Doctrine is that there is such a thing as past lives and you can contact them in session and by auditing those past lives, you will have some subjective benefit. That is what a "real" article on the subject would say. Would an example or two help explain what is meant as the doctrine? Sure. BTW, is this article mostly OR anyway as far as the commentary that accompanies the weird bits? Like this "It is not clear to what degree the typical Scientologist personally shares the official belief in "space opera", though the above advertisement features in an "entry-level" publication." That reads like OR to me. Can I just change that bit to what I just wrote and include a few of the incidents as examples? --Justanother 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to T. Anthony: You misunderstand the nature of these incidents and how they fit into Scientology. Scientology is primarily about "process" (it fact much of it is called "processing"). The actual incidents have no meaning nor importance except subjective meaning to the person that recounts them. But they are "memories" of the individual. What is important is the therapy of finding the concealed "postulate" or decision hiding under the memory. The memory does not even need to be true to the person; if he gets the postulate and feels the relief and gains an understanding of his own life then that all that is required. Whether he remembers buggering a cadet in the engine room of a starship 10 billion years ago (OK, that one was mine) or that he had raisin bran for breakfast this morning and bit into a stone, it is of equal value if it answers the auditing question and running the incident (recovering the memory) does him some good. They are individuals' memories, they are not doctrine. Hell, it is not even doctrine that they are "true" in any sense other than that they came up in sessions and running them out brought visible relief to the preclear. --Justanother 06:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just explaining what I thought "doctrine" as a term means. Something that is considered subjectively important for individuals would not be a doctrine, correct?--T. Anthony 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single thought and memory that every single human, living or dead, ever had is not doctrine. Right. Those are what Scientology deals with. They are not the doctrine of Scientology. Every single tooth that every single human, living or dead, ever had is not dentistry doctrine (theory, technology). Those are what dentistry deals with. A book on dentistry might have a picture of someone's tooth in it. That still does not make that particular tooth "dentistry". Saying Scientology doctrine is every incident every run in any session is the same as saying dentistry science is every rotten tooth anyone ever had pulled. Ludicrous. Perhaps that analogy will give you a feel for what Scientologists think when they see non-doctrinal incidents, examples, and stray remarks presented as doctrine. To the degree that Scientology says that something for sure is true for everyone then it might be called doctrine. So include History of Man, credible claims by ex-Scientologists as to what is on the secret levels, etc. But don't include every "tooth", only the ones that LRH specifically says that every preclear has and that Scientology can address. I hope that I have helped clarify the difference and better define for non-Scientologists what exactly is "Space opera in Scientology doctrine" - for Scientologists it is pretty clear (which is why all our bitching sounds the same). --Justanother 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Scientology doctrine"? 

message: I am removing the improper citation tag because the person who added it has not explained specifically what is incorrectly cited or misinterpreted.  If you want to mention specific passages where the cited text does not support the conclusions in the article then please do so here.  I don't believe the current quibble over "doctrine" vs. "Hubbard and Scientology teachings" is worthy of tagging the article with this tag.  And since CoS says specifically that Space Opera is NOT FICTION, it is silly to proclaim Hubbard's lectures about whole time track incidents are merely funny stories (at least not without a citation from a RS). Vivaldi (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper cite tag 

message: Let's start with the fact that the "justification" for calling this all doctrine is that RTC said all is scripture. Not doctrine. So let's start with that bit of truth. If we want to call everything LRH ever said scripture then fine; that is what RTC calls it. You have no RS that says much of this stuff is "doctrine". And, no, the terms are not identical. If we have a consensus I will fix the redirects. --Justanother 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth do you think that if you're going to pick such an unholy amount of nits over the term "doctrine" we'd simply blindly agree to you changing it to "scripture"?  Far better to just change it to "Scientology", IMHO.  And while we're at it, it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest "if we have a consensus" for something you just proposed.  How long are you proposing to wait to see "if we have a consensus"?  Half an hour?  An hour?  Is there some reason that making your proposal and waiting to see if it meets consensus is distasteful to you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of misinterpreting me, why not read what I said. I made the bold move (as in bold edit not bold reversion like the reversion you did). We can agree this is "scripture". That is what is quoted to me chapter and verse from RTC. So OK, it is "scripture". What in the name of whatever makes you think you have an RS that Arslycus is "doctrine"? I asked you for one. You ignored me. Another editor came back with the "scripture catchall". Hey, I can't argue that. Then scripture it is. I said if we have a consensus that this is a righteous rename then I will fix the redirects. I do not have to wait for anything to make a righteous edit and this is a righteous edit. You, on the other hand, do have to wait before reverting. --Justanother 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would've favored the move, but I think you may have acted hastily or without proper process. I've moved articles on my own with little to no discussion, but in those cases they were articles that had no one at the talk page or had no talk page at all. Therefore I did not have the option of discussion. That's clearly not true here. You likely should've held off until there was proper discussion on the move. I'm not trying to be hostile, as said I likely would've supported the move, but generally you have to allow more of a discussion on a move. Particularly for an article that was, for whatever reason, a Featured article.--T. Anthony 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for the support of the move! I apologize if I seemed hasty but I considered that I was being WP:BOLD and making a pretty obvious change as RTC calling it "scripture" is what critics use as justification for calling it "doctrine". That is weird and that is what caused the upsets with Scientologists. --Justanother 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You state: "You have no RS that says much of this stuff is "doctrine."" Well, you are currently the source that says "Space Opera" in Scientology is not doctrine, it is simply your personal opinion, we can't cite you. And as for the RTC's real intent for copyrighting and trademarking Hubbard's writings, it is also your personal opinion. RTC claims that it is to protect the purity of the scriptures. Raymond Hill 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Not sure I get your point? I am not claiming anything (except on the talk page). I have not even changed some of the misinterpretations in the article as to what is doctrine and what is scripture. I just changed the title to align with what we agree on. --Justanother 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote you: "That is not what scios think but it is the type of protection that RTC was seeking in making that statement." You put forth two opinions of yours here: 1) you state your opinion about what other "scios" think; 2) you state your opinion about the real intent of the RTC with regard to trademarks/copyrights. We can't use you as a source. Also, you changed the title, invoking some consensus which I don't see nowhere: this was an ongoing discussion. I think the previous title should be brought back until it is clear that there is a consensus. And if ever "scripture" comes to be the agreed upon term, I would rather have "scriptures" (with an "S", but we are not there yet, so bringing back "doctrine" as it was before you changed is what I would like now.) [I thought it over: "scripture" is fine with me (although I disagree that "doctrine" was erroneous.) And never mind my 's' for 'scripture', I'm not perfectly fluent in English, thought it was always written with an 's', I see it's correct] Raymond Hill 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we can agree on - rename to "scripture" 

message: When this page was moved, the old FAC wasn't correctly archived, so I'm putting it here for whomever wants to fix the template at the top of the talk page - I fixed the FAR.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine
I'd redirect it to scripture, but that would create a mess if you all decide to change the name again.  Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original FAC

message: I dicided to ask a Scientologiest about some of this stuff and see if he would shed some light on this. I thought what he said was worth repeating here. He asked not to be taken as a sorce but would give his opinion. Other than that he has been a member for over 20 years and says he is about half way thru the lvls.
 Q. What is your view on Space Opera and what is it? 
A. Space Opera is alot of what you would see in Sci Fi movies. Space ships, intergactic stuff, Lasers and aliens. As for my view, well you asked about it with regard to Scientology? (Yes) It is something that its founder comments on - LRH. Most people have no idea why it would be apart of a religion. Thats understandable, it is out there. It comes from Auditing. It comes up WHILE auditing. Most Scientolgists have no idea what its about. But they inevitably run into it. Just about every one has at some point been apart of something like Space Opera at some point on their Whole Track (Memories that predate this life) and so it sooner or later comes up. LRH talks about it, mainly so that Auditors know what to expect. My view of it? I have run into it,... alot. ... (can you tell me anything about it?) Its out there stuff. ... (like what?...) Its rather personal realy. Lots of all the stuff you think of when you say "Sci Fi". But you should get auditing for yourself, then you can have lots of your own memories.
Q. How do you know if you realy remember anything?
A. That is a question that can get you into trouble realy fast. Who has the right to tell you if what you remember is real or not? No matter how they were gotten it is up to the person to sort out for themselves. But little things can help. I once saw a movie with space ships wizzing by. Then went and drew up the scamatics for an ion engene. I had never studied a thing before that. Then 6 years later I saw a Popular Science Mag with an alost mirror image of what I drew. They were not the exact same but there was no doubt they looked light the same machine with simular wording and everything. And that is with no study of any rockets engines of any kind.
Q. I have herd of talk of a guy by the name of Xenu, in something that was to have happened 75 million years ago. I am told it is importiant in Scientology. What can you tell me about it?
A. Who? Never heard of him. LRH has said that there is are plenty of tramatic moments in the lives of thatens over the course of their existance. Some are ones people have in common. LRH said that talk of this stuff will just be problomatic. The insident he is talking about is one such moment. But it is taken up in one of the more advanced lvls. It was for Scientologists that have gotten thru questions like "Does Scientology work?" It was simply a major problem that can up as blocking the road to freedom for Scientologists at that lvl. He talked about it in a lecture called RJ 67. I by no means would try to quote what he said but it had the jist of: It has a powerful effect on people but is simply out of reach for anyone lower on the Bridge (the lvls of Scientology) So much so that it would never even come up. Any effort of address it by Scientologists before they are ready is just trouble waiting to happen. So LRH never made it avalible to anyone but those he thought were ready to address it. If you see anything on it, realize that it is not LRH you are seeing. When LRH refered to it going public as "trouble" well... it would be completely out of context, only quoted by people that -openly violating Church policy- are out to do just that, cause trouble. So what LRH said is drawned in context errors, incorrect assosetion with other ideas only some of which are church related and all of which are out of context. The bottom line is that you will never know what he ment until you do what he says and get upto handling it the way he says. He ment it no other way and he wrote it.
Q. I have seen some figures of the history of the universe where LRH has given some big figures! What is that about? Do you realy beleive its that old?
A. (he laughs) How big were those figures? (Something like 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,... alot! but I have also seen others) Others? Yes, he (LRH) has had some fun with that one. The most common one he uses is 76 trillion I think. But it is not real, its just a big fugure to "wow" ppl. One problem, from what I got, was that it didn't just start all at once. So giving you any exact figure would be open to problems. 76 trillion would be a figure that would say "at this point it looks like the universe we know today" but that is not LRH, that is just my example. Some scientiests say the universe is like 13 billion or something like that. Well.. what are they looking at? Perhaps that part is only 13 billion years old.
Q. Do Scientologiests talk about Space Opeara alot? Like to each other?
A. No. There are little things like hints but its just a fast route to trouble. Like I said many Scientologiests have yet to encounter enough to give them much to work with of their own. Often it only serves to to confuse people that have yet to get control of their own time tracks (past life memories). At some point, I imagine, if you were to get auditing you would likely have to striaten out something that I have said and I have not said much. If you can then imagine what it is like for people that jaber all day about it then you can guess that they could easily end up saying "I was a ruler of Egypt" only because his own pictures (memories)are mashed with some other guy's. And this can be a big problem to him and he can end up running around telling everybody, who in turn, ends up running around themselves saying, "I ruled Egypt". And that gives the hole subject a bad name. Later in auditing our first victum can end up wasting time pulling all this apart only to find out that he saw the Pharaoh for only a moment and on only on 1 occasion. But for something so simple it can cause alot of trouble! Scientologiests higher up (in lvls) can work it out much easier but there are other problems that can effect them too. So we all stear clear of that.
There was more but I think this is enough. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.95.117 (talk • contribs) 19:04, January 6, 2007 (UTC)
:Interesting, but with the usual problems. It's not citable or easily verifiable, and he could be telling the truth as he knows it, but unless he's done the levels OT III and above or perhaps the year-long Saint Hill Special Briefing Course for Class VI auditors (with the Dukes of the Auditor Elite) and covered Between Lives Implants, he won't have encountered the material yet. AndroidCat 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. You say he is "half way thru the lvls" but then you seem to refer to the entire Bridge as "lvls" so there is no way for us to know his "case level". Perhaps you could ask him and let us know. Regarding the dates; I disagree with him. "Date" and "locate" are important concepts in Scientology and if LRH said "76 trillion years ago" then he meant just that. Regarding the "fact" that the universe is only 13 billion years old, well we can play with that concept; who says that 50 years from now science won't say the universe is 13 trillion years old or whatever. Who says that LRH was referring to this universe. The concept of "years" itself is relative to this tiny solar system and this tiny planet. I know that when I "date" an incident in session I say something that "feels right" and who cares how old scientists today say the planet or universe is. The whole point of dating something is to help get some past incident that is affecting you in present time to "blow" (go away) and when it blows you feel better and have some realization about life or perhaps some gained (regained) ability. Who cares if the date is "right". Who cares if the incident "really happened". The only important reality is that you feel better and are more capable and that is what Scientology is all about and is pretty much all Scientology is about. --Justanother 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with a Scientologist

message: Just passing through, and thought I would just mention that the review linked at the top of the page lists many problems, the italicized quotes among them. I'm going to go through and eliminate these, since they're an eyesore, but I've no interest in long-term editing of this article. As a suggestion to the interested parties, perhaps you should start with the things that everyone can agree on: there are no ethics about italics. NPOV can wait until after the article's other problems have been addressed. Cheers, Archaeo 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, never mind. Quotation marks are used too frequently throughout the article as scare quotes or to set off jargon. It's impossible to tell what's actually being quoted from text between quotation marks to make it seem sillier. Someone much more familiar with this material needs to handle this. I'm done passing through; I'm going to pass out. Archaeo 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: honestly, is this actually real?  I'm sorry but some vanadalism seems more realistic than this.  I just want to make sure that everything is sourced properly. Rugz 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this a joke 

message: Here is the opening sentence of the WP article Space opera: "Space opera is a subgenre of speculative fiction or science fiction that emphasizes romantic adventure, and larger-than-life characters often set against vast exotic settings."  Should this information be included in this article?  As it is "space opera" outside of Scientology is just said to be a term related to science fiction.  Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Space opera" used outside of Scientology

message: Scientologists are not attempting to be deceitful. Space opera citations really are mostly incidental. The main focus of scientology is given in the title of a hubbard book; namely...The Creation of Human Ability.
Put 2+2 together, here.  Maby 100 pages, out ovf volumes, on space opera.  Yet hubbard emphasises pragmatism as the emphasis of scientology over and over.  It's a matter of comparative volume.  Scientologists spend hours apon hours learning and practicing auditing.  The sole purpose of a class 4 org is to produce class 4 auditers.  The tech is the point.  The origonal Title of History of Man was What to Audit, to emphasise the relation of past lives to auditing.
Scientology is not the only religion to have past lives.  There is a book supposedly by Buddha, called Jakkata, or Birth Stories, that was something of a best seller in the ancient world.  It relates the supposed past lives of Guatama Buddha.  So, even sensationalism of past live incidents is not new, but all spiritual ideas must have sounded strange when they were new.
That having been sayd.  Hubbard was simply wrong about some stuff, and I'm not sure why he even included alot of stuff.  Theres really not much that can be sayd, becouse inside a social mileu, really is difficult to relate to outsiders.  I try, but citing refs will be difficult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs).
:Moving up (way up) from the Class 4 orgs, what about the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, for the "Dukes of the Auditor Elite" Class VI auditors with the Between Lives Implants lecture? AndroidCat 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mostly incidental