Talk:Xenu

Check the references if you want verification. This is a genuine religious belief. -- David Gerard 11 July 2005 04:49[1]

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2][3][4]... Ronabop 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added the link to Kaufman's online book at: [5]. Kaufman made this work publicly available before he died. I also corrected the spelling of his name from Kaufmann to Kaufman.

I added the link to [6] because the author of the article Richard Lieby gave permission for this to be made publicly available. The Clearwater Sun newspaper where Lieby worked in 1981 is no longer in operation. The only remaining copyright interest in this article is Leiby himself and he has granted permission. Leiby currently works at the Washington Post and I can provide his e-mail and phone number to back up this claim.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thetagal, January 22, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lokiloki 11:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Well, there's here [7], and here [8], and here [9] for starters. --Modemac 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The number comes from OT3: Incident 1:

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

--L. Ron Hubbard

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And so there is: [10]. Enjoy. Kasreyn 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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 [11]. Rintrah 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

This paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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