Talk:Xenu

• FAQ for Talk Page readers

Xenu / Xemu additions

Regarding [1], I do not doubt info from Operation Clambake, but let us try to stick to independent reliable secondary sources for additions of new material to this article please. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't edit war but I don't understand your reversion as Operation Clambake present: OT III Scholarship Page was the source of my material and you say Operation Clambake is a reliable surce. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but can you present other corroborating sources? That would be the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenu (Xemu) in Scientology could be helpful. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an WP:RS source, and I think that is a replica of some page at xenu.net anyways. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know what is an acceptable source better than I do, please find one. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Scietologist, having been crudely rejected by them long ago but later rewarded with a friendly audience with Hubbard in his office on Hollywood Blvd and in his airstream elsewhere, I think. The Xenu page strikes me as revealing that a lot of hard feelings by former members and affiliates are being jumped on by the opportunistic press and that this bad press is what concerns the religious leaders. I think if the press were friendlier, the current leaders would be more open about such things as are discussed here. This fact should be mentioned in the end of the article. The media in this country has become very propogandistic, not that it wasn't already, being so opportunistic as it is. It loves bad news and this is one reason Catholic pedophilia is big news. The public free press has always had little to do with the truth and much to do with what people want to hear. If Hubbard had to be colorful, it is understandable. That he had had a caffiene habit it would have gotten him in a whole lot of trouble in a few years from now had he lived to experience it ... everyman is on the cross; it's an idea and a symbol much older than christianity itself. BTW, I'm catholic but didn't live through the old style catholicism Hubbard had to live through as a child. It's amazing he was as clearspoken as he was. He should have been completely screwed up and digging ditches for a living after his childhood praying for his freckles and green eyes to go away, I've read somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.5.75 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

DC-8s without the fans.

DC-8 engines are called fanjets became they use giant fans to force air into the combustion chamber. Hubbard probably meant that the space ships had rocket engines, in place of jets. The basic difference is that rockets carry their own oxidant, instead of sucking in air.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, but note that Hubbard corrects himself - "the DC8 had fans, propellers on it." Jet planes of any kind do not have propellers, obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Hubbard was near an airport or looked up in the sky, and saw a DC8, and decided it would be a nice prop for his science fiction book. Yep, that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.232.172 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sciologos, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Scientific support for the OT III story

In the K-Pg boundary (65 million years ago) shocked quartz and iridium have been found all over the world. Shocked quartz appear only at nuclear and meteorite craters and iridium exist in heightened levels in volcanoes and in meteorites. Scientists believe that a giant meteorite created the heightened levels of shocked quartz and iridium, but it could theoretically also be linked to nuclear bombs in volcanoes. 65 million years ago (K-Pg boundary) and 75 million years ago (Xenu) is not so far from each other considering the overall time span. Hubbard published OT III in 1967 but the heightened levels of iridium was found in 1980.

08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

Shocked quartz: http://www.scn.org/~bh162/shocked_quartz.html

Iridium source1: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Pollution/Volcanoes/Hawaii-Iridium-Enrichment-in-Airborne-Particles-from-Kilauea-Volcano-January-1983

Iridium source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium

K-T layer: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

Alvarez found iridium layer 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.243.112 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering sources. After reviewing the article I think I'm still not sure about what exactly you want changed. This doesn't seem to be an article about the truth or fiction of the OT III story. Can you explain more precisely what changes you think should be made? Tim Pierce (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to change anything, I want to add the above material with a separate headline "Scientific support for the OT III story" since the Xenu story is generally regarded as sci-fi mumbo-jumbo totally made up by Hubbard. I'm trying to find some scientific evidence for his claims and have found the above which is pretty interesting. I think it's important as objective verification evidence against the general belief that the Xenu story is totally made up. Many Scientologists apparently think its true from my understanding. Scientific evidence for such a wild story should be regarded as important. We're all looking for the truth. Wikipedia strives toward improving the world and offering several perspectives and multiples of scientific evidence, right?

There's A LOT of information in the article that "doesn't seem to be an article about the truth or fiction of the OT III story", e.g. South Park etc.

I'm just trying to be scientific and objective about these things, offering multiple perspectives for the reader to ponder. By the way, the K-T boundary is called K-Pg boundary nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.243.112 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have read your sources and your argument for their inclusion. Unfortunately the articles themselves make no reference to Scientology, Xenu, the existence of these volcano's 75 million years ago or hydrogen bombs. This would be WP:SYNTH (the same rule that keeps out sources that reference the accepted age of the volcano's cited by Hubbard ). If you can find a WP:RS which both states what the above articles argue and ties it to the Xenu story then it can be included.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see on your profile that you work on South Park and Scientology articles. Not particularly independent. I would prefer another "judge" that has nothing to do with Scientology, Anonymous, Freezone, South Park etc at all. I read about the WP:SYNTH but comparing "UN and 160 wars" is something else in this case. Basically what you (or rather Wikipedia) are telling me is that I have to write my own article about this using serious resources, make some serious conclusions, publish it on the Internet and then have somebody else come back and say: "Hey, this articles in itself make references to Scientology, Xenu, the existence of these volcano's 75 million years ago or hydrogen bombs." About the same thing as what I do right now.

It feels like you're being really hard on the rules here. There are many other articles that have more loose conclusions than this but are allowed.

Shocked quartz and iridium are both EXTREMELY rare at the earth's surface, we're not talking about grass and rocks here. Those are TWO INDEPENDENT RARE ELEMENTS at the same time, coming only from asteroids or meteorites, vulcanoes and nuclear weapons. Those articles not being Scientology improves the independency. What would you say if L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology had written those articles, would that be more appropriate? Striving for sources independent from the Church of Scientology should be regarded as highly important.

Well, I don't know of any such article written so I guess I'm the first. :) A guy called Peter Forde has written "A Scientific Scrutiny of OT 3" and I guess that's where I got the idea of checking these things up. He mentioned shocked quartz and iridium (but only attributed iridium to asteroids) and never investigated more thoroughly where these elements actually could be found, which I did. He did not know (or omitted the fact) that volcanoes emits iridium as well. Some scientists have actually attributed the dinosaur exctinction to large volcanoes due to this.

What is your advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.242.164 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Coffeepusher: what you propose does seem to conflict with WP:SYNTH. It is true that not every article on Wikipedia is held to such a strict standard, but Scientology-related articles are intrinsically under a higher degree of scrutiny due to the controversy that surrounds Scientology wherever it goes.

The only reliable source I can find (not a blog, message forum, etc) that attempts to address the shocked quartz and iridium questions in the context of OT III is http://www.xenu.net/archive/ot/peter_forde.html. I could use that as a reference if you think it will help. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What ever works for you. I've done my best to try to provide the evidence. Not much more I can do. Here's a better resource regarding K-T layer describing only two main sources of iridium and discussing "blasted rock": http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.242.164 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recognize this tone...Justa? Is this IP coming from England?

So, I disagree with you and suddenly I am a bias editor because I am familiar with both scientology AND south park...(and you will also notice that I am familiar with wikipeda policies)??? dude? south park also busted on AA which is another article I edit (as well as the catholic church, and I edit exorcism...participatory democracy and I edit Habermas and public sphere...Obama and I did some stuff with Rhetoric...University of Colorado...yah they busted on everyone) I must be a wikipedia POV FIEND!!!! SOMEBODY BAN ME BEFORE I RUIN WIKIPEDIA WITH THE INTERNATIONAL SOUTH PARK AGENDA!!!!! I believe that is called an ad hominem fallacy otherwise known as the "yah, but you smell funny" retort. In other words who I am and what I edit doesn't matter, you are attempting to preform WP:SYNTH if I was a scientologist, a mason, or a green guy with three arms that came from the center of the earth who told you such, it is still WP:SYNTH OH Oh...wait for it...still WP:SYNTH again. here is my hand in a hat telling you it is WP:SYNTH and he doesn't even watch south park or have a brain, and he is still right, its WP:SYNTH. so my advise is to read the rules and not attack editors who are just letting you know the policies with overly transparent fallacies in logic (some of us got an education and can recognize that crap). Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas, that is in the rules we all agree upon when we work on this site, get over it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a main note, I don't think we can use that source because as far as I can tell it is published exclusively on line from a biased site (I seem to remember that same source coming up when an editor tried to insert a section stating that the entire story was completely debunked because the volcano's weren't even in existence according to that article, the article was not a WP:RS due to the fact it was published by a bias source Operation Clambake.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the source has expressed a pretty strong anti-Scientology bias. I didn't know whether that would preclude us from using it as a source for this article. It is definitely the most careful examination I was able to find of this issue. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never brought this up on Wikipedia before. Amusingly, I must say the tone of Coffeepusher's polemic and sarcastic discussion reminds me of South Park. Asking for an independent judge was not ment to be offensive at all. Scientology is, like Pierce stated, a highly controversial subject and for that reason only I believe the "judges" should have no connection whatsoever to any pro or con Scientology beliefs.

Actually, I have to agree with both of you regarding the WP:SYNTH idea. This is somewhat an "original research" since I concluded the facts from earlier sources and articles. But it is not a wild, far-fetched idea like "methane have been found on both Jupiter and Earth so I make the conclusion they must have been the same planet once in history". My conclusion is pretty much narrowed down. That's why I asked you what you think I should do.

Regarding sources I can found PLENTY of other resources that will state the same thing: Shocked quarts are only found in nuclear and asteroid craters and iridium only comes from volcanoes and asteroids, at least according to current scientific knowledge. There are also other resources that have "pictures" on Earth from around 65 million years ago and it looks about the same as now with the difference that the continents are closer to each other, but the main points of volcanoes (Andes, Western North America, Himalaya, Kilimanjaro etc) are still there. Example of Earth 65 million years ago: http://forum.celestialmatters.org/userpix/5_065Ma1k_1.jpg (Many more sources could be found.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.240.62 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a far-fetched conclusion, but I still think that it's wise to stick closely to the letter of the policy in WP:SYNTH in this case. What I think you should do is look to see if there are other sources, either online or not, which have addressed this question and can be used as a source for the article. If none can be found, it may just not be possible to justify adding it to Wikipedia yet. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So we're going to stick "closely" to WP:SYNTH but I see not so closely to WP:NPOV. That's a double standard. One of Wikipedias fundamental cornerstones is Neutral Point of View. I find the article not neutral and with more paragraphs against the Xenu story with nothing on the positive side backing it up. While a great deal of the article is describing the story in a neutral way, Hubbard is also speculated being on drugs when writing the story, South Park sarcastic episode is mentioned etc. One can always claim independent reliable sources but putting it all together in a neutral, objective fashion is also of relevance. I find nothing in the article that supports the Xenu story or that talks about wins from auditing people have had from it. It lacks neutrality. Can you see anything positive (meaning supporting it)? I can't. It's either neutral or negative.

I would like to add some positive issues that balances the article making it really deserve a golden star and according to the WP:NPOV policy. E.g. auditing wins from OT III, the scientific evidence I've tried to support, a list of celebrities who has completed OT III or similair. I personally think the scientific evidence is far more important than anything else. These cornerstones should be balanced against each others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciologos (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually think that the article violates WP:NPOV. The article appears to cover the basics of the Xenu story in a pretty straightforward way. Both the history of Xenu and the popular reaction to it are meticulously sourced. It is true that the article includes some criticisms of Hubbard and less praise, but the criticisms are also very clearly cited -- if it does not include more material favorable to Scientology, that may be because there is simply less pro-Scientology independent third-party coverage to draw upon. I realize that it must be very frustrating to feel that the article is unfair to Scientology. If there are reliable sources to counter some of the content of this article, then I for one will look at them to see how they can be used to make the article more balanced. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out anything in the article that supports the Xenu story or say anything positive about it? Sciologos (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

we have 7 sections dedicated to the story and its influence upon scientology as a depiction of events "unlikely to have occurred in real life", but which assume meaning after years of contemplation and study (quote from the church of scientology), while only 2 sections on its critical reception by the public at large. how is this not a "neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." NPOV does not mean that you have to have one negative statement for every positive statement within the article, or that everyone who has an opinion on the topic be given a free section to expand upon their viewpoints. The church of Scientology does not support the Xenu story, going so far as denying or downplaying its relevancy to their own doctrine and the WP:RS that they offer support that while it is part of their doctrine (or possibly a hoax, maybe it doesn't even exist, or maybe something similar to what was said but it is horribly out of context, or maybe you shouldn't be talking about that at all, etc.) they do not offer anything positive about it. In fact the church position is that it is complete mumbo jumbo or a fabrication (at least that is what the church constantly says). so there actually is no positive position regarding the Xenu story, both the church and the critics have publicly stated it is unlikely to have actually happened and should be taken as just a story, and this article represents both of those positions well offering separate sections for both the church of Scientology and its critics to state why the story should be completely ignored.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I just found something interesting from the Ex-scientologist forum. They apparently have discussed these things over there: (Original Source: http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/06_02.html)

"Incident 2 IS the great dying, and it is a few million years earlier than is indicated by radio carbon dating because the nuclear explosions raised the background radiation level temporarily. The scientists calculate their dates with the assumption that the radiation level is constant, so that if they see a higher count, they think the object being dated was buried more recently because it hasn't decayed as far (rather than starting from a higher radiation level). So they date the iridium layer (which is indicative of a planet wide catastrophe) and the billions of bone fragments (see books like "Digging Dinosaurs") at around 67 million years ago instead of 75 million. Of course the current scientific explanation of the layer is that a comet hit the Earth (a really large body planetary impact will probably generate enough heat to go nuclear)."

The above is not my conclusion but comes from a Freezone article on the Internet. Is that considered not original research? Why don't you have an end section in every article where advanced speculation can occur and where it clearly states it is some kind of advanced speculation? I believe some articles have that. It still have to be based on facts of course.Sciologos (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:NOR. Let us instead rely upon independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cirt, allowing original research is a boomerang that will come back and cut every position to pieces. it is not a matter of who said it (scientologist, freezone, critic, scientist, mason, green three armed man from the center of the earth) we have established WP:RS guidelines to maintain consistency and make sure that the claims in the article come from sources that have been examined by a critical second party (editors, scholars in the field, green men, etc.). I could make a freezone website today and type up anything I wanted. The church of scientology has a dogmatic interest in this topic and could put anything on the web using their websites which may or may not be factual. the critics of scientology could and have put any number of claims on their websites. WP:RS and WP:NOR keep all of these positions from turning this article into a mad hatters party where anything can be included by someone who owns a website.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Mr. Pierce and Mr. Cirt, could you point out anything in the article that supports the Xenu story or say anything positive about it? 2. I accept the idea of no original research. 3. Coffepusher: Neutral means neutral, it does not mean slightly negative. As of now, it is more negative than neutral and that is a violation to the WP:NPOV. If we're going to stick closely to WP:NPOV I believe we should stick closely to the definition of words as well. 4. The Church of Scientology not supporting the story does not mean the Freezone does not support the story.Sciologos (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The definition of WP:NPOV, according to wikipedia policies, is to accurately present all of the significant arguments that can be found in WP:RS. again it is not to whitewash the tone of article or present a equal amount of pro's or con's, it is to reflect what the significant reliable sources say. this article accurately reflects both the content and the tone of those WP:RS so what WP:RS are out there that support this story or says anything positive about it?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion thread involving Sciologos (talk · contribs) is beginning to get repetitive and circular in nature and is quickly degrading in any hope for constructive dialogue, especially with regard to multiple insisted proposals of violation of site policy. -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, it's a little bit repetitive, but we're actually getting somewhere. I suggest you answer my question nr 1 in a constructive way so that we can get somewhere. I'm actually trying to sort this out in an intellectual fashion which means going into great academic detail. What I'm trying to acknowledge from Cirt and Pierce is that the article is slightly negative. Do we agree on that, Cirt and Pierce? Yes or no?

Another big problem with your combined cornerstones from an overall perspective is that (to put it simple) if Person A claims something and an article is written about it, and Person B is against it, Person B could be quoted as a reliable source from someone supporting him, but Person A cannot be quoted from someone who supports him since he's not considered a reliable source (conflicts of interest). This creates advantages for those who are against an idea. Overly simplified: It's like two teams with two people in each team, but in one of the teams they are not allowed to support each other. Not Fair Game (no pun intended). How do you solve that issue?Sciologos (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)