Talk:Xenu

Warning?

Should there be a warning at the top stating that "if you read this article you may be subject to eternal damnation and death by pneumonia"? Flight Risk (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not unless you have an independent reliable source that says so. Grorp (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, that is not in the standard wiki tools, like "Citation Needed". Perhaps we should add that. It could be helpful on the Spanish Inquisition page too. Billyshiverstick (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

I see very little critical commentary in the article. Is there no reputable source that analyses the "myth of Xenu" as a science fiction story, repurposed to create a "secret lore" in Scientology? I am sure there is such scholarship and it ought to be cited here, but I have too much else to do to be able to track down skeptical scholarship about Scientology. Zaslav (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's probably overall less of such for Scientology. Between legal tactics and making material secret and or copyrighted, and aggressively pursuing folks who do such work (in court and in the public arena) that tends to reduce such work. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zaslav: Yes there is:

* Rothstein, Mikael (2009). ""His name was Xenu. He used renegades...": Aspects of Scientology's Founding Myth". In Lewis, James R. (ed.). Scientology. Oxford University Press. pp. 365–388. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331493.001.0001. ISBN 9780199852321. OL 16943235M.

Available as a PDF through WP:The Wikipedia Library. Grorp (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In the Commentary section, it says: "The most sober and enlightening text about the Xenu myth is probably the article on Wikipedia (English version) ..." Isn't it weird to cite yourself as the best source on a subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfmurphy (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen other serious Scientology authors cite Wikipedia, often while offering an explanation along the lines of what I described above. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I just came across this article and read it. Honestly, the best part, is the straight, neutral, chummy Wiki-Tone. I literally couldn't tell if it was written as an April Fool's Article. Far better than constant interruptions from the sane world. Please, for the sake of having some amusement in the world, let's just leave the prose as clean as it is now. Much better that way. Billyshiverstick (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Rothstein's 2009 work is 19 pages long and goes into depth on the Xenu story and analyses it from different positions. The Wikipedia Xenu article is mentioned three times in the section "The Xenu Myth: Presenting the Text". This is my favorite paragraph:

A more detailed study of Hubbard’s text requires a good knowledge of Hubbard’s writings in general. To my awareness the discussion on Wikipedia is the only example in which such an analysis is attempted. In principle, this kind of knowledge could be established from a position outside of Scientology after a long time and hard work. It is, however, possible (perhaps even likely) that the anonymous Wikipedia contributor has knowledge from within the organization. Had the author been a scholar, his or her analysis would have reached the academic community more directly, but it has not. In the following I shall build on the Wikipedia material (bearing in mind that these particular sources are outside traditional academic control) but primarily try to say something different from what eloquently has been presented there. The reader, however, is directed to Wikipedia, in which many important details, not least historical and theological data that I will ignore, are available.

Grorp (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2024

This text is out of date:

which is often well over US$100,000 (roughly £77,000)

It source dates from 2006, so please change it to:

which in 2006 was often well over US$100,000 (roughly £77,000).

Thank you. 101.119.89.89 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Yup, makes sense. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2024 (2)

If I understand rightly, the "Research essay describing OT 3 as a drug induced hallucination" external link was posted to a web forum. Such pages shouldn't even be linked, and because this link goes to a different website, it's possible that this site is infringing the original poster's copyright. Please remove the link. 101.119.89.89 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Perhaps an argument could be made for including this, since it mostly cites and summarizes other sources, but it agree that this isn't a reliable source and doesn't seem appropriate for an external links section. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)