Talk:Xenu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Warning This article is not a joke.

Several editors have previously asked here if the Xenu article is a joke. Please do not ask or start a section about the article as a joke; doing so is disruptive and inflates the size of this page unnecessarily. Please see Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines for more information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xenu article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Featured article star Xenu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2005.

Contents


[edit] This article is not a joke.

It should be written in way that makes the "This article is not a joke." template unnecessary. Yet there is adamant resistance to doing so. Why is that?90.134.127.99 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

People think it's a joke because of the subject matter, not because of how the article is written. Foobaz·o< 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some topics which are just inherently funny - Xenu, Exploding whale, Neasden etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We know that the template is a backhanded way of saying that certain alleged beliefs are funny. Regardless of how funny the authors of this article think the subject is, they should still try to be objective. In this case, it looks like they are some of the worst POV pushers on Wikipedia. Combined with the fact that criticism of this page has a great way of disappearing from the talk page, it is pretty clear where a few of you stand on this issue. My personal feeling is that a few of you are really trying to get one over on us, the Wikipedia community.90.134.112.44 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The template is there because several people have asked in here if it is a joke. The general public is unfamiliar with Scientology dogma, and since it's so different than what they're used to seeing in a religion, they have trouble believing it. The Church of Scientology eases its members into the religion a little bit at a time to avoid this kind of culture shock.
Can you suggest any specific improvements to the article that will address your concerns? Foobaz·o< 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
People do not generally assume that Wikipedia articles are jokes. Are these inquiries in the removed or archived comments? If people are getting that impression, then that is a clear signal that there is something seriously wrong with the article. There have been many suggestions (by me as well as by others) that have been archived or otherwise removed from this talk page. Time is valuable to us all, so here are two in a nutshell: 1) Do not write the summary in a way that purposely punches the reader in the face with cherry-picked aspects of the topic written in the most direct manner imaginable. Instead, writing a summary that provides context would be very helpful. I am all for having all the gory details in the body of the article where they belong. 2) Make an effort to get critics who use Wikipedia to voice those criticisms off-message. Remove or at least reword them so that there is more neutral use of language. For instance, are L. Ron Hubbard's beliefs about Christianity relevant? Are criticisms of the business practices of the Church of Scientology relevant to "Xenu"? Do insinuations that Xenu was a drug-induced delusion belong here? The entire article is loaded with this stuff and more.90.135.185.227 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, this has all been hashed out over and over.
  1. Yes, Hubbard's statements regarding the R6 implant -- which Xenu supposedly inflicted on his victims, and which contained the images of Christ and the crucifixion -- are very relevant to an article about Xenu and what he is supposed to have done.
  2. Yes, the amount of money one has to pay to achieve OT-III and learn the Xenu story is relevant.
  3. Yes, because of the previous two inherently controversial points, well-researched critical material, such as indications of drug activity, do belong here (although I would say that section needs some cleaning up for both NPOV and readability).
Furthermore, I take issue with your reading of the introduction. It does put its content in context, specifically saying that this is all according to the founder of Scientology. The fact that some readers take the article as a joke (and yes, that's been asked repeatedly here, but you'd have to dig through the archives, since the notice has deterred people from asking) is not, in my opinion, a reflection on how well it's written. The content of OT-III is not familiar to a lot of people yet, and to those unfamiliar with Scientology it is startling to learn that content is associated with a religion. --GoodDamon 15:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A joke: something intended to evoke humor. Writing style. People can debate endlessly, so this discussion may be moot. This article is the second result when googling xenu. People with an axe to grind against Scientology using this article as a public platform to air their grievances should not be tolerated. Preventing that is far more important than those minor sticking points.90.135.217.80 (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be the one with the axe to grind. Foobaz·o< 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
@GoodDamon: You are almost totally right. As far as money, OT-III could cost ten dollars or a million dollars and yet that would not change who or what Xenu is supposed to be. Maybe it should go on the Operating Thetan article instead. The article as a whole goes out of its way to focus on small related points (like L. Ron Hubbard not being able to decide on a name, which gets an entire section). Again, it is that the entire article is slanted. And as for hashing thing out over and over, I checked the archive and having it all off the discussion page gives the illustion of concensous when there are clear disputes. I am surprised there is not a neurality dispute template heading the article.
@Foobaz: I promise you, It would not bother me if those who have dedicated their lives in demeaning, belittling and otherwise warring against the Church of Scientology won their war and not another person converted that that religion. It does bother me, however, to see them take their fight to Wikipedia. I came across this article wanting to learn more, not to have my intelligence insulted.213.29.115.8 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, if you look into an article on scientology and hope not to have your intelligence insulted, you're going to be disappointed. Prophaniti (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a pattern of slanted articles on the subject. Do you know of any off-hand that are worse than this one?90.134.113.170 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Again, no. The article is, if anything, lenient towards Scientology. The vast, overwhelming majority of media coverage -- the coverage we have to use as our reliable sources -- portray Scientology in an extremely negative light, and with the appearance of the so-called "anonymous" group, the coverage has become even more negative. How one might feel about Scientology itself is moot; we have to go with the content available to us from reliable sources. --GoodDamon 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the POV issues are unrelated to the media. By the way, do you know what Anonymous is?90.135.149.106 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is the source of 90% of all internet truth and justice. Anonymous is void of human restraints, such as pity and mercy. Those who perform reckless actions or oppose Anonymous will be eliminated. Failure is not tolerated. Enemies of Anonymous are those who are not Anonymous. Enemies are to be dealt with swiftly and with great justice. Anonymous must work as one. No single Anonymous knows everything. You are. I am. Everyone is. Anonymous is humanity when the gloves come off.

Anonymous is not a person, nor is it a group: Anonymous is an idea. A movement. An anonymous collective, left to its own devices, quickly builds its own society out of rage and hate. Anonymous is not so much unlike other web communities, we have in-jokes, culture, extended debates, etc, just like everyone else. The difference, and the reason we visit other communities is that we have a need to be harassed by "nannying" moderators. Here, there isn't anyone to do that - yet long and productive edit wars spring up at about the rate you'd never tolerate elsewhere, on topics you'd never believe. We have no leader, no pretentious douchebag or group thereof to set in stone what Anonymous is and is not about. We don't dare to lead for will but rather break the "bridge" instead.

"Anonymous" is the name assigned to a poster who does not enter text in to the [Name] field. Anonymous is not a single person, but rather, represents the collective whole of the internet. He is a god amongst men. Anonymous invented the moon, assassinated former President David Palmer, and is also harder than the hardest metal known to man: diamond. His power level is rumored to be over nine thousand. He currently resides with his auntie and uncle in a town called Bel-Air (all though he is from West Philadelphia born and raised). 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)24.188.131.228 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu's fanless DC-8s

Proposed livery: This is how I imagine the planes to have looked, but I can put Xenu back on the tail
Proposed livery: This is how I imagine the planes to have looked, but I can put Xenu back on the tail

While I think that those who created the DC-8 pictured now from NASA's aerial lab did a pretty good job removing the engines, adding a star field, and removing NASA from the tail did a great job - it still looks like the NASA DC-8 sans engines. I was thinking about creating an illustration of many DC-8s approaching Earth using this model for the planes, the paint job is negotiable of course and actually if anyone knows how Hubbard described them apart from being "fanless" I'd be happy to use his description. Anynobody 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)