Talk:Xenu/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lede

Any objections to my proposed adding to the end of the lede that there is no evidence for "Xenu"'s existence, or indeed for anything in the article? (I won't go as far as to say he's not real for fear of the scientologists, but the scientific consensus is that the subject of this article is of that nature)--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

which reliable sources do you propose to use to state that there is no evidence for anything within this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The programme which this refers to, which was produced by the BBC, a neutral and reliable news outlet.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Or this, a 1987 panorama programme, again by the BBC, which at the very least heavily implies that he is fictional?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
neither one of those sources backs up your claims that there is "no evidence for Xenu's existence or indeed for anything in this article." We have to be careful not to engage in WP:OR, especially in the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
look, we need to follow WP:NPOV. What that says basically is we need to represent information in an article based on the amount of coverage that information recieves. The truth is that there hasn't really been any sustained debate over the factuality of Xenu. The most we have is a few reporters asking Scientologists if Xenu exists, and them dodging the question, with one instance of a Scientology leader stating that the space opera stuff was kinda like the parables of Jesus which give teachings but shouldn't be considered 100% factual. I would actually be shocked if Scientists are doing research into pre-pre-pre historic nuclear detonations or archaeological digs to find the brainwashing facilities set up by Xenu, and 75 million years is more than enough time to turn DC-17 spacecrafts into rust. So, no. Based on WP:NPOV I don't think your statement deserves mention in the WP:LEDE.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no concrete evidence that the Christian/Jewish god exists either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.2.58 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


So, an analysis I read recently on shocked quartz, which is produced "only be asteroid impacts and nuclear explosions", finding it at the KT boundary 65 mya, but nowhere 75 mya, could be used as scientific evidence that the events are scientifically implausible?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source that uses the analysis of shocked quartz as proof the events in the Xenu story are implausible (both statements must be in the same paper) then it can be included, otherwise you would be engaging in original research.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for that. I hadn't realised that that came under WP:OR. :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries, the truth is that you are trying to reproduce the first edit I ever did on this page, I had an extremely similar conversation with a nice admin where he cited exactly what I have just said to you. About once every six months someone tries the same thing, I am glad you are established enough to understand the principles of wikipedia and why we can't do it (most of those other editors just get banned or pissed off).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is another Wikipedia where things backed by zero evidence do not get protected just because some bunch of people believe who believe in them. For example, read their example for Easter: [1] Honestly, who on Earth do people believe in this type of stuff? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Revolt in the Stars

That should be mentioned in the lede, probably as a sentence in the first paragraph. 178.8.159.11 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bold in the lead

I don't want to mess with a featured article, but why are so many words bolded in the lead? I thought we only did that for the subject of an article. Andrew327 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think we could replace several of those with wikilinks, otherwise I think the only thing we should bold is Xenu and Xemu.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke?

OK so right above where I am typing is a template which says "This article is not a joke" but is this part of the joke? An old April Fool's? Elsewhere in the archive someone has written that saying such things is "insulting to Scientologists" which is also surely a joke? Scientology isn't a religion (well, it may be classed as such in a few countries but not in most) and it is widely ridiculed by the media, ordinary people, online and elsewhere so it seems to be OK to be insulting to Scientologists. It's like saying that telling a pedophile that he has a problem or telling a racist that he's wrong is "insulting". Apologies if this really is not a joke but it should be made far clearer in the article. The article should also try to be less "neutral" as it seems to be pretending that this is something normal to believe in - Wikipedia don't be afraid to tell things as they are.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientology may be a joke, but this article isn't.--Auric talk 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It’s because many people may find this article so outlandish that they may reasonably believe it is a joke. When I first came across it, I was one of them. The template may be insulting to someone who genuinely believes it to be a matter of historical record, but considering the real confusion that there has been over the article, I for one think it’s necessary. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

75 billion or 75 million

The article is contradictory: could someone with access to the source say whether Hubbard claims these events took place 75 billion or 75 million years ago? Britmax (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)x

Xenu's full name

For those interested, Xenu's full name was Xenutrion. Hubbard was not insane, although he had had a lobotomy. I have had an experience of Space opera and all too similar incidents, although my view and perceptions were a bit different. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source on "Xenu's full name" being Xenutrion, please do provide it. I'll gladly add it to the article, since it may be relevant. Otherwise, please remember that the talk pages are not a forum. If you have had spiritual experiences related to Scientology, then that is something for you to consider or discuss among others off Wikipedia. If you have relevant information which may be valuable to this article, however, then please do provide it and hopefully with a reliable source to back it up. Thanks. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"hydrogen bombs" or "fission"

The article mentions hydrogen bombs but then mentions the world shot through with fission. Hydrogen bombs are fusion. Where did the fission come from? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hubbard was both a bad writer and scientifically illiterate, so don't expect accuracy from him. But weirdly enough, and probably accidentally, he did get the fission bit kinda sorta right - hydrogen bombs do actually rely on a fission reaction to trigger fusion. The fissioning elements of the bomb are what produce the bulk of the fallout. See thermonuclear weapon for more details. Prioryman (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thermonuclear bombs not only generate most of their fallout from fission, but most of their explosive yield as well (probably). The "clean" fusion bomb is most likely mythical. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Most of the fallout yes, most of the yield no. Any bomb which includes a fission component is inevitably going to produce fallout. Prioryman (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hydrogen bombs are essentially just strapping fusible hydrogen around a fission bomb.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xenu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Xenu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Xenu → ? – "Xenu" is really just a person/character in the story, and it feels a bit awkward labelling the whole article by that name - a bit like calling the article Genesis creation narrative by the name "God" or "Adam". You can't say the article is about the individual person, and thus shouldn't carry his name by default. I'm not sure what to call it instead though, but a few ideas:

Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 12:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I suggest either The Wall of Fire or Incident II. There seems to be no need to add "(Scientology)" as a disambiguation term, since there are no other topics listed on the DAB page that are called "The Wall of Fire". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact that we (at least, most of us) don't think the person exists is no bar to naming an article after him. It's true that there is a whole narrative involved, not just a single character, but Xenu is the central figure of that narrative. Most importantly, Xenu is by far the most recognizable name to the public. So in the spirit of COMMONNAME my immediate reaction is don't move.
    As a side note, there is also a space opera in Scientology article, but it doesn't go into too much detail about the various "incidents"; it seems to be more at a "meta" level. I wouldn't rule out either expanding that article to include more in-universe details, or splitting out another article to handle it, and at that point it might not be completely out of the question to merge Xenu into that article. But just taking this article and giving it a more obscure name doesn't strike me as an improvement. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Xenu is the common name for the story. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pocket god

In the popular culture section, I would recommend adding the fact that the video game pocket god includes a character known as “the evil alien god Xenu from beyond” who is portrayed as Squid-like 2605:8D80:524:644A:7528:C31E:111F:1938 (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenu/Archive_5&oldid=1220377027"