Talk:Xenu

Nuclear Arsenal

Have there been any reports of Xenu's enemies (Scientologists) reverse engineering Nuclear weapons for positive purposes? Such as, a non-radioactive nuclear winter in desert terrain for hydration? Trouble understanding their role in the war that led to the downfall of Xenu.. Twillisjr (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

the question is non-sense; history of Xenu is allegoric 5.77.113.15 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is allegoric[al]? Some doubt that. Zaslav (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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 22 April 2024

Revolt in the Stars was not just a film treatment. It was a full screenplay supposedly written by L. Ron Hubbard and a company called A Brilliant Film Company started by Scientologists, husband and wife team Randy and Gillian Eaton tried to produce it. They were located in Hollywood in the Crossroads of the World complex. The initial funding came from Becky, Bobby, and Cooper Rounds, grandkids of Gaily Coleman of the Coleman lantern fortune. The script featured illustrations with emperor Xenu looking like a dead-ringer for Ming the Merciless of the Flash Gordon movies. If the film had ever been made, L. Ron Hubbard would have per contract received $666,000 on first day of principal photography. I'm the writer Skip Press. I've never tried to create a Wikipedia page for myself or edit one, so would appreciate your assistance. Lloydpress (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lloydpress: This info is already covered at Revolt in the Stars § Development.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)