Content deleted Content added
Proxima Centauri (talk | contribs) |
Proxima Centauri (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|counter = 4 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Xenu/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=FAC |
|||
|action1date=23:47, 18 Dec 2004 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenu |
|||
|action1result=promoted |
|||
|action1oldid=8617953 |
|||
|action2=AFD |
|||
|action2date=10:59, 14 September 2005 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu |
|||
|action2result=Kept |
|||
|action2oldid=23200550 |
|||
|action3=FAR |
|||
|action3date=19:46, 14 April 2006 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Xenu |
|||
|action3result=Kept |
|||
|action3oldid=48439341 |
|||
|action4=AFD |
|||
|action4date=00:13, 26 March 2007 |
|||
|action4link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination) |
|||
|action4result=Speedy Keep |
|||
|action4oldid=117820273 |
|||
|action5=FAR |
|||
|action5date=14:40, 5 December 2008 |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xenu/archive1 |
|||
|action5result=kept |
|||
|action5oldid=256036028 |
|||
|maindate=February 19, 2005 |
|||
|small=no |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Good Job|"The most sober and enlightening text about the Xenu myth is probably the anonymous article on Wikipedia ..." — {{citation | last=Rothstein|first=Mikael|editor-last =[[James R. Lewis|Lewis, James R.]] |contribution='His name was Xenu. He used renegades. ...' – Aspects of Scientology's Founding Myth | title =Scientology | publisher =[[Oxford University Press, USA]] | year =2009 | page =371 | isbn =0195331494 }} }} |
|||
{{onlinesource|year=2006 |
|||
| section=July 2006 |
|||
| author=Gregory K. Fritz |
|||
| title=Awakening to Scientology |
|||
| org=The Providence Journal |
|||
| date=July 11, 2005 |
|||
| url=http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20060711_ctfritz.17eef7f.html |
|||
| year2=2005 |
|||
| section2=September 2005 |
|||
| author2=Daniel Terdiman |
|||
| title2=Esquire wikis article on Wikipedia |
|||
| org2=CNET News |
|||
| date2=September 20, 2005 |
|||
| url2=http://news.com.com/Esquire+wikis+article+on+Wikipedia+-+page+2/2100-1038_3-5885171-2.html |
|||
| year3=2005 |
|||
| section3=July 1–10 |
|||
| author3=[[Simon Dumenco]] |
|||
| title3=A MEDIA-STUDIES POP QUIZ |
|||
| org3=Advertising Age |
|||
| date3=July 11, 2005 |
|||
| url3=http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId3=45506 |
|||
| year4=2005 |
|||
| author4=John Bice |
|||
| title4= A 21st Century Rationalist in Medieval America |
|||
| date4=2005 |
|||
| year5=2005 |
|||
| author5=Denice Flaim |
|||
| title5= Illustrator takes on celebrity culture |
|||
| org5= Arizona Republic |
|||
| date5= August 17, 2005 |
|||
| url5= http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/articles/0817blogillustrator0817.html |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Scientology|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Paranormal|class=FA|Importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{American-English}} |
|||
*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/FAQ|FAQ for Talk Page readers]] |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
== Good Job == |
|||
Added {{tl|Good Job}} template note, about mention in ''Scientology'', [[Oxford University Press, USA]]. There are actually several other positive mentions of Wikipedia in the book. :) '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, cool. We discussed this here on this talk page a few months back, at [[Talk:Xenu/Archive_4#Favourable_mention_in_Oxford_University_Press_book]]. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Has it occured to anyone else that WP articles about religion should not be "sobering"? [[Special:Contributions/213.29.115.6|213.29.115.6]] ([[User talk:213.29.115.6|talk]]) 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not really much to discuss about it, it is just this particular scholar's analysis. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Even when it is used as evidence of a "good job" when it is actually evidence of the opposite? [[Special:Contributions/94.222.102.44|94.222.102.44]] ([[User talk:94.222.102.44|talk]]) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Your comment does not make sense. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Good job--on the sobriety. Would the injection of "sobriety" into other WP articles on religious topics be tolerated? [[Special:Contributions/213.29.115.6|213.29.115.6]] ([[User talk:213.29.115.6|talk]]) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Is this getting to a ''specific'' suggestion about something to change in ''this'' article? If not, this discussion is not productive. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::From the looks of things, it will not be productive in any case. [[Special:Contributions/213.29.115.6|213.29.115.6]] ([[User talk:213.29.115.6|talk]]) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Could be dangerous? == |
|||
I am not a scientologist by any means (whatsoever) of the imagination. |
|||
Still, wouldn't it be just simply nice to write at the very top of the article: |
|||
'WARNING - If you are a scientoligist, according to your beliefs the following text may be detrimental to your health'. Or something. |
|||
I know you and I don't believe reading it could hurt us. But some people do and that needs to be respected. I see warning these people about the article as very similar to warning a vegetarian about meat being in a dish. Sure we all know it'd be totally harmless for them to just eat the meat -- but still it's nice they be warned rather then be subjected to something they don't want to do. |
|||
What do you think? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.72.200.11|165.72.200.11]] ([[User talk:165.72.200.11|talk]]) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I think the existing lede serves this purpose. It informs the reader of what the article is about, including the belief that the content is dangerous, and they can decide whether to go further. Lots of people have belief systems according to which specific information (about sexuality, culture, other beliefs etc.) is harmful, corrupting, offensive or otherwise unpalatable. If we were to put warnings to each of those belief systems at the tops of all the articles, they would fill the whole first screen. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::To the contrary, it describes "official Scientology dogma" in the most direct, implausible language imaginable. [[Special:Contributions/213.29.115.6|213.29.115.6]] ([[User talk:213.29.115.6|talk]]) 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
this cannot be any more dangerous than reading the bible or koran which are just as idotic and nonsensical. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.233.178.254|199.233.178.254]] ([[User talk:199.233.178.254|talk]]) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I agree with MartinPouler, the lead gives all the information necessary for individuals to assess wither the article will inform, offend, fail to interest, or cause them to catch pneumonia and die depending on their personal interests or beliefs and no additional warning is necessary to further inform those parties. Now if there is actually a wave of deaths directly linked to this article then maybe we should revisit this conversation but till then it should stand as is.[[User:Coffeepusher|Coffeepusher]] ([[User talk:Coffeepusher|talk]]) 03:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:As a one time Scientologist and having transpassed or transcended the auditing of OT III some years ago, one finds this approach/article & discussion amusing on a number of counts. A recent count of our apparent time track as beings found its length to be nearly 10^110 earth years equivalent, having been through 11 Big Bangs and some 19 Incident II's. The reason OT III auditing works simultaneously on all those "that long ago's" is their singular similarities it would seem, too. As it, "Incident II," breaks out into the culture, knowing creatures are subtly and not so subtly reminded that 65 times in our past we have developed Scientology & Scientology-like organizations to deal with our pasts, including 55 iterations of Christianity, for "confession," "repentance" and otherwise dealing with our past errors. With the presence of the several thousands of validly audited OT III persons in the earth environment, the risks of danger or "infection" become less as the 1) incidents are audited by valid auditors and 2) more able, valid OT III's are produced to stabilize the conscious, analytic mind fields. The risks may remain in place for some, who by virtue of their own self-constructed ignorance and/or puzzling karma cells act mainly as "bad samaritans" for those earnestly seeking freedom. And that can include overly enthusiastic Scientologists who "spill the beans" to lower level persons perhaps just discovering that they may have a personal engram... [[Special:Contributions/71.51.73.23|71.51.73.23]] ([[User talk:71.51.73.23|talk]]) 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Xenu / Xemu additions == |
== Xenu / Xemu additions == |
||
Line 123: | Line 7: | ||
::::Not an [[WP:RS]] source, and I think that is a replica of some page at xenu.net anyways. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
::::Not an [[WP:RS]] source, and I think that is a replica of some page at xenu.net anyways. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
You seem to know |
You seem to know what is an acceptable source better than I do, please find one. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:33, 26 November 2009
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)
- Yes but can you present other corroborating sources? That would be the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 10:11, 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)