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)

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)

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)

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)

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)