Talk:Space opera in Scientology/Archive 2

Lotsof stuff deleted
A lot was deleted, with the comment that it was moved to an own article. But where are the Gorilla Goals and the Bear Goals, Body Builder Incident, Bubble Gum Incident, etc? --Tilman 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Confederacy
The Confederacy that Hubbard wrote about was Xenu's Galactic Confederation. I don't know if that's supposed to be the same as Espinol, these planets, stars and junk are ours... AndroidCat 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Galactic Confederacy and Espinol are two entirely different races of alien critters, and are listed as such in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, first edition. Though the article kept saying "Espinol Confederacy", all the Hubbard sources I've checked just call it "Espinol". wikipediatrix 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: the Technical Dictionary does refer to it once as "Espinol Confederacy", but also as "Espinol United Stars", among other things. The official Dictionary listing, however, is simply as "Espinol", which seems to be the most common way to refer to these folks. I dunno. wikipediatrix 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Time Track
User:Makoshack has been removing the info about the Galactic Fleet, stating that there is "no such lecture" as the cited SHSBC-265, The Time Track. In fact, you can find it listed very plainly on pg.556 of the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Manual (1st edition) and it is described as a "Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Taped Lecture". (In case no one's noticed yet, the 1st edition of the the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Manual is a very handy book to own if you don't already....) wikipediatrix 04:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardize cites w/ WP:CIT
If we work on standardizing all of the current cites in the article with WP:CIT, it would make things easier to manage and get a better look at the state of the article. I will do this if I have a chance, but not a priority at the moment. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

Has this page been vandalized?
Just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.135.159 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostyndebeer (talk • contribs)

Comments
These are all comments from someone who does almost exclusively A-Class review, not GA review. I hope everyone remembers that. I can be a real pain about details, too, and I hope everyone notes that as well.

The quote at the end of the intro needs sourcing. The first paragraph of the "Scientology and science fiction" section has problems. The "However" starting the second sentence does not belong, and the paragraph could probably stand being restructured so that the mention of the higher levels, who are aware of the space opera doctrines, follows more directly the first sentence. Alternately, the first sentence could be moved. The reference to Miscavige later is confusing, as I can't tell whether it's referencing his status as leader or statements by him and others. The public denial should be referenced though. Quote in first paragraph of "Scientology's view of the universe" needs sourcing. "trillenia" in the next paragraph should be explained. I personally haven't a clue what it's supposed to mean. Starting the paragaph with "However" is probably a bad idea too. Next paragraph says Hubbard mentioned other such "incidents". Elaboration of one or more directly thereafter, or at least reference to the later section detailing such incidents, and sourcing would be welcome. All paragraphs should preferably have at least two, and definitely one, citation each. "Scientology's history of the universe" needs sourcing. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. John Carter 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to address some of this stuff at some point soon.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

Good Article review
I will be doing the Good Article review on this article - it will take me a day or two to read it and make comments. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, much appreciated. There is some history too, it is a former featured article.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I have had a quick read through and will work on a detailed list over the next several hours, but I would agree with the general idea of the points above - the references need to be made consistent throughout (there are currently at least two styles of citation) and everything that is a direct quote (or even a paraphrase / attribution likely to be disputed) needs a reference / citation. I have not yet looked at the FAR. I saw that it existed, but thanks for the heads-up on it too, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Failed
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail

I read the article many times, as well as the FAR, Peer Review, and I believe all the Talk Page discussions. I tried to give examples of what needs to be fixed but not an exhaustive list. I seriously thought about failing this, but think with work it can be brought up to GA standards. You have a week from now to fix these points. I will check back in two days to see how you are doing and would be glad to answer questions about this anytime. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree about cite templates - this is my formally checking back in 2 days review. Glad to see some edits towards meeting GA, but much work is still needed in the remaining five days. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, your detailed suggestions above will be very helpful in improving the article's quality. I will make corrections to the article, and note them here below.  Hopefully we will be able to see enough improvement within the article in Seven Days.  Cirt (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
 * OK, I converted refs 2 and 8 to cite web using the name="glossary" option for illustrative purposes. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am familiar with the WP:CIT format, and now that I see that's specifically what you were talking about, I'll go ahead and reformat all the cites in the article to that format.  Cirt (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Just to be clear - it does not have to use the cite templates, but it should have all that info (and since I am most familiar with cite templates, I just used cite web). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but I like to try to use the cite templates where possible anyway, so that it will be easier for the next person to figure it all out and for a bit of standardization/uniformity. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for checking back in. I know, I know, I was planning on doing a major overhaul/implementing some of your above points, at some point tomorrow.  Cirt 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I am not trying to be a pest, the first GA review I ever did, I checked back in 2 days with no changes, so I left no notice. Then I felt bad and gave them 2 more days after the week, so now I try to just touch base. Looking forward to the improvements and thanks for the quick reply, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: - My apologies to, who has given us a really great review and some good pointers above on how to improve this article, but it seems that I have not improved the article in the requisite time. On top of that, another editor has come in and added a lot of fact tags, which are appropriately needed in the article and I agree with the fact tag placements.  This article clearly needs a lot more work to get up to GA status, and I just have a lot of other stuff I'm working on at the moment.  I probably come back to this article later, and in the meantime, the very helpful suggestions on how to improve the article remain above.  I will fail the article myself and update the history.  Thanks again to .  Cirt 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply No need to apologize, I feared that it might be too much work for one week (although I think you still have a day to go), but I am glad the review suggestions are helpful. Thanks for doing the "paperwork", Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful Fact-bombing
The mass addition of tags by Andreasegde isn't particularly helpful, especially when they all seem to have been added during four minutes of scanning the article and dropping them on the end of most paragraphs. In some cases, the need for an added reference is obvious, in others (when Hubbard returns to sci-fi writing) there's no clue of what needs to be referenced. In fact, I get the impression that every single paragraph that didn't end in a reference has now been tagged. If so, that really is nonsense. AndroidCat 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with on this one, and side with 's actions.  Perhaps they may have seemed haphazard, but the fact remains that lots more facts in the article could use the fact tag.  It was good enough to have been featured once per older standards, but now it's hard to discern what sources were used where, and that's why cites should be clarified throughout the entire article.  Cirt 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

In-universe
There is an in-universe tag on the "Alien civilizations" section, complaining that it is writing about fiction that has been written about as though it was real. I thought the point was that this stuff was claimed as real. Is there a complexity that I don't understand or should the tag go? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it off - while I agree the section should be rewritten, that tag on this article is just inflammatory. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It gives no details, but This 1952 article from Time Magazine mentions Scientology believing in reincarnation cycles that span trillions of years and may involve life on Venus. Probably not useful, but I thought it might be interesting as an early look at them.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio record of L. Ron Hubbard
I found this alleged audio recording of LRH explaining the space opera of Scientology:. Is it authentic? Could it be used, or linked to in this article? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Marcab Confederacy and Helatrobus
Proposal to merge in Marcab Confederacy and Helatrobus. If we remove the primary sources from those articles there will be almost nothing left. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * oppose This article is long enough already. Also, while secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. -Neitherday (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - And no, primary sources are generally not allowed. There are a few select circumstances in which they are, but the vast majority of content in Wikipedia should be from secondary sources. But more importantly, there is a ton of redundant information in the other two articles, and I don't think either Marcab Confederacy or Helatrobus are notable on their own. And there isn't enough content in either to support making a full article out of them. There is room for growth in this article; why not take what little is in either of the other articles and incorporate it in? -- Good Damon 05:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
 * These primary sources have been republished by various secondary source. There is no reason not to use these sources to make descriptive claims in Marcab Confederacy and Helatrobus. -Neitherday (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they have been published in reliable secondary sources, please change the citations to point to those sources. Most of the material in both articles comes directly from Hubbard's writings. The portion of WP:PRIMARY you posted says it quite clearly. Primary sources need to have been published by a reliable source before they can be used, and interpretations of those sources require secondary sources. Look, I'm not arguing that the material isn't accurate... It's just that there isn't enough material from reliable, secondary sources to maintain those two articles. Better that the good material that is in either of them be merged here to flesh this article out. -- Good Damon 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I favor merging Marcab Confederacy, Helatrobus and Space opera in Scientology scripture for the reasons that GoodDamon has cited. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merging these articles. It's not that content sourced to primary sources is particularly bad; rather that this article isn't that long, and both those articles are fairly short and of dubious independent notability, so should preferably be covered as subsections of this article rather than separate ones. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in story
This wikipedia entry says: "These events include the story of Xenu, the ruler of the Galactic Confederacy who brought billions of frozen people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, creating swarms of disembodied alien souls known as Body Thetans".

I think there is some information lacking: Hubbard's story says that after the bombing, disembodied aliens (or Thetans), confused and scared, formed swarms who, as disembodied swarms, entered the few remaining physical bodies, thus being "Body Thetans". The problem here was, I think, that the Thetans, having forgotten their true nature, unknowingly trapped themselves in bodies, thus creating conflict inside people until some Scientologist telepathically helps them remember who they are and "cross to the other side". If the "many amnesiac souls in few bodies" part is omitted, it's impossible to understand why any Scientologist would want to get rid of them by helping them remember their past.

However, I don't find other sources apart from Wikipedia explaining this, so I would be thankful if someone with more knowledge than me corrected the article (if I'm right, of course).

--Sir3 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy problems
I've said this many times before on other Scn articles. The so-called "space opera" or science fiction elements of Scientology are not "secret." Many of the lectures that you can buy at any Church bookstore deal with these beliefs. The vast majority of space opera in Scn is right there in the publicly available lecture series.

OT III is not even a fundamental part of Scientology belief and the vast majority of Scientologists aren't even at the OT Levels, let alone Clear. And in regards to space opera, OT III is pretty tame compared to what is discussed in the various hundreds of lectures that anyone can purchase from the Church bookstores. So, OT III is not the cornerstone of Scn space opera beliefs.

What is true is that if someone is new to Scn, staff members and Scientologists aren't supposed to talk about anything that is above that person's level. So if someone is just starting out, say with the Purification Rundown, no one is supposed to talk about anything above that level.

So, all this fuss about OT III which the anti-Scientology crowd keep talking about, it's senseless because you don't have to be at the OT Levels to find out about the space opera elements. Today, when a perosn buys the Basics Books & Lectures, they get A History of Man and Techniquee 88 lectures, which extensively discuss space opera, and space opera is mentioned in some of the other lecture sets that come with the Basics as well. And this is a book/lecture package that is zealously promoted to new people just starting out in Scn.

Laval (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide some 3rd party sources to support your position. --Rob (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source says pretty much the same. The paper is also included as a book chapter in . Quote: "Fortunately, with the continued publication (in both audio and literary formats) of Hubbard's many lectures, all of the elements of the myth have been made available and can be accessed by anyone without reference to the confidential documents, though some diligence is required as the references are scattered in a variety of sources. [24]" Footnote 24 (25 in the book) then reads: "Those who wish to understand the cosmology of Scientology should begin with L. Ron Hubbard, The Factors (Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications, 1990); and the guide to the OT materials, Ron's Legacy of OT (Los Angeles, Calif.: Golden Era Productions, n.d.). Further definition of the cosmology is found in Ron's Journal 67 (Hubbard's annual report for 1967) and in several of his tape sets such as The Dawn of Immortality, The Time Track of Theta, Secrets of the MEST Universe, and A Series of Lectures on the Whole Track." -- JN 466  03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Implement suggestions from this discussion
See discussion below to add more secondary sourced material - consensus that primary sourced material NOT be deleted.

Consensus reached to keep primary-sourced facts and balance it with more secondary details, split it out if necessary, and create effective brief summaries containing both.

third party sourcing requirements
A major problem with this article, is that it's heavily reliant on primary sources, namely stuff Hubbard wrote, and we go into excessive details. We shouldn't just be retelling what Hubbard said. Rather, we should be summarizing what's already been said about it, in reliable independent sources. If this was a BLP, I'd just go ahead and remove all this excessive details based on primary sources. But, since it's not, I'ld like to see if others would agree with me, on the need to substantially clean up this article. --Rob (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article provided the information I was looking for, specifically, the story of the Space Opera. I think you need only the primary source for that part of the article, and I'm glad the details were there. JFistere (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the same the other day, when I was looking at the article. It's not in line with policies and guidelines. At the same time, like JFistere, I was grateful for some of the info. :/ -- JN 466  03:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a need for both though. We do need summary of plot and events to an extent, which is basically what it is.  We summarize the important events of the bible in articles like Noah and Garden of Eden, and we also write about them from secondary sources.  If we can expand this with more secondary sources, then it won't be so heavily reliant.  I would prefer not to remove detail, rather balance it with more secondary details, split it out if necessary, and create effective brief summaries containing both. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in the interests of aesthetics and appropriate tagging, the "accuracy" tag at the head of the page, stating a dispute over factual inaccuracy, seem to now be obsolete. This is following the debate and comments above.  The facts do not seem to be in doubt, what remains is a call for secondary sources, rather than solely primary sourced (like Wikipedia articles summarising The Bible).  I propose replacing the Factual Accuracy tag with additions to the TODO list for work which is proposed.  For example: more secondary sources for balance and split it out, if necessary, creating effective brief summaries of both primary and secondary material.   Mediation4u (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun
 * If there are no objections and as it is a fairly cosmetic change, I'll go ahead with the proposal above in seven days' time.  Hope this helps.  Mediation4u (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun
 * TODO ITEM, DRAFT SUGGESTION, IN ARCHIVE - Implement suggestions from this discussion to add more secondary sourced material - consensus that primary sourced material NOT be deleted, as per the bible coverage, for example Noah and Garden of Eden.


 * TODO ITEM TITLE, to go in TODO list: Consensus reached to keep primary-sourced facts and balance it with more secondary details, split it out if necessary, and create effective brief summaries containing both. This approach is how the bible is covered. See Discussion (Archive Linked). Any other suggestions? Mediation4u (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun
 * Also propose to move this whole discussion to the archive - cosmetic reason - so that the TODO list links will carry on working from the main talk page. When the task is done, then the todo-list can be updated. Mediation4u (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The word 'Scripture' in article title
Does the word 'Scripture', in the article title, perhaps contain the implicit assumption that Scientology is a legitimate religion? (something that's disputed) — in that, only religions have 'Scriptures' — it's a loaded word.

Suggested amendment: 'Space opera in Scientology'.

I'm a newbie so hesitant to make this change myself.

Someone else has made a similar point at: Talk:Religious_text

thoughts?

--Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually have a very broad definition of what a "religion" is, so I don't think we should take action for that reason. I tend to agree that concise is better, though. And some of the space opera here isn't from Scientology's scriptures, they're about space opera details that come out while auditing. So, yes, I agree with your proposed change. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I moved it, turns out a previous version of the page was "Space Opera in Scientology doctrine", which made more sense (but was wordier). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK cool, nice one Mark. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Venus
I’m pretty sure the claim that thetans go to Venus after death is wrong, but it would probably be OR to show such. The Forth Invader Force were the latest implanters to be specifically mentioned by Hubbard, and they had their implant station on Mars. Other than the scuffle with the Fifth Hubbard details little about them, and while the fifth occupied Venus there is no mention that they engaged in implanting. The only reference in what came after in the space opera chronology is the Espinol, who currently use earth as a prison but no reference is made to Venus. The claim that Venus is the location for the implant station doesn’t come from any of the Hubbard materials I have, and the only real viable location per Hubbard would be Mars.

I know the Venus claim is sourced, but it just doesn’t seem to match up with what Hubbard wrote unless I’m missing a reference somewhere.--109.76.39.144 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Afterlife for Scientologists / What will happen to Isaac Hayes' legendary soul?

"Hubbard was quoted (apparently from a lecture given in the 1950s) describing how, after death, a thetan is carried to a "landing station" on Venus, where it is "programmed with lies," put in a capsule, and then "dumped" back on Earth, where it wanders in search of a baby to inhabit." --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the LA Times story which Salon is quoting from:
 * Defining the Theology

"Hubbard said that one of the worst implants happens after a person dies. While Hubbard's story of this implant may seem outlandish to some, he advanced it as a factual account of reincarnation.

"Of all the nasty, mean and vicious implants that have ever been invented, this one is it," he declared during a lecture in the 1950s. "And it's been going on for thousands of years."

Hubbard said that when a person dies, his or her thetan goes to a "landing station" on Venus, where it is programmed with lies about its past life and its next life. The lies include a promise that it will be returned to Earth by being lovingly shunted into the body of a newborn baby.

Not so, said Hubbard, who described the thetan's re-entry this way:

"What actually happens to you, you're simply capsuled and dumped in the gulf of lower California. Splash. The hell with ya. And you're on your own, man. If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK.

"And you just eventually just pick up a baby."

But Hubbard offered his followers an easy way to outwit the implant: Scientologists should simply select a location other than Venus to go "when they kick the bucket." So it looks like Venus is the default destination, but Scientologists (although presumably not non-Scientologists) can opt out of it. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, what I have now is that "Hubbard taught that thetans left human bodies after they died and went to "implant stations", among which was a location on a planet near Earth, where their memories were erased." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like some more details could be added from . Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, added some more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from a mention in an church glossary
What about all the stuff in Scientology: A History of Man, Route to Infinity, and the Technique 88 lectures? There is a ton of space opera in there, a lot of which is even arguably precursors to the Xenu myth (such as Volcanos and Entities). Those books and lectures are all part of the publicly available doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.10.29 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but such things aren't currently discussed in public by the church's leadership. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead Section does not agree with body
, you note removal of citation needed: Per longstanding practice, lead summarizes cited material in body.

However, this lead contradicts the body. Lead states: "Aside from a mention in a church glossary, the space opera doctrines of Scientology are not openly discussed by the church's leaders, who describe them as correctly understood only by experienced Scientologists."

The body states: "The Scientology publication Have You Lived Before This Life contains some space opera,[33] describing past lives—including some on warlike planets—which were recalled through auditing...Hubbard spoke openly about space opera in the 1950s,"

If authorities disagree, then let's say so. But the lead cites no authorities, so what are we dealing with? Slade Farney (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Sfarney, thanks for pointing this out. I'm open to changing how the lead is phrased. How about changing the lead sentence to "Although Hubbard spoke about space opera and it has been included in some of the church's publications, Scientology's leaders generally do not provide details about the subject." Would that capture the thrust of the article? Let me know what you think. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The bit about what the leaders say and do not say -- no real support for that. Scientology leaders are not in the practice of speaking to the masses or making televangelical sermons about anything, so the statement is a little deceptive.  The Church openly sells Have you lived before this life and History of Man, both of which have plenty of space opera.  The History of man page states there are recorded Hubbard lectures on space opera, too.  I think the lead should be rewritten to remove this innuendo completely. It sounds like the Wiki has an axe to grind about scientology, instead of just telling the facts. The information is public, not hidden. Slade Farney (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No ax to grind about Scientology here... in fact I went to great lengths to find the most neutral sources I could when writing this. I think the lead should mention that one has to reach a certain point in Scientology to learn about these things, and that the current church leadership generally tries to keep them a secret. That seems like a pretty major part of their notability, so I think it should be in the lead. Is there a specific wording you'd prefer? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at the sentence in question, what do you think? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, how does has the Wiki determined that "Xeno is the best known of these myths"? No authority here, sounds like WP:OR. Slade Farney (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement is cited in the body to page 74 of Urban's book about Scientology, I've tweaked the language as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Much, much better, thank you. Just one more detail.  A sentence in the intro is so out of context and incomprehensible, I vote for dropping it from the intro.  It can be understood only by reading the long explanation lower in the page: Scientology teaches that individuals can free themselves of the traumas that have occurred to their thetans, and that by doing so, the thetan can gain the ability to transform reality. Slade Farney (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it! I commented out that sentence about thetans for now. It is kind of confusing, I'll have to think about how to rephrase it or if it's really needed there. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also touched the wording about "self-help" because it does not agree with the definition of Dianetic auditing from the Dianetics page.  I think these ex-Scientologists are sometimes not the best sources of information.  We have to remember that at one point point they were in full agreement with Scientology.  They don't suddenly turn into scholars just by leaving the church. I am trying to research real scholars who have some broader knowledge of religion outside their own experience.  A main drawback of the public discussion was that ex-scientologists formed a main and very often the only source of information. Now apostates have a special impact for exposing Human Rights violations in religious groups and similar problems. But what would we say of a book - let's say -  about the Roman Catholic Church that almost only relied on statements made by apostate priests, while almost never taking into account the writings of e.g. catholic theologians? Wouldn't we consider such a procedure highly unfair (though very much conceding the importance of critical questions asked by apostates)?
 * Apart from the awkward wording ("almost only"??), it's a fair question.Slade Farney (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Age of the universe
I added a note that the space opera teachings are incompatible with the scientific consensus on the age of the universe: around 14 billion years. This is right after the point about the age of the volcanoes, and right before the sentence that mentions that all religions contain teachings that are incompatible with science, so I think it's well contextualised. --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)