Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenu

Xenu
Self-nomination. I ran it past the checklist ... - David Gerard 23:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - anything to piss off the whackjobs known as the Scientology Cult. I could come up with more plausible crap to base a cult off than this.
 * That's not a very loving attitude ;-p - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now for things i'd like to see fixed:
 * needs more images, it mentions covers and sketches, lets get some up there.
 * I may throw in the cover of Dianetics. What sketches? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry sketches is not really the word I meant, I meant perhaps an image to illustrate the Xenu/Xemu discrepancy since its in L Ron's own handwriting. However the cover for Dianetics is a nice addition, and quite useful to correlate with the description of the whole H-bomb volcano section. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was reluctant to put the scanned page of OT III in, even though it's arguably of encyclopaedic fair use and they haven't attempted to sue Dave Touretzky who's had it up as "academic research" for nine years, because that would be tweaking their noses really hard ... but maybe of that one word - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've put the scan of the word "Xenu" in - David Gerard 12:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * minimal coverage of L Ron not even a small paragraph just a 1 sentance sidenote, needs a bit more.
 * What are you thinking of that isn't covered by a link back to his name? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a complete bio if thats what your thinking but perhaps more than simply "L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, also wrote a film script about him." in the lead in. Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph on how he wrote OT III (drunk and on drugs) - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * a split between external links and references to back up the article. Alkivar 07:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That could be difficult - the things listed do in fact serve both purposes. What links would you put in one and what in the other? - David Gerard 13:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Have separated out the reference-only ones. How's that? - David Gerard 14:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * MUCH BETTER! Alkivar 18:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Support, but I'd like the implications summarized. I know that I can hit the wikilink on body thetans and stuff, but it would be nice to have a sentence or two that sketches out the broader beliefs that put this in context.  My only concern is that if this hits the main page, we're going to get even more noisome editing.  Geogre 15:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've actually invited Scientologist editors to look over this page before, but none have taken me up on the offer. Shouldn't be more contentious on the main page than GNU/Linux naming controversy ... Will see if I can find suitable consensus summaries of the implications to put in and reference - David Gerard 16:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By 'implications' I assume you meant the point of the whole thing, i.e. that you are covered in the souls of murdered space aliens and they cause all your problems and you have to audit them off. I've summarised that much in the second paragraph of the intro - David Gerard 17:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support It's worth it even if we get invaded by an army of Scientology lawyers GeneralPatton 23:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, if only to prove that Wikipedia can present worthy subjects that other encyclopedias won't even mention. --Modemac 00:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, but I would prefer this article not to appear on the front page, to avoid the possibility of having Wikipedia sued by Scientology. (See Scientology vs. the Internet -- it's not impossible.)  Risking your own skin to fight Scientology is one thing, but risking Wikipedia is another.  It's true that this is "giving in" to Scientology's threats, but in this case I think Wikipedia's financial health is paramount. --Redquark 06:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Scientologists are, of course, welcome to edit this article and add their own perspective. --Modemac 12:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is extraordinarily weird, if I may say so. I'll support, even though it's really too short, because the secretive nature of the subject might make further expansion difficult and just because it's so damn interesting. Everyking 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tried to expand it a bit - how Hubbard wrote it. I'm trying to think of other things to say about Xenu that are worth encyclopaedic coverage - David Gerard 12:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, considering how hard it is to write a decent NPOV article from Hubbard's ramblings, this is as close as it will get. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * The recent nomination of Thursday October Christian showed me that there are some articles where so little is known that it is not possible to get to a length appropriate for a featured article, and where expanding the article will become original research. Xenu is just long enough to qualify. I don't think "because it will annoy the scientologists" is a reason for featuring an article, though. With those caveats and qualifications, I support featured article status. Dbiv 17:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that short! (I don't think Thursday October Christian is too short either, FWIW.) That said, I've been looking around for stuff to expand it with - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think a mocking image is appropriately NPOV for the lead image. L. Ron's handwriting sample is priceless though, and arguably a much better image. Otherwise I would support. Seems very well done, and is long enough unless someone can find something important it doesn't cover. - Taxman 18:57, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I put that image in because it didn't have any other image at the time, and there is no official Scientology depiction of Xenu. The grey alien theme is very common with the critics, even if it has no official basis. I may swap the two around in the article - David Gerard 20:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I buried the image to the bottom of the article and added a more NPOV image to the top of the page. Should make it appear more NPOV overall. Alkivar 03:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that a picture of an exploding volcano (Stromboli perhaps?) be used as the main image - it would be appropriate at least. -- ChrisO 03:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, if we can make the captions full sentences. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't see a way to do so that wouldn't be fatuous. They're really not standalone items. What would you suggest? - David Gerard 12:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, they're both full sentences now! - David Gerard 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Subject too esoteric to be of general interest. Mkweise 06:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this would be a non-actionable objection, being of general interest is not a FA criteria, not to mention the fact that general interest is all in the eye of the beholder. See What is a featured article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Objection is not actionable. And besides the quality of content is the only thing that matters to be featured, not the subject matter. - Taxman 13:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * According to our policy, objections must state a specific issue/issues that can be addressed and fixed. GeneralPatton 02:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It covers the subject well and has excellent supporting material. The subject itself... man, this is one odd bunch of people... Radagast 14:19, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It's long enough. Filiocht 16:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now . Support. I think this article is very good, and really close to being of featured article quality, and it ought to be featured soon. But it needs some work on style and readability, particularly in the introduction. I also think it needs a little time to age. It has just recently become what looks to be pretty NPOV, but the article could use some input from a Scientologist or two, just to make doubly sure that the article is accurate and adequately explains their point of view, so that when the article is featured, it doesn't get pounced-on. [[User:COGDEN|CO GDEN (talk)]] 22:13, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * That isn't really all that actionable. It's had a Scientologist contributor, User:I'm4aNPOV, who was even posting from a CoS office. He didn't stick around, though. If this is to be regarded as actionable, where would you suggest we recruit one from? Also, please state your problems with style and readability with specificity (e.g. on a section or paragraph level), so that they will be actionable. The article has been around a while; this version isn't terribly different from how it's been over the past six months, the main difference being it now has references for everything - David Gerard 22:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * User:I'm4aNPOV only appears to have made one edit, and that was to remove a link. Regarding readability, I went ahead and made some changes myself. I'm not an expert in their area, so my changes should be verified. My main remaining objection regards the mention that Hubbard was on drugs when he wrote OT III. I think this needs an explanation or some sort of apologetics from a Scientologist, because I'm sure they have a POV on this issue that isn't represented. We don't necessarily need an actual Scientologist to help out with this, but there are probably explanations out there on the web that might be included. [[User:COGDEN|CO GDEN (talk)]] 01:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice edits - thank you! I'm trying to track down a better source on the letter with the quote. The quote seems to be accurate. The paragraph doesn't flow perfectly, but every source I checked on its origins says he was drugged to the gills at the time. I'm looking for a credible reference (i.e., preferably not a Usenet post) comparing the "body thetans" story to the crawling insects on the skin feeling of barbiturate withdrawal. CoS representatives have denied the drugs story on a.r.s, but the letter was brought up in court (CoS vs Armstrong) in 1984 and never actually challenged - it seems Hubbard did in fact say just that, in those words. I've posted to a.r.s asking for help on this stuff, and for a Scientologist viewpoint (which may or may not be a CoS viewpoint). User:I'm4aNPOV was quite aware of Xenu, having made some controversial edits to Scientology and discussed such matters on that talk page - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased with the article as it currently stands. All my reservations have been resolved; therefore, I am changing my vote, and I hope the article gets featured. [[User:COGDEN|CO GDEN (talk)]] 20:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, if only for one of the most humorous disclaimers ever. Almafeta 02:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure the disclaimer will survive NPOV ;-) It's a bit pointed - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Straight-faced, surely! If we're to present a NPOV we have to take the Scientologists' concerns seriously, right? ;-) -- ChrisO 02:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont think I ever read the disclaimer before you mentioned it... LOL, I nearly peed myself. Alkivar 02:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I've made some fairly major edits to fix some outstanding issues raised here. -- ChrisO 02:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You've done wonders for it - David Gerard 02:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, so long as that disclaimer is kept. Fantastic. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't guarantee that ... it still smells a bit POV to me. The health warning should go with the bit in which Hubbard claims it killed everyone who found it before - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's preserved for posterity at BJAODN... -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I fear I've already moved the silly bit of the disclaimer to the relevant paragraph of the body text. I hope you will still consider the article up to standard ;-) - David Gerard 08:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why are the references done up so weirdly? Shouldn't there be one ==References== section per Cite sources? Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ask User:ChrisO - David Gerard 09:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a bit clumsy, I admit, but it seemed a better way of doing it (and thanks to whoever hyperlinked the footnotes) than having notations like "(Miller p. 75)" next to a section of text. Is there a better way of making it user-friendly? -- ChrisO 00:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we need that mooted new reference syntax - specifically, automatic footnote renumbering - David Gerard 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Article would make an interesting contribution to the FA library. Jacob1207 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Something you'd never see in another encyclopaedia. And yet it's definetly up to the level. - V 23:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)