Talk:Scientology/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Reduction project B&P

In line with the earlier discussions about article size and organization of content across multiple articles, I will be working on a project to push "beliefs and practices" type content to the article Scientology beliefs and practices (one subtopic at a time), and reduce the duplicate content from the Scientology article, with the goal of leaving a summary in Scientology. (Later to determine the scope and composition of Scientology.) Edits will be made in coordination with edits made to Scientology beliefs and practices. (A separate project will be to push & reduce content that should be in Church of Scientology.) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Still working on this as time (and interest) permits. Lots more to be done. Anyone is welcome to jump in and pick a subtopic to work on.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a necessary effort, and the approach you state above is the right one (reduce duplication and leave a summary). To accord with
WP:CORRECTSPLIT, don't remove content (like this) leaving a subheading with no article body text, or with only a single sentence. The article is moving towards the ideal range of readable prose size; it is unnecessary and undesirable to remove the summary content that is the purpose of this headline article. Cambial foliar❧
15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@
WP:CONTENTFORK articles: Scientology beliefs and practices, Church of Scientology, and others. We're not in the process of trying to split Scientology, but instead trying to remove the duplicates (forks) that have been left behind from a split, or were deliberately duplicated. The empty-ish sections will likely go away entirely (or be combined into a summary section) because the plan has been to remove the majority of the section "Beliefs and practices" in favor of the splitaway article with the same name. Do not re-add chunks of fork material as you recently did to sections ARC and KRC triangles (diff) and Opposition to psychology and psychiatry (diff). You are undoing incremental work already done and making future duplicate work. At 230K (150K text only), this article is still no way near a reasonable size, and I estimate a full half of it is still duplicate material. Removal of content is not dependent on article size, but on duplication of content. If you want to help, then identify material that is duplicate in this article and another, and push the majority of the content into the breakaway article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Correct split applies. Just because the articles to which content is being split off to already exist, does not mean we should have headings or subheadings that are devoid of content. There is always to be summary content, and ideally this ought to consist of at least a couple of paragraphs. n.b. readable prose size, not page size, is the relevant metric. It's currently at 72 kB. Cambial foliar❧ 07:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@
WP:CORRECTSPLIT
, "If all the content of the section is being removed use the "See" template." Where it refers to "couple of paragraphs", as in "Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate)", that is for when you're actually doing a split of an article, not directing a minor subtopic to a duplicate section in another article. It is describing, of course, guidelines for when you're splitting an entire large article, then sure, I'll grant that a "couple of paragraphs" would be appropriate. But not here. Per consensus, the article is bloated with duplicate content.
It is not your place to "permit" me to shift out and summarize only bland and boring informational content about 'beliefs and practices' while reserving for yourself unilateral decision-making to keep all the juicy gossip bits... all the while moving them higher and higher up the page, which downplays the common and typical beliefs and practices by placing them below your chosen sensational subtopics.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion that they are "sensational" or "juicy gossip" is your own. According to the scholarship, the section discusses the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests. It is therefore highly relevant to this article about "the system of beliefs and the associated movement". Cambial foliar❧ 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Material invented after 1967 doesn't trump basic concepts from 1950 through 1967. What source says OT III and the Xenu story is the mythological framework on which the rest of the belief system rests?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rothstein in Lewis 2009. Scientology. OUP. It refers to it prominently as Scientology's founding myth. Cambial foliar❧ 07:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
"Founding myth" as in the alleged story of the start of the universe, not the start of the religion. The Xenu story is not a premise upon which all other things Scientology hang. In fact, very few things in Scientology rely on the Xenu story. The vast majority of Hubbard's writings and lectures happened prior to his invention of the Xenu story, like 95% of the material he churned out.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting original research, but not useful for page content. I'll simply quote Rothstein on Xenu/OT3, who says it provides the mythological framework for Hubbard’s Gnostic soteriology, and thus the machinery of the courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the “Bridge to Total Freedom,” Scientology’s metaphor for the path of salvation Cambial foliar❧ 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Rothstein admits on page 374 to relying heavily on Wikipedia's explanation of Scientology, cites Wikipedia over 10 times, used 6 or 7 Wikipedia pages in his footnotes, and frequently refers to Wikipedia in his chapter, which means using his write-up as a source for a citation in Wikipedia is pretty much a violation of
WP:CIRCULAR: Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
09:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The author does not "admit to relying heavily" on Wikipedia's explanation. He notes that Hubbard’s text has been rendered into more coherent prose on many occasions, most reliably by the anonymous author of the Xenu entry on Wikipedia. He notes that his scholarship is based on checking various renditions (including that on Wiki) to the original, and that he will build on the Wikipedia material but primarily try to say something different. He does not refer to Wikipedia when noting that the Xenu story is the mythological framework for the courses central to Scientology practice. The section in this article is based on a variety of scholarship and other reliable sources, and there are numerous other reliable sources examining this founding myth not currently cited (e.g. Lewis 2016,[1] which also refers to this as a foundational myth). If you believe you can build a consensus to delete this section, present on the article for at least fourteen years and built by numerous long-time editors, you're free to seek to do so.

Similarly, deleting entirely the Psychiatry section (diff), on the article for eight years having been added by Feoffer in 2015 and built by several editors since, is not justified by mere reference to a "reduction project" for this page in which you are the only participant.

As you know, Scientology is a big subject, and there is a lot to cover in the article. It is bound to be large. It is currently well below the "must be shortened" prose length of 15,000 words. Nevertheless, there could be room for making it shorter, much of which could be achieved by simply tightening up the language. Wholesale deletion of sections, on the basis that you think they are "juicy gossip", that you don't like them, or that they are covered in far greater detail on their own article, is not a productive way forward. Cambial foliar❧ 11:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


References

Misuse of maintenance templates

@Grorp: Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation:

The {{Failed verification}} tag is used when an editor tried to verify the information in an article with its sources, but failed to do so

Use this tag only if:

* an inline citation to a source is given,

* you have checked the source,

* the source does not support what is contained in the article, and

* despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic.

The article text you tagged was

Hubbard and his early Dianetics organization were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in the early 1950s.

and

Throughout the early 1950s, adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against the Dianetic Research Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license. In January 1963 U.S. Marshals raided the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington.

The sources, with page numbers, state:

Not surprisingly such claims drew the attention of the FDA and various state medical boards, and throughout the early 1950s, Hubbard’s followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses. Thus in January 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Inc. of operating a school for treatment of disease without a license; in March 1953 two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested as part of an investigation into running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without a license; and in late 1953, a Scientologist in Glendale, California, spent ten days in jail for practicing medicine without a license...On January 4, 1963, U.S. Marshals acting on an FDA warrant launched a surprise raid on the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, DC, confiscating over a hundred E-meters and more than three tons of literature and equipment. [Urban 2011]

the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Elizabeth went bankrupt in 1951. This was precipitated by a New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners investigation into the practice of medicine without a license. [Westbrook 2019]

While researchers must not minimise financial motives for Hubbard's decision to present Scientology as a religion in the early 1950s, they must also not neglect the fact that occasionally Hubbard's followers across the United States were being arrested for practicing medicine without licenses...Hubbard proclaimed in 1950 that, with the proper application of the techniques he outlined, "arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly, and the whole catalogue of ills goes away and stays away". Because of claims such as these (to which Scientology still adheres), the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, Inc. of "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license" in January, 1951, which contributed to the organisation's departure from Elizabeth, New Jersey, in April—prior to its pending trial in May. b). In late March, 1953, two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested, along with the confiscation of an e-meter, as part of an investigation into "running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without licenses" in late 1953 or early 1954, a Glendale, California, Dianeticist or Scientologist apparently spent ten days in jail for "practicising medicine without a license"...Some two months later, on January 4, 1963, US Marshalls (acting on authority of an FDA warrant) raided The Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C. and took away more than three tons of literature and equipment. [Kent 1996]

If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content. Cambial foliar❧ 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like something that at most needs removal of the templates, not a big nasty epistle. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a grand total of eighty-five words [the rest is copypasta]. If you perceive eighty-five words to be a "big epistle", I pity those receiving your thank-you notes. Which text do you perceive to be "nasty" in "Please do not misuse maintenance templates on the article. Re the inline "failed verification" template, as described in its documentation... The article text you tagged was...and...The sources, with page numbers, state...If you had checked the sources on the pages indicated, a step which only if you had done should you use the template, you would have seen the above which verifies what is in the article text. Remember to actually look at reliable sources before adding templates making claims about their content." ? Cambial foliar❧ 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing: Sorry, I've been rather busy. I'd be delighted to answer your question in detail when I get a chance to sit down with it. Responding to what amounts to a gish gallop can be tedious and is why you only get one or two things answered at a time. My short answer is: yes... I checked the sources you cited... the older ones and the newer ones you added like a REFBOMB.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
It’s a shame you perceive it be “like a REFBOMB”. It isn’t a “refbomb”, by the definition used on this website. I didn’t ask you a question. Cambial foliar❧ 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing: Not a question? Then it really was intended to be an epistle as North8000 suggested. Maybe you're just telling me how it's gonna be, instead of discussing content disputes. Is that it? Bulldoze your way through the article, bully the other editors until they all go away and leave you to your POV-pushing version in all its glory. Do I have that right yet? When you post like you did above, the assumption is there is, or has been, some sort of content dispute. The purpose should be to open a discussion. If you don't like the way I introduce a concept (such as using the phrase "I'd be delighted to answer your question") then what you shouldn't do is tone police with I didn’t ask you a question. You will get an answer when I have some time to sit down and detail out why I added those three "failed verification" tags.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
"Bulldoze your way through the article...to your POV-pushing version in all its glory." Wow, the projection is strong with you buddy. I know you were keen to remove, without discussion, all that terrible, as you put it "sensational...juicy gossip" that multiple scholarly sources describe as the foundational myth of the article subject and that has been on the article for sixteen years.
There is plenty to discuss about Wikipedia content. There is even plenty to discuss about phrasing, grammar etc. My grammar regularly gets corrected on this article, and my phrasing improved. The question of whether the three quotes from reliable sources above support the four sentences of article text listed above is one of fact. The fact is that they do support them. Cambial foliar❧ 19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Answer from Grorp

@Cambial Yellowing: When I saw the content, I read the sources. The early sources didn't verify the content and I knew them to be wrong anyway, so I wasn't going to go looking for alternative sources to cite. I simply removed the false content. You re-added the information and added more sources. I looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify. Editing the content was not an option because your content was exaggerated and incorrect as to the facts. So I tagged the three instances instead.

I just completed another dive into this subject. According to all the sources, they allege 3 incidents: 1951 New Jersey, 1953 Detroit, 1954 California. Kent 1996 is the one which mentions the actual sources. I suspect Urban 2011 and Westbrook 2019 rely on Kent, and possibly the original newspaper articles. I present links to online copies of the Kent-cited news articles (all are very short):

Basically, 1951 was a charge against the HDRF organization (not Hubbard) for "conducting a medical school contrary to the law"; the case was dropped without coming to trial. In 1953 Detroit, the charge was against a couple for "operating a vocational school without a license". In 1954 California, this is a gossip sentence in Aberree, a Scientology newsletter which maybe happened but is so vague it could have been an arrest without charges or a full trial with sentence of 10 days, we don't know and neither does Kent 1996.

The cases weren't "practicing medicine without a license", and they weren't against Hubbard. Only one was against HDRF, the other 2 were against individuals operating privately and not part of HDRF.

So the following 3 content excerpts from the article at the time of my tagging, contained these falsehoods:

  1. Following the prosecution of Hubbard's Dianetics foundation for teaching medicine without a license
  2. Hubbard and his early Dianetics organization were prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license in the early 1950s
  3. Throughout the early 1950s, adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license. In January 1951, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought proceedings against the Dianetic Research Foundation on the charge of teaching medicine without a license.

1: Was that a "prosecution"? It was dropped and never came to trial. The word (at least in lay American English) implies a trial or final determination, not simply charges or setting a court date.

2: Not Hubbard. Not "his" organizations. Not for "practicing medicine without a license".

3: "Throughout the early 1950s" is an exaggeration. "Adherents of Hubbard were arrested for practicing medicine without a license" is a stretch since Aberree is not reliable and there was only one couple arrested for (but was dropped) "practicing medicine without a license" in favor of "operating a vocational school without a license" (an easier case to win in court, per the source). "Brought proceedings against" is better wording than "prosecution" (in #1).

Checking Kent 1996, Miller 1987 pages 174, 213 & 222, Westbrook 2019 pages 81-84 (and several other sources that weren't even cited), none of them say Hubbard was prosecuted. None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".

Two arrest incidents (Detroit and California) do not fit Urban 2011's page 62 exaggeration: "throughout the early 1950s" and "Hubbard's followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses", especially when he immediately follows with the same 3 incidents in a way that doesn't fit his prior exaggeration.

Westbrook 2019's wondering out loud on page 84, "Perhaps this is an allusion to the earlier legal difficulties that arose from allegations of practicing medicine without a license" isn't really reliable (he's guessing) and is a stretch since he's referring to the April 1953 letter to O'Brien after the March 1953 Detroit arrest. California hadn't even happened yet.

What we have here is circular reporting. All could have had access to the same sources: the newspapers (or copies of them), one Scientology-rag, and the other writings that preceded their own.

Even so, the imprecise claims in the cited sources do not amount to the exaggerations or imprecision you added. You have added further content since the time I tagged the above 3. "Prosecution" for medical now appears 3 times in the article.

Did Hubbard run from New Jersey because he was afraid of prosecution for "practicing medicine without a license"? Sure. Was he concerned at "the writing on the wall" after the Detroit news? Yes. Hubbard acted like the criminal and coward he was: scared of getting caught, running when the heat got too close, and swapping corporations, locations and policies so he wouldn't have to worry as much.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: The “failed verification” maintenance template is for use only if...the source does not support what is contained in the article [emphasis in template page]. It’s not for use when the Princeton University Press book and Routledge academic journal cited both support what is in the article but you don’t agree with it because of your original research.
You claim that after I re-added the information and added more sources. [You, Grorp] looked them up and read those too, and determined that the content was still incorrect and did not verify. You also claim None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license".
Urban (Princeton UP, 2011):

throughout the early 1950s, Hubbard’s followers across the United States were arrested for practicing medicine without licenses. Thus in January 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Inc. of operating a school for treatment of disease without a license; in March 1953 two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested as part of an investigation into running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without a license; and in late 1953, a Scientologist in Glendale, California, spent ten days in jail for practicing medicine without a license.

Similarly Kent (Routledge, 1996):

Hubbard's followers across the United States were being arrested for practicing medicine without licenses...Hubbard proclaimed in 1950 that, with the proper application of the techniques he outlined, "arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly, and the whole catalogue of ills goes away and stays away". Because of claims such as these (to which Scientology still adheres), the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, Inc. [he was listed as its director] of "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license" in January, 1951, which contributed to the organisation's departure from Elizabeth, New Jersey, in April—prior to its pending trial in May. b). In late March, 1953, two Dianetics and Scientology practitioners were arrested, along with the confiscation of an e-meter, as part of an investigation into "running an unlicensed school and practicing medicine without licenses" in late 1953 or early 1954, a Glendale, California, Dianeticist or Scientologist apparently spent ten days in jail for "practicising medicine without a license"

If you want to make the argument that this scholarly work by a subject-matter expert published by one of the leading academic publishers in the United States, and this journal article by another subject-matter expert published by a leading international academic publisher, are both incorrect, by all means make your case centrally. For now, academic publishing is considered the
best kind of source available, so we can rely on it for statements of fact. Using inappropriate maintenance templates is not a way to address your issue with the sources. Cambial foliar❧
15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@
POV pushing on this topic. Focusing on use of "failed verification" template and your interpretation of when it should be used is a red herring. Suggesting a publisher would fact check every minute sentence and turn of phrase in a scholarly work they publish is a fantasy. (Personal attack removed)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀
16:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) You said None but unreliable source Aberree suggest "practicing medicine without a license". This is categorically untrue, (Personal attack removed). You claim there was no prosecution, despite Kent pointing out there was an “impending trial”. Hubbard set up the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation – as is recorded in multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to those already cited – the same organisation that Kent indicates was facing an impending trial; thus it’s fair to describe it as his organization. (Personal attack removed) If you would like to change the words in the Elizabeth case from “practicing medicine without a license” to "operating a school for the treatment of disease without a license” because you think it’s an insufficiently exact synonymous phrase that results in a libel against a man dead for 38 years, be bold and change it. I’ll not object, even if I hold the distinction to be nil. Cambial foliar❧ 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Xenu story in this article: placement and quantity

Per Hugh Urban about the Xenu story:[1]: 43 

"Although the media have made a great deal of the Xenu story, it is important to note that it is a relatively small part of the larger Scientology belief system and not a concern for most ordinary Scientologists. Moreover, the Xenu story is really quite unremarkable when compared to the more elaborate space opera narratives contained in Hubbard's publicly available lectures from the early 1950s." —Hugh Urban in New Age, Neopagan, and New Religious Movements: Alternative Spirituality in Contemporary America (2015) [1]: 43 

There has been much fuss recently over the inclusion/exclusion and positioning of the Xenu story in the article. Currently, there is content in the section Scientology § Space opera and the Wall of Fire as well as in the lead section. It is also covered extensively in articles Xenu and Space opera in Scientology, mentioned in Operating Thetan, but not really mentioned in Scientology beliefs and practices which is where it should be instead of in Scientology.

As I tried to point out earlier (and was falsely accused of original research), the Xenu story is not a major part of "what is Scientology"—which is the most basic question an encyclopedia must answer for readers seeking information about the topic, and which comes before "tell me all about Scientology".

I'm not insisting reference to the Xenu story be removed entirely from the article, but the section could be shorter and should be placed further down the page. Placing it higher on the page, as was recently done, gives the story

undue weight
within the article.

Also, the language and concepts in the lead (inserted in 2021

synthesis
of concepts in Rothstein that don't correctly represent Rothstein's words. And given that the Xenu story "is a relatively small part of the larger Scientology belief system", it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all as it hinders a reader getting their answer to "what is Scientology" before having to read through content which is, ironically, "the subject of popular ridicule".

I propose that the section "Space opera and the Wall of Fire" be moved to Scientology beliefs and practices, and the Xenu material in the lead be removed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As a foundational myth, it is a centrally relevant and significant part of "what Scientology is".
I disagree with your characterisation of your earlier undiscussed removal as "much fuss". One editor removing without discussion a whole section of content, cited to reliable scholarly sources, is unfortunately something that happens a few times an hour somewhere on Wikipedia. Thankfully for the project, tools have been developed to keep such disruption to a minimum.
I'll first add some relevant context to correct misleading statements in the above about the article lead. It's true that some specific wording was added to the lead on this topic by me in 2021, but this topic was not then new to the lead, nor is it "incorrect", nor is it a "synthesis", by the definition of that term on this website. I'll address your central claim, which is not well supported by the minority academic view on which you rely, last.
Material about the Operating Thetan level mythology has been in the lead since as early as 2008, rewritten in 2009 and rewritten and included more prominently than it is now in 2015. It was removed at some point, and an oblique (piped) reference was added in 2019, which I then built on.
You claim a synthesis but neglect to indicate which parts of the source you perceive to have been combined to produce something new. No parts have been combined to produce something new, so that lacuna is at least understandable. Stable article text:

Despite being kept secret from most followers, this forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology.

Rothstein:

the narrative...ultimately, but not necessarily openly, provides the mythological framework for Hubbard's Gnostic soteriology, and thus the machinery of the (often quite expensive) courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the 'Bridge to Total Freedom,' Scientology’s metaphor for the path of salvation...it is necessary to progress on the Bridge to the advanced stages before the participant is exposed to the myth about Xenu

One can argue I suppose about the word "central": in my view, the statement that the mythology provides "the machinery of the courses that take the patient devotee step by step over the Bridge" means that it is central. I'm not particularly attached to that word; it's simply how I phrased it when condensing Rothstein.
As is stated in the opening sentence of the article, both in the current version and in every version, 2008 - 2019, that I reference above, "What Scientology is" is a number of "beliefs" and "practices". Describing "what Scientology is" therefore involves explaining the nature of this set of beliefs, including their systematic character. Urban observes, as does the current lead of the article, that the Xenu myth is "not a concern for most ordinary Scientologists". As is also explained in the lead, this is because of the particular systematic character of the set of beliefs that is Scientology, specifically their hierarchical secrecy. Urban (p.101):[3]

More than one observer has thus compared Scientology to a form of "mystery religion," not unlike the Greek mysteries or various other secret societies and esoteric orders.

. Urban also notes (p.104):

in at least one major court case, Religious Technology Center (RTC) director Warren McShane frankly acknowledged that "the discussion of the . . . volcanoes, the explosions, the Galactic confederation 75 million years ago, and a gentleman by the name Xemu" are a core part of Scientology’s advanced materials

In a later work on the topic, Urban notes that[4] (p. 166)

A great many aspects of Scientology are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation, and/or dissimulation.

Rothstein is not alone in noting the foundational place of the Xenu narrative to the belief system –
Grünschloß:[5]

This UFOlogical connection is explicitly apparent in the foundation myth of Scientology’s “Operating Thetan” (OT) anthropology. According to the secret doctrines of Scientology—which are nowadays far from arcane, as information about court trials and other disclosures by former members appear in hundreds of pages on the Internet—there once was a fierce intergalactic ruler named Xenu, who brought millions of thetans to this Earth (which back then carried the name “Teegeack”), and that is how their (i.e., our) life started in this region of the universe (“sector nine”). Amazingly, this story, which forms the central core myth in OT level III initiation teachings, was rewritten by Hubbard as a mere science fiction novel in the late 1970s

Bogdan:[6]

The OT- level documents are reserved for the more advanced members of the Church of Scientology and reveal Scientology’s inner teachings, such as the Xenu myth, which is basically Scientology’s founding myth.

Raine:[7]

Upon completion of OT III, Scientologists are informed that seventy-five million years ago, Xenu, the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy of 178 billion people, twenty-six stars and seventy-six planets including Earth (then known as ‘Teegeeack’), conducted an horrendous act in order to solve the confederacy’s overpopulation problem...The story of Xenu’s conduct ends when he is captured six years later and imprisoned in a mountain where he remains still. This highly protected doctrine is the apex of Hubbard’s space opera, manifesting as it does as the grandest revelation in his mounting narrative about human history.

Shermer:[8]

The Thetan reference stems from Scientology’s genesis story that is only revealed after parishioners (aka customers) pay tens of thousands of dollars to reach Operating Thetan Level III... Around seventy-five million years ago, Xenu, the story begins, the ruler of a Galactic Confederation of seventy-six planets, transported billions of his charges in spaceships similar to DC-8 jets to a planet called Teegeeack (Earth). He then vaporized them with hydrogen bombs, scattering to the winds their souls, called Thetans, which were then rounded up in electronic traps and implanted with false ideas. These corrupted Thetans attach themselves to people today, leading to drug and alcohol abuse, addiction, depression, and other psychological and social ailments that only Scientology “auditing” employing electropsychometers (E-meters) and numerous classes can cure.

Rothstein and Hammer:[9]

A Scientological origin myth that has been hotly debated in the media concerns the role of the evil space ruler Xenu. This myth is kept secret to most Scientologists, who will only be allowed to hear of this incident in the mythic past during initiation into one of the higher, advanced initiatory levels (known as Operating Thetan III, or OTIII). In this way, core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system are unavailable to most practitioners.

Lewis:[10]

One of Scientology’s key stories is the so-called Xenu narrative (also referred to as the OT-III teachings). Although this story is only revealed after one has trodden the “Bridge” for some time, it is arguably a foundational myth, which sets the Scientology enterprise into a cosmological framework.

In a system of belief in which "a great many aspects...are shrouded in layers of secrecy, concealment, obfuscation and dissimulation", it is unsurprising that this myth is also kept secret from new initiates.
In describing this set of beliefs and practices, the foundational myth, which provides the framework for the rest of the beliefs and practices, is evidently of central relevance. Cambial foliar❧ 17:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Response:
  1. The length of time certain content (whether true or false) has been in a Wikipedia article is an irrelevant argument and a fallacy. See
    ARTICLEAGE
    for examples in wiki of the "age of content" being a fallacy for argumentation.
  2. A foundational myth (per Rothstein, "a story of the origin of man on Earth and the human condition") is not equivalent to a core or central belief. Nor is
    foundational myth (explanation of creation) equivalent to soteriology
    (salvation theory).
  3. The portion of Rothstein you provide omits the preamble to said quote: "In this chapter, however, I shall explore". It is not his conclusion, and he goes on to discuss across 19 pages more angles of the myth, within their context. Though he writes "the myth about Xenu, which, in the shape of a science fiction–inspired
    anthropogony
    , explains the basic Scientological claims about the human condition
    " Rothstein does not conclude that the Xenu story is "central" to anything, except in "It also discusses the central role this narrative has played in efforts to debunk Scientology."
  4. Rothstein has misunderstood the difference between a thetan and a body thetan, as demonstrated in his statement "Space opera, then, denotes a certain historiography, Hubbard’s introduction of a new reality, a new foundation for everything, indeed a new anthropogony that is already detectable in the auditing narratives that predate his writing of the Xenu myth. With the Xenu narrative, however, we now know for sure where the thetans come from, what their precise problems are, and how these problems can be solved". Prior to 1967, Hubbard had already codified how thetans came into being and what their nature and abilities were; the Xenu story only describes where "body thetans" come from. The Xenu story is only a foundational myth as related to humans on planet earth—a late portion of Hubbard's history of thetans. Hubbard had long described (mostly in the 1950s) the origin of thetans in the eons prior to the Xenu incidents. It was the Xenu incidents which created the body thetans; damaged thetans. It is basic mistakes like this that illustrate why Rothstein's work is not wholly reliable as a sole source to "Despite being kept secret from most followers, this forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology" which I assert is SYNTH.
  5. All of those other quotes you included mention "foundational myth" and some mention its importance to the "advanced levels" (OT levels) of Scientology. None mention the Xenu story as central or core to Scientology in general.
  6. Scientology's Grade Chart didn't have any OT levels prior to Hubbard's "discovery" of the Xenu information in December 1967. The OT levels were codified in 1968 and '69. Common sense tells us that the OT levels including the Xenu story could not possibly have been central or core prior to then. Xenu is only central or core to the OT levels. And since only about 1% of Scientologists ever get past Clear (giving them a shot to enter the OT levels), one cannot logically say the story is central or core to all of Scientology.
  7. Re McShane: Sure a "core part of Scientology's advanced materials" but only because "Religious Technology Center director Warren McShane testified that the church derives significant revenue from the fixed donations its members pay to study the texts".[11]: 5 
  8. In response to, As a foundational myth, it is a centrally relevant and significant part of "what Scientology is": No. Being a secret
    foundational myth
    , unavailable and unknown to about 99% of Scientologists, specifically makes it "not central" and "not significant".
  9. Re the text in the lead, Despite its efforts to maintain the secrecy of the texts, they are freely available on various websites, including at the media organization WikiLeaks. These texts say past lives took place in extraterrestrial cultures: I will remind that references to "extraterrestrial cultures" is openly and freely discussed amongst Scientologists, and is available to any pre OT level Scientologists as well as non-Scientology public in the form of publicly-available non-confidential books and lectures. It is only the Xenu story that is secret.
  10. Re the text in the lead, forms the central mythological framework of Scientology's ostensible soteriology: it does not, and none of the above various authors' quotes point to it, either. If anything is "Scientology's soteriology", it would be the practice of auditing using Hubbard's written techniques and guided in general by the roadmap The Bridge to Total Freedom. Xenu and the body thetans are just a part of that, but are neither a key piece nor central or core.
  11. Re your conclusory statement, "the foundational myth, which provides the framework for the rest of the beliefs and practices: The Xenu story is not "the framework for the rest of [Scientology's] beliefs and practices", and that doesn't match what Rothstein wrote.
  12. My objection isn't to Rothstein, but to synth created from it. I end with a quote from Rothstein as it relates to editing with a
    neutral point of view
    : "predictably, anticultists and ex-Scientologists want to expose the absurdities of the narrative and its irrational nature".
  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It’s true that consensus can change. Nothing you’ve written has illustrated that it has changed. You repeat your charge of a synthesis but again neglect to state what parts you perceive to have been combined - as stated above, the article text is taken from the same three sentences in one paragraph of Rothstein, not combining different parts to make something new, so there is no synthesis.
I made no argument based on the age of the content - as I explicitly stated, I merely corrected some misleading statements from your OP: specifically in that instance “language and concepts in the lead (inserted in 2021” (my emphasis) whereas in reality the concepts were in the lead thirteen, twelve, six, and two years earlier, as shown.
I disagree with your assertion that the words "In this chapter, however, I shall explore” change the meaning of the sentences following it. Your assertion that “Rothstein has misunderstood…” is your own original research. Scholarship published by a leading academic press (and widely cited elsewhere on the topic) is given greater credence on this website than one editor’s personal views.
You claim All of those other quotes you included mention "foundational myth". This is incorrect. As well as some sources agreeing that it is a foundational myth, other sources state variously that the material is:

the apex of Hubbard’s space opera, manifesting as it does as the grandest revelation in his mounting narrative about human history.

Scientology’s genesis story...[the proximate cause of] drug and alcohol abuse, addiction, depression, and other psychological and social ailments that only Scientology “auditing” employing electropsychometers (E-meters) and numerous classes can cure.

origin myth...kept secret from most practitioners... In this way, core texts presenting basic information regarding Scientology’s belief system are unavailable to most practitioners.

One of Scientology’s key stories

You give nothing relevant in the literature stating differently, merely your own research.
You claim “Re the text in the lead...it does not, and none of the above various authors' quotes point to it, either. If anything is "Scientology's soteriology", it would be the practice of auditing The article text does not state this is the claimed soteriology itself, it explicitly states, as does the source, that it is the mythological framework for the soteriology.
I don’t find your argument, lacking as it does any support whatsoever in reliable scholarly sources, remotely persuasive. Cambial foliar❧ 08:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on the main question. But I think that we need to be careful not to be trying to see (or include, exclude, emphasize or de-emphasize based on) existence of (and then analysis of) a main belief system as we would with a typical religion. Scientology is more of an set of methods/practices, organization / system / business and those beliefs are are just supporting pieces of that agglomeration. As a side note, the Xenu story is perhaps amongst the most outlandish sounding things in the agglomeration and so insertion / removal / emphasis / de-emphasis of it does affect the impression of Scientology given by what is written. I think that the Xenu story certainly needs to be covered in this top level article. Again, these are just comments, and really aren't a specific answer to the specific question. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Unused sources

The following sources are not actually referenced in the article (Harv errors). Putting them here in case someone needs to grab them for future use.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

More

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)