Talk:Ron's Journal 67
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wiki policy includes "No Original Research." What is your verification for what appears at first glance to be your own, personal conclusion re: What RJ67 is about ? Terryeo 00:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well it's an interpretation that I have made and that I share with others. I can try to find sources for it. I don't know of any other events in Hubbard mythology that happened 75 million years ago and that has been described in ways like that ("It's very likely to make you sick too", etc). This is also mentioned in the Xenu article (under Xenu in Scientology doctrine, which was not written by me). I certainly can't think of any other way to interpret it, but I can look for other sources if that will satisfy you. (Entheta 11:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
- Here are some more sources for you: [1], [2], [3]. (Entheta 12:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
-
- You simply can not read an author's words, interpret it to refer to Xenu and present to the reader that it does as a fact. That is OR on your part and not per wikipolicy. While I could give you an argument of what I think he referred to, it is really not germane because the more basic policy which we are to abide by, WP:OR applies. If he had used the word "Xenu" or "OT III" or any thing like that then you could include connected explanations to clarify what he said. But, Hubbard did not use words like that and it is OR to include your interpretation when he did not use those words. Terryeo 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
