Talk:Operation Clambake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Clambake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

It is worth mentioning that any Scientologist well versed in the Tech finds the idea of humans evolving from clams to be quite amusing. Later research found much of the Genetic Entity track recorded in "A History of Man" (including the Clam incident) to be false data. This is mentioned in a 1963 tape "Errors in Time" and is referred to as part of the "Darwinian Implant."

What is this all about? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. None of the info on the Web that I can find on Errors In Time says anything like this. In fact, this article is the only place I have seen the above assertion. I've commented it out of the article as it stands, pending better info. - David Gerard 13:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Propaganda

In the article Operation Clambake presents: What is Scientology? [1], numerous types of propaganda are being employed: appeal to fear, appeal to authority, demonization, glittering generality, obtaining disapproval, oversimplification, testimonial and damaging quotation, use of virtue words, slogans. SeePropaganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation.

Besides all that, Operation Clambake has very little credibility: Andreas has not corrected his website despite many arguments and discussion people have had about the innacuracies of his statements.--J.Tell 02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Word to the wise: those who resort to vandalism have difficulty in getting people to actually believe you. If anything, it leads people to believe that which you disagree with. Scumbag 02:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

What J.Tell claims is not correct. Changes have been made on the page over the years and even suggestions that were only opinions have been added to the mentioned page. Click the image "A SECOND OPINION!" and see. http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html

Seconded about J. Tell being incorrect as a person who remembered the site's opening --Rakista 06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Marbahlarbs

I noticed that there was no mention of the word "copyright" on this page. I added some more explanation of the Church's specific beef with xenu.net, and the nature of the Google takedown. (not the whole site, just the pages containing supposedly copyrighted information) Marbahlarbs 00:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for edit by 64.82.252.43 on 20:36 23/10/05 Central US Time

I removed the link to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-432274,00.html due to the page not being there anymore. I also checked the Wayback Archive, and there was no page for it (forbidden by robots.txt). --64.82.252.43 01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Category

I added the Category Scientology to this article, seeing as how the actions of some scientologists makes up a (possibly only) reason this website has gotten so much attention. Also, I'm considering moving the 'critics of Scientology' category as a sub-category of scientology, but im worried that may seem an attempt to deny critics equal standing, as well as an attempt to display the CoS in a negative light (After reading Scientology-related talk pages for the lst 2 days, im wary of the consequences of either way_ Any thoughts? =AKMask 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Scientology actually is a sub-category of Category:Scientology already. As to the problem of how it should be categorized, I'd recommend bringing up the question at WP:SCN. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that yesterday, my bad. AKMask 06:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "openly biased"?

While this is technically accurate, many (perhaps even most) people mistakenly think that "biased" is the same thing as "unfairly biased." Is there another way to clearly indicate that Operation Clambake is decidedly against Scientology, without creating the impression (which would be POV) that that stance is a result of unfairness? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That works. Thanks, Ciphergoth! -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas is not opposed to people practicing Scientology

Andreas has on numerous occasions made a distinction between opposing Scientology and opposing the Church of Scientology. Andreas does not object to people that practice the religion of Scientology (provided they do so without harming others). Andreas does object to the repeated human rights abuses that the Church of Scientology has perpetuated over the years. I rewrote the first paragraph to make that point more clear, but perhaps it can still be reworded better. I'm open to suggestions. Vivaldi (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a glowing generalization of a man who first opposed Christianity on his site and then fell back to opposing a less recognized religion on his site. And the introdroduction mis-states his site's presentation. He states that everything on his site is owned by him and is his personal opinion. What is the definition of "personal website?" The introduction might include the word "prominent" but should surely include the word "personal". Terryeo 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
... uh-hunh. Yeah. He registered the domain name "xenu.net" and called his site "Operation Clambake" for the purpose of opposing Christianity. riiiiiiight. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, he is a free speech activist and opposed to any religious organisation that hurts members and works against free speech, whether they are christian or the CoS. I have never seen him harrass any individual scientologist, although he has picketed against the CoS, which is a big difference. (Entheta 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Yahoo deleting/moving Critical sites now?

Last week it was noted that Yahoo moved or removed most of the critical sites from the top 20 results when searching for "scientology." A link within Clambake -- not even the main site -- only comes up at 20 on Yahoo search, while it's 2 on Google. Anyone feel like adding this info? 68.191.55.223 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I get 32 before any xenu.net page comes up [2]. The problem is that it's difficult to say much other than speculation without any statement from Yahoo. I certainly think there's a huge bias in the results when compared to Google—but can I prove it or find a WP:RS to cite? AndroidCat 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Whaaa? Maybe xenu.net got dropped from the first page, but factnet is on that first page, as is rickross. Looks like the Yahoo search algos dropped xenu.net down, but Scientology criticism is still on the first page... that's not a "removal of criticism", that's a change in page ranking. Ronabop 04:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a very selective shift in the ranking, but I haven't been tracking it week by week to know if it was a natural change due to their ranking formula or someone putting their thumb on the scale. That's the whole problem with mentioning it in the article—there are just too many unknowns. AndroidCat 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of establishment

Which year was this web site established? It should be categorized also by year of establishment. __meco 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be 1996 since the tenth year party was a few weeks ago. The domain xenu.net shows as created 20-OCT-1997, but the site existed before "moving" there. AndroidCat 16:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution discussion

See here [3]. I notice that Fossa has reappeared. This is the guy who claimed that scientology is based on Scientism. --Tilman 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link?

The last link under External Links (about CoS trying to get Andreas fired) goes to the Operation Clambake Message Board, which appears to be gone. I figured I'd post here before deleting the link, in case anyone knows whether the board is going to come back. Adam613 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just maintainance over the next few days according to an ARS post by Andreas. [4] AndroidCat 03:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I'm a little uncomfortable with a website on a religious minority being called (something)bake. Sorry to break the talk page guidelines to make this comment. Steve Dufour 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Importance

What is the reason this article is classed as "high importance"? Just asking. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zOMG Wikipedia is a Scientology cabal!!!!!!!!!111oneoneone

Regarding the statement "On Google Web searches in English, Operation Clambake is the highest-ranking result for "Scientology" that is not run by the Church.", something is wrong. Jon Harald Søby 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOperation_Clambake_30eb.html"