Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Article Semi-Protection take 2

So, apparently the article has been switched back to semi-protected. Whats the deal? is this a mistake? There has been very little IP vandalism since it was unprotected. Over the course of 12 days, I see the following edits by IP's:

  • [1] - vandalism
  • [2] - significant sourced contribution by an IP.
  • [3] - good faith edit reverted for OR.
  • [4] - "over 9000" minor vandalism.
  • [5] - "over 9000" minor vandalism again.
  • [6] - accurate good-faith contribution by IP, though without a source. Sources easily found a few edits later.
  • [7] - good faith edit reverted for OR. (and another edit fixing his typo [8])
  • [9] - good faith edit reverted as unnecessary (pirate picture). Z00r (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • [10] - fix quotation bracket style.

On net, there has been very little true vandalism, and several positive contributions from IP's. Z00r (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention trolling from 2 sockpuppets of an indefinitely banned user. It very very quickly becomes extremely difficult to work on improving this article when it is not semi-protected, unfortunately. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What instances are you referring to? I believe I was pretty thorough looking through the edit history. Z00r (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am referring to CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) and McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs). That sort of trolling/disruption severely slows down the positive contribution that could be made to this article, and that coupled with the above info you gave shows that the article should not be unprotected from current semi-protection. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Those editors were not IP's though... how would semi-protection prevent them from vandalizing? Z00r (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they were new accounts. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, very well then. Perhaps in the future this article may be unprotected again without new account vandalism. One last note: while getting this article to featured status is a good and noble goal, it is not worth sacrificing core wikipedia philosophies. Meaning, if the problems are good faith but misguided edits by IP's (not vandalism, as is the case here), then that is not grounds for page protection. Z00r (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but unfortunately that is not the case here. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BRD: Religious persecution

I reverted someone's bold insertion of Category Religious Persecution. I don't think that it should be applied, per NPOV. Comments?DigitalC (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do think we have such an established category, then? Per the article, it's an anonymous groups that directs its persecution for the purposes not limited to "expel[ling] the church from the internet". That includes "distributed denial-of-service attacks, black faxes, prank calls, and other measures intended to disrupt the Church of Scientology's operations". Then there's the masked protests with vilifying chants and signs, still ongoing. Would it be any less convincing of a case if the stated aims were "expelling Jews from Germany" by means of "harassment of shops, etc"? Would you prefer it if the church members were hospitalised or killed rather than being persecuted off the internet and intimidated in real life. So, be real.CatUrineCuredMe (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV. For what its worth, Anonymous has stated on multiple occasions that they are against the corporate nature of the church, and not against its beliefs - in fact many people with the same beliefs OUTSIDE of the corporate church (FreeZoners) support Anonymous. Either way, I don't think that it is NPOV to add that category to this article. However, consensus should be obtained.DigitalC (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ DigitalC (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh great, so you're not suggesting that phone harassment, fax harassment, computer crimes, copyright violation, and real-life stalking and harassment directed solely at a religious group are not-at-all or any less persecution .. indeed religious persecution, are you now??CatUrineCuredMe (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Were these actions directed at individuals with those belief, or towards the Church of Scientology itself (and its staff)? I also haven't heard about any stalking/harassment allegations. Source?DigitalC (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) Considering that there are religion-related categories attached to the Church of Scientology page and Anonymous has attacked the Church purely on the basis of its beliefs, I can understand the addition of the religious persecution category on the page. Religious persecution is actually mentioned in the article under the Reaction heading, where Andreas Heldal-Lund says that "attacking Scientology...will just make them play the religious persecution card."
However, I agree that more debate is needed here. There's a huge difference between claimed religious persecution and actual religious persecution. And then there's the question of whether or not Scientology is an actual religion. Furthermore, if the aim of Anonymous really is to attack the corporate structure of CoS rather than the belief system (although the two are intertwined), then religious persecution certainly does not apply. --clpo13(talk) 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: to Clpo13 (talk · contribs) - It is a wholly different matter entirely to add a category implying characterization to an article, without multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that have previously characterized something in that manner, than to include a quote from Andreas Heldal-Lund warning that the Church of Scientology would attempt to use that very characterization itself. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite true, which is why I don't agree with the addition. I simply find it somewhat understandable. --clpo13(talk) 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef as a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, just amazing. A faceless group engaging in ridicule and slander is following through on its threats to "expel" a church group and that doesn't amount to what Andreas Heldal-Lund himself foreshadows as religious persecution. Would that be because its criminal activities and intimidation efforts aren't persecution? Or that they're covering what they do with another name for PR purposes (which is what every group of religion persecutors does)? Or is it because they don't want to admit the religious character of the group they are indeed committed to persecuting - I'm sorry but [that last issue has been settled a long time ago already (1 October 1993)] with the Church headquarters and its most significant bases recognised as parts a religious organisation and afforded charitable tax exemption accordingly. After that, an attack on what's regarded as a religious group somewhere becomes a religious persecution anywhere regardless divergent views beyond the shores of the United States. Do you think you know better than the IRS in applying its own rules re recognising the religious character of organisations/activities? I certainly don't. I'll respect the professional judgement of the professionals, hence in all the circumstances the categorisation is appropriate.McCainSoulBro (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"its criminal activities and intimidation efforts" Which group are we talking about here? AndroidCat (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any RS describing this as persecution, other than COS claiming it is persecution? I did a google news search for 'perseuction and scientology'[11], and couldn't find anything like that.DigitalC (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't think Chanology qualifies as religious persecution, I would support linking to the topic in this article. The ideal place would be a wikilink in the quote by Andreas Hedal-Lund (is it proper to wikilink within a quote?). Adding the whole article to the category would be an OR endorsement. Z00r (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no POLICY (that I know of) on wikilinking without a quote, but a read through Wikipedia_talk:Quotations_should_not_contain_wikilinks shows that it is frowned upon by some at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs)

What Project Chanology is, actually, is a grassroots effort to bring exposure to the bully tactics of Scientology on a global scale, and to that end it is very successful. No one, since Tom Cruise, has been as successful at exposing Scientology as a dangerous cult more than Anonymous. This is not "religious persecution" because Scientology is not a religion. It is, in point of fact, a calculated (and successful) protest against the evil works of a (once) powerful and intimidating *corporation*. To the end that Scientology is considered a "religion" in the United States, members think that Wikipedia must also acquiesce to that definition, and they are very wrong. The beauty of Wiki is that "consensus" holds a powerful weight here. Sometimes that is frustrating, especially if you are not in the consensus as anyone is bound not to be, sooner or later. However, it is an invaluable tool to assure that the policies against fringe viewpoints and POV are ruthlessly protected, as most everyone can agree is entirely for the best. The consensus is, Scientology is not a religion and all the hooping and hollering of the Scientology crowd won't change that. If anyone is guilty of "ridicule and slander" it is Scientology and their ongoing policy of "Fair Game" and all the dirty flotsam and jetsam that comes with it. Bottom line, Scientology is *not* "regarded as a religious group" by the consensus here at Wikipedia, and it will never will. One would find a more worthwhile pursuit tilting at windmills than trying to change that... here. Supertheman (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're getting desperate LamontCranston (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation for word order of first sentence

"Project Chanology, also called Operation Chanology,[4] is an ongoing protest against the practices of the Church of Scientology by Anonymous, a leaderless Internet-based group that defines itself as ubiquitous."

The "by Anonymous..." should be moved after "ongoing protest." As it stands, because of the syntax, the sentence could be interpreted as meaning the Church of Scientology as it is practiced by Anonymous. If it were after "protest," there would be only one interpretations, the correct one, of what the prepositional phrase refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.199.61 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Z00r (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Decline

The attendance figures as documented in April, and as not yet published here for May, seem to indicate a major decline in this project compared to the initial rush of enthusiasm in February and March.

When will it be appropriate, as a NPOV encyclopedia, to call attention to this decline? Ema Zee (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When it is discussed in a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It could be that the decline is related to the media interest, not the protestors' enthusiasm per se. Either way, no, calling attention to such an observation (or attempted interpretation) would be original research. We can only reproduce it if reported by a reliable source. Ayla (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's true. Also, there is no mention of the ongoing mini flash mob raids organized since mid-March. I believe these have only been reported in local news outlets, but not much even then. Hypatea (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The project does seem to be shifting towards more decentralized flash raids, organized on local forums, IRC channels, and offline. This is in contrast to the early worldwide planning at sites like partyvan, enturb, SA, ED, 4chan, and so forth. Reliable sources (but not WP:RS "reliable") indicate that small flash raids are going on almost every weekend in major cities. Honestly though, I doubt the mainstream media will pick up on this. Large media is good at covering "the story", or "the big event", but is much less capable of connecting the dots between a lot of small things happening at once. We will have to wait a couple years for sociologists to write papers about this before this encyclopedia article can be written properly. Z00r (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFLCon Panel

Anonymous held a panel at ROFLCon, focused on Project Chanology. The last half of the panel brought up 4chan. A potential source for information. ROFLCon 5/30/2008 - "Anonymous". The same video is hosted in segments on youtube.[12] Perhaps this can be used for a perspective on Chanology from within Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heard about this, haven't seen it mentioned yet in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, of course I don't want to jump the gun. I should specify that I think we ought to keep an eye on it, but wasn't aware if any of the regular editors for this article knew of it. I'll trust that you'll update the article with useful third-party information about this source when it becomes available.--Cast (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is quite an interesting presentation given by the representatives. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)