Talk:Scientology and the Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and the Internet article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Quality assessment going forward

Wow, I actually thought coming here the article would be in a lot worse shape. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Go back through and make sure that all references satisfy WP:RS.
  2. Then, go through the cites and re-format all of them with WP:CIT, the References section currently looks choppy and unprofessional.
  3. Then, work on Notable legal actions section. Don't need to remove it, just merge pieces and re-format it to a paragraph discussion / analysis piece that flows easily and is easily comprehended by the lay reader.
  4. Then, step back, and see if it is at all ready for WP:GAC.
  5. If it is not, think about submitting for WP:PR instead, to get some ideas going forward for WP:GAC.

Just my thoughts, Cheers ! Cirt 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Annonymous vs 4Chan, 7chan, etc.

We know specificly where the attacks are comming from, why do we use annonymous?

→Anonymous are users of the *chan image boards.

[edit] Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII

From the title, it's certainly relevant. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

But how official is that Globe and Mail blog? It can be hard to tell with newspapers. AndroidCat (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Interesting stuff in non WP:RS sources

Maybe searching through some of this stuff will yield WP:RS/WP:V sources somewhere else:

  1. Not a WP:RS, but interesting, see Digg.com -- Scientology.org is down!. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  2. Anon declares war on Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I guess anon has to be sued to be important. 99.147.22.195 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes I beleive our efforts should be noted in wiki too, for whatever it's worth. Supra guy (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are beginning to be a few short usable references:

Update: I believe Wired Magazine is verifiable amirite?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-attac.html
http://gawker.com/347367/why-kids-on-the-internet-are-scientologys-most-powerful-enemy (the title is less then flattering.)Kakama (talk)

Agreed, I believe there is more then enough sources now for mention in the article. Also might be worth considering increasing protection level? due to the amount of vandalism. V* Discharge (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful. Media blogs are not always as WP:RS reliable sources as official media articles. The Wired one is a featured blog with a small team of contributing writers, so it looks like it's fairly reliable. (Not always correct, but reliable.) I'm afraid that the anonymous press release is a bit of a problem. I doubt "Chan Enterprises" is very WP:V verifiable. :) AndroidCat (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, remove the piece in you feel its necessary, until I find more articles tomorrow. Right now its time for sleep :)V* Discharge (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon vs. Scientology on NBC, is NBC notable enough? http://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=209221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.91.13 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With a cite from The Times, a problematic NBC video link isn't needed. AndroidCat (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous

Someone add the stuff about the massive attack against scientolgoy by Anonymous right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.84.128 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for new section '2008 'Anonymus' Attacks'

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Anonymous%22_releases_statements_outlining_%22War_on_Scientology%22

A whole lot of 3rd Party sources if we need them--Matterfoot (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title: Scientology and the Internet versus Scientology versus the Internet

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article used to be Scientology versus the Internet. Many blogs and journalists actually link to the older, version of the article, which now looks like it is a redirect, and/or refer and talk about the controversy as "Scientology versus the Internet", and not "Scientology and the Internet". For example, just the latest one that uses this term:

So this article should be moved to Scientology versus the Internet. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I dont think it should. "versus the Internet" assumes the rest of the internet is versus Scientology. Who is that exactly? This page should just be named how it is because it clearly means it is about Scientology and anything it has had to do with the internet that people here feel need to be expressed. --Critical Commentary (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It definitely should. Scientology's biggest fear is freedom of information, which is one thing provided by the internet. Most of Scientology's doctrines would be laughed at by people that have not undergone the organization's brainwashing, so premature exposure to Scientology's teachings is dangerous to the organization. Likewise, the organization has tried to suppress many people in the past (labeled by the church, ironically, as "suppressive persons"), and the internet makes it difficult to suppress them. In this way Scientology is at odds with the Internet and what it represents. Finally, the spirit of the article itself correlates to the title. While the title "versus the Internet" may appear to test the neutrality of the issue, the contents of the article support the title.--Mylon (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving to the "versus" title. "Scientology and the Internet" is a perfectly understandable title that doesn't raise the WP:NPOV concerns of "Scientology versus the Internet". That much of Mylon's argument for the rename is premised on Mylon's critiques of Scientology pretty much sums up the NPOV problems with the "versus" title, I think. SFTI also sounds frankly colloquial, not formal, and inappropriate in that way. There's no problem with bad links; that's what redirects are for. --Lquilter (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to old title. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to old title. -- AndroidCat (talk · contribs), per the below comment. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet another source refers to "Scientology versus the Internet", not "Scientology and the Internet"

Check it out:

  • O'Connell, Kelly (IBLS Editor). "INTERNET LAW - Hackers Disable Scientology Website & Declare War", Internet Business Law Services, Internet Business Law Services, Inc., January 30, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-31. 
    • It appears that the more mainstream term used is "Scientology versus the Internet", not "Scientology and the Internet". But if consensus is still to keep the current article title, that's fine. I just think that Scientology versus the Internet should be mentioned as an often used term, and bolded, in the WP:LEAD of this article. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There wasn't exactly any consensus for changing it in the first place. Talk:Scientology versus the Internet (The move was a botched copy/paste which didn't move the Talk page content.) AndroidCat (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So how do we fix the botched move? Cirt (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Checking again, I think the old Talk page stuff did finally make it across and is now on the archive pages. My preference has always been for Scientology versus the Internet, but changing it back isn't a priority reoccurring pop-up on my to-do list. AndroidCat (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, the frequency of use of a term can't be the sole criteria. We need a phrase that is both neutral and descriptive. "Scientology versus the Internet" is practically semantically meaningless, so it's honestly not very descriptive. The topic is about a series of censorship incidents, and is a perfectly appropriate topic, but we don't need to raise unnecessary questions about bias by using such a defective phrase for the article. Describing that "scientology versus the internet" is a commonly used phrase is the right way to handle this; our article can support the use of that non-neutral phrase, but our article itself should not be titled with that non-neutral phrase. (In fact, if it were the title of the article because the non-neutral phrase is so common, then I would argue that it would need to be titled with quotes itself to clearly denote that it's a phrase. It's really better to avoid that whole issue and stick with the neutral, perfectly descriptive and understandable title we currently have, and just reference the non-neutral phrase in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "versus" - Obviously "versus" is a misrepresentation and overstatement of the case that serves little encyclopedic purpose but does serve to over-exaggerate the situation. 'Nuf said. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, so there seems to not really be a consensus to change the title of this article back to the longstanding "Scientology versus the Internet", but the majority of comments above don't seem to be opposed to mentioning in the article the media's use of the term "Scientology versus the Internet" in the article, as used to describe the conflict. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it's a really good idea to mention it, since it is a commonly used term, and that will give some color to the general tenor of discussions of the issue. --Lquilter (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The group 'Anonymus'

I remember hearing about a group online with the same name, except they stole idenities and sent death threats, any relation?--Matterfoot (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yepp. It is mostly the *chans, an emerging autonomous conciousness --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Ebaums as well, they've made their share of raids. The chan-anonymous correlation is not quite as high as is commonly thought. 206.248.129.252 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My name is Legion

I saw the "Anon" video and noticed they used the biblical phrase "We are Legion," so I mentioned it in the My name is Legion article. Maybe some of these editors might want to check it out and beef up that reference. --Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed content

Since JzG declines to express exactly what is it he/she objects to about this content, I'll post it here in hopes that someone can:

In January 2008, an online group who call themselves "Anonymous" began DDOS attacks on several scientology websites. Scientology.org was brought down for several days due to the attack. The group released a video on YouTube outlining what they call "War on Scientology".

Here are the references, which are really overkill for the current paragraph:

AndroidCat (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this removal of well-cited info seems ... quite odd. This is no longer a simple YouTube post, it has become a worldwide phenomenon. I could provide (50) or so more cites to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources if need be... Cirt (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One more whack at "Scientology vs. the Internet"

I don't expect this to change the consensus around here, but I feel this needs to be said and resaid: Anonymous is pushing for characterizations of Scientology as being in direct opposition to things like the Internet, and as fully deserving of the name 'cult' because we feel these characterizations are encyclopedic in nature. Any honest analysis of WP:V sources leads naturally to these conclusions, and there seem to be few substantive objections to them except for those produced by the Church and its operatives themselves.

Particularly because of the Church's proven record of duplicitous and sneaky PR tactics, I feel that the arguments about Scientology on Wikipedia's talk pages should be interpreted skeptically. There are almost certainly Scientologists participating here, perhaps even as upper-echelon Wikipedians. Some may freely identify as Scientologists but if the popular allegations are true, some probably don't. If this is the case, then WP:AGF is a weakness which may admit factual bias, in this case in the "let's reserve judgement" direction. I realize that reserving judgement has been held to be the most NPOV position, but remember also that failing to call the Branch Davidians a cult would be highly editorial.

So I entreat everybody: Please, please do not let the Wiki process be undermined. Do not let *anyone* present an argument on the Talk pages which is backed up only by the supposed 'popularity' of a belief, nor by documents provided by the Church or affiliated organizations. In analyzing the arguments put forth, consider the possibility of conflicts of interest on the part of other Wikipedians.

That's all I have to say. 24.84.209.41 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Second wave

It appears that another wave of live protests are coming just a heads up to everyone

[[1]http://www.dailymotion.com/SA-Anonymous/video/7341208 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvok (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already been mentioned; and ideally this should be discussed on the Project Chanology page. Ayla (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Chanology

This is kind of a huge section, maybe it should have its own article? AndroidCat (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It already does, at Project Chanology. In fact, the section is merely a summary of the aforementioned article. It isn't condensed further because it's fairly important to the Scientology and the Internet article. Ayla (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a rather large summary. AndroidCat (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that it should be shortened, you could use the "Project Chanology" section from the Anonymous (group) article, or the last paragraph of the "Scientology and the Internet" section from the Scientology article. Both are more or less identical, and are a (more) heavily-condensed summary of the Project Chanology article. Ayla (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the Scientology and the Internet too long also. It suffers from a blow-by-blow detailed description of recent events. AndroidCat (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kids against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, now mentioned in WP:V/WP:RS secondary source

Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] alt.religion.scientology and the Xenu story

The "Xenu Revelation" section of the article mentions a Usenet posting to alt.religion.scientology on 24 December 1994. This post, as described, contained a description of the Xenu story in the words of L. Ron Hubbard himself. This is not a knock against this portion of the article, as it cites this with a related news story from the time. However, I can't seem to locate the original newsgroup posts in question via Google Groups. There is one post, dated 24 December 1994, but [stuff deleted] is all that's shown (link). I did find an interesting read entitled Report to clearwater (link) however at the very bottom of that page there is a DMCA takedown notice. Can anyone find the full text of the OTIII post? A link to it would be a great addition to the article. TonyLechner (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly the Usenet article (a) was removed from Google's archive during years of continuing DMCA takedown notices, (b) Google's search feature is extremely buggy, or (c) due to the nature of Usenet, it just didn't propagate to Dejanews to be archived.
It might exist in other archives, but public ones would have also attracted DMCA notices, and would they be WP:RS sources? AndroidCat (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet unites, emboldens critics of Scientology

Good source that should be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that just a reprint of:

[edit] Wikileaks

Do you think that the recent Scientology versus Wikileaks story is notable at all?24.62.238.203 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube rolls out Scientology double standard

Quite an interesting double standard, indeed. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)