Misplaced Pages

Talk:Project Chanology

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z00r (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 27 May 2008 (→Article Semi-Protection take 2: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:17, 27 May 2008 by Z00r (talk | contribs) (→Article Semi-Protection take 2: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Project Chanology. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Project Chanology at the Reference desk.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Chanology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
Good articleProject Chanology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 13, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 12, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
Current status: Good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScientology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Project Chanology: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-06-17


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Copyedit : Trim down and copyedit Protests section.
  • Expand : Incorporate sources cited on talk page.
  • Update : Update with new info from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources as they become available.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Some more sources

  1. FI Staff (Fresh Intelligence) (March 4, 2008). "Xenuphobia: Latest Salvo Lobbed In 'Anonymous' War on Scientology". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Fabricatorian, Shant (March 5, 2008). "Scientology vs Everyone: Is Scientology as big a menace as it's made out to be? Shant Fabricatorian talks to some of the Church's longtime opponents". newmatilda.com. Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. Staff (March 10, 2008). "Anonymous & Anti-War to Hit Hollywood Saturday". LAist. Gothamist LLC. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. Ortega, Tony (March 11, 2008). "What to Get L. Ron Hubbard for His Birthday: How "Anonymous" has changed the game of exposing Scientology's ruthless global scam". The Village Voice. Village Voice LLC. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Zajac, Joe (March 12, 2008). "Anonymous vs. Church of Scientology". The Recorder. Central Connecticut State University. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. Farley, Robert (March 12, 2008). "Scientology fights back in court: The church is seeking a restraining order to stop a new round of protests". St. Petersburg Times. Times Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. Thompson, Stephen (March 12, 2008). "Church Of Scientology Trying To Block Protesters". The Suncoast News. Tamba Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. Staff (March 12, 2008). "Scientology files petition against Internet group". Tampa Bay's 10 News. WTSP-TV. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. Shah, Neel (March 12, 2008). ""Anonymous" to Wish L. Ron Hubbard a Very Happy Birthday". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. Thompson, Stephen (March 13, 2008). "Judge Denies Scientologists' Bid To Block Protesters". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Judge denies petition by Scientologists to limit protest: The church filed a suit for an "injunction for protection" from a group called Anonymous". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  12. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Second Scientology suit rejected". Breaking News tampabay.com. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. The Associated Press (March 13, 2008). "Judge declines Scientologists' request for restraining order". The Bradenton Herald. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Court again rebuffs Scientology's lawsuit". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. Shah, Neel (March 14, 2008). "Xenuphobia: Scientologists Rip Page From 'Anonymous' Playbook". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. Moncada, Carlos (March 14, 2008). "Scientology Foes Returning To Clearwater Saturday". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. Koppelman, Tess (March 14, 2008). "Masked Protesters Target Church of Scientology: A group called Anonymous is protesting the Church of Scientology". MyFox Kansas City: FOX 4 News. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. Moncada, Carlos (March 15, 2008). "Clearwater Hopes Rallies Don't Run Visitors Off". The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. Johnson, Richard (March 15, 2008). "Tom's Church Counterattacks". New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  20. Nankervis, David (March 15, 2008). "More protests against Scientology: Around 200 masked protestors gathered outside the Adelaide headquarters of the Church of Scientology this afternoon". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. Chisamera, Dee (March 15, 2008). "Scientologists' Ban Against 'Violent' Peaceful Protesters Denied". eFluxMedia. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. Staff (March 14, 2008). "Scientologists seek restraining order". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. Sarno, David (Los Angeles Times) (March 15, 2008). "Internet unites, emboldens critics of Scientology". Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I know I've been falling behind in adding some of these newer sources to the article, I've got a lot on my plate at the moment but I'll try to catch up with it all soon. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical attacks by the church against Anonymous!

This should be added to an article, the physical attacks by church members against anonymous:

Egg attack
Kick in first protest by that lady
Hammer attack on Mark Bunker
March 15 PI with gun (no attack, but had a gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet, Anonymous has done NO physical attacks.

Yeah we rock! Obvioustrollisobvious (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlock Article

Enough time has passed. We should unlock the article and allow anonymous IP editors. If the vandalism becomes an issue again it can be relocked easliy enough, though I doubt that will happen. Z00r (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the article would not be disrupted by frequent vandalism. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous grammatical errors, mostly punctuation outside of quotation marks that need to be corrected.198.199.154.250 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That is generally the accepted style for quotation usage. Any specific examples? Btw, we are still getting vandalism even with the semi-protection. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Page protection should only be used when absolutely necessary. Indefinite semi-protection may only be applied to pages with endemic vandalism problems, meaning excessive vandalism that persists even when attention on the subject is relatively low. This page has not been unprotected long enough to determine if such vandalism problems exist. It was only unprotected during a short period of time immediately following Chanology's creation when it was an internet hot topic. Z00r (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, however the ongoing spots of vandalism even with the current protection level leads me to believe that only further disruption would be caused by its removal. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres only one way to find out. I suggest unprotection for a short probation period, after which we may decide whether or not to protect it again. Z00r (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in an unprotect request at WP:RFPP. Hopefully there won't be much vandalism.  :( Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May the force be with us. Z00r (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
England prevails. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+1, Cirt, +1... Also, I do agree with the short probation idea. We'll never know if it will work unless we try.Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sooo..... Z00r (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You added a request for the wrong page, Cirt >.> Readding. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I did? I could have sworn I added a request for the page Project Chanology, no? Cirt (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not 12 year old boys we would be dealing with here, if vandalism occured. This would be vandalism by /b/tards, and seeing as semi-protection has done little to avoid some minor vandalism, that would not really change, as /b/tards are not idiots, and can circumvent stuff like semi-protection... (make an account, leave for 4 days etc). So really is there any need? 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obvioustrollisobvious (talk • contribs)

POV tag

I have added an POV tag, as this article is clearly biased in it's analysis of this group, turning "Anonymous" into the underdog and wholely making Misplaced Pages a less credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomFighter4all (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain specifically what you feel is POV in this article and how that can be addressed. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say the article is a bit POV, but in the opposite direction, biased against the group. Z00r (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Z00r (talk · contribs), but I have no problems with removing the {{pov}} tag in that case. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is all truthful, I dont see how it is POV. It is just writing truths and information. If it looks bad it is the POV of the person reading it and not the writers fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.44.113 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the FreedomFighter4all account seems to be a sockpuppet concerned only with this topic. Moreover, though, no examples of POV are given nor is there any consensus thereof. Removing POV tag unless/until that changes. Sc00baSteve (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Arabik (talk · contribs), Sc00baSteve (talk · contribs), and Z00r (talk · contribs), no need for the tag. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

London Anon & Court Summons

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult' guardian.co.uk - UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

London Police Protect Scientology From Teen's Sign Gawker - New York,NY,USA

http://gawker.com/392104/london-police-protect-scientology-from-teens-sign

Arabik (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTCKs6v_vfg add this video, for more infomation, sorry not a regular user and would not know how to put it into an artical without damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.96.22 (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • http://www.schnews.org.uk/ SchNEWS - direct action protest demonstrations - free weekly newsletter - crap arrest, climate change, party, DIY, Brighton, animal rights, asylum, permaculture, privatisation, neoliberal, media, copyleft, globalisation

Z00r (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see someone already added a little bit about this, will get on some addition/copyediting soon. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved cat to "Critics of Scientology"

I've moved the article from Category:Scientology controversies to Category:Critics of Scientology, as the topic of the article is the critical group itself, and that's a subcat of Scientology Controversies anyway. Any objections, please feel free to move back :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ change. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 23 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 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 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', 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)

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:

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

On net, there has been almost no true vandalism, and several positive contributions from IP's. Z00r (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: