Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 27 January 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

v t e Scientology Beliefs and practices Abortion Auditing Books Bridge Clear Dianetics Dianetics (book) Disconnection E-meter Engram Ethics and justice Glossary and Terminology Implant Incident Keeping Scientology Working Marcab Confederacy Marriage MEST Operating Thetan OT VIII Reactive mind Scientology and religious groups Reincarnation Sec Check Sex Gender Homosexuality Silent birth Space opera Study Technology Thetan Training routines Xenu History and controversies Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Books critical of Scientology Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages Clearwater Hearings Death of Elli Perkins Death of Kaja Ballo Death of Lisa McPherson Fair game Fishman Affidavit Guardian's Office operations Keith Henson The Internet Operation Clambake Operation Freakout Operation Snow White Project Chanology Project Normandy R2-45 Psychiatry Scientology and Me Scientology as a business The Secrets of Scientology Suppressive person Tax status in the US The Hole The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power Timeline Government reports Anderson Report (AUS) Dumbleton–Powles Report (NZ) Foster Report (UK) Lee Report (CAN) Litigation R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal Hubbard v Vosper United States v. Hubbard X. and Church of Scientology v. Sweden Church of Scientology v. Sweden Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology Hernandez v. Commissioner New Era Publications International ApS v. Carol Publishing Group and Jonathan Caven-Atack Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto Church of Scientology Intl. v. Fishman and Geertz Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto Religious Technology Center v Lerma Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. Church of Scientology Intl. v. Time Warner, Inc., et al. Arenz, Röder and Dagmar v. Germany Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia Headley v. Church of Scientology International Organizations (and properties) Cadet Org Celebrity Centre Château Élysée Church of Scientology Church of Scientology International Guaranty Building Church of Spiritual Technology Trementina Base Flag Service Organization Flag Building/Super Power Building Flag Ship Service Org Freewinds Founding Church of Scientology Galaxy Press Author Services building Golden Era Productions (Gold Base) Hubbard Association of Scientologists International International Association of Scientologists Office of Special Affairs Religious Technology Center Rehabilitation Project Force Saint Hill Manor Scientology Missions International Sea Org Countries Status by country Australia Belgium Canada Egypt France Germany Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Russia United Kingdom United States Officials L. Ron Hubbard Mary Sue Hubbard David Miscavige Shelly Miscavige Bob Adams John Carmichael Tommy Davis Jessica Feshbach David Gaiman Leisa Goodman Heber Jentzsch Kendrick Moxon Karin Pouw Mark Rathbun Mike Rinder Michelle Stith Kurt Weiland Affiliated organizations and recruitment Association for Better Living and Education Applied Scholastics Celebrities Citizens Commission on Human Rights Concerned Businessmen's Association of America Criminon Cult Awareness Network The Delphian School Free Zone Front groups KSCN-TV Moxon & Kobrin Narconon New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project Oxford Capacity Analysis Safe Environment Fund Scientology Network Second Chance Program Trademarks Volunteer Ministers The Way to Happiness Foundation World Institute of Scientology Enterprises Youth for Human Rights International Popular culture Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology Being Tom Cruise Bowfinger The Bridge Going Clear film Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath The Master My Scientology Movie The Profit South Park "A Token of My Extreme" A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant We Stand Tall Wikibooks Wikimedia Commons Wikinews Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wiktionary

removed "official blog" link

chanology.blogspot.com is NOT the official blog of project chanology - there is no official blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thgreatoz (talk • contribs)

leaked documents

there seems to be a lot of scientology's documents that are being released by anonymous, including the full version of the tom cruise ceremony. i think this should at least get a mention. these are just a few digg references from a quick search for videos and documents . Has any of the news coverage mentioned this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.122.145 (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I took out the part in the intro that says "internet trolls", because that's a bit biased. ~Duct_Tape_Tricorn, 25 Jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duct tape tricorn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, and I think that "pranksters" is still a bit of a loaded word, or is at least used in a biased context here. A rewording of the entire article may be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.212.103 (talk • contribs)

4chan /b/

This whole effort is on the part of 4chan /b/, and is not notable (unless there are going to be articles about the Habbo raids next.) not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaGoals (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reported on by the mainstream media, which makes it notable enough. --clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Its scope goes far beyond one tiny internet community. I've been following it since it began, and 4chan is only a small portion of what's going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.212.103 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey 4chan, give /i/ a little credit k? /b/rothers unite! Kakama5 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This may become one of the most important things to happen on the internet

This may become one of the most important things to happen on the internet. I wouldn't be so quick to delete it.

This is an on-going event and is expanding rapidly, it should be maintained. LamontCranston 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is getting a lot of play over at Digg and other social media sites (here here and here for some examples). One of those links to a Wired article and I'm sure we can find lots of other news articles detailing this. I certainly wouldn't "speedy" delete this. Put it up for deletion the old fashioned way. JHMM13 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the article still doesn't assert the notability, Digg and other social media sites (i.e. any site with user-generated content) don't cut it as reliable sources. Dethme0w (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need reliable media - Australian Personal Computer magazine has picked it up. They're the largest PC print publication in Australia. Article here. Deletion is wrong at this stage. Give it a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow aus (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You should add that to the external links at least. I have removed the tags, but the article needs inline references. Dethme0w (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wired magazine is covering the attacks now. Does that count as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avpmechman (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

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

Although I do think this whole thing is quite funny, 13 year old script kiddies on 4chan aren't significant enough for a Misplaced Pages article, especially without citations. DDoSes happen thousands of times ever day, not every one deserves an article. I've nominated for prod. Miserlou (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The external links and linking to other wiki Scientology pages cover it, if you need to be redundent then add citations LamontCranston 7:45, 25 January (UTC)

The attack has been going on for the past week. They are releasing Scientology documents. There are fliers being handed out at physical locations. This isn't just 13 year old script kiddies on 4chan anymore. It's bigger now. Much bigger now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.18.186 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now this page isn't up to par, and if it doesn’t improve it probably should be deleted. That being said, here are a few observations on how this article could turn into a great article and have the notability it deserves.

• 1. There is more text in the references section than in the article itself (and they don't actually reference anything). Misplaced Pages isn't a collection of links. since all the news articles basically say the same thing (with different internet "experts" offering their advise on how to avoid such attacks) find the 2 most reliable sources (something like Wired, and then one non-internet source like the Associated Press, or New York Times) and keep those, while deleting the rest.
• 2. cite within the article, using more than 3 sources. show that this is a notable event by showing within the article itself all the reliable people (not blogs, self published sources, or hacker/internet mags) who are talking about the event.
• 3. Tie it into the bigger picture. right now it reads like a News article from the group. show how Project Chanology got its start, what inspired it and how they tie into the internet community.
• 4. Add a criticism section. WOW! Right now it sounds just like the Tom Cruse video did on scientology "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN!!!!" people are criticizing the attacks, notable people like XENU.ORG etc. add that stuff. talk about how it failed in parts. this is supposed to be a WP:NPOV and right now it reads like a promotion add for ANON.

if these things are done, then this could be an A class article and I don't think anyone will try to delete it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I will get to work on the above. But it may take some time, say 24 hours max. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

wow! you realy got on that. I had just set up a critisism section, and then saw that you where already editing one in. Have at it!Coffeepusher (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it really should not be deleted. Sorry. Hannabee (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cnet is also covering it. --Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. Tyler Nelson (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

WP:NOTABILITY states that a topic is notable if "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This topic has been covered by publications such as Wired, APC Magazine, National Post and Sky News. This is clear adherence of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB, meaning that the article can be kept. Any attempts to delete this article are likely to fail. --Teggles (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

most of those are internet publications. I will dispute the fact that they are independent of the subject. This "event" has recieved little to no attention from non-web baced media (that means that it is beeing covered by less than 20% of the avalible internet media).Coffeepusher (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the current sources in the article's references section. There have been TV news stories on NBC and Sky News, among others. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap Lois!

Wow, someone wrote an article on Project Chanology in Suomi! That was fast. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see it myself. I skimmed over the article and it does look quite good - from a brief reading.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite likely that this may be put to AfD at some point, and it'll be a controversial AfD if that happens.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I meant I was surprised to see THIS as a stand-alone article, let alone a Suomi version.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that does not happen, for I am in the process of expanding it from sources... Cirt (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check sources before removing

Many/most of them mention both the Cruise video and Chanology. And the press release is a valid source. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to cut down on the links. we currently have 14 sources, and are only using 5 of them. I did mistakenly delete the second tom cruse one, becasue I didn't read to the bottom to see the tie in, but the press relece said the same stuff and all theother sourcesCoffeepusher (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm incorporating stuff, just give me a bit of time and things will be worked in, but especially please don't remove sources if they are cited in the Notes section. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Current events tag

The entire article is a current event, and has been covered and is continuing to be covered by multiple national news organizations and national and international press agencies. Thus, the {{current}} tag is more appropriate, and the {{Recentism}} tag is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Text of (inappropriate on this article) {{Recentism}} tag:

This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.

Text of (Highly appropriate on this article) {{current}} tag:

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

Hard to see how one could get these two or the appropriateness of which to use confused... Cirt (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Scientology

Cirt, a prolific Scientology critic (references available upon request), has written Project Chanology. This is a "perfect" example of WP:RECENTISM, i.e. "create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention." Cirt (as User:Wilhelm) has already written two, count 'em, two articles on Chanology for WikiNews. That is a more apt venue for this latest flash-in-the-pan and those articles are referenced here by means of the WikiNews insert in our article. I do not think it reflects well on this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward one's POV. Am I alone in that viewpoint? Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it was LamontCranston (talk · contribs) that started this article. And I fail to see how anything that you have said above goes towards a reasoned debate as to why you think this is recentism. If you think the article's subject is not notable, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion. If you think it is notable, then this is the wrong tag to use. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am polling the community now re AfD over at the Scn article. Please feel free to give us your input. As far as the tag, tags serve an important purpose in notifying readers and editors of possible issues with the article so the recentism tag is entirely appropriate. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been asked to weigh in on this. Really it isn't an area where I've been active. May I suggest a content RFC, perhaps with a mention at Village Pump, to bring in more opinions? Best wishes, Durova 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point now that there is an ongoing AfD, we can wait for the outcome of that. If the AfD result is "Keep", then it would be appropriate to change the tag back to "Recent". Cirt (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD?

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

I am polling the community re: an AfD for this article over at Talk:Scientology. That is due to the fact that most Scn regulars watch that article and likely not this one. Input is invited. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Certainly not yet. Any sort of discussion should wait, as there will likely be further developments, and even more coverage. There has already been coverage in multiple national and international news agencies, and other sources. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• The article should be nominated and the community should decide. Redirecting this and merging with Scientology and the Internet would make possible the retrieval of the information if this Project thing continues to grow.--Yamanbaiia 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the article.--Yamanbaiia 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it stalls move it to Scientology and the Internet, if it does not stall then it ought to stay. - LamontCranston 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. At this moment in time, this articles seems relevant.--Paradoxicalengineer (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. I am convinced that this is a perfect example of the power that Internet groups can have. While not in complete agreement, Anonymous has declared war against the CoS. Anybody with knowledge of Anonymous still has no true idea of their capabilities, since very few people can truly appreciate or understand just how big this group is. It is quite possible that Anon may actually exceed the total worldwide membership of the CoS. Something else that arises from one's understanding of Anon is just how difficult it is to stop a group of this size. This isn't a bunch of script kiddies on a single website, but a collective from a larger group of sites. This event is far from its conclusion. Scetoaux (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if seeing if it stalls is a good idea. I've been following the events, and been reading on the plans, and I know there is a worldwide protest being held on the 10th February at different $cientology churches. It's just things are going to happen in bits. Like separate battles in the wars of old --Kristoff is doing press ups, and push ups, and swallows raw eggs (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointless to oppose the creation of an AfD that is ongoing, and even more so across two talk pages. Go to the AfD, guys :]–Pomte 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. This is NOT a solicitation of any kind, just that this discussion of whether or not to have an AfD is pointless, when there is one ongoing. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Online activists?

I'm aware Misplaced Pages is "verifiability, not truth" but do we have to keep spreading the lie that "anonymous" is a "hacker group" or a group of "online activist"? Everybody knows that anonymous is the name for collective users of the chans. BJ 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This project appears to become a lot larger than just *Chan users and seems to involve users of a good number of online communities including SomethingAwful, Ebaumsworld, YTMND, GameFAQs and others. So the "online activist"/"hacktivist" moniker is both appropriate and accurate. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LaMenta3 (talk · contribs), "online activists" is appropriate wording; it's a relatively generalized term that is NPOV. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the lead alone but the "Formation" section needs works. It clearly started on the chans by the namesake, to be precise it started on 711chan.org's /i/(nsurgency) board but I don't think that much detail is needed or useful. I'll tweak the section and post it here for comments when I'm done. BJ 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We can only write things we can cite to WP:RS/WP:V sources, and must stay away from WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

With the amount of coverage this has gotten (of varying degrees of accuracy) I will have no problems backing up the truth with sources. BJ 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just edited the page with my version, the citations could do with some shuffling but the info is all there. I think it is now both truer to the facts and the source, while many other internet groups may now be involved I couldn't find a single mention of anybody out side 711chan and 4chan, the primary sources behind the project. BJ 09:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, fixed some minor cite tweaks, but otherwise looks good. Cirt (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Up for notability, but locked from editing?

How, pray tell, are users supposed to help this article become notable if it's locked? And yes, people who don't have an account are users too. Lets not forget about them, lest Misplaced Pages cut them off from helping it grow.

And yeah, it might invite vandalism, sure, but- WP:AGF? Cymbalta 08:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's not that it "might" invite vandalism - it has already. It will be much harder to improve upon the article and expand it as more WP:RS/WP:V sources become available, if it is also undergoing active vandalism from anon-ips and new users. Cirt (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD KEEP IT!!!

you have an article about mr hands, you have an article about freaking camel toes. Yet you are going to delete which my quite possibly be the best thing to ever happen on the internet? For the love of god man, keep this article, it's only going to get better!... not to mention it seems well sourced. (Stickstickley (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

• Um, there's an ongoing WP:AfD discussion about this right now. See the notice at the top of the article page? Cirt (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes prick, I saw, and that is my two cents. DUR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.178.95 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TorrentFreak fails WP:RS

Though interesting, TorrentFreak.com is not acceptable as a source on Misplaced Pages. Wikinews, perhaps, but not this project. Though this source is certainly interesting, and may be acceptable in the external links section it is not as a source in the article space itself. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to relunctantly agree. Though non-RS sources are acceptable when citing what a person or group says about themselves, in this case we have no certainty that TorrentFreakz was actually speaking to Anonymous. I will check the Chanology site and see if they self-describe there. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have fun visiting Chanology! Whether or not anyone actually agrees or disagrees with whatever they are doing, the mannerisms and lingo that they use to communication with each other "lulz", "epic fail", etc., is really funny.  :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I need moar lulz. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't we all, don't we all.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Article

This conflict between Anonymous and The church of Scientology is very important and will be more than likely proved to be historic. and It has been covered on Current.tv's Infomania. I learned of their battle on saturday; I saw a report on television. When Current posts their saturday edition of Infomania to their website, I will copy it here for citation purposes. I think if a topic's been covered on a very popular US television channel's news show (as well as all these other sources) it is notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages. Don't you? Moforex (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't comment here re: keep/delete the article - please see the big notice at the top of the article's page about where to comment and discuss. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The intro/lead actually is a summary of the article, as per WP:LEAD, so please don't move it into a subsection. If you feel the group itself needs more background, find sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V - and use that to expand the Formation section. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the lead has been altered to use some non-neutral language and some statements that balance viewpoints and reactions have been removed. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the biggest problems that I saw. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• To LaMenta3 (talk · contribs) - I am very sorry, but I had to remove your changes. See here. Unfortunately, your changes violated WP:OR - you were adding new material that was not backed up by any sources - also not in accordance with WP:V/WP:RS. With an article about a controversial topic like this one, it is best to stick stringently to cited sources, and stray off into editors' interpretations. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles