Jump to content

Talk:Project Chanology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.65.67.68 (talk) at 03:47, 30 January 2008 (→My name is Legion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

711chan no longer supporting raid

Just thought I'd check out 711chan to see what was going on, and got this:

It has been said before that this raid would fail, and although we do not see that happening at this moment, we as a network have taken a vote and decided that this raid on Church of Scientology was not done correctly.

It has come to our attention that this raid has evolved into more than Anonymous attacking Co$, the raid has turned into namefagging, giving people an area to attack.

This is not what the raid originally started as. Partyvan declares this as a threat to the network, and Anonymous alike. We have been under constant botnet attacks, 711chan hacked, and tons of drama over this. You guys did a very poor job of staying Anonymous. It's obvious that a lot of you broke rules 1, and 2.

We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on.

You may feel free to use our Wiki as a base, but 711chan will no longer support the 'raid' either.

Long live Anonymous.

TL;DR: Decentralize.

For those who want to continue this, please join this network instead.

/server -m irc.esylum.net -j #xenu 711chan in whole will be back online shortly. Just stick with us guys. We love you. <3~ plasma

So I think we should remove the references to 711chan in the article, as they'r not part of it anymore..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried to access the IRC channel and was booted with the message 'anonymous will find a new home' - guess they're totally seceding then..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the section where 711chan is mentioned is about the formation when they were still part of it. BJTalk 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from what i can see, they've just reolocated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.99.30 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not remove the references, as they are backed up to WP:RS/WP:V sources and reflect information accurate from the group's formation as of that time. Do you have any secondary sources to back up this assertion? Cirt (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?

I don't understand why this is an article in a so-called encyclopedia. This type of article belongs on wikinews, not wikipedia. It is not noteworthy at all, I am sure hundreds if not thousands of these same types of things happen on a daily basis. The fact that the supposed forums involved in this event have over 50 million posts and an unmeasurable amount of users should negate any non-staff vote about keeping the article and they have simply come en masse to vote. Only staff should have voted on this. -Xander756, January 28, 2008 3:11 pm.64.30.250.152 (talk)

You can see for yourself at the VfD page that plenty of regularly contributing Wikipedia members found this article worthy of inclusion. I suppose if your objections are terribly strong, you could always nominate it for deletion again later. 209.106.203.252 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, personally I like the page and use it to follow the event myself. I just feel that it should be on wikinews and not wikipedia is all. And thanks for the signature, Coffee. -Xander756, January 28, 2008 7:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.244.69 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] [2] [3] [4] . Has any of the news coverage mentioned this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.122.145 (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikisource a possibility? --Hector (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

DDoS is the electronic equivalent of a sit-in Jwray (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

The word attack

Is the proper terminology for a denial of service action

  1. an "attack"
  2. or a "hack" (as in: what hackers do)

The use of the word attack is NPOV.--AveryG (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a hack. It's analogous to any attack in any conflict; saying "denial-of-service action" doesn't sound right and is like saying "nuclear action" for a strike. Perhaps suggest a rename to Denial-of-service attack. –Pomte 10:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DDoS is nonviolent, analogous to a sit-in. "Attack" is misleading. Jwray (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See DDoS, it is described as such there. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's been reported on by the mainstream media, which makes it notable enough. --clpo13(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey 4chan, give /i/ a little credit k? /b/rothers unite! Kakama5 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an effort of /b/ at all. It couldn't be since they ban anyone who tries to organize raids.Firebomb Fritz (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought /i/ was removed, unless I'm slow on the news. I haven't heard of 711chan until this point. Does that have an /i/, then?.:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4chan banned invasion boards aeons ago. This is bigger than any individual chan and seems to involve anonymous from all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.99.30 (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rules 1 and 2! -Can Not (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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(Disc) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wired magazine is covering the attacks now. [5] Does that count as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avpmechman (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wired is usually quite reliable. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
No, it really should not be deleted. Sorry. Hannabee (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cnet is also covering it. [6]--Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion above 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.

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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[7], APC Magazine[8], National Post[9] and Sky News[10]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Holy crap Lois!

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

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 s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I meant I was surprised to see THIS as a stand-alone article, let alone a Suomi version.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- The reference to Anonymous is crap. And excuse my language, but I couldn't find a better term. Anonymous has stated clearly over time: they are NOT a group of hackers, or a group at all. You're making it sound like an organization. You're in an ecyclopedia, check your sources. FoxNews and CNN are NOT serious sources when it comes to internet phenomena.

"It has come to the attention of Anonymous that there are a number of you out there who do not clearly understand what we are or why we have undertaken our present course of action. Contrary to the assumptions of the media, Anonymous is not "a group of super hackers". Anonymous is a collective of individuals united by an awareness that someone must do the right thing, that someone must bring light to the darkness, that someone must open the eyes of a public that has slumbered for far too long. Among our numbers you will find individuals from all walks of life - lawyers, parents, IT professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, veterinary technicians and more. Anonymous is everyone and everywhere. We have no leaders, no single entity directing us - only the collective outrage of individuals, guiding our hand in the current efforts to bring awareness."

THAT is the most accurate definition of Anonymous. You can't make a better one. You don't understand it. So STOP TRYING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.15.197.80 (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Confirmed. To use a bad analogy, Anon is sort of like Fight Club organization from the film of the same name. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this event has made me curious. Now that Anonymous has gotten record views in Youtube, become the latest boogeyman for the RTC, and been repeatedly mentioned in the news, will Wikipedia soon see an article entitled "Anonymous (community)?"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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, DurovaCharge! 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have nominated the article.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

For further discussion, see ongoing AfD, at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Online activists?

I'm aware Wikipedia 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. BJTalk 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BJTalk 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
With the amount of coverage this has gotten (of varying degrees of accuracy) I will have no problems backing up the truth with sources. BJTalk 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. BJTalk 09:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, fixed some minor cite tweaks, but otherwise looks good. Cirt (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before this story I was unfamiliar with the "Chans" and their related subculture how can you all so be sure that it was this group specifically besides language/rhetoric? Couldn't anyone with a knowledge of this subculture imitate the style?--Ason Abdullah (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia cut them off from helping it grow.

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

  • 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

TorrentFreak fails WP:RS

Though interesting, TorrentFreak.com is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I need moar lulz. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we all, don't we all.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. Don't you? Moforex (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've fixed the biggest problems that I saw. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The changes that I made in the formation section are backed up by the sources that are used (check them; the second Wired source quotes the Project Chanology website about the participants). The source that I commented out had nothing to do at all with the statement that it was sourcing, but in fact was referring to another, wholly non-notable incident altogether. The changes that I made to the lead were intended to make it more neutral--the word 'vigilante' has very non-neutral connotations, and most sources I've seen simply refer to the group as a "loose association of users" or something similar. I think that any qualifier of the Tom Cruise video itself should be left out of the lead entirely and placed in the section about the video if anything, as no single qualifier will provide a neutral overview. The contrasting statement from the CoS that I had replaced at the end IS sourced in the response from the CoS section. Also to that point, it is typically preferred that leads not have refs in them, but instead overview content that is repeated in the body of the article and sourced there. It keeps the lead clean looking and easier to read, as that's its purpose--to provide an at-a-glance overview for someone who doesn't want to muck through the more detailed article. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, but you did add Original Research - such as the types of groups/areas online that the "Anonymous" members participated in pre-Project Chanology, that was unsourced. I apologize if I mistakenly removed something that you had added that was sourced and was not OR, but you can't just say "I've seen simply refer to the group as a "loose association of users" or something similar." - I've seen... is not enough, we have to know specifically where. I'll go back through and check and see if there is something we can restore that was actually sourced and not OR. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a sample of a handful of the sources on the reference list, the first CNET article is the only one that refers to "Anonymous" as 'vigilantes.' The rest refer to them as "an anonymous group of hackers" ("Hacker Group Declares War On Scientology") "a disparate collection of hackers and activists." ("Hackers Declare War on Scientology"), "a hacking group" ("'Anonymous' threatens to 'dismantle' Church of Scientology via internet"), and " a nebulous group of hackers and troublemakers" ("The Internets Are Going to War"). At the very least, the word 'vigilante' could be changed to something like "a confederation of hackers" and still be perfectly verifiable, as this (to me anyway) seems like a neutral way of stating what most news outlets are reporting on this as. However, since *chan and the like are also virtual communities, and it is verifiable that users of those communities are involved, we could go with the even more neutral "confederation of virtual community users," as even the word 'hacker' has some nonneutral connotations that we may wish to avoid.
As to the involvement of communities in "Anonymous" and in Project Chanology, this source has nothing at all to do with the formation of Project Chanology, and is really just a POV blog entry about a Fox11 news report about "Anonymous" that really had nothing to do with any hacking group (at the time) but was just a false media interpretation that more triggered the consolidation of "Anonymous" into a group (however that isn't covered in any RS that I know of, so it's not article material anyway). In other words, it's tangential at best, which is why I originally commented it out instead of removing it entirely. This source states: "it has been widely reported that they are associated with underground hacking Web sites such as 4chan and 711chan as well as a number of Internet Relay Chat channels." Which confirms the existing information in the Formation section, and arguably, reference to IRC channels could be added as well. This source (which, coincidently, uses the phrase "confederation of online troublemakers" to describe "Anonymous), quotes text from the Project Chanology page that implies the involvement of members of other online communities. The source itself, however, also lists partyvan.info specifically as a confederate, so that would possibly warrant its inclusion as well. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spiffy. No hard feelings or anything; it's just how the article-writing process works. I'm just glad you're a reasonable guy. :) I had an edit conflict with your comment as I was hashing out a few more POV issues that I noticed (I'm working my way through the article, slowly, as this is kind of one of those things prone to that). I'd appreciate your thoughts. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One thing, still with respect to the lead, is that the single example of the statement from the CoS does not show the "varied" response. I have replaced and had removed another statement (which is sourced in the response section, which is all that is required) that demonstrates this varied response and provides balance to the overall response overview. Another, more with respect to the characterization of the Cruise video, and something that I noticed was an issue with its being in the lead and its use as a replacement for another sourced characterization of the video. If both sourced statements (both the one from The Times, which is there, and the one from The Daily Telegraph, which was removed) were included in the section, the characterization of the video would be more balanced, which is what we have to strive for when sources lack any sort of neutral statements about something. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, my apologies from earlier aside - could I ask you to attempt to make the changes to the article, and then I'll have a better idea of what you mean, and we can come back here and discuss? Cirt (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff with the changes I suggested. The wording might not be perfect, so feel perfectly free to wordsmith. The first change, in the lead, is supported by the Edmonton Sun article that is cited in the Response section, in relation to the same quote (in line with acceptable practices for lead content and citing later). The addition that I made to the video section replaces the characterization by and reference of The Daily Telegraph article that had been removed entirely in favor of the equally POV Times reference. Both are now in the article and balance each other out nicely, I think. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good changes, I agree with everything you have said above, well done. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberterrorism

I sometimes get a raised eyebrow when I accuse POV-pushers of using this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward their POV. Let's just take a look at who we are elevating to a level where their attacks and announcements are worthy of encyclopedic coverage even before they prove to be anything. See the first hit on this search (I will not link directly to a copyright violation but this is worth seeing). --JustaHulk (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not seen the word "cyberterrorism" used to describe this group, or this event, website, or anything associated with it in any of my research so far by any WP:RS/WP:V news organization, blog, or anything of the sort. In fact, the first and only time that I have seen this term used in this manner, is by JustaHulk (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, I invented that term??? Cool. Oh wait, here it is:

      "Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure."

      Does that sound like anything that Anonymous might be involved with. Watch the Fox11 video if you have any doubts. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Did I say you "invented" the term? No. That's not what I said. I said no one but you has ever used that term so far in the media/news/press/blogs to refer to Project Chanology or anything associated with these events. Perhaps it is you that are trying to use Wikipedia to push out a new association of this term with this group? But now we see that you have twisted my words above, because nowhere did I say anything about you "inventing" the term. Nope, wrong. But thanks for trying. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, sorry. I guess I misinterpreted this line: "In fact, the first and only time that I have seen this term used in this manner." The point in that there is a term for what they do and that term is "cyber-terrorism". Death threats, bomb threats (watch the video) there is no reason to whitewash this group. Watch the Fox11 video. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: JustaHulk (talk · contribs) - this line of discussion has nothing to do with improving this article. Please do not use Wikipedia as your own personal forum/online message board to push out your own POV. As far as I can tell YOU are the only person that I have come across to use the word "cyberterrorism" to date, associated with Project Chanology. Please stop this. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it, it was at Encyclopedia Dramatica, definitely not citable, but I wonder if it is cited by "Anonymous" anywhere else. Here is the text they use:

Scientology has been officially declared Fair Game. Any Scientologist may be deprived of property or ... They may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed. -- Anonymous

And here is the text of the actual Fair Game (Scientology), um, stuff:

ENEMY: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

— HCO Policy Letter, October 18, 1967, Issue IV, L. Ron Hubbard

Anyone have better sources for this? Cirt (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shi...I can't believe you said the E.D. word and TOW didn't explode. Lemme look into who contributed it. The article is XBox hueg but I have a few thousand hours on my hands til I die. And I cleaned the ferret cage like mum wanted (no way am I going to Apex Tech tho) so I can basement dwell in peace.--Piepie (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, but I'm only referring here to E.D., unfortunately, because that's where I found this quote. Hopefully, we can find it in another instance somewhere else. Because I don't know about others, but I would oppose citing anything from that site. Just mentioned it here on the talk page so as to foster finding better sources - perhaps a secondary source which discusses the Fair Game (Scientology) reverse flip by "Anonymous" back onto "Source" somewhere... Cirt (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just cite the Fox 11 video for why the channers are cyberterrorist? Did you even watch it? It consisted of somebody getting gay porn put on their myspace and some channers making prank calls to somebody causing their mom to get a dog and curtains. I understand you probably don't spend much time on the internet but what you're saying is totally wrong. BJTalk 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Message to Scientology"

Yes, as of this timestamp the video has been viewed 1,288,344 times. But that is WP:OR violation. The next best thing we can say is the most recent stats from a secondary source - which last said it was up to 800,000. Still, impressive, nonetheless.  :) Cirt (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jwray (talk · contribs) reverted my edit, here. That's fine, I won't push this - but we shall see what other editors think. Personally, I think we should hold off on relying on a primary source and doing WP:OR - and instead use secondary sources to discuss "Message to Scientology". I mean, are we going to constantly update the viewage stats for the video ourselves every time it goes up another 1,000 views? That's silly. It makes much more sense to update this kind of thing, and rely on secondary sources, as they become available. It will make for a much stronger and better article in the long run. What do others think? Cirt (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with updating the timestamp is that I can't access that infomation tomorow, in a month, two years from now. I have to rely that what you say is true. now Jwray changed the 800000 number, which was actually a quote from a source that I will be able to reference when I am 62. it said that on Jan 25...4 days after the video was posted it was viewed 800,000...or 200000 hits a day...as opposed to Jwray's number which is only 184,049 hits a day...which is probably going to go down...untill it is only about 10,000 hits a day (if we update all the time). That is why it falls under WP:OR, because it dosn't give us a published source we can access later.
I am going to remove that change for the reasons above, I would like to hear from Jwray if he disagrees with me, but on the talk page, not the edit summary.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree about the timestamp thing, but surely "Message to Scientology", "Anonymous", YouTube, January 21, 2008 should be mentioned in the intro. Jwray (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? what do you think should be added to the introduction?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the introduction. "Message to Scientology", "Anonymous", YouTube, January 21, 2008 is the declaration of war that practically initiated Project Chanology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it said that they "declared War on scientology" but the video dosn't mention that at all...the web site does though. based on what I have seen (between the web site and the video), I think the whole thing should be reworked a bit, but that is just one editors opinion. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is having over 1 million views on youtube some milestone for youtube or for this kind of online activism (hacktivism?)? Specifically the million mark, no need I think to note every few thousand hits etc. I'm asking because if it is, that should be noted and I don't see why we would need a mainstream news source to see what we all can plainly observe.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the article and it was reverted because of Jimbo's bass-ackward policy of needing 'facts' cited in antiquated media befoar it's 'true'. Let's hope the Shaolun Daily Register prints the fact that it has over 9,000 views in the blood of child labourers on human paper so we can include it. ALL HAIL LORD XENU THE PRINTING PRESS! --Piepie (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is so that fact can be varified later on. it is WP:OR to put personal observations in an article, no matter how true they may be, the facts must be varifiable by sources that can be referenced later on...just in case someone 10 years from now said "hold on, there is no way that video had over 1000000 views"...if there isn't a source it really can't be proven... before we can insert data in the article we need to get it from a reliable source.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This becomes an interesting point, now that there is a WikiNews outlet can someone propose a story merely to be able to cite facts in a related article because a secondary source is needed per policy? Could be a COI.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
although I am not familiar with the wiki news outlets poicies, I would personaly clasify what you are discribing as self published...thus not a reliable secondary source.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page not beeing deleted, please see discussion

why is this page being deleted? this is huge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.62.203 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...its not...its only under discussion.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anyone doubts the validity of this article, check the Canuk press tomorrow. There was an early protest in Ottawa (sp) that drew cops and press. There was also a small one in Harlem. This thing is gonna be hueg. The Los Angeles board on Facebook already has over 130 signed up for the protest at one of LA's dozen or so CoS buildings. They have an LAPD connection to stay within the letter of the law. They also plan to have dinner at the CoS Celebrity Center after the protest. http://www.laweekly.com/eat+drink/dining/eat-at-l-rons/4413/

tl;dr? DO NOT underestimate what is happening here. --Piepie (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all that is holy! can we please please please please understand that this discussion is going on at the RfD discussion, and all discussion here is...well...useless. WP:TALK we are not here to discuss the relivence of the event, we are here to imporve the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Broken News

From the OG Anon to CoS makers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70 --Piepie (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anonymous", Call to Action, YouTube, January 27, 2008. This new video, posted very recently it seems, cites some disturbing controversial events in Scientology history, including:

  1. Lisa McPherson
  2. Operation Snow White
  3. Paulette Cooper
  4. Operation Freakout
  5. SeaOrg - for more on specific allegations about this subgroup of the main organization, see the video or google stuff mentioned in the video.

They talk about something going down on February 10, 2008, a massive peaceful protest outside Church of Scientology centers all over the place. We'll have to wait to see how this gets analyzed/discussed in secondary sources. Please feel free to post relevant secondary sources to this, here below. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will post this primary source: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology &#9992; James C. (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please avoid primary sources and stick to secondary sources for the article? Cirt (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this so-called "new video" the one where Anonymous simply reposts the YTMND piece that was put up, what, a year ago? Two? --JustaHulk (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

First we have to fix up the intro, it jumps too quickly into who the group protesting is and not the hows and whys of the Project itself.

The group, Anonymous, should have a section for itself to place all that information.

With a little more structure, we can get that "delete order" removed.

I will post more after I have had some rest!--AveryG (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a section about who Scientology is would be appropriate as well.--AveryG (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD !votes are almost all keep, we just have to wait for the time to run out on the !vote. BJTalk 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Can someone please tell me if this article is about "Project Chanology" or "Anonymous"? I made a few changes to the intro, which were reverted. The page now sounds like it is about Anonymous, not Project Chanology. It also has on direction. The sources are great, but the page simply wanders around. If it is going to be about "Project Chanology", we need to make sure the intro is clear.--AveryG (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, please read it to see how it does not violate NPOV standards. I feel the changes I made to the intro give a person who has simply come across the page a better understanding of the Project. Anonymous can be a section in the body of the article.--AveryG (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted is not original research. it is an attempt to have a NPOV about what Project Chanology is.--AveryG (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a table of contents does not necessarily mean the article reads well; it just means there are at least 4 sections.--AveryG (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes violate policy, and broke up a sentence into a sentence fragment:

The group behind the protest, "Anonymous" encouraged other websites to host the video despite the copyright challenges by the legal department of the Church.[citation needed][original research?]

"Anonymous," a group described by The Times as "a disparate collection of hackers and activists."[1]

  1. The first sentence above is uncited. It is both unsourced, and a violation of original research. This information is not stated in any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The second sentence was fine in the prior version which you reverted, but is now an unreadable sentence fragment.Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically the sentence may have been better, but it is not a good introduction to an article about P:C.--AveryG (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:LEAD, the intro is a summary of the rest of the article, not a place to post WP:OR, unsourced info. This is a very difficult article to have an intro for, and the intro will just naturally be the most deficient part of the article - as it is a very rapidly changing subject. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there is the problem. The intro as it is written does faithfully summarize the article, which is so poorly written. You keep claiming that there is OR material in my suggestions, but if you read the intro I suggested above, it is merely a rearrangement of the material already in the intro (without the links).
The only reason it seems to be a difficult article to write an intro for is because there is no structure. If you had an outline, it would help make the article readable. If you had an outline, you could see how the elements work together and give yourself a chance to write an understandable intro.--AveryG (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: We're going in circles now, and this is getting to be unproductive. We do have an outline - see the table of contents, and then within each subsection the information in those subsections is organized chronologically. And your versions are not just rearrangements, we have been over this already in great detail. You want to add whole swathes of tangential portions explaining the history of YouTube and copyright infringement and Scientology and the Internet and Scientology and the legal system in this article, I do not. I think that if that sort of context is present in secondary WP:RS/WP:V articles about Project Chanology, then it could be added. But if not, not. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A table of contents is made automatically by the wiki after a page has 4 sections, not due to the writer making a coherent outline. It does appear that "we" are going in circles, when you repeatedly bring up "swaths" of information that do not exist.
And who has suggested writing the history of YouTube?
One of the biggest problems beginning writers have is that they fall in love with their own words. This wiki is supposed to be a collaborative project, yes? There are also standards, yes? Every page must also make sense as well, yes? Then, may I suggest (again) that we work together to write a page that makes sense and adheres to Wikipedia's standards?
You have one part of that formula (the standards), but without the other two, this isn't much of a wiki, nor is this much of an article.
Maybe if you took a day off from writing the page, you can see what I'm talking about? Watch the page for vandals, etc., but don't post anything yourself. Then after a day, go through the article and make an outline of what exists and see if it still makes sense.--AveryG (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide secondary sources that discuss Project Chanology directly, and also give context in the areas you feel are lacking, that would solve this issue quite simply . Cirt (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sections Needed

  • Scientology's copyright infringement claims history
  • YouTube's video pulling history
  • history of Scientology's legal department

--AveryG (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Scientology's copyright infringement claims history -- Zero relevant to the history of Project Chanology - they have had no litigation with each other yet.
  2. YouTube's video pulling history - Already briefly stated in the article enough to give background on Project Chanology, no more is needed as this occurred prior to formation of Project Chanology.
  3. history of Scientology's legal department - See answer to #1. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to #1: Scientology pulled the video much like they "pull" comments off forums and message boards. It was the pulling of the video that started all of this. Also, this shows Scientology's history of censorship. Completely relevant.
Reply to #2: Censorship of internet content is completely relevant to this protest. Remember, this encyclopedia article must explain the background of why YouTube did what it did in succuming to Scientology's copyright claim, just as it did with Viacom, and any other giant media corporation.
Reply to #3: Most churches have legal departments. But no where near the militance of Scientology's. This is not a recent development, nor is it restricted to the one Tom Cruise video. It is what they do. Completely relevant.--AveryG (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these things have any relevance to Project Chanology, specifically. They are all already discussed or should be discussed in other articles. Has the Church of Scientology initiated a lawsuit against anyone related to Project Chanology? No. So we should not discuss their entire history of litigation in this article, just because you feel it is tangentially relevant. It is not. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the entire history, that is where you post the "Please see main Article". But, to exclude it clearly ignores Scientology's history of litigation and violates NPOV.
  1. A Scientology video was posted on YouTube
  2. Scientology asked YouTube to remove the video.
  3. other sites posted it in protest
These actions by Scientology follow a clear pattern of censorship, and P:C was born.--AveryG (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The litigation is not against P:C or ANonymous, but the threat against YouTube, hence the pulling of the video. It is relevant, because it fairly states Scientology's beliefs about their copyrights. It is NPOV; to exclude it is not.--AveryG (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the action is against YouTube, that should go in the YouTube article. If the action is against Project Chanology, it could go here. The WP:ALSO section now has links to both Scientology and the Internet and Scientology and the legal system - you can work on adding more context there if you wish. This article should not get overweighted with tangential content and info that really doesn't have much to do with Project Chanology, save for max 3 sentences of what motivated it to get started. We don't need paragraphs upon paragraphs about all these non-relevant things you mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that the quotes culled from the sources appear NPOV. If you choose to include a quote which states that one side in the debate "blocks free speech" then you either have to support that with wikilinks (or another external source) or dump it. A link to another page in a section at the bottom of the page is not sufficient; "paragraphs and paragraphs" of information is not acceptable.
And no one is suggesting that. Maybe the problem with the page is that some portions have too much information and others have next to nothing.
Perhaps an outline would help arrange the many elements needed to properly explain the topic at hand.--AveryG (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to stick to what secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources discuss with regards to this topic. If you find sources that discuss Project Chanology that provide some context that is not present in this article, feel free to add it or note the new source here. But digging for old sources in order to explain tangential connections in this case seems inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you exaggerate a bit in your "objective" "analysis" of my suggestions. "Digging"? Seriously? Like I've stated earlier, the quotes you have chosen to include in this article hint at one of the parties involved as "blocking free speech". The quote may be sourced, but without an explanation, it seems out of place because nothing about "blocking free speech" exists anywhere else in the article. It is not mentioned in the introduction. It is not mentioned in another section. Nor are there any other comments regarding the party "accused" of "blocking free speech" replying to this "accusation." Which they have in the past. In fact, that is one of the defining characteristics of this party. To choose to include that quote, with no further explanation violates NPOV.--AveryG (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide more context from a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source that discusses Project Chanology and also give context on the issues you raised, please feel free to do so. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Direction

I feel the page needs better direction. It jumps immediately into who the group Anonymous is and not what Project Chanology is.--AveryG (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But, what I was posting was not OR. What I was posting was an introduction to what P:C is. The intro needs to tell someone reading it a basic understanding of all aspects of the conflict. This wiki is supposed to be the place where people go to begin research. The way it is written (after the reverts) does not explain the Project, so much as explain who Anonymous is.
As far as the sources go, they only explain where we got this information. If what I said has no sources, then it is tagged "Citation needed" not OR.--AveryG (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is both unsourced and a violation of WP:OR. What source do you have for this new info you added to the article?? Cirt (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "new" info. P:C initially started in reaction to pulling the video. It has since become something else. I just need to find a SFW & reliable source.--AveryG (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you have found a WP:RS/WP:V source for this. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the intro uncited.

"Project Chanology says it was formed in response to the Church of Scientology's attempts to remove material from an exclusive Scientology interview with Tom Cruise from the internet. "

--AveryG (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Perhaps what the intro needs is a reordering of and more concise sentences. The information is there, but it takes a while to get to it. I have rearranged what was posted into what I feel makes the information more readable and appropriate for an introduction (suggested intro between the horizontal lines).

"Project Chanology" began as an internet-based protest against the controversial Church of Scientology after a video was removed from the internet video-sharing site, You Tube, that featured, Tom Cruise, one of the Church's more famous members.

The group behind the protest, Anonymous, view Scientology's actions (not YouTube's) as a form of internet censorship and started Project Chanology (also known as Operation Chanology) by posting a video on YouTube in response to and as a counter-protest of Scientology's removal of the Cruise video.

Anonymous' video, "Message to Scientology," was followed by measures intended to disrupt the Church of Scientology's operations, such as DDoS attacks, prank calls and nonviolent protests.

Other detractors of Scientology have criticized the actions of Project Chanology, asserting that they merely provide the Church of Scientology with the opportunity to "play the religious persecution card." Other critics of Project Chanology's actions question the legality of their methods.

Reactions by the Church of Scientology to the group's actions include moving their domain and statements from spokespeople claiming Anonymous received bad information about the Church and dismissing them as a "pathetic" group of "computer geeks". The Church has also asked law enforcement authorities to investigate the disruption to their business and charges of a hate crime.

Project Chanology also refers to a website of the same name, used by the group to chronicle ongoing and planned actions by "Anonymous."

Then each of the subjects mentioned in the introduction, should have a section of its own to give more detail than what should be included in a brief introduction:

  • Who Is Anonymous
    • the structure of the group
    • the website
    • using internet technology for their, um, stuff
  • Who Is Scientology?
    • brief, but relevant
      • perhaps mention Celebrity Center (since Tom Cruise is in the video)
      • perhaps also include other times they have asked to have their copyrighted material removed from public view (like libraries, or forums and message boards)
  • Leaking The Scientology Video
    • what was in the video
    • does Scientology always remove things? Is this the first time they've done this?
    • does YouTube always simply remove videos ?
    • Has YouTube done this before?
  • Reaction By Anonymous
    • more about the Message to Scientology video
    • further actions taken
  • Reaction by Scientology
  • Criticism
  • See Also
  • References

The idea I have for this suggestion is that we cannot assume anyone knows anything about anything mentioned in the article. Wikipedia has always been where research starts. We do not have to write a complete dissertation on Scientology, but to exclude a brief description is negligent.

What we can do is point people to other Wikipedia articles for expanded information this article merely touches on and to the secondary sources used to back up information included in the article.--AveryG (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any problems with having this introduction in the article?--AveryG (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we have wikilinks and "See Also" sections. We are not writing a dissertation, we're writing an encyclopedia article. That means that often we have to define and describe things with the assumption that the reader has some background in the applicable subject matter. If they do not, they may click on the relevant links within the article to get the background. To add all of the background you've suggested would make this article less about Project Chanology and more about Scientology and YouTube's respective censorship and takedown policies. While Project Chanology does primarily take issue with those policies and actions, mentioning those policies briefly within the relevant prose of PC's history/background and actions is more than sufficient. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, again agree with LaMenta3 (talk · contribs) here. This is an article about Project Chanology, not the entire history of copyright infringement on YouTube and how the company reacts to it, the legal history of Scientology, what Scientology is, or anything of the sort. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with the page as it is written is that the introduction contains more information than an introduction should include. An introduction should be brief and concise, with the details in the body of the article. Most of what I suggested is not even mentioned in the article or the "See Also" section. I feel the article should include more detail in the body than in the introduction, with wikilinks and a "See Also" section as well. It is written implying that someone would understand the topic at hand with a few hints sprinkled throughout. The section titles I suggested are not set in stone, but merely guideposts to explain the topic of the article more fully than it is now.
As it exists now, there is more detail in the introduction than in the body and information that is excluded from the body makes the article slanted by neglecting those details, which my suggestion would correct.
(reply to Cirt): A mention to insure completeness is not "the entire history of" anything. The slant of the article is glaring without an attempt at inclusion.--AveryG (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(also for Cirt) Project Chanology does not exist in a vacuum. Details explaining more about it is entirely appropriate to an encyclopedia article about it.--AveryG (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, or "introduction" as you refer to it, is intended to outline the important points from the entire article. From my experience in GA and FA review (which is where I draw my editing standards from), this section is ideally 3-4 paragraphs and does not include any information that is not mentioned or expanded upon later in the article. The latter part is something that does need a little work still, and I've been slowly trying to make sure that everything in the lead is also in the article in some form. The body of the article does go into a good bit more detail about the things for which there are reliable sources about. However, we are constrained by what is covered in those sources as to how much further detail we can go into. That said, there is nothing precluding you from mining the sources relating to the article subject for the background information you seem to crave. Then the background would be more contextual than it would be if you drew in the background from unrelated sources--something that, despite what might seem like an "obvious" connection, constitutes a level of original research, as you would be making connections that have not been established in secondary sources. Normally, this sort of "wiggle room" is okay, but as I have already said, everything with this article has to be completely by the book as far as sourcing, verifiability and original research guidelines go, even to the extent of erring on the side of caution due to the volatile nature of the subject matter. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more. The introduction provides more information about each subject than what is included in the body, which you admit needs work. Without an outline (similar to what I've suggested) the content is scattered and does not read well. While I certainly do not have as much experience writing in wikis as you do, I do, however have some experience writing in the real world. The introduction does not clearly state what P:C is before it goes into what Anonymous is. I doubt that is up to Wikipedia standards.--AveryG (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with LaMenta3 (talk · contribs)'s last comment, and please see WP:LEAD which backs up everything that was said. And yes, if you find more info in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources about Project Chanology, you can add it to the background section. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Under the "Actions" section, there is a line describing the "Message To Scientology" video:

"The video utilizes a synthesized voice and shows cloud images with a time lapse method, while the speaker addresses the leaders of Scientology directly..."

What I am suggesting by adding more information in order to be complete with that sentence (for example) is to change it to say:

"The video shows time lapsed cloud images as a synthesized voice addresses the leaders of Scientology directly--not the adherents or founder of The Church--..."

The punctuation can be changed of course and the addition might even be parenthetical.

Also, the "Actions" section includes information about Scientology's reaction.

By using my suggestion (maybe I should call it an outline?) that information would be placed in its proper section.

I am not suggesting any of the information be removed, simply organized better.--AveryG (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "Actions" section contains the very type of information about Digg which I am suggesting be included about YouTube and Scientology.
Either dump that or include similar background information about YouTube and Scientology.--AveryG (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response

Everything you have described above as to your suggestions of how to change things in the article is not backed up by any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and would be a WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find articles, the subject of which is Project Chanology like the article on Digg.com is, and then that could be used to give more background. But we cannot simply say "The video shows time lapsed cloud images as a synthesized voice addresses the leaders of Scientology directly--not the adherents or founder of The Church--..." as you suggest above. Blatant WP:OR violation - not backed up by any sources whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think you use the OR claim too much. Perhaps you mean a citation is needed? I believe there is either a source stating that P:C is going after the RTC, and not the followers or the founder. This came from either partyvan or one of the Anonymous videos and maybe even a press release.--AveryG (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Church of Scientology moved their domain to a more secure location, and then their website was taken down again, occurs in a chronological order within that section. It would make no sense out of sequence in other section. It moves from 1 to 2 to 3. Site gets taken down, site gets moved/protected, site gets taken down again. Pointless to pop out this middle info and move it somewhere else out of context and out of chrono order. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be chronological in one section, but not in others is inconsistent. Just another example of the poor writing in this article. Maybe that's another reason why the introduction jumps around so much?--AveryG (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which section is not in chrono order? Cirt (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Criticisms" section, Stephen A. Kent was quoted as saying,:

"The hacker community has been angry at Scientology for (their) attempts to block free speech on the Internet."

What blocks to free speech could Mr. Kent be speaking of? Where are the wikilinks to this? Is Mr. Kent just making these things up? Either we provide support for this assertion, or we remove it as being a violation of NPOV.

This is exactly the type of thing I have been talking about.

This page needs a rewrite.--AveryG (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Quote comes from a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source directly discussing the subject of this article, and as such it's fine. Read the actual source itself - the source article doesn't even go into the detail you are referring to. There is a link to Scientology and the Internet in the WP:ALSO section, this should provide the reader with more context. Unless there is more context provided in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources about the subject of this article - digging for other tangential stuff would be OR (Per LaMenta3 (talk · contribs)'s last comment, above). Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about OR, but there is none. Still. Perhaps an outline of the page would help you see how convoluted the writing is? And help arrange the many elements needed to cover the topic at hand.--AveryG (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an outline. The table of contents covers many different areas of the topic. Several editors even thought the present version of the article was quality enough to consider WP:GA status, see below. Each section is organized chronologically within each subsection. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A table of contents automatically generated by a wiki is not an outline. The suggestion to nominate the article for GA was actually turned down by someone...hmm, I wonder who did that...oh, wait. You did. And I have to agree. The article needs more proofreading and with an outline would read better.--AveryG (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again: If you can provide more context/material/text/quotes from a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source that discusses Project Chanology and also give context on the issues you raised, please feel free to do so. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what I'm doing wrong. I am not suggesting the article be posted as part of the article. I am suggesting that in order for us to collaborate on this article, we use an outline (maybe on this page) so that we can reach an agreement on where all the elements would best fit in order for the article to make sense.--AveryG (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video quote

User:JustaHulk, as a self-described scientologist, has an extreme conflict of interest. This simply quotes the primary source - HOW is it possibly "PoV-Pushing?" It's a direct quote! SouperAwesome (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with JustaHulk (talk · contribs) here, we should avoid as much as possible citing directly from secondary sources. I do not necessarily agree that this is "POV pushing" - some people use that term as a way to bait a response out of someone else - but as far as sticking strictly to a discussion of the best way to write a Wikipedia article, in line with both policies and the spirit of policy on this project - best to stick to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the quote should be in the article but I fail to see how it is WP:OR or POV pushing. BJTalk 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's WP:OR because Wikipedia editors are choosing how to describe the new video, which portion of the video to quote, etc. Cirt (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair enough point; perhaps the entire thing should be quoted. Personally, I'd have said that was the most notable part, though it was chosen by whoever originally included in the article, not myself. I feel that this... hmm... "announcement" by the reported-upon member(s) of Project Chanology, about Project Chanology, is very important in the context of the dispute. Having said that, I suppose there is a fair chance this particular video will be reported upon by a third party at some point. SouperAwesome (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't see how WP:OR applies, the quote is published and no analysis was made. If interviewed an /i/nsurgent and got a quote that would be OR, or if I took parts of a quote out of context that would be synthesis. WP:NPOV might apply here, as well as the preference of secondary sources over primary sources. BJTalk 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so at the very least we can all agree we should in general, prefer secondary sources at the utmost over overuse of primary sources. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While secondary sources are always better this article in particular should have no primary sources. Anonymous is just a group of people who use the chans and has no leaders thus nobody can speak for them as a group. Until a secondary source recognizes the video as coming from Anonymous, it never happened in our eyes. So, yes I agree with you. BJTalk 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You put that very well, good. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • After reading my own comment I can now see how WP:OR applies, we are determining if the video speaks for Anonymous or not thus being OR. BJTalk 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • We aren't; that very same person has already been recognised by secondary sources as representing Anonymous with the first video, so it should be a reliable primary source. The problem is that this article doesn't seem neutral at all. There's a basic description of what the article is about, a small amount of information on the methods used, and then a huge amount of everything from criticism to straight-out insults, such as "pathetic computer geeks," which isn't even sourced. It's all very one sided. That's why I feel the quote should be included with a primary source that can be changed to include secondary later. SouperAwesome (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • SouperAwesome (talk · contribs), read the ongoing WP:AFD comments. I'm glad you stated here that you think this article is lopsided and POV in the other direction - yet some people feel the exact opposite. I think it will be very difficult to assess the article's NPOVness, until we allow for a significant length of time to pass, so as to allow for development and analysis/discussion, perhaps even in other tertiary sources, over time. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see it as being one sided but when I read CoS response I just laugh. BJTalk 14:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suppose that, for my view, it all comes down to this: These accusations are stated by what we can verify as a primary source as the very reasons for the entire "war," which should certainly make them worthy of inclusion in the article about it. The quote should be there along with any official response / accusation from the Church of Scientology on a similar scale; removing something so important to the entire affair seems wrong, especially when it's a direct quote. SouperAwesome (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) And it will be, once it's discussed in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why we should use Secondary Sources

I just reverted an edit that encorperated the entire text from the "statements" section of the project chanology site. in addition to being 5000 charicters long, I personaly feel it isn't a good adition to the article. for starters it isn't a stable source, the Poject Chanology page has changed drasticly since I first became aware of it. secondly, I have no idea who wrote it, or if it is actually going to have an effect. since there is no "official spokesman" for the project, there can be no "official voice". This is made blaitently clear if you look at the video responces to the fox news report...all of whom claim to be speaking for Anon (everything from "you got us all wrong man, we are peacefull people" to "we laugh at the suffering of children. when a bomb goes off, we laugh").

all that beeing said, we have to rely on secondary sources for this article. mainly because the voice of Anon does not come from people who claim to be from anon, rather it comes from what the media choses to report on in secondary sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Project Chanology" on 5 Wikipedias

This is incredible. There is an article on "Project Chanology" in 5 different language Wikipedias. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably including German and French. CounterFX (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Suomi and Eesti. And German and French are very common languages. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of "Anonymous"

I don't know if my previous entry on this was deleted or if I just hit the back button instead of submit. But what source is there for this passage:

Users of the English speaking imageboards 711chan.org and 4chan, the associated partyvan.info wiki, and several Internet Relay Chat channels (collectively known as "Anonymous") formulated "Project Chanology".

As I have read various blogs on this story I see people claiming to be associated with the group mentioning association with the web communities of YTMND.com and ebaumsworld.com respectively. If there is evidence of just the sites mentioned being home base for this group I would like to see it sourced. If someone did delete my previous entry please give an explanation.--Ason Abdullah (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I read spoke of YTMND's past legal encounter with the church and ebaums is a running gag. From what I know from my own research the goons (SomethingAwful) are somewhat involved but no sources backed this up. BJTalk 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROTIP: ebaums did everything. It's an in-joke. --Piepie (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can only put what is backed up by WP:RS/WP:V sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes I know. BJTalk 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to more experienced editors on this, but can the entry read: "May have started from....." besides style on some of the communiques I see no substantive reason to state for certain the movement arose out of those communities specifically.Ason Abdullah (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"May have started from....." would be exactly what we could not say. That is a violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "some sources report..." I'm trying to find away to have the information remain in the article because outside of some of the editor's knowledge of this internet subculture I see no definitive proof it was for certain the very specific communities mentioned in the entry.Ason Abdullah (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"some sources report..." -- What sources do you have for this? Cirt (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if it is backed up by the sources, and they are reliable it can be added. I wouldn't sweat it too much, if the media keep up with it someone is bound to publish somthing about how it got started (there is still interest, but you can only spend so much ink on what happened, someone is going to write about the group itself)...I would actually wait for the next issue of Time Magizine, they will probably have a blurb about it (this is the stuff they report on)(Especially considering their past history with Scientology). if the information is reliable, but there isn't a source yet just wait...there will be soon.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we in agreement then that the mention of the specific websites in that passage should be removed?Ason Abdullah (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it is backed up to multiple WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I see where it's mentioned in references 10 and 11.Ason Abdullah (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS is ABSOLUTELY required

While there is some wiggle room on other articles where one may add a statement first and find sources later, this absolutely, positively cannot be done in this article. I say this because Cirt and I have both removed information that has been added that may be factual, but there are no reliable secondary sources that can verify it. The necessity of this is due to several factors:

  1. This subject is a current event and is quickly developing and changing. As such, bad information that is the result of poor communication and rumors can sneak its way in if we don't stringently require citations.
  2. This subject relates to sensitive and potentially legally damaging issues. Unverified information that is added has the potential to damage Wikipedia as a whole because of the high-profile nature of the parties involved in this matter. (And as a matter of covering my own ass, this is in no way intended as a legal threat, but rather a pragmatic observation of events that may potentially occur.) I strongly suggest that this article be treated with the same care as those that fall under WP:BLP for this reason.
  3. This issue is very high profile, and parties from both sides have a vested interest in injecting false and POV-type information. While reliable sources themselves are not inherently neutral, it is generally easy to detect biases in the text that is referenced, and for high-profile issues such as these, it is equally easy to find sources which are biased in the other direction. In cases where there is no neutral statement to be had, two (or more, if necessary) balancing statements based upon reliable sources should be used in order to maintain a neutral point of view.
  4. In addition to being monitored closely by interested parties, this article is monitored as a result of an ArbCom decision concerning Scientology-related articles, and it is monitored as a result of the recently-closed AfD. Adding unsourced or otherwise bad or nonneutral information provides reason for third parties to take action against users or the article itself.
  5. Again relating to the high-profile nature of this issue, it is quite likely that this article is monitored by the media. It is no secret, and it should come as no surprise, that some media outlets pull significant amounts of information on issues from Wikipedia. Bad or incorrect information that is added may result in a misinformation feedback loop in which the unsourced information is then reported on, thus becoming sourced, but making that information no less incorrect.

I've probably left some things out, but I just want to provide fair and due warning that I have and will continue to monitor this article both for verifiability and neutrality and remove added unsourced information with prejudice. I am not doing this to be a pedant or because I'm on any sort of power trip, but because this article is of an extremely sensitive nature, and quality of the information and its presentation is of the utmost importance.

Good point, 98.203.237.75 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons I provided are in addition to the usual reasoning for use in other articles. The influence of potential legal threat to article editing is a very real one, particularly where potentially libelous information is concerned. (Not explicit legal threats made, mind, but matters that should be regular, standing concerns for anyone writing about a person/organization whose reputation stands to be altered.) As I suggested, the same additional level of care should be taken while editing this article as would be taken for biographies of living persons because of the comparable legally sensitive nature of the content. (It is no secret that the CoS is rather litigious in matters of perceived libel/slander.) I guess half of my reasoning could be summed up as, "The best defense to accusations of libel is truth," which is a good thing to keep in mind in conjunction with Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and sourcing . LaMenta3 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we stick strictly to usage of secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, this should not even be an issue. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I said we need to do that. But you knew that. :) I just figured that it needed to be spelled out in the "public record", so to speak. It never hurts to have a clue stick around in case you need it. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing the threat of legal action to influence editing "in addition" to other reasons will cause systematic bias, which is, in my opinion, a greater evil than legal threat. Additionally, the main reason for WP:BLP is "do no harm", not legal threat.98.203.237.75 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the Good Work

Wow, this is awesome guys... keep up the good work!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.201.205 (talk • contribs)

Quote formatting undue weight?

I think this change to the quote format in the Action section gives undue weight to the statements made in the video itself, and is more of a journalism format and not an encyclopedic presentation. I'd prefer to put it back to a plain paragraph format. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason the partyvan/Project Chanology wiki link was removed?--Piepie (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they belong because nobody can speak for anon, etc. but I'm sure 4 other policies apply here as well. BJTalk 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. If only there was another wiki, say, one that documents lulz and drama on the Internets. Too bad nobody thought of that.

--Piepie (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer you are looking for is Encyclopedia Dramatica. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMFGZ! You dared mention the name of the wiki that shall remain nameless!!111one! Piepie (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what about unfunnypedia ? i think the partyvan wiki was removed due to a thetan overload of their servers. Apelike (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone lurk thar anymaor. (rhetorical) They were kind of a one-trick-pony. I think they're too busy fapping to Oscar Wilde fanfics to have noticed Project ChanologyPiepie (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party Van called on partyvan

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/scientologists-bring-in-fed-big-boys-to-squash-internet-atta.php

__Piepie (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two videos?

It seems as though the article discusses two different videos, but does not say that. I am aware of the one video of Cruise in the house (with the lamp) and another where he receives an award.

In the "Background" section, the video described is the one with the lamp, but in the "Church of Scientology's response" section, Karin Pouw public affairs director for the Church of Scientology, seems to be referring to the one where Cruise is on stage receiving an award.

The question I have is that reading through the article again, no mention is made that there are two different videos. In fact, the way the article is written, makes it seem as though there is only one video.--AveryG (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is? I only saw two separate videos.--AveryG (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, check Gawker.com. Most of the news and subsequent media (and Church of Scientology copyright infringement claims) deal with the 1st vid to show up on the internet, the 9min one. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the article does not state that the original video was 9 minutes long and that people might confuse the reposted edited versions for the original. Also, the background section makes no mention of the awards ceremony, only the lamp version. In addition, the background section describes the video as being part of a three hour event. Is the video three hours long? Was the edited 9 minute video the Scientology produced version? Is it not clear who did what? The background section does not clarify this.--AveryG (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for appropriate secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that discuss this info and address some of these questions. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partyvan.info down?

I can't access it, 404s here.--75.85.14.12 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary 10th

What can we expect? Non Violent right? Should one / many attend, What shall we do, bring? Peacefull Protestation? Sit ins? Ralleys? Satyagraha. --KoalaMeatPie (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Assessment

I'm fairly sure that quality assessment for this article was done quite early, because I really wouldn't consider the quality of this page to be Start level. It looks very much like a Good Article to me. Opinions? --Muna (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Is the only thing holding it back the fact that it's a current event? --Muna (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO There are still too many problems with clarity. It needs a few more "once-overs" to fix the confusing sections.--AveryG (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which bits would you consider confusing? --Muna (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Oppose GA nom at this time, maybe B status -- I am sure this article will fail if you nominate it for WP:GAC. Please see WP:WIAGA - specifically criteria numbers (3) and (5). The article will unfortunately not really be able to satisfy these two for quite some time. Let's reassess the article's status in, say a month at the least. However, if someone (other than me because I am a significant contributor to the article) wishes to assess and upgrade the article's quality to "B" status, that would be fine with me. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which bits? Well, how about everything under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to start? Well, sorta kidding...I started a section above to discuss some of the problems that I saw, which have not been addressed.--AveryG (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought it up here and not in the area for nominations was because I wasn't sure about nominating it just yet. I acknowledged criteria 5 as a problem already, but how do you feel that 3 is an issue? --Muna (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really - just that as more sources come out and more and more, it will get even better. There's also, unfortunately, additional issues with criteria (5) - not just that the subject of the article has new info coming out constantly - but that certain editors have issues with the content in the article - and articles with any sort of inherent talk page conflict or unresolved dialogue usually also do not get through WP:GAC and fail the GA Review. I notice that Jwray (talk · contribs) recently put the {{controversial}} tag at the top of the article. I think it will be quite some time before this settles down a bit more. (though the semi-protect helps a little) Cirt (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Without the semi-protect, this article would be a shitstorm of vandalism, which is another good reason to leave it for a little while. --Muna (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed by the Admin that closed the AfD on this article that it is quite possible that users have "sleeper accounts" specifically to avoid the semi-protect. Quite frustrating, if that is the case. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case, they can always be dealt with through the usual channels. It might be a bit of a shitstorm for awhile, but with due vigilance it can be taken care of, should any problems arise. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources

4chan.org is down. partyvan.info is down. Anybody have media sources to add to the article? Ronabop (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4chan works fine for me. --Muna (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
403 on partyvan, root page works on 4chan, forum pages don't. Ronabop (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/b/ isn't responding, but the rest are. --Muna (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone (chans, ED, SA, ebaums etc.) are under attack. Business as usual. Anon. --216.9.82.84 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/b/ is back up. 420chan's /i/ board is down. Partyvan is down. This is somewhat suspicious. --Muna (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ED's website claims they are under attack from Scientology and that's why they are having trouble - but I can't find any secondary sources on this - anyone else find any sources about the above stuff? Cirt (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ED has been claiming that for ages, it's bullcrap. Watch this space[11], though. --Muna (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Keep me posted if you find any good sources covering these developments. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of the Dead Cow

It would probably be a good idea to mention that the Cult of the Dead Cow waged war on Scientology[12] a good while ago. --Muna (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of the Dead Cow declared war on scientology in 1995. Their last post on the subject appears to be a call-to-arms on "Xenu Day," the anniversary of the Death of L. Ron Hubbard, in 2007. I agree that this wiki entry DOES belong on wikipedia and it's a shame it has to be locked as events unfold. It is as important to retain Project Chanology as it is to have an entry on the scientologists, and Project Chanology is not quite sufficient to counter-weigh the influence the scientologists wield on the internet. I think the Digg person cited in the article had it right, this "war," "raid," "attack,"--whatever one chooses to call it--has broad support from beyond any one or all of the chan imageboards combined. I would like to see more about the scientologists' response, not the few public statements denying the DDoS and CoSplay have had any effect, but the hacking the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Assignments has done against the imageboards (711 and 4chan), the spies (including agents provocateur) they have in the Project Chanology IRC channels and Scientology Los Angeles' decision to ask the FBI and law enforcement to investigate the project as a hate crime.Hypatea (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are already being used within Wikipedia... --Muna (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


External links? http://www.cultdeadcow.com/archives/2007/02/xenu_day_internation.php3 is the most recent entry from February, 2007 which comes up on the cult of the dead cow's search for term scientology. The hacks of the chan pages and others (www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Project_Chanology among them) and the spies on the IRC channels (which have moved several times) are well known to all participants and if the page for this entry weren't locked they'd be part of the article. OSA is the office within scientology charged with protecting it from outside influence and/or "attack" so that doesn't seem a real leap to assume they are running the hackers and spies in the counter-raid against Project Chanology. That scientology has brought a complaint against project participants on charges of hate crimes is part of the public record and was reported on www.radaronline.com among other places. Los Angeles has been a hotbed of Project Chanology support: after KROQ reported on the raid last week, the webpage of the Los Angeles chapter of Scientology was massively attacked and brought down. The only public statements have come from LA office and from a few Scientology spokespeople in Canada and Australia, excluding the "rain of hell" video Scientology just posted on youtube featuring a message intended to sow fear and doubt among chanologists in a female computer voice with crash-test dummies consumed in an airplane crash for background.Hypatea (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, to add any of this stuff. Do you know of a second source to confirm Radar Online? All the other stuff you said is just guesswork. If the page was not semi-protected, and new users kept adding unsourced stuff into the article just from what they "know" to be true, the article would be a mess and would probably have been deleted in the AfD as a big unsourced pile of crap. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources? You want three sources then, one from Project Chanology itself and two major media? Not gonna happen... I disagree BTW, if this article were unlocked it would be a revert war between Project Chanology and scientology, so more like two piles of crap I guess :) (but probably more informative than the locked wikinews article in any event)Hypatea (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just any one secondary source that satisfies WP:RS/WP:V will do. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, thanks for including the law enforcement update from radaronline... Hypatea (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. By the way, I am not affiliated with Scientology or with Chanology. But if Chanology gets successfully registered as a Religion, we'll talk, hehe. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heheheh. It was my understanding the onus was on the government to prove Chanology is NOT in fact a religion but things do change. I reviewed the wikipedia policies and you're right, there aren't verifiable sources yet afaik, but having deep sources within Chanology I'm convinced Scientology is hacking back. Knowing their practices it's impossible to conceive otherwise. I'll check back as more info becomes available. Hypatea (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prolexic

In the interests of this project's article, I've started an article for Prolexic Technologies. If anyone wants to expand it, be my guest. I was debating on whether I should add it to the Scientology Wikiproject or not... ViperSnake151 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to add it to the Scientology WikiProject - Prolexic has many varied clients and past cases. But thanks for starting that article! Always good to turn redlinks blue for notable topics. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

AveryG (talk · contribs) has suggested that we discuss an "Outline" for this article. Here is my idea:

  1. Introduction (summarizing the below sections)
  2. Background
    1. Tom Cruise video released to Internet
      1. include a word or two as to who the hell Tom Cruise is
    2. describe video so as to remove ambiguity
      1. length (is this the 9-minute video?)
      2. Scientology produced or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryG (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Scientology sends notice to YouTube, vid taken off YouTube
      1. 1 sentence max on Scientology internet history/background (refer to other wiki articles on Sci & the Internet, etc)
      2. mention (1 sentence max) that it is common YouTube practice to remove videos in the manner they did (refer to YouTube section on copyright infringement and controversial material)
    4. 2 sentences max on Anonymous history/background
    5. Background on formation of Project Chanology
      1. who they are
      2. how they meet/discuss
      3. what do they do/have done? (make this brief and segue into next section)
  3. Actions (maybe rename to something like "Project Chanology Activities?)
    reactions to and commentary about these actions have their own sections, include that information in the appropriate section below
    1. Actions initially planned by Project Chanology, goals, activities suggested, etc.
    2. Release of the 2 main videos, "Message to Scientology" and "Call to Action" should go in this section, as per chrono order when they appeared and were discussed in media/press.
    3. History of carried out/successful actions/things that made the press/media, etc. (Digg.com, DDoS, etc. - in chrono order)
    4. Chrono order would dictate that Scientology.org moving their domain to Prolexic should go in this section
      1. mention and direct to Scientology response below
    5. DDoS analysis - DDoS analysis by whatever sources have analyzed this, chrono order after the DDoS attacks
  4. Criticism - This section should not be "Criticism" but perhaps, "Reception", "Response", something like that
    1. Response from academics
    2. Response from other known Scientology critics
    3. Commentary from media/press - this would be where commentary on the actions in the Actions section should go.
  5. Church of Scientology's response (in chrono order)
    1. Initial statements from public relations people
    2. Scientology's report to law enforcement,
    3. further developments
    4. etc.

What do you think? Cirt (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added my suggestions, but should I include it in your outline above, or post a new one?--AveryG (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - this is roughly the current state of the article at the moment. Again, in order to provide the context you describe, I'd rather not go looking for older sources, but use secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources that discuss both that context and Project Chanology. I'll see if I can find any articles that go into context a bit more. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise car accident quote

IIRC Cruise likened the world situation to a car crash and expressed his belief that only Scientology had the knowledge to help. The current rendition of what he said is scurrilous; let's try and get that right. There is no need to misquote the man. -- 172.188.210.233 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be his new interpretation of it now he is being ridiculed all over the world for it and needs damage control or it may be a misquote, but since that is how the public who watched the video have interpreted it and is exactly what he said then the most accurate course of action would be to add a quote from a reliable source stating what Cruise claims he actually meant. --AlexCatlin (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this source, but I just wouldn't want to pick an arbitrary quote out of it, that's why I'd rather stick to description of the video in secondary sources:
    • Staff (January 16, 2008). "Transcript of Tom Cruise on Scientology video". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cirt (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rechecking the video, he does say it as quoted, but it is an isolated snippet; there is a cut immediately prior, and immediately after. From the general context, it would appear he was speaking metaphorically. That's the thing with such snippets; you can make anyone say anything. Might be interesting to view the whole video in context, but it is not available as far as I know. - 172.188.210.233 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is edited, but that doesn't mean that he is speaking metaphorically.--AveryG (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Gawker article they make it clear the 9 minute section is taken from a hour long IAS (International Association of Scientologists)ceremony which they also have hosted. To the other point (and I have to find a specific source on this) The car crash comment was not just a metaphor but a specific allusion to a Scientology principle of belief that an unconscious person is in danger of internalizing negative energy from the people treating them. With so much of Scientology texts and principles being trade protected and copyrighted it becomes difficult to verify.Ason Abdullah (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video release and unauthorized biography

The statement about the correspondence in release is mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere else. Is there a mention of this correspondence in a source, so that it can be mentioned further in the body, or should we just remove the bit about the biography? I'm working on the problem that we've identified about the lead containing material that is not detailed later, and this is the first big thing that stands out. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's mentioned it should be in the "Tom Cruise video" section, in order for it to then be summarized in the Intro. Let me see about finding sources for that. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's what I meant. I didn't want to nerf it without checking to see if it was in any sources first. It probably doesn't need to be in the lead at all, come to think about it, but if it's ref-able, then it should be in the video section. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Emory Wheel

FYI:

Check it out, look like a good source to add? Cirt (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the part about the group believed to be young and
..."typically thought of as disorganized and silent — now have the means to exert some influence in the real world." Brilliant.--AveryG (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wheel is usually a pretty reliable source...it's a college paper, but they're at least as reliable as the one that I work for, and it's been used heavily as a source on WP. Actually, perhaps with the exception of the Georgia State University paper, the college papers in the Atlanta area are at least as reliable as the general circulation papers in the area...sometimes even more so. But that's getting a bit off topic. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the positive feedback on this source. I will work it into the article soon. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another note that I forgot to mention...though the article has good, factual information, it is primarily an editorial/opinion piece, so keep that in mind when incorporating information and quotes from the article. I probably don't have to tell you that, but it is still worth saying. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was either going to attribute it to the source, or place it in the "Criticism" section and change the name of that subsection to something more general like Responses or something like that. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanology Timeline

Why is no one updating the timeline page on Wikipedia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology_Timeline) It's one of the top Google sites when you search on Chanology.Jstohler (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no one noticed it. I've redirected it to here. There's no need in terms of length to fork a timeline article yet. –Pomte 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other content from previously used sources

I have gone through the sources already used in the article and found other quotes, which might be useful.--AveryG (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, awesome thanks I'll work on working this into the article soon. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Anonymous

"Anonymous"— the online collective

  • from National Post

(http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/24/scientology-under-digital-assault-by-web-vigilantes.aspx): "web

vigilantes"

constitute a notorious and powerful hacking gang..."

What Anonymous Does

  • from Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-attac.html): "Anonymous congregates on the net at various hangouts such as 711chan.org (NSFW) and partyvan.info and sundry IRC channels. The group usually amuses itself by stealing passwords to downloading sites and finding ways to harass online communities that its members disdain. They were last seen on THREAT LEVEL when a Los Angeles Fox News affiliate ran a story that hilariously implied the group's arsenal included exploding vans."

What Anonymous Believes

(Then quoting a video, also from CNet)
""Your religious beliefs are not wrong, like any other religion, and they are yours to keep. However beliefs should not come at a price. Not from your wallet or compromising your thoughts."

Describing Tom Cruise

Describing Scientology

Background About Scientology

  • from Global Press Release (http://www.prlog.org/10046797-internet-group-anonymous-declares-war-on-scientology.pdf): "The Church of Scientology's legal struggle with its online detractors began in 1994 with the Usenet group "alt.religion.scientology", a community which spoke out against the Church. Legal representatives from the Church confronted them specifically over the use of Scientology in their name, citing trademark infringement and misrepresentation. This led to numerous lawsuits, and the group was shut down. The Church of Scientology later found itself in several further conflicts on the Internet, including some with popular websites such as Google and Slashdot, as well as an alleged "war" with users of the website YTMND.com. (...) Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard founded the Church in 1953. In the 55 years since its inception, the Church has faced allegations of being a commercial enterprise that harasses its critics, exploits its members, and neglects adults in its care. Scientology has also faced criticism over the cost required to progress through its "auditing" system, with the total bill for completing the course estimated at $365,000 -$380,000."
  • from CNet News (http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9857666-57.html): "The Church of Scientology, founded in 1953 by L. Ron Hubbard, is not without previous controversy on the Internet. In 1996, it sued Internet service provider Netcom (now a part of EarthLink) over copyrighted texts posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. In 2003, the Church of Scientology attempted to sue a Dutch woman and her ISP over similar writings but lost. The Dutch case, had it ended differently, could have changed the way ISPs handle third-party links by its customers. In 2007, writer Keith Henson was arrested as a fugitive. Under a California law that criminalizes any threat against someone else's "free exercise" of religion, Henson was convicted in 2001 for making a comment on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup about sending a "Tom Cruise" missile to destroy the Scientology camp."
  • from CNet (http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9858436-57.html), quoting from one of the Anon videos: "...The stifling and punishment of dissent within the totalitarian organization of Scientology. The numerous, alleged human rights violations. Such as the treatment and events that led to the deaths of victims of the cult such as Lisa McPherson."
(Later in the same article...)
Lisa McPherson was a member of the Flag Service Organization, a branch of the Church of Scientology, whose death in 1995 remains controversial. Although the Church of Scientology was initially held responsible, felony charges against it were dropped when the medical examiner ruled her death was an accident. A civil suit against the church by McPherson's parents was settled in 2004.

Describing the video(s)

  • from Baltimore City Paper (http://www.citypaper.com/digest.asp?id=15150): "On the video, dressed in a black turtleneck sweater with a look of intensity in his eyes, the 45-year-old Cruise makes a series of impassioned claims about his religion, including its ability to help get people off drugs, rehabilitate criminals and "bring peace and unite cultures"."

Removing videos from YouTube

  • from CNet News (http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9857666-57.html): "The video, in which Tom Cruise proclaims, in part, that Scientologists are the only experts on the mind, was pulled by YouTube over the weekend at the request of the Church of Scientology as part of a long-standing effort to keep copyrighted material from appearing on the Internet.""

Reference placement

As per my edit summary (here), I'll explain in better detail the thing about reference placement. If multiple, concurrent sentences come from the same source, a reference is only needed at the end of the last of those sentences. In other words, there doesn't need to be a ref tag at the end of every sentence, just every time you switch sources. This keeps the article size down, makes the article easier to read, and makes it easier to edit. If my explanation still doesn't make sense, just let me know and I'll provide an example to illustrate what I mean. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also at the end of a paragraph, even if you continue on with the same source in the next one. Forgot about that one. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New information

I added a brief (one-sentence) summary of a new development, along with the related source to the section now called "Errors" (which, admittedly, probably needs a better name, I just couldn't think of one). There is a lot more information that can be dragged from that source than just that one sentence, but contrary to popular belief, I've got other stuff I need to be doing. ;) Just thought I'd mention it so that some diligent individual can go after it. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McPherson Image

Hey look, a new image! This one's a real keeper, if you ask me. :) --Muna (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&oldid=187851134"