Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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

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

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

• 1. There is more text in the references section than in the article itself (and they don't actually reference anything). 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)

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

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

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

Cnet is also covering it. [1]--Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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[2], APC Magazine[3], National Post[4] and Sky News[5]. This is clear adherence of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB, meaning that the article can be kept. Any attempts to delete this article are likely to fail. --Teggles (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Check sources before removing

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

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

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

Current events tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Talk:Scientology

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

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

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

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

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

AfD?

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

---

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

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

I have nominated the article.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

WP:LEAD

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

• (outdent) - LaMenta3 (talk · contribs), I must apologize, please see this DIFF - I agree with everything you have said above, you have laid out your comments here quite coherently and they all make sense. Cirt (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

More POV/balance-related stuff

(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)

• 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)

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)

Good changes, I agree with everything you have said above, well done. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wired magazine is covering the attacks now. [6] Does that count as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avpmechman (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD KEEP IT!!!

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

• Um, there's an ongoing WP:AfD discussion about this right now. See the notice at the top of the article page? Cirt (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes prick, I saw, and that is my two cents. DUR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.178.95 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• There will be a lot of other pointless articles, doesn't mean that this one's merits should not be discussed (FYI, voted to keep). dr.alf (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

I will post this primary source: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology ✈ James C. (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's please avoid primary sources and stick to secondary sources for the article? Cirt (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nope. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• I don't think the quote should be in the article but I fail to see how it is WP:OR or POV pushing. BJ^Talk 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • There are secondary sources available re: the first video, and there will probably be some analyzing this one at some point, as well. Cirt (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 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. BJ^Talk 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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. BJ^Talk 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
          • You put that very well, good. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
            • 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. BJ^Talk 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
              • 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)
                • 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)
              • I don't see it as being one sided but when I read CoS response I just laugh. BJ^Talk 14:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
            • 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)
• (outdent) And it will be, once it's discussed in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright then; I'm satisfied, and now I go to bed. Thanks! I just thought it would be a good idea to try and boil my entire "argument" down to as short a form as possible. SouperAwesome (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• small note, Cirt actually reverted it...just before I hit the button evidentlyCoffeepusher (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. BJ^Talk 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PROTIP: ebaums did everything. It's an in-joke. --Piepie (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, yes I know. BJ^Talk 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

"some sources report..." -- What sources do you have for this? Cirt (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

No. Because it is backed up to multiple WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see where it's mentioned in references 10 and 11.Ason Abdullah (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, the section where 711chan is mentioned is about the formation when they were still part of it. BJ^Talk 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [7] [8] [9] [10] . Has any of the news coverage mentioned this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.122.145 (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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.

—LaMenta3 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support above statement. LaMenta3 (talk · contribs) said this very well. I really can't understand it and am getting frustrated with users that keep wanting to add supposition, conjecture, and generally unsourced info with zero WP:V and WP:RS citations to the article, in violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• ditto I have nothing I can add, LaMenta3 and Cirt did a great job.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support yay more !voting but really I agree. BJ^Talk 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• w3rd! --Piepie (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support conclusion, not reasoning. WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS should be followed in this article for the same reason they should be followed in any other article - they are good policy and guidelines. However, allowing legal threat to influence editing is a dangerous precedent I cannot support.98.203.237.75 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, 98.203.237.75 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External Link

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

I don't think they belong because nobody can speak for anon, etc. but I'm sure 4 other policies apply here as well. BJ^Talk 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I believe the answer you are looking for is Encyclopedia Dramatica. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OMFGZ! You dared mention the name of the wiki that shall remain nameless!!111one! Piepie (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Just a reminder to limit discussion on this page to development of the article. Anything else should be taken to userspace or off-wiki. Thanks! LaMenta3 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Waiting to see if there are more sources than just "a source told Radar that..." Cirt (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• It is one, 9 minute video. And we can only write what is backed up to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is? I only saw two separate videos.--AveryG (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Query: Is the only thing holding it back the fact that it's a current event? --Muna (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Which bits would you consider confusing? --Muna (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• partyvan.info states "brb fixing shit". I have seen no reports on either of these developments yet in WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

4chan works fine for me. --Muna (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

403 on partyvan, root page works on 4chan, forum pages don't. Ronabop (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

/b/ isn't responding, but the rest are. --Muna (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

/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)

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)

ED has been claiming that for ages, it's bullcrap. Watch this space[11], though. --Muna (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Keep me posted if you find any good sources covering these developments. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• We need better sources to say anything mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)
  • Update: I added the bit from Radar. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

The Emory Wheel

FYI:

• Brandon, Mikhail (January 28, 2008). "Scientology in the Crosshairs". The Emory Wheel. Emory University. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Describing Anonymous

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

"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"

• from FOX, via Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/investigative-r.html#previouspost): "...These people, according to Fox 11,

constitute a notorious and powerful hacking gang..."

• from Baltimore City Paper (http://www.citypaper.com/digest.asp?id=15150): "Anonymous, a nebulous group of hackers and troublemakers from the deep dark recesses of the internet"

• from (the soon to be included?) Emory Wheel (http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24945): "...a (presumably) young group of people — one typically thought of as disorganized and silent — [who] now have the means to exert some influence in the real world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryG (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• from NPR: (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18460759): "Their problem isn't with the religion, they say, but the control of information."

• from CNet (http://www.news.com/8301-10789_3-9858436-57.html): "Anonymous says, perhaps in response to its growing numbers of critics, "this is not religious persecution, but the suppression of a powerful, criminal fascist regime."

(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."

• from Global Press Release (http://www.prlog.org/10046797-internet-group-anonymous-declares-war-on-scientology.pdf): "Most members, however, were concerned with the threat to free speech that the Church posed."

• from SC Magazine (http://www.scmagazineus.com/DDoS-hack-attack-continues-against-Church-of-Scientology/article/104588/): "The hacker group, in its statement, also accused the church of filtering anti-Scientology comments made about the video, which was posted on YouTube and Digg, among other places...They attempted not only to subvert free speech, but to recklessly pervert justice to silence those who spoke against them,” one member of Anonymous said in the statement."

Describing Tom Cruise

• from National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=261308), describing Tom Cruise: "...one of the most high-profile and outspoken adherents of Scientology..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryG (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Describing Scientology

• from Radar (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/scientologists-bring-in-fed-big-boys-to-squash-internet-atta.php): "...notoriously litigious Church of Scientology."

• from PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,141839-c,hackers/article.html): "The secretive Church of Scientology's practices, including its efforts to use copyright law to restrict the dissemination of information about the church, have engendered a lot of criticism within the Internet community."

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 Cleveland Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/120116724530070.xml&coll=2): "...a bunch of videos featuring "Cruise on Scientology."" and "...a 9½-minute video with Cruise in a black turtleneck..." and "The videos from a 2004 Scientology awards ceremony were removed but then allowed by YouTube. Gawker.com and Defamer.com took the stand that the videos were newsworthy and posting was fair use."

• 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 New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10487567): "Scientologists did force YouTube to remove footage of Cruise's rant. YouTube posted a message above a still of the clip, saying: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim.""

• 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.""

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)

- 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)

^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)

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)?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.67.68 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Imagine the outcry from Anons if anyone tried to really define Anonymous!--Mcr hxc (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Message to Scientology"

• "Message to Scientology", "Anonymous", YouTube, January 21, 2008.

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

How so? what do you think should be added to the introduction?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Using sources doesn't mean you have to repeat them verbatim without any reasonable interpretation. To any viewer with two brain cells to rub together, "Message to Scientology" practically amounts to a declaration of war.Jwray (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agree w/ Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

We cannot cite Wikinews in this instance. I don't know about applications in other areas of Wikipedia, but for something this controversial, wouldn't be a good idea. Now, if an accredited Wikinews reporter did an exclusive interview with someone, e.g. a PR rep for the Church of Scientology or something like that, that would be a different matter entirely. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Partyvan.info down?

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

• Have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to back this up? Please read WP:NOT#FORUM, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussion about the subject. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source to back it up. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/the-scientology-counterattack.php. The source attributes the website being down to Scientology disciples. DigitalC (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Please see WP:NOT#FORUM. This is the place to discuss improvements to this article, not to discuss the subject of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, Please direct me to where this is being discussed. --KoalaMeatPie (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do a google search for the name of this article itself, that should point you in the right direction. Now, let's get back to discussing ways to improve this article and/or if others have found more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I did, I went form CNET to Google, their website is down, I ended up here. You're obviously not helping, Anybody else? --KoalaMeatPie (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Please don't use this page as a discussion board. You may want to try other message boards on the internet off-Wikipedia. Try alt.religion.scientology - just watch out for the sporgery... Cirt (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous own wiki has the information you need: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Target_IRL/Scheduled_Protests_and_Raids and on irc you can go to irc.partyvan.org #IRL. All Anonymous have been informed "non violent or GTFO", "peaceful or GTFO", have read up on Scientology tactics against protesters, seen the Mark Bunker protest videos, and so on. Bring anyone who wants to come, flyers, recording equipment; check with organiser or the police yourself regarding signs and masks, try not to drive there (they'll note the license plate, cars of people who protest Scientology have a remarkable track record of being burgled), try to take a convoluted route home. They'll be peaceful protests out the front of & around the Scientology building but if anyone wants to try sit ins, Satyagraha, or dressing up as Xenu and declaring you've come to give them all Tax Audits - that is up to the peeps there. LamontCranston (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
   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

This information seems to be very detailed, so much so that its level of detail far surpasses anything else on the page. Maybe just a brief description ( I believe is was called mid-level?) instead of a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryG (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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)

The Activities section is getting a bit messy. although I understand in a current event, it is important to keep things in chrono order so it is easy to place new stuff do you think we could break this section into 3 or more sub sections? I was thinking about a "prior to attack" section, "ddos" section, "other activities (google bomb etc.)", or somthing to that effect. right now I glaze over after the 10th date is read and feel like this is the section that will never end. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

It is edited, but that doesn't mean that he is speaking metaphorically.--AveryG (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Comment

I have found that this brings up a big problem. There is a liability that, over time, certain portions will be moved around. In this case consistency of cite placement will change. Then, later on, someone could claim something is uncited, and remove swathes of the article. I've seen it happen. So for controversial topics like this one, I prefer to err on the side of more cite placement than less. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

How about "Actions not related to Church of Scientology" ? Ason Abdullah (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved "errors" directly into the Actions section, it is better presented in chrono order. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That works, though the Actions section is getting quite long and probably needs subsections. More images would be nice, too, but there are a few inherent problems with actually getting them. I'm sure you can imagine what I mean. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, working on it.  :) Cirt (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm partial to my "Actions not related to Church of Scientology" or "Incidental Actions" to cover all the 3rd party doings/collateral damage etc. Ason Abdullah (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather stick to chrono order within each subsection, for clarity. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing saying that collateral damage/goofs that occur can't be covered in their own section...in chronological order. However, I do see your point of wanting to keep them in context with other, related actions and events. But the fact remains that the Activities section is freaking huge and needs to be broken up a little. We may have to sacrifice chronology to keep it from turning into a laundry list. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

g00ns mistake

"Over the weekend, the g00ns thought they had caught a hacker who had busted into computers being used to help coordinate the online attacks and real world protests against Scientology. But Lawson says the callers have the wrong guy." --Alternation (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, already in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, this could all go under a new section "Collateral damage" along with the Dutch school. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See above discussion. It is placed in chronological order in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It would be better (as in easier for the reader) to collect them under a "Collateral damage" section. That is a sourced term. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It would be better (as in easier to follow a chronological order of events when they occurred) to collect them in a chronological fashion. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to bed. I will make the section tomorrow. I see no reason to bury their screw-ups in a wall of text. That is, of course, unless you want to, Cirt. Make the section, that is. Good night. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to POV push a particular issue which has only received minor coverage in the media, in its own subsection. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The YouTube video received much more coverage in secondary sources. Should we have an entire subsection of the article devoted to "Message to Scientology" ? Cirt (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So we can bury their success in a wall of text but we have to prominently display their failure in its own section? Yeah, that is real WP:NPOV. BJ^Talk 06:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To keep NPOV, it isn't assured that it was a mistake. According to wired, a g00n member said they had evidence that Lawson was involved. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hac-1.html DigitalC (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Best to wait for another source to confirm. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New Section?

May I suggest this be added in a section describing the back and forth? I went through the sources cited in the article and found many instances of and references to attacks and counter attacks. (The $5,000 reward comes to mind).

If so, a section can discuss more about who Anonymous is and perhaps include some detail about the "Message" video and the "actions" section can concentrate on the laundry list of who did what and when.--AveryG (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that wired retracted the $5000 reward claim, stating the church did offer it, but it was for a seperate attack(s?) that occured last year and had no association with this project. at least that information was contained in the issue I read.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Any more sources for this? Cirt (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the reward was tagged by the statement "The following are some of the IP numbers identified in either the usenet postings or email threats that have been received by the publisher" [13] Which I don't believe was part of Project Chanology. all internet contact was used to disrupt service, not post messages. That and if you read the Wired article it contains this at the bottom "Correction: This story initially reported that the Church of Scientology had issued a $5000 reward to identify members of Anonymous. That reward was issued months ago, seemingly in response to another online attack. Archive.org has a copy from July 2007." [14]Coffeepusher (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "The server at www.religiousfreedomwatch.org is taking too long to respond." -- That is a cryin shame. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To Coffeepusher: The correction was made to clarify for which attack the reward was offered, not because the Church was wasn't looking for Anonymous. As I read it, they are still looking for Anonymous.--AveryG (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly. I agree that Scientology is probably looking for Anonymous, however many blogers are using the $5000 claim and tying it into Project Chanology...which is interesting since the reward was posted earlier than July 2007, and hasn't been updated since before the attacks started. Is there a source that states the church is activly trying to track down members of the project and the methods they are using? Even the "anti hack" orgonization (whos name excapes me at this time) appeared to be acting independantly, at least they didn't state the church sent them. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the "anti-hack" group sounds like the internets equivalent to a 527 in politics. We don't know these people. We just did something that benefited them because we're down like that. Yeah, right.--AveryG (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This assessment by AveryG (talk · contribs) is most likely "spot on". Cirt (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And, this protects the Church's claim of being victims.--AveryG (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RETURNING TO THE NEW SECTION IDEA What if we were to divide the Activities section into internet-based and real world (for lack of a better term) subsections?--AveryG (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, but is there yet enough material for the latter section? Cirt (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we wait til after February 10, 2008, there will be enough sources for a sub-sub section of protests, real-world activities, or something like that. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how "real world" is defined. Take the black faxes for instance, while they may have originated via computer, they had real world consequences. Same with prank phone calls and ordering pizzas (Somewhat OT--have you seen the video where a "Lisa McPherson" ordered a pizza?). And then there are the fliers.--AveryG (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but even w/ all that stuff there's not really enough for it to be its own section, yet. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Subsections. These would be subsections.--AveryG (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, one more thing...the activities section can also have a subsection describing the videos, which are not so much "actions" as they are "announcements".--AveryG (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an idea - but they were all released via the Internet, and it occurs in a chronological order... Cirt (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And the section is getting unwieldy. I know there is a solution to this problem.--AveryG (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently the section has DDoS, Videos, Digg.com, and Google Bomb. It pretty much all is Internet stuff - and the videos would look weird out of order, the reader would have to read the Internet actions, then go back and forth to see the video that was released around the same time, then back up to the activities, etc. This will all probably get easier to partition as more sources/info becomes available. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin and Bean Show

On January 25, the audio of the now infamous Anonymous video was featured on the Kevin and Bean Show and attempts to contact Anonymous were announced, which Anonymous recognized as the first attempt by a group in the media to contact them.

• 1/25/08 - Cool Movie Weapons, U2 in 3D, Brock Lesnar, and...the RAIN! (archive)
• 08 Jerry O Connell Parodies Tom Cruise Scientology Video-2008-01-25.mp3 (audio)

On January 28th, a representative of Anonymous phoned in for an interview, answering several questions about the nature of Project Chanology, and announcing the upcoming February 10 protest event:

• 1/28/07 - Anonymous vs. Scientology, the Southwest Stripper Flight, Laila Ali (archive)
• 05 and 15 Anonymous-Group That Intends To Bring Down Scientology-2008-01-28.mp3 (audio)

How can we best incorporate this into the article?--Cast (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It apparently looks like these are verifiable sources. I'll get on it. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit of background on Scientology versus the Internet

• O'Connell, Kelly (IBLS Editor) (January 30, 2008). "INTERNET LAW - Hackers Disable Scientology Website & Declare War". Internet Business Law Services. Internet Business Law Services, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

---

This source is something like we've been looking for - both discussing Project Chanology and also giving some background on the saga of Scientology versus the Internet. I'll work it into the article soon. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good find.--AveryG (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

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

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

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

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)

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)

DDoS is nonviolent, analogous to a sit-in. "Attack" is misleading. Jwray (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See DDoS, it is described as such there. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"a disparate collection of hackers and activists"

If we are going to use terms like "described as", then to remain unbiased, we must also say that Scientology was "described as The one, true religion, founded by author and batshit insane ****tard L. Ron Hubbard as a tax shelter, using material from his published works of science fiction as articles of faith.". Otherwise, I feel this "description" should be removed. Starcraftmazter (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What description would you use instead? Do you have a source we could cite for an alternative description? Cirt (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that it is unnecessary to use a description, because arguable any description of the group "Anonymous" is by nature biased. Alternatively, the only description which may be unbiased is, "described as both the best and the worst of the internet", however that description is my opinion, and others may not agree. Starcraftmazter (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read below, users such as AveryG (talk · contribs) have time and again brought up that they feel there is a need to provide both a description and a brief background on the history of the group "Anonymous". Can you provide a source for this quote you gave above? Cirt (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no source, it is simply a popular description given by some. But such is the nature of Anonymous, that it is virtually impossible to provide a specific description on it. Anonymous is a group which posts in the largest message board using the English language, the people whom make up Anonymous come from many countries, are of all ages, have all sorts of jobs, interests, etc. I could go on forever here, but everyone in Anonymous is different, however connected by the fact that they all appreciate a mainly anarchist forum. To say something specific about Anonymous cannot be anything but a generalisation, for it is impossible for the statement to be true for every member or even any significant majority of members thereof.

The very description "a disparate collection of hackers and activists" is incorrect, and any true Anon will instantly deem the author to be ignorant, because the boards on which Anon post are not about hacking, action, or any one, 10 or 100 specific things. It is simply an anarchy where people can choose to post anything they wish (within law). If some chose to attack Scientology, it was their choice, and does not represent the feelings and action of every Anon.

I hope this is an extensive enough explanation for why I feel it is incorrect to generalise and make specific assumptions and descriptions about the group Anonymous. Starcraftmazter (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply - but you must understand that we have to have some kind of brief description/background info on the group and its history? Can you provide any secondary sources and perhaps a quote from a secondary source that would be better than the quote we are using now, such that you would feel comfortable removing the POV tag? Cirt (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this, I added this sourced quote "Anonymous is everyone and everywhere. We have no leaders, no single entity directing us." from the Call to Action video, for balance, and removed the POV tag. Seem okay now? Cirt (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article should be revised in regards to whom initiated attack. To be clear, I feel it should be stated instead of Anonymous that "The Insurgent Group within Anonymous, known as '/i/' for '/i/nsurgent' or '/i/nvation' or '/i/nfidel'". I think that would be a far more accurate definition of the culprits. I could use this site as a reference, as most of the attacks were planned there, specifically on their irc channels, however the site is currently very slow due to DDoS attacks, presumably from Scientologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs)

Sorry but the information you assert is contrary to the information found in secondary sources on the subject. And the website you give as a potential reference cannot be used on Wikipedia as a source - because it fails both WP:RS, and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try and find something else. Meanwhile, why does this phrase, "a disparate collection of hackers and activists" still exist in the article, and yet the POV tag was removed by you? Since you've come up with something better, why not replace the biased phrase. Starcraftmazter (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm quite satisfied for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcraftmazter (talk • contribs) 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap Lois!

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

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

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

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

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

Update, 7 languages

• English
• Deutsch
• Eesti
• Español
• Esperanto
• Français
• Suomi

Wow. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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. BJ^Talk 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

It's definitely the chans. Anon started on the chans but anon can be found on websites all over the internet. They are much to vast to be imitated on such a large scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

The TorrentFreak article is full of misinformation. Anon did not start on IRC Channels, it is not an organization with an outer ring of script kiddies and an inner ring of "high-level hackers". Most of anon have never met in real life or even through the internet other than on the Chan boards, and don't know anything about each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • The Fox11 Video is far from accurate. Frankly, they don't really know what they are talking about in that report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • I've seen some discussion that there are similarities between Anon's tactics and the CoS's own Fair Game policy but that's all it is...discussion.--Piepie (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
            • "Anonymous" even uses the exact Fair Game (Scientology) language somewhere that Hubbard used: "may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed", etc., and flips it regarding the Church of Scientology, but again, no WP:RS source for that, yet. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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. BJ^Talk 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• These anonymous hackers on steroids seem to have a penchant for blowing up yellow vans. Frightening. I may have to get some new curtains myself.--Kiyiyi (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Make sure they're Dog Curtains™ --Piepie (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to anything in particular, or did you just make up that false allegation just now? Cirt (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • He was making a joke. BJ^Talk 08:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • He must of watched JustaHulk's Faux News expose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxWgRY1I_SI. Scary stuff. The guy had his MySpace hacked with gay pr0n. 7 FUCKERN PASSWORDS DUDE! OMFGZ! WILL THESE HACKERS ON STEROIDS STOP AT NOTHING? I bow down befoar Anon. --Piepie (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wise Beard Man article needs attention...

He is the no 1. non-anon mouthpiece for the cause and yet the article is a stub:( --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's lots of stuff to work on here too. And I don't think that angle has been mentioned yet in WP:RS/WP:V sources yet, though I could be wrong. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to WP:LEAD

The lead/intro is supposed to adequately summarize the article, and it is of an appropriate length at present. Please do not add the "original research" tag to this article without explaining specifically why you have done so on this talk page. There is zero original research in the article. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also, placing "fact" tags in the lead is inappropriate, especially if you haven't bothered to check whether those quotes or info is already sourced later in the article, and yes, it all is. That's the nature of an intro/lead, a summary of the article. As the article body is all sourced, a summary of that text need not have the same dup cites that the article does. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson

I think she needs to be mentioned, as her name is in the only image on the article... Seems a bit odd to have a her name pictured in an image and not even mention her. Cs302b (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, will do. It's backed up by sources now so I'll add that soon. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To Whoever Keeps Updating the Amount of Times People Viewed the YouTube Videos

Please don't. Unless you have a WP:RS/WP:V, secondary source that states a newer statistic on these, please do not update the number of times these videos have been viewed. It is a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research Policy. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical response paragraph in introduction

The paragraph

"Reactions from the Church of Scientology regarding the group's actions have been varied. One spokesperson stated that members of the group "have got some wrong information" about Scientology. Another referred to the group as a "pathetic" group of "computer geeks." Some 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."

Which is located in the introduction should be sent to or merged with the CoS response, not stated in the introduction. Also, the response examples given in that paragraph are not "varied"... that is unless you consider vaguely different wordings of the same idea "varied". Cs302b (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD. The introduction should summarize the article. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, using the wording from WP:LEAD - The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up Talk Page?

Even though it's been less than half a month, I'm suggesting an archival of at least the first bunch of topics that have already been discussed, if not the whole talk page. InsaneZeroG (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already set it up for auto-archival. I'll shorten it a bit more though. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Internet Vigilante Group"

Is the inclusion of Anon's former hacktivities warranted? http://www.mamapop.com/mamapop/2008/01/scientology-get.html They helped put away a Canadian pedophile called Chris Forcand last year. encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_Vigilante_Group. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2007/12/07/4712680-sun.html The story was also cited here for http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/07/4712438-sun.html but is now only available if you pay $12 Canadian (=$25?). In the article from the dramatica wiki it has a YouTube of the story from Canadian TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHohvluf3mc).

--Watchman Rorschach (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Those activities (along with this) probably establish notability for Anonymous to get their own article but I don't think they really fit into this one.--AlexCatlin (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They could be included if we found a secondary source that discussed it, in providing context to Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have "a secondary source that discussed it, in providing context to Project Chanology." Fox 11 News. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that report did not discuss Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to make an article about Anonymous just so you can finally get to use your nice Fox report? BJ^Talk 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I can work it in over here when I have a bit of time. Thanks, though. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's really nothing else to work in, unless you have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source discussing Project Chanology that has not yet been mentioned? This is an article about "Project Chanology", not an article about Anonymous (Internet group) and all of their past exploits, positive or negative. That's starting to get way off-topic and tangential. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

4chan /b/

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Rules 1 and 2! -Can Not (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Only applicable to (gay) raids. Roman619 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Also, a section about who Scientology is would be appropriate as well.--AveryG (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The AfD !votes are almost all keep, we just have to wait for the time to run out on the !vote. BJ^Talk 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• It's about Project Chanology. And it doesn't wander around, it has a clear organization structure. See the table of contents. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • Please do not insert Original Research into the article. Please read WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I do not want the page locked due to 3R rule. I would rather discuss any disagreements we have here on the talk page.--AveryG (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

• Please restore and remove this violation of policy. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, the intro was fine. BJ^Talk 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

• 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)

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)

• Still not relevant. If you can find secondary sources that discuss Project Chanology in the context of Scientology's history of litigation, us know. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• We need to avoid WP:OR and find more info on that in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Let us know when you have found a WP:RS/WP:V source for this. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Does anyone have any problems with having this introduction in the article?--AveryG (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Which section is not in chrono order? Cirt (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree totally, at any rate I doubt the source can be taken as non partisan - The professor writes a lot of books on Scientology..84.9.41.40 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Youtube links

Could some add the reference, or link to tom cruise video on youtube. The uncut Version!CooLa.M (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant to improving this article? Cirt (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Actually, no. Not unless there is RS linking it to the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for the image uploader, RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs), to comment here. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB would allow inclusion of that image from a primary sourse, because there's no reason for anyone to honestly dispute the claim that this is related to their protest.Jwray (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That image fails any number of the conditions there. This is not WikiNews. Wait for an RS image. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see this line of reasoning. You're telling me that this flier, which happens to (implicitly) denounce scientology, and which has suddently appeared in massive numbers all over my college campus during a well-publicized and prominent coordinated internet attack against scientology is original research? It seems obvious to me that there's really no other reasonable explanation. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well also, there aren;t going to be any reliable sources, by definition the campaign is anonymous. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the image. If you notice, I made no claims that the picture is a part of Project Chanology. However, it demonstrates tacitics which are consistent with what is known about the project, and therefore is suitable to keep in the article as we have no other way (at present) to show this. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"there aren;t going to be any reliable sources." All due respect, but that is silly. All it takes for RS is for a news outlet, hell, even the college paper, to take a picture and, right or wrong, link it to Chanology. For you to do so is OR and you should really just remove the picture and save us all the trouble. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And to top it off: (I'm going to bed soon, I guess I'm stocking up on arguments) from WP:SELFPUB:

• it is relevant to their notability;

  Illustrating that this is not solely an internet phenomenon is an important part of establishing notability.

  • That is an OR interpreation on your part. I apologize for chopping into your comment but this is the best way to make my points. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All SELFPUB would fail if subjected to this logic.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it is not contentious;

  Other than whether to include the image or not, there is nothing remotely contentious, it's a piece of paper taped to a door.

  • Laff. The paper has something written on it. You do not think Lisa is contentious?!? --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is whether or not the paper is relevant to project chanology. In that respect, there is no contention. The contentiousness of the image content is irrelevant.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it is not unduly self-serving;

  To whom, anonymous? I didn't make it either;

  • Of course it is self-serving to the person that posted it - what so you think "self-serving" refers to? --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it does not involve claims about third parties;

  It doesn't say "Google Lisa McPherson 'X';"

  • Ooooh Kaaay. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

  The only event claimed is Lisa McPherson, who is related to scientology in an article which discusses a coordinated internet attack on scientology;

  • I can argue that Lisa is not directly related to the subject. But I do not have to. As I said, it fails any number of these already. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The case of Lisa McPherson is one of the main motivating factors behind Project Chanology, and featured on much of their propaganda.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

  Like I said, the odds of several hundred anti-scientology fliers appearing during a coordinated internet attack on scientology and the two not being related seems vanishingly small;

  • We have NO idea who authored it. It is paper stuck to a window, fer Xenu's sake. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The chances this is *not* related to project chanology are honestly close to zero. I grant that there is some small chance that this is unrelated to project chanology, but we don't need a mathematical proof to conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

  No, it is not.

  • Q.E.D. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps validate the image standing. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now do the right thing. Good night. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Images are an area where primary sources/self-published media is okay, even in contentious issues. The reason why is because we cannot use commercial images (in other words "images from secondary sources") in cases where a free alternative is available. Whether or not this particular flier is related to Project Chanology is rather moot. If it is, great. If it's not, it still illustrates one of the tactics that has been used by Anonymous, which is good enough to serve as a visual for the article. It's like putting a picture of people kissing in an article about love--are the people in the picture actually in love? We don't know, but an image of people kissing illustrates a common expression of love, so it still gets the point across whether the actual kiss had anything to with love or not. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it violates a number of policy points here. My concern is not the image itself but rather the clear policy violation and, to an extent, the degree of rationalizing that goes on about a clear policy violation. The admin that posted it should know better and may want to get a second opinion from some other admins, maybe on WP:AN. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You want to remove something which adds to the article and to Wikipedia just because it violates policy? The only claim the image is making is that the poster was created and placed by the members of the group, so the RS demand seems like a bit of a nitpick given the fact that you can go to the forums where anonymous created the posters. Its not a reliable source but it isnt a bold claim either, the image illustrates the article and shows the kind of thing anonymous does. You could argue consensus over the merit of the image but I think WP:IAR is appropriate here given the difficulty the media have verifying things they do. --AlexCatlin (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey, lookie! You said what I was going to say! I too, agree that this is the sort of thing Ignore All Rules applies to. --Muna (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "given the fact that you can go to the forums where anonymous created the posters." Link please. I am easy to get along with. My main issue is that there is nothing linking that to Chanology. Let's see what you've got. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This is in the thread coordinating SomethingAwfuls contibutions to Project Chanology: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2751120&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=42#post338825430 --AlexCatlin (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You're the only one who wants this image removed - another user has come to me and asked to upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it may be used in other languages' versions of this article. I have made my interpretation of policy and stand by it. If you absolutely need to, you may take it to WP:AN but when you find that other admins fail to see your point do not be surprised. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. My surpriser is duly disconnected. Thanks for the warning. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with the image as a free image available for the Commons. However, it has little to nothing to do with this particular article. While the placard may have chronologically coincided with Project Chanology, there is no evidence that it is related to that subject. The article does not discuss tactics like the display of that sign as part of Project Chanology (and neither do any reliable sources as far as I can find). At the absolute best, it demonstrates that other "anti-Scientologists" may have coordinated their own independent activities with the timing of PC (and even that involves a whole world of assumption). For example, during the WTO protests, a number of independent groups held demonstrations and protests in various cities throughout the United States. Those independent demonstrations were explicitly related to, or based on, the "main" WTO protest. However, if I snapped a picture of my local protest, it would be utterly inappropriate to use it as a photo on WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity since the article does not discuss the (related) local protest phenomena. The image being discussed for this article is a similar case. However, the case for use in this article is even weaker, since it lacks a verifiable connection to the specific subject at hand that the example possesses. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana, while I believe that the image is part of the protests, and have seen stuff on the Project's page that call for actions such as this, that information isn't contained within the article itself. I am forced to WP:SYNTH the article with the image in order to make sence of it. Now if we can find a WP:RS that talks about how the Project is exposing Lisa McPherson as part of its activities, and then put it within the article itself...then we would have a strong case for inclusion of the image. Otherwise it is iffy at best to keep the imageCoffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that if I take a picture of a hat and put it into the Hat article, that's not sufficient? Do I need the New York Times to tell me its a hat before it can be uploaded? What if its not a hat, but a piece of fabric that just happens to look a whole lot like a hat? Firestorm (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...no that was not what I was saying at allCoffeepusher (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Project Chanology and Lisa McPherson

There are sources available that discuss Project Chanology getting the word out about the Lisa McPherson case. I'll work on finding them. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• From a source already in the article, though this part is not yet mentioned in the article:
  • Vamosi, Robert (January 25, 2008). "Anonymous steps up its war with Scientology". CNET News. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

"We find it interesting that you did not mention the other objections in your news reporting. 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. This Cult is Nothing but a psychotically driven pyramid scheme. Why are you, the news media, afraid of discussing these matters? It is your duty to report on these matters. You are failing in your duty."

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.

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With this source here to demonstrate relevance, adding a caption saying some like "flyers are one of the strategies employed by Anonymous to spread awareness of Scientologies perceived crimes" (just phrased better, and more NPOV) would resolve the image debate, surely? --Muna (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a little too much conjecture, methinks. The caption text chosen by RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) seems quite fine. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That a link between the flyer and Anonymous is not properly shown appears to be the main problem, and the partyvan wiki explicitly suggests the use of flyers, which makes it one of their strategies. You can completely leave out the other part (I already expressed concerns about NPOV), but just add mention of Anonymous to the caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damuna (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people using placards in the PC campaign. McPherson is an incredibly high-profile individual among critics of Scientology and a commonly cited example of questionable (to be polite) practices of Scientologists. This does not demonstrate any relation between PC and the placard-maker other than that they are both part of the broad field of opposition to Scientology. A critique of the perceived cult-like or oppressive aspects of the Latter-Day Saints, specifically mentioning the September Six, by a Southern Baptist counter-cult apologist and a secular humanist columnist demonstrates no relation between them except that they share a critical view of the Mormons. If the secular humanist writes the column at the same time as the minister is kicking up a big fuss about the LDS, it isn't assumed that the columnist is connected to the minister's movement absent positive proof. Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. To limit the activities of Anonymous to whatever happens on the internet is to both ignore the fact that the internet is virtual (right?) and events are being planned in the real world (!) on February 10th. That is why the first three words in the article are: "Project Chanology began..." The Project is still in its infancy.--AveryG (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point by AveryG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The day of IRL action for Project Chanology is February 10th for a reason. February 10th would be Lisa McPherson's birthday. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had realized that. Just trying to find sources that state that connection... Cirt (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"February 10th was chosen because it was the birth date of the woman who suffered one of the most controversial deaths caused by the Church of Scientology, Lisa McPherson." From the partyvan website. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

is there another article that said that, because that would be a great source to use in this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking, will add when I find it... Cirt (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Predictably including German and French. Ayla (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And Suomi and Eesti. And German and French are very common languages. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And now Spanish as well. Fair enough, they are widely spoken, but the fact that all five are principally European can be taken to allude to the hostility Europe exhibits towards Scientology. Ayla (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that is a part of it, though I also suspect it has to do with what languages Americans speak; I speak French, for instance, and if this article wasn't available in French I'd write it up in that language. But yes, I also suspect it is partially due to their hostility towards Scientology. Does anyone speak Japanese well enough to move this article there as well? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Be Wary, Be Wary, the 10th of February

• Pazienza, Chez (February 1, 2008). "Be Wary, Be Wary, the 10th of February: "A" for Anonymous Wants to Kick Scientology's "S"". The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Retrieved 2008-02-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Thoughts on whether or not this can be used as a source in this article? Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the article but I can't see any new information contained. BJ^Talk 07:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be moreso for varied perspective in the Reaction section. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just an opinion piece and the author isn't notable, I don't think it alone should be added as a reaction. Perhaps as a composite statement if more supporting articles are found. BJ^Talk 07:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"As of August 8, 2006 it was the 5th most popular weblog overall as measured by web links" per wikipedia - is that not a notable source then? 202.161.71.161 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, maybe not, but I agree w/ Bjweeks (talk · contribs) re: when/how to include it in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is going to be happen, and could be interesting. I say, good luck anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treynate2 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New article with a description of Feb 10th here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/04/news?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront --AlexCatlin (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The article explains the protest but doesn't support it like the other article. BJ^Talk 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Status

DISCLAIMER: I am not an editor.

I would like to know the current status of Chanology, I.E what happened after 711chan went down and they got back at The Regime. I believe that updating the article would vastly improve it's quality. I've heard some stuff about a protest planned outside the New Zealand CoS HQ, but i don't know much more. That is all :)

Have a nice evening!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.118.51 (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of that info you request is already in the article. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Guardian Coverage

I am in class right now and didn't have a chance to add this in an appreciable manner. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/04/news RevenantPrime (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Done, already been added, thanks though.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well written

I read through many Wikipedia articles each day, but this one caught my eye. Well, written, definately grabbing, I think it holds a "Featured Article" potential, even if these Anonymous don't seem the most moral. Just wanted to say, amazingly well done, and keep it up--Thanks to everyone and anyone who made contributions. FileMaster (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has certainly come a long way since it was nominated for deletion.  :) Cirt (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I was coming here to say the same thing. I have not been over it with a fine-toothed comb, but it looked great, and taught me about something I hadn't heard of until now. I reccomend nominating it for a GA. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see that could prevent it from being GA or Featured status is that it's currently an ongoing event so it can't be judged right now. When (or if) this is all over, then it will probably get nominated and most likely get it from what can be seen. InsaneZeroG (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is looking good now, but ZeroG is right; don't forget WP:GACR #5 (stability). I think it would be wise to wait to nominate until at least a week or two after the real life protests planned for 10 Feb. Dar-Ape 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend waiting at least a month after the event before nominating it for GA. This allows the press and other sources enough time for responses, counter-responses and analysis of both. Also, it's likely that for at least a week to ten days after the event that this article is going to experience a lot of attention, and then a couple weeks "recovery" time to make sure the article is kept to standards would be recommended. Just an opinion. Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, there are further valentine's day protests planned. 59.167.129.77 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks people for all the opinions. I think before a WP:GAC in any event probably in a few weeks I'll put it up for a Peer Review. It's certainly more likely that there will be more WP:RS/WP:V sources to add to the article in the coming days... Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is an excellent article - well written, balanced, informative. Well done to all concerned. Chump Manbear (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shift in Tactics

This article seems mostly to focus on Project Chanology during the DDOS phase. In the past few days, Anonymous seems to have abandoned the DDOS, stating that this tactic's usefulness had past [15]. Another concern may have been that many people, including Mark Bunker (whom they have dubbed Wise Beard Man) and the creator of Operation Clambake, stated that they could not get behind Anon while they used "illegal" methods. I will make some alterations to reflect this. Cid935 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't add anything until secondary sources report it. BJ^Talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay now it looks better w/ the NBC11 info confirming the info from their website. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone didn't like that last edit in the lead. I put it in the tactics section. Does that look okay? Cid935 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. Can you please revert your last edit? Did you not notice that I added this to both the lead, and to the body of the article under the section on Real-world protests? Cirt (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice. Consider it undone Cid935 (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactions section

After reading the reactions section, I think a great deal needs to be rewritten; Mark Bunker from XenuTV has released several new videos that show a very positive response to anonymous. I realize the radio show itself was dealt with above, but what about Bunker's response viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AaJumwbORg. In addition to this, the website Operation Clambake just put up a link to the Chanology wiki, telling people that they are encouraged to join. I really think this needs to be addressed. ----2/5/08 8:50p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.32.7 (talk • contribs)

• Sigh, secondary sources people? Cirt (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh, Primary sources can be used when they are being put into an article and are talking about themselves. You don't need secondary sources to say that the PRIMARY SOURCE verifiably and is definitely linking TO Anonymous's protest page. Doing so doesn't violate WP: Verifiability (for all I believe said policy is unduly construed contrary to logic and good sense). 71.7.206.159 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If all you anonymous IPs want this article to have any chance of getting its quality status upgraded any higher, then it is best to stick to secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always been of the tack that if making it up the "featured" ladder means being a less than accurate encyclopedia, then the price is too high. I know you're very much on the secondary source bandwagon, but Wikipedia's own verifiability policy states that primary sources are acceptable -when discussing the primary source in question-. The proscription AGAINST primary sources is only a general one. In obvious, common sense cases (such as when discussing a primarily web-based initiative, such as Operation Clambake's own site), it is reasonable to infer thus. Additionally, this being a web-based phenomena in its primacy MEANS that there will NOT be as much standard secondary coverage as people would expect, which EXPLICITLY states the minutiae of who is allied with whom, and which feuds have popped up. The fact that all of this information is one self-evident click away, means that secondary sources (unless some of them are reading this page and see this request), are unlikely to discuss the matter at hand in direct detail. If you're saying that no amount of reasoning or referral to the exceptions to the prohibition of primary sources, will sway you, that's fine. I stepped away from WP for a good reason a while back and have little sway (as you mentioned, I'm only an anonymous IP at a public terminal, ergo anything I have to say is innately inferior to what people editing from fixed accounts have to say), but it doesn't change the fact that a great many featured and good articles recite primary sources for -informational- purposes, even when those sources are stating non-controversial and self evident things. Again, this (talking ABOUT the web pages in question) is exactly what the exception to exclusion of Primary Sources is all about. But hey, if getting this to featured article status is more important than truth (easily verifiable, non-objectionable, observeable truth at that), then good for you! You win one encyclopedia full of beaurocratic holdups and insane crimes against logic itself. Also, a verifiability policy which seems to have, at root, "until somebody else says it, it's not true, even if we have video". 142.12.15.81 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say anything of the sort about anonymous IPs, just that a whole bunch of anonymous IPs have been saying the same thing on this talk page, over and over. And for your information, there are plenty of secondary sources that are covering this issue, and will most likely be plenty more. If it is not me challenging every primary source put into this article save for press releases, it will most likely be someone else who will come along anyway. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we where talking about using primary sources like the Alcoholics Anonymous literature on their page, I would agree with User:142.12.15.81, however in this article, the primary sources have been unstable and unreliable. Anonymous has no central office, no real guiding principals, no real central voice. It only pragmaticly exists in what secondary sources view as actions comming from Project Chanology. I will refur to the responces on youtube to the Fox video...all of them are primary sources...they all contridict each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I was referring to above was using the fact that Operation Clambake now links to an Anonymous site as evidence that Operation Clambake has no longer forsworn their actions, not using Chanology itself as a citation. Using a primary source AS a source ABOUT ITSELF. Obviously all comments -about- said primary source are not subject to the exception Wikipedia provides for primary sources, Coffeepusher. 71.7.206.159 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Same anonymous IP as above.)

White powder mailings

This may or may not be related. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-threat31jan31,0,5172691.story --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So far all secondary sources that I have read on this (5) state that there is no connection. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I actually think I have seen sources that discussed [a historical context] in discussing these recent events - I will look further to see if I can find which sources made that reference. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is rather likely that the letters were sent by the CoS to itself in order to discredit its critics and link them to terrorism, ALA Operation Freakout. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you, we really need to avoid Original Research. Also, thanks to everyone who put this article together. Its actually one of the better ones on here 24.181.243.82 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment re my talk page comments getting removed by another user

• Please do not remove my comments relating to Operation Freakout, Operation Snow White, and Paulette Cooper [links to historical references removed due to a complaint from JustaHulk (talk · contribs)] from this talk page. I seem to recall that JustaHulk (talk · contribs) made "off-topic" comments in the very AfD for this article, and when I removed them citing WP:NOT#FORUM, that was deemed inappropriate, and thus so is this action by JustaHulk (talk · contribs) as well. He seems to be applying a wholly different standard when it comes to removing discussion comments from others - and yet he feels that it's fine for him to make off-topic comments about "cyberterrorism", when no secondary source has ever used this term in discussing Project Chanology... Cirt (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to JustaHulk

At the very least, I would like a justification for why you deem it appropriate for you to remove talk page comments from others, and yet apply a different standard to yourself when others remove your off-topic WP:NOT#FORUM comments from an AfD?? Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was refering to an on-wiki issue? And you are making prejudicial and bigoted claims about an off-wiki entity that you are campaigning against? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypocritical talk page behavior and double standards applied to whose posts can get removed and whose can stay?

1. Here is where I removed JustaHulk (talk · contribs)'s off-topic comment at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Here is where JustaHulk (talk · contribs) added that comment right back, stating in the edit summary: "Feel free to strike your comments but do not try to censor me". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Here is where a third user, Philosophus (talk · contribs), removed JustaHulk (talk · contribs)'s off-topic comment, again, stating in the edit summary: "moving JustaHulk's comment and the responses to the talk page. These are completely irrelevant to the AfD itself. Trying to wikilawyer around linking to copyvios is also not nice.". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Here is where JustaHulk (talk · contribs) reverted and added back his removed off-topic comment, yet again, with the edit summary: "undo attempt to censor facts relevant to this discussion". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
5. And now in this discussion, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) is being hypocritical and applying a different standard re: removing other users's talk page comments, than that that he wishes to be applied to himself. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cirt, you asked for the courtesy of a reply and I gave you one. Do you really want to go ten rounds with me here? --JustaHulk (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will leave it up to your judgment after reading what I have laid out about as to whether you feel that you are applying a double-standard to what is and is not "censoring" other editors' talk page comments. You seem to apply a very liberal standard to your discussion comments, and a very rigid standard to other editors comments. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

How would you feel if every time you used the word "cyberterrorism" someone immediately removed your talk page comments calling it conjecture and POV pushing? Cirt (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, to avoid drama, I'll simply let you mull over the removal of your discussion comments versus the removal of my discussion comments. If you would like to restore my discussion comments, I would appreciate that. But to avoid drama I will not restore my comments, and leave the bracketed above comment instead. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want drama then don't start drama. Start drama by posting that and start drama but not acknowledging my reasonable objection and refactoring your comment at the get-go. Your long post above just begs for drama. In response: the cyberterrorism thing? I thought you were referring to something else. I would be glad to defend that term as being the accurate term for the illegal actions they originally had posted - actions that wise beard man, in one of his YouTubes, commends them for having taken down. Also the Fox11 piece. Cyberterrorism is simply an apt description and consistent with known sources. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you feel you are perfectly fine "censoring" my comments if you feel they are "off-topic", and yet you also feel that I have absolutely no right to remove your comments. Just so we are clear that you set different standards for yourself on talkpages as to which comments can stay and which can go, than you set for other editors. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are asking for drama, aren't you? Laff. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Just pointing out that you set markedly different standards for yourself as to what can and cannot be removed from talk page discussion, than you apply to other editors. That's all. I'll let you apply that double standard here, and I'll keep my comments censored in this thread. That's fine. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered your questions each time but instead of acknowledging that I did answer them or bringing up any specific discussion about my answers, you want to generally throw mud. That is called asking for drama. I ask you if you want to play the drama game but you say "no, just that you are blah blah blah". That is asking for drama. I like mudfights too but they are extremely boring to others so I am not rising to your baiting. But if you want a mudfight, then open a subpage, maybe in user space (here we go), and we can go a few rounds. Otherwise we should let this thread end without taking another shot. Cheers. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No need. You've made yourself quite clear in your comments above. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. Later, then. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a tip, don't ever edit each others comments, if they are that offensive report them to ANI. BJ^Talk 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, evidently, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) did not agree with you, for he edited my comments several times. But it's a moot point now, his responses above make his intentions quite clear, and I have no desire to lodge a complaint about my comments above still being censored. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The cyberterrorism and general nastiness above aside, cirts comment about looking for WP:RS that he found that brings together "operation freak out" and "operation snow white" into the responce of Scientology to Project Chanology absolutly belongs on a talk page. It isn't POV because it just lets other editors know that he believes the information is out there, and that they should keep a lookout because that may be benificial to the article. if the sources are found, and they arn't WP:RS then that can be discussed at that time, but none of this should have been deleted because it pertains to the page itself. thanks for the tip Cirt, I will keep a lookout. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), you are most welcome for the tip for the "historical events" that are relevant that I dare not mention lest I be censored again. We shall both keep a lookout. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Let's be on the lookout to for any indication that gays are behind it. Maybe the gays and lesbians are behind the white powder. Maybe members of GLAAD. Maybe the gays and lesbians are joining up with Anonymous because, you all "know" that Scientology hates gays, right (never mind that the facts)? Let's all be on the lookout for any RS that supports that idea. Boy, that all sounds pretty bigoted, doesn't it. Please knock off the crap, guys, or I will see about bringing the article probation hammer down on it. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please (attempt) to do that, last time I checked article probation was to prevent edit warring and POV pushing over a range of articles, not to censor our talk page comments. BJ^Talk 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found what I believe Cirt (talk · contribs) read. It was actually a summery of an article on Diggs that was incredibly deceptive ..."Scientology operation Dust up" you can see how misleading the tag is. He was right, it is a reliable source but it dosn't contain the information that is advertised. Everything out there said the same thing, the FBI is investigating and it was cornstarch and (somthing elce that I forgot). It isn't from Project Chanology because all of their activities are cordinated through known internet sources. And whoever is responsible is in a lot of trouble (they now tampered with the mail and the FBI is investigating because of that).Coffeepusher (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From The Project Chanology PartyVan site. "Anonymous does not condone these forms of action, we are here to unmask the CoS and make aware the public to the atrocities and fraud that they and their other groups commit. Our initial phase was to amass interest in these topics, we are not here to perform hoaxes such as the one above and I am sure I am not the only one that is against these forms of action as they will surely only damage our cause. Once again; Anonymous is not involved in this, we did not plan this nor do we know who did." http://partyvan.info.nyud.net/index.php/Project_Chanology#February_10.2C_2008_Raids http://partyvan.info/index.php?title=Project_Chanology&oldid=13966#To_the_Public_and_Anybody_Investigating_The_Anthrax_Hoax 202.161.71.161 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tail wags dog

I find it interesting that that Digg came soon after the idea that the Church was behind it was floated here. It is exactly this sort of biased and bigoted observer effect that I am concerned about when editors with known POVs make biased and bigoted unsubstantiated accusations on talk pages. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also simply likely that these [links to historical references removed due to complaint from JustaHulk (talk · contribs)] are something that many people are aware of and may find relevant to recent events. See for example comments by readers in response to the article in The Orange County Register. Cirt (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, that is likely one of the [well-known group of Scientology critics] crew. Another POV-pusher trying to "get the word out". That is a common ploy, the use of any media outlet and any story with the word "Scientology" in it to smear the Church with out-dated and usually unrelated accusations. I hope that we do not stoop to that here and, indeed, such activity is disallowed here. Doesn't stop some from trying, though. And even succeeding! --JustaHulk (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that OR of the same type that you removed from another editor's comments? AndroidCat (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Fixed it. BTW, that sort of activity is also what the /b/tards call "copypasta". They did not invent the activity but the name is cute. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

or maybe He (I assume He, since Cirt is traditionally a male name...as opposed to the androgynies name of Coffeepusher in which the appropriate notation would be s/he) just saw it from a search, and didn't remember the source. and when it comes up in discussion he mentioned that he saw it somewhere and would look for it. That claim of POV pusher is getting really old, especially since it seems to be played as a "trump card" when the other policies of wikipedia don't get you what you want, or as a justification for bold edits targeted against another editor...much the same way as the word "terrorist" is used in my home country (I do say Howdy a lot) which makes it ok to take away civil liberties and "take them to the water board". it really doesn’t have a solid definition, only used to point out people who don't believe the same way as you. besides, do we really want to pursue that train of thought. If we take away all the known scientology critics, we will have to take away all the scientologists just to maintain NPOV...which will leave me and a few other editors. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between people with POV and people that push POV. The latter is not supposed to be done here (see WP:SOAP) even when it done in a "sourced" manner. We can often find sources to support our POV ("always" find such if criticism of Scientology is the goal) and if one uses those and discounts others or cherry-picks lines from sources to forward a POV then we are POV-pushing. In other words, we can "POV-push" while appearing to "break no rules". So if my bitch sounds "old" then sorry, it is only because it is old, as in "has been going on for a long time". --JustaHulk (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous essay

Since many of you don't understand who Anonymous is I wrote an usersapce essay to try and explain. If I missed something let me know and I will add to it. BJ^Talk 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the "Anonymous" we are talking about is a loosely connected, relatively small subset of about 1000 IRC regulars, only a subset again of which take part in any given "raid" or activity. Not this huge group you would have us believe it is. --JustaHulk (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed all of Anonymous is undertaking in this or any raid, it is on the contrary. Sure, the /i/nsurgents that do the actual "hacking" (I'm using the term very loosely) are the IRC regulars. The group of /i/nsurgents that do the grunt work (running download scripts, etc.) is much larger. Even larger still is the group undertaking the Chanology raid (IRL raid, etc), which now includes /b/tards and non-Anons alike but is still only a small fraction of the total Anonymous. BJ^Talk 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back up that claim of "1000 IRC regulars"? Here is a link that shows over 3000 anonymous that have registered to be mapped within the last few weeks. Remember, there is no userlist of Anonymous, no requirements to be a IRC user or imageboard user. http://harbl.wetfish.net/cosplay/ 202.161.71.161 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The "anonymous" is primarily composed of 4chan, 7chan, 711chan, etc. If you look at the alexa ranking for 4 chan, and consider the speed at which the /b/ board updates, I think you will quickly realize the magnitude of the group that is anonymous. RevenantPrime (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of the seven people I happen to know have personally expressed great interest (and by "Great Interest" I mean they want to participate in the Feb. 10 protests), only ONE of them is a 4chan regular. I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but do not fool yourself into thinking that this is limited to the chans anymore. 128.61.70.16 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Then get with it. I'm glad to see we now have a wiki page for what should've been and stayed a chan-only thing. This was supposed to be lulz and yeah, maybe we'd do a good thing. Now it's "let's do a good thing and by the way, world, come to 4chan". Just because your amazing seven people aren't involved with chans doesn't mean we didn't start it and still don't outnumber you regular folk. Vael Victus (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and wikinews and Fox News and anyone who hasn't lurked moar (or who hasn't really at least had some participatory contact with the phenomenon of anonymous) don't seem to get that you can't quantify anonymous. They're trying to put a label on something that has no label. Just because they capitalize the word Anonymous doesn't make the idea of it into something they can pin down. No one can pin down anonymous. I'm not railing for or against anonymous, I'm saying there's nothing to be railed for or against here. Anonymous is not a specific organization. It's a concept. Maybe the closest anyone can come to solidifying this concept is to say that it originated from the chans; Beyond that, anonymous is too much of an intangible. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's really cute, but you're not ignorant enough to not realize that the anons here are mostly from 4chan, 7chan, and little minichans scattered everywhere. So you can pin it down, because we're the ones doing it. You cannot pin down the "idea" of anonymous itself, as much as you can say the idea of a crab is that it's a crustacean that likes to walk on the sand and makes great chinese food, or the "idea" behind the word, say, "the". Vael Victus (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are WAY more than 1000 anons. If you are referring to merely anons that are fairly skilled at computer hacking, then yes, there may be only 1000. But the size of the group that participates in raids is always much larger since it is easy to follow instructions laid out by say the inner 1000. RevenantPrime (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bunker in article

I think something should be added to the article about Mark Bunker, since he is the one who influenced Anonymous to get involved legally instead of childishly DDoSing CoS' sites.--Relyt22 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, support addition of Wise Beard Man. BJ^Talk 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No references as of yet to Bunker as related to Project Chanology in any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, so far as I can tell. I'll keep looking though. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a radio interview of him, which has been archived at [16]. It was on 98.3 WOW FM in Iowa, on Jan 30, 2008. It specifically has him attributing the shift from vandalism to legal protests to his video on youtube. Fieari (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, I'll add that shortly, thank you.. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this radio show archived on another website other than youfoundthecard.com ? Like the official website of the radio program? Cirt (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been saved on their website. There's something of confirmation that the show was aired on the 30th on their blog page, here: [17], but it's from a reader comment. Despite the fact that the file is hosted on youfoundthecard, doesn't the fact that it was initially aired to the general public by 98.3 make it a reliable source? Fieari (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. And with this particular article, as well as all articles on the project but especially with a controversial topic like this one - I'd rather stick to the letter and apply WP:RS and particularly WP:V most stringently. Most likely - there will be more broadcasts/media exposure related to Mark Bunker and his perspective on Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt there will be... but question: why must we link to the source mp3 at all? If a radio interview is a WP:RS, can't we simply cite it as a source and not have any link at all? If people want to find it, they could either contact the station, or search google for it and find the mp3 that multiple people have archived. Fieari (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, my own opinion would be to wait for something more easily verifiable, but if you really want a better opinion, you could ask about this in a new section at WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Open for comments there. I think this issue is bigger than just for this article, as radio interviews might be cited in many other articles as well. It's important that this be solved by community consensus on wikipedia as a whole, I think. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's OK to refer to live TV and radio broadcasts, but having a link to an official transcript is always good to have. The link to the mp3 audio above is called a "convenience link" and is acceptable when hosted anywhere online as long as the site hosting it isn't malicious. The essay Wikipedia:Convenience links argues that the hinging point is that the editor who adds the citation actually heard the radio directly. Of course copyright must be respected, so I recommend that an editor who heard the show adds the citation to the radio show without any internet links. --129.241.151.140 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New Mark Bunker interview

http://www.xenutv.com/radio/CBC-excerpt-020708.mp3

Good listen, might have some new info. BJ^Talk 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Found a longer version that has an interview of somebody representing Anonymous. http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080207_4645.mp3 BJ^Talk 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I finished listening to the full interview, the Anonymous members being interviewed give a good description of who, what and why of Anonymous and the protest of Scientology. Mark Bunker also gave a good description of how Scientology is attempting to demonize Anonymous as shown by the actions of our very own JustaHulk on Wikipedia. BJ^Talk 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology responds

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/07/Southpinellas/Church_of_Scientology.shtml Cirt, if you want to summarize it. BJ^Talk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, will do.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

Do you think that this article has enough information to go to a review for Good Article Status, or does it have too many problems with WP:NPOV. I'll go to the Insurgency wiki and post a notice to keep to NPOV there later (I don't think the school filtering software will let me through here) Lyoko is Cool (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_1#Quality_Assessment. Most likely won't be a good idea to go for WP:GAC now, at least, not for a while. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership

I think Project Chanology is great and I like what you guys are doing. However I think we need to recognize that this article is being edited by a lot of anonymous editors, if you understand my meaning. That means that people are interested in using this article to advance controversies about Scientology whether it serves the article subject or not.

With this in mind I am proposing, for now, the removal of articles in the "See also" section that would be better placed in the article itself, especially Lisa McPherson and Operation Snow White. These links serve no purpose except to increase public awareness of Scientology controversies. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or to broadcast negative information about a particular group, even -- as I believe is the case here -- when they deserve it. Instead, we could use section headers to break up the now overlong and difficult to navigate "History" section to put emphasis on the controversies that motivated Anonymous to begin their war on Scientology.

Does this seem like a fair compromise?

--causa sui ^talk 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree(d) with the removal of the see also links, they are not related subjects and already appropriately linked in the article. BJ^Talk 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply (edit conflict):

1. Actually, the article is semi-protected and to the best of my knowledge there are very few if any at all members of "Anonymous" editing it. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A few Anons have accounts that I can tell but most seem to have stop editing the article due to being instantly reverted. BJ^Talk 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It's standard practice not to have things in "See also" if they are already mentioned/wikilinked in the article's text, so I'll go ahead and remove those anyway. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
2. The overall history of the "Anonymous" group itself is way too tangential to discuss in this article - unless other secondary sources have used it to provide context to this topic, which is "Project Chanology", and not the history of "Anonymous". However, please see above subsection - Mcr hxc (talk · contribs) has stated that he is preparing an article called Anonymous (community), which will go into more depth on "Anonymous" the group - and not just Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
3. As for splitting up any particular subsection, what type of organization did you have in mind? Can you name some particular ideas for titles of sub-subsections? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree/with reservations personaly I don't think that Operation Snow White, Lisa McPherson, or Fair Game belong for the reasons already stated. However I do think the rest should stay because they arn't referenced directly in the article, however in linking to them it gives the reader a greater understanding of the situation. Aditionaly those articles arn't spacificly critical of the CoS (funny side note, I just found out that the Church of Satan uses the exact same abbreviation, see Talk:Satanism). that is what a See also section is supposed to do in my opinion. Now I do understand we will have to be watchfull if we keep the section, but enough responsible editors are monitoring this page I don't think that will be a problem.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). I removed those 3 mentioned entries, I think at this point the See also section looks good. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the See Also section is fine in that state. I'll go ahead and make some section edits to give you an idea of what I was talking about re: the history section, and well go from there. --causa sui ^talk 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Just breaking it up further into smaller subsections? Because I would tend to wait until after February 10, 2008... Cirt (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages I think it's a better use of time to simply update the page rather than spend the same amount of effort explaining what I had in mind. ;-) The worst thing that could happen is we revert it. --causa sui ^talk 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More News Sources - including NEWSWEEK

I have been very interested in following this recent news story. I have no experience of wikipedia, but i would like to be able to contribute. I think my inexperience suits leaving suggestions on the talk page though :)

I realize wikipedia - and from reading this discussion. Secondary Sources are very important. I just checked google news and i think there are some new ones that have not been noticed yet. Including Newsweek

Sorry if they have been seen and discounted. I have included some interesting quotes from the secondary sources that i have provided links for

• a follow up St. Petersburg times article [18]

And church officials are taking it very seriously.

"We are dealing with a worldwide threat," said Pat Harney, spokeswoman for the church in Clearwater. "This is not a light matter."

The church has hired 10 off-duty police officers for security Sunday at a cost of $4,500. City officials are on notice, too, prepared to deal with any vandalism or violence that erupts from the protest.

The big question, however, is whether the Internet furor will translate into actual protesters.

(and)

"There were always people protesting Scientology," said Joshua Nussbaum, 19, an organizer of the Clearwater rally. "But the Tom Cruise video being leaked and then subsequently being pulled off for a copyright violation within 24 hours, that made a lot of people angry."

Nussbaum said he expects between 50 and 100 to gather with him in downtown Clearwater on Sunday.

(and)

They estimate almost 4,000 people will be involved in protests around the world.

The event is particularly well-timed, organizers say, because it is the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a 36-year-old Scientologist who died in 1995 while in the care of church staffers.

• I dont think this source has been mentioned (computerworld)

[19]

• some useful parts from NEWSWEEK [20]

.. note: much of what i quote is from page 2

Going forward, Anonymous hopes to deconvert members and "infiltrate" the group by joining and posing as sincere Scientologists. And on Feb. 10, Anonymous--which one member estimates to comprise 9,000 people--plans protests at Scientology sites worldwide and has won some approval from former church members. A previous Anonymous protest in Orlando, Fla., drew around 150 people.

Mark Bunker, a prominent critic of the church whose Web site claims to get a million hits a month, says he is delighted to see a large group of young activists galvanized to take on Scientology. But in a popular YouTube video of his own, he cautioned Anonymous against vandalism or any other illegal displays of disaffection. "I know the way Scientology works: they're going to get these people in trouble," he tells NEWSWEEK. "I'm very concerned about their safety, and I'm concerned about the Scientologists' safety, too." Last week a suspicious white powder was mailed to several church locations in Southern California, and the FBI is investigating whether the mailings are connected to previous hacking. On its Web site and in the local press, Anonymous has denied sending the powder. Bunker, unaffiliated with the group himself, says he has received nearly 6,000 e-mails, largely supportive, from people claiming to belong to Anonymous.

The Anonymous spokeswoman says the group plans to start a lobbying campaign to have the church stripped of its 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, which was reinstated in 1993. (In 1967, tax authorities revoked its tax-exemption status on the grounds that the organization's auditing scheme operated as Hubbard's personal for-profit venture, and in 1984 the U.S. Tax Court found the organization guilty of "manufacturing and falsifying records to present to the IRS, burglarizing IRS offices and stealing government documents, and subverting government processes for unlawful purposes.")

• hope these are of use. i will continue to invesigate this further, hopefully i can be of help here

Arabik (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, will take a look into these soon, a couple are already in the article, but Newsweek is not yet. Will add it later. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Braiker, Brian (February 8, 2008). "The Passion of 'Anonymous': A shadowy, loose-knit consortium of activists and hackers called 'Anonymous' is just the latest thorn in Scientology's side". Newsweek. Newsweek, Inc. pp. Technology: Newsweek Web Exclusive. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

All the other sources mentioned above are already used in the article, but I'll add this one later. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks . i noticed before from reading this page that mention had ben made to the fox news hackers story. newsweek mention this and the response "last July they issued this message to Fox News, in which a masked speaker with a disguised voice claims "we are the face of chaos ... we ruin the lives of others simply because we can." Some Anonymous members assert the clip was a satirical response to a news report on the group."

)

Arabik (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks like something that could be useful in an upcoming article someone else is working on called Anonymous (community), but will be looked into. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a good idea. perhaps the chanology article should have a "Media Response" section. i find the way the media have covered this and how their coverage has changed over time is interesting

Arabik (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it'd be best if something like that were solely composed of editorials and opinion pieces, not just a section about media articles about the incidents - that's not really that encyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ok -- there is also this -- broadcast on australian tv [21]

Arabik (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous interviews

There are few cited interviews with Anonymous, which would be understandable as Anonymous shuns any interview which requires they reveal their identity. However, there are now a few examples of Anons stepping forward and giving interviews under cloaked conditions. Aside from the Keven and Bean Show example I provided before, which was the first Anonymous interview, there is now an interview for Spin 1038, which can be heard here. Also, there is an interview with an Anon from Michigan on Today Tonight, viewable here. Finally, while this does not contain an interview with Anonymous, this CBC open letter to Anonymous invites an Anon to a debate with a Scientologist provided the representative reveals their identity. As can be seen in the comments section, Anonymous is harshly critical of this suggestion.--Cast (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Already added Today Tonight, not sure if it's best to use YouTube for WP:V for the other one. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you needn't link to youtube. You just need to provide the citation information. We know the audio was aired, when, and under what title.--Cast (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, will do. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, this seems to be the Spin 103.8 show information. The Spin with Clare McKenna and Jonathan McCrea, Feb 7th 1:50pm.--Cast (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but about the CBC open letter to Anonymous. Apparently I failed to notice that this is dated information. Two anons already came forward for a dual interview. Mark Bunker also made an appearance. However, a debate failed to take place as Scientology declined to send a representative. The audio is available here.--Cast (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External link question

Hi. The external link Archive of the original 4chan thread that started Project Chanology has a bit of a wrong title. It should say "Archive of one of the first 4chan threads that started Project Chanology". See post number 51056394: "THE LAST THREAD GOT LOCKED SO WILL THIS", meaning that there were recently another Scientology raid thread. --91.149.20.152 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, Adjusted it to "Archive of 4chan thread discussing initial plans for Project Chanology". Cirt (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

The opening paragraphs have absolutely no references, is this on purpose? There is quotes from different individuals but no references to the quotes. Besides that, there is many points which could use references as well. Chopper Dave (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:LEAD. The Lead/Intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, and so things that are sourced later in the article do not require duplicate sourcing in the intro. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Has there been enough news coverage that Anonymous qualifies as notable enough for its own article? Detonate (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia IRL Protest Pictures

Hopefully someone can work these into the article

Sydney: http://img.waffleimages.com/58c361e00945f38bc5ee59ee080bd0e090f8d155/1202605105048.jpg http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3360/sydney2eu8.jpg http://img.waffleimages.com/bce9dec3d11a1fc00eb131abdb2d7aaf78c21ec4/1202605142399.jpg

Melbourne: http://img.waffleimages.com/7600261d076814458276f4122ad511fd75358eb9/fd.jpg http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/234/melb1rg8.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Z00r (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All pictures used should be from Wikimedia Commons

All pictures used should be from Wikimedia Commons. There will be plenty to be found there from cities all over the world before the end of February 10, 2008. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point.Z00r (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake Violence Reports

Scientologists have alredy started making up fake reports of violence at the protests. Example: http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/breaking-syd-scientologist-protest-turns-violent There they have used pictures from a may 2005 protest of Haliburton[22]. People on the ground confirm, there are about 200 people there and no violence.

Be wary of additions along these lines appearing in the article without credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Indymedia is not an acceptable source, though these false reports were stated in News.com.au, and will be incorporated later. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)