# Talk:ScienTOMogy

This is rather silly. Regardless of whether Internet is used as a noun or a noun adjunct, its still a proper noun and gets capitalised. Do I really need to get an outside opinion to verify this? Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no set policy or standard on this. Different publications capitalize it, and many others do not. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
See also Internet#The_terms_.E2.80.9Cinternet.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CInternet.E2.80.9D and Internet capitalization conventions. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The relevant technical publications use lowercase when referring to internetworks. Here its obviously referring to traffic on the Internet, which is a single internet and is treated as a proper noun. The standard used on Wikipedia is overwhelmingly to treat it as a proper noun (see Internet, History of the Internet, Internet Protocol, Internet service provider, Internet Protocol Suite, etc.) Ive asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's Just the 'internet' Now
Internet: De-capitalizing the word - (the word "internet" is now a common noun)
Cirt (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those arent technical publications at all. Ones a summary of a single college professors "crusade to de-capitalize Internet", and the others a popular publication. Actual technical organisations (IETF, W3C, ISOC, etc.) use capitals to refer to the Internet and lowercase to refer to internetworks. The Wikipedia links you gave even state that. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
We are not referring to the proper noun here, but the phrase "internet traffic". It should not be capitalized in this instance. It is confusing to the reader and looks odd like that in the middle of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you havent already, please read noun adjunct. Internet clearly both is a noun and modifies traffic. The kind of traffic here is traffic on the Internet, not the Church of Scientology's internet or any other internet. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it refers to the "internet traffic" on one particular website. It is not referring to the "Internet" as a whole. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It has to be. The website didnt send its data through individual groups internets. It sent data through the Internet to its readers. I think you might be confused about how Internet traffic works. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not "confused about how Internet traffic works". If the sentence said "All traffic on the Internet increased by X", that would be different than "as a result, internet traffic to this website increased by X". Cirt (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes but thats a bit of an unintentional straw man since thats not what were discussing. The difference between "its internet traffic" and "its Internet traffic" is that in the first, there is traffic between the Church of Scientology's website and one or more internets. In the second, theres traffic between the CoS's website and the Internet. Actually the second is more clear since its impossible for more than one of this proper noun to exist. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, we are talking about an increase in traffic to ScienTOMogy's website, not the Church of Scientology's. And second, yes, the former example implies traffic on the entire Internet increased, the latter simply that internet traffic to this one site increased. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


### Third opinion
There seem to be two separate issues here, and I intend to take the coward's way out and recommend ignoring them both.  Firstly, should "The Internet" be written with a lower-case "I"?  Secondly, does the article refer to traffic between one location and "The Internet" or between different internets (within the wider Internet)?  For ease of comprehension, I use capital-I Internet below purely as a convenience to distinguish the two usages.

I have read Internet#The_terms_.E2.80.9Cinternet.E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9CInternet.E2.80.9D and Internet capitalization conventions and agree that some sources capitalise the I when using Internet as a proper noun, and others don't.  I have also checked the manual of style; it fails to make a recommendation.  Under the circumstances I have no recommendation to make in this regard.
I have checked the reference (and also surrounding references) for the original text without success; the WSJ archives only go back 3 months and the article in question is several years old.  Ideally I'd like to see the reference quoted verbatim, however this clearly isn't possible.  Under the circumstances I am unable to determine whether the WSJ article was referring to Internet traffic or internet traffic.
With the above in mind I have the following recommendation: I do not believe the substance of the text would be significantly altered if the word "internet" was dropped completely.  The word "traffic" currently appears in the article in three locations: the first in the phrase "Internet traffic" at the start of a sentence, the second in the phrase "normal traffic" and only the third in the phrase "internet traffic" mid-sentence. I believe this third instance should be changed to read "...the threats from the Church of Scientology had increased its traffic over tenfold" until such time as the reference can be quoted verbatim (including original capitalisation, whatever that may be) or an alternative reference provided.
I'm also going to raise this at the relevant WP:MOS noticeboard in case there is a policy on capitalising "Internet" that hasn't come to light yet.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, and Im assuming Cirts okay with it too. Thanks for the help! Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how on earth I got to this page--I think just clicking a diff from watching an admin board--but I copyedited some things, trying to eliminate redundancy. Just thought I'd leave a note here, to be a bit effusive, should be no problems.--Asdfg12345 11:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of it looks okay, but I restored a few things that are necessary bits of the history. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
okay cool. I'm curious about the Gibson non-sequitor?--Asdfg12345 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph in subsection Church of Scientology's response. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, indeed, not a non-sequitor. A hat-tip to you, and catch you around. --Asdfg12345 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the site appears to have been moved to [1] as it carries the exact wording in the disclaimer and similar style of content. It appears the host provider closed the site down to avoid legal complications. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a different site actually, unless you have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources with more info about this? Cirt (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)