Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Check sources before removing 

message: 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  tag is more appropriate, and the  tag is inappropriate.  Cirt (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Current events tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have nominated the article.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AfD? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Up for notability, but locked from editing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keep the Article 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good changes, I agree with everything you have said above, well done.  Cirt (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More POV/balance-related stuff

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  This may become one of the most important things to happen on the internet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FOR THE LOVE OF GOD KEEP IT!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  page not beeing deleted, please see discussion 

message: From the OG Anon to CoS makers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70
--Piepie (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will post this primary source: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology ✈ James C. (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's please avoid primary sources and stick to secondary sources for the article?  Cirt (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Nope.  Cirt (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Breaking
 Broken News 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Video quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: *small note, Cirt actually reverted it...just before I hit the button evidentlyCoffeepusher (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we should use Secondary Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: All the sources I read spoke of YTMND's past legal encounter with the church and ebaums is a running gag. From what I know from my own research the goons (SomethingAwful) are somewhat involved but no sources backed this up. BJTalk 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PROTIP: ebaums did everything. It's an in-joke. --Piepie (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, yes I know. BJTalk 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No.  Because it is backed up to multiple WP:RS/WP:V sources.  Cirt (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I see where it's mentioned in references 10 and 11.Ason Abdullah (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of "Anonymous" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quote formatting undue weight? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  711chan no longer supporting raid 

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

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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. 
#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)
replies: text: Good point, .  Cirt (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Following [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] is ABSOLUTELY required 

message: Is there any particular reason the partyvan/Project Chanology wiki link was removed?--Piepie (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they belong because nobody can speak for anon, etc. but I'm sure 4 other policies apply here as well. BJTalk 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I believe the answer you are looking for is Encyclopedia Dramatica. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OMFGZ! You dared mention the name of the wiki that shall remain nameless!!111one! Piepie (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Party Van called on partyvan 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Query: Is the only thing holding it back the fact that it's a current event? --Muna (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Which bits would you consider confusing? --Muna (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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  recently put the  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quality Assessment 

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

text: /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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  ED has been claiming that for ages, it's bullcrap. Watch this space, though. --Muna (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Keep me posted if you find any good sources covering these developments.  Cirt (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need sources 

message: It would probably be a good idea to mention that the Cult of the Dead Cow waged war on Scientology a good while ago. --Muna (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are already being used within Wikipedia... --Muna (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Sweeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult of the Dead Cow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prolexic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Video release and unauthorized biography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chanology Timeline 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Describing Anonymous

message: * 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)
thread_title: Describing Tom Cruise

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[My name is Legion]] 

message: I can't access it, 404s here.--75.85.14.12 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partyvan.info down? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feburary 10th 

message: has suggested that we discuss an "Outline" for this article.  Here is my idea:
#Introduction (summarizing the below sections)
#Background
##Tom Cruise video released to Internet
### include a word or two as to who the hell Tom Cruise is 
## describe video so as to remove ambiguity 
### length (is this the 9-minute video?)
### Scientology produced or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryG (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Outline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: It is edited, but that doesn't mean that he is speaking metaphorically.--AveryG (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise car accident quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference placement 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about "Actions not related to Church of Scientology" ? Ason Abdullah (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved "errors" directly into the Actions section, it is better presented in chrono order.  Cirt (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, working on it.  :)  Cirt (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Personally I'd rather stick to chrono order within each subsection, for clarity.  Cirt (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New information 

message: "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." Anonymous Hackers Track Saboteur, Find and Punish the Wrong Guy, Wired, January 28, 2008
--Alternation (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to wait for another source to confirm.  Cirt (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This assessment by  is most likely "spot on".  Cirt (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, this protects the Church's claim of being victims.--AveryG (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: *Subsections.  These would be subsections.--AveryG (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And the section is getting unwieldy.  I know there is a solution to this problem.--AveryG (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  g00ns mistake 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This assessment by  is most likely "spot on".  Cirt (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, this protects the Church's claim of being victims.--AveryG (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: *Subsections.  These would be subsections.--AveryG (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And the section is getting unwieldy.  I know there is a solution to this problem.--AveryG (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Section?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kevin and Bean Show 

message: *
----
: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)
replies: text: Yes, good find.--AveryG (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of background on Scientology versus the Internet 

message: Is the proper terminology for a denial of service action 
# an "attack"
# or a "hack" (as in: what hackers do)
The use of the word attack is NPOV.--AveryG (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: DDoS is nonviolent, analogous to a sit-in.   "Attack" is misleading. Jwray (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See DDoS, it is described as such there.  Cirt (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The word attack

message: Wow, someone wrote an article on Project Chanology in Suomi!  That was fast.  Cirt (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Peter Griffin|Holy crap Lois!]] 

message: I'm aware Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" but do we have to keep spreading the lie that "anonymous" is a "hacker group" or a  group of "online activist"? Everybody knows that anonymous is the name for collective users of the chans. BJTalk 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with , "online activists" is appropriate wording; it's a relatively generalized term that is NPOV.  Cirt (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with leaving the lead alone but the "Formation" section needs works. It clearly started on the chans by the namesake, to be precise it started on 711chan.org's /i/(nsurgency) board but I don't think that much detail is needed or useful. I'll tweak the section and post it here for comments when I'm done. BJTalk 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: With the amount of coverage this has gotten (of varying degrees of accuracy) I will have no problems backing up the truth with sources. BJTalk 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great.  Cirt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I need moar lulz. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we all, don't we all.  :)  Cirt (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TorrentFreak fails [[WP:RS]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cyberterrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wise Beard Man]] article needs attention... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lisa McPherson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To Whoever Keeps Updating the Amount of Times People Viewed the YouTube Videos 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see WP:LEAD.  The introduction should summarize the article.  Cirt (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critical response paragraph in introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean Up Talk Page? 

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

text: Do we need to make an article about  Anonymous just so you can finally get to use your nice Fox report? BJTalk 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Internet Vigilante Group" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's been reported on by the mainstream media, which makes it notable enough. --clpo13(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hey 4chan, give /i/ a little credit k? /b/rothers unite! Kakama5 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Rules 1 and 2! -Can Not (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only applicable to (gay) raids. Roman619 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan /b/ 

message: 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)
replies: text: How is this relevant to improving this article?  Cirt (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube links

message: Hey look, a new image! This one's a real keeper, if you ask me. :) --Muna (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. Not unless there is RS linking it to the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for the image uploader, , to comment here.  Cirt (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Good point by .  Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I had realized that.  Just trying to find sources that state that connection...  Cirt (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looking, will add when I find it...  Cirt (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisa McPherson Image 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Good point by .  Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I had realized that.  Just trying to find sources that state that connection...  Cirt (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looking, will add when I find it...  Cirt (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Project Chanology and Lisa McPherson

message: This is incredible.  There is an article on "Project Chanology" in 5 different language Wikipedias.  Cirt (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Predictably including German and French. Ayla (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Suomi and Eesti.  And German and French are very common languages.  Cirt (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Project Chanology" on 5 Wikipedias 

message: *
:Thoughts on whether or not this can be used as a source in this article?  Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problems with the article but I can't see any new information contained. BJTalk 07:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be moreso for varied perspective in the Reaction section.  Cirt (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. BJTalk 07:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Cirt (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Maybe so, maybe not, but I agree w/  re: when/how to include it in the article.  Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Be Wary, Be Wary, the 10th of February 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Guardian Coverage 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you!  Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has certainly come a long way since it was nominated for deletion.  :) Cirt (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Well written 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: We can't add anything until secondary sources report it. BJTalk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay now it looks better w/ the NBC11 info confirming the info from their website.  Cirt (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I did not notice. Consider it undone Cid935 (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift in Tactics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reactions section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You are asking for drama, aren't you? Laff. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No need.  You've made yourself quite clear in your comments above.  Cirt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so. Later, then. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, evidently,  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. BJTalk 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is also simply likely that these [links to historical references removed due to complaint from ] 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)
replies: text: IMO, that is likely one of the  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)
replies: text: Isn't that OR of the same type that you removed from another editor's comments? AndroidCat (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  White powder mailings 

message: 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. BJTalk 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. BJTalk 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous essay 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree, support addition of Wise Beard Man. BJTalk 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's a radio interview of him, which has been archived at .  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)
replies: text: Ah, good, I'll add that shortly, thank you..  Cirt (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mark Bunker in article 

message: http://www.xenutv.com/radio/CBC-excerpt-020708.mp3
Good listen, might have some new info. BJTalk 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.  Cirt (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a longer version that has an interview of somebody representing Anonymous. http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080207_4645.mp3 BJTalk 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. BJTalk 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mark Bunker interview 

message: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/07/Southpinellas/Church_of_Scientology.shtml Cirt, if you want to summarize it. BJTalk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, thanks, will do.  :)   Cirt (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Scientology responds 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree(d) with the removal of the see also links, they are not related subjects and already appropriately linked in the article. BJTalk 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few Anons have accounts that I can tell but most seem to have stop editing the article due to being instantly reverted. BJTalk 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree w/ .  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good.  Cirt (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ownership 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point, will do.  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet.  Cirt (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous interviews 

message: 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)
replies: text: , Adjusted it to "Archive of 4chan thread discussing initial plans for Project Chanology".  Cirt (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion for improvement 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australia IRL Protest Pictures 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Fake Violence Reports