Talk:Scientology and the Internet

message: "This makes the newsgroup virtually unreadable via online readers such as Google Groups, although more specialized newsreading software that can filter out all messages by specific "high noise" posters make the newsgroup more usable.[citation needed]"
What sort of citation is needed? At the time of the sporgery, Google didn't yet have Groups; Usenet was read on custom software with sophisticated killfiles. The sporge came from a small number of IP addresses which made it easy to filter out - people would post lists of sporge addresses as soon as they were identified. Does it just need a link to how killfiles work or something?71.204.167.229 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to Kill file seems perfectly reasonable to me. Jamoche (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability citation 

message: The update tag was put on this article a little over 4 years ago by  with nothing added to the talk page to indicate what needed updating. There have been a lot of changes since then (72 edits). Do we still need this tag? Grorp (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still radiates a strong impression of being like a time capsule from the late 2000s. Everything from the infobox spotlight to the listed incidents are old news. While Scientology certainly has mostly fallen out of public discourse (though not really obscure), the edits you cited have been little window dressings. I'm sure there's more that happened even in the past ~4 years, although I don't particularly care enough to trudge through. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Thanks for that feedback. I'll add this article to my work list and look at it with that in mind. In the meantime, I directed the 'tag' to this section for the benefit of anyone else wondering about the reason for the tag. Grorp (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Update tag still needed? 

message: The original article title was Scientology versus the Internet, from 2002 through 2011. Though the page has been edited by over 500 editors (most  edits made 2006-2008), the article title was changed in 2011 to Scientology and the Internet after a short suggestion plus 1 single support vote. It had been listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves for one week . I think the page move (rename) was premature, was based on insubstantial reasons/opinions, and incorrectly conveys the concept as described in the article. In my opinion, the current title (Scientology and the Internet) needs changing.
The archive pages have a few earlier discussions on the topic of title (in order of earliest to latest):
* Archive 4#Scientology versus the Internet is not a common name, a 2006 proposal to move which resulted in 'noconsensus'.
* Archive 2#"Scientology versus the Internet" is biased, POV and grossly inaccurate, February 2007
* Archive 3#Title: Scientology and the Internet versus Scientology versus the Internet, January 2008
* Archive 3#One more whack at "Scientology vs. the Internet", February 2008
* Archive 4#Article title?, March 2011
* Archive 4#Requested move, August 2011
To sum up the arguments:
* Those against "versus the Internet" argued that Scientology wasn't against the entire internet.
* Those for "versus the Internet" argued that Scientology was waging a war against the internetians who were using the internet to expose Scientology, and support "versus" by pointing out the plethora of lawsuits filed by Scientology against individuals and companies in order to remove critic information.
There were three parties involved in the war:
# Critics, who wanted to expose Scientology,
# Scientology, who wanted their 'scriptures' off the internet, and who had the money and muscle to use the legal system and law enforcement to get their way, and
# Generic netizens (with no prior nexus to Scientology) who wanted to be allowed to discuss and LOL over stuff on the internet without interference, and the more Scientology pushed to get their materials removed, the harder these people pushed back and mirrored everything.
Mike Rinder summarizes the war in his book. Rinder says he was put on the case the instant the OT levels appeared on the internet in December 1994. 
The content of this article is about the "war" against the critics in order to keep certain information off the internet. The article is not about Scientology's use of the internet, nor their propaganda or marketing efforts on the internet. It's not about their own websites, or the ads Scientology runs that show up on Youtube videos at random. It's not about Scientology's creation of websites to slander/libel/deadagent specific critics. So using the all-encompassing "and" in "Scientology and the internet" is a misnomer, is too broad/far-reaching, and really doesn't convey the idea of a specific targeted "war" against certain enemies. The word "versus" does. The part "the internet" was because one of the parties in the dispute were the vast group of netizens that got involved because of their dedication to free speech and not because of any position for or against Scientology.
Grorp (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm impressed by the effort you poured in here, although I'm not educated enough in the subject to raise any particular points beyond endorsing a  'Move' to "Scientology vs. the Internet", or an equivalent title. I just believe that sources from at least the rise of normalized mainstream social media onward (c. 2015 AD) are pertinent to the relevancy of this article. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original article title - Scientology versus the Internet