Talk:Alt.religion.scientology

message: alt.religion.scientology is a Usenet newsgroup started in 1991 to discuss the controversial philosophy known as Scientology, as well as the Church of Scientology and therefore should be in Category:Scientology controversies. It does not define Category:Scientology nor does it in a category higher than Category:Scientology. See WP:CLS --AI 3 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
:makes sense to me.Terryeo 16:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: This section doesn't seem encyclopedic to me; any objections if I remove it?  --RobthTalk 01:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia isn't a "how to" it didn't belong, especially with the POV content. However, if someone were to do (or find) a good page on newsgroup filtering, including the new browser add-ons for filtering GoogleGroups, then I think it would make a good external link for this page. AndroidCat 16:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How to filter out newsgroup vandals" section 

message: Like many newsgroups, alt.religion.scientology has many irrelevant and trolling postings.  Most of these are easily removed by use of a newsreader program and a kill file.  The biggest offenders appear to be usernames operated by multiple people and have traits they share in common:
* They will never post links to sites known to be critical of scientology
* They will falsely accuse other posters of being secret Scientologist agents to breed distrust amonmg the newsgroup (this one is a little tricky, as you will have to research postings of the accused to determine validity of accusations)
* They will claim that their usernames have been forged by Scientology agents
* They will claim persecution at the hands of Scientology (some of these postings are legitimate, again, check past postings before adding to killfile)
* They will flood the newsgroup with a large number of postings, some even seemingly critical of Scientology
After a small investment of time learning how to avoid the "noise," this newsgroup is a very good source of information and communication.  It is not necessary to post the most frequent offending usernames, as they are easily identified.
* They will claim that only Scientologists want their usernames added to a "kill file"
--RobthTalk 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia isn't a "how to" it didn't belong, especially with the POV content. However, if someone were to do (or find) a good page on newsgroup filtering, including the new browser add-ons for filtering GoogleGroups, then I think it would make a good external link for this page. AndroidCat 16:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to filter out Newsgroup Vandals

message: The article says: "The newsgroup has become the focal point of a violent, aggressive battle known as Scientology vs. the Internet, which has taken place both online and in the courts."
Was there really violence?  I would like to hear more details if this is literally true.Steve Dufour 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take out the word violent then.Steve Dufour 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was it really violent?

message: I removed the following sentence which was added by Steve Dufour:
"Most regular contributors to alt.religion.scientology do not do so using their full names; some of the more well-known who do include Steven Dufour, Tilman Hausherr, and Barbara Schwarz."
Picking these particular names is somewhat a subjective exercise — demonstrated by having wikipedia editor Steve Dufour adding himself to the list. Also, we will never be totally sure that the displayed name in a newsgroup post is really from a specific individual. This kind of comment is irrelevant here in my opinion, as it's a characteristic of all newsgroups, that some individual uses their real name, and we certainly won't point out this obvious fact on each newsgroup which has an entry in wikipedia. --Raymond Hill 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular contributors using their real name 

message: *Would it be possible for someone to take a low res screenshot of Alt.religion.scientology, and upload it under GFDL?  Thanks for your time, whoever does this, it would be a nice addition to the article...  Smee 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which newsreader program would you like a screenshot of? AndroidCat 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a screenshot? 

message: religiousfreedomwatch.com is down a search shows plenty of pages from it but they are all down to is there a new site or were the scientologists to stupid to start up the server?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.58.155 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main RFW domain is religiousfreedomwatch.org, which is back up, behind the same Prolexic shield as the rest of the protected Scientology sites. (See discussion on alt.religion.scientology) AndroidCat (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is THE single most compellingly obvious indication that the Church of Scientology is behind that hate site.  Cirt (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a secondary RS source that says that. :) AndroidCat (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  religiousfreedomwatch.com 

message: I was doing a google news search to see if there are more recent news stories related to alt.religion.scientology and came upon something rather strange. There is a Washington Post article "Scientology Fiction" listed there with the date of July 6, 2005. However, following that link one gets to , page 2 of the article. The http address indicates that the article is indeed from July 6, 2005. However, following the link to page 1 of the article, one gets the header giving the date as December 25, 1994, even though the http address there still indicates 2005/07/06 as the date. Does anyone undestand what is going on? Is the article really from 1994 or is it from 2005? I am rather confused. Nsk92 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is from 1994. .  Cirt (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. I also searched the Washington Post archive and found the following item, called "Scientology Fiction", dated Dec 25, 1994: . The excerpt given there corresponds to  portions of page 2 of the article from my original post. Must be some bugs at the W.Post website... Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post article 

message: Changes in recent times have rendered this article out of date. The considerable increase in criticism of the Church of Scientology sparked off by the sudden appearance of Anonymous in 2008 led to the creation of a number of critical web based forums, and ARS is no longer at the center. The article needs updating! Hartley Patterson (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you suggest any independent reliable secondary sources to use to update the article? -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARS in 2010 

message: Substituted at 07:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alt.religion.scientology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129101614/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/15/44/News/feature.html to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/15/44/News/feature.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: we're going through L Ron's tangential articles and editing them for precision, concision, readability, and strict wiki regarding sourcing.
looking forward to learning about this topic, Saintstephen000 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  concision edits, articles related to Hubbard