Talk:Scientology and the Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Scientology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article title?[edit]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but: is there anyone else who feels 'Scientology versus the Internet' to be an excessively hyperbolic title? I don't think there are any other Wikipedia articles, except for those about legal cases, titled in such an antagonistic 'X versus Y' way. Wouldn't Scientology and the Internet be a bit more NPOV, along the lines of Scientology and the legal system? After all, Scientology isn't against the whole Internet (just the bits that criticise and expose it) and the whole Internet isn't against Scientology. (Obligatory disclaimer: no, I'm not a Scientologist myself, nor do I know anyone who is.) Robofish (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The current title seems fine to me. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pelgrift. This is a good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommodoreBlair (talkcontribs) 06:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 04:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


Scientology versus the InternetScientology and the Internet – For discussion of what the appropriate name should be since this one isn't working and the above section demonstrates wider input is needed. The article has clearly been taken over by 4chan so I hope there can be a serious discussion about how this is a blatant NPOV violation. Neggbeater (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Before I am accused of assuming bad faith or personal attacks or vandalism or some other nonsense, this is what I was referring to with the reference to 4chan... Neggbeater (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Seems like a more neutral title. wctaiwan (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ridiculous[edit]

As a regular and basic wikipedia user I find it rather weird to find an infobox like the ones I always see in articles about battles and military engagements, just as if this were one, something I have never seen before. Who is giving this article so much importance? (By the way I'm a mexican catholic). --201.164.145.114 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! I suspect the author of this article is an 'Anonymous' member who, as usual, is taking things too seriously. This shouldn't even be an article. I'm all for uncovering and documenting Scientology's crimes, but this is not a 'war', 'battle', 'conflict' or anything else! The infobox is used in wars, not on silly Internet arguments and DDoS attacks. This article should use a different infobox. Definitely overly hyperbolic and confrontational. Needs to be changed. SamJake99 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
please check the archives.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you link to something about this? I was only able to find a single discussion which was mostly sarcastic. It seems to me that, like SamJake99 pointed out, the use of this infobox gives the article a violent and belligerent (pun intended) flavor. The infobox's page says its use is to "summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner", and while it does not say that the infobox cannot be used for metaphorical conflict, I can say that I have never seen it used in this way before. Compare this to the War on Drugs, which covers numerous real wars and battles but does not use the infobox because it is itself not, strictly speaking, a war.Eladynnus (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. Best I can figure I was remembering a discussion on a different page and for the life of me I can't remember which page that was. My way of saying that was condescending to the newcomers and I apologize. I think that this info box is appropriate because this page does document an ongoing conflict between the church and various organizations, and the infobox has all the appropriate fields to summarize the relevant information. If there were lots of fields blank then I would agree that this infobox was inappropriate but that is not the case.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)