Talk:ScienTOMogy

Importance tag

This seems like a real 15 minutes of fame thing to me. Besides which, I don't think that a website making fun of the any other religion besides Scientology would get a WP article. Steve Dufour 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They might if the religion they were making fun of threatened legal action. Given the Scientology vs the Internet issue, this site appears to fit in there somewhere. Not for it's content, but because it got a notable response from the CoS. Anynobody 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Still it is only notable for one thing. I seem to be back on the project so I will propose it for deletion. Steve Dufour 04:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

On hold for just a second -- my only question is, what happened? It's clear that the site no longer exists (it's referred to in the past tense), but there's no explanation of what happened. There's the note that on October 13, 2005, he agreed to move the domain name, but it follows with a section on how he then decided to fight the case; there's nothing on what ensued! It just jumps to "aftermath," assuming it's already been resolved. Who won (I guess Scientology) and when did the site get moved or taken offline? And were there suits filed? I feel very much like I'm just missing something, or that perhaps a section was inadvertently deleted, so let me know if this is the case.

Also, one minor thing. There's two references to Passionofcruise.com. The first is in "Church of Scientology's response" and occurs only in passion, but the second, in "Aftermath", references Mel Gibson. My only point is that in neither case is it explicitly pointed out that it would be a parody of The Passion of the Christ, but the in its latter use, it assumes that the reader has grasped the connection (by mentioning Gibson without further explanation). I didn't want to interject many content changes into the article, but I definitely think it needs to be explicitly stated that Passionofcruise.com is a reference to the film. Dylan 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Addressing some points from above

•  Done - Added a reference to The Passion of the Christ earlier, as suggested. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
• On the first point - it is not clear about what happened after this. There is not much info in secondary sources, other than the fact that the Church of Scientology never did pursue litigation, I'm not sure what else I can add to, in this regard. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Okay. Well, it needs to be tied up, at any rate; it just feels like the story gets cut off in the middle. I would think it's okay to be a bit obtuse -- "As of November 2007, the site is not up" or "No reports of the Church filing suit have been reported." But it never explains how it got from "this site exists" to "this site doesn't exist." Dylan 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I suppose that last bit might be original research, but as it's relatively self-evident, I think one bit in the article would be okay, so I'll add that as you suggested with your phrasing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
    •  Done, as you suggested. I hope it reads okay now. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

GA passed

1. Well written? Yes; I found no major problems (although I corrected a few things as I read through it).
2. Factually accurate and verifiable? Seems to be fine; good use of inline citations and the {{cite}} templates.
3. Broad in its coverage? Yes.
4. Neutral? Yes.
5. Stable? Yes. Looks like Curt Wilhelm VonSavage has done some extensive editing recently, but no edit wars and nothing to cause concern.
6. Illustrated? Only one picture, but it's pretty hard to illustrate a website; that's about as good as one can expect. If you could find a free image of Tom Cruise or something (especially if it was of him jumping on the couch, though I can't imagine those broadcast snapshots would be free), that would be nice.

Some thoughts/recommendations as I was reading through:

• Is the "W" in "web site" capitalized? Seeing it capitalized struck me as a bit odd. But I have no idea what MoS says, and this is just my own thought/preference.
• As "Church of Scientology" is a proper noun, should "the church" be "the Church" ? Again, just me.

Good work! Dylan 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you!

1. I always thought it was capitalized, but looking at the Wikipedia article for Web site, looks like one could go either way stylistically, just so long as its uniform throughout the article.
2. You are correct, it should be capitalized. I will look for this and correct it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

•  Done - Forgot to note I went and corrected that. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC).