Talk:Project Chanology

Why does this article exist?

I don't understand why this is an article in a so-called encyclopedia. This type of article belongs on wikinews, not wikipedia. It is not noteworthy at all, I am sure hundreds if not thousands of these same types of things happen on a daily basis. The fact that the supposed forums involved in this event have over 50 million posts and an unmeasurable amount of users should negate any non-staff vote about keeping the article and they have simply come en masse to vote. Only staff should have voted on this. -Xander756, January 28, 2008 3:11 pm.64.30.250.152 (talk)

• I added the signature line for the ip adress that this comment came from, since the user name didn't work. I am assuming they are Xander756 but the Ip adress is the only one I know for sure.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see for yourself at the VfD page that plenty of regularly contributing Wikipedia members found this article worthy of inclusion. I suppose if your objections are terribly strong, you could always nominate it for deletion again later. 209.106.203.252 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, personally I like the page and use it to follow the event myself. I just feel that it should be on wikinews and not wikipedia is all. And thanks for the signature, Coffee. -Xander756, January 28, 2008 7:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.244.69 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a clearer introduction. Rather than stating at the outset how Project Chanology began, it should immediately say what it is. I have no great interest in this subject, and I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but a quick read of the opening couple of paragraphs, as per Wikipedia:Lead section should leave me in do doubt. It should explain what it is. So far it doesn't. Grimhim (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As this is a rapidly evolving subject, the lead will naturally not be stunning or of brilliant quality, but at this point the best way as per WP:LEAD would be to simply summarize the rest of the article. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a rapidy evolving current event and needs a 'current event' tag. Any comments? [user:Sojmed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojmed (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here's a comment. See this edit by Yellowdesk (talk · contribs) -- DIFF "Removed {{Current}}. It is intended for articles edited by many on the same day. See Template:Current#Guidelines.". As well as the WP:AfD for this article. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

removed "official blog" link

chanology.blogspot.com is NOT the official blog of project chanology - there is no official blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thgreatoz (talk • contribs)

4chan /b/

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)

It's been reported on by the mainstream media, which makes it notable enough. --clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hey 4chan, give /i/ a little credit k? /b/rothers unite! Kakama5 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Rules 1 and 2! -Can Not (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Only applicable to (gay) raids. Roman619 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

First we have to fix up the intro, it jumps too quickly into who the group protesting is and not the hows and whys of the Project itself.

The group, Anonymous, should have a section for itself to place all that information.

With a little more structure, we can get that "delete order" removed.

I will post more after I have had some rest!--AveryG (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, a section about who Scientology is would be appropriate as well.--AveryG (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The AfD !votes are almost all keep, we just have to wait for the time to run out on the !vote. BJ^Talk 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Can someone please tell me if this article is about "Project Chanology" or "Anonymous"? I made a few changes to the intro, which were reverted. The page now sounds like it is about Anonymous, not Project Chanology. It also has on direction. The sources are great, but the page simply wanders around. If it is going to be about "Project Chanology", we need to make sure the intro is clear.--AveryG (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's about Project Chanology. And it doesn't wander around, it has a clear organization structure. See the table of contents. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back, please read it to see how it does not violate NPOV standards. I feel the changes I made to the intro give a person who has simply come across the page a better understanding of the Project. Anonymous can be a section in the body of the article.--AveryG (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Please do not insert Original Research into the article. Please read WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What I posted is not original research. it is an attempt to have a NPOV about what Project Chanology is.--AveryG (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a table of contents does not necessarily mean the article reads well; it just means there are at least 4 sections.--AveryG (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not want the page locked due to 3R rule. I would rather discuss any disagreements we have here on the talk page.--AveryG (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your changes violate policy, and broke up a sentence into a sentence fragment:

The group behind the protest, "Anonymous" encouraged other websites to host the video despite the copyright challenges by the legal department of the Church.[citation needed][original research?]

"Anonymous," a group described by The Times as "a disparate collection of hackers and activists."[1]

1. The first sentence above is uncited. It is both unsourced, and a violation of original research. This information is not stated in any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
2. The second sentence was fine in the prior version which you reverted, but is now an unreadable sentence fragment.Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please restore and remove this violation of policy. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, the intro was fine. BJ^Talk 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically the sentence may have been better, but it is not a good introduction to an article about P:C.--AveryG (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD, the intro is a summary of the rest of the article, not a place to post WP:OR, unsourced info. This is a very difficult article to have an intro for, and the intro will just naturally be the most deficient part of the article - as it is a very rapidly changing subject. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And there is the problem. The intro as it is written does faithfully summarize the article, which is so poorly written. You keep claiming that there is OR material in my suggestions, but if you read the intro I suggested above, it is merely a rearrangement of the material already in the intro (without the links).

The only reason it seems to be a difficult article to write an intro for is because there is no structure. If you had an outline, it would help make the article readable. If you had an outline, you could see how the elements work together and give yourself a chance to write an understandable intro.--AveryG (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: We're going in circles now, and this is getting to be unproductive. We do have an outline - see the table of contents, and then within each subsection the information in those subsections is organized chronologically. And your versions are not just rearrangements, we have been over this already in great detail. You want to add whole swathes of tangential portions explaining the history of YouTube and copyright infringement and Scientology and the Internet and Scientology and the legal system in this article, I do not. I think that if that sort of context is present in secondary WP:RS/WP:V articles about Project Chanology, then it could be added. But if not, not. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A table of contents is made automatically by the wiki after a page has 4 sections, not due to the writer making a coherent outline. It does appear that "we" are going in circles, when you repeatedly bring up "swaths" of information that do not exist.

And who has suggested writing the history of YouTube?

One of the biggest problems beginning writers have is that they fall in love with their own words. This wiki is supposed to be a collaborative project, yes? There are also standards, yes? Every page must also make sense as well, yes? Then, may I suggest (again) that we work together to write a page that makes sense and adheres to Wikipedia's standards?

You have one part of that formula (the standards), but without the other two, this isn't much of a wiki, nor is this much of an article.

Maybe if you took a day off from writing the page, you can see what I'm talking about? Watch the page for vandals, etc., but don't post anything yourself. Then after a day, go through the article and make an outline of what exists and see if it still makes sense.--AveryG (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide secondary sources that discuss Project Chanology directly, and also give context in the areas you feel are lacking, that would solve this issue quite simply . Cirt (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Sections Needed

• Scientology's copyright infringement claims history
• YouTube's video pulling history
• history of Scientology's legal department

--AveryG (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Scientology's copyright infringement claims history -- Zero relevant to the history of Project Chanology - they have had no litigation with each other yet.
2. YouTube's video pulling history - Already briefly stated in the article enough to give background on Project Chanology, no more is needed as this occurred prior to formation of Project Chanology.
3. history of Scientology's legal department - See answer to #1. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to #1: Scientology pulled the video much like they "pull" comments off forums and message boards. It was the pulling of the video that started all of this. Also, this shows Scientology's history of censorship. Completely relevant.

Reply to #2: Censorship of internet content is completely relevant to this protest. Remember, this encyclopedia article must explain the background of why YouTube did what it did in succuming to Scientology's copyright claim, just as it did with Viacom, and any other giant media corporation.

Reply to #3: Most churches have legal departments. But no where near the militance of Scientology's. This is not a recent development, nor is it restricted to the one Tom Cruise video. It is what they do. Completely relevant.--AveryG (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• None of these things have any relevance to Project Chanology, specifically. They are all already discussed or should be discussed in other articles. Has the Church of Scientology initiated a lawsuit against anyone related to Project Chanology? No. So we should not discuss their entire history of litigation in this article, just because you feel it is tangentially relevant. It is not. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the entire history, that is where you post the "Please see main Article". But, to exclude it clearly ignores Scientology's history of litigation and violates NPOV.

1. A Scientology video was posted on YouTube
2. Scientology asked YouTube to remove the video.
3. other sites posted it in protest

These actions by Scientology follow a clear pattern of censorship, and P:C was born.--AveryG (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Still not relevant. If you can find secondary sources that discuss Project Chanology in the context of Scientology's history of litigation, us know. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The litigation is not against P:C or ANonymous, but the threat against YouTube, hence the pulling of the video. It is relevant, because it fairly states Scientology's beliefs about their copyrights. It is NPOV; to exclude it is not.--AveryG (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the action is against YouTube, that should go in the YouTube article. If the action is against Project Chanology, it could go here. The WP:ALSO section now has links to both Scientology and the Internet and Scientology and the legal system - you can work on adding more context there if you wish. This article should not get overweighted with tangential content and info that really doesn't have much to do with Project Chanology, save for max 3 sentences of what motivated it to get started. We don't need paragraphs upon paragraphs about all these non-relevant things you mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the quotes culled from the sources appear NPOV. If you choose to include a quote which states that one side in the debate "blocks free speech" then you either have to support that with wikilinks (or another external source) or dump it. A link to another page in a section at the bottom of the page is not sufficient; "paragraphs and paragraphs" of information is not acceptable.

And no one is suggesting that. Maybe the problem with the page is that some portions have too much information and others have next to nothing.

Perhaps an outline would help arrange the many elements needed to properly explain the topic at hand.--AveryG (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is best to stick to what secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources discuss with regards to this topic. If you find sources that discuss Project Chanology that provide some context that is not present in this article, feel free to add it or note the new source here. But digging for old sources in order to explain tangential connections in this case seems inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you exaggerate a bit in your "objective" "analysis" of my suggestions. "Digging"? Seriously? Like I've stated earlier, the quotes you have chosen to include in this article hint at one of the parties involved as "blocking free speech". The quote may be sourced, but without an explanation, it seems out of place because nothing about "blocking free speech" exists anywhere else in the article. It is not mentioned in the introduction. It is not mentioned in another section. Nor are there any other comments regarding the party "accused" of "blocking free speech" replying to this "accusation." Which they have in the past. In fact, that is one of the defining characteristics of this party. To choose to include that quote, with no further explanation violates NPOV.--AveryG (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide more context from a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source that discusses Project Chanology and also give context on the issues you raised, please feel free to do so. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Direction

I feel the page needs better direction. It jumps immediately into who the group Anonymous is and not what Project Chanology is.--AveryG (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• We need to avoid WP:OR and find more info on that in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But, what I was posting was not OR. What I was posting was an introduction to what P:C is. The intro needs to tell someone reading it a basic understanding of all aspects of the conflict. This wiki is supposed to be the place where people go to begin research. The way it is written (after the reverts) does not explain the Project, so much as explain who Anonymous is.

As far as the sources go, they only explain where we got this information. If what I said has no sources, then it is tagged "Citation needed" not OR.--AveryG (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is both unsourced and a violation of WP:OR. What source do you have for this new info you added to the article?? Cirt (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "new" info. P:C initially started in reaction to pulling the video. It has since become something else. I just need to find a SFW & reliable source.--AveryG (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us know when you have found a WP:RS/WP:V source for this. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the intro uncited.

"Project Chanology says it was formed in response to the Church of Scientology's attempts to remove material from an exclusive Scientology interview with Tom Cruise from the internet. "

--AveryG (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps what the intro needs is a reordering of and more concise sentences. The information is there, but it takes a while to get to it. I have rearranged what was posted into what I feel makes the information more readable and appropriate for an introduction (suggested intro between the horizontal lines).

---

"Project Chanology" began as an internet-based protest against the controversial Church of Scientology after a video was removed from the internet video-sharing site, You Tube, that featured, Tom Cruise, one of the Church's more famous members.

The group behind the protest, Anonymous, view Scientology's actions (not YouTube's) as a form of internet censorship and started Project Chanology (also known as Operation Chanology) by posting a video on YouTube in response to and as a counter-protest of Scientology's removal of the Cruise video.

Anonymous' video, "Message to Scientology," was followed by measures intended to disrupt the Church of Scientology's operations, such as DDoS attacks, prank calls and nonviolent protests.

Other 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.

Reactions by the Church of Scientology to the group's actions include moving their domain and statements from spokespeople claiming Anonymous received bad information about the Church and dismissing them as a "pathetic" group of "computer geeks". The Church has also asked law enforcement authorities to investigate the disruption to their business and charges of a hate crime.

Project Chanology also refers to a website of the same name, used by the group to chronicle ongoing and planned actions by "Anonymous."

---

Then each of the subjects mentioned in the introduction, should have a section of its own to give more detail than what should be included in a brief introduction:

• Who Is Anonymous
  • the structure of the group
  • the website
  • using internet technology for their, um, stuff

• Who Is Scientology?
  • brief, but relevant
    • perhaps mention Celebrity Center (since Tom Cruise is in the video)
    • perhaps also include other times they have asked to have their copyrighted material removed from public view (like libraries, or forums and message boards)

• Leaking The Scientology Video
  • what was in the video
  • does Scientology always remove things? Is this the first time they've done this?
  • does YouTube always simply remove videos ?
  • Has YouTube done this before?

• Reaction By Anonymous
  • more about the Message to Scientology video
  • further actions taken

• Reaction by Scientology

• Criticism

• See Also

• References

The idea I have for this suggestion is that we cannot assume anyone knows anything about anything mentioned in the article. Wikipedia has always been where research starts. We do not have to write a complete dissertation on Scientology, but to exclude a brief description is negligent.

What we can do is point people to other Wikipedia articles for expanded information this article merely touches on and to the secondary sources used to back up information included in the article.--AveryG (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with having this introduction in the article?--AveryG (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why we have wikilinks and "See Also" sections. We are not writing a dissertation, we're writing an encyclopedia article. That means that often we have to define and describe things with the assumption that the reader has some background in the applicable subject matter. If they do not, they may click on the relevant links within the article to get the background. To add all of the background you've suggested would make this article less about Project Chanology and more about Scientology and YouTube's respective censorship and takedown policies. While Project Chanology does primarily take issue with those policies and actions, mentioning those policies briefly within the relevant prose of PC's history/background and actions is more than sufficient. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, again agree with LaMenta3 (talk · contribs) here. This is an article about Project Chanology, not the entire history of copyright infringement on YouTube and how the company reacts to it, the legal history of Scientology, what Scientology is, or anything of the sort. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with the page as it is written is that the introduction contains more information than an introduction should include. An introduction should be brief and concise, with the details in the body of the article. Most of what I suggested is not even mentioned in the article or the "See Also" section. I feel the article should include more detail in the body than in the introduction, with wikilinks and a "See Also" section as well. It is written implying that someone would understand the topic at hand with a few hints sprinkled throughout. The section titles I suggested are not set in stone, but merely guideposts to explain the topic of the article more fully than it is now.

As it exists now, there is more detail in the introduction than in the body and information that is excluded from the body makes the article slanted by neglecting those details, which my suggestion would correct.

(reply to Cirt): A mention to insure completeness is not "the entire history of" anything. The slant of the article is glaring without an attempt at inclusion.--AveryG (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(also for Cirt) Project Chanology does not exist in a vacuum. Details explaining more about it is entirely appropriate to an encyclopedia article about it.--AveryG (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead, or "introduction" as you refer to it, is intended to outline the important points from the entire article. From my experience in GA and FA review (which is where I draw my editing standards from), this section is ideally 3-4 paragraphs and does not include any information that is not mentioned or expanded upon later in the article. The latter part is something that does need a little work still, and I've been slowly trying to make sure that everything in the lead is also in the article in some form. The body of the article does go into a good bit more detail about the things for which there are reliable sources about. However, we are constrained by what is covered in those sources as to how much further detail we can go into. That said, there is nothing precluding you from mining the sources relating to the article subject for the background information you seem to crave. Then the background would be more contextual than it would be if you drew in the background from unrelated sources--something that, despite what might seem like an "obvious" connection, constitutes a level of original research, as you would be making connections that have not been established in secondary sources. Normally, this sort of "wiggle room" is okay, but as I have already said, everything with this article has to be completely by the book as far as sourcing, verifiability and original research guidelines go, even to the extent of erring on the side of caution due to the volatile nature of the subject matter. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. The introduction provides more information about each subject than what is included in the body, which you admit needs work. Without an outline (similar to what I've suggested) the content is scattered and does not read well. While I certainly do not have as much experience writing in wikis as you do, I do, however have some experience writing in the real world. The introduction does not clearly state what P:C is before it goes into what Anonymous is. I doubt that is up to Wikipedia standards.--AveryG (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LaMenta3 (talk · contribs)'s last comment, and please see WP:LEAD which backs up everything that was said. And yes, if you find more info in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources about Project Chanology, you can add it to the background section. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Example

Under the "Actions" section, there is a line describing the "Message To Scientology" video:

"The video utilizes a synthesized voice and shows cloud images with a time lapse method, while the speaker addresses the leaders of Scientology directly..."

What I am suggesting by adding more information in order to be complete with that sentence (for example) is to change it to say:

"The video shows time lapsed cloud images as a synthesized voice addresses the leaders of Scientology directly--not the adherents or founder of The Church--..."

The punctuation can be changed of course and the addition might even be parenthetical.

Also, the "Actions" section includes information about Scientology's reaction.

By using my suggestion (maybe I should call it an outline?) that information would be placed in its proper section.

I am not suggesting any of the information be removed, simply organized better.--AveryG (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Actions" section contains the very type of information about Digg which I am suggesting be included about YouTube and Scientology.

Either dump that or include similar background information about YouTube and Scientology.--AveryG (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Everything you have described above as to your suggestions of how to change things in the article is not backed up by any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and would be a WP:OR violation. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find articles, the subject of which is Project Chanology like the article on Digg.com is, and then that could be used to give more background. But we cannot simply say "The video shows time lapsed cloud images as a synthesized voice addresses the leaders of Scientology directly--not the adherents or founder of The Church--..." as you suggest above. Blatant WP:OR violation - not backed up by any sources whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Response I think you use the OR claim too much. Perhaps you mean a citation is needed? I believe there is either a source stating that P:C is going after the RTC, and not the followers or the founder. This came from either partyvan or one of the Anonymous videos and maybe even a press release.--AveryG (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Church of Scientology moved their domain to a more secure location, and then their website was taken down again, occurs in a chronological order within that section. It would make no sense out of sequence in other section. It moves from 1 to 2 to 3. Site gets taken down, site gets moved/protected, site gets taken down again. Pointless to pop out this middle info and move it somewhere else out of context and out of chrono order. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To be chronological in one section, but not in others is inconsistent. Just another example of the poor writing in this article. Maybe that's another reason why the introduction jumps around so much?--AveryG (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Which section is not in chrono order? Cirt (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Criticisms" section, Stephen A. Kent was quoted as saying,:

"The hacker community has been angry at Scientology for (their) attempts to block free speech on the Internet."

What blocks to free speech could Mr. Kent be speaking of? Where are the wikilinks to this? Is Mr. Kent just making these things up? Either we provide support for this assertion, or we remove it as being a violation of NPOV.

This is exactly the type of thing I have been talking about.

This page needs a rewrite.--AveryG (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally, at any rate I doubt the source can be taken as non partisan - The professor writes a lot of books on Scientology..84.9.41.40 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Quote comes from a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source directly discussing the subject of this article, and as such it's fine. Read the actual source itself - the source article doesn't even go into the detail you are referring to. There is a link to Scientology and the Internet in the WP:ALSO section, this should provide the reader with more context. Unless there is more context provided in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources about the subject of this article - digging for other tangential stuff would be OR (Per LaMenta3 (talk · contribs)'s last comment, above). Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about OR, but there is none. Still. Perhaps an outline of the page would help you see how convoluted the writing is? And help arrange the many elements needed to cover the topic at hand.--AveryG (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have an outline. The table of contents covers many different areas of the topic. Several editors even thought the present version of the article was quality enough to consider WP:GA status, see below. Each section is organized chronologically within each subsection. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A table of contents automatically generated by a wiki is not an outline. The suggestion to nominate the article for GA was actually turned down by someone...hmm, I wonder who did that...oh, wait. You did. And I have to agree. The article needs more proofreading and with an outline would read better.--AveryG (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: If you can provide more context/material/text/quotes from a WP:V/WP:RS secondary source that discusses Project Chanology and also give context on the issues you raised, please feel free to do so. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what I'm doing wrong. I am not suggesting the article be posted as part of the article. I am suggesting that in order for us to collaborate on this article, we use an outline (maybe on this page) so that we can reach an agreement on where all the elements would best fit in order for the article to make sense.--AveryG (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links

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)

How is this relevant to improving this article? Cirt (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Project Chanology" on 5 Wikipedias

This is incredible. There is an article on "Project Chanology" in 5 different language Wikipedias. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Predictably including German and French. CounterFX (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And Suomi and Eesti. And German and French are very common languages. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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. CounterFX (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Keep up the Good Work

Wow, this is awesome guys... keep up the good work!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.201.205 (talk • contribs)

Lisa McPherson

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)

• Okay, will do. It's backed up by sources now so I'll add that soon. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lisa McPherson Image

Hey look, a new image! This one's a real keeper, if you ask me. :) --Muna (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Not unless there is RS linking it to the article. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for the image uploader, RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs), to comment here. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"there aren;t going to be any reliable sources." All due respect, but that is silly. All it takes for RS is for a news outlet, hell, even the college paper, to take a picture and, right or wrong, link it to Chanology. For you to do so is OR and you should really just remove the picture and save us all the trouble. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And to top it off: (I'm going to bed soon, I guess I'm stocking up on arguments) from WP:SELFPUB:

• it is relevant to their notability;

  Illustrating that this is not solely an internet phenomenon is an important part of establishing notability.

  • That is an OR interpreation on your part. I apologize for chopping into your comment but this is the best way to make my points. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • All SELFPUB would fail if subjected to this logic.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it is not contentious;

  Other than whether to include the image or not, there is nothing remotely contentious, it's a piece of paper taped to a door.

  • Laff. The paper has something written on it. You do not think Lisa is contentious?!? --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is whether or not the paper is relevant to project chanology. In that respect, there is no contention. The contentiousness of the image content is irrelevant.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it is not unduly self-serving;

  To whom, anonymous? I didn't make it either;

  • Of course it is self-serving to the person that posted it - what so you think "self-serving" refers to? --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it does not involve claims about third parties;

  It doesn't say "Google Lisa McPherson 'X';"

  • Ooooh Kaaay. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

  The only event claimed is Lisa McPherson, who is related to scientology in an article which discusses a coordinated internet attack on scientology;

  • I can argue that Lisa is not directly related to the subject. But I do not have to. As I said, it fails any number of these already. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The case of Lisa McPherson is one of the main motivating factors behind Project Chanology, and featured on much of their propaganda.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

  Like I said, the odds of several hundred anti-scientology fliers appearing during a coordinated internet attack on scientology and the two not being related seems vanishingly small;

  • We have NO idea who authored it. It is paper stuck to a window, fer Xenu's sake. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The chances this is *not* related to project chanology are honestly close to zero. I grant that there is some small chance that this is unrelated to project chanology, but we don't need a mathematical proof to conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.Z00r (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

  No, it is not.

  • Q.E.D. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps validate the image standing. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• Images are an area where primary sources/self-published media is okay, even in contentious issues. The reason why is because we cannot use commercial images (in other words "images from secondary sources") in cases where a free alternative is available. Whether or not this particular flier is related to Project Chanology is rather moot. If it is, great. If it's not, it still illustrates one of the tactics that has been used by Anonymous, which is good enough to serve as a visual for the article. It's like putting a picture of people kissing in an article about love--are the people in the picture actually in love? We don't know, but an image of people kissing illustrates a common expression of love, so it still gets the point across whether the actual kiss had anything to with love or not. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it violates a number of policy points here. My concern is not the image itself but rather the clear policy violation and, to an extent, the degree of rationalizing that goes on about a clear policy violation. The admin that posted it should know better and may want to get a second opinion from some other admins, maybe on WP:AN. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You want to remove something which adds to the article and to Wikipedia just because it violates policy? The only claim the image is making is that the poster was created and placed by the members of the group, so the RS demand seems like a bit of a nitpick given the fact that you can go to the forums where anonymous created the posters. Its not a reliable source but it isnt a bold claim either, the image illustrates the article and shows the kind of thing anonymous does. You could argue consensus over the merit of the image but I think WP:IAR is appropriate here given the difficulty the media have verifying things they do. --AlexCatlin (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey, lookie! You said what I was going to say! I too, agree that this is the sort of thing Ignore All Rules applies to. --Muna (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "given the fact that you can go to the forums where anonymous created the posters." Link please. I am easy to get along with. My main issue is that there is nothing linking that to Chanology. Let's see what you've got. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This is in the thread coordinating SomethingAwfuls contibutions to Project Chanology: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2751120&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=42#post338825430 --AlexCatlin (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You're the only one who wants this image removed - another user has come to me and asked to upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it may be used in other languages' versions of this article. I have made my interpretation of policy and stand by it. If you absolutely need to, you may take it to WP:AN but when you find that other admins fail to see your point do not be surprised. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. My surpriser is duly disconnected. Thanks for the warning. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with the image as a free image available for the Commons. However, it has little to nothing to do with this particular article. While the placard may have chronologically coincided with Project Chanology, there is no evidence that it is related to that subject. The article does not discuss tactics like the display of that sign as part of Project Chanology (and neither do any reliable sources as far as I can find). At the absolute best, it demonstrates that other "anti-Scientologists" may have coordinated their own independent activities with the timing of PC (and even that involves a whole world of assumption). For example, during the WTO protests, a number of independent groups held demonstrations and protests in various cities throughout the United States. Those independent demonstrations were explicitly related to, or based on, the "main" WTO protest. However, if I snapped a picture of my local protest, it would be utterly inappropriate to use it as a photo on WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity since the article does not discuss the (related) local protest phenomena. The image being discussed for this article is a similar case. However, the case for use in this article is even weaker, since it lacks a verifiable connection to the specific subject at hand that the example possesses. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana, while I believe that the image is part of the protests, and have seen stuff on the Project's page that call for actions such as this, that information isn't contained within the article itself. I am forced to WP:SYNTH the article with the image in order to make sence of it. Now if we can find a WP:RS that talks about how the Project is exposing Lisa McPherson as part of its activities, and then put it within the article itself...then we would have a strong case for inclusion of the image. Otherwise it is iffy at best to keep the imageCoffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that if I take a picture of a hat and put it into the Hat article, that's not sufficient? Do I need the New York Times to tell me its a hat before it can be uploaded? What if its not a hat, but a piece of fabric that just happens to look a whole lot like a hat? Firestorm (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Re: Project Chanology and Lisa McPherson

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)

• From a source already in the article, though this part is not yet mentioned in the article:
  • Vamosi, Robert (January 25, 2008). "Anonymous steps up its war with Scientology". CNET News. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

"We find it interesting that you did not mention the other objections in your news reporting. The stifling and punishment of dissent within the totalitarian organization of Scientology. The numerous, alleged human rights violations. Such as the treatment and events that led to the deaths of victims of the cult such as Lisa McPherson. This Cult is Nothing but a psychotically driven pyramid scheme. Why are you, the news media, afraid of discussing these matters? It is your duty to report on these matters. You are failing in your duty."

Lisa McPherson was a member of the Flag Service Organization, a branch of the Church of Scientology, whose death in 1995 remains controversial. Although the Church of Scientology was initially held responsible, felony charges against it were dropped when the medical examiner ruled her death was an accident. A civil suit against the church by McPherson's parents was settled in 2004.

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

That's a little too much conjecture, methinks. The caption text chosen by RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) seems quite fine. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This has nothing to do with people using placards in the PC campaign. McPherson is an incredibly high-profile individual among critics of Scientology and a commonly cited example of questionable (to be polite) practices of Scientologists. This does not demonstrate any relation between PC and the placard-maker other than that they are both part of the broad field of opposition to Scientology. A critique of the perceived cult-like or oppressive aspects of the Latter-Day Saints, specifically mentioning the September Six, by a Southern Baptist counter-cult apologist and a secular humanist columnist demonstrates no relation between them except that they share a critical view of the Mormons. If the secular humanist writes the column at the same time as the minister is kicking up a big fuss about the LDS, it isn't assumed that the columnist is connected to the minister's movement absent positive proof. Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Good point by AveryG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The day of IRL action for Project Chanology is February 10th for a reason. February 10th would be Lisa McPherson's birthday. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had realized that. Just trying to find sources that state that connection... Cirt (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Looking, will add when I find it... Cirt (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

White powder mailings

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)

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)

• I actually think I have seen sources that discussed [a historical context] in discussing these recent events - I will look further to see if I can find which sources made that reference. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comment re my talk page comments getting removed by another user

• Please do not remove my comments relating to Operation Freakout, Operation Snow White, and Paulette Cooper [links to historical references removed due to a complaint from JustaHulk (talk · contribs)] from this talk page. I seem to recall that JustaHulk (talk · contribs) made "off-topic" comments in the very AfD for this article, and when I removed them citing WP:NOT#FORUM, that was deemed inappropriate, and thus so is this action by JustaHulk (talk · contribs) as well. He seems to be applying a wholly different standard when it comes to removing discussion comments from others - and yet he feels that it's fine for him to make off-topic comments about "cyberterrorism", when no secondary source has ever used this term in discussing Project Chanology... Cirt (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to JustaHulk

At the very least, I would like a justification for why you deem it appropriate for you to remove talk page comments from others, and yet apply a different standard to yourself when others remove your off-topic WP:NOT#FORUM comments from an AfD?? Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hypocritical talk page behavior and double standards applied to whose posts can get removed and whose can stay?

1. Here is where I removed JustaHulk (talk · contribs)'s off-topic comment at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Here is where JustaHulk (talk · contribs) added that comment right back, stating in the edit summary: "Feel free to strike your comments but do not try to censor me". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Here is where a third user, Philosophus (talk · contribs), removed JustaHulk (talk · contribs)'s off-topic comment, again, stating in the edit summary: "moving JustaHulk's comment and the responses to the talk page. These are completely irrelevant to the AfD itself. Trying to wikilawyer around linking to copyvios is also not nice.". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Here is where JustaHulk (talk · contribs) reverted and added back his removed off-topic comment, yet again, with the edit summary: "undo attempt to censor facts relevant to this discussion". Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
5. And now in this discussion, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) is being hypocritical and applying a different standard re: removing other users's talk page comments, than that that he wishes to be applied to himself. Cirt (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cirt, you asked for the courtesy of a reply and I gave you one. Do you really want to go ten rounds with me here? --JustaHulk (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will leave it up to your judgment after reading what I have laid out about as to whether you feel that you are applying a double-standard to what is and is not "censoring" other editors' talk page comments. You seem to apply a very liberal standard to your discussion comments, and a very rigid standard to other editors comments. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

How would you feel if every time you used the word "cyberterrorism" someone immediately removed your talk page comments calling it conjecture and POV pushing? Cirt (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You are asking for drama, aren't you? Laff. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

No need. You've made yourself quite clear in your comments above. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. Later, then. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a tip, don't ever edit each others comments, if they are that offensive report them to ANI. BJ^Talk 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, evidently, JustaHulk (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), 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)

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)

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. BJ^Talk 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found what I believe Cirt (talk · contribs) read. It was actually a summery of an article on Diggs that was incredibly deceptive ..."Scientology operation Dust up" you can see how misleading the tag is. He was right, it is a reliable source but it dosn't contain the information that is advertised. Everything out there said the same thing, the FBI is investigating and it was cornstarch and (somthing elce that I forgot). It isn't from Project Chanology because all of their activities are cordinated through known internet sources. And whoever is responsible is in a lot of trouble (they now tampered with the mail and the FBI is investigating because of that).Coffeepusher (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From The Project Chanology PartyVan site. "Anonymous does not condone these forms of action, we are here to unmask the CoS and make aware the public to the atrocities and fraud that they and their other groups commit. Our initial phase was to amass interest in these topics, we are not here to perform hoaxes such as the one above and I am sure I am not the only one that is against these forms of action as they will surely only damage our cause. Once again; Anonymous is not involved in this, we did not plan this nor do we know who did." http://partyvan.info.nyud.net/index.php/Project_Chanology#February_10.2C_2008_Raids http://partyvan.info/index.php?title=Project_Chanology&oldid=13966#To_the_Public_and_Anybody_Investigating_The_Anthrax_Hoax 202.161.71.161 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tail wags dog

I find it interesting that that Digg came soon after the idea that the Church was behind it was floated here. It is exactly this sort of biased and bigoted observer effect that I am concerned about when editors with known POVs make biased and bigoted unsubstantiated accusations on talk pages. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also simply likely that these [links to historical references removed due to complaint from JustaHulk (talk · contribs)] 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)

IMO, that is likely one of the [well-known group of Scientology critics] 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)

Isn't that OR of the same type that you removed from another editor's comments? AndroidCat (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Economist Coverage

I would add this in myself but I don't have time right now. The economist has done an article recently based on Chanology and Scientology available here: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10609174 RevenantPrime (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Already  Done. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. "It is promoting cyberwarfare techniques normally associated with extortionists, spies and terrorists." Huh, that is kinda close to my favorite description of their activities. Very timely. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you check, I was the one who added that quote into the article. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And you argue with me over my talk page use of the term "cyberterrorism"?!? --JustaHulk (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, the term itself has still never been applied to Project Chanology to characterize the group itself. And especially at the time you were using it, I had asked you time and time again to provide a secondary source that discussed Project Chanology in such a fashion, but you did not. So that at the time was your own POV WP:OR assertion. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • • No, it was the correct description of their past activities and future plans based on their own words on their own website. If their website say "Bush is an asshole", I do not need RS to say "they insulted Bush" in my conversation on talk. And your motives in objecting are quite suspect. BTW, where is mention in this article of the Fox11 report on them? --JustaHulk (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
              • This isn't the article on chan users, it is the article on Chanology. The Fox report doesn't apply at all. BJ^Talk 20:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• What do you mean? It is the same group. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking it isn't, the total userbase of all the chans does not undertake the same activities. Fox lumped them all together but facts never get in their way. BJ^Talk 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, so now we are only interested in "reliable sources" if they are "right"? Well, don't tell "another editor" that. Laff. Or are we only interested in them if "you" (or "another editor") think they are "right (damn, I ran out of scare-quotes). --JustaHulk (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Who ever said the news is always right? Just because somebody publishes something doesn't mean we have to use it. I'm sure people have tried to include wrong articles in other CoS articles and use the claim "but is it a RS", that is why when something is disputed we use multiple sources. While some of the Fox video can be backed up with other sources most of the stupid parts can't. The exploding yellow vans section was the only real "terrorism" in the video and while it may be true, he was just a single member and it wasn't part of any wide scale plot (because, you know, making terrorism plots on public web sites is a great idea. BJ^Talk 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • But the Fox video! Prank calling is terrorism! Really! BJ^Talk 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Trust me, if you had done to you what they have done to others, you would sing quite a different tune. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
              • No, I would call it harassment, the proper term for it. 9/11 was terrorism, this is harassment. BJ^Talk 20:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Important to say that the Economist referred to Anonymous as "online activists" despite saying their activities were like those of extortionists etc. Only claiming one point from the article without the other, in my opinion, is not really relaying the contents of the article with regard to WP:NPOV RevenantPrime (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • JustaHulk, you need to realize that this entry is on Chanology, not Anonymous. The two are NOT the same, even if you seem to think they are. Anonymous existed well before Chanology and has been involved in other internet related hoaxes. Chanology is direct response group to Scientology. Whilst there may cross-platform motifs and similarities, the net entity of Anonymous is not Chanology. 66.207.82.177 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To Whoever Keeps Updating the Amount of Times People Viewed the YouTube Videos

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)

Critical response paragraph in introduction

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)

Please see WP:LEAD. The introduction should summarize the article. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Clean Up Talk Page?

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)

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)

"Internet Vigilante Group"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Do we need to make an article about Anonymous just so you can finally get to use your nice Fox report? BJ^Talk 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Anonymous essay

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. BJ^Talk 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. BJ^Talk 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Be Wary, Be Wary, the 10th of February

• Pazienza, Chez (February 1, 2008). "Be Wary, Be Wary, the 10th of February: "A" for Anonymous Wants to Kick Scientology's "S"". The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Retrieved 2008-02-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Thoughts on whether or not this can be used as a source in this article? Cirt (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the article but I can't see any new information contained. BJ^Talk 07:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be moreso for varied perspective in the Reaction section. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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. BJ^Talk 07:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Maybe so, maybe not, but I agree w/ Bjweeks (talk · contribs) re: when/how to include it in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

(outdent) The article explains the protest but doesn't support it like the other article. BJ^Talk 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bunker in article

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)

Agree, support addition of Wise Beard Man. BJ^Talk 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

There's a radio interview of him, which has been archived at [1]. 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)

Ah, good, I'll add that shortly, thank you.. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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: [2], 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)

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)

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)

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)

Current Status

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)

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

Guardian Coverage

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)

•  Done, already been added, thanks though.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well written

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)

Thank you! Cirt (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has certainly come a long way since it was nominated for deletion.  :) Cirt (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Thanks people for all the opinions. I think before a WP:GAC in any event probably in a few weeks I'll put it up for a Peer Review. It's certainly more likely that there will be more WP:RS/WP:V sources to add to the article in the coming days... Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this

This whole thing is being run by the chans and is nothing but them persecuting Scientology for their beliefs.

They even say so on several websites including Encyclopedia Dramatica (a heavy pro chan site). I suggest you get rid of this promptly.

--Thelostcup (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There was already a WP:AfD on this. It is closed. The result was "Keep. Per WP:SNOW." Cirt (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Above user has been indef blocked. BJ^Talk 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shift in Tactics

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 [3]. 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)

We can't add anything until secondary sources report it. BJ^Talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay now it looks better w/ the NBC11 info confirming the info from their website. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone didn't like that last edit in the lead. I put it in the tactics section. Does that look okay? Cid935 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I did not notice. Consider it undone Cid935 (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactions section

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)
  • Sigh, Primary sources can be used when they are being put into an article and are talking about themselves. You don't need secondary sources to say that the PRIMARY SOURCE verifiably and is definitely linking TO Anonymous's protest page. Doing so doesn't violate WP: Verifiability (for all I believe said policy is unduly construed contrary to logic and good sense). 71.7.206.159 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Why is there no article for this group Anonymous? So far, since following a few links in this article, I've seen this group mentioned in quite a few other articles on Wikipedia, and yet, when I search for Anonymous, I get a disambiguation page that leads me to 4chan, and doesn't say much about who this group is. With all the buzz, both by internet users and by mainstream media, I think this group should be notable enough by now to have it's own article. Parramatta High School has it's own article, and seems to me to be far less notable than this group, so I don't see why there isn't one about these guys. 69.14.85.112 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To request a new article, you may wish to see Wikipedia:Requested articles. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)