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)

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)

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)

As much as I agree with you, we really need to avoid Original Research. Also, thanks to everyone who put this article together. Its actually one of the better ones on here 24.181.243.82 (talk) 01:48, 8 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)

Economist <3 Anonymous LamontCranston (talk) 19:27, 7 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)

Yeah that's really cute, but you're not ignorant enough to not realize that the anons here are mostly from 4chan, 7chan, and little minichans scattered everywhere. So you can pin it down, because we're the ones doing it. You cannot pin down the "idea" of anonymous itself, as much as you can say the idea of a crab is that it's a crustacean that likes to walk on the sand and makes great chinese food, or the "idea" behind the word, say, "the". Vael Victus (talk) 00:02, 9 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)

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)

Okay. Open for comments there. I think this issue is bigger than just for this article, as radio interviews might be cited in many other articles as well. It's important that this be solved by community consensus on wikipedia as a whole, I think. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's OK to refer to live TV and radio broadcasts, but having a link to an official transcript is always good to have. The link to the mp3 audio above is called a "convenience link" and is acceptable when hosted anywhere online as long as the site hosting it isn't malicious. The essay Wikipedia:Convenience links argues that the hinging point is that the editor who adds the citation actually heard the radio directly. Of course copyright must be respected, so I recommend that an editor who heard the show adds the citation to the radio show without any internet links. --129.241.151.140 (talk) 04:21, 7 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)

I also think this is an excellent article - well written, balanced, informative. Well done to all concerned. Chump Manbear (talk) 23:19, 6 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)

--Perhaps if the guy bothered to even research what Scientology has done in the past his/her comment on 'persecution' would be more relevant.

Good to see disruptive users like that have been banned. --Opacic (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously! Stated goal of Project Chanology is to destroy the present incarnation of the (corrupt and unrelated to beliefs) church of scientology, the whole point is that people are free to believe what they want and they shouldn't have to pay with a year's wages or their LIVES to an institution for that priviledge.Dragonnas (talk) 03:03, 11 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)

Response

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If all you anonymous IPs want this article to have any chance of getting its quality status upgraded any higher, then it is best to stick to secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always been of the tack that if making it up the "featured" ladder means being a less than accurate encyclopedia, then the price is too high. I know you're very much on the secondary source bandwagon, but Wikipedia's own verifiability policy states that primary sources are acceptable -when discussing the primary source in question-. The proscription AGAINST primary sources is only a general one. In obvious, common sense cases (such as when discussing a primarily web-based initiative, such as Operation Clambake's own site), it is reasonable to infer thus. Additionally, this being a web-based phenomena in its primacy MEANS that there will NOT be as much standard secondary coverage as people would expect, which EXPLICITLY states the minutiae of who is allied with whom, and which feuds have popped up. The fact that all of this information is one self-evident click away, means that secondary sources (unless some of them are reading this page and see this request), are unlikely to discuss the matter at hand in direct detail. If you're saying that no amount of reasoning or referral to the exceptions to the prohibition of primary sources, will sway you, that's fine. I stepped away from WP for a good reason a while back and have little sway (as you mentioned, I'm only an anonymous IP at a public terminal, ergo anything I have to say is innately inferior to what people editing from fixed accounts have to say), but it doesn't change the fact that a great many featured and good articles recite primary sources for -informational- purposes, even when those sources are stating non-controversial and self evident things. Again, this (talking ABOUT the web pages in question) is exactly what the exception to exclusion of Primary Sources is all about. But hey, if getting this to featured article status is more important than truth (easily verifiable, non-objectionable, observeable truth at that), then good for you! You win one encyclopedia full of beaurocratic holdups and insane crimes against logic itself. Also, a verifiability policy which seems to have, at root, "until somebody else says it, it's not true, even if we have video". 142.12.15.81 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say anything of the sort about anonymous IPs, just that a whole bunch of anonymous IPs have been saying the same thing on this talk page, over and over. And for your information, there are plenty of secondary sources that are covering this issue, and will most likely be plenty more. If it is not me challenging every primary source put into this article save for press releases, it will most likely be someone else who will come along anyway. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we where talking about using primary sources like the Alcoholics Anonymous literature on their page, I would agree with User:142.12.15.81, however in this article, the primary sources have been unstable and unreliable. Anonymous has no central office, no real guiding principals, no real central voice. It only pragmaticly exists in what secondary sources view as actions comming from Project Chanology. I will refur to the responces on youtube to the Fox video...all of them are primary sources...they all contridict each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I was referring to above was using the fact that Operation Clambake now links to an Anonymous site as evidence that Operation Clambake has no longer forsworn their actions, not using Chanology itself as a citation. Using a primary source AS a source ABOUT ITSELF. Obviously all comments -about- said primary source are not subject to the exception Wikipedia provides for primary sources, Coffeepusher. 71.7.206.159 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Same anonymous IP as above.)

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)

I'm working on an article on Anonymous offline at the moment. Sourcing is proving problemmatic. I'll get it as far along as I can then post.--Mcr hxc (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The inherent structure (or more precisely, lack of structure) to the group precludes any sort of cohesive article to me. The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps a collection of notable events attributed to and/or surrounded those who claim to be Anonymous. I'm interested in seeing what you have Mcr hxc. Anon is certainly very notable, but as you said, sourcing a group of anonymous posters seems rather difficult.--Mike (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

source wikichan and 2ch.us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.209.188 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least an article specifically about Anonymous could cover the formation and history (assuming it lasts long enough to make some) and separate that information from activities by Project Chanology. It could also be used as a clearing house for specifics about communications to/from the group (like that YouTube video from "FaithWarriorLA" . A comparison to other viral communications and events (like smart mobs) might be appropriate too. DJSparky (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New Mark Bunker interview

http://www.xenutv.com/radio/CBC-excerpt-020708.mp3

Good listen, might have some new info. BJ^Talk 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Found a longer version that has an interview of somebody representing Anonymous. http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080207_4645.mp3 BJ^Talk 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I finished listening to the full interview, the Anonymous members being interviewed give a good description of who, what and why of Anonymous and the protest of Scientology. Mark Bunker also gave a good description of how Scientology is attempting to demonize Anonymous as shown by the actions of our very own JustaHulk on Wikipedia. BJ^Talk 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology responds

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/07/Southpinellas/Church_of_Scientology.shtml Cirt, if you want to summarize it. BJ^Talk 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, will do.  :) Cirt (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership

I think Project Chanology is great and I like what you guys are doing. However I think we need to recognize that this article is being edited by a lot of anonymous editors, if you understand my meaning. That means that people are interested in using this article to advance controversies about Scientology whether it serves the article subject or not.

With this in mind I am proposing, for now, the removal of articles in the "See also" section that would be better placed in the article itself, especially Lisa McPherson and Operation Snow White. These links serve no purpose except to increase public awareness of Scientology controversies. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or to broadcast negative information about a particular group, even -- as I believe is the case here -- when they deserve it. Instead, we could use section headers to break up the now overlong and difficult to navigate "History" section to put emphasis on the controversies that motivated Anonymous to begin their war on Scientology.

Does this seem like a fair compromise?

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree(d) with the removal of the see also links, they are not related subjects and already appropriately linked in the article. BJ^Talk 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply (edit conflict):

1. Actually, the article is semi-protected and to the best of my knowledge there are very few if any at all members of "Anonymous" editing it. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A few Anons have accounts that I can tell but most seem to have stop editing the article due to being instantly reverted. BJ^Talk 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It's standard practice not to have things in "See also" if they are already mentioned/wikilinked in the article's text, so I'll go ahead and remove those anyway. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
2. The overall history of the "Anonymous" group itself is way too tangential to discuss in this article - unless other secondary sources have used it to provide context to this topic, which is "Project Chanology", and not the history of "Anonymous". However, please see above subsection - Mcr hxc (talk · contribs) has stated that he is preparing an article called Anonymous (community), which will go into more depth on "Anonymous" the group - and not just Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
3. As for splitting up any particular subsection, what type of organization did you have in mind? Can you name some particular ideas for titles of sub-subsections? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree/with reservations personaly I don't think that Operation Snow White, Lisa McPherson, or Fair Game belong for the reasons already stated. However I do think the rest should stay because they arn't referenced directly in the article, however in linking to them it gives the reader a greater understanding of the situation. Aditionaly those articles arn't spacificly critical of the CoS (funny side note, I just found out that the Church of Satan uses the exact same abbreviation, see Talk:Satanism). that is what a See also section is supposed to do in my opinion. Now I do understand we will have to be watchfull if we keep the section, but enough responsible editors are monitoring this page I don't think that will be a problem.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Coffeepusher (talk · contribs). I removed those 3 mentioned entries, I think at this point the See also section looks good. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the See Also section is fine in that state. I'll go ahead and make some section edits to give you an idea of what I was talking about re: the history section, and well go from there. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Just breaking it up further into smaller subsections? Because I would tend to wait until after February 10, 2008... Cirt (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages I think it's a better use of time to simply update the page rather than spend the same amount of effort explaining what I had in mind. ;-) The worst thing that could happen is we revert it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

Do you think that this article has enough information to go to a review for Good Article Status, or does it have too many problems with WP:NPOV. I'll go to the Insurgency wiki and post a notice to keep to NPOV there later (I don't think the school filtering software will let me through here) Lyoko is Cool (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_1#Quality_Assessment. Most likely won't be a good idea to go for WP:GAC now, at least, not for a while. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More News Sources - including NEWSWEEK

I have been very interested in following this recent news story. I have no experience of wikipedia, but i would like to be able to contribute. I think my inexperience suits leaving suggestions on the talk page though :)

I realize wikipedia - and from reading this discussion. Secondary Sources are very important. I just checked google news and i think there are some new ones that have not been noticed yet. Including Newsweek

Sorry if they have been seen and discounted. I have included some interesting quotes from the secondary sources that i have provided links for

• a follow up St. Petersburg times article [4]

And church officials are taking it very seriously.

"We are dealing with a worldwide threat," said Pat Harney, spokeswoman for the church in Clearwater. "This is not a light matter."

The church has hired 10 off-duty police officers for security Sunday at a cost of $4,500. City officials are on notice, too, prepared to deal with any vandalism or violence that erupts from the protest.

The big question, however, is whether the Internet furor will translate into actual protesters.

(and)

"There were always people protesting Scientology," said Joshua Nussbaum, 19, an organizer of the Clearwater rally. "But the Tom Cruise video being leaked and then subsequently being pulled off for a copyright violation within 24 hours, that made a lot of people angry."

Nussbaum said he expects between 50 and 100 to gather with him in downtown Clearwater on Sunday.

(and)

They estimate almost 4,000 people will be involved in protests around the world.

The event is particularly well-timed, organizers say, because it is the birthday of Lisa McPherson, a 36-year-old Scientologist who died in 1995 while in the care of church staffers.

• I dont think this source has been mentioned (computerworld)

[5]

• some useful parts from NEWSWEEK [6]

.. note: much of what i quote is from page 2

Going forward, Anonymous hopes to deconvert members and "infiltrate" the group by joining and posing as sincere Scientologists. And on Feb. 10, Anonymous--which one member estimates to comprise 9,000 people--plans protests at Scientology sites worldwide and has won some approval from former church members. A previous Anonymous protest in Orlando, Fla., drew around 150 people.

Mark Bunker, a prominent critic of the church whose Web site claims to get a million hits a month, says he is delighted to see a large group of young activists galvanized to take on Scientology. But in a popular YouTube video of his own, he cautioned Anonymous against vandalism or any other illegal displays of disaffection. "I know the way Scientology works: they're going to get these people in trouble," he tells NEWSWEEK. "I'm very concerned about their safety, and I'm concerned about the Scientologists' safety, too." Last week a suspicious white powder was mailed to several church locations in Southern California, and the FBI is investigating whether the mailings are connected to previous hacking. On its Web site and in the local press, Anonymous has denied sending the powder. Bunker, unaffiliated with the group himself, says he has received nearly 6,000 e-mails, largely supportive, from people claiming to belong to Anonymous.

The Anonymous spokeswoman says the group plans to start a lobbying campaign to have the church stripped of its 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, which was reinstated in 1993. (In 1967, tax authorities revoked its tax-exemption status on the grounds that the organization's auditing scheme operated as Hubbard's personal for-profit venture, and in 1984 the U.S. Tax Court found the organization guilty of "manufacturing and falsifying records to present to the IRS, burglarizing IRS offices and stealing government documents, and subverting government processes for unlawful purposes.")

• hope these are of use. i will continue to invesigate this further, hopefully i can be of help here

Arabik (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Okay, will take a look into these soon, a couple are already in the article, but Newsweek is not yet. Will add it later. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Braiker, Brian (February 8, 2008). "The Passion of 'Anonymous': A shadowy, loose-knit consortium of activists and hackers called 'Anonymous' is just the latest thorn in Scientology's side". Newsweek. Newsweek, Inc. pp. Technology: Newsweek Web Exclusive. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

All the other sources mentioned above are already used in the article, but I'll add this one later. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks . i noticed before from reading this page that mention had ben made to the fox news hackers story. newsweek mention this and the response "last July they issued this message to Fox News, in which a masked speaker with a disguised voice claims "we are the face of chaos ... we ruin the lives of others simply because we can." Some Anonymous members assert the clip was a satirical response to a news report on the group."

)

Arabik (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks like something that could be useful in an upcoming article someone else is working on called Anonymous (community), but will be looked into. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a good idea. perhaps the chanology article should have a "Media Response" section. i find the way the media have covered this and how their coverage has changed over time is interesting

Arabik (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it'd be best if something like that were solely composed of editorials and opinion pieces, not just a section about media articles about the incidents - that's not really that encyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ok -- there is also this -- broadcast on australian tv [7]

Arabik (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Miscavige vs Psychiatry Video

The LA Times credits "discovery" (As in discovery by the media) to Glosslip.com which credits Anonymous with pointing out the video (See coment #75 by the author of the Article). Not sure whether that qualifies as being worthy of inclusion, but it does appear Anonymous is responsible for the media attention being received by the video, and, by proxy, the ensuing denial of support currently proclaimed by those cited by Miscavige in the video. Delta1212 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of tangential, but I'll look into it. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous interviews

There are few cited interviews with Anonymous, which would be understandable as Anonymous shuns any interview which requires they reveal their identity. However, there are now a few examples of Anons stepping forward and giving interviews under cloaked conditions. Aside from the Keven and Bean Show example I provided before, which was the first Anonymous interview, there is now an interview for Spin 1038, which can be heard here. Also, there is an interview with an Anon from Michigan on Today Tonight, viewable here. Finally, while this does not contain an interview with Anonymous, this CBC open letter to Anonymous invites an Anon to a debate with a Scientologist provided the representative reveals their identity. As can be seen in the comments section, Anonymous is harshly critical of this suggestion.--Cast (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Already added Today Tonight, not sure if it's best to use YouTube for WP:V for the other one. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you needn't link to youtube. You just need to provide the citation information. We know the audio was aired, when, and under what title.--Cast (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, will do. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, this seems to be the Spin 103.8 show information. The Spin with Clare McKenna and Jonathan McCrea, Feb 7th 1:50pm.--Cast (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but about the CBC open letter to Anonymous. Apparently I failed to notice that this is dated information. Two anons already came forward for a dual interview. Mark Bunker also made an appearance. However, a debate failed to take place as Scientology declined to send a representative. The audio is available here.--Cast (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External link question

Hi. The external link Archive of the original 4chan thread that started Project Chanology has a bit of a wrong title. It should say "Archive of one of the first 4chan threads that started Project Chanology". See post number 51056394: "THE LAST THREAD GOT LOCKED SO WILL THIS", meaning that there were recently another Scientology raid thread. --91.149.20.152 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, Adjusted it to "Archive of 4chan thread discussing initial plans for Project Chanology". Cirt (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

The opening paragraphs have absolutely no references, is this on purpose? There is quotes from different individuals but no references to the quotes. Besides that, there is many points which could use references as well. Chopper Dave (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:LEAD. The Lead/Intro is supposed to be a summary of the article, and so things that are sourced later in the article do not require duplicate sourcing in the intro. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Has there been enough news coverage that Anonymous qualifies as notable enough for its own article? Detonate (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia IRL Protest Pictures

Hopefully someone can work these into the article

Sydney: http://img.waffleimages.com/58c361e00945f38bc5ee59ee080bd0e090f8d155/1202605105048.jpg http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3360/sydney2eu8.jpg http://img.waffleimages.com/bce9dec3d11a1fc00eb131abdb2d7aaf78c21ec4/1202605142399.jpg

Melbourne: http://img.waffleimages.com/7600261d076814458276f4122ad511fd75358eb9/fd.jpg http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/234/melb1rg8.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Z00r (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All pictures used should be from Wikimedia Commons

All pictures used should be from Wikimedia Commons. There will be plenty to be found there from cities all over the world before the end of February 10, 2008. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point.Z00r (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake Violence Reports

Scientologists have alredy started making up fake reports of violence at the protests. Example: http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/breaking-syd-scientologist-protest-turns-violent There they have used pictures from a may 2005 protest of Haliburton[8]. People on the ground confirm, there are about 200 people there and no violence.

Be wary of additions along these lines appearing in the article without credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Indymedia is not an acceptable source, though these false reports were stated in News.com.au, and will be incorporated later. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Real World Protests - Sources

• "About 150 people gathered at the Church of Scientology building in the Sydney CBD this morning" News.Com.Au 202.161.71.161 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
• "About 150 people in masks gathered in [Adelade]News.Com.Au Adelaide story 202.161.71.161 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) "A network of peaceful demonstrations against the church has been planned in 14 countries and dozens of churches." ... "Organized online and completely nonhierarchical, the amalgamation of Anonymous is the direct result of a very public gaffe by the very private organization." ... "The most visible product of Cruise's suddenly public proclamations, though, appears to be a backlash against an intensely secretive organization that has been accused of harassment of its critics and members who choose to leave it. And the most tangible manifestation of that backlash is Anonymous." The Toronto Star - quite a good source, and good article 202.161.71.161 (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to news report on real world protests: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23189467-5014239,00.html --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 10th, wait

This isn't Wikinews and there is no need to have a sentence on every major city. Once the day is over and the press finishes coming in the section should have a overview of the worldwide scale and any major incidents that happened. BJ^Talk 05:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with you fully, unless the article is full protected, users will continue to add info to it and keep updating it. So if/when they do, I'll do my best to format that stuff, if I'm around. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, however, the bit about Sydney might should be removed as it currently sounds like "This is it, the only thing which happened". Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just add more soon on the other stuff worldwide, gimme a teensy bit of time... Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reaction" section is horribly POV

The "Reaction" section contains five paragraphs, each giving negative reactions; that's 5-0, which is definitely unbalanced. Someone dig up positive testimonials and add them. It reads more like a "Criticism" section than a "Reaction" section. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

More Reaction - A media release from the Church of Scientology said Anonymous' actions are simply acts of religious bigotry and ploys to gain attention and that Anonymous' guiding materials are the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. [Anonymous Clearwater Protest Organizer] Nussbaum said he was offended by the church's comments about his group's guiding materials. "I don't know where they got that from, but I don't think that's true considering that I am a capitalist and a Jew," he said. tbo.com 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) .. & full response sptimes.com 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

The Church of Scientology's response is covered in its own subsection. Any other "reaction" should be sourced from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Masks

References to the use Guy Fawkes masks in protests should be noted. The mask comes from the V for Vendetta movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anila.Oh (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

outside of personal conclusions I have come up with about their appearance and symbolism, I havn't seen anything in secondary sources other than the fact that some people chose to use them. for that matter some people wore bags, filters, afro wigs as well. what exactly did you want to referance?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix was advised not to wear masks but one guy still had one. BJ^Talk 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of the Guy Fawkes masks has little to do with its use in V for Vendetta, but rather as a reference to one of their own memes, EFG (Epic Fail Guy). EFG may have been influenced in turn by V for Vendetta, but I am not sure. scetoaux (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone didn't take EFG 101. EFG started wearing a Guy Fawkes mask after seeing V for Vendetta and declaring himself a crusader against fail. Which, conveniently, he failed at miserably. Also The Scotsman acknowledges them as Guy Fawkes masks here: [9]. --Mcr hxc (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it began after V for Vandetta and they are indeed Guy Fawkes masks, it's just the new people who were not there when the movie first came out that refer to them as "EFG Masks" and such. Weedbag (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Oops forgot my tildes

Pictures

I attended the local protest in Phoenix and I have over 700 (9000?) pictures, I may get around to uploading them all at some point but for the time being if you have any requests for the type of pictures you need I'll try to find one. BJ^Talk 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Protests (February 10, 2008)

Was there any coverage by reliable sources of the other 2/10/08 protests? So far the article only mentions the one in Sydney, whereas by Anonymous accounts it's clear that there were more in other places. scetoaux (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here is one for Phoenix and 3 local news stations covered it. I'm recording all the news to provide transcripts it needed. BJ^Talk 00:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick search on news.yahoo.com and found a whole bunch of them. Here are a few: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210abrk-anonymous0210.html http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI76265/ http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_021008WAB_scientology_protest_SW.accc9b6e.html?npc http://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=1753& --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was one in Toronto, Canada - Cybergoth (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

http://baynews9.com/content/36/2008/2/10/323923.html and http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/08/Northpinellas/New_foe_emerges_again.shtml William Ortiz (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen pictures floating around of large protests in London, Dublin, Munich, New York, Washington DC, Clearwater FL, Chicago, Dallas, LA, San Francisco, and smaller ones in many other cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.243.37 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

February 10th

There were protests in waaay more places than are listed here, and in greater numbers. Does anybody feel like getting sources for them? -- Cheeesemonger (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)