Jump to content

Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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. BJTalk 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)

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)
More has come out of this video, as Miscaviage claims corporate links, which are denied by the corporations. I think LAtimes had the story. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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. BJTalk 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the pictures I uploaded so far. BJTalk 07:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Next Protest will be held on March 15th 2008.

"The next event of our campaign is scheduled for March 15. This is the Saturday directly following March 13, a day known to Scientologists as the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard."


This is a quote from Anonymous' newest press release. Full text can be found here: http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?p=27999

AnonymousInTheSouth (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we shall see if this gets mentioned in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15217323/detail.html adding it to the article. BJTalk 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreed. Do rules one and two exist anymore? this is not wikipedia news, get it off of the internet. Mike (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same think as Mike above did. Has Anon actually decided that rules one and two of the internet don't pertain to this subject? Is it because they're actually serious about what they're doing now, because it's not just a prank call or Battletoads flood? Even so, this needs to be seen and heard. --NapalmRiot (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Isn't it amazing in light of the events that have transpired that this article was actually up for deletion?

The wiki editing/dispute process was definitely a success in this case. I believe this can be a featured article with some trimming. Ason Abdullah (talk) 04:42, 12 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)
  • 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. BJTalk 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. BJTalk 20:35, 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

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" [1]. A comparison to other viral communications and events (like smart mobs) might be appropriate too. DJSparky (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous may not want its name or information posted on wikipedia. If wiki does make a page expect a sharp reaction from anonymous. Wikipedia does not want to be in our cross hairs again. Encyclopedia Dramatica is the only wiki given the green light to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.129.88 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no rules that I know of from anonymous saying they dont want information about them on wikis, Im sure they would welcome it. Even if they didn't, a site that can handle the Muslim outrage over the Denmark cartoons and Muhammad pictures can handle a dubiously irritated anonymous.--172.189.102.34 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Even should Anonymous decide they don't want information on Wikipedia, there are ways they can request information not to be posted. --clpo13(talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So your saying Anonymous would do the same thing to wikipedia that Scientology tries with others? Interesting. I'm for doing an anonymous page if only to show the past of the group to give a better context. --Archeus (talk) 07:02, 12 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)

I was hoping to focus on sources so we could narrow stuff down by country, since there were protests in 14 countries. Ie - over 500 protestors in Australia, etc. However finding sources is still problematic so far. Melb 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll update soon w/ more secondary sources, 20 or so... Cirt (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
50 protestors in The Netherlands source in dutch and 20-30 in Belgium source in french 121.44.227.79 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada - dozens in montreal + 150 in Toronto. CTV + 270 in Vancouver blog source? = 450 plus?121.44.227.79 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

+10 Ottawa canoe.ca
I don't know how to do a strikethrough, but here is a report from Montreal for 50 people - more accurate than 'dozens'. canada.com So by these reports, could we put in that there were approximately 500 anonymous at protests across Canada? Or would that be considered OR because that is a compilation of data from various sources? 121.44.227.79 (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Everybody is really abusing WP:OR over this topic. If you went to count yourself it would be OR but researching secondary sources is allowed. BJTalk 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
THanks for the clarification BJ. This is the only source I have found for the protest turnout in LA (300). Does that seem like a suitable source? 121.44.227.79 (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With February 10th over, can we please update it about worldwide protests (in chronological order, lets not be wikinews). And mention March 15th? LamontCranston (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order seems quite messy, when considering countries like Canada and USA. I think it would be better to organize alphabetically by country. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added that to the french wikipedia, so ... the names are in french. Feel free to translate and add

(I guess some cities are missing in the list) -- by somebody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.13.192 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Boston MA 50, Clearwater FL 200, boston.com 121.44.227.79 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Across 14 countries and 50 cities protesters gathered yesterday in a concentrated effort to challenge the public perception of the international Church of Scientology neoseeker.com 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a source for the London protest if someone wants to add it [1], dont have time right now --Kip Kip 22:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Feb. 10 Protest Sites

Is this section really needed? Is anyone reading the article really needing to know that 15 people protested in Boulder, Colorado? I think if we can get sources for the largest of protests (Clearwater, London, Toronto, New York, DC, Orlando, Atlanta and Sydney?) and mention the fact that protests occured in over 50 cities in 14 different countries that might be a better "summary" than a table. Furthermore, some of the numbers are off (based on pictures and reports from chanology wiki), and way too many don't have sources - and likely will never have reliable secondary sources. I have tried to get protest numbers for different countries, but even a list of 14 countries and the number of protestors probably isn't that valuable. It would be good if someone gets a reliable source estimating the global turnout though. I don't have youtube, so I haven't checked any video sources. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it did receive a bit of media attention and is, as far as I have been able to tell, the largest (if not only) global protest organized entirly online. That might make it worth having its own article focusing on that aspect of it. Then again, how much more is there to say than what could be covered here? Delta1212 (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it should stay in this article. If the table can be sourced will only be found out in time. BJTalk 06:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This section does not belong in this article

What if there are more massive protests? Will we have a table for every single protest the group has? No, this type of table is not encyclopedic and is something that perhaps is more appropriate for another project, like Wikinews, but not here. Cirt (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against it remaining in the article, given the extensive coverage of the event. I find the collapsed table to be a fair compromise against the argument that it occupies too much space – the same thing could be done for future protests. Ayla (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to get a reliable estimate on globabl turnout, but I haven't seen any figures for this. It seems like the best way to get an estimate, then, would be by compiling numbers at individual protest sites. Wouldn't a table like the one removed be the best way to accumulate such data? Or is there a better way? If not, I think the table should be readded, even if only temporarily to gather citations. And, as Ayla said, the default collapsed table is a good comprimise. Dar-Ape 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You can find the table with the protest statistics here. Many of them were blatantly unsourced violations of WP:OR. The table itself doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article, though I am leaning almost towards ambivalence because it is unobtrusive with the collapse function. It would just be a bitch to keep it sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, without people constantly adding blatant WP:OR violations. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll trim down the table to keep only the figures which are reliably sourced. The other entries can always be re-added if a reliable source is found, and removed on sight if re-added without a source. Would you recommend converting the external links to references? Ayla (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing your reply in the section below, I guess the answer is yes. I'm working on it. Ayla (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section converted to transcludable template

See template, Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008. This way, all the numbers can be adequately referenced, but all that code will not make the article cumbersome. Please work on it there, and please do not add it back into the article (as a transclusion) until all entries are adequately sourced to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

When it is ready, it can be added back by inserting this code into the proper location: {{Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008}} Cirt (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, do not add this back until all blatant WP:OR violations have been removed. Please edit it at {{Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008}} Cirt (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought about it, and would have agreed with you, except for one problem: it splits the references over two pages. If you're intending to work on a narrative, I figured you could reuse the sources given in the table. Ayla (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the table of protest sites and would like a reasoned explanation as to why you are removing it beyond the generic "unencyclopedic" comment. Are you removing it becuse of the content, or the format, the fact that much of it is not cited, or something else?

  • With respect to content: A summary of the number of protesters at each city adds greatly to the article and allows the reader to see at a glance what was happening where. That is one of the biggest questions any reader will ask when reading this article, and only listing a few cities is really disingenuous as this happened everywhere. Such a listing of all sites is done in paragraph form in other protest wikipedia pages such as February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest.
  • With respect to format: since there were over 100 protest sites, if they were written in paragraph form the article would quickly become an unreadable mess.
  • With respect to citations:
    • First, about 1/3 of the cities were already cited, and you have removed those. You also removed reliable sources from cities that were kept, such as the Cleveland Leader (A branch of The Plain Dealer) which said that London had 500-1000 protesters.
    • Second, the section was in a state of being improved - people were "filling in the blank", as is consistent with the de facto way that wikipedia pages tend to evolve over time. I would like to point out that before the table was created, there were only a few sources on protest numbers, but in a few hours after creating the table that number shot up dramatically (though I had a lot to do with that, it spurred several other editors to add secondary sources). In another few weeks, if sources haven't been found, then yes, remove those uncited cities, but until then leave it.
    • Third, while the subject is controvertial, the number of protesters at a particular site is not. Thus more time should be given to sourcing this section.Z00r (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. To Z00r (talk · contribs) -- Your points are all valid, but please address them at {{Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008}}. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. To Ayla (talk · contribs) -- If the exact same "refnames" are used in the formatting of the citations, they will also all appear in this article as well. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Z00r: I'm still working on it; all cities which have valid references will be added back. I will give my rationale for references which I removed – if you disagree, you could re-add the reference. Give me an hour more. Ayla (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good.Z00r (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Cirt: You were right about preserving ref names across pages. Just tried it for "ShermanFeb11". Learnt something new today :-) Ayla (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Germans, in their usual tight-arsedness, have deleted the corresponding article from their Wikipedia. Please remove the German interwiki link. --128.231.88.4 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ayla (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested News Reference

BBC Protest One of the few news items about the London Protest I could find. Didn't notice it mentioned in the article. ElitePro (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Already present; refer to the Summary of February 10 Protest Sites section, click "Show" on the collapsible table, and check the third link next to the London entry. Ayla (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Now at the bottom of the Protests section. Ayla (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

4Chan

Why is there no mention of the website 4chan? This website and its visitors were incredibly vital in Project Chanology's rise to prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.216.178 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; however, I think it would be best mentioned in the proposed-but-as-yet-unstable Anonymous (group) article. Ayla (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's important to use verifiable sources and mainstream media seems largely oblivious to 4chan, Something Awful et al. --causa sui talk 17:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, the formation of Anonymous should be left to its own article, that is if it doesn't get deleted. BJTalk 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's because while 4chan created "anon culture", it doesn't mean that 4chan as a whole was responsible for Project Chanology. Other chan boards are involved too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.43.78 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Section removed, but sources not saved

Cirt removed a section about the protests, but there were around fifty good source links he didn't save and those news links should be harvested and put into the article where appropriate as this type of article needs all the news links it can. Here's the last revision before it was removed (here). The section was "Summary of February 10 Protest Sites" and the sources were all about the Feb 10 protests. I think they should be put into the article, not necessarily about adding content, but just to reference the protest. William Ortiz (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

I will do that, sorry, I have been meaning to expand this article w/ the 50 or so good WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that have covered the protests. I've been busy w/ IRL personal issues, but will get to it soon. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous article nominated for deletion

The Anonymous (group) article has been nominated for deletion. Anyone interested in participating in the discussion may do so by contributing to the article's deletion debate page. For new editors: Kindly note that sock puppetry (i.e. a single editor creating several accounts, or using several IPs, to deceptively give the impression of multiple users) and meat puppetry (i.e. the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of influencing a debate) are not tolerated, and that the debate is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 17:53, 12 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. BJTalk 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)

Note: All above sources have been added to the Feb 10 protests template, except for the last one, which was written before the protests were held. Ayla (talk) 12:07, 13 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)

Please get some news web links. Wikipedia is too picky to allow unsourced stuff from 711chan.org to be used as reference. William Ortiz (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not many links as CoS requested that news outlets don't mention it, at least the American ones.
Some numbers:
300 in Sydney, Australia
200 in Melbourne, Australia
70 in Adelaide, Australia
40 in Brisbane, Australia
5 in New Zealand
300 in London, UK
100 in Birmingham, UK
10 in Plymouth, UK
70 in Manchester, UK
50 in Amsterdam, Holland
24 in Copenhagen, Denmark
30-50 in Gothenburg, Sweden
200 in Clearwater, Florida
200 in New York City, New York
80 in Colombus, Ohio
75 in Cincinnati, Ohio
15 in Cleveland, Ohio
150-200 in Portland, Oregon
200 in Toronto, Canada
5 in Brunswick, Maine
50 in Buffalo, New York
25-30 in Indianapolis, Indiana
100 in Detroit, Michigan
160 in Austin, Texas
100-150 in Houston, Texas
90 in Denver, Colorado
270 in Boston, Massachusetts
500-700 in Los Angeles, California
100 in Minneapolis, Minnesota
200 in Seattle, Washington
115 in Dallas, Texas
30-40 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
40-50 in Tucson, Arizona
40 in Edmonton, Canada
150-200 in Atlanta, Georgia
200-300 in San Francisco, California
100 in Sacramento, California
25 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
45 in Nashville, Tennessee
80 in Montreal, Canada
65-70 in Kansas City, Missouri
25 in Wichita, Kansas
135 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
200 in Orlando, Florida
60 in Phoenix, Arizona
100-110 in Miami, Florida
250 in Washington, D.C.
65-150 in Chicago, Illinois
30 in Champaign, Illinois
40 in San Diego, CA
25 in Memphis, Tennessee
140-200 in Vancouver, Canada
50 in St. Louis, Missouri
35 in New Haven, Connecticut
50 in Charlotte, North Carolina
40 in Louisville, Kentucky
35 in Richmond, Virginia
70 in Salt Lake City, Utah
10-15 in Ontario, Canada
10-15 in Rochester, New York
40 in Albany, New York
20 in New Orleans, Louisiana
15 in Reno, Nevada
12-15 in Boulder, Colorado
30 in Halifax, Canada
8 in San Antonio, Texas
20 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
10 in Honolulu, Hawaii
15 in West Palm Beach, Florida
1 in Tokyo, Japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.158.106 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Australia Numbers are WRONG.
Sydney 250
Melbourne 200
Brisbane 70
Adelaide 120
Perth 150
Canberra 5 - 60.241.95.42 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
An average of the reports I'm getting say about 6500 worldwide.
A small picture archive: [2]
A few videos of the London event: [3]
LA Times coverage: [4]
By the way, I'm not from 711chan. Updates as I have time. 74.129.243.37 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Pics from San Diego: [5] 74.129.243.37 (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless we get secondary sources for those turnouts, we cannot use it in the article. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm sure that won't be a problem, since, as with all protests, there were many reputable sources there documenting every aspect of the event and keeping a running tally of the number of participants. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be somewhere in a week and I'm not sure how long it will take me to wade through this maze of red tape. 74.129.243.37 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to find some of these reputable sources, that would be appreciated. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Added table per WP:Bold and WP:IAR. Having a concise list of all the sites that were protested as well as the number of protestors at each site greatly adds to this article. Hopefully references will be found soon, and people can "fill in the blank".Z00r (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, the origional reason for requiring stringent citations in thie article was the controvertial nature. However, the number of protesters at any particular site is non-controvertial, so such rules should not apply to a summary of how many protestors were where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Got to go, but I'll be back adding more sources in a few hours.Z00r (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should glosslip be considered a reliable source for protest numbers? I'm leaning towards yes, but a discussion is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the above sources, I only found the Los Angeles Times article to be a valid secondary source (now included in the Feb 10 template), and borderline at that. Re glosslip: I have never encountered the website before, but it does not look too reliable ("gossip" site). Ayla (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Better title

It seems like "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests would be a better title for this article. There's no evidence that the term "Project Chanology" has been widely accepted by the media. - Chardish (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google News for "project chanology" brought up a lot of hits, including blogs at Wired, National Post, and The Daily Examiner as well as a story at News.com.au. The term seems to have been quickly adopted by the new media, at least. --clpo13(talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Project Chanology is a protest against the Church of Scientology by the Internet-based group called "Anonymous" (from lead). When someone searched for 'scientology protest' on WP, Scientology is the first article that comes up. Is there a way to make this article come up first? Because this article seems to be more relevant to protests about scientology. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that one is that this isn't the first time Scientology has been protested...so an automatic redirect would be frustrating to people looking for somthing elce. I will set up a few notable redirects though later tonight, after work.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added about 10 redirects, and most of them are very spacific however someone who is looking for this page but dosn't know what it is called will find it now.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner?

This page talks exclusively about the group's relations with the CoS. What about the Hal Turner and Stickam raids? As a member of anonymous I'd normally be one to defend them, but I have to admit, there's critical information missing here.

-EDIT- I just discovered that "Anonymous (group)" redirects here. There's a bigger story to tell about Anonymous. 74.87.96.159 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But is that story especially notable? You could always request that article to be created, but without reliable and verifiable sources, it'd be hard to make such an article work. --clpo13(talk) 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Canadian news television covered Anonymous actions that lead to the arrest of an alleged pedophile. The clip is available on youtube, and seems notable enough for inclusion to a page on Anonymous.121.44.227.79 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link by chance? I'd rather not drudge through YouTube. BJTalk 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
youtube.com202.161.71.161 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
it is misleading to have anonymous redirect here. Anonymous is not equal to chanology, it is not an organisation that arose out of nowhere to destroy scientology and it is not a social activism group. Raids and attacks on websites and protests are only a small part of what anonymous is, and many anonymous have never taken part in any of these. I think anonymous is best described as an internet sub culture. Weather anonymous is notable or not for its own article, it should not be redirected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.170 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


"Anonymous (group)" should not redirect here and I see it no longer does. It's AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) has almost entirely keep votes. William Ortiz (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stand Alone Complex

I added something about this becoming a stand alone complex at the bottom. This might be original research, but it seems pretty obvious if you know what a stand alone complex is and are watching these events unfold. In summary, a stand alone complex is basically a situation where there are many unrelated imitations imitating something of which there is no true original; each imitator acts alone but together forms (or appears to form) a single purpose. Each actor stands alone, but is part of a complex. Here, there may not be a single one individual who is "Anonymous."

Also, since this is a talk page, I think I'll add that I suspect "Anonymous" to have watched the television shows Ghost in the Shell and Death Note. The style of Death Note is unmistakable, and the effect they are going for is pulled strait from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex.

I don't know enough about references to provide links to the various youtube.com videos that essentially imitate the style and message of the "Anonymous," but maybe someone with more wiki-skills can do so if they want. Michael.passman (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not going for any effect, this is really how the group is structured. Those who do, choose. BJTalk 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also the section should be removed as it is OR. It needs to be commented on by a secondary source and that seems unlikely as the media are still calling Anonymous a "group of internet hackers". BJTalk 09:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it for now, if you think it belongs there, get it from the history and sandbox a section or paragraph on it and source it well, I just don't think we can have a loosely connected OR section in such a current article as this one at the moment. EditorInTheRye (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is arguably partially original research; but a slightly tortured analogy would be to add that the Nile is a river on the Nile page. I don't need a source to identify something for what it is. But I admit thats a bit of a stretch.

I was hoping someone with better skill with references and little more knowledge would add to my short addition. But alas, I guess Wikipedia:Be bold has been defeated by Wikipedia:Reliable sources for now. Michael.passman (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Inadequate source

Also, the source used is from a blog post, and at that one that does not satisfy WP:RS, it's not even a major blog from a magazine publisher or news website, just someone's personal blog. This should be removed. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I found a source. http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/

So I readded the section about stand alone complex. I personally think this is actually a very important part of Project Chanology, because it goes to the heart of how it works. But others may disagree and may want to cut out some of what I wrote. Whatever. Its there. Its sourced. Cool. Michael.passman (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I will state this again: It is sourced to a blog post that fails WP:RS and is not an adequate source for this article or Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, everything in wikipedia doesn't need to be perfectly sourced the moment it goes up. You are threatening to take this down less than 5 minutes after being posted. Second, I put this in the REACTION section. A blog is an example of a reaction. If I claimed the blog proved the point and put it in the other sections, you would be perfectly right. But a blog is a reaction. By the way, I didn't ignore your first post, we were both just on the talk page at the same time so mine appeared below yours but I hadn't read what you wrote before I posted. Sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to have "reactions" from blogs, unless they are very, very prominent blogs or published by a news source. Best to stick to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this observation belongs under the "formation" section rather than under its own subheading? EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reaction section quotes a guy named Nick Douglas of Gawker.com. Who is he? Why is he more deserving of a reaction than the blog I posted. I'm not going to repost till I find a better source since I'm not in the business of edit wars. But this is a case where something technical and computer based is unfolding quickly and the bloggers are going to be able to better notice this type of effect. FOX News doesn't know what Second-order simulacra are and have probably never heard the term Stand Alone Complex. But that doesn't mean people haven't noticed what is going on. Michael.passman (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Douglas of Gawker.com can be mentioned because we are not citing Gawker.com directly, but only citing it because it first appeared in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also want to add that wikipedia is a collaborative process. Last time I posted this without a source it was removed as unsourced in less than 11 hours. Then I posted it with a source but the source wasn't good enough so it was removed in less that 5 minutes. If people removed things so quickly when a post wasn't perfectly sourced, wikipedia wouldn't exist. I really wish you guys would let the collaborative efforts of wikipedians go for at least 5 minutes without personally deciding that its not worthy of being posted. And yes, I understand things CAN be fished out of the history by a 3rd party once a better source arrives, but the fact is that if the original poster doesn't come back to do that themselves, it may very well not happen. I really do not understand why anyone feels so strongly that this is not a "legitimate" or "verifiable" reaction that it has to be taken down in less than 5 minutes. Michael.passman (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An easy fix: Can you find evidence that this has been discussed in any secondary news source outside of the one blog? Cirt (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that WP wouldn't exist if it didn't let things exist without sources. Try creating a new article without sources and see what happens. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR REFERENCES: Any Wikipedians working on this article that think the topic of a stand alone complex is relevant to the article, please feel free to add links to references in this section. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. I will list them. Here: http://www.cwal.net/forums/rr/message.cgi?617642 http://clubtroppo.com.au/ http://reddit.com/r/politics/info/66l66/comments/ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231694&page=5 http://www.metafilter.com/68982/Anonymous-Church-of-Scientology-protest-has-some-and-gone http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/scientology/T5RN63HCKLUA8HQGL http://www.digg.com/tech_news/The_non_organization_of_Anti_Scientology_Anonymous_examined http://www.bannination.com/comments/5024127 http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=118270 http://n-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19098 http://www.teknoscape.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=1573236 http://forums.megatokyo.com/index.php?showtopic=1728579&st=0 http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt56429.html http://theaustralianindex.com/?page=search&searchterms=%22youtube%22 http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=138746&page=5 http://forums.newspeakdictionary.com/viewtopic.php?p=52441&sid=b90db04c26e175528f30684d93e9c00d http://plsburydoughboy.stumbleupon.com/tag/anonymous/ http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/34709834/m/193002200931 boards.adultswim.com/adultswim/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=7281272 - 250k www.boingboing.net/2008/02/11/spongebob-voice-acto.html

None of these are great sources to prove that it is a stand alone complex. But the point is that there is a REACTION all over the web identifying Project Chanology as a Stand Alone Complex. And thats only from the first page of a yahoo search. I imagine there are hundreds of people chattering about this.

I am not good with the outside link feature in wikipedia so I'll just post links. I think this deserves to be put back into the artcle. You (Cirt) seem pretty good at editing, would you be able to do it so it looks good with outside links? Michael.passman (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these links are links to message boards and other web postings, not to any WP:RS news sources or other sources that would be satisfactory. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. I know they aren't perfect sources. So if one blog and message board after another notice the same thing, but a mainstream media source never picks it up, it isn't a legitimate reaction? That seems silly. I am not trying to claim that this collection of people's personal opinions represents the truth of the matter, just that it is a large scale reaction to Project Chanology. Michael.passman (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1) It may indeed be a reaction, but is it a notable reaction? 2) Can we know that it isn't one person posting on all these different message boards? 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Insane response

The Church of Scientology had a pretty insane response, which was reproduced by the New Haven Independent at http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2008/02/send%20to%20Independent%20in%20word.doc. One highlight is their rediculous statement:

Using Scientology’s prominence, “Anonymous” hopes to garner more attention. “Anonymous” has publicly proclaimed its guiding materials to be the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.

I think this needs to be in the article; it is a good example of the Church's response and is a good example of their tactics (and random lies). Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ED has a better list of sources and official responses from the church. Excerpts can be quoted from this newsgroup response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.175.4 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ED is not a reliable source. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure you dont need to get sources from reliable sources.--AlexCatlin (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you do. Read WP:RS and WP:V. ED cannot be used as a source, secondary sources are best. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ED was mentioned as having a list of sources and I was implying that those sources should be evaluated on their own merits rather than the site that links them. I dont think he was suggesting using ED as a source itself. --AlexCatlin (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To put it another way linking to a previous discussion between myself and Cirt: citing a radio broadcast which just so happens to be promoted on youtube does not nullify the source. Likewise, receiving verifiable sources from ED does not nullify their reliability. We've been over this. All that matters is the citation. You don't have to link to ED. ED just provides us with the source information we need, which makes the information perfectly acceptable.--Cast (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 10 Protest Sites – New Sources

I have gone through most of the sources given in the above sections of this talk page which are relevant to the February 10 protests, and added all those which I considered valid to the Feb 10 protests template. Nonetheless, it remains an incomplete list. Revisions and additions cited with reliable and verifiable sources are welcome. To contribute, post a reference to the source either in this section or on the template talk page (preferably formatted using the {{cite news}} syntax, but just a link would suffice if you're not familiar with it). If you're familiar with both {{cite news}} and table formatting syntax, go ahead and add the source directly to the template table. Ayla (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it meets WP:RS, but here is a source for Vancouver that was posted above. source 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Belgium article (in french) source 121.44.227.79 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the Vancouver source in the template talk page; it looks like a personal blog to me, thus not WP:RS. Ayla (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Belgium source looks valid to me. Added to template. Thanks! Ayla (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources for TX. I can't see them as I do not have access to Youtube - so I don't know if they mention a headcount. Perhaps someone else can screen them?. I believe that citing the news broadcast as a NON-linked source would be ok? NBC & CBS & Houston Channel 39 & KHOU 121.44.227.79 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

KXAN NBC clip states 200 protestors for Austin. The CBS one didn't comment on protest size, nor did the Channel 39 Houston video. The KHOU video did not work. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Replying on template talk page. Ayla (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Dallas's official count of 115 was never mentioned on any of the news stations. I would think the Partyvan.info wiki page would be enough of a source though.Hentai Jeff 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Partyvan.info wiki page is not a valid source for Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination

Request for this article to be voted on to be featured.KingsOfHearts (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it meets criterion 1(e) yet. Ayla (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly support its nomination.Chump Manbear (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere near that state yet. First I'd like to go for WP:GAC, and we are not close to that yet either. It will get there at some point in the future, just be patient. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 14 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. BJTalk 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: [6]. --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

So is it correct to assume, seeking comment from Anonymous Project_Chanology, that the Guy Fawkes mask represent the fight against persecution by a religious ogiinization. Reference the history of Guy Fawkes and the persecution of the Catholics by the Protestant English Government. Scientology is seeking government positions, Witness the Clearwater,_Florida City government infiltration by Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anila.Oh (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This presumption would be grossly inaccurate. I've been monitoring the chatter amongst Anons, and I've yet to see this suggestion come up once. The reference is consistently recognized as an allusion to EFG (Epic Fail Guy). However, occasionally the reference is directed towards the final scene of the V for Vendetta film, which depicts anonymous, masked individuals marching for a common cause. Unfortunately, none of this is verifiable. However, The Boston Globe published an article today which cites the reference as being an allusion to the film.
  • John S. Forrester (February 11, 2008). "Dozens of masked protesters blast Scientology church" (html). Boston.com. The Boston Globe. Retrieved February 11, 2008. Many demonstrating outside Church of Scientology headquarters yesterday wore Guy Fawkes masks, an allusion to the British insurgent and a film depicting an antigovernment movement.
I believe we may now safely provide an explanation of the illusion to the final scene of the movie. This will be aided in if we can upload and use this fair use image promoting the London protest held on February tenth, which made use of a screen capture from the film. Other images can be found in the Project Chanology website, section Project Chanology/Target IRL/Posters, sub-section FEBRUARY 10TH 2008. I will not upload the image, as we should perhaps consider which of the varients would be best. We needn't upload them all.--Cast (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Scotsman article looks like quite a good source. I've added it to the Feb 10 protests template. (The Boston Globe article already referenced in template.) Ayla (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Refactoring" of protests section?

I do not understand, why the removal of mention of 150 protesters in Orlando? Why the "refactoring"?? Why the change to "small protests" ? 150 people is not a "small protest". Cirt (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see that this "refactoring" edit replaced some good WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources with personal video made by Anonymous. This is highly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "small" was the incorrect word to use, however in comparison to the protests on the 10th, these early protests were small (~200 compared to 7500). I refactored the the section because I believe it needs refactoring to better reflect the event. At the moment only a handful of protests are really mentioned, and it's quite "Oh and this happened, too". The refs removed were related to other "Oh and another protest site" informtion, thus the refs would have been redundant without those. I'll refrain from editing the section again until I've heard your views :) -- M2Ys4U (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added back in the new info from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources about the smaller protests in Santa Barbara and Manchester, and left out the stuff that was poorly sourced. Replacing the 7,000 statistics with a source to a personal video and removing a secondary source was really inappropriate though. I will begin to expand the "Protests" section soon, but we should really stick to secondary sources (many of which are already present in the collapsible template). Cirt (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I still think the section needs a rewrite so it's more cohesive. It looks very tatty at the moment, probably due to WP:RECENTism. I'm only trying to help ;) -- M2Ys4U (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you're probably right. I'll work on giving it a bit of a rewrite. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a change of the following
  • From:"Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Dublin, Ireland, Dallas and Austin, Texas, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, Toronto, Canada, Clearwater, Florida, New York City and London, England.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]"
  • To:"Cities with turnout of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney Australia; Toronto, Canada; London, England; Dublin, Ireland; Clearwater FL, New York NY, Austin TX, and Dallas TX, USA. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]".
202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Road to February 10th

This probably can't be used in the article, but it's a pretty good summary of recent events. It'd be a good idea to look for some secondary sources that don't just give an overview of February 10, 2008 from the perspective of one city, but to find a couple secondary sources that discuss the day of protests as a whole, like this does. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Very informative. Thanks for the link! I'll keep a look-out for the type of sources you mentioned. Ayla (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:) Cirt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Added!Z00r (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Deletes "Message to Scientology"

The original video [7] announcing the aims of Project Chanology has suddently been pulled by YouTube, who cite a ToS violation. I'm going to keep an eye on this. Digg's in uproar. --Mcr hxc (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, still don't know what "terms of service violation" in particular, they are referring to. Any mention of this in secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not as yet, but it won't be long before someone jumps on it. This has only happened in the last hour/90 mins. --Mcr hxc (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Over 2.3 million views and it gets deleted. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Either way it's gonna end up bad for YT. The vid's been there for 3 weeks and has had lots of high profile media coverage. Why does it suddenly violate ToS? Hmm... --Mcr hxc (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When this starts hitting the secondary sources, where should we put it in the article?Z00r (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this in any secondary sources yet? Cirt (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be back up now with view count intact.74.242.141.244 (talk) 21:42, 15 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)

Note: tbo.com article is now referenced in Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008. Ayla (talk) 11:30, 13 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)

I hope you looked at the secondary source I posted. It is a response from the COS not covered in the subsection, where the COS states that Anonymous is guided by the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, no mention of Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf anywhere on the page. LamontCranston (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Will add that. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of New Media in Coordinating Project Chanology

I justify this section on the following grounds: the use of new technology to organize protests is probably the most significant aspect of this whole thing. I'm afraid if this gets incorporated into another section about protest specifics, then we will be missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of the success of the protests themselves, in 10 years after everyone has forgot about the specifics, people will look back on this as the first instance of a new kind of social movement based almost entirely on online technology. At least thats my hypothesis. Z00r (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

7000 person protests happen all the time. 7000 person protests organized entirely online have never happened before, to my knowledge. Z00r (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a blog post by a college student, not really an analysis that fits WP:RS/WP:V as a secondary source. But I'd be willing to hear arguments as to why this blog post should remain in the article as a mention in the "Reactions" section. One cite certainly does not need its own subsection. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1) The topic needs a section, and I oppose integration into the reactions section as per my arguments above. The question is if we can find the sources. 2) As for the quality of the PBS source - yes it is a blog. However, it is probably one of the most well-researched and reliable blogs out there, funded through Knight News Challenge grants, and with editorial oversight by PBS. Unless there is a blanket ban on blogs (is there?), I believe PBS MediaShift Idea Lab qualifies as a reliable source. Z00r (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you are probably right, and that's a cogent argument to include that source. But I still disagree that it merits its own subsection. Got any other sources for this? Cirt (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Alas, at the moment there seems to be a lack of sources covering the topic as a whole, though I will be on the lookout. As for creating a new section, let me put it another way: what is the single most unique and interesting aspect of project chanology that differentiates it from other protests? Z00r (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many different aspects that are interesting and unique - but let's wait for some additional coverage in other secondary sources before creating a new subsection. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Took the words right out of my mouth. I think that it's likely that the internet has been used before in organizing sutff in the past. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Other interesting aspects perhaps, but unique I don't think so. Scientology has been picketed many times. V Masks have been worn at many protests. Worldwide protests have happened many times. Internet/technology as the primary organizational tool is the unique aspect. In any case, I will defer to your judgement with respect to waiting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs)

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)

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. BJTalk 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)

Exactly. I don't care if someone belieives in DC-8s in space and volcanoes. The problem is the church's abuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.106.194 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this or merge with scientology criticisms. It's pretty much irrelevant to wikipedia and doesn't deserves it's own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.87.143 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Project Chanology lead to a global protest (and internet vigilantism). I think that's worthy enough for an entry on its own. --Zephirum (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Google and this Article

Something is screwy with google's search results and this article, does anyone know what is going on there? Examples:

Scientology must be censoring everything. It's the only rational answer. --clpo13(talk) 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:-) Google takes some time to update, and this topic is pretty new. Maybe you should send this query to their feedback address.  :-) Subsolar (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That's possible, but I don't think so for the following reasons: 1) A week ago the chanology article was on the first page just below the partyvan and encyclopedia dramatica pages. 2) The page is cached on there somewhere, its just not showing up in searches. 3) the template page (much newer) is the first result currently. I'm wondering if there is something borked about the article that is causing this and could be fixed.Z00r (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be what we call 「グーグル八分 (Google Hachibu)」 here. It's pretty much the same as censorship by Google, but the reasons behind censorship is to avoid conflicts from certain groups, or is simply unknown. --Koheiman (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to circumvent the problem by providing context for external visitors within the template (in a <noinclude> block), but apparently the template has fallen from #1 to #44 within the last few minutes although the template currently only hits #44 when googling for Project Chanology. Ayla (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Now at #25 for project chanology and #1 for project chanology wikipedia. Ayla (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Finally up to #3 for project chanology. I guess that this is where it should be staying. Ayla (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem could have been caused by the fact that "Project Chanology" isn't used as much in this article as it should be; the article uses terms such as "Anonymous" just as often as "Project Chanology", since Anonymous is the organizer of Project Chanology, and Anonymous is the term used to refer to the members of Project Chanology. Since The term isn't used that often, some articles might pass it up. Nuck Chorris (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How come this protest is not mentioned anywhere in the "Scientology and the Internet" section of the Scientology article, or in the Scientology and the Internet article itself? The single link under the "See also" sections is not sufficient – this protest is more notable than several mentioned in both articles. I will try to paste a summarized account myself if I find time. Ayla (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Additions made to the "Scientology and the Internet" section of the Scientology article, as well as to the newly-created "Project Chanology" section of the Scientology and the Internet article. Two points: I did not include the Feb 10 template in order not to flood the references, and I did not give the references for the Feb 10 city protests since they are all in the template. See whether you wish to make any improvements. (New editors: Recall that conciseness is the key. Do not introduce additional material unless it is crucial for the summary.) Ayla (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Re the second point above: I have resolved the issue by adding a link to the template as a reference. See [8], [9]. Ayla (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, no need to add the template other places. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Real World Protests - Sources

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)

Thanks for the links. All above source have been included in Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10 2008, except for the Toronto Star article, which was written before the protests took place. ("[A]bout 150 of them are expected to turn up on Yonge St. today.") Ayla (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The TorontoStar article remains a really good source for background information, and for the statement that demonstations were planned in 14 countries. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Rightly so. I left my post just in order to keep track of which sources had been incorporated into the template. The Toronto Star article could be used in the Project Chanology article itself. Ayla (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous merge

While its AFD was kept, it shows no notability outside the event (outside the bullshitting and insanely silly FOX report, and that reliability is questioned) and is mostly recapping this artlce, and should be merged for this reason. I know Anonymous has existed beforehand. But no sources (apart from FOX) have been shown that Anonymous (not 4chan) have done so. Will (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of a centralized discussion, all other editors are kindly requested to post their views on the matter at the Anonymous (group) talk page discussion. Ayla (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Google bomb still in affect

I'm not so sure the Google bomb effect is gone, see this article:

So perhaps there are still some other Google bomb effects from Project Chanology that still remain... Cirt (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I guess that it does work again. A couple days ago Google searching "Brainwashing Cult" did not come up with any results.24.176.136.25 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature

This should be featured on march 13. 72.219.211.80 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, on March 15th. LamontCranston (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See above/prior discussions on this, nowhere near that status - yet. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mask caption

Interesting article on a rather strange phenomenon.

One of the captions reads "Guy Fawkes-masked protesters swarmed the Scientology center in Times Square on February 10, 2008."

Aren't they all but one in that picture, unlike the one on the top of the article, really just wearing the masks on the backs of their heads? --129.241.215.35 (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guy Fawkes Mask was the mask of choice. Also, the reason that in some images the protesters have the masks on the backs of their heads is because local ordinances or laws don't let them wear masks to cover their faces, but they still wanted to wear the masks. The Guy Fawkes masks could be used to distinguish fellow protesters from scientologists posing as fellow protesters trying to get personal information (phone number, email, home address, name, etc.) from protesters or trying to cause violence. Nuck Chorris (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor thing.. I gotta point out that.. *cough* maybe.. just maybe.. A Scientologist could pick up a Guy Fawkes mask too? I think that some that didn't wear one just didn't get one... And are not "spies!!! Scatter!"Cs302b (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology down

12:00am Friday 1(th of February 2008. partyvan.info is down and reads "website has AIDS, currently uploading CURE". On a side note, Youtube has taken down the original "Message to Scientology" video, saying it was violating the Terms of Service. (138.37.93.190 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

The video is back up, but the http://partyvan.info site is all down and leaves a 404 message. Should the link be taken down or wait until it is certain that it's gone? DiamondDragon DESU 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit first. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The site also says that you can find the old wiki at http://xyndros.ath.cx/index.php/Main_Page . I think that that host is unstable, though, since I was able to view only certain pages on it, and it wouldn't load correctly every time. The site appears to be using DNS services from DynDNS.com, since the top-level domain redirects to DynDns.com. Nuck Chorris (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I dug around a little bit, and eventually found something that might be of interest, or at least a reason why to keep the old wiki link:
http://partyvan.eu/wiki/Project_Chanology

I'm the admin of the wiki, and I'm in the process of moving the wiki onto a new host. The old g00n host will probably be used to mirror, but the new one is provided by WedTM. I'm got a complete backup from right when the wiki went down, so everything should be gravy in a day or less. Hopefully this will make all the fags forget about partyvan.info, so it can be used without quite so much defacing or faggery daggery doo.

I sifted through the diff for that page, and found that that was posted 04:23, 15 February 2008 Nuck Chorris (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the Admin of Partyvan.info reinstalled MediaWiki, but it still gives me an error of

(Can't contact the database server: Access denied for user 'party_insurgency'@'localhost' (using password: YES) (localhost))

They should be able to fix that fairly quickly though, since it appears to be nothing more than a database user permission error. Nuck Chorris (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: Error now says that the database table does not exist, which makes me think that the admin is busy setting up or reloading the backups of the databases, so it shouldn't be more than an hour or two before it starts working again! Hope for information on what happened! Nuck Chorris (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Finally, they got partyvan.info back up... for a mere fee of $200 dollars a month. at least the $200 is paying for hosting on some servers that can take a DoS attack, with quad-core processer, and dual gigabit lines. They moved to anonhost.info's servers, apparently. Nuck Chorris (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know a lot of people that tried protesting in places like germany where you cant cover your face with a mask. some took to painting the guy fawkes mask on instead. gotta love anon creativity :D----Anon

Mark Bunker

Can anybody find a verifiable source that says Mark "Wise Beard Man" Bunker from Xenu TV attended the Clearwater protests on February 10? I know that he did, because I have seen him in a video anon posted to YouTube of him attending, his own video in which he indicates that he attended, and a video in which he interviews bass player and noted OTIII Scientologist Billy Sheehan. However, I'm not sure that YouTube videos are verifiable sources that can be used on Wikipedia. Is there any source that we have that can verify that Mark Bunker attended the Clearwater protests? scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Clearwater, not Los Angeles? Here are two sources:
The latter, in which Mark Bunker is mentioned, is actually a blog post. However, its author is a staff writer of the Los Angeles Times; in fact, the former is the published (abridged) version of the post, which I included for the sake of credibility of the source. Ayla (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure. I assumed that it was Clearwater, actually, because I knew Bunker lives there and that there were protests there, but it could well be L.A. Seems a bit of a distance for him to go, though. But I don't recall anything in the video explicitly stating that Bunker was in either Clearwater or L.A. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wise Beard Man is wise. He no longer lives in Clearwater, Florida - he lives in California. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The post he made on his website indicates that he did indeed attend the LA raid but was forced to leave due to a medical mishap. 129.21.114.185 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

you're doing it wrong

[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.244.223 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Video Section Image Caption

I would say that the image is mislabeled, but I may be wrong. The phrase "Scientology Isn't Free" relates far more to the fact that Scientology charges for its "audits" rather than the fact that you'd have to be a paying Scientology to see the video eventually in the audits. The caption would be for more appropriate under an image of, say, a protester holding a sign saying "The text of this sign has been removed due to a copyright complaint by the Church of Scientology". In this case that image is mislabeled, in my opinion. Cs302b (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check that out, mebbe move the image or something. Cirt (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the current caption used: Removal of the Tom Cruise Scientology video from YouTube prompted calls of censorship of available information by the group. -- That is accurate. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, can we agree that if a freely available image could be found that shows someone holding a sign stating "The Text Of This Sign Has Been Removed Due To A Copyright Complaint By The Church Of Scientology" would be far more accurate, considering the caption?Cs302b (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I contacted the copyright owner of this image asking for their permission for use, I havn't heard back yet: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23685734@N06/2257317362/ It appears to be a better image to use. Does anyone think it isn't the best to fit or wouldn't look as good resized down to the thumbnail size? Cs302b (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, could work - but it just basically shows the sign itself. A free-use image with some sort of similar sign but also w/ protesters would be better. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point.. I havn't heard back from that user anyway. I'll keep an eye out and get back to you when I find something.Cs302b (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I still havn't heard back, anyone else find a similar image? I think that one similar to the one I found would be far more suitable to the section and caption. Cs302b (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll have a look around and see if we can't come up w/ a better free-use image. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd wave

Another set of protests are coming on march 15, this one looks bigger then the February 10th ones--68.98.137.7 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We're still waiting for Scientology to issue response videos requesting their favorite cake and frosting flavor. Because hey, take it from me. This cake is great. 142.12.15.4 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Emma

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=65331&postcount=1 -How about some recognition of this in the "reception" part? Anonymous 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't use primary sources in article. Ayla (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible need to split

The article is currently ~74 kilobytes long. This is a HUGE article. The section on Anonymous' internet activities is particularly large and is ripe for splitting off into a daughter article, leaving a brief overview in this article and a link to the main article. Thoughts? LaMenta3 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose I agree that it is huge by wikipedia standards, but all the information (in my opinion) is "meaty" and ties together. to split it would cause a less coherant flow of information for the reader, and possibly appear that one type of activity was a "major part" of PC, and the other type was a sub section...and I beleive that they are both equal.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm just thinking in terms of this article ever reaching GA or better, this will be a huge (no pun intended) concern. I don't think that there will be much sacrifice to the perceived relative significance of the internet activities if they are just summarized in this article and the blow-by-blow is moved to its own page. The section is so long as it is, that this approach would pare it down to a size comparable to the other sections. I can see this eventually happening with the IRL protests as well. Another alternative would be to (somehow) break the section down further so as to break up the text and solve a bit of a "tl;dr" problem with the section. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • We can cross that bridge when we come to it. WP:GAC is currently pending, see tag at the top of this talk page. However, I agree that some of this info/text in the article is a bit verbose, and could be trimmed down/summarized, etc at some point, just not yet. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with both sides of the argument. The article is long, but splitting has a good chance of hindering further development. For example, several of the sources would have to be duplicated, since they discuss both background and actual protests. Note that Internet activities by Anonymous not related to Project Chanology are not mentioned in this article, but in Anonymous (group). Ayla (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This article is only bound to get longer from continuing coverage and events. Splitting sections now will make the work a lot easier when this topic grows.MegaZega93 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

Both interviews mention the Project Chanology protests; should they be added to the article under the "See also" section? The Jeff Jacobsen interview also includes an image (from the commons) which could be used next to the Lisa McPherson text: Anonymous protests Scientology in Phoenix on February 10th 16.jpg. Ayla (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should add these, the articles themselves don't directly deal with this subject matter specifically, just as a few side questions. But we could add the image. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Plenty of sources and manages to keep NPOV, though the topic is controversial. However the article remains stable only when the article is protected, and as of GA Criteria Vandalism reversions should not be needed. Therefore, I would like a second opinion on the stability of the article. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, from WP:WIAGA: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted

I was going to fail it for not being stable - the protests are continuing, and it's likely to change day-to-day significantly - what GA criterion 5 strongly advises against. Will (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that if the protests continue indefinitely, this article can never be GA quality rated? Cirt (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after one editor has already done a proper GA review, per procedure the next step is not a "quickfail", but rather WP:GAR. If you feel that this review was in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's like listing a hurricane for GA 24 hours after it makes landfall. The problem with GA criterion 5 was actually acknowledged on partyvan.info. And I was quickfailing during the review. Only my internet speed made me edit conflict. Besides, it fails the completeness criterion - the list is incomplete. Will (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. You were not the GA Reviewer, Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs) was. If you feel that this review was in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Good article reassessment would be the proper next step in the procedure, not just summarily delisting an article seconds after it has been successfully reviewed and passed as a WP:GA. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But as it clearly doesn't pass the GA requirements, I've delisted it. We don't need GAR for obvious cases. If you dispute it, you take it to GAR. Will (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that there was no actual review left. Just a couple templates which were both minimally filled out. Lara❤Love 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk · contribs) is trying to jump over proper procedures and do an entire Good article reassessment himself (as evidenced by the notation he gave, GAR, in the article history template), instead of taking the issue to Good article reassessment. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't do procedure for procedure's sake. Will (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We also shouldn't sanction one editor summarily delisting something, when the WP:GAR process is intended to get the input of the community. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it shouldn't be a GA. The reviewer had concerns about the criterion I delisted it for. And I was about to fail before it got passed ("05:06, 28 February 2008 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) (14,910 bytes) (→Good Article Review: delist (was quickfail)) (undo)"), but edit conflicted a few times due to my (really) crappy internet connection. Will (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your actions of summarily removing the article's GA status seconds after it was reviewed. We shall see what comes of the Good article reassessment. I still maintain that if you felt the first GA Review was in error, you should have taken it to Good article reassessment, and requested the input of the community, instead of sidestepping procedure in order to summarily remove its GA status yourself. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) All delistings are listed in AH as GAR because there is no other option. Any GA can be delisted at any time by anyone. I'm not saying the article doesn't meet the criteria, I'm not saying it does. I haven't reviewed it. The problem I see is that there's no evidence that Lyoko is Cool did either. Reviews of an article should be more than just the use of the templates. There should be explanations of why the reviewer believes it passes. And there is almost always room for improvement, even for articles that pass. The issue with criteria 5 may or may not be an issue, but the lack of a review most certainly is. Particularly on this sort of current events article. Lara❤Love 05:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In any event, hopefully the ongoing WP:GAR will get some good input from multiple editors, and resolve this issue as to this article's GA status. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
GA criteria 5 is not a quick-fail criteria. I find this really disrupting because an article is listed and delisted on the same day (and probably broken the track record for shortest duration between listing and delisting article). Frankly, this is not the time to be bold, especially when you delisted it using wrong argument. Furthurmore, I suggest Will to read criteria 5 in details. The article should not "change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Pulling the last 500 revisions, I don't see any edit war happening. So yap, the delist is unjustified. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), I wholeheartedly agree w/ everything you just said, but FWIW, I started a WP:GAR, which is ongoing, and your comments would be appreciated there. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "quick-fail" for delisting articles, but any editor can delist an article at any time. However, this should not be a summary delist. The delisting guidelines can be found here. I agree with Lara: the most serious problem is that neither the original reviewer nor the delister gave adequately detailed explanations for their decisions. Anyway, a GAR has now been opened, which was exactly the right thing to do because there is a dispute. I hope this will resolve the matter. Geometry guy 09:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your input Geometry guy (talk · contribs). I'm glad to know I did "exactly the right thing to do" by opening the GAR. Cirt (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that I didn't give the article a good enough review; I am a new reviewer, so that was my mistake. I also believe that I was too tired to give suggestions for the article (It was after Midnight EST) and wanted to just finish the review. Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. Next time I review a GA nominee, I will be sure that I have the time to release a complete review. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article has been nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know who added this, and I'm heading off to bed, but I thought it's worth noting that I don't see it listed at GAR. Maybe I'm too sleepy, but I don't see it. Lara❤Love 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it lists itself automatically at GAR. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour. -- from WP:GAR. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Many verifiable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Maintains NPOV even though it is a controversial article.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recompleted my review

The article is well written and explains very well of how the movement started and discusses both sides of Anonymous well; however I believe that {{main|Anonymous (group)}} should be located in the Formation subsection. (completed( Also, I feel that the information about alt.religion.scientology is misplaced in the Formation subsection, but I don't know where it should go; it might not belong in the article at all. The article discusses very well in detail the actions of Anonymous. In the Internet action subsection, after the "google Lisa McPhearson" image, you might want to note if Danny McPherson has any relation to Lisa McPherson. In the Feburary 2008 protests subsection, beside the image of the London protests, I feel that the V for Vendetta mention could be reworded to have less of an explanation. The Church of Scientology's response subsection could be expanded for NPOV throughout the article. Also, Church of Scientology's response and Reaction could be confused; if possible, find an alternative title for Church of Scientology's response. Overall, this article had made great progress from one month ago to now to have overall great coverage of the movement in a well written, NPOV, Sourced, and stable article.

Overview

1. Well written?: Pass: Add {{main|Anonymous (group)}} to Formation. (completed) Change the Reaction subsection's name
2. Factually accurate?: Pass: Plenty of verifiable sources.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass: Make the V for Vendetta mention more broad
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass: Possibly expand Church of Scientology's response
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Lyoko is Cool (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for those above pointers. Regardless of the quality rating status of the article, I will try to address those points you raised. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Video = History of conflict on internet

Cirt, I see that you moved the history of scientology on the internet into the background section, under "Tom Cruise Video". Can we create a new section for it in BG, as it doesn't really fit in the TCV section. DigitalC (talk) 06:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks. DigitalC (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

How about creating a new section (or, less preferably, a subsection under "Reaction") dealing with the cases of censorship of the protests themselves? A popular source which directly deals with the frozen YouTube view counts is YouTube found blocking nearly all anti-Scientology content from its 'Videos' front page, I Power (movieLOL). It might not be reliable enough to quote directly, but it is sufficiently notable to refer to if cited in-text (similar to how we have cited Wired's Ryan Singel) – see their article at NEE. Another source which meets both WP:N and WP:RS is Tom Cruise goes Missing (includes video), Media Watch, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (YouTube video, not to be used). Opinions? Ayla (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be a brief mention in a sentence or two, I'll check out the above links and get back to you. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I admit that my initial proposal of a dedicated section would have been an overkill, but I think this deserves a paragraph at least. The Media Watch report covers a case of front-page censorship by News.com.au, along with a response from the editor of The Advertiser on the particular issue. Anyway, see what you think after reading the sources. Ayla (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree w/ you that it deserves a full paragraph - I just am getting antsy about the article getting too long. I start to try to trim down some other areas, summarizing some stuff and removing some details. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Although, in the long term, I think an article split would eventually be warranted, especially if the protests go on for several months. Ayla (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that we could move to more of a summary of the February protests once the March Protests roll around, especially if the numbers are greater in March. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd really rather prefer summarizing stuff, in-line with this idea by Lyoko is Cool (talk · contribs), rather then splitting off anything from the article just yet. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as you prefer. I'll leave the decision up to you :-) Ayla (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well we can always continue to discuss it, just hopefully we can retain the info all in one place for convenience for the reader, but if it gets too long and it's just too difficult to summarize/make more succinct, we can always address that later. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a single comprehensive article would be preferable. We could reopen the discussion when enough real-world protests have occurred to justify a split. Ayla (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Cirt (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the MediaWatch source: [11], mirror. Whoops there already is a link. Z00r (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relinking video posted above. Skip to 01:49. The video is not a mirror; it is an edited version which points out an omission by Media Watch itself. Media Watch reported only on the removal of the name "Tom Cruise" from the photograph; however, the edited video clearly demonstrates that the name "Lisa McPherson" was also removed. Ayla (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another valid source:

Ayla (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on adding this stuff to the article in paragraph-format soon. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times source, March 3, 2008

Scientology taking hits online

I'll incorporate this into the article soon. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great source; also mentions the "Ex-Scientology Kids" movement. Ayla (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GQ Source

Apparently there will be an article in GQ on Anonymous, after the next wave of protests. DigitalC (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Any idea on specific date/issue/title/author? Source of this info? If not, that's cool, we can wait and keep our eyes peeled. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't locate the source where I read it. Since they are incorporating the 3/15 protests into the article, I'm assuming it will be the April issue? I also have reason to believe that there will be more media attention for the 3/15 protests than there was for the 2/10 protests. DigitalC (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly be interesting. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco

San Francisco had 100-300 people and was one of the better protests. Why is it not mentioned? The sid5 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1 March 2008

It needs to be backed by a reliable source. Was there any press coverage of the local protest? (Optionally but preferably, is it available online?) Ayla (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that some news coverage happened, but I can't find a local article detailing the headcount. I have video and pictures of people who where there from thier own cameras. I believe thier is enough proof that in articles already mentioned and from protesters pictures to support adding San Francisco to the list of cities that took part. Picture can be provided on Flickr [[12]]The sid5 (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Some discussion about the stringency of the requirements for inclusion was held at the template talk page. So far, only press coverage by established entities is being accepted; primary sources (such as personal blogs by participants, self-shot video footage or photo galleries, etc.) have been avoided. Do you have a reliable source which at least mentions that the protest took place? (Headcount is not crucial, we could list it as N/A.) Ayla (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article: [[13]] says SF. The main chanology websites list SF [[14]] and [[15]] list SF. The sid5 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the first source (City on a Hill Press article) is valid; protest added. I had already used the source in the template for Santa Cruz, but missed the San Francisco mention. The article says "crowds in the hundreds", so we could conservatively specify 100 as the quoted figure. If you happen to find another reliable source with a more definite headcount, it would be even better. Ayla (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Another source (audio) which gives a figure of 300: Who's Hooman: Scientology Protest, Alice @ 97.3, KLLC. I don't think it can be included though. Ayla (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've also heard the figure 100-300 people mentioned. So I think mentioning 100 would be fine. When will the page be updated ;) The sid5 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. I was reluctant to specify the 100 since it is unrepresentative (just the lowest end of the range), but it will do for now. Ayla (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
seeing as the above radio source mention 100-300 - why can't 300 be entereed as the max value?

perhaps more info about the template could appear. so that it is clear that these numbers are based on press estimates / actual turnout may vary

?

Arabik (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the radio source: I would prefer to have the opinion of another editor familiar with WP:RS before including it. Re the additional info about the template: yes, it is a valid point, I'll add a note to that effect as another footer in the table. Ayla (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

current event tag

The current event tag was added because the project is ongoing and additional protests on March 15 have been announced.Jwray (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose current events tag. - Per multiple statements from different editors at the ongoing WP:GAR. Per statements from editors at the first and the second WP:AfDs. And the March 15, 2008 event is still a good 10 days away, no need for the tag except for on that day, perhaps. Please note the Guidelines for the tag's usage, at Template:Current:
  1. This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors.
  2. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.
  3. It is expected, when used properly, that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days.

When taking these Guidelines into consideration, laid out at Template:Current, I ask - is this tag being used appropriately in this article?

I won't remove the tag myself until we get some more feedback - what do others think?Cirt (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose as well. I understand that the whole "operation" is still ongoing by terms of what they're trying to accomplish, but nothing is currently happening at the moment. Since it is planned for the protests to continue through Spring and possibly Summer with certain days of protest, it wouldn't be valid to label it as a current event during the periods in between of which there is nothing going on. I'd wait until March 15 (or 13th, small ones planned for then) to add the template. DiamondDragon DESU 03:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No major events have occurred since Feb 10, and the article has been fairly stable for the last several days. If anything, the tag should be applied only to the "March 2008 protests" section once it is created. Ayla (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Favour. You are incorrect Ayla, city/location specific "mini raids" have been occuring between February 10th & March 15th. LamontCranston (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I said "major", not "mini". It would be helpful if you could point us to a reliable source mentioning one of these post–Feb 10 raids; we could even add a sentence to the article acknowledging them. Ayla (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are press releases a valid source? Or do we have to wait until someone 'scoops' this release up?

scoop release DigitalC (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Press releases are generally valid sources, yes, and are certainly verifiable. However, in general in this article, I've been leaning a bit more towards a more stringent standard, and have waited to refer to press releases until after they have at least been mentioned by another WP:RS/WP:V source, preferably secondary source. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Valid sources of what (and by whom)? That press release posting is no more a valid source than someone's blog, if that. AndroidCat (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if that press release does get traction/coverage/mention in secondary sources that satisfy WP:V/WP:RS, then we could cite that. All hypotheticals mind you, so let's wait for that to occur, if/when. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GAR

This was closed with the article relisted. Please check I have listed it in the right place. Also, please don't move active GAR links to talk archives. If the forthcoming events destabilize the article, please raise the issue on this talk page. Geometry guy 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If an active GAR link was moved to a talk page, it must have been archived due to no activity after 5 days. Next time I will make sure that does not happen. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are plans to change procedures so that GARs are a bit more like GANs, and will be noted at the top of the page. This will eliminate this problem. Geometry guy 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That certainly sounds like a good idea. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Template references

Referenced citations in Template:Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008 have been wrapped in <noinclude></noinclude> tags in order to reduce the number of references in the article. To conform with WP:V, the references are still available in the template page itself, the link to which has accordingly been made more prominent (in the table header). Ayla (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Restraining Order

Might need to wait for more details, but this definitely seems to qualify as a reaction by Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta1212 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw that, added it to list of sources in subsection above, will add it to article soon. Cirt (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Further information, from TampaBay online DigitalC (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will add it to above list and shortly, to article. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And the actual restraining order injunction injunction.pdf DigitalC (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/03/second-scientol.html & [16] DigitalC (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Primary source documents
  1. http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/images/Scientologyinjunction.pdf
    This appears to be the primary filing. Cirt (talk)
  2. http://www.tampabays10.com/images/pdfs/scientology-anonymous1.pdf
    And this appears to be the court's rejection of the petition, correct me if I am wrong. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. http://media.tbo.com/tbo/pdfs/031208scientology.pdf
    Alternate PDF for the 2nd one. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. http://media.tbo.com/photos/trib/2008/mar/031308doc.pdf
    2nd injunction denial

"About 9000" quote

Are any of you aware of the significance of the quote referring to "a loose confederation of about 9,000 people"? The number 9000 is taken directly from the "Over 9000" internet meme, and it is highly unlikely that this number has any relation to the actual size of the group. --81.187.166.33 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We can only document stuff from secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but we can use some common sense and not include obvious bullshit in the article. If we ever find a reference that mentions the source of the 9000 estimate as being a meme, we can bring it back with the second article.24.181.243.82 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As Cirt stated. the reference is well sourced. though regarding this "Over 9000" meme to speak of - I think there may be a site that discusses it, but I don't think people are allowed to mention it on wikipedia Arabik (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to confirm, "Over 9000" is a meme, however many people agree that around 9000 people attended the worldwide protests in total. When it is used in this sense, it is related to the meme, but is based on first hand accounts of people who attended and so is related to the actual size of the group. It's not just completely made up. Ichbinbored talk 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The wool has been pulled even over the press's eyes with this one, as a local newspaper quoted a 'member' of anonymous saying that there are over 9,000 members.

Although this is true, it is an inside joke that only true anons' would figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitedealer (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Times Source

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj289/htims_smith/article.png http://www.lulzinseattle.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=140

Discusses Anonymous/Chanology it the context of the broader anti-scientology movement. Z00r (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

v for vendetta - comics or film?

I wanted to ask one thing (I know 4chan a bit, but I dont know how anyone can read /b/ more than 20 minutes a day) - is those Guy Fawkes masks from the film V for Vendetta or comic book? As far as I know, 4chan is also place for comic book fans... --Have a nice day. Running 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The film, it says so in the article, per secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Anonymous wore masks from V for Vendetta had nothing to do with either, it had to do with a very popular meme on all of the chans that goes by the name of EFG (epic fail guy)[17]. Originally he didn't look like that, but in one specific thread a couple of days after V for Vendetta was released somebody posted him doing numerous things and eventually he ended up putting on the mask. From then on, most people drew him with it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.32.244 (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, we'd need a secondary source for that new info. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have found the rest on Dramatica.... well, I guess there will be no other secondary source (on almost any *chan meme) than Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is really not something reliable...--Have a nice day. Running 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to answer the original question, I own the book and have seen the film...the mask is very similar in both, and obviously therefore was in the book first. 80.192.20.38 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PTS - Potential Sources - Discussion

There will be quite a bit of media attention to Anonymous and Project Chanology over the next week. I suggest that potential sources get listed here before being incorporated into the article. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I already started that list above, see Talk:Project_Chanology#Some_more_sources - my apologies for not getting to this yet, but it is on my list of things to do, and I'll get to incorporating those sources into the article soon. Thanks for the heads up and for staying on top of this. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry I missed that. May as well archive this. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for helping out and the good intentions re: finding new sources. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Damn you're fast! Do you have some sort of alert set up? (Re: NorthPinellas article) 202.161.71.161 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no alert, I just do relevant searches every so often. Cirt (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
nypost.com talks about the videos that scientology has posted on youtube. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Church video

This seems to be a video released by the Church. The Church has not specifically claimed responsibility for it. Ironically, it has been posted anonymously. I guess we can't include it until a RS picks it up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, would have to wait til mention in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. There have been lots of other trolling-types of videos like this claiming to be from Scientology representatives that were posted to YouTube. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an article that mentions it, but doesn't seem to reference it to where we could know which video they are talking about. What do you think? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Good secondary source, Pulitzer Prize-winning St. Petersburg Times, or as David Miscavige calls it, the "SP" Times, however it does not mention the name of the YouTube video, or the name of the user that posted the YouTube video. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Drama update: CoS account has been suspended by Youtube for terms of use violations. The CoS used the same account to release personal information of 3 of the protesters (name, alias, location, photo), and was subsequently flagged by several hundred anons for "bullying and intimidation". Videos have been reposted from other accounts numerous times, most of which have now been closed. Those accounts claimed they had docs on 500 more anons. One of the exposed anons claimed his cat was poisoned later that night, though this should be taken with a pinch of (ammoniacal) salt as an IRC chat log posted to encyclopedia dramatica is hardly a reliable source and may actually be propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.44.206 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some original research for anyone that's interested:

Background of youtube video account is this image: http://img2.scientology.org/img/youtube/grid.jpg
The folder it resides in is a 404 (:. not an image, its a script): http://img2.scientology.org/img/youtube/
Adding parameters to the image is not a 404 (:. not an image, its a script): http://img2.scientology.org/img/youtube/grid.jpg?src=I_HERD_U_LIEK_MUDKIPZ
Now check your cookies ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.209 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Template - March 15 - if we get enough sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Project_Chanology_protests%2C_March_15%2C_2008

SomeNonaSaint (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I let the expert on the previous template, Ayla (talk · contribs), know about that new one. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you can get a chance, it would be helpful to add these same secondary sources as they appear to the "Sources" section, at n:Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" celebrates L. Ron Hubbard's birthday#Sources. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the format of the February 10th Template as well, because the location and its width make it feel VERY out of place. Maratanos (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean? Ayla (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
65% is too low. Aim for the width to be just enough that there are no split rows for 1024x768 displays. Ayla (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

South Park

I'm surprised South Park is mentioned nowhere in the article since it's obvious almost all of the young people supporting this movement most probably first heard of Scientology from that episode. --Leladax (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source that mentions/analyzes that connection, I'd love to see it. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"Connection"? It's like saying you want an article connecting Einstein with another scientist doing Relativity. The South Park episode was the only major Scientology reference in popular culture in years or ever. --Leladax (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That episode is, coincidently (or not) the featured article today.. March 15th.. The second planned day of protests. Cs302b (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That's simply not true, there are plenty of other major Scientology references in popular culture --Jedravent (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Or they could have read the Time magazine article like I did...or they could have been approched by sexy women in california who wanted to give them personality tests, or the paranormal episode...Tom cruse video...approched by a former member...Lisa McPherson on the web...regardless we need a WP:RS/WP:V to add it to the article (notice the tom cruse video is referenced because it has proper sourcing)Coffeepusher (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you seriously think the whole 'anonymous' thing would happen today without the South Park episode? --Leladax (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, look at the Cult of the Dead Cow and their decloration of war against scientology. People have been protesting scientology since its inception without the help of south park. It is more accurate to say that their is a chance that the whole Anonymous thing wouldn't have happened without the Tom Cruse video. South Park may have been the place where you gained notice of scientology, but it isn't even mentioned on the Projects main scite as a reason (Tom Cruse is mentioned though). Again, all this discussion boils down to, find a WP:RS that connects Anonymous to South Park and we can include it in the article, otherwise your or my opinion on the matter is irrelivent.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Opinions on this matter might be irrelevant, but I'm going to state mine anyway. If you think /b/tards are hackers on steroids who have heard of CDC, human rights activists who heard about abuses committed by the CoS, or are the kind of dermographic representation of Time magazine readers then you're sadly deluded. It is a satirical Internet culture imageboard birthed from the bowels of Something Awful and revolves around the exact kind of black humour that South Park is the embodiment of. Having said this, it was the Tom Cruise video that started all this; not because the video was removed but because of all the hype about a video that wasn't even that entertaining "People need to understand not to fuck with /b/, and talk about nothing for ten minutes, and expect people to give their money to an organization that makes absolutely no fucking sense." 1. I believe the hype wouldn't have been possible without South Park, and it would be nice if there was a WP:RS that reported this but there probably isn't one. However, I thought I'd chirp up as people visit Wikipedia's talk pages to get the argument rather than the evidence, and this is a valid part of the argument.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.44.206 (talk • contribs)

New Page for February 10

If we have as much about the March 15 as we do about February 10, this page will end up much too long. Given the large quantity of information, combined with the rather awkward chart of protest locations, I think this section needs to be split off and a summary and link left on this page. Maratanos (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 2#Possible need to split. Ayla (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me some time to work in all of these new cites I have been listing above, at least a week or 2, and we can revisit the discussion of whether or not to split. Cirt (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology attempts to get restraining order to stop 3/15 protests, News.com.au Source

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23369220-5014239,00.html Z00r (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Restraining order denied, tampa bay online source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another coverage of restraining order denied: http://www.fortmilltimes.com/124/story/100941.html Z00r (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And another... http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/13/Northpinellas/Judge_denies_petition.shtml Z00r (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

YARS: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080313/NEWS/803130361/-1/newssitemap Z00r (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology released information on anonymous protesters

The account used for the video mentioned above also released personal information on 3 anons who attended protests. This Wordpress account also used in a smear campaign against BBC reporter John Sweeney embeds the three videos. The videos use the same soundtrack as the original high quality production video. The youtube account used the grid image mentioned above, delivered via a script on img2.scientology.org. Most accounts publishing these videos were flagged by anon and have since been suspended by YouTube for bullying and intimidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.44.206 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this received some coverage in WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources, I will be adding that to the article at some point. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: Scientology announces to Faux News that they did make the video - the video was released on the scientology youtube account that released info on anons. So is the CoS officially stating that they released docs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.44.206 (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for this! And a good secondary source at that. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Necessity of the Number of Protesters Table

I, for one, don't really care how many people were in Richmond Virginia. Its minor. And even the major cities (L.A. for example) don't have anything listed. Let's take this off until it can either be fully filled in with reliable sources or until we get an uproar from the people in Richmond for not being mentioned. 24.176.136.25 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

These tables are very meticulously sourced to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, and are a very valuable part of the article. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, what's your problem with Richmond? Ayla (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Protest Arrest

I've uploaded a video of the arrest at the Atlanta protest. Would it be good to add it to the article, or should the March section be expanded first. Hello32020 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A very good addition, but give us some time to expand the March section first - and it will be expanded more, it may just take some time. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There was some secondary source on the arrest (MensDailyNews) but I'm not sure it meets WP:RS. DigitalC (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

3/15 protest sources

Put WP:RS sources for the 3/15 protests here (or be bold and add them to the article, if you are so inclined).

http://www.kirotv.com/news/15608031/detail.html Z00r (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6041422&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 Z00r (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6041682&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1 Z00r (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=7407@wfts.dayport.com&navCatId=3 Z00r (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=2146 Z00r (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=76228 Z00r (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23380286-2682,00.html Z00r (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/15/clearwater-bracing-new-scientology-protest/ Z00r (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.richmond.com/news-features/23754 Z00r (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Scientologists_Ban_Against_Violent_Peaceful_Protesters_Denied_15185.html Not sure if this meets wp:rs. Seems pretty legit so far, but im not sure. Z00r (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/article419054.ece 202.161.71.161 (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4441539a11.html Z00r (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/News/3477/Worldwide-Scientology-protests-mark-founder's-birthday Z00r (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently on 3/15 there was a plane flying over LA towing a banner saying "Honk if you think Scientology is a cult"! http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/03/scientology-pre.html Z00r (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really related to 3/15, just discusses CoS online "counter-attack" citing CoS-made youtube videos, and so forth. http://www.nypost.com/seven/03152008/gossip/pagesix/toms_church_counterattacks_101990.htm Z00r (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0317/p03s02-ussc.html?page=1 – Good article, compares to anonymous activism in Burma (Myanmar) and China, mentions Wikileaks. Ayla (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that article is great. Z00r (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

G4 Attack of the Show coverage: http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/videos/20784/The_Daily_Feed_with_Layla_Kayleigh_031708.html Z00r (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend to start harvesting sources from Google News before too much time passes and they disappear. Z00r (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

http://radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2008/03/scientology_anonymous_protests_tom_cruise_01.php: In-depth and extensive coverage of Chanology, as well as Scientology's controversies in general, up to the planning of the March 15 protests. Ayla (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page locked?

Why would anonymous people bother to SIGN UP to wikipedia to edit the article? Just a thought. Even if it prevents vandalism, it might prevent construction as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.248.73 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

it actually reduced vandalism dramaticly.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But has it also halted construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.248.73 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It has reduced vandalism, dramatically, most definitely. Very useful. Every time it gets unprotected from the semi-protect, vandalism from anon-IPs starts up again, and it is hard to get anything constructive done. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably halted construction a bit, sure. However, given the level of vandalism, the net result is probably positive. After a while when things calm down hopefully it will be unprotected. Z00r (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
One idea would be that the CoS is editing it, also anon would register so their IP addresses wont show up Sylvok (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I would also suggest that you don't need to be a member of Anon to tell their story. 98.220.123.74 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that the Germans have seen the light and put the article back on their WP. Please change the interwiki section back. --128.231.88.5 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would wait until the ongoing deletion discussion is concluded first. Ayla (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bunker and reaction

The wiki article states that "Mark Bunker, a Scientology critic who runs the website XenuTV.com, posted a video to YouTube and asked Anonymous to tone down their campaign against the Church of Scientology", but there is no mention of Bunker later stating that Anonymous were "his heroes", and that he "Can't wait to see what you [Anonymous] come up with next". I think it's important that this is mentioned, otherwise the section is in danger of becoming negatively biased. Also, sauce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-EaH7IX6E I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so could someone point to me a guide on how to add sources to articles. Many thanks.Blue123AH (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Critics of anonymous in lead

The lead section mentions that some critics of scientology are opposed to anonymous, but the article clarifies that the criticism was almost purely against illegal actions such as the DDOS attacks and promoting vandalism, which many sources demonstrate are no longer in use by the group. I think the lead should be modified to explain this. As far as I am aware, there are no current critics of scientology who are opposed to the current incarnation of anonymous and its actions. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've seen from my research, it appears that now other critics such as Tory Christman have embraced the group and now openly converse with them. An interesting video was posted by her regarding Anonymous on youtube- "Magoo loves Anonymous": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LNK2hh2ofE Blue123AH (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientologist or PI found with a gun at 3/15 protest

[[18]] Anyone willing to find a usable source for this Sylvok (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reactions source

From the Radar magazine article on Scientology/Anonymous. Here is the response to the writer of questions he asked of her. [19] DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

non credible sources

Many of these "sources" are just links to other wikis and forums. It would be advisable to avoid using non credible sources in this type of entry, and to fix those that are such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.140.16 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding a source to the talk page does not mean that the source will necessarily be used in the article. I agree with you that it is advisible to acoid using non-credible sources. However, some editors are not sure what is or isn't a credible/reliable/verifiable source. DigitalC (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the consensus of editors normally succeed in filtering invalid or incorrectly cited sources on popular pages. A quick look through the articles citations doesn't show up anything to the contrary. Nigholith (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume the editor was referring to the newly-added second paragraph of the "March 2008" section, which does contain primary sources. 11:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And in a shocking misinterpretation of policy, there isn't actually a proscription on primary sources. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:PSTS. Maratanos (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, primary sources can be used, but only in certain instances, such as when there is no doubt who authored them, and when the source is talking about themselves. DigitalC (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well now we get back into the area of notability, which I won't get into because I think the current notability policy is absolutely trash. That's a story for another day. Maratanos (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea of no (or limited) primary sources is to prevent them from being misused or misinterpreted, as it is easy to do. I think it is perfectly consistent with the principles of WP:V and WP:OR to sparingly use primary sources to backup obvious facts (video shows protesters holding sign that says "do not honk"... thats pretty hard to misinterpret), but there is a huge contingent of editors who disagree and will bring down the wrath of khan over stuff like this. Z00r (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual Soup

Right now the article doesn't flow very well. It's pretty much "this happened. then that happened. then the other thing happened. etc". Undoubtedly this is a mark of the way the article was constructed at the same time events were going on, but I think we should work on it. Z00r (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, will continue to work on that issue. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sub-subsections

Best to (try) to keep it to no more than three levels down of subsections, otherwise it will just make the article more unwieldy. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to find a way to break up the Feb. section, and distinguish Feb. 2 from Feb. 10. I thought it worked pretty well with the subsections. I was modeling the edit after how a few other ultra-long articles like Baseball work. Z00r (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's try just having a bolded heading, without a sub-section break. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Good solution! Z00r (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition of unsourced content, poorly sourced content, and WP:OR violations

I was surprised after a brief break to come back to this article and fine lots of additions of unsourced content, poorly sourced content, and WP:OR violations. I will be cleaning this stuff out soon, and adding new material from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please remember that new material should be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching the reactions section, and I noticed that there's been no mention of Scientology critics praising Anonymous (as a number have done). There is, however, an awful lot of negative responses from them listed- in fact, the majority of the section is. I've found the following videos of Mark Bunker and Tory Christman giving positive statements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-EaH7IX6E and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LNK2hh2ofE I'd be grateful if someone could maybe edit the reactions to relfect these? I'm having trouble working sources and references. Blue123AH (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I refer you to WP:RS and to WP:V, unfortunately the sources you cite above are not acceptable in an article in Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? Official policy on primary sources is that they're fine if there's no analysis: if it's immediately obvious to anyone viewing the source that Wikipedia is accurately representing what it says. The only thing that's necessary is to keep the balance from shifting such that too many sources are primary, but given the number of secondary sources we have, I don't think that's a worry. Maratanos (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but given that we want to eventually keep improving this article's quality rating, best to keep to a more conservative standard and stay as close as posssible to material from WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't argue that that's a good idea, but I do think it's worrying that it IS a good idea. If the informative quality of an article needs to be decreased and/or limited for the purposes of following established rules "conservatively", then we seem to be straying dangerously close to breaking WP:BURO. But that's just my opinion. Maratanos (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that from my experience with a few times at WP:FAC, this article will simply never pass muster if there are sources to YouTube, message board postings, and the like, and other primary source references like that and obvious violations of WP:OR. And if the article was constructed like that from the beginning, it most definitely would have failed its first WP:AfD. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New Mark Bunker Video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ICyU0kSAX9I I think it might be worthy of a mention in the "Reaction" section. But if it really is, can anybody find some sources relating to this? We can't use Bunker's YouTube video as a source in itself. Blue123AH (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep on the lookout for mention of this in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

YouTube as a source, and general practice of poor sourcing by editors to this article

Re: the most recent edit by Zaphraud (talk · contribs) - DIFF - Here is the source that was cited:

Most certainly not an acceptable source, not a secondary source, and fails WP:RS and WP:V and is skirting violation of WP:OR. Please undo this last edit. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia Protests

Apparently on 3/21 there was a 700 person non-anon protest in Moscow, Russia, and another anon protest is scheduled for today. Be on the lookout for sources. Z00r (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got one http://rumol.ru/news/3543.html translation 1: http://forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=5191

Google translation: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Frumol.ru%2Fnews%2F3543.html&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8 Z00r (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On March 21, 2008, at least 700 college students, graduate students, and professors held a protest against Scientology at the entrance of the Bauman Moscow Public Technological Institude. Leader of "Young Russia" Maxim Mishchenko was quoted as saying, "Recently in the area of the university an organization has appeared. This organization plans to attract students to take their money and their free will. We have come today to say "NO TO CULTS" We will not let them disrupt our lives and educations. Begon from Bauman's". [20]

I removed this - how is this related to Project Chanology? Is there a secondary WP:RS/WP:V secondary source that says that this protest was related to Project Chanology, or organized by Anonymous? Cirt (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

err, well its not really clear what it means for a protest to be "part" of chanology, or who counts as Anonymous. Z00r (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question from above: Is there a secondary WP:RS/WP:V secondary source that says that this protest was related to Project Chanology, or organized by Anonymous? Without a secondary source, individual Wikipedia editors drawing their own conclusions that this protest is related, would be a violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I had a hard enough time finding one russian source. Z00r (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if its not directly related, its still worth mentioning, we can say "On March 21, there was a protest of Scientology in Moscow which may or may not have been related to project chanology. 700 students, grad students, etc ......" then probably leave out the extended quote by Mitchenvko, as that doesn't belong if we can't directly link it to chanology. Z00r (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"...which may or may not have been related to project chanology..." - This sounds obviously like a violation of WP:OR - it shouldn't go in the article unless a connection has been made by a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, as I mentioned, above. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesnt really make sense, either it was related, or it was not - there is no 3rd possibilty . ([edit] Unless applying the Law of the excluded middle is considered origional research :-S ) Z00r (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not for us to make that connection/assumption, which would obviously violate WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no information contained in that phrase beyond what is in a sentence without it. Provably. It's just there to counter the natural associative tendency of people to assume that it is related because it is in the article. In any case, one strange consequence of what you are saying is that it would be OK to include information about the protest as soon as a source says if it is related or not (either way), but the only time we can't include it is in this weird in-between state where we don't know. Z00r (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly right. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While looking for sources for the above discussion, I came across this: [21], translation: [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into that, thanks. Also FYI - please see the matter of Original Research Violations, being discussed in subsections above and below. It is unfortunate that editors are currently jeopardizing this article's potential eventual upgrade in quality status by adding obvious WP:OR violations into this article. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good case of WP:BRD to me. Z00r (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That is why I am (trying) to get editors to discuss these issues on the talk page. I am wondering what is more important to certain editors - jeopardizing this article's quality status, and preventing the article from ever getting to WP:FA status - or having a small bit of info stay present in the article - sourced to a dubious source like a message board post, personal website, or YouTube video posting? Cirt (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of these V and OR edits look like driveby's - somebody sees something inaccurate or missing, and just adds it in then leaves. Perhaps a new editor or an editor from sections of WP where the balance between V and OR vs. objective truth and IAR is interpreted a little different. Z00r (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with some of what you said, it is possible that these WP:OR violating edits are driveby's - but it is difficult when these individuals do not realize that by adding in their info they are potentially jeopardizing the article's current WP:GA status - and are most definitely preventing the article from ever achieving WP:FA status, if they continue to insist on keeping this poorly sourced information and WP:OR violations present in the article. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Russian Youth has protested scientology before, such as 9/22/2003. [23] Additionally several Russian anons have stated that the Russian youth protests are unrelated, although some anons are involved in both groups. On the Anon and chanology boards people seem to want to distance themselves from the Russia Youth protests. Still looking for legit sources on all of this. There was also supposed to have been an Anon russia protest on the 22nd (day after the other one), though I haven't seen any post-game reports yet. Z00r (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bunker Image

What is the procedure for having the image verified? I emailed Mark Bunker and asked him to register here and upload the image himself, and he did so and sent me the link. Anything else I need to do? Z00r (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please see Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates for more info, and let me know if you need any help with that. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do I need to get him to sent the email? I'm not sure I want to bother him more - he is a busy guy and has been getting flooded with emails recently. If it makes any difference, he was the one who uploaded it, not me. Z00r (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If he uploaded it, it is probably best for him to send the email (worded appropriately per the above links) to the Commons:OTRS people. Alternatively he could send the email to you, and you could forward it to OTRS. Cirt (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, he got a message about the deletion and emailed me. I sent him the links you sent and told him to send an email based on the template. Z00r (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds great, if there are any more issues please let me know if I can help. Cirt (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OTRS acquired, image re-added. Z00r (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Partyvan.info completely down.

I seem that Partyvan.info and partyvan.info.nyud.net are both completely down and every file gone. Not only are they both unable to access the site, but also, http://partyvan.en/wiki/Project_Chanology's second comment says that



It seems to me that the CoS has tried to shut down the site. A web site holding most of the old wiki is mirrored at http://www.divinelotus.org/partyvan/.

Hopefully the real site will be back up soon. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Has this been mentioned in any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable sources, just blogs and a Digg post, however, I'll look tomorrow, there probably won't bee any Reliable Sources tonight.
I see on one blog that it is because of name server problems. http://partyvan-wiki.blogspot.com/ As said in the blog post, http://67.228.193.162/ and http://xyndros.ath.cx/ both work. Seems to just be an error.Lyoko is Cool (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


A notable reference

You may want to mention 4chan in this article. After all, That's likely where the name 'Chanology' came from, as most protesters would organise on the 4chan forums. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.129.128 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, at the beginning of the Formation section. Ayla (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Fairgamed by the CoS

http://laist.com/2008/03/23/church_of_scien.php

Contains introduction, pic of sign outing Gareth, and his entire 7-page description of being fairgamed.

Arabik (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, will incorporate this source into the article soon. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Following up on another source, do -ist pages count as VS/RS? DigitalC (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Best place to get a firm answer on that would be at WP:RSN. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Article summary

I have created a condensed summary (about 350 words) of this article at Template:Project Chanology summary in an attempt to synchronize updates needed to be performed for Scientology#Scientology and the Internet, Scientology and the Internet#Project Chanology, and Anonymous (group)#Project Chanology. Feel free to discuss at its talk page. Ayla (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll b-ball game images

Got CC-BY from creator of images. OTRS pending. Here are the images [24], [25], [26]. Here is a collage I made showing all 3 images: [27]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, will look into this. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OTRS acquired, image collage added. Z00r (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I specify that the page should include the (identical, same-named, but OTRS'd) wikimedia commons image rather than the wikipedia image? Z00r (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, I'd ask Howcheng (talk · contribs) about that. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New sources to add

Will add that later. Cirt (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good finds. Z00r (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Some of the organizers of the facebook groups have said that facebook has blocked them out and banned their accounts for creating said groups and uploading images of the protest. 2 questions.

  • What warranted this censorship and how is it violating any of facebook terms? (or has the Co$ gotten to them as well)
  • Is this censorship worth note or mentioning in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.138.189 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not worth mentioning in this article unless it has previously been mentioned in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a page to discuss events related to Project Chanology, it is for discussion of improving the article on Project Chanology. If you have some secondary sources that mention the facebook issue, please feel free to contribute. DigitalC (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
However, discussing the events can help lead people to searching for the juiciest reliable sources. If you don't know it ever happened, how can you research it? Jwray (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You hit it on the head, good man. It's what I've been trying to do here, but failed. Unfortunantely, there are absolutely no sources at this moment in time so we can't do anything. Blue123AH (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

CoS Video Channel

Credibility questioned It mentions Enturbulation as a source of some of the questions regarding the video's credibility. Delta1212 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Anirobot really nessessary?

Is mentioning the russian Anirobot thing really nessessary? 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions

i think this is an important thing for the article from ref 113...

"AnonymousFacts" displayed the names and personal information of several supposed Anonymous members and accused the group of violent threats and terrorism. YouTube quickly took the video down and suspended AnonymousFacts.

article ref 113 http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-anonymousfacts-youtube-video.php

EDIT i have added the above. but not the new article below as i have poor wiki skills for the citing the reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabik (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


also new radar article http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-legal-letters-gregg-latham-watkins.php

"representatives of law firms have delivered some form of legal letters to suspected Anons, often at their homes"

"one Boston organizer for Anonymous found himself slapped with a summons to appear at an April 16 hearing on charges of trespassing and criminal harassment"

Arabik (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: added above - that for fixing my citation Cirt Arabik (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob, looks like you're getting the hang of it. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

i wondered if these qualify as good sources. Press Releases being reported


  • Another Worldwide Protest Against Scientology [28]
  • Scientology's Attempts to Silence Anonymous With Litigation, Harassment and Intimidation Fails to Prevent Anonymous Protest [29]

Arabik (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If scoop is seens as a verifiable source, then the first one would be good for operation reconnect. DigitalC (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Scoop stuff doesn't seem reliable, as it looks just like press releases themselves, and wasn't cited in any other secondary sources yet, and the stuff on rickrolling I added to the article. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And here it is. It's more about rickrolling in general, but it references the Scientology stunts. Maratanos (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source that goes into some depth (Fox Kansas City video) [31] Z00r (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like quite a good source. Mentions over 10,000 for the 2/10 protests, which I think is unrealistic, but I guess it depends on where their get their data from. [32] & [33] DigitalC (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"anonymous hate crimes" dvd

this is maybe to "church response" part - they made a DVD, called "anonymous hate crimes". Citation from here - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0803/S00190.htm


the video can be find for example here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHDavtWxwdQ . --Have a nice day. Running 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm workin on getting free-use copyright status on this photo showing the DVD: [34] Z00r (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

just throwin some sources in here: [35], [36], —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish we had some legit secondary sources discussing the YouTube/DVD video resolution issue. Z00r (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[37] Is LA Times WebScout WP:RS? Z00r (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image permission acquired from author, waiting on OTRS. [38] Z00r (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS acquired, image added. Z00r (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that image permission was obtained from the person who took the photo? Wouldn't permission also be required from the Church of Scientology (the author of the subject of the picture)? Ayla (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In all but a few small exceptions, copyright is held by the person who took the picture, not the subject that is in it. I will look into this to see if this is one of those exceptions. Z00r (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, it has been OK'ed by the commons OTRS, who undoubtedly know what they are doing. Z00r (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Ayla (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so photos of the cover of a DVD case could be considered a copyvio IF the photo is basically nothing but the cover image. You can't get around copyright on everything by just taking another photo of it. Here I think we are safe since (1) the photo consists of an arrangement of case, dvd, and background that has been done by the photographer (2) it is not an exact copy by any means - there is glare on the case and the angle is not straight on. I'm going to leave it for now, as OTRS has approved it. If further concerns arise or other editors think it is a copyvio, a fair-use case can be made for keeping the image. Z00r (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I raised the point mostly to clear it out for myself for future reference, not because I object (although we should be careful for this particular case). Thanks for the clarification! Ayla (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous has also released their own DVD with copies of the videos they made on YouTube and several anti-scientology movies/videos Such as The Bridge and Trapped in the Closet called Project: Blockbuster. The fist version is out, and currently it seems that they are working on another edition that has more media coverage.

DVD Playlists
Title Version 1 Version 2
Thread Version 1 Version 2
1 Road to February 10th BBC Panorama - Scientology & Me
2 An Anonymous Message to The World -- Human Rites in the RPF A & E - "Investigative Reports" - Inside Scientology
3 Message to Scientology Secret Lives - L. Ron Hubbard
4 Call To Action Inside Edition June 23, 2005
5 Code of Conduct BBC Panorama - Scientology & Me
6 Anonymous Lobby Against Scientology The World in Action - The Shrinking world of L. Ron Hubbard
7 Anonymous vs. Scientology - The Ides of March Geraldo - Scientology vs. Prozac
8 Ides of March - Why We Fight FOX NEWS: Masked Protesters Target Church of Scientology
9 ExSciKids: Kendra, Jenna & Astra Speak Onward: Road to March 15
10 South Park S09E12 - Trapped in the Closet Anonymous vs. Scientology (by Thunderf00t)
11 Missing in Happy Valley March 15th Anonymous Reminder
12 The Bridge Operation Reconnect
13 OT 2007 Summit Testimonials Message to Youtube
14 Un-cut Tom Cruise Testimonial Message to Anonymous
15 XENUTV: Comparing Myths XENUTV: Scientology is Afraid of Anonymous
16 N/A Support to Anonymous from a Scientologist - Save Us

There are no RS's on this yet that I can find. Can anyone else find one? Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sites

Is there a specific reason that the [39] wiki external link was removed?

Also, do you think that 315Chan should be an external link. That chan is mostly related to Project Chanology? Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was hacked and displaying shock images. I'm not sure if its stable now. Z00r (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The external links subsection is pretty big as is. Best to refrain from adding any more sites, unless they are particularly notable and have been mentioned in a few secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the main chanology website... There are tons of sources that have mentioned it. [edit: oh, i see, you are referring to 315chan. nm.] Z00r (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous attack targets epilepsy sufferers

Wired News article. Would this deserve a mention? If yes, should it go in this article or in Anonymous (group)? The article by Andrew Ramadge gives a fairly impartial coverage (although it fails to acknowledge the "blame eBaum's" meme). Ayla (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate for a mention at Anonymous (group). Cirt (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably so. I thought it might also be mentioned here for its possible fair game aspect (as suggested in Ramadge's article). Ayla (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I did not see that, good point. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wired News article is written by a common criminal, Kevin Poulsen. I would not call this a reliable source in the slightest, especially given Kevin's previous exploitation of other controversial issues, such as child molestation on Myspace, for personal profit as a journalist. Long story short, there's no reason to believe he wasn't flat-out paid to write it, and there's absolutely no reason to believe this felon wouldn't cash the check, either. Zaphraud (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Zaphraud (talk · contribs) that the article by Andrew Ramadge is a better source for this info. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23460969-5014239,00.html same story also covers the REAL perpatrators :)

"administrators of 7chan.org posted an open letter claiming that the attack had been carried out by Scientologists seeking to discredit Anonymous.

"Users of this site did not actually attack those individuals. The Church of Scientology posted numerous threads across many (websites), and then informed people that Anonymous had been attacking victims of epilepsy," the letter said.

"They did this under their 'fair game' policy, to ruin the public opinion of Anonymous, to lessen the effect of their lawful protests against their virulent organization"

Arabik (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the exact same link that Ayla (talk · contribs) gave, above. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious Business

Feature Story, really good source, lots of info. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

name

I was reading one thread on 4chan and I realised that most of the channers there are not very amused with these anti-CoS protests. And the protests, in fact, are not now asociated with any chan, but live their own live. So maybe the naming of the article is wrong, it has only originated on 4chan, but now is not too much connected with it...just my guess --Have a nice day. Running 05:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is even documented in this article on citypaper - Judging from the postings to 4chan's /b/ and other chans, a significant number of users were unhappy with the raid and the attention it brought. --Have a nice day. Running 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that very same cite refers to the phenomenon as "Project Chanology". Unless you have a secondary source that calls the movement something else? This is the name it has been referred to as, in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional image

Do with it what you will. Skomorokh 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice image, and free use to boot - but we already have a few which are representative of the Guy Fawkes mask phenomenon in the relevant subsections, on this and other articles. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would go great in Guy Fawkes, if chanology is considered relevant to that article. Z00r (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I judge it to be of higher quality than the currently employed images, but have no problems with your disagreement. Skomorokh 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a higher quality picture. It's really nice, actually. Kudos to whoever took it. LaMenta3 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Huge article

Tons of good infos in this article: http://citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=15543

Rules 1 & 2 unavailable for comment. Z00r (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I already put that above there in the subsection "Serious Business". Cirt (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow don't I feel silly now. Z00r (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good infos, pretty accurate, not sure if it is RS: http://henryjenkins.org/2008/04/anon.html Z00r (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting info, but doesn't satisfy WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

711chan.org and DDoS attacks

I've changed the 711chan.org to 7chan.org for the reason that 711chan comes uncer DDoS attacks from different sources and 7chan has stronger servers for these things, Kay thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butthax (talk • contribs)

Your change was unsourced, did not include any citations to WP:RS/WP:V sources to back up these new assertions, and was reverted as a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Reconnect

Make what of it you will.

There's another article I found with a small section on Anonymous, but not Reconnect.

Relevant part copypasted... "The Anonymous movement was formed in 2005 by participants in various online forums. While its basic aim is to promote free internet speech, it is an emergent internet culture, with no internal structure or leadership. The movement has become known for its vocal opposition to Scientology; in 2007, an anonymous person promised to “remove Scientology from the internet” on behalf of the movement.

“At a rough count, there are 20,000-30,000 people involved in Anonymous,” said Hodge. “It became extremely important to protect the anonymity of the people involved, because of the threat of government and private retaliation. The internet should be free, and people should be able to say what they like, without fear of being shut down.”

An audience member agreed: “There are a lot of draconian laws about what can and can’t be discussed on the internet. Euthanasia is a classic example. But people on the internet will always seek a way to circumvent these laws.”

Hodge said that attempts to shut down the Anonymous movement would ultimately be unsuccessful. “The internet is resilient. The harder you push it, the more it will rally around an issue.”"

Blue123AH (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

protest vs rally

i have read some people say it would be preferable to say 'rally' as it has less negative connotations... should we change it? --Quickmythril (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to support this change? Cirt (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
..rally? makes me think of the Nuremberg rally. Not exactly lacking in negative connotation... --86.135.178.171 (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

rickroll relevance?

How is the women's nasketball game getting rickrolled relevant to Project Chanology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.162.203 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the picture. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

investigation

the earliest member of anonymous that can be found is John E. Fryer aka Dr. Anonymous. Many members claim that it started with the Tom Cruise video incident you can find records of Anonymous members existing long before. This is from 1995 [40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of Internet Actions Section

I have rewritten the internet actions section here: User:Z00r/Chanology_internet_summary. The changes are structural reorganization, rewriting of awkward sentences, and removal of redundant information and excessive statistics.

The reasons for this are that at the moment

  • 1) the article is ludacrously long, and
  • 2) it reads like factual soup and has no flow.

My preferred course of action would be to put my rewrite into the article, and move the current information into a completely new article, say, Chanology internet actions. Normally I would Be Bold, but Cirt has suggested that I discuss here first given the nature of this article and the scope of the changes. Z00r (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Major changes implemented. Z00r (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose massive changes. I am sorry, but these new changes just look silly. The large diagram smack in the middle of article text is highly inappropriate, calling the section "Early Internet Actions" is too specific, "Internet actions" worked fine previously, and the massive rewrite - with all these new bolded subheadings, does not sit right with me and looks overly broken up and sensationalistic. I liked just breaking it up by paragraph better, without all these bolded headings. The previous version was really fine. When I had commented about making this article more succinct - what I meant was summarizing a few sentences and cutting out some material that is already mentioned in Anonymous (group) - not a rewrite of an entire subsection of the article. I am sorry, but I have to Oppose this major change. I would like to go back to this version, you can see from my last edit that I had (started) to cut down/summarize some material. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope you're joking, seeing as how Wikipedia is not static and this article should hopefully last for a while and apply historically... Cirt (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to encourage discussion of the individual changes (which are good, which are bad), rather than lumping everything together into 1 oppose/support. Z00r (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For ease of discussion, here is a list of changes

  • 1) Move from historical order to thematic order
  • 2) Added timeline image
  • 3) Added mini overview paragraph before going into details
  • 4) Added bolded subheadings
  • 5) Changed heading to "Early internet actions" instead of "Internet actions"
  • 6) Removed redundant info
  • 7) Cut down on the number of DDoS statistics
  • 8) Misc various removals
  • 9) Misc. grammar, sentence structure, and other updates

Z00r (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I would rather than have one big change, and discuss all the minutiae of that change, instead make small changes, one at a time, and discuss those individually. That is why I would like to go back to this version for now. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment

I restored a prior version before this major rewrite, but while I was in the midst of trying to cut things down - a bit more gradually and less drastically. If consensus is to keep the major rewrite version, I will self-revert. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is No Deadline, so I think we can take a bit until you have finished cutting down? Personally, I think the thematic order is better. As long as the paragraphs are broken up, they shouldn't need subheadings. The timeline image to me is flawed, as it includes "Worldwide Non-violent Protests", which is not an internet action. Z00r's version is concise and reads quite well, but I don't see a rush to implement it per se. DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will take a bit of time to work on cutting some stuff down and summarizing/making more succinct, and we can come back here and reevaluate soon. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend shortening the summary and including in the summary that Project Chanology originated witin the *chans.90.135.54.16 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Image: Added timeline image. Discuss. Z00r (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation reconnect reports

I wonder if anyone's reading these. But I'll post them anyway.

Blue123AH (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll update the article and add all this stuff soon. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

- Cybergoth (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC) DigitalC (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I already added info from that one. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there might be enough sources to start a new template. Ayla (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and it would also help to see all the sources listed at the bottom, would make it easier to update/expand the April 2008 section. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All the above sources (except the threads) have been incorporated into Template:Project Chanology protests, April 12, 2008. Ayla (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More sources

Timelline image should be removed

I am sorry but I do not think that this 'timeline image' in this article is appropriate, and I think this is also probably something that will get dinged at a potential WP:FAC at some point. My take is that this does not belong in this article. --Cirt (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you feel that way?--Cast (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I disagree because I made the image and added it, but Cirt has a lot of experience with the FAC process. I would like to know why he thinks it is innapropriate, specifically. Then we can fix the problems. Have there been past articles that were denied FAC because they included a timeline? Our goal is to effectively communicate the events of Chanology, and I think the timeline will help with that. Z00r (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment / clarification

The idea of a Timeline should be something that can be edited and is fluid, and also can be referenced. Take a look at the timeline used in the article Essjay controversy for an example of something along those lines. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I released it under public domain. Anyone can edit it. With respect to referencing, every statement in the image refers to a part of the text and is referenced there. Z00r (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but better to use something like the Timeline in Essjay controversy that can be easily changed by other editors. This article already has a whole slew of images, some of which provide utility to the article, some do not. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The essjay timeline is difficult to understand. EDIT: it is a list of events, not a proper timeline. Z00r (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see the need for an image of a timeline. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is a reason why history books include a visual timeline that literally has a line marked with events. That is because it makes a temporal sequence of events easier to understand for most readers. There was a very influential book discussing such things, "The visual display of quantitative information" by Tufte. The considerations are then weighing ease of editing against ease of reading. Z00r (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relatively newer editors should be able to edit that sort of displayed information without downloading and then editing and reuploading an image of a timeline. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Until a better tool comes along (template for a proper timeline?), I will disagree. Since 1) the information is not quickly changing, and 2) the image can be editied (just with more effort), a better article trumps an easier to edit article. Z00r (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case I don't think the image is useful, and again, I think this will get dinged at a potential future FAC. For example, at the article The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, I think it was the FAC but might have been earlier in the review process, I had created a timeline template, but editors said that it was pointless because that information was already presented in paragraph format, in the article, in chronological order. So I think in the end later on in the review process for this article, editors will say the same thing. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Those editors were wrong, as is supported by mountains of research into readability. I will be happy to debate them at a FAC. Z00r (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately you would also be debating me, because I disagree with the inclusion of this timeline image - it just doesn't really sync with the article, it is also too wide and unnecessarily breaks apart the paragraph text. The article is already too long and loads slowly - this doesn't help things. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked into The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power FAC discussion where the timeline ("chronology table") was discussed, and there wasn't really much opposition to it at all. One reviewer recommended that the table be moved to an earlier position in the article. That was it. I don't see any opposition to having a proper timeline.

As for your own concerns with the image - here are your concerns as I understand them:

1) Hard to edit.

2) Too wide.

3) Article load time (image filesize).

4) Don't see usefulness.

Is this a correct summary of your points? Z00r (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There were other concerns about the chronology table at that article. I do not see the point in continuing to discuss this. If you want to go that route, a good way to get outside comment and to resolve this is WP:RfC, I will set that up if you wish - but I think that if we go there it will slow down the article development process itself, and will probably also make progress on this article in the future more difficult. We have to cut/summarize more things from the article, not add more images. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well this is getting silly because no one else is participating in the discussion. Z00r (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical considerations aside, heres my main point - right now the internet actions section is trying and failing to be in historical order. Putting it in proper historical order would involve cutting up several paragraphs, splicing facts around, and adding several transition sentences. On the other hand, if we move to thematic order then we can simultaneously make it more readable and cut several transitional and explanatory sentences that would become redundant. However, with thematic order it is harder to convey a sense of timing to the whole thing, and this is why I originally made the timeline. Z00r (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is already in chronological order, within each subsection, and flows nicely. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
take a look at it... its not. Currently the order is: J15 -> J25 -> J21 -> J24 -> J25 -> J21 -> J25 -> F8 -> J25 -> F10 -> F4 -> F4 -> J25 -> J29 Z00r (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes but if you read it all the way through that section from beginning to end it flows nicely and there is a reason why everything is the way it is. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then why is the information about the unintended consequences of the ddosing and harrasment (g00ns target guy in stockton, and anon takes down dutch school server around J24-25) wayyy at the end of the article far away from the bulk of the hacking info and in the same paragraph as F4th info? Why is the digg portion at the end of the section? Z00r (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay it should be in more of a chronological order now. Cirt (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Several new things

Battletoad Earth
Operation Fair Game Stop

I'm just informing everyone of the upcoming Battletoad Earth Operation Fair Game Stop protest in May. Anonymous has made several trailers of this (here's one) (and another). I haven't found any RS's for this however, I'll keep looking. I am unsure whether we should link this in the article as [[Battlefield Earth|Battletoad Earth]] or [[Battletoad]] [[Earth|Battlefield Earth]] or [[Battletoad]] Earth. If we list it as the first one, I would suggest adding a comment about it on the Battlefield Earth page

Problems within Anonymous

There is a post at 315chan that mentions the breakage between older Anonymous and more moral Anonymous. There is a great video that explains how they should get back together in order to take down Scientology. If someone can find some Reliable sources for this, it might be a good add to Anonymous (group) if not some mention here. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, again, until this stuff gets discussed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, not really too much we can do with it. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bball rickroll collage.JPG

I agree with Sceptre (talk · contribs) that this image should be removed from this article. I have no problem with it being included in the articles Rickroll and Never Gonna Give You Up, but in this article the connection is too tangentially related to Project Chanology. The page loads way too slowly as it is. Cirt (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The image has had concensus to remain in the article for several highly scrutinized and controvertial months. It is very underhanded that user:Sceptre has decided to remove it only now, after all the core editors have moved on, especially considering his similar attempted removal of the Google Lisa McPherson image in this article, and his abusive deletion nominations of the Anonymous Demotivator image, and Rickrolling. Just because editors aren't paying attention doesn't mean that concensus has changed. Z00r (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Has the inclusion of this image been discussed before? While it is obviously connected to the Chanology, I don't see that the article benefits from its inclusion. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Appeal to motive; I actually talked to Cirt about the Chanology article quite extensively last night. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Info trimmed

When trimming some material, these cites were removed:

Could be useful later at some point. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Propaganda

References to the Black Propaganda campaign launched by Scientology should be added 86.41.95.222 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Will work in some more stuff soon from additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: Scientology case headed to BMC

Posting here for now, will add to article soon. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube rolls out Scientology double standard

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/youtube_scientology_channel/

has information RE: black propaganda also

Arabik (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Author is a known unreliable source on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may on other topics, if an individual such as Mark Bunker spoke directly to the author in an interview, then that is citable. Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What makes you say that it is unreliable? Z00r (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Physical attacks by the church against Anonymous!

This should be added to an article, the physical attacks by church members against anonymous:

Egg attack
Kick in first protest by that lady
Hammer attack on Mark Bunker
March 15 PI with gun (no attack, but had a gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet, Anonymous has done NO physical attacks.

Yeah we rock! Obvioustrollisobvious (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlock Article

Enough time has passed. We should unlock the article and allow anonymous IP editors. If the vandalism becomes an issue again it can be relocked easliy enough, though I doubt that will happen. Z00r (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the article would not be disrupted by frequent vandalism. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous grammatical errors, mostly punctuation outside of quotation marks that need to be corrected.198.199.154.250 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That is generally the accepted style for quotation usage. Any specific examples? Btw, we are still getting vandalism even with the semi-protection. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Page protection should only be used when absolutely necessary. Indefinite semi-protection may only be applied to pages with endemic vandalism problems, meaning excessive vandalism that persists even when attention on the subject is relatively low. This page has not been unprotected long enough to determine if such vandalism problems exist. It was only unprotected during a short period of time immediately following Chanology's creation when it was an internet hot topic. Z00r (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, however the ongoing spots of vandalism even with the current protection level leads me to believe that only further disruption would be caused by its removal. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres only one way to find out. I suggest unprotection for a short probation period, after which we may decide whether or not to protect it again. Z00r (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I put in an unprotect request at WP:RFPP. Hopefully there won't be much vandalism.  :( Cirt (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May the force be with us. Z00r (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
England prevails. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+1, Cirt, +1... Also, I do agree with the short probation idea. We'll never know if it will work unless we try.Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sooo..... Z00r (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You added a request for the wrong page, Cirt >.> Readding. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I did? I could have sworn I added a request for the page Project Chanology, no? Cirt (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not 12 year old boys we would be dealing with here, if vandalism occured. This would be vandalism by /b/tards, and seeing as semi-protection has done little to avoid some minor vandalism, that would not really change, as /b/tards are not idiots, and can circumvent stuff like semi-protection... (make an account, leave for 4 days etc). So really is there any need? 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obvioustrollisobvious (talk • contribs)

POV tag

I have added an POV tag, as this article is clearly biased in it's analysis of this group, turning "Anonymous" into the underdog and wholely making Wikipedia a less credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomFighter4all (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain specifically what you feel is POV in this article and how that can be addressed. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say the article is a bit POV, but in the opposite direction, biased against the group. Z00r (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Z00r (talk · contribs), but I have no problems with removing the {{pov}} tag in that case. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is all truthful, I dont see how it is POV. It is just writing truths and information. If it looks bad it is the POV of the person reading it and not the writers fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.44.113 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the FreedomFighter4all account seems to be a sockpuppet concerned only with this topic. Moreover, though, no examples of POV are given nor is there any consensus thereof. Removing POV tag unless/until that changes. Sc00baSteve (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Arabik (talk · contribs), Sc00baSteve (talk · contribs), and Z00r (talk · contribs), no need for the tag. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

London Anon & Court Summons

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult' guardian.co.uk - UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

London Police Protect Scientology From Teen's Sign Gawker - New York,NY,USA

http://gawker.com/392104/london-police-protect-scientology-from-teens-sign

Arabik (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTCKs6v_vfg add this video, for more infomation, sorry not a regular user and would not know how to put it into an artical without damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.96.22 (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • http://www.schnews.org.uk/ SchNEWS - direct action protest demonstrations - free weekly newsletter - crap arrest, climate change, party, DIY, Brighton, animal rights, asylum, permaculture, privatisation, neoliberal, media, copyleft, globalisation

Z00r (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see someone already added a little bit about this, will get on some addition/copyediting soon. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved cat to "Critics of Scientology"

I've moved the article from Category:Scientology controversies to Category:Critics of Scientology, as the topic of the article is the critical group itself, and that's a subcat of Scientology Controversies anyway. Any objections, please feel free to move back :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ change. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXx2p12x4o&NR=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_2&oldid=1088696777"