Jump to content

Talk:Scientology and the Internet/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Quality assessment going forward

Wow, I actually thought coming here the article would be in a lot worse shape. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Go back through and make sure that all references satisfy WP:RS.
  2. Then, go through the cites and re-format all of them with WP:CIT, the References section currently looks choppy and unprofessional.
  3. Then, work on Notable legal actions section. Don't need to remove it, just merge pieces and re-format it to a paragraph discussion / analysis piece that flows easily and is easily comprehended by the lay reader.
  4. Then, step back, and see if it is at all ready for WP:GAC.
  5. If it is not, think about submitting for WP:PR instead, to get some ideas going forward for WP:GAC.

Just my thoughts, Cheers ! Cirt 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII

  • Ingram, Matthew (January 18, 2008). "Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII". Globe and Mail: Ingram 2.0. CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

From the title, it's certainly relevant. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

But how official is that Globe and Mail blog? It can be hard to tell with newspapers. AndroidCat (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon

Interesting stuff in non WP:RS sources

Maybe searching through some of this stuff will yield WP:RS/WP:V sources somewhere else:

  1. Not a WP:RS, but interesting, see Digg.com -- Scientology.org is down!. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  2. Anon declares war on Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I guess anon has to be sued to be important. 99.147.22.195 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes I beleive our efforts should be noted in wiki too, for whatever it's worth. Supra guy (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There are beginning to be a few short usable references:

Update: I believe Wired Magazine is verifiable amirite?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-attac.html
http://gawker.com/347367/why-kids-on-the-internet-are-scientologys-most-powerful-enemy (the title is less then flattering.)Kakama (talk)

Agreed, I believe there is more then enough sources now for mention in the article. Also might be worth considering increasing protection level? due to the amount of vandalism. V* Discharge (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful. Media blogs are not always as WP:RS reliable sources as official media articles. The Wired one is a featured blog with a small team of contributing writers, so it looks like it's fairly reliable. (Not always correct, but reliable.) I'm afraid that the anonymous press release is a bit of a problem. I doubt "Chan Enterprises" is very WP:V verifiable. :) AndroidCat (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, remove the piece in you feel its necessary, until I find more articles tomorrow. Right now its time for sleep :)V* Discharge (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon vs. Scientology on NBC, is NBC notable enough? http://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=209221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.91.13 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With a cite from The Times, a problematic NBC video link isn't needed. AndroidCat (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Someone add the stuff about the massive attack against scientolgoy by Anonymous right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.84.128 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for new section '2008 'Anonymus' Attacks'

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Anonymous%22_releases_statements_outlining_%22War_on_Scientology%22

A whole lot of 3rd Party sources if we need them--Matterfoot (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Title: Scientology and the Internet versus Scientology versus the Internet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article used to be Scientology versus the Internet. Many blogs and journalists actually link to the older, version of the article, which now looks like it is a redirect, and/or refer and talk about the controversy as "Scientology versus the Internet", and not "Scientology and the Internet". For example, just the latest one that uses this term:

So this article should be moved to Scientology versus the Internet. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I dont think it should. "versus the Internet" assumes the rest of the internet is versus Scientology. Who is that exactly? This page should just be named how it is because it clearly means it is about Scientology and anything it has had to do with the internet that people here feel need to be expressed. --Critical Commentary (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It definitely should. Scientology's biggest fear is freedom of information, which is one thing provided by the internet. Most of Scientology's doctrines would be laughed at by people that have not undergone the organization's brainwashing, so premature exposure to Scientology's teachings is dangerous to the organization. Likewise, the organization has tried to suppress many people in the past (labeled by the church, ironically, as "suppressive persons"), and the internet makes it difficult to suppress them. In this way Scientology is at odds with the Internet and what it represents. Finally, the spirit of the article itself correlates to the title. While the title "versus the Internet" may appear to test the neutrality of the issue, the contents of the article support the title.--Mylon (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving to the "versus" title. "Scientology and the Internet" is a perfectly understandable title that doesn't raise the WP:NPOV concerns of "Scientology versus the Internet". That much of Mylon's argument for the rename is premised on Mylon's critiques of Scientology pretty much sums up the NPOV problems with the "versus" title, I think. SFTI also sounds frankly colloquial, not formal, and inappropriate in that way. There's no problem with bad links; that's what redirects are for. --Lquilter (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to old title. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move back to old title. -- AndroidCat (talk · contribs), per the below comment. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet another source refers to "Scientology versus the Internet", not "Scientology and the Internet"

Check it out:

With all due respect, the frequency of use of a term can't be the sole criteria. We need a phrase that is both neutral and descriptive. "Scientology versus the Internet" is practically semantically meaningless, so it's honestly not very descriptive. The topic is about a series of censorship incidents, and is a perfectly appropriate topic, but we don't need to raise unnecessary questions about bias by using such a defective phrase for the article. Describing that "scientology versus the internet" is a commonly used phrase is the right way to handle this; our article can support the use of that non-neutral phrase, but our article itself should not be titled with that non-neutral phrase. (In fact, if it were the title of the article because the non-neutral phrase is so common, then I would argue that it would need to be titled with quotes itself to clearly denote that it's a phrase. It's really better to avoid that whole issue and stick with the neutral, perfectly descriptive and understandable title we currently have, and just reference the non-neutral phrase in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "versus" - Obviously "versus" is a misrepresentation and overstatement of the case that serves little encyclopedic purpose but does serve to over-exaggerate the situation. 'Nuf said. --JustaHulk (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, so there seems to not really be a consensus to change the title of this article back to the longstanding "Scientology versus the Internet", but the majority of comments above don't seem to be opposed to mentioning in the article the media's use of the term "Scientology versus the Internet" in the article, as used to describe the conflict. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it's a really good idea to mention it, since it is a commonly used term, and that will give some color to the general tenor of discussions of the issue. --Lquilter (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The group 'Anonymus'

I remember hearing about a group online with the same name, except they stole idenities and sent death threats, any relation?--Matterfoot (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yepp. It is mostly the *chans, an emerging autonomous conciousness --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Ebaums as well, they've made their share of raids. The chan-anonymous correlation is not quite as high as is commonly thought. 206.248.129.252 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My name is Legion

I saw the "Anon" video and noticed they used the biblical phrase "We are Legion," so I mentioned it in the My name is Legion article. Maybe some of these editors might want to check it out and beef up that reference. --Shakeyhandzzz (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed content

Since JzG declines to express exactly what is it he/she objects to about this content, I'll post it here in hopes that someone can:

In January 2008, an online group who call themselves "Anonymous" began DDOS attacks on several scientology websites. Scientology.org was brought down for several days due to the attack. The group released a video on YouTube outlining what they call "War on Scientology".

Here are the references, which are really overkill for the current paragraph:

AndroidCat (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this removal of well-cited info seems ... quite odd. This is no longer a simple YouTube post, it has become a worldwide phenomenon. I could provide (50) or so more cites to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources if need be... Cirt (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One more whack at "Scientology vs. the Internet"

I don't expect this to change the consensus around here, but I feel this needs to be said and resaid: Anonymous is pushing for characterizations of Scientology as being in direct opposition to things like the Internet, and as fully deserving of the name 'cult' because we feel these characterizations are encyclopedic in nature. Any honest analysis of WP:V sources leads naturally to these conclusions, and there seem to be few substantive objections to them except for those produced by the Church and its operatives themselves.

Particularly because of the Church's proven record of duplicitous and sneaky PR tactics, I feel that the arguments about Scientology on Wikipedia's talk pages should be interpreted skeptically. There are almost certainly Scientologists participating here, perhaps even as upper-echelon Wikipedians. Some may freely identify as Scientologists but if the popular allegations are true, some probably don't. If this is the case, then WP:AGF is a weakness which may admit factual bias, in this case in the "let's reserve judgement" direction. I realize that reserving judgement has been held to be the most NPOV position, but remember also that failing to call the Branch Davidians a cult would be highly editorial.

So I entreat everybody: Please, please do not let the Wiki process be undermined. Do not let *anyone* present an argument on the Talk pages which is backed up only by the supposed 'popularity' of a belief, nor by documents provided by the Church or affiliated organizations. In analyzing the arguments put forth, consider the possibility of conflicts of interest on the part of other Wikipedians.

That's all I have to say. 24.84.209.41 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Second wave

It appears that another wave of live protests are coming just a heads up to everyone

[[1]http://www.dailymotion.com/SA-Anonymous/video/7341208 ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvok (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already been mentioned; and ideally this should be discussed on the Project Chanology page. Ayla (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology

This is kind of a huge section, maybe it should have its own article? AndroidCat (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It already does, at Project Chanology. In fact, the section is merely a summary of the aforementioned article. It isn't condensed further because it's fairly important to the Scientology and the Internet article. Ayla (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a rather large summary. AndroidCat (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that it should be shortened, you could use the "Project Chanology" section from the Anonymous (group) article, or the last paragraph of the "Scientology and the Internet" section from the Scientology article. Both are more or less identical, and are a (more) heavily-condensed summary of the Project Chanology article. Ayla (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the Scientology and the Internet too long also. It suffers from a blow-by-blow detailed description of recent events. AndroidCat (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kids against Scientology

Good source, should be added to article

A very interesting development, indeed. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Update, now mentioned in WP:V/WP:RS secondary source

Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


alt.religion.scientology and the Xenu story

The "Xenu Revelation" section of the article mentions a Usenet posting to alt.religion.scientology on 24 December 1994. This post, as described, contained a description of the Xenu story in the words of L. Ron Hubbard himself. This is not a knock against this portion of the article, as it cites this with a related news story from the time. However, I can't seem to locate the original newsgroup posts in question via Google Groups. There is one post, dated 24 December 1994, but [stuff deleted] is all that's shown (link). I did find an interesting read entitled Report to clearwater (link) however at the very bottom of that page there is a DMCA takedown notice. Can anyone find the full text of the OTIII post? A link to it would be a great addition to the article. TonyLechner (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly the Usenet article (a) was removed from Google's archive during years of continuing DMCA takedown notices, (b) Google's search feature is extremely buggy, or (c) due to the nature of Usenet, it just didn't propagate to Dejanews to be archived.
It might exist in other archives, but public ones would have also attracted DMCA notices, and would they be WP:RS sources? AndroidCat (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet unites, emboldens critics of Scientology

Good source that should be used in this article. Cirt (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that just a reprint of:

Wikileaks

Do you think that the recent Scientology versus Wikileaks story is notable at all?24.62.238.203 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube rolls out Scientology double standard

Quite an interesting double standard, indeed. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge With Chanology

It's ridiculous to have two articles on the same subject. --Blackfish711 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell no. AndroidCat (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs). One is about the history of the Church of Scientology's confrontations with the Internet, what many journalists have called "Scientology versus the Internet", and the other is about a relatively new development of conflict between two groups, some of which involves the Internet. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "”UnSafe”" :
    • {{cite web |url = http://news.com.com/2100-1023-226676.html |title = Scientology subpoenas Worldnet |accessdate = 2007-08-10|last = Goodin|first = Dan |date = [[1999-06-03]]|work = [[CNET]]}}
    • {{cite web |url = http://slashdot.org/yro/01/03/16/1256226.shtml |title = Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot |accessdate = 2007-09-05|date = [[2001-03-16]]|work = [[Slashdot]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Annonymous vs 4Chan, 7chan, etc.

We know specificly where the attacks are comming from, why do we use annonymous?

→Anonymous are users of the *chan image boards.

-No, they're from eBaums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.254.2 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Message to Scientology" video

"Message to Scientology", January 21, 2008

Added this video to the article. It is embedded alongside the article text, and can be played at the same time while reading the article. Cirt (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and Wiki

Has there been any conflict with the Scientologists and Wikipedia? Barab 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not more so than any other highly charged topic, and a lot less than some. The trouble on these articles has largely focused around a few issues:
1. Vandals who think Scientology is hilarious and that posting "LOL XENU IS MY DADDY, TOM CRUSE IS MY CRUSE MISSLE OF LOVE LOL" is funny. This is no different from any other politically charged topic of the sort that gets airplay on "South Park". Fact is, anyone's religious beliefs can be a laugh riot to disbelievers, whether they're about Xenu the Galactic Emperor or about Jesus the Carpenter What Came Back to Life.
2. Conflict over the inclusion of historical information that reflects negatively on Scientology. This is the same sort of situation that crops up with any controversial organization: partisans of the organization don't want anything bad said about it, even if the bad is true and documented. This is really not much different from (say) Macintosh fans who don't want anything bad said about Apple.
3. Conflict over sources, particularly original Scientology documents. The Church of Scientology is copyright-maximalist (in the jargon of the copyfight) and tends to act as if copyright and trade secret law give it the right to control the dissemination of information about its doctrines. Many formerly-secret Scientology doctrines are now publicly known (usually due to court discovery processes, or ex-members who took legally obtained copies with them when they left) ... but Scientology still intermittently tries to shut down discussion of these doctrines. Here, that manifests as folks who come around and delete a bunch of sources, claiming they're "unauthorized".
All in all, Scientology is actually a less contentious topic on Wikipedia than a lot of other topics, such as various sorts of nationalism, or (at times) pseudoscience issues such as creationism. That could just be because there are a lot fewer Scientologists and people who care about Scientology than there are creationists and people who care about creationism .... --FOo 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, that is pretty interesting. I'm surprised that they haven't threatened with any legal action over the criticism part of the articles. (Like what has happened to YTMND and other sites). I just was curious about this, if the discussion area here isn't suitable for this, feel free to remove it. Barab 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


There is conflict between Scientology members and Wikipedia on a daily basis. The conflict consists of certain people thinking they sound clever when they say things like "Hmmmm I don't see a verifiable source of statement X!" Then shutting up when someone provides a laundry list of legit and solid sources.

Long story shirt yes, conflict exists between Scientology and Wikipedia. but that's just because of the nature of some of the more harsh aspects of Scientology... to put it nicely... John 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I too am surprised there has been no legal action (at least that the public has heard of) taken against Wikipedia by the CoS. Maybe the CoS is growing tired of juvenile and vindictive litigation (not bloody likely). However, perhaps the very nature of Wikipedia.org makes it hard to bring about litigation against. Who EXACTLY are you going to prosecute? Jimbo Wales? I mean really... I think the CoS just realizes how much of a logistical nightmare it would be to attempt to prosecute so many people, rather than it being a case of them simply being able to tolerate such a public and expansive forum as Wikipedia openly discussing every little facet of their "religion." John 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is such a big problem that all scientologists are boycotting the Wikipedia. It is actually against the religion of Scientologists to read altered versions of Scientology. Since I have not seen a single article or definition in the Wikipedia about Scientology that is actually accurate, I guess it is true that Scientologists just don't use Wikipedia at all. That's the logical reason there isn't any huge outcry or litigation. There are some sections of the "Scientology" article that are accurate but everything else, including this article on "Scientology and the Internet" is written by people who are so negatively biased they're obviously incapable of accuracy where Scientology is concerned. I tried to edit for accuracy but the Wikipedia is so sure Scientology is all bad that they violate their own principal of unbiased content.Even where I had sources and references the pro-Scientology content was usually deleted. I guess the Church has bigger fish to fry than Wikipedia since none of their members use it anymore. By the way, if anyone's gone to a Scientology event lately, the Scientology Churches are busting at the seams with new members, and all just as negative on Wikipedia as Wikipedia is on Scientology.Countesskrak 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fossa's Fluffy Research and Ad Hominum

Fossa, you seem to be doing a superficial Google search and declaring that to be research. Among other things, you don't seems to be searching on variations of the term. If you're searching Google's archives of Usenet, please be advised that the archives that Google later acquired are sometimes quite spotty during that period, especially pre-1995. Note that this post (1995) "CoS vs. Net will be studied in an MIT class this fall" is a repost and the original isn't available. As well, other non-Usenet traffic such as Fidonet isn't archived by Google.

What is your relevance of adding a description of modemac (I assume that's who you mean) as a neopagan in the text of the article? Would "Fossa, who describes himself as a male hetrosexual" (assuming you are and have) be relevant to suddenly drop into an article? It seems to be an attempt to get close to an ad hominum without going over the edge, defended with a weak justification. AndroidCat 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Cult of the Dead Cow

I just removed a specific reference to the fact that the Cult of the Dead Cow declared war to the Church of Scientology in 1995. Admittedly, I didn't know about this event, so I'm not sure it was relevant enough to point at it explicitly in this specific article, as free speech advocates constitute a much broader population than this specific group (although the mention certainly fits well in Alt.religion.scientology). If you think I am mistaken here, sorry for the revert. -- Raymond Hill 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The mention is in the a.r.s. article as well. I don't really see why it doesn't fit in here, but I'll leave it be until anyone else opines, when/if that ever happens. --Myles Long 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What did that "declaration of war" amount to? I don't recall anything memorable in results. AndroidCat 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the cDc are rather notable. They may not have been the only notable figures to take a strong stance in that respect, but I'd say that's a reason to note any of the others, not to remove mention of cDc. Which is why, uh, I already restored it. Sorry if that was precipitous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what did that "stong stance" consist of? AndroidCat 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Unfunny Truth merge

There's already a paragraph about YTMND and The Unfunny Truth that's longer than the The Unfunny Truth article. What's to merge? AndroidCat 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kobrinogram

"In January 1995, Church lawyer Helena Kobrin attempted to shut down the Usenet discussion group alt.religion.scientology by sending a control message instructing Usenet servers to delete the group on the grounds that" Is the word "kobrinogram" widely used to describe legal threats by Kobrin? We could at least do a redirect from Kobrinogram to Scientology versus the Internet or to Helena Kobrin. Apokrif 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Helena hasn't been the copyright/trademark letter lawyer for several years, so "Kobrinogram", "Korbogram" and variations have fallen into disuse. The current nickname for those letters is "Avagram" for Ava Paquette who now fills that role. AndroidCat 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

YTMND

"In June 2006, Scientology lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to Max Goldberg, founder of the website YTMND, asking him to take down all sites that either talked about or mocked Scientology, which had recently become a fad on the site following an infamous South Park episode."

I'm not sure if this is entirely accurate. Scientology was not a fad on YTMND until the cease-and-desist letter was sent out; furthermore, many of the sites listed on the C&D actually date from before the airing of this episode. Source: www.ytmnd.com/info/l_ron.html

Something does not have to be a YTMND fad for a few YTMNDs to appear about it over time. The cease-and-desist is what started the fad according to the YTMND Wiki itself: wiki.ytmnd.com/Scientology 81.76.12.234 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Which episode are you refering to? The Scientology one that aired last year, or the Return of Chef? AndroidCat 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article refers to the episode "Trapped in the Closet". 81.76.12.234 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

Clambake wasn't the only website blocked on Wayback Machine: mine was and so were others. Mine is also still blocked. It could also be added that Wayback Machine has now adopted a proper response policy to complaints. --Hartley Patterson 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MySpace Issues...

I'm not about to edit this page and put this up (for fear my life will be threatened) but I found this pretty interesting: http://www.scientomogy.com/myspace.php In essence, it seems that MySpace has been shutting down profiles critical of Scientology. I'm not sure how founded these claims are, but many of the websites, when visited, do display the message "This profile has been removed or deleted." There is also a YTMND outlining some of these events, though I'm too lazy to go search for it now.

Additionally, I wrote a long e-mail to MySpace simply asking them (almost begging them) if they could explain why they were doing this, as being critical of any religion is seemingly not against their policy. For gravity, I added "I am considering cancelling my MySpace page if this is not explained to me." In return I got a customer support e-mail saying "This link should answer your questions." When I clicked on the link, it took me to a "How to cancel your MySpace account" page. Creepy, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileslivingston (talk • contribs)

Not creepy at all. Hurray for MySpace. Isn't this America? Land of Religious Tolerance. Don't we still have a constitution which guarantees religious freedom. New religions are always criticized. Early Christians were fed to lions. Early Jews were enslaved. At least someone's standing up for religious tolerance somewhere.Countesskrak 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology versus the Internet is not a common name

Proposed move (April 2006)

Should be moved to comply with generic Wikipedia naming conventions. See Scientology and psychiatry. This title sticks out like a sore thumb. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. How you you propose to rename it in the real world which has used variations of verses, against or plain old war for over 10 years? AndroidCat 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll close this as a no consensus, then. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

November 2006 discussion

The name Scientology versus/vs/vs. the Internet yields only about about 300 google hits. Andries 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to Scientology and the internet. Andries 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; awkward phrasing. Should be renamed. --LQ 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Variants of that exact wording are much more common, including news stories that use stronger wording like war. AndroidCat 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's more common or not, "Scientology and the Internet" would be a fairer name. "Dubya" is a common term but we don't call the George W. Bush article that. "Scientology versus the Internet" needs to be a redirect here, not the actual official title. Highfructosecornsyrup 23:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A redirect from "Scientology versus the Internet" is a good idea. I suspect that most people looking for articles about Scientology conflict on the internet are going to do things like "Scientology and the Internet" -- ordinary, common articles and conjunctions. User:AndroidCat points out that there are variants of that exact wording, plus stronger wording -- picking one or another wording is necessarily going to be arbitrary, which is why the neutral and common conjunction is going to be easiest. Possibly the article should include a paragraph about the ways the dispute has been characterized, including phrases like "Scientology versus the Internet," "Scientology's War on the Internet," and so on. --LQ 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The story of Scientology versus the Net is not a tale of friendly nethead-to-nethead hostilities like 1993's kittens-in-the-microwave flame war between alt.tasteless and rec.pets.cats. This is mortal combat between two alien cultures - two worlds whose common language masks the gulf between them. A flame war with real guns. A fight that has burst the banks of the Net and into the real world of police, lawyers, and armed search and seizure. Ultimately, however, the drama doesn't matter: the real issues here are the boundaries of free speech and the future of copyright and intellectual property in the face of a technology that can scatter copies across the world in seconds. The Church of Scientology will not be the last organization, controversial or otherwise, that seeks to protect its interests against the Net. Technology doesn't care about the motives of its users.

— alt.scientology.war, Wired magazine 3.12, December 1995
(Bold added AndroidCat 20:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

There are those who could be called “merchants of chaos.” These are people who want an environment to look very, very disturbing. These are people who gain some sort of advantage, they feel, if the environment is made to look more threatening. An obvious example can be seen in newspapers. There are no good news stories. Newspapermen shove the environment in people’s faces and say, “Look! It’s dangerous. Look! It’s overwhelming. Look! It’s threatening.” They not only report the most threatening bits of news, but also sensationalize it, making it worse than it is. What more do you want as a proof of their intention? This is the merchant of chaos. He is paid to the degree that he can make the environment threatening. To yearn for good news is foolhardy in a society where the merchants of chaos reign. The chaos merchant has lots of troops among people with vested interests.

— Church of Scientology, Scientology.org: Merchants of Chaos
(Bold added Jpierreg 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
So, are you suggesting that the article be renamed "Scientology verses the Merchants of Chaos"? AndroidCat 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Scientology verses many Merchants of Chaos on the Internet" would really be longwinded. Thus I totally agree with what user: Andries initially suggested -- Jpierreg 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Scientology disputes with online critics". "Scientology disputes with online critics" captures the dispute but in more neutral terms than "war" or "versus", and also properly distinguishes between "the Internet" and specific folks publishing on the Internet. "Scientology and the Internet" is neutral, although perhaps too general. --LQ 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I personaly feel disinterested to read only about disputes with online critics on the Internet. This is because there is no hope in this title. For instance no hope of a to understand the ethical reasons as to why the Church of Scientology and Scientologists behave in such a way. However, I feel there has been little contribution from Scientologists to the WP articles so far. Also, as a matter of fact you just have to run a search whatsoever on the Internet about Scientology to get in your first ratings a personal site that is critically hostile of Scientology. -- Jpierreg 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding? I thought that "Scientology versus the Internet" referred primarily or solely to attempts to shut down criticism. All the revelations of content were done in a critical context, no? ... At any rate, my main point is that the title is arch rather than user-friendly; and while it may have some currency as a phrase to describe the general issue, it is by no means the only or primary way people describe the general issue. So I would go with something user-friendly, descriptive, and neutral. I couldn't find the article, myself, and I knew what the title was supposed to be, but I couldn't remember if it was "vs." or "v." or "vs" or "versus", "Scientologists" or "Scientology", so, to me, it fails user-friendly and neutral. --LQ 14:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"misused tags"?

Antaeus Feldspar removed my "fact" tags and my "disputed" tag and said they were "misused". I'd like to know how this is so. Almost none of the important sentences have sources, and I DO dispute the NPOV of this article, so I don't see how it's someone else's place to remove the tag without a better explanation. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: on his talk page, Antaeus Feldspar said I didn't have a right to an explanation "When you're making high volumes of very obviously POV changes" and "I concentrate on undoing the damage first"! Wow. How are my changes "obviously POV"? What do you presume to think my POV is? What articles have I "damaged"? So much for WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith. How the heck am I supposed to dispute an article if you watchdog over it and refuse to let a "disputed" tag be placed on it, even though I explained myself on the talk page and you didn't? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You damaged the article with endless "citation needed" tags. The article looked like shit and if Antaeus would have not reverted your change, then I would do it.
Oh, and one more thing - the requirement to reference even most obvious and well-known things stinks of pro-Scientology POV.
Futurix 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the article "looking like shit" more important than not being sourced? Seriously. And what makes these things "obvious and well-known things" except in your own opinion? They aren't "obvious and well-known things" to people who read the article, obviously, or they wouldn't be looking up the subject in an encyclopedia. You are the third editor so far to accuse me of "pro-Scientology POV" when so far I haven't asked for any negative information about Scientology to be removed - in fact, am I not bolstering that negative information by asking that source links be provided for it? Slow down a minute and just think. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Carpet-bombing with tags is seldom a good-faith effort[1] and usually represents someone's grudge[2], gripe[3], mission[4] or burr of the moment[5]. Scientology articles frequently suffer from overcite[6] when every sentence sports a reference tag or two[7]. That doesn't help readablity[8] and a number of them[9][10] get combed out each time someone does the thankless task of boiling-down[11] an article[12]. AndroidCat 02:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL[13] Futurix 03:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Distracting editors from doing useful things by asking redundant questions is harmful. Read the links from the bottom of the page and you will see confirmation of all obvious things mentioned in the article. Do you really expect explanation of (for example) why "Scientology versus the Internet" is the colloquial term? Futurix 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to disagree with any of you and not be ridiculed? Is criticism of the way these articles are written not allowed now? So not only can I not use a "citation needed" tag for sentences with no citation, I'm being "harmful" by even just asking "redundant" questions? Wow. Talk about 'chilling effects' on Wikipedia. So, I guess I should just shut up and let you guys run these articles the way you want, and not get in the way with my silly little concerns about fairness and POV? Highfructosecornsyrup 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What I said is my personal opinion.
You are welcome to do what you want, as long as it is not against Wikipedia rules and common sense.
IMHO excessive tagging was against common sense. Futurix 03:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So, it's your idea of "common sense" that sentences such as these are perfectly well-known to be true, POV-free, Weasel-free, and need no citations directly attached to them?:
  • "the assertion of the controversial organization fighting against "the Internet" in its entirety has humorous connotations."
  • "The Church of Scientology is often accused of barratry (or malicious litigation and intimidation)."
  • "The official church response is that its litigious nature is solely to protect its copyrighted works and the unpublished status of certain documents."
  • "Some critics of the Church of Scientology claim that the church is a scam and that these "secret" writings are proof."
  • "A former high-ranking official in the organization who had been personally affiliated with L. Ron Hubbard, Erlich's presence on the newsgroup caused a number of regular participants there to sit up and take notice."
  • "After failing to remove the newsgroup, Scientology adopted its current strategy of newsgroup spam and intimidation. Scientologists and hired third parties regularly flood the newsgroup with pro-scientology messages, vague anti-scientology messages, irrelevant comments, and accusations that other posters are secret Scientologists intent on tracking and punishing posters."
  • "Lawyers representing Scientology made public appeals to Internet service providers to remove the newsgroup completely from their news servers. When these requests were repeatedly rejected, one of their lawyers unilaterally issued a rmgroup command to the Usenet server network to cause the group to be removed, an action which was quickly undone by the news server administrators."
  • "In the early days of the World Wide Web, Scientology attempted a similar strategy to make finding websites critical of the organization more difficult. Scientology employed Web designers to write thousands of Web pages for their site, thus flooding early search engines."
  • "Scientology has introduced a special software package for its members to protect them from "unapproved" material about the church. The software is designed to completely block out the newsgroup a.r.s, various anti-Scientology Web sites, and all references to various critics of Scientology."

That's just a few for starters. There are plenty more important assertions, claims, accusations, and weighted comments that have nothing in the way of citations. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As was already stated many times - tagging each sentence individually makes article unreadable. Same goes for references - if you will put reference for each statement - article will be a mess. The solution is to combine them: one tag in the beginning of the article is enough, external link covering 5-10 references is even better. Futurix 04:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So you have no problem with any of the unsourced/POV statements above, and prefer they stay unsourced, rather than create a "mess"? Highfructosecornsyrup 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
How many times do you want me to repeat "Read the links from the bottom of the page" ? Read pages linked by external links in critical section. For example first "critical" link (to Wired article) confirms at least 4 of points in your list! Futurix 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The "External links" section isn't the same thing as a "References" section. Did you not know that? Highfructosecornsyrup 16:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do know that. Futurix 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Referring to the external links for sources contradicts generally accepted practices for good articles. See Wikipedia:cite your sources. Andries 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder[citation needed] if you[14] will consider[citation needed] article with large[15] amounts of [citation needed] and [16][17][18][19] a good one? [20][21][22] Futurix 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You will not convince or intimidate me by making a caricature of my argument. This article is undercited something should be done about it. Andries 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Something can be done about it." But mass-dropping cite tags isn't the way. AndroidCat 18:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So, for the 3,000th time, what IS the way? Tell me how I can properly attend to this article's POV and sourcing problems without having ten people jump all over me. If I edit the article myself, people complain. If I put tags on the unsourced contentious claims, people complain. If I bring it up on the talk page, people complain - and then still do nothing about the problem. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO AF should not have removed those requests for citations: they were legitimate. Futurix's emphasis of tidiness over accuracy and fair treatment is nonsensical. He has taken his arguments close to the point where they feel almost like an attack against the editor. The point remains, this article has a horribly anti scn POV and is woefully undersourced. That needs to be remedied. If that means a bit of untidiness in the meantime, so be it. ---Slightlyright 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course we should trust you - recently registered user with all edits related to scientology and with obvious pro-scientology POV in all of them? Futurix 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ho-ho-ho, apparently Highfructosecornsyrup also has pro-scientology history of edits. Well, now I really understand your consern. Futurix 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Name one pro-Scientology edit I've made. Hint: asking for fairness and sources isn't "pro-Scientology". It's how all articles are SUPPOSED to be. Highfructosecornsyrup 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hint: all pro-scientology editors before you always masked their actions with same words. It's how they were tought, I suppose.
What about this discussion? [2]
As for examples - I don't know, may be this or this or this or this.
Futurix 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Futurix! Nothing that you have cited above is even vaguely pro Scn. If you think it is... wow man... take a step back and LOOK. Are you serious? You are editing from a strange place if those actions look Pro Scn to you. They are Pro NPOV and pro not violating copyrights... and that's it. ---Slightlyright 19:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really?
Link 1 - Highfructosecornsyrup removed link to article about Lisa McPherson - subject of major controversy, and one of most well-known scientologists for general public (because of media exposure);
Link 2 - Highfructosecornsyrup nominated for deletion article about prominent scientology critic;
Link 3 - Highfructosecornsyrup tagged as "possible copyright infringement" article about major scientology book, even though the article does not contain a single quote from the book and written as perfectly legal summary of contents;
Link 4 - Highfructosecornsyrup nominated for deletion article about one of the scientology organizations, organization that in past shown tendency to hide it's connection to scientology;
Futurix 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you couldn't be more wrong about "Scientology 0-8" - the article is little more than a list of axioms quoted from the book. Secondly, I nominated those AfD's because they were microstubs about obscure subjects. If I really wanted to push a pro-Scientology agenda, I assure you I could do it far more effectively than focusing on dull subjects like the CBAA. You seem more interested in making personal attacks and casting aspersions than improving the articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
So, what can you say about your deletion of link to Lisa McPherson article?
Any proof of your allegations about "Scientology 0-8" article?
Subjects you want to be deleted are far from being obscure, you are pushing your POV here. If you'd really wanted to improve situation, you'd expand the stubs (which is the normal practice).
You seem more interested in nominating articles for deletion then actually improving them.
Futurix 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already given my reasons for my edits on their appropriate talk pages and in my edit summaries. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking for the repetition of the reasons (I see that both of your deletion nominations were rejected, and "Scientology 0-8" has no proof of any copyright violation), but do you really see your view as neutral? Futurix 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion's really jumped the shark. Highfructosecornsyrup is right, though, stuff should be sourced. Now if we want to make an asethetic decision in the meantime and not tag the article up, that's OK, we can just list the things that need sourcing on the talk page, but we should really source stuff. It's not a POV issue, either, I'm sure the critical stuff has plenty of sources, but we shouldn't just take anyone's word for it. VxP 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! A Scientologist still looking for an unbiased article about Scientology....This one isn't it, that's for sure. Why do you assume that the unsourced statements that needed a citation, "of course" have reliable sources? They probably don't. Since apparently no-one who uses Wikipedia has ANY first hand knowledge of Scientology, from the gross false ideas contained in here about Scientology, Scientologists and their intentions. These are just normal working people trying to get a spiritual attitude. Why do you have to attack them without even knowing. Would it kill Wikipedia to follow it's own rules and be UNBIASED? Countesskrak 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy warning

I do not think that Karin Spaink went on to proceed for the Dutch Supreme Court. This is negated in the Dutch article about the case. Besides this is unsourced. I will give the article a factual accuracy warning until this is solved. Andries 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever tried to enter Karin Spaink supreme court in a search engine? You would have found this: [3] --Tilman 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
it is contradicted by Dutch language sources. A press release of xxs4all may not be the best source, especially not when specialized Dutch legal terms are translated into English language. Andries 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The Dutch language Wikipedia article says that the way of court to the supreme court was aborted. They did however say that they went further than the lowest court. Andries 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
After reading the Dutch version of the Xs4all press releasee I have to admit that there is no translation mistake. 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Andries 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, The case did go to the Dutch Supreme Court. However, at the final stages of the case just before judgement, the Church of Scientology managed to withdraw their appeal of lower courts. Strictly speaking, the court didn't decide against Scientology (the lower courts had already done that)—however, CoS walked away from their 10 year campaign, leaving the victory to XS4ALL, Karin Spaink and others. So, change the "decided" and add that CoS withdrew their appeal from the Supreme Court, and that should do it. AndroidCat 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put the reference. I agree that the language should be modified somewhat - but someone else should do it. I've also reordered it - the xs4all & spaink case is there twice, it should be merged.
The Grady Ward case is incomplete. He settled for $200 a month "for life" without admitting anything. Another critic, Joe Harrington, admitted "after his death" that he was SCAMIZDAT. --Tilman 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's its not it's

At least try to punctuate properly AndroidCat 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful and helpful suggestion. Its greatly appreciated! BabyDweezil 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Scientology versus the Internet" is biased, POV and grossly inaccurate

In addition to the bias inherent in the title, there is no evidence that Scientology is engaged in a campaign against the Internet, which has connotations of terrorism, etc. The article should be renamed something to the effect of "Scientology and its Internet Critics." BabyDweezil 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Scientology Internet controversy" for a shorter and more neutral title? -- ChrisO 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
anything along those lines is fine with me, although ny attempt to change what is clearly a biased title was reverted. So hopefully there will be some consensus to change it to anything but the current. BabyDweezil
No! No! My friends on the German Wikipedia already believe that this is the "colloquial" term for this "controversy". Et aspetto la versione italiane. So, please don't change this ridicolous title. Fossa?! 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
seems like a rather controversial use of "colloquial". Didnt realize this had such international ramifications. BabyDweezil 22:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be a "colloquial" usage, but it's used by only one side - so it's hardly a neutral term. BabyDweezil is right to point this out, IMO. -- ChrisO 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Grmmpf. I was kiddin you. Fact is, I have argued on the German Wikipedia that this is not even a colloquial term, just some POV label to no avail. Fossa?! 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The real issue is the "vs the internet" bit, which is absurdly inaccurate. I dont think Scientology has launched any kind of offensive "against the Internet" which would be a crime (and just plain wrong). BabyDweezil 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That bit even most of my fellow Germans could grasp, but they though that this is a standing expression in English and thus nevertheless a valid article title. Fossa?! 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I still say to give it das boot. BabyDweezil 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I say you're a member of Scientology's legal team, which explains your stance on this. Anonymous, my IP's gotta be somewhere if you wish to sue me, 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the assertion that this title is POV. Scientology is not actively engaged in some campaign against the internet, I'm sure many Scientologists would be mad if the internet just disappeared. Furthermore, the the name of the article is un-encyclopedic. I propose that the name be changed to "Scientology and the Internet" many other similar topics have followed this naming convention. It has the advantage of being as neutral as one can imagine, and it makes the content of the article (Scientology's relationship with internet culture and other activities) fairly obvious. 69.122.90.226 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Xenu Revelation" section does not mention Xenu

The section titled "The Xenu Revelation" makes no mention of Xenu.

Is the reader expected to find "Xenu" in the "Doctrine" section of the sidebar? Pair O' Noyas 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-WP:RS sources in article intro that need to be replaced

The following are non-WP:RS sources that should be replaced with reliable sources for their accompanying claims:

"Medical claims within Scientology's secret teachings"

O'Connor, Mike. "How Scientology claims to cure physical illness", 2003

"NOTS34: criminality successfully protected by copyright law"

"'Handling a physical condition' with the NOTs"
---BabyDweezil 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Web sites in question where these essays are hosted (plus the a.r.s. newsgroup via Google) have been authenticated again and again as "reliable sources" here, despite what AI and Terryeo had to say about it. The content of these essays are also authoritiative and scholarly, as they use Hubbard's own words as a source. This sounds like an attempt to use WP:RS as an excuse to remove these links, while the real reason for the objection is they actually contain genuine quotes from the OT Levels -- which Scientology does not want anyone to see in the public domain. Not even Fair Use quotes. --Modemac 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that I revised the way that these links are presented - I don't think they can serve as reliable sources about Scientology but they can be used as reliable sources on criticisms made of Scientology. Anyway, it's a bit academic - I'm planning to rewrite this article. -- ChrisO 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could have some differentiation between a "reliable source" who has stated only opinion and a "reliable source" who has actual documentation. These web sites contain mainly opinion, not fact. There are no "genuine quotes from the OT levels" it's just fabricated bull, which I would know, as a Scientologist, but you can be fooled so easily. If I tell you that Scientologists each babies for breakfast every morning would you believe that too?Countesskrak 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are genuine quotes from the OT levels was admitted by the Church of Scientology when they sued for copyright infringement--Prosfilaes 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

linkfarm

This article has WAY too many external links, and most should be removed as per WP:EL. If all of these links are so important that they should be here, then why aren't they being used as sources within the article itself? wikipediatrix 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are "WAY too many external links". There are certainly a few which could be whittled down. For instance, some of the links are basically opinion papers rather than factual resources:
  • "Freedom of Speech at Risk in Cyberspace"
  • "The Internet: The Promise and the Perils"
These are both basically editorials. There are also a lot of links that are simply redundant with one another -- we do not need for instance three different newspaper or magazine articles that are simply overviews of CoS online behavior:
  • "alt.scientology.war"
  • "Scientology-church wages war against the Internet"
  • "Church of Scientology Battles the Net"
However a lot of the other links are pretty valuable -- for instance the paper by CoS on their position on copyright; the EFF archive of legal cases; the various academic papers; and so on. --FOo 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Denver Westword ref

Very much in-depth, interviewing a number of different parties:

  • Prendergast, Alan (6 March 1997). "Nightmare on the Net". Denver Westword. Retrieved 2008-11-29. "A web of intrigue surrounds the high-stakes legal brawl between FACTnet and the Church of Scientology."


Other refs that really should be mentioned in this article:

There's also a useful series in the New Scientist from 1995. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More refs (sorry I haven't time to put them in myself- concentrating on other articles)

MartinPoulter (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Undid imageboard title change by 69.216.101.32

The user changed the citing of 4chan and 711 chan to Xchan. I am unsure if the user intended to use the X to indicate a generic mention of chan imageboards, but I reverted because the use of Xchan could be misleading since there is an actual imageboard called Xchan. Ukvilly (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added this link to the external links. It's a statment by the Church dated 30 June 2000 about its outlook on its internet activities. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ x
  2. ^ x
  3. ^ x
  4. ^ x
  5. ^ x
  6. ^ x
  7. ^ x
  8. ^ x
  9. ^ x
  10. ^ x
  11. ^ x
  12. ^ x
  13. ^ x
  14. ^ x
  15. ^ x
  16. ^ x
  17. ^ x
  18. ^ x
  19. ^ x
  20. ^ x
  21. ^ x
  22. ^ x
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientology_and_the_Internet/Archive_3&oldid=1058585877"