text:
Talk:"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"

Source for the quote??
"...the internet is only half the battle. Raids like this are going to be taking place in real life, on real Churches of Scientology, and in a way that they won't be able to ignore".
 * What is the source of this quote? Wilhelm 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article
Despite the apparent success of these raids, however, a source within the group, who naturally wished to remain Anonymous, was quoted as saying "...the internet is only half the battle. Raids like this are going to be taking place in real life, on real Churches of Scientology, and in a way that they won't be able to ignore". I moved this portion of the article to the talk page, until the source of this quote is identified. I know, the identity itself is anonymous, but where did the original editor that put it in the article get it from? Wilhelm 08:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) The group have said that their attacks will continue until they have met the goal of "expelling [Scientology] from the Internet and systematically dismantling the Church of Scientology in its present form". Removed this as well, unclear where these quotes are coming from, pending explanation from the original editor that added them. Wilhelm 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The second quote is from the video, but I'm not sure if it needs to be there at all. 131.227.210.164 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, at this point it has been over 24 hours, I think we should do our best to leave the content of the article as is - save for minor typo fixing and minor copy-editing. Wilhelm 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology site still not loading
I am not getting anything at all for www.scientology.org - except for the message "Problem loading page: The server at www.scientology.org is taking too long to respond." As of this timestamp - Wilhelm 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as of now, the site www.religiousfreedomwatch.org (a Scientology associated site that denigrates critics) is unavailable. Attempts to load it lead to a page which says "Sorry, 'www.religiousfreedomwatch.org' does not exist or is not available."  Wilhelm 08:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: At least for me, scientology.org is loading now. A little slowly, but relatively okay.  Wilhelm 12:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Loading very slowly for me at the moment. Anyone else getting this to load at all?  Fast, slow, just text, just images?  Wilhelm 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI - It's down again. Wilhelm 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not loading for me as well. "Sorry, the site you requested is currently unavailable. It will be available as soon as possible. Please try again later." --Jcart1534 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * these "hackers" can go day and night, and have an army to work with...the damage they can cause is quicker than CofS can fix it. They vow to continue until demands are met, so question we should ask them is when will it be fixed and can it be? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a report on Sky News about that on Thursday. A CEO of a computer security firm was interviewed, and said that there is usually little that can be done about these sorts of attacks.  We could quote from that perhaps in a later piece.  Still waiting/looking for more sources/info/developments before working on another piece...  Wilhelm 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the message I just got when I tried to access www.scientology.org (now down completely): Site Temporarily Unavailable. Sorry, the site you requested is currently unavailable. It will be available as soon as possible. Please try again later. Generated Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:42:29 GMT by Prolexic.com (SI1.MIA1/6.0) Taking a look at www.prolexic.com - it looks like they are a company called "Prolexic Technologies" that specifically attempts to stop DDOS attacks. Per their website mainpage: "Prolexic Technologies provides cutting edge solutions that protect Internet operations from the debilitating service disruptions caused by DDoS attacks." -- So this means that the Church of Scientology must have gone and hired a specific firm to attempt to prevent the DDOS attacks and keep www.scientology.org up and running - and yet I just got that error message quoted above - and the site is down. This is all "original reporting" type ideas until other sources report that the Church of Scientology needed to hire a DDOS protection firm, and that the site was still down as of now, but still, we have enough to go on. What do others think? Wilhelm 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Found more sources on the Prolexic Technologies angle, will add them soon to the list below, and/or new article at some point in the future. Also, the site is not loading at all for me right now: The server at www.scientology.org is taking too long to respond. -- Anyone able to view Scientology.org ?  Wilhelm 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look. Right now, not only is it loading, it's doing so quite fast. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm getting it to load too, just pretty slowly. Wilhelm 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd how it affects different people to different degrees... A location thing? Should we mention it in the next update? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably get more input from other people as well, see how it's loading for more than 2 people. Wilhelm 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A survey on the water cooler, perhaps? Where are you, is it loading completly/partialy/not at all, how long does it take? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it seems to be loading okay. It may be best to avoid OR on the next one, and keep it to secondary sources though. Wilhelm 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to your judgement. I know no-one 'owns' everything, but, in all but name, it is 'your' show, if you see what I mean... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not, please, feel free to keep continuing to provide input. Wilhelm 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I will, but just the same, I only ever read these quickly, whereas you meticulously researched them, so you know what you're talking about here and, to be blunt, I don't. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, quite understandable. "whereas you meticulously researched them, so you know what you're talking about here" -- Thanks a lot for saying that, that's really appreciated.  I do my best to write new articles and make sure they are sourced to good sources.  Wilhelm 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

hackers
This is not hackers, it is script kiddies.

The closest to a hacker being involved is whoever wrote the tool they're all using for the DDoS. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Register refers to "hactivism", but I removed that wording. Wilhelm 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous isn't a group of hackers and has never claimed to be, its just the media that are saying such. Most of anonymous do little more than download some DDoS software and run it blindly or make phonecalls to tie up the lines, but they do so because they believe in a cause.

Anonymous is more of an idea, internet hive mind, meme or a mind virus. The so called 'hacking' is really more of an online protest, a real life protest is in a sense a Denial of Service attack too, blocking streets or access to a building etc (Anonymous is organizing real protests or 'raids' in various locations)

Anyone is Anonymous, people who don't like Scientology and feel strongly enough become Anonymous, no l33t hacking skills are needed, just the willingness to follow some instructions such as making calls and causing general disruption, or people can be more active and investigate information about CoS, some come up with ideas/plans, some create awareness to help recruit more inderviduals most of this happens in the open and relies on the huge number of participants to stop the threat of individual legal action (or greatly reduce it for the individual). Think what would happen if one guy went to a bank/corporation and tried to stop anyone from going it and shouted about how much the bank sucked or stood in the middle of the road and stopped traffic, he would get arrested. But when a lot of people do it, it becomes a 'protest'. The police aren't going to be able to arrest thousands of individuals that decided to run DoS software, especially when they have to go through the legal system of proving those individuals are guilty, and when a huge number of them are underage. --EbilPhish 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assessment may be accurate, but lots of media sources are using the term "hacker" - many of them even including the word in headlines of stories about Project Chanology. Wilhelm 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a.r.s. input/background needed
There needs to be a little background on Scientology's own war on the Internet. IIRC they tried to have the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology deleted and ran something nicknamed the "Cancel Poodle" to delete critics' posts. I still disapprove of the DDoS, but we should point out CoS started it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added a recent quote from an a.r.s. member, from January 22. Wilhelm 09:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a few brief sentences on background of the beginnings of "Scientology versus the Internet", and more from a quote from alt.religion.scientology. Wilhelm 10:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'cultxpt' is the nick of Jeff Jacobsen, webmaster of lisamcpherson.org who signs the post. It is normal on ARS for posters to use nicks even if their identities are known. Jeff signs on behalf of ARSCC, the Alt Religion Scientology Central Committee, an organisation which like Anonymous does not exist and serves a similar purpose. I'll amend the reference to reflect this. --Hartley Patterson 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is all that said? We need a source for what you just said, that this is the identify of this person.  Wilhelm 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The post was signed 'Jeff Jacobsen' and everyone on ARS knows it's him. I've given a checkable reference, his website. If it was not, it would have been questioned, checked and exposed as in any media, more so on ARS which has a high paranoia level. To leave the reference unattributed would be misleading, it carries weight because Jacobsen is a respected opinion leader, not an anonymous unknown. --Hartley Patterson 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I can be contacted via email if any of these people want to give something really nice and quoteable. I won't reveal email addresses or real names and can work with sources to attribute them correctly. I do understand some long-term critics are a little "camera shy". --Brian McNeil / talk 17:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Camera shy" as in "I'll never see my family again if they find out I've criticised their religion", yes. Those who give their real names are the opposite, eager to publicise their cause. I maintain the FAQ for ARS, so I suppose that gives me some weight. --Hartley Patterson 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hartley Patterson, thanks for adding that bit and verifying it - I hadn't noticed that Jeff Jacobsen had left his name at the bottom of the post. The article looks better with that info.  Wilhelm 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm, remember Wikinews also has the WN:CABAL which also doesn't exist. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further updates...
recently made a comment on my talk page that it was nearing 24 hours since the date of this story (being as how it's now January 24, 2008, UTC time) and said that "newer updates, if significant, should be in a new article". I tend to agree with DragonFire1024 on this, so we should let the info/stats/sources stand in this current version of the article, and if new developments and sources crop up they could potentially go in a new article. Wilhelm 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up, other sources (post January 23)
If additional sources are found, they will be listed here, in order to determine if there is a potential for a follow-up article. Wilhelm 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) If/when anyone feels that the above list constitutes enough new sources/developments/info since the January 23 article to warrant a new article, please comment here. In the meantime, I'll continue to compile sources and monitor the developing story here. Wilhelm 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources not in the January 23 article, that came out after article was published:
 * 1) The Budapest Times - In addition to posting an earlier Wikinews article, The Budapest Times has the result of an online poll to the question: Do you agree with the attack on the Church of Scientology's website?
 * 2) "Anonymous" threatens to "dismantle" Church of Scientology via internet, Dan Warne, January 24, 2008, Australian Personal Computer, National Nine News.
 * 3) Where to find the Tom Cruise Scientology videos online, if they're still posted, The Plain Dealer, Tom Feran, January 24, 2008
 * 4) Internet Group Declares War on Scientology, Slashdot, January 24, 2008.
 * 5) Scientology under digital assault by web vigilantes, National Post, Shane Dingman, January 24, 2008.
 * 6) "Anonymous vs. Scientology: Can We Stop the Online Hackers?", Sky News, January 24, 2008 -- the report is visible on YouTube, but we probably can't link to that.
 * 7) Hackers Attack Church Of Scientology:, Sky News, Rob North, Sky.com News Producer, January 24, 2008
 * 8) Hackers Declare War on Scientology with 'Project Chanology': 'Anonymous' Internet group fed up over its repeated efforts to censor the internet has launched an effort to shut down the "Church's" site., Zeropaid, January 24, 2008
 * 9) A group of hackers declare war on the Church of Scientology: Xenu stomps around and demands immediate vengeance, Kevin Spiess, Neoseeker, January 24, 2008
 * 10) Anonymous hackers take on the Church of Scientology, Robert Vamosi, CNET News, January 24, 2008
 * 11) Hacker Group Declares War On Scientology: Group Upset Over Church's Handling Of Tom Cruise Video, KNBC-TV, January 24, 2008
 * 12) Hacker Group Declares War On Scientology, KOCO, Oklahoma City News, January 24, 2008
 * 13) Hacker Group Declares War On Scientology, WBAL, January 24, 2008
 * 14) Group Wants To Destroy Scientology, Video: 'We Do Not Forgive' - An anonymous group of hackers, fittingly known as "Anonymous," has declared war on the Church of Scientology., NBC11, KNTV, January 24, 2008
 * 15) Poll: The internet VS The Church of Scientology, Wikinews Reports, January 24, 2008
 * 16) Internet group declares war on Scientology, by Mark Schliebs, News Limited, January 25, 2008
 * 17) Hackers bring down Scientology websites, Scopical News/Data, Scopical Pty Ltd., January 25, 2008
 * 18) Online group declares war on Scientology, David George-Cosh, National Post, January 25, 2008
 * 19) Web vigilantes attack Scientology website, Times Online, January 25, 2008
 * 20) Critics split over DDoS attacks on Scientology, The Register, January 25, 2008
 * 21) net.wars: Xenu strikes again, newswireless.net, Guy J. Kewney, January 25, 2008
 * 22) The pros and, yes, cons of saving Windows XP, Tom Sullivan, InfoWorld, January 25, 2008
 * 23) Hackers target Scientology, Earthtimes, January 25, 2008
 * 24) Anonymous steps up its war with Scientology, CNET News, January 25, 2008
 * Comment

 * Most of the above are just the mainstream catching on to the story. I don't see any obvious new developments. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about that the Church of Scientology hired this firm, Prolexic Technologies, but the scientology.org site is still down? I'll keep compiling sources in the interim as more develops.  Wilhelm 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology: XENU TV Speaks to Anonymous

 * Scientology: XENU TV Speaks to Anonymous, Mark Bunker, YouTube, January 26, 2008.
 * Can be linked to as it's an original vid by Mark Bunker. Wilhelm 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is not a group.
It's just anyone on the Internet who wants to do something anonymously, particularly someone who frequests *chans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.194.37 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're just going by what's written in the sources. But from reports from other sources (Wired magazine, etc.) it certainly is referred to as a group.  Wilhelm 09:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the video, I see this statement as plausible, i.e. this video may just be expressing the general reaction of internet savvy people to scientology's techniques. It might be worth working this into the story, or just toning down some other stuff. Nyarlathotep 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, unless we have another specific source, it has been well over 24 hours since the story was published, I'd rather just leave it as is save for any minor copy-editing or grammatical errors. Wilhelm 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is not an organized group - it is, indeed, a morphing body of people under a common alias from the *chans. 193.111.93.44 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the *chans isn't a website. This is clearly from ebaumsworld.com. They talk about their plans pretty openly in their subscribers' forums.

 * Anonymous actually is an organised group, they're just not organised in any traditional sense. They are organised via democracy similiar to the one the Ancient Greeks visualised - i.e. every Anonymous gets to have his/her view and all Anonymous have equal weight in an argument. Also, they don't hail from any one site - sites such as the *chans, YTMND and Ebaums might have Anonymous who frequent them, and might even buy into the idea that they are "Anonymous' Home", but Anonymous doesn't have a single place it gathers. It's quite the complex group - at least in how it manages to work in union to any sort of degree. Fallen-Griever 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This story has been Slashdotted
Please see Internet Group Declares War on Scientology, Slashdot, January 24, 2008. I will add this to the list above as well. This will be interesting ... Wilhelm 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They also reference another Slashdot post from March 2001, Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot - "This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum." Wilhelm 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has also hit the Digg homepage.Jstohler 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that. Under "Top in All Topics".  Hacking group threatens to destroy Scientology has 3,538 Diggs, and The Internet has had enough of Scientology has 2,615 Diggs.  Impressive. (The second link is actually to a version of this article originally from Wikinews).  Wilhelm 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

religiousfreedomwatch.org exists. religousfreedomwatch.org does not.
religousfreedomwatch.org - this domain is not registered. It's a typo by the author of the article. religiousfreedomwatch.org - this domain exists, although there is no website up at the time of this writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.131.227 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, typo fixed, thank you! Wilhelm 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Video transcript
I have a transcript of the Anonymous video. Is WN an acceptable place to post it? - KeithTyler 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but I'll let an Admin weigh in on this if they see this. Wilhelm 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I could not find any WN policy on transcripts; I know news organizations sometimes make them for newsworthy audio or video releases; thought WN might as well. - KeithTyler 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New development in story, per National Post
Shane Dingman writes: "The wiki page also includes a list of planned attacks, some of which start today at 6 p.m. EST" Again, best to keep waiting on this to see if/when there is coverage in more sources. See list of sources that have come out after this article's publish date, in section above, "Follow-up..." Wilhelm 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scientology under digital assault by web vigilantes, National Post, Shane Dingman, January 24, 2008.

Scientologists, you won't control Wikinews forever, mwahaha
Scientologists, again, you have effectively published your "truth" on Wikinews, but you can't hold out forever. You may think you can stop me by running a POV-pushing cabal on Wikinews to get pro-Scientology fluff pieces featured on the front page, while getting admins sympathetic to your cause to abuse their powers.

Your pathetic dianetics and other trinkets based on futuristic technology discovered by by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960's cannot match up with my galactic technology which is BILLIONS of eons ahead of you. Right now, I have an invisible "brainwashing machine" filled with MILLIONS of clams, circling the earth, convincing the average person that Scientology is a cult. Why else do you think they would believe that? Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Also, you got your facts wrong: "Anonymous" is my middle name. My first name is actually Eric.

69.138.16.202 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) aka Anonymous/Xenu/Eric
 * Wait a sec, you think that this article is representative of a pro-Scientology slant? "POV-pushing cabal on Wikinews to get pro-Scientology fluff pieces featured on the front page." Why, just recently a Scientologist complained just the opposite.  So to get complaints that the article is POV from both the pro and anti sides, is quite interesting...  Perhaps we are doing something right and the article is NPOV after all...  Wilhelm 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * That's the Hubbard design for you. Pro or Con, publicity creates a more well known Church.  Sarcastic, critical comments are nearly identical, word for word identical, to parishioners comments. eehawwwwwwww.  BTW, this article spells out how successful (or unsuccessful) Mr. anonymous became (before Scientology protected their sites): Technical aspects of the DDOS attack against Scientology 76.193.157.182 06:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, sources are reporting that Anonymous took the site down again, after the Church of Scientology moved it to Prolexic Technologies. Wilhelm 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PROLEXIC MEGA DDOS PREVENTION BYPASSED
Scientology.org is down. brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Anonymous Anonymousnotexist 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

video
Wouldn't it be appropriate to place a link to the original video? I can't find it right now, maybe add it as a reference? -- Eia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.0.64 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. And as this particular article is long since published, wouldn't want to add anything to it anyways.  Wilhelm 12:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The youtube video can be found by looking for "Message to Scientology" and searching for the one of length 02:03 and a thumbnail view of clouds over some modern campus-like buildings. The earliest one with its own transcript is the original posted in category Science & Technology, but there are later copies of varying quality and posted in different categories. -84.222.16.143 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Message to Scientology" video has now been viewed well over 1,000,000 times. Wilhelm 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New anonymous video
"Anonymous", Call to Action, YouTube, January 27, 2008.
 * Check it out - I wonder what the viewage will be in the coming days... Cirt 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's some interesting stuff - they covered lots of background of Scientology history in there.  Cirt 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New anonymous Press Release, January 27
Internet Conflict With Scientology Expands: Anonymous continues its worldwide humanitarian efforts against the Church of Scientology., Press Release, Chan Enterprises, January 27, 2008.
 * Mentions lots of controversial historical events in Scientology history. Cirt 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes no difference. 711chan.org and partyvan are now publicly denouncing the attack against scientology and no longer support it. So that PR is false. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifics? Sources?  Cirt 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * partyvan is denouncing it, and yet still hosting the Chanology main website? Cirt 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://www.partyvan.info/index.php/Main_Page - it's still listed as their "Current Major Raid". So I think perhaps you just mean 711chan.org ?  Where is this public denouncement?  Cirt 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Featured on National Public Radio with Andrea Seabrook, January 27
Andrea Seabrook, "Hackers Target Scientology Web Sites", All Things Considered, National Public Radio, January 27, 2008.
 * Check it out. Cirt 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of speech ends at homicide
Freedom of speech ends at homicide. Scientology has MURDERED people. They deserve no freedom of speech any longer. They deserve but one thing, elimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.33.74 (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Message to Scientology" video
This video was added to the article. It complements the article text, which quotes from the video, but zero new text/content was added to the article. WN:ARCHIVE does not say anything about pictures, and it is within the guidelines as no new text content was added or changed in any way. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a picture, it - in my opinion - is equivalent to adding a source dated after the article was published. I have, as a consequence, reverted its insertion a second time. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is actually dated before the article was published. Two days before, in fact. It adds no new text to the article. The video itself is already discussed and quoted in the article itself. It is like a richer picture, the reader can read the article, and watch the video embedded in the text of the article, instead of going offsite to watch it. Actually, many mainstream news media sites also embedded the video in their articles as well. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are two examples: APC Magazine, and Macquarie National News. Cirt (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not what was published and read at the time it was news. You are adding content that was not there when this entered the archive. I would also oppose the addition of any new photo, or the replacement of a photo, I see no reason to give video any special treatment. If the item is covered on Wikipedia it could certainly be added to an appropriate article; however, here I see something that is in conflict with WN:ARCHIVE as it is a noticeable change to what was presented at the time of publication. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having now reverted for a third, and final, time I would like to see someone independent comment before this material is re-added. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I state above, the video itself is directly quoted in the article. The video came out two days before the article was published. The video has been embedded in a similar style in other news sources. It does not add any new content to the article body text, merely an illustrative helpful way for the reader to see what the article is discussing. It does not change the content of the article at all. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, discussion of the video and direct quotation from the video is integral to the article itself, and indeed to the very paragraph where the video is shown in a non-obtrusive, defaulted-to-collapsed fashion. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree that this does not violate the spirit of WN:ARCHIVE...

"After an article has been protected, it should no longer be edited on elements of content, sources, or other substance. It should be edited for non-content issues (such as spelling, typos, punctuation and so forth) on a case-by-case basis. Questions of grammar are prone to dispute, and should be implemented after consensus on the talk page. Use Wikinews:Admin action alerts to highlight that changes are needed."

 * (emphasis about added)
 * A video is content; a picture is content, not just additional text.
 * I am flagging this on WN:AAA as both of us have reverted three times without any common ground on the dispute. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted myself to last by, pending discussion. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Response to above comment by Brianmc: The video is defaulted-to-collapsed, is unobtrusive, and does not alter the content or substance of the article itself in any way. The article already discusses the video in depth, and even directly quotes from it. The video is to be displayed directly across from the paragraph in the article that quotes from the video. The only difference is now readers that may come across the article have the option of viewing the video while reading the article, instead of digging through the sources at the bottom and clicking offsite to view the video separately. There is, however, no change to the content of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't *like* adding a source post publication, this *is* adding a source post publication. It is just a video source rather than a text source. Since adding an additional source is explicitly prohibited in archive policy, this video should not be added. It would have been nice if it was in there at the time of publication, though. Gopher65talk 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Brianmc that this video is content though. It is a source that is talked about in the article. Still, either way, it is forbidden, so it makes little difference in the end. Gopher65talk 15:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: to Gopher65: This is not an "additional" source, please not it is already listed and linked in the "Sources" subsection at the bottom. It is merely an embedding of that source in the body text, with zero alteration to the content of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it *is* changing the content of the article. Before, it did not have this video. Now, it does. That is a content change. -- Sken   my talk 20:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that from these comments from editors previously uninvolved in the dispute that there is not consensus to add this video at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories
edit protected Please add this article to Category:USA Today and update the wikilink to become local. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


text:
Comments:"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"

Comments?
Comments? Wilhelm 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

EXTERMINATE! --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.74.94 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More power to them! I'm pleased to see that some of the numerous people who are opposed to this BS are finally banding together in a manner which shouldn't get them sued (but we all know the record...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytterix (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tame /b/tards? On my Wikinews?
It's moar likely than I thought! I was expecting this article to break out in anti-Scientology POV and possibly references to Longcat, Mudkips, Slowpoke and Twinkie House, but I was wrong. --TUFKAAP 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, what the hell is this? This isn't news. Anonymous isn't real just because Fox said they were. This article is a waste of space. --78.151.96.124 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * GTFO!! --TUFKAAP 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous would never vandalize Wikinews/Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.153.114 (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. But Wikinews provides this comment namespace so people can do their bit of lulz without interfering with the actual article. I'd expect most "anonymous" to roll up their sleeves and get to work if we have another Virgina Tech or London Bombings, this is just the campaign du-jour and I'm glad it is slowly making its way into the mainstream.
 * I'd like to think Wikinews cuts people - anonymous or otherwise - a little more slack than over on Wikipedia. We want contributing here to be fun, not just a challenging slog. There are standards, but something like this article meets them. Look on the article talk and you'll see me questioning inclusion of material from alt.religion.scientology. My concerns that this group was not represented were quickly addressed and I believe led to a far more well-rounded article. If there is a followup we all need to dig up the notable blog posts where people say "This is illegal - but hilarious", I'm sure even some of the mainstream press who have coverage and blogs will let their reporters say that. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with, your points from the talk page about the alt.religion.scientology sources did make the article better. I'm compiling newer sources that cropped up after this article was published on the article's talk page, and we shall see if there are enough sources/new info to write something about.  Wilhelm 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Last night I was lurking for male JB pics and 12chan was down, (anyway I ended up fapping to pics of one of my classmates) and on /b/ I thought what's with the SCIENTOLOGY SPAM?? I should probably gb2 Gaia if this really is news... 209.151.236.27 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise is a pretty cool guy, eh fights evil spacemen and doesn't afraid of anything.
Oh and personally I think this article needs moar lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.201.114 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you worry, the lulz will be coming. Personally, it's about time the "Internet hate machine" does something good for once. IIRC their efforts last year helped nab a convicted sex offender- they're obviously out for the greater good. This should be quite hilarious to watch unfold. (not that I officially condone such behavior, but, hey, it's always fun to watch. :P) Sneakernets 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These people must be put to justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.191.44 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect the Operation Clambake author and I understand his concerns. He is of course right. But it's just to lulzy to pass up. Ebaumsworld.com will continue to spread the $350,000 documents and ridicule them as we see fit.

Now this is the religion all about how,

Hubbard's wallet got flipped turned upside down. So hook up an E-meter and sit right there I'll tell you how you became a human Preclear.

On the planet Coltice born and raised Mining Vespene gas is how I spent most of my days, Being overpopulated and relaxin' all cool and all playing some Thetan ball outside Scientology school. When a couple of Psychiatrists who were up to no good, started freezing brothers in my neighborhood, I got in one little volcano and my Overlord Got scared and said "your moving with the homospaiens on Teegeeak, that planet with air"

So I Whistled for a DC8 and when it came near, It had no propellers just rockets in the rear If anything I could say the in-flight brainwashing movie was rare but I thought "nah forget it, Then they put me in a box using some Ghostbusters gear"

I pulled up to the planet about 7 or 8 million years ago And yelled to Xenu "Yo ho, Imprison you later" I looked at my Thetans, we were finally there To haunt us some primates with little body hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myahon (talk • contribs) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Steven Hawking versus CoS
I browsed through a.r.s. this morning and saw someone comment on the "Anonymous" video - comparing the voice synth to Steven Hawking. Heh. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any additional good sources you find can be added to the "Follow-up" section of the talk page, Talk:"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology", to assess sources for future potential. Wilhelm 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All of you, throwing "memes" about. Why not snowballs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.44.239 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

anonymous
anonymous is not an organisation in the traditional sense; this is where both it's greatest strength and wekaness is derived from. as there is no central point, place, person, or website of anonymous, it is impossible to locate anonymous, or to dismantle the "organisation". not even those within anonymous know more than maybe a handful of other users, and when anonymous meet In Real Life, they are masked. This also means that there is no central rallying point, no way to make definite plans. But this will not stop anonymous.

we are anonymous. we are legion. 82.198.250.16 12:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

we suck

lolololololol

Seriously though, this won't stop scientology all we can do is make people aware IRL.

...They call themselves "Anonymous", the are "hackers on steriods"... --TUFKAAP 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OH NOES! They are gonna blow up a van! 67.85.29.86 02:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We are everywhere.We can attack scientology wherever and whenever.

we are anonymous. we are legion. expect us.

On playing fair
Unfortunately, playing fair and being nice isn't going to win the fight. When you're up against a giant who plays dirty and doesn't care, you have to gouge eyes and kick shins. This is a war of jerkiness. Whichever group is the biggest asshole wins. I love the assholes on the *chans so I hope to Xenu they win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.12.205 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

fun fun fun
this is hilarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.244.163 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They'll keep fighting...
And they'll win!

March on, brave /b/tards, do not stop till the enemy is completely and utterly destroyed. Or you know, epic lulz are achieved. 75.64.155.65 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think anonymous is a pretty cool guy. He's taking on an extremely dangerous cult that has destroyed lives and doesn't afraid of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.178.81 (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is outstanding that two major critics of Scientology have affirmed their belief that even Scientology has a right to free speach while those critics continue to make the public aware of Scientology's unethical, and deceitful practices. Scientology has the right to believe what it will. It is it's behavior which violates the standards of virtually every world religion. And the critics keep documenting those practices. All of Scientology's protests fall on deaf ears as they continue to attempt to silence public debate. I too believe that Time Magazine was correct when it called Scientology "a cults of greed and power....a mafia like organization....a huge global racket". Why do they hide from open debate and conversations about the content of their organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FamiliarwithCOS (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is fake, Christianity is real !
Scientology is weird. They believe weird things! But Christians believe in only reasonable things! Thing like invisible angels and demons. And virgin births. And supernatural miracles that defy the laws of physics. And that God once killed everyone in the entire world with a great flood. Even all the babies! All drowned! Yikes! They believe that only one family survived. Then He sent a ghost (yep, a ghost) to impregnate a virgin lady. Why? So she could deliver a man-god called Jesus. Why? So Jesus could be tortured and then killed! Why? So Christians, but ONLY Christians, could live forever and ever! LOL! Absolute insanity! And you laugh at Scientology? (preceding unsigned comment by 162.119.232.103)
 * You don't have to pay money, whether it be thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, to learn about all that stuff you mentioned above. Wilhelm 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thank god anon has taken up arms against this overgrown cult. if only i could help! alas, i am but a poor nursing student who can barely work microsoft word.

we are Anonymous we do not forgive we do not forget we are legion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.152.113 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Message to CoS
ALL UR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!1111one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.27 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope it's not two-faced.
I wonder if "Anonymous" supports net neutrality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.229.20 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past the scientology bigwigs to be behind this. How many people do you think visited the site since this started? More traffic then normal perhaps? I came to this possibility when I myself went to the website to see if it was unavailable then realizing I would have avoided it like the plague otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.217.6 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

response to Heldal-Lund's quote
"Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak - including those we strongly disagree with. I am of the opinion that the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation and a cult which is designed by its delusional founder to abuse people. I am still committed to fight for their right to speak their opinion." - Heldal-Lund

Their right to free speech -- in the eyes of anon -- was nullified the moment they attempted to prevent the free speech of another by attempting to remove the Tom Cruise video from youtube. So, Heldal-Lund, understand that it goes both ways (which I'm sure you do, but you need to maintain some platform for the public). As stated, "Freedom of speech means we need to allow all to speak," emphasis on the 'all'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.195.189 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Including, you, right now. :)  Wilhelm 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We Are Anonymous
That was a cool vid... don't know much about scientology and it's roles on teh inter-webs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.84.219 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

...
The party is over for this insistence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.52.80 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

right or wrong?
The real power of scientology is them having enough money to hire an army of attorneys and detectives (on the side of suing the critics / digging up all kind of mistakes critics of the "church" have made as they were fifteen or so, for example "this critic smoked 30 years ago a joint, he's not credible"). Having a *lot* of money helps in some other ways too: hire the best man (woman) for the job, for example "public relations", rhetorics. You have the right to have a specialist represent you in court (attorney), you should have the right to present you critic about some organization formulated by a specialist in the matter.

I'm a christian, so please don't judge me so hard for what I'm going to write. What would you do if someone would come to you and say: "either you pay us or we will ruin your life!"? What would you say if someone would come to you and would say: "I want to use you and your country the way *I* want, if you don't agree we will use our money and power to destroy you!". So how do *you* react to such demands?

I disagree profoundly with the solution "terrorism". But what else have you as an alternative to fight great power and money?

What else have you to fight the media? The media dictates who will be the next President of the USA. A favorite candidate just stated he spoke to the president of Germany, Putin(sorry Putin is the president of russia.German chancelor is Merkel.greetings M.P.). No comments to that.

What shall we do to help having a free, democratic, war-free world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.50.48 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Attacking their websites is wrong. The long-term critics who have been investigated, sued, defamed, etc. etc. have said so.
 * I'm waiting on the Church of Scientology putting their side. I've emailed them an initial list of questions on the "leaked" Crazy Tom video where he declares war on Psychiatry through to the attack and counter-attack on 711chan.org. That was yesterday morning - so far nothing back. If you've any questions related to these issues you'd like me to put to them, send me an email or leave them on my talk page. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a great idea to attack their websites. But it should also be noted that the high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology have used illegal methods methods in the past to pursue their means.  Look up "Operation Freakout" and "Operation Snow White".  Several Church of Scientology operatives infiltrated the United States federal government in several branches, were convicted and went to federal prison - including L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard.  Cheers, Cirt 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One action does not justify the other - just that it is very difficult to protest peacefully against an organization that does not necessarily play fairly or by the same rules. (E.g. litigious nature, use of private investigators, "Fair Game" doctrine, etc.)  Cirt 13:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists, you won't control Wikinews forever, mwahaha
Scientologists, again, you have effectively published your "truth" on Wikinews, but you can't hold out forever. You may think you can stop me by running a POV-pushing cabal on Wikinews to get pro-Scientology fluff pieces featured on the front page, while getting admins sympathetic to your cause to abuse their powers.

Your pathetic dianetics and other trinkets based on futuristic technology discovered by by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960's cannot match up with my galactic technology which is BILLIONS of eons ahead of you. Right now, I have an invisible "brainwashing machine" filled with MILLIONS of clams, circling the earth, convincing the average person that Scientology is a cult. Why else do you think they would believe that? Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Also, you got your facts wrong: "Anonymous" is my middle name. My first name is actually Eric.

69.138.16.202 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC) aka Anonymous/Xenu/Eric

D: NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE!!! --TUFKAAP 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know which of the 13 articles in Category:Scientology A/X/E thinks is "pro-Scientology fluff". I see a number of articles about "Tom's Crazy Antics", a few about the interaction between Scientology and various governments and courts, the Isaac Hayes/South Park incident, and an interview with a Scientology critic. And, of course, the two articles on this DDoS attack. That none of the articles say "Scientology is a dumbass cult" is just WN:NPOV at work. And the second paragraph, if anything, would surely be reason for Scientology to rethink its position of the helpfulness of psychiatry. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, ConMan: Mainstream media sources, more often than not, do say "Scientology is a dumbass cult." Because that's what it is.

Look at some of the sources in the article:

"War Breaks Out Between Hackers and Scientology -- There Can Be Only One"

"Threatening Thetans (for great justice)?"

Calling the article "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" gives the cult a false aura of being a religion. In every article on Scientology, it should be ridiculed, in accordance with WN:NPOV, because only 0.0000001% of all humans on Earth think it's not ridiculous. 69.138.16.202 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, you go Anonymous. Just please don't stop until you have negated the Church completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.222.239 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A Point Overlooked
The "Church" misuses copyright in the context of its tax-exempt status. In other words, it claims copyright over events and people it claims are real. If you have a site that talks about Xenu, for example, they'll come at you for copyright infringement, saying they own the copyright to Xenu, but their tax-exept status relies on the fact that they beleive Xenu is real. When they claim copyright over Xenu, then they are admitting that he is fictional. Get it? They say that Xenu was around 75 million years ago. If that is true, like CoS claims, then Xenu is in the public domain. To suggest that he is not clearly means that the CoS realizes that what it's selling is fiction, violating its tax-exept status. It is contradictory and illegal. Any true war against the Orgs must involve seeking to revoke their tax exemption. Sincerely, XenuLover666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

XD
I have to give kudos to 4chan/ebaumsworld/whoever is in charge for actually having the bravado to do this. 124.188.168.143 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that everyone has a right to free speech, it strikes me that this latest attack on Scientology is just that. It represents a somewhat satirical, certainly chaotic disruption of the Church of Scientology's attempts to subvert the free speech of others through the abuse of copyright and libel laws. Just in case anyone doesn't know the story of Scientology's inception, here it is. Back in the fifties, the Department of Defense (or was it Naval intelligence...actually, I think it was) sent two agents, Eliphas Levi and L. Ron Hubbard to Cal Tech, to infiltrate a branch of the Ordo Templi Orientis, which happened to contain a large number of scientists who had worked on projects such as the Manhattan Project. The government was concerned that these scientists were being innapropriately manipulated by this Masonic group. What agent Hubbard learned during his time in the O.T.O. directly led to his interest in creating a religion that would maximize all of the best manipulative tactics of the most succesful cults and religions of the last few millenia. He organized this information into a book that would later take the form of "Dianetics". During its infancy, this book was meant to be a sort of treatise on how to use religion to manipulate people and to make money. Scientology does both of these things with a perversely admirable flair. Can you believe these people? Scientology is run by exactly the kind of people who should be opposed by freethinkers everywhere. The last thing the world needs is another organization manipulating a misinformed populace. If anyone deserves to have their freedom of speech curtailed (not that anyone does, but hopefully you get my point), it is just these types of predatory manipulating scumsuckers. I say next time they go after sub-prime mortgage lenders, or maybe the Catholics. Hail Eris, -The Sacred Chao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.110.136 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WAY TO MISS THE POINT FAGGOT

Satire
Voice of anonymous matched to recording of Xenu??
 * Scientology Issues Statement Condemning Anonymous, Unconfirmed Sources, (Satire)

"Note the stilted, mechanical, almost Borg-like quality to the voice," stated Cruise. "Sea Org has, with 99% certainty, matched the voice of the narrator to archival recordings of Xenu in our possession. Funny stuff. Wilhelm 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * More Off-topic comedy
 * The Church of the Jedi has a new hope, GetReligion.org, January 27, 2008.
 * Hehe, Jedi. That's gotta be one awesome Sci-Fi based religion. Cirt 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Members of the Rebel Alliance launch internet attacks on the Dark Side (Scientology and Tom Cruise)
 * Even more Jedi stuff! This is classic.  Cirt 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New base of operations
http://www.beatarod.info Tn5421 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

i think its a good way to tell the people of america and the rest of the world that scientology is not a religion. its a way to raise money from people who are weak and disapointed in life. this people think that scientology help them to get better and smarter.

i´m from germany.and scientology is trying for many years to be seen as a religion in my country.but the german gouvernment denied them the term religion. and thats the right way.

free speech is a good thing,but not in the way scientology or other "religions" like them use it!!!

i hope that anonymus take as many actions against scientology as possible.

dont let them frighten you.there are many who think like you!!!go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.86.23 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

confusing a religious organization with the religion
It is a pity that many people are under the false impression that a despicable action commited by a religious organisation or person is in keeping with the religion they (supposedly) are forwarding.

It isn't solely the case with Scientology. It is also the case with Islam, Catholicism and others.

I can understand attacks on the church, but not the relgion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.122.195 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Converging against despots
I wish this type of action would be taken against the Philippines' shamelessly CORRUPT government, manipulated by its First Un-Gentleman Mr. Mike Arroyo whose greed is without bounds, yet continues to be untouchable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.36.60 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Way to go Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.242.86 (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed that groups that are there to oppose scientology would be so critical of Anonymous' war efforts. Seems to me that those very groups were in it because it seemed "cool". Much like the war on terror, it seems that the war on scientology will die down when people get bored or it's no longer "hip". Disgusting don't you think?

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Feh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.143.197 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology pulled it in on themselves
lts about time militant scientologist are put in check regarding abusing ex members and people they perceive as enemies.l was never a scientologist but some within that organisation targeted me and my business years ago and in my opinion l believe they felt they were above the law so lm glad to hear that there are people out there willing to speak out against victims of this sometimes very dangerous cult.04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)~

Haha, Scientology is a Joke
I honestly don't care who brings Scientology to its knees. I have done a lot of online research of Anonymous and Scientology within the past two days, and I've found this to say:

Scientology is a cult that enslaves its members, scams people into paying thousands and thousands of dollars to become one of them, and threatens those with lawsuits and violence who oppose them and their beliefs.

If Scientology is not a cult, explain why they are so desperate to shut people up. If Scientology is not a cult, explain why people MUST pay an enormous amount of money just be part of this “religion”. If Scientology is not a cult, explain why they must control their own members to preach their so called religion without question.

If you are a Scientologist reading this, wake up and smell the coffee. You are being fooled. You are being scammed. The leaders of Scientology do not care about you or the beliefs that you cherish. They care about money and political power. For the sake of freedom, for the sake of your own sanity, and for the sake of free speech please save yourself from finical and moral destruction. Continue believing what you like, but do not contribute your money and energy to power hungry scum. Do not waste your time with Tom Cruise or his unintelligent lackeys.

Go ahead, try to disprove me, but no religion should force itself upon its congregation. No religion should force its members to preach its message without a single word. No religion should forcefully steal money from its hard working people.

- From a Person Who Cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.176.205 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

sodaplay
Finally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.110.38 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GO ANONYMOUS!

YouTube plays their game
February 28th 2008 - YouTube.com deletes the video from their site "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation". Presumably they have caved in to Scientology pressure or the video has just been deleted by Scientologists or their friends working there. Anything else is not feasible as this video was one of YouTube's most ranked, most watched and most commented upon. What a shame that free speech has been gagged yet again by these people. And why does YouTube play their game???

Anonymous Shadow

I am a cientolegest
dunt mak fun of us we aint bad so much, dunt mak ZenU madd or he wil keel u wit laz0r of deth....or I wil tak ur fre speeck away frum u..

sincerorly, 13 yer ol' cientolegestest, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.93.77 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I see the Church has a high-quality education system. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous and Scientology
From my book "The Plain Truth about God" at www.God-101.com and Amazon books.

I quickly caught on that it was a scam. Then a few weeks later L. Ron Hubbard himself came to Toronto from his boat in the Caribbean. (Sea-Org) I overheard him talking to one of the other guys about some new tenets they were going to introduce to the faithful.
 * I first got interested in religion when I was a young teenaged recruit for Scientology in 1967.

The guy said, “Ron, we can’t tell them that! It will never fly, these people aren’t completely stupid you know!” To which Hubbard replied, “Let’s just see how stupid they really are!” (By the way - Hubbard might be dead - but I’ll bet he’s still laughing his ass off!)

Just so you know. Allan W Janssen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.82.200 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi the Banks are the 666 of today mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.128.142 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

XD LAWLS
Screw Scientology and tom cruise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.11.243.60 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

go anonymous
Continue to send trojans and do DoS attacks on this bullshit religion scientology!!!!!!!!!!!! XDDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.11.243.60 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

its the truth
CoS is a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.167.254 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

?
we are the los purple bandits and we joined the cause we are with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.76.74 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

haha
if you actually knew what the church of scientology is all about im am very sure you wouldnt be doing this..##

i hope you understand that what you are doing is helping churches become greater because you are telling people absolute rubbish about the organisation and they know this is people go into the churches to understand for themselves what it is and actually think its an amazing experence and so carry on that is how us as a group got involved in the church thank you .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.94.82 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

you lot are soooooo sad tryna be allll bad protestin get a life you losers!!!!

fair nuff u protest about war on drugs but scientology

sort it out!!

please how sad can u get have you got nothin better to do????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.252.97 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Says the person posting on a wiki page. Hmmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.181.19 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is being blocked!!!
My name is of no importance. But I am a suporter of anonymous. I have recently discovered that looking up anonymous on the computers at my school are against the rules and could land you a suspension. I am disgusted by the restrictions on free speech and idea searching that the school system I am in has placed upon the future members of Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.79.135 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That is not a restriction on free speech. Who says that you school has to provide you with any internet access at all? No one. --SVTCobra 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have but one thing to say: \o/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.177.252 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

spelling error
organization is spelled wrong in one of the first paragraphs

Anonymous, that is what we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.80.18 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

woooh anon rules scientology nt so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.173 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Scientologists can't win
It's funny to watch them flail against a group that repeatedly makes them look like idiots. They can't win, they can cry religious persecution all they want, but the word is out now. They can't fight back because their target is everyone, and no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.208.174 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous
you cannot change a persons opinion. If you are a group of hackers just from the internet then you wont beable to stop it. Scientoloy has a right to belief and religious freedom as does any other religion. The sooner you get that through your heads the better.

tl;dr above user is a faggot

how can I join this anonymous?
Seriously. I wanna kill a scientologist. 89.212.104.155 21:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

you do not "join" anonymous, you simply get in We are not a group or an organization but an alliance, a legion simply call yourself anonymous and join our protest in secret We do not harm scietologists, we simply harm the credibility of the faith. We are anonymous. We never forgive. We never forget. Lisa Mcphearson schould not be forgotten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notagroupbutanalliance (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Church of Sc....wth
This peope need to be put to death. It will rise to this, or they will control us, and bring all kinds of wicked stuff on us, or we will get rid of them, forewer.
 * Don't be silly. It is just some stupid space-alien believing brainwashing cult. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and many of the crazier things they expect people to believe after they've parted with huge sums of money have been exposed. Antics like Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's sofa also help to make the "church" look less credible. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"anonymous" duplicity
Freedom of speech is a worthy cause, no need for anonymity. Religion bashing is quite popular - why hide your identities? Why not show yourselves and fight freedom of speech everywhere. It is so strange that 'anonymous' claims to hold dear freedom of speech while simultaneously fearing freedom of expression.

I actually never followed this movement until the westboro babtist church incident. I think what they are doing is great. Im not a hacker myself just a programmer who understands what is going on in this world as much as the next guy.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:58.111.109.208

heath ledger we be missed i agree

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikinews pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:58.111.109.208


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080123

23 January

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080123


text:
User talk:76.197.57.191

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Jcart1534 12:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:76.197.57.191


text:
User talk:213.249.137.90

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Jcart1534 12:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:213.249.137.90


text:
User:Lupo

See w:User:Lupo or commons:User:Lupo.

title: User:Lupo


text:
User talk:Lupo

Ledger image
hi, thanks for letting me know. have removed the image. and also, Welcome! –Doldrums(talk) 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for sparing me the expanded template. :-) Lupo 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lupo


text:
User talk:220.237.244.196

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Jcart1534 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:220.237.244.196


text:
User talk:Hartley Patterson

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Wilhelm 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Hartley Patterson


text:
Residents of Gaza enter Egypt after destruction of border wall

January 23, 2008 Thousands of Palestinians entered the Egyptian territory from the Gaza Strip, after the border wall at the Rafah passage was destroyed. Palestinians say that this was to allow them to get food and fuel.

The Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announced that his government allowed residents of Gaza to enter Egypt, on the condition that it is peaceful and temporary.

Witnesses reported that a large amount of the wall was destroyed by masked activists with explosives in the early hours of Wednesday, allowing overcrowded trucks of thousands of Palestinians, in the presence of about 2,000 Egyptian soldiers, to cross the border.

On Tuesday during the UN Security Council meeting, a delegation of Palestinians accused Israel of promoting violence in the area, while Israelis responded by saying that the measures were designed to protect themselves from missile attacks being launched from Gaza.

Although Israel reduced the restrictions of the blockade, they warned that the restrictions could be reinstated if the missile attacks persist.

Representatives from both Europe and America demanded the lifting of the blockade and the commitment of both sides to work towards an end to the conflict.


text:
Italy's PM Prodi faces confidence vote

January 24, 2008

Romano Prodi, the President of the Council of Ministers of Italy (commonly referred to as Prime Minister), is facing votes of confidence in both houses of the Parliament of Italy.

The Chamber of Deputies voted on Wednesday. The Senate will vote on Thursday. Prodi called for the votes himself on Tuesday in an effort to keep his weakened coalition in government.

The vote in the Chamber of Deputies was won by Prodi. In the lower house, Prodi supporters still command a clear majority, in the form of Prodi's L'Unione, which took power after the 2006 elections.

However, Thursday's vote in the Senate is expected to be very close. L'Unione has become destabilized due to the defection of UDEUR Populars, a somewhat small centrist party, but it can tip the balance of power. As a result, Prodi has come under pressure to resign before the vote. However, in 2007, Prodi survived a similar crisis, during which he pre-emptively resigned.

It is widely viewed that former-PM Silvio Berlusconi and his Casa delle Libertà, hope to force elections in Italy.

Berlusconi said that while he hopes for Prodi's resignation, he wants the government to remain until elections can be held: "I think that with the disappearance of the majority, the most logical thing would be that this government continues just for normal administration until the next elections, elections in the very near future."

Some allies of Prodi have suggested that he resign ahead of the Senate vote. This would be preferable to being forced to resign, if the Senate vote is lost.

Prodi met with Giorgio Napolitano, the President of the Italian Republic on Wednesday. Napolitano, as president, could accept a resignation, appoint a caretaker, and/or call elections.

title: Italy's PM Prodi faces confidence vote


text: Template:Economy Template

title: Template:Economy Template


text:
Template:Economy

{{Template:Economy Template }}
 * explicaciones    = {{{explicaciones|}}}
 * align            = {{{align}}}
 * style            = {{{style|}}}
 * width            = {{{width|{{#if:{{{país|}}}|50%|35%}}}}}}
 * tl-name          =
 * fecha            = Martes 1 de enero de 2008
 * hora             = 22:14
 * país             =
 * FTSE 100         = 5837.30
 * FTSE 100-tl      =
 * FTSE 100-c       = 47.90
 * FTSE 100-p       = 0.81
 * Nasdaq           = 2352.41
 * Nasdaq-tl        =
 * Nasdaq-c         = 5.65
 * Nasdaq-p         = 0.24
 * DAX              = 6875.35
 * DAX-tl           =
 * DAX-c            = 17.61
 * DAX-p            = 0.26
 * CAC 40           = 4873.57
 * CAC 40-tl        =
 * CAC 40-c         =67.88
 * CAC 40-p         = 1.37

title: Template:Economy


text:
Template talk:Economy

This template is heavily based on the Economy Templates on the Spanish Wikinews, although I made a few translations--User:Anonymous101 Talk 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks nice so far. One thing to add is a date/time to identify when the numbers were updated, though. Other templates could be developed for a matrix of major currencies (exchange rates) and commodities (gold, silver, oil, etc), to complete a group of financial templates. DL+1613 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DL+1613 (talk • contribs)

title: Template talk:Economy


text:
User talk:Nick1915

write here

title: User talk:Nick1915


text:
User:Nick1915

Steward (see my userpage on meta)

title: User:Nick1915


text:
Template:Translated Wikinews (VOA)

 * see also for coordination: WORTNET

de:Vorlage:Übersetzung es:Plantilla:Traducción it:Template:Traduzione fr:Modèle:Traduction

title: Template:Translated Wikinews (VOA)


text:
Baby severely burned after oxygen hood catches fire

January 23, 2008

Maverick Thomas, a baby, just over a day old is in critical condition at the Hennepin County Medical Center's burn unit in Minnesota in the United States after his oxygen hood caught fire burning 18% of his body. He was under care by doctors at Mercy Hospital located in Coon Rapids when the fire occurred on Tuesday January 22.

Thomas, which is his middle name, had only been born 12 hours prior to the fire, nearly three weeks too early. He was receiving oxygen through a 'open-toped bassinet' when the gas contributed to igniting something inside his incubator, causing it to burst into flames.

Hospital staff, who were present when the incubator ignited, were able to quickly put out the fire, but not before Thomas suffered severe burns ranging from second degree to third degree. Doctors say that his condition is classified as life-threatening, but is expected to survive.

Police and fire officials are investigating the incident and are questioning hospital staff while searching for physical evidence as to what could has caused the fire. The Food and Drug Administration is also launching an investigation.

Officials have not released the family name to protect the privacy of the family.


text:
User talk:B.J. T. Wagner

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Thank You Jason! --B.J. T. Wagner 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organic pizza owner aims at P.E.I. schools
Hello. Welcome to Wikinews. Due to copyright laws, we cannot accept content that infringes on the rights of other news sources. --SVTCobra 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ok svtcobra --B.J. T. Wagner 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq explosion kills 15 and wounds 132
I am afraid that the same goes for this story. --SVTCobra 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

oh man --B.J. T. Wagner 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * VOA Is PD. They write from sources like we do. They don't copy and paste. The only thing they say may be copyrighted are images.

''All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is public domain. However, some images and graphics are licensed for use and covered by all applicable copyright laws. See below for Specific Restrictions.'' Copyright Statement. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for saving it Jason! :) svtcobra it's ok? --72.73.127.244 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:B.J. T. Wagner


text:
Comments:Minnesota to require 25% renewable energy production

I believe this is a good movement for Minnesota. It may be hard to achieve, but it definitively is something we need to push for. Also I think more states should try to pass bills similar to this one. I think the more energy one state consumes, the more the state should replace with a renewable source. I really hope this succeeds bill, and that more states fallow Minnesota (and other states that have done this) in example.

Kira v.S. —67.190.241.24 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good thing because we as minnesotans will be greener and not put Carbon Dioxcide into the air

I believe this is a great movement in the steps towards an all-renewable-energy country. If we can continue requirements like this, the future will be a bright one with regards to both ourselves and the environment. I am looking forward to seeing more developments like this!


text:
User talk:70.15.21.85

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:70.15.21.85


text:
Comments:Lakota Freedom Delegation says spokesman Russell Means 'hijacked' organization

It seems that history always repeats itself. More than a century ago, the founding people of the indian nations were at war with each other. They could not get together and deal with the white nation then. It seems now that the same thing is happen now! The Indian nations and peoples can't get together to stop what is happing to them as it was before. The time is now to join in and be "one nation", "brother to brother", "sister to sister", not personal opportunists or "know it alls" that think they have all the best answers. Stay the course and find common ground to stand up for once as a great nation! Russell Means may not be the answer, but he may be the start! A white brother who believes in equality for all people!

I understand your feelings because you were not consulted when Means took action, however there comes a time when a free people need to speak out and stand up for their rights. And Russel Means knows a lot about the history of the persecution of his people he also knows enough about the American Constitution to be able to force the hand of our judiciary, he is the ideal delegate to send to Washington for withdrawing a treaty. The sooner the Native Americans realize the American Government is not their friend the sooner they can reestablish honest trade without income taxes, self sustainability, Health Wealth and prosperity. I am personal working here in Hawaii for the Legitimate Hawaiian Kingdom to be restored under the council of the Ali'i and it's constitution and the disbanding of all American laws.

I urge you to listen to the wisdom of people like George Gordon, www.geoergegordon.org

You can find your freedom apart or united with the United states as long as you know how, the best thing you can do it to stop using Commercial Federal Reserve Notes and to start using lawful money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.222.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Sneakernets~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Wilhelm 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sneakernets. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sneakernets~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sneakernets~enwikinews


text:
Texas UFOs were actually jets, Air Force says

January 24, 2008 The strange lights seen by dozens of Stephenville, Texas residents on the night of January 8 are now believed to have been F-16 fighter jets, according to a statement released by the Air Force Reserve.

The press release states that ten F-16s from the Joint Reserve Base Naval Air Station in Fort Worth were on a training mission near Stephenville the night of the sightings. The planes were said to have been in the area from 6:00 to 8:00 pm, which is around the time residents reported seeing the lights.

Officials at the Air Force base initially stated that none of its aircraft were in the area that night, but now say they made a mistake in their reporting.

"In the interest of public awareness, Air Force Reserve Command Public Affairs realized an error was made regarding the reported training activity of military aircraft," the press release says.

Major Karl Lewis, an Air Force Reserve spokesman, says the error resulted from an "internal communications oversight" at the reserve base. He had previously stated that the lights may have been an illusion caused by two commercial planes and the setting sun.

Lewis did not go into further details. "What we do down there falls under operational procedures that cannot be released because of operations security for our mission," he said.

The Mutual UFO Network, which investigated the town last weekend, isn't quite convinced. Kenneth Cherry, the Texas director of the network, said, "I find it curious that it took them two weeks to 'fess up. I think they're feeling the heat from the publicity."

Steve Hudgeons, also of the Mutual UFO Network, said, "If this is a military exercise then I would like to see them get back over there in another 24 hours and repeat that exercise so that we can see them duplicate it."


text:
Comments:Texas UFOs were actually jets, Air Force says

Yeah right
Swamp gas and weather balloons ;-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm usually a UFO skeptic, but this is one of those cases where any explanation other than UFOs seems improbable. And of course we all know never to trust the Air Force. :P ~Planoneck~ 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe in aliens. Anyone who has seen the Hubble Deepfield must believe in aliens. The probability effectively guarantees it. It i9s also high improbable that aliens would be sneaking around earth. Any species with instersteller capability would not be sneaking around in a visible flying saucer. On the other hand, the military's explanation is complete bullshit. Maybe they were testing a new fighter or something? Rekov 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I've never trusted any U.S. military branch, UFOs have always seemed improbable to me. So, this time, I believe them. Anyway, if aliens existed, I doubt they would want to have anything to do with us, considering our nature...  --Boricu æ ddie  02:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proving the negative
Why is it that people like Steve Hudgeons, insist the burden of proof is on proving the negative? Prove that what someone says they saw is not from another world, is basically what he and his ilk demand. Call me a skeptic, but why don't they have to prove that it is from another world first? It's absurd! --SVTCobra 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Destroying Credibility
Multiple conflicting eye-witnesses, an explanation from the USAF that changes with the wind and no video / photographic evidence. All of this destroys the credibility of everyone involved. This whole thing has become such a mess that none of it can ever be believed. Now I don't really believe for a second that it was little green men in a spaceship, but whatever it was; the media and the USAF have yet again done a great job of casting doubt on the whole thing so that no one will ever be able to know what really did go on. IMHO this is less than a coincidence. Shane.Bell 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Federal Government Has A Secret
The latest "admission" by the U.S. Air Force regarding the Stephenville, Texas UFO sightings only serves to reinforce the notion that our federal government knows something about UFOs that it is not sharing with the general public.

Nearly two weeks after more than a dozen witnesses reported they saw a UFO in the Stephenville area — some said it was more than a mile long — a press release from the Air Force said what people really saw were 10 F-16 fighter jets performing training manuevers.

According to some of the UFO witnesses, including an experienced pilot, there were F-16's in the area during one of the sightings, but it was only two of them and they were chasing after the UFO. The Air Force at first denied that any of its military jets were in the area at the time of the UFO sightings, but then changed its story more than a week later.

The funny part about the Air Force's latest assertion is that many mainstream media outlets like CNN have bought into the explanation hook, line and sinker. An online report from CNN basically pulls all of its information from the Air Force press release and slaps together an official stance story without asking the UFO witnesses or government officials any hard questions.

There are numerous theories out there regarding why the U.S. government would hide its knowledge about UFOs such as disclosure would cause a nationwide and/or worldwide panic, it doesn't want to let its enemies know that it is attempting to reverse-engineer technologies retrieved from any recovered extraterrestrial spacecraft, religions would be turned upside-down, etc.

However, I don't believe it is hiding the truth for any of those reasons.

The biggest reason our federal government has been suppressing information about extraterrestrial visitors since at least 1947 is because it doesn't want "them" to know it knows about "them." Who are "they?" The intelligent beings who are visiting our planet on a regular basis. For all anybody knows, there could be thousands of different alien species coming here on a regular basis to study us, experiment on us, take over, whatever.

Are all these people who claim to be alien abductees insane? No way. There's something going on, and our government or any other government on this planet do not have the means to protect us from "them" other than pretending nothing is going on.

Alien beings are here now and they are here to stay. Our government doesn't want to acknowledge their presence because as far as it is concerned, these beings are enemies. All our government can do is study them in secret, act stupid in public, and hope the day comes when it can gain an advantage on these technilogically advanced beings. Our government for all we know probably hasn't even figured out whether these beings are coming from other planets or other dimensions yet.

What can we as citizens do? Nothing. Wait it out. Know in our hearts there is a very good reason to act stupid about this phenomena until our government is able to get a handle on the situation. We regular citizens are not in "need to know" positions at this point.

So, with all that in mind, UFO skeptics continue your lives with your blinders affixed firmly. We in the know will continue to cry "Cover-up!" every time there's a Roswell, O'Hare, or Stephenville and then continue with our lives after a few days. Top officials within the U.S. government? They will continue to deny there's a problem on the outside and continue being scared on the inside. — Jim Quirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimqk (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Air Force just does as it was instructed at the closing of the Project Bluebook.

But c'mon, how pathetic is that explanation !

OK then, let's go back to coma (to watch the reality tv and being ignorant), everything is fine, it was just the Air Force.

16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That same day, Dennis Kucinich abandoned his presidential campaign.
Coincidence, dear reader? I think not. -161.88.255.240 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO's exist!!!
That's not true!!! That is all government coverup. I believe in aliens. The only reasonable reason why aliens don't communicate with us is because they probably know of the consequences. If they get caught, they will probably be used for scientific experiments. This world is scared of anything or anyone that is more technelogically advanced than humans. Aliens are always pictures as being violent and horrible, but we have no proof. They are judged for being different. People think that aliens don't exist because other planets don't have the necessary elements that humans need to survive. Well for all we know aliens dont need anything of that. They might be better than us. -71.137.234.247 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally.
Come on, there's intelligent life somewhere|, but why would it come to Earth? I realize you may kill me, but I don't care. Everyone know UFO's don't exist. Only sci-fi, and I thought War of the Worlds couldn't happen again...(the radio show)

Its so OBVIOUS
Oh yeah, we initially stated that there was NO aircraft in that area we are absolutely positive. Oh wait no, the big bad air force messed up, there was aircraft in that area, but it was just an F-16 or two.

OBVIOUS LIE? I think so.

The Air Force really thinks that many people would mistake a jet for a ufo?? We see jets every day DUMBASSES! Im sure if multiple people say it wasnt a jet, it probably wasnt a fucking jet.

Seriously, if they are going to keep covering it up they should at least think of better cover ups instead of the half-assed ones they dish out, like oh it was just an airplane, or weather baloon.

YEAH RIGHT.

Sadly, The American public doesn't give a shit to find out what is really going on, and even if they did, the government will do whatever it wants. Everyone is too happy in their little piles of shit to care about what could be really going on behind closed doors.

There has been too many sightings of too many things, with too many witnesses over time for every one of these sightings to have been just a JET or a damn WEATHER BALLOON.

THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

answer u.f.o.'s not real
that's true!everybody knows u.f.o.'s are NOT real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.45.247 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

O MY GOD FINALY!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.45.247 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Residents of Gaza enter Egypt after destruction of border wall

The way other arab countries have refused to accept refugees, just to make the humanitarian problem worse for Israel, is maybe the sadest part of the whole history of this conflict. Jordan is the only one that ever actually accepted refugees. :( Nyarlathotep 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Half of Jordan population is from Gaza and the west bank. Kuwait had a very large Palestinians population but dispel them after the gulf war. (there were the scapegoats since the PLO did not condemn Saddam attack on Kuwait.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nyarlathotep is wrong, of course. Most Palestinian refugees live in the Arab countries they were driven to by Israel in 1948. What Arab countries refuse to accept is that these refugees are not residents of Palestine, that they do not have a right to return there. But that's a long way from refusing to accept refugees.

It could be asked why Nyarlathotep's country hasn't accepted the 3 million or so Palestinian refugees. Is his country trying to "make the humanitarian problem worse for Israel" or is there, perhaps, some other reasons? And perhaps these other reasons might apply to Arab States? 212.219.119.130 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080124

24 January

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080124