Talk:ScienTOMogy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I think they shut down the site.

• Looks that way. No disclaimer or anything, www.scientomogy.info and www.passionofcruise.info are both just gone.

• False alarm, they're back! Not updated since March 19th though (and blog not updated since March 25th, though there is a seperate site I thought I saw that was more up to date, could be a server issue).

So, why does this deserve its own entry? Povmec? Anyone? 71.131.196.204 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Scientomogy notable enough to warrant an article separate from this? Operation Clambake has its own article, but has been around for 10 years -- many other, older and more extensive Scientology-related sites (Lermanet, FACTNet and so on) do not have distinct entries.

As this article appears to have manifested after the latest edit-war controversy over links to this site, doesn't it seem that the Scientomogy article has been created mainly due to Wikipedia politics?

Povmec[1] wanted an explanation for my suggestion to merge (with Scientology), but I thought it might be self-evident. Can anyone provide an explanation to justify the existence of a separate Scientomogy article? It seems almost frivolous. 71.131.196.204 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it's making worldwide headlines from major news sources and is the subject on an ongoing highly-watched legal battle with Scientology good enough? Certainly passes the Google test. This seems like arbitrary deletionism at its worst. wikipediatrix 16:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that both sides have made good points. The site has indeed been making worldwide headlines, and so is extremely notable, at the current time. But as also pointed out, we set a fairly high bar for notability of critical sites, and it has yet to be demonstrated that Scientomogy will meet that bar over time. Frankly, I'm inclined to see the creation of a Scientomogy article so soon as an example of recentism -- which doesn't mean that I necessarily see a merge at this point as the solution. Perhaps a good solution would be to choose a time to wait, say two or three months, and re-evaluate at that time whether the site continues to be notable.

Finally, if we do merge it , I'm sure we could find some more appropriate article to merge it to than the main Scientology article itself. Scientology versus The Internet, for instance. I think that's one of the reasons the merge suggestion, in its current form, is raising so many hackles: merging it to that particular article would be virtually equivalent to burying it, and some may suspect that a desire to do just that is what motivates the suggestion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I find your accusation of editing in bad faith unjustified, Wikipediatrix. A lot of people turn up promoting their web sites in ways that seem pretty unencyclopedic, and I also wondered why this was notable. Even now it strikes me as a borderline case. Perhaps rather than lashing out you could improve the article to make it more clear what makes this notable? --William Pietri 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

*smile* I'm not lashing out, I'm simply stating my point strongly. When I'm lashing out, you'll know it. I don't know how I could "improve" the article to make it suit you, because I (obviously) think it's fine as is. I welcome anyone else to take a crack at it. I do agree that the Scientomogy matter shouldn't clutter up the main Scientology article - if we listed every Scientology lawsuit there, it would become a website unto itself. Perhaps it could be merged to a new article, say, List of Scientology lawsuits? Cheers... wikipediatrix 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. If you don't know how to improve an article that people are raising questions about, then assume good faith and ask them what they'd like to see changed, rather than accusing them of acting from a personal agenda. --William Pietri 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Um....I didn't accuse anyone of acting from a personal agenda. On the other hand, some anonymous person accused me of creating this article "mainly due to Wikipedia politics". wikipediatrix 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, pseudonymous person, I didn't accuse anyone of anything; I asked "doesn't it seem that the Scientomogy article has been created mainly due to Wikipedia politics?" which is a qualified rhetorical observation at best, hardly qualifying as an accusation. 71.131.196.204 08:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you calling me "pseudonymous person"? wikipediatrix 14:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no sensible reason to merge this. Does anyone else? - David Gerard 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not. The section discussing this at Talk:Scientology seems to lean more towards deleting the article completely rather than preserving its contents through a merge. I don't want to remove the merge tag as it has opened discussion on the issue of the article's general worthiness, however if someone else wants to I won't oppose it. 71.131.196.204 08:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE: Scientomogy.info currently has a higher Alexa Internet rating (33402) of both scientology.org (37033) or xenu.net (44483) - I'm not sure if this shows anything other than current interest in this subject, which would add to the argument of it having it's own page perhaps? Glen Stollery 11:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE CONT... I would also like to add that the battle between Scientology and Scientomogy over... barely beginning. Recent corrospondence with their local office would seem they are about to file lawsuit. As one of the highest profile net vs. Scientology battles to date with 5 terrabytes of data downloaded from Scientomogy, bringing to light Tom's lunatics antics to probably millions with 14 million hits on the site, articles in LA Times, NY Post, National Enquirer, Drudge, E-online, MSNBC, most newspapers since the Associated Press picked up on it, and now the word "scientomogy" produces 22 THOUSAND pages on google! That would seem "worthy" to me! Glen Stollery 14:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I agree with you, but you probably should also share your views at Talk:Scientology. 71.131.196.204 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not going to stand in the way of progress and want the best critical sites listed on the Scientology page, but surely having a stand alone Scientomogy page because of the world-wide recongnition it's received is a different argument again? Not making the top 5 most "informative" critical websites may justify not having it as a critical site on the Scientology page (parody perhaps), but this would actually add to the argument to keep in as an individual page wouldn't it? Just on the extensive media coverage, threats, website traffic, making the Alexa top ten fastest growing websites in the world two weeks running, the google test, and "coining" a new term in it's own right? For that reason, why merge at all? Glen Stollery 13:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Glen, I think in the end the article will stand, especially if you keep fighting Scientology on this matter and continue to garner press. However, in the meantime, most Wikipedians frown on people editing articles about themselves.... if you have any updates and breaking news about your case, perhaps you can post them here on the Discussion page. Thanks! wikipediatrix 14:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. I just figured who else who'd be better placed to correct a couple of ommissions but I can see how this would case issues. Won't happen again Glen Stollery 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ScienTOMogy vs. Scientomogy

Alerante as the article has the title with the caps emphasizing "TOM" (as in Cruise) shouldn'this format follow through in the article itself? Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, DNS (the name to IP mapping system) is case insensitive. Ronabop 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've edited parts of the article to keep consistency between ScienTOMogy and scientomogy.info — I'd say the name is preferred. This should eliminate all of these problems. æle ✆ 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

I have defluffed a large number of dead links and linkspam from this article. Please read WP:EL and WP:RS before adding or re-adding any of these links back into the article. Thanks. ju66l3r 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Dead external links. For what it's worth, the root firstdistributorsnz.com site has been down since 2007-01-07, but it was flakey before then so it may be back at some point. AndroidCat 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good point, I'll see if there's internet archive for the site then. ju66l3r 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2